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 government, free markets, 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: firstname.lastname@example.org (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
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Cultural discipleship is a lifestyle under attack
by Dr. Pat Briney: A culture is defined by the lifestyle of its members. And that lifestyle is manifested by the way a group of people choose to think and behave. [There are] many attributes that distinguish one culture from another from clothing to food to entertainment. Churches produce a culture. They instruct their members how to think and to live. Values, doctrines, and practices are spelled out; and there is expectation for members to conform. The result: a culture.
God gave the nation of Israel instruction on how to build their culture. He gave them detailed instructions of what to teach and how to teach. Deut 6:1—12, “. . . Hear therefore, . . . The LORD our God is one LORD (how to think): And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might (what to do). And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house (how to do it), and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates. And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers . . . to give thee great and goodly cities (promise and expectation), which thou buildedst not, And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full; Then beware lest thou forget the LORD, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. "
We see here instruction to teach and practice. It is very intense. But the influence and example all around them by other nations was very intense. Israel was counter culture. And if they were going to succeed in sustaining and even more so increase their culture, it was imperative that they, at the very least, match the intensity if not exceed the intensity of the surrounding influences.
Likewise, Hebrews 10:24-25 exhorts us as churches to continue the intensity of preserving our culture by saying, “And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.”
Romans 1:25-32 elaborates on describing cultures that reject God saying that those who reject God "changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, that, "their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature," that the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another," and that "they did not like to retain God in their knowledge." Further description of this passage written 2,ooo years ago sounds like a description of so many in today's American culture.
I sum this passage in a paragraph to describe our ‘new’ American culture, which is not really a new culture: The new American culture of America is dominated by self absorbed tree huggers wanting to save the planet from the human plaque, control its evolution because there is no God to do it for us, and extolling a culture of unbridled lust, sodomy, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, envy, murder, debate, backbiting, hate for God, arrogance, disobedience to authority, and unfaithfulness.
In contrast, the church culture is described in Titus 2:11-14, which says, “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. "
Our national culture is predictably moving away from its Christian roots. Humanity is depraved and is offended by Christ. It is a miracle that the spiritual revolution and awakening continued this long. Barna reports that, the percentage of Americans claiming no religion has increased to 15%. That is an additional 4.7 million "Nones." Vermont has 34% claiming no religion. The percentage of Christians in America has declined 76%. This trend is and will accelerate exponentially resulting in an intensifying culture that is contrary and hostile to Christianity.
Recently, Joseph Farrah’s Worldnetdaily announced that the online Webster dictionary has broadened the definition of marriage to include same sex unions.
And . . . Jamie Ensley, president of the Georgia "Log Cabin Republicans" contacted Steele's office to call a Christian group, the Illinois-based Americans for Truth, "terrorists" and liken them to Germany's Nazi party. Further they urged Steele to endorse "civil unions" or homosexual marriage. He wrote Mr. Steele saying, "Most Americans and people of medical science believe that people do not choose their sexual orientation. Groups like Americans for Truth simply want to divide Americans, and truthfully their group would be more welcome as a mainstream Nazi Germany organization, than an organization which provides any value at all in 21st Century America. . . . I hope you will continue to support the Log Cabin Republicans, and not listen to the radical Christian extremist domestic terrorist groups such as Americans for Truth."
To his credit, Michael Steele responded emphatically, "No, no no. Why would we backslide on a core, founding value of this country? I mean this isn’t something that you just kind of like, 'Oh well, today I feel, you know, loosey-goosey on marriage.'" He continued saying, "I mean this is a foundational principle of this country. This is a foundational principle of organized society.
Shockingly, the current President of the United States of America is publishing on Whitehouse.gov, the following:
- President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section.
- They proudly declare that in 2004, ... President Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of … sexual orientation, and gender identity.
- Further, the web site states that President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples, and believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.
Adding insult to injury, Obama declared that America is not a Christian nation and then resorted to smug blasphemy and mockery of the Bible and Christians. [See YouTube clip] With the smirk of an arrogant fool, shaking his head in unbelief that anyone could possibly believe the Bible if only they would read it, Mr. Obama serves us notice that he is no friend to Christianity. His ridicule of Christianity is a declaration that he despises it and holds no regard for those who follow Christ’s teachings. So much for promoting unity and good will among all groups in a pluralistic society. His personal attack on Christianity is a declaration of hostility toward Christ and His followers. He has revealed his antagonistic attitude toward the American-Christian population, and he is using his position as commander in chief to single out and attack this significant and noble segment of the American population; a significant population that represents America’s heritage and to whom America owes its foundation and greatness. Mr. Obama is using his position to intensify division in the American population by poisoning the minds of others against Christian-Americans and against Christ. He is attempting to discredit its contribution to society and its relevance to public policy.
I will not and cannot follow his lead in this blasphemy. I repudiate his leadership as President. This may sound harsh and rebellious, but it is not, and it is not my doing. This is his doing. He is the one who mocks my King, my allegiance to Christ, and my belief in the Holy Bible. In the words of Peter, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). And Romans 13 tells us to obey the higher powers of which none are greater than God, and to none other do I have greater allegiance. I am not angry or hateful about Obama’s insults, and I am not surprised by his malicious attack on me and my fellow Christian-Americans. Christ explained that we should expect hatred and attack warning us in John 15:18, “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.” However, I am resolved to oppose, without disrespect to God’s institutional design of authority, law, and social order, Mr. Obama’s 'obamanations’ against Christ and my faith. As president of the United States, Mr. Obama owes the American-Christian community a sincere apology for his crass mockery of Christian-American citizens. He should seek immediate sensitivity/diversity training, and he should meet with both of the Christian-American citizens he singled out by name to offer them a personal apology.
I will not and cannot follow his lead in this blasphemy. I repudiate his leadership as President. This may sound harsh and rebellious, but it is not, and it is not my doing. This is his doing. He is the one who mocks my King, my allegiance to Christ, and my belief in the Holy Bible. In the words of Peter, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). And Romans 13 tells us to obey the higher powers of which none are greater than God, and to none other do I have greater allegiance. I am not angry or hateful about Obama’s insults. Christ explained that we should expect hatred and attack. However, I am resolved to oppose, without disrespect to God’s institutional design of authority, law, and social order, Mr. Obama’s 'obamanations’ against Christ and my faith. As president of the United States, Mr. Obama owes the American-Christian community a sincere apology for his crass mockery of Christian-American citizens. He should seek immediate sensitivity/diversity training.
Mr. Obama needs a Bible study to correct his ignorance of its teachings. What sane and decent person would ridicule a culture that advocates the virtues of Christ’s beatitudes for its citizens? What kind of a person would call the beatitudes of Christ radical? If Mr. Obama is looking for guidance on government beatitudes, he needs to read Romans 13, which will tell him that a public official of government is supposed to be a minister of God for good; is not supposed to be a terror to good works, but to the evil; and that it is government’s responsibility to protect its citizens from evil rather than rely on vigilantism. A good leader would not confuse the personal beatitudes taught in Matthew with the government responsibilities referred to in the book of Romans. Mr. Obama needs to do more than read his Bible. He needs to understand his Bible. I want to reassure Mr. Obama, that I like many of my fellow Christian-Americans, read my Bible every day, and it tells me that living for Christ promotes peace, personal responsibility, compassion, honesty, love, and goodness.
The fact is that our Biblical Christian culture is and will become increasingly odd and offensive to the main-stream antichrist culture. And as it does, the intensity to blend in, compromise, or at least to not offend will increase. Thus, the cultural distinctives of outreach and discipleship will diminish first. As the liberty to publically proclaim Christ becomes less tolerable, exacerbated by a President who mocks Biblical teaching and its believers, most churches will resort to more convenient and less confrontational practices such as sitting in the pews, singing inside the church, and talking among themselves about how the lost need Christ. Taking the message to the public will decrease. This is the future of most churches who are not already engaged in a comfortable church culture.
I leave you with this sobering thought. The culture of Christianity in a hostile land is not for the faint of heart. Unlike today, tomorrow promises to be one of great persecution and sorrow. As churches, we must resolve to counter the main stream liberal culture and accept the consequences or to conform to the mainstream culture to gain its temporary rewards.
------------------ Pat Briney, Ph.D. is the Chaplain for the National Federation of Republican AssembliesandPresident of the Arkansas Republican Assembly. He is also a pastor and teacher and presented this speech at Mission Blvd. Baptist Church Discipleship Conference in Fayetteville, AR, March 2009. Listen to the message at Cultural Discipleship is a Lifestyle.[Some parts were edited to reduce the length or to transition from the text of a speech to an article.] Tags:Barack Obama, Bible, Christians, culture, discipleship, Patrick BrineyTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Republican Hispanics Chapter Organizing in Arkansas
An Arkansas chapter of theRepublican National Hispanic Assembly (RNHA)is being organized.Membership is open to all U.S. Citizens and legal residents, regardless race or ethnicity, who are registered voters and support themission and objectives of the RNHA. The Republican National Hispanic Assembly (RNHA) was established in July 1972. In 1974, the Republican National Committee (RNC) chartered the RNHA as an Allied Organization. Since that time, RNHA has been the only Hispanic Republican organization granted a charter as an allied organization of the RNC.
One of the organizers, John Eves, said "that in the last presidential election, the Republican Party did not do very well in reaching out to Hispanics in Arkansas." The number of U.S. citizens who are either Hispanic, married to Hispanic or have a relative comprise a significant percentage in America. The three organizers for this event firmly believe that Hispanic values are Republican values and vice versa. Core principles such as family, faith, freedom and future opportunities are concepts that bind us together. Individual responsibility, strong national security, limited government, a free market economy and traditional family values are all basic beliefs of Republicanism that are also core to most Hispanics. It is for this reason that Hispanics will find a home within Republicanism.
Organizational meeting for a RNHA Chapter in Arkansas Saturday, April 11, 2009 at 5 pm
Western Sizzlin Restaurant
Questions and RSVP: Contact one of the following:
John Eves - 479-366-1237 Email
Alex Martinez - 479-544-2769 Email
Duane Neal - 479-903-5690.Email
If you cannot attend the organizational meeting, you may join by going to the RNHA website. Regular Membership is just $30.00 for two years. When you join you will be an Arkansas RNHA member-at-large until a chapter is chartered in your county. Tags:Arkansas, hispanic, Republicans, RNC, RNHA, SpringdaleTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
ICYMI: Netanyahu sworn in as Israel's prime minister
CBNNews - JERUSALEM -- Nearly thirteen years after he first took office, Benjamin Netanyahu is once again the prime minister of Israel. His government was installed on Wednesday, April 1st, but Netanyahu had little time for celebrations. Netanyahu took the oath of office Tuesday night, asking the Israeli people for their trust in a time of crisis. His government was approved by a margin of 69 to 45, giving him the broad coalition he had sought for many weeks. . . . Israel's Two Greatest Challenges: The new prime minister told the Knesset that Israel's two great challenges are the economy and security, especially Iran's nuclear weapons threat. . . . [Full Story]See also: New Israeli PM says "extremist Islam" trying to destroy his country and New Israeli leader hints at Iran attack Tags:Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel, Prime MinisterTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
by Dave Cribbin: It took Ford's CEO Alan Mulally two trips to Washington to figure out that the bailout money the government was dangling in front of him was really a pact with the Devil, fraught with peril. But figure it out he did, and so he and Ford survive to live another day. GM and Chrysler, however, weren't as lucky. They couldn't or wouldn't see the handwriting on the wall, and thus, they have been “weighed in the balance and found wanting,” and sealed their own fate.
Chrysler's CEO Robert Nardelli is now forced to negotiate a do-or-die deal with Fiat, as his partner, the Beelzebub of the Potomac, holds a gun to his head and whispers in his ear "cut a deal in 30 days or you my friend are toast". Rick Wagoner, GM's CEO, has been shown the door, and GM has been given 60 days of operating capital to conclude its restructuring. All we can say is good luck... you are going to need it!
Is it possible that GM will be able to do in 60 days what it hasn't been able to do in the last 20 years? No! It can't. And it won't. If GM wants to survive as a company and not as the host organism for the parasitic UAW, it should make the long overdo announcement that it will be seeking bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 in order to reorganize its business. If it doesn't, it may exist for a brief period of time as a scaled down post office type operation, making tiny eco- friendly cars that won't take you very far, while providing jobs with above market compensation and benefits for a small number of politically connected autoworkers. But its days will be numbered, and when the operating losses become too great -- and they will -- for the UAW's Democratic allies to continue to provide the necessary political cover, they too will cease descend to perdition.
How is it that GM got things so wrong? They seemed to be under the false impression that because the Democratic Party was beholden to the UAW's campaign contributions afforded by its forced dues paying members, that somehow it was safe to sleep with the enemy. I hope they know now what they should have known then: it is never safe to sleep with your enemy! They failed to realize that they were never going to get a fair shake in the political arena. Without the protection of the bankruptcy laws and the threat of a court imposed settlement, the company will continue to be stuck between a rock and a hard place in its negotiations with a recalcitrant union that won't budge and bondholders who don't want to be sacrificed to placate the UAW.
There is a lesson here in dealing with a government that disdains the rule of law and thirsts for ever more power. And it is a simple one: When you shake hands with the devil, you better count your fingers! Dave Cribbin is a Contributing Writer for ALG News Bureau. Tags:ALG, Americans for Limited Government, bailouts, Chrysler, Devil, Ford Motor Company, GM, UAWTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
CitizenLink: Seven judges in Iowa have changed the definition of marriage for the entire state by voting unanimously to ignore the state’s Defense of Marriage Act. Six homosexual couples had sued in December 2005, demanding marriage licenses. The court agreed today, thus ignoring the Legislature and a majority of Iowans.
“The Iowa marriage law was simple, settled and overwhelmingly supported by Iowans," said Douglas Napier, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. "There was simply no legitimate reason for the court to redefine marriage."
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family Action, said the ruling took his breath away. "The justices brazenly asserted that their role was not only to redefine marriage, but also to legislate whatever new social agenda they favored, 'free from the influences' of a society resistant to such change," he said. "Such an admission is breathtaking in its arrogance and scope."
Tony Perkins, president of FRC Action, called on Iowa to join the 30 states that have amended their constitutions to protect marriage. "We need to remember that the marriage-amendment movement has been many times more successful than the same-sex 'marriage' movement," he said. "We urge Iowans to contact their legislators and urge them to move quickly to pass a constitutional amendment protecting marriage. . . . [Read More] Tags:CitizenLink, Defense of Marriage, Iowa, judicial activism, judicial supremacy, marriageTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
The House is scheduled to return Monday, but the Senate is in recess until April 20th. When the Senate reconvenes, it will take up the motion to proceed to financial fraud legislation, S. 386. The Senate is also expected to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Christopher Hill to be ambassador to Iraq.
Last night, the Senate voted 55-43 to pass the $3.5 trillion budget proposal, S. Con. Res. 13. No Republican voted for the budget and Democrat Sens. Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson voted against it. Yesterday the House also passed the budget by a vote of 233-196. No Republican voted for the budget; also 20 Democrats voted no.
In the Senate, 26 votes on amendments were taken yesterday. Importantly, the Senate approved by a vote of 51-48 an amendment from Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) to increase the estate tax exemption and reduce the rate to 35% when it goes up in 2011. The amendment was passed over the strong objections of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Also approved, by a94-3 vote, was an amendment by Sen. John Thune (R-SD) to require 60 votes to pass any legislation that would not allow the full charitable giving tax deduction.
Among other notable amendments, the Senate rejected
- a substitute budget from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) that would have extended the Bush tax cuts and would have reduced spending
- an amendment from Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) to means test the Medicare prescription drug benefit
- an amendment from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) to prevent the AMT from affecting taxpayers over the next 5 years
- an amendment from Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) to require 60 votes to pass legislation that has not been made available to the public online for five days.
Both House and Senate Republicans joined together to unanimously reject Democrats’ $3.5 trillion budget proposal that spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much. In fact, the opposition was bipartisan, considering that a number of responsible Democrats, two in the Senate and twenty in the House, also voted against the budget. This was not an easy vote for these Democrats; Karl Rove’s op-ed in The Wall Street Journal yesterday pointed out that Preisdent Obama and liberal interest groups are “keeping score” with Democrats.
As The Wall Street Journal discusses today, 26 Democrats joined with all 41 Senate Republicans to reject the use of reconciliation to pass cap-and-trade energy tax. The Journal points out that “it’s a signal that California and East Coast Democrats won’t be able to sock it to coal and manufacturing-heavy Midwestern states without a fight.” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said, “The strong bipartisan vote on this issue should serve as a clear warning to those involved in crafting the final budget: Americans vehemently oppose a new national energy tax that would hit them every time they flip on a light switch, watch TV, or drive the family car.”
Despite the apparent rejection of reconciliation on an energy tax plan, Politico notes that Democrats want to produce a budget conference report that allows reconciliation for health care reform legislation, protecting it from any Senate filibuster: “The House’s resolution takes a major step in this direction by instructing committees to produce health care reform legislation by late September and triggering ‘reconciliation’ budget rules that require only a simple majority for passage in the Senate.”
As evidenced by the AIG bonus controversy, what happens behind closed doors in conference committee is often more important than what happens on the Senate floor. Therefore, it’s worth keeping an eye on the budget conference to see if they return a document that includes partisan reconciliation instructions and puts the U.S. on the same fiscally unsustainable course the House and Senate budgets laid out.Tags:AIG, bonus controversy, Christopher Hill, nominee, ambassador Iraq, trillions, federal budget, 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!
The budget passed the Senate tonight by a vote of 55-43. No Republican voted for it, while two Democrats, Sens. Evan Bayh, and Ben Nelson, voted against it. Earlier today in the House, the budget passed by a vote of 233-196. No Republican voted for the budget, while 20 Democrats voted no.
At least this time there is no "blood on the hands of Republicans" and some Democrats even saw the pending damage to our country. Our only hope now is to return sanity to the Congress by 2010. The people need to continue to speak out and to get involved both in the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Parties and involved in activism supporting the building of a coalition to elect strong conservative to replace the liberal Democrat who are advancing sending our country into a deficit so big that its exceeds the sum total of adding the individual debt for each of the last 220 years of our county.
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement Thursday in regards to the Senate passage of the budget resolution:
“Over bipartisan opposition, Democrats in Congress passed a budget that clears the way for massive amounts of spending, for the biggest tax hike in history and a doubling of our already crippling national debt. It is a budget that puts the economy on an unsustainable course.
“Although Democrats rejected several efforts to control spending, create jobs and cut the debt, Senate Republicans were able to slam the door on using the fast track process to jam through a new national energy tax. The strong bipartisan vote on this issue should serve as a clear warning to those involved in crafting the final budget: Americans vehemently oppose a new national energy tax that would hit them every time they flip on a light switch, watch TV, or drive the family car.”
Tags:Democrats, federal budget, Republicans, 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!
Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown
Thanks to conservatives in Canada we are able to see this Fox News Channel video.Pass this posted story on to everyone you know! This video shows that George Bush tried to warn Congress in 2002 that this economic crisis was coming, if something was not done. Democrats including Charles Schumer and Barney Franks resisted and kept to their party line, extending loans to people who couldn't afford them -- just like you would expect of socialists. This video says it all. Everyone in the United States needs to see this![Note for future viewers, if the video does not display, the truth has again been removed.]
Tags:Barney Frank, Charles Schumer, conservatives, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, George Bush, housing crisis, John McCain, videoTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) said he intends to approach Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) on the Senate floor this week to see if there’s another way to come at the labor issue, also known as the Employee Free Choice Act. Specter, whom many view as the decisive vote on the issue, announced last week on the Senate floor that he could not support moving to a debate on the legislation in its current form. Specter strongly opposed a key aspect of the bill that would deny businesses the right to insist on a secret-ballot election before a union is certified. Instead, workers could organize if a majority sign petition cards."
Pryor said that he had been talking with Specter and other Democrats about finding another direction prior to Specter’s announcement, and that he intends to seek him out during the budget votes and see if there’s an opportunity to try again. “I see this time now as really an opportunity for compromise or for a new approach on addressing some of the issues that revolve around that issue,” Pryor said. “I’m not sure it is over yet. It may be. I’m going to talk to Sen. Specter this week and see where he wants to go.”
When told that Pryor was interested in discussing a possible alternative bill, Specter only said, “Well, he hasn’t done it yet.”
Why would Sen Pryor from a right to work state in anyway promote Card Check and actions that could ruin one or more of Arkansas major employers (e.g, Wal-mart Corp) or support taking away worker's rights to a secret ballot? Also what deal (bribe or pork project) is Pryor so confident about that he would say he would seek out Specter "during the budget votes and see if there’s an opportunity to try again"?
As identified by the Workforce Fairness Institute:
A secret ballot is a sacred American tradition. It protects workers from being intimidated into voting for a union they don't want. And workers shouldn't be stuck with a union contract written by government bureaucrats that employees can't vote up or down.
The fact that Congressional leaders are even debating this proposal during this economic crisis is just crazy, and it reminds us how out of touch they really are.
Mark Prior is now willing to 1) work to advance "card check" and 2) support a budget that will in debt our Nation and our children's children with more debt than than was accumulated in 220 prior years added together, Arkansas will look back with regret on the day we trusted Mark Pryor with another six years. We all need to tell Sen. Mark Pryor to stop trying to make compromises concerning Card Check and to vote NO. Card Check is a bad deal. If there is something that Pryor really believes needs to be reformed in labor law and the National Labor Relations Board, then he can address that later and stop dabbling with the workers right to a secret vote. Pryor is a senator not a congressman. He is supposed to be seeking to be a statesman who stands up for the people of Arkansas and stops excessive Federal government expansions and encroachment on Arkansas through big government spending programs. But that is not happening.
Pryor may believe he "won" his congressional race, but the fact is he was handed an uncontested race except for a Green Party candidate. His party's presidential candidate Barrack Obama received less than 40% of the votes in Arkansas. Even conservatives and independents were fooled into believing that Mark Pryor was a "blue dog" and would stand up against Sen. Harry Reid and whichever candidate became President. We did not envisioned, that Pryor would climb into bed on the socialistic programs advanced by Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
Arkansans were obviously fooled. Now we have a growing number of TEA Parties. The number one question asked by everyone attending these rallies (Democrats, Independents, and Republicans) is who are the Republicans going to run against Sen. Blanche Lincoln? Good question! The followup question, especially by independents, is why didn't the Republicans run someone against Mark Pryor? At first, Republicans hung their heads. They had rationalized that Sen. Pryor had in the last two years leading up to the election, a "middle of the road" approach and sometimes a right of center position on family issue. He was allowed a lot of leeway from his fellow Senators who knew he had a race in 2008. However, since reelection and the election of Barack Obama, Pryor has moved from center to left in a few short months supporting enormous tax and spend programs. Now the Arkansas Republicans Party leadership knows it was wrong in not running a candidate and forfeiting another six-years to Pryor.
Sen. Pryor now seems to do the bidding of Sen Harry Reid with respect to the federal budget and federal spending. Can we even trust that Pryor would be attempting to broker a deal with Specter, an outgoing RINO, without the prior approval of Reid, the administration and the Washington Union bosses? Pryor needs to support the majority of his Arkansas constituents and oppose "Card Check" and to stand up for the Arkansas working families by opposing the expansionism of socialism via big tax and spend programs. Tags:Arkansas, Arlen Specter, Card Check, Harry Reid, Mark PryorTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Guest Editorial by Partrick L Booth: Our nation's problems, economic and otherwise, have at their root decaying moral values. Whether we’re willing to admit it or not, we have become immoral people with little more than a pretense of morality. Using some questions posed by Dr. Walter E. Williams, I think I can prove my case easily.
Is it moral and just for one person to forcibly use another to serve their own purposes? If said used does not peaceably submit to use, should Governmental force be used against him? Either question can be answered simply yes or no. Though I would answer no to both questions, I’d bet most college professors, politicians or even ministers could not give a simple yes or no response. They would evasively say it depends on circumstance.
In questions of morality, the initial premise is that we are private citizens entitled to the fruits of our own labors. Simple enough. The complex legal question is, “What percentage of us belongs to someone else.” Accepting the idea of self-ownership defines ideas of rights. Thus certain acts such as rape and murder are readily revealed as immoral because they violate one's private, personal and property rights. Theft of the physical things we own such as cars, jewelry and money violates our ownership rights.
The average college professor, politician or minister will not give simple yes or no answers to questions of whether one person should be used to serve the purposes of another because they realize either answer could be troublesome to their particular agenda. A “Yes” puts them firmly in positions supporting some of mankind's most horrible injustices such as slavery. After all, what is slavery but the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another? A “No” answer requires them to come out against taking the earnings of one person to give to another even if in the forms of farm and business handouts, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and thousands of similar entitlement programs accounting for more than two-thirds of our federal budget.
There is neither moral justification nor constitutional authority for what amounts to legalized theft, the basis of Socialism. This is not an argument against paying taxes. We all have moral obligations to pay our share of the constitutionally mandated and enumerated functions of our governments, local, state, and federal.
Unfortunately, there is no easy way out of our immoral quagmire. Since the U.S. Congress has established a principle that any American has a right to living expenses born by other Americans, it’s no longer profitable to be moral. People choosing morality who refuse congressional handouts then find themselves the losers. Higher producers will be paying higher and higher taxes to support increasing numbers of those paying lower and lower or no taxes. As of now, close to 50 percent of income earners have no federal income tax liability so why should they care about rising income taxes?
In other words, now that legalized theft is the norm, it is increasingly costly to remain moral and self-sufficient. One might as well join in the looting, including the current looting in the name of stimulating the economy. Bernie Madoff isn’t an aberration.
Will historians, a hundred years from now, footnote America as a mere historical curiosity? A place where people once enjoyed private property rights and limited government, it returned to mankind's normal state of affairs -- arbitrary abuse and control by the powerful elite bought and paid for by bread to the masses or, as we now term it, entitlements. BO [Barack Obama] isn’t really stupid, just amoral. He doesn’t care what happens to average people. He is dedicated to the proposition that Socialism is justified and he intends to force it down our throats. Shamefully, we are likely to accept it because the Constitution, rule of law, and morality have become meaningless terms.
------------------- PL Booth is a retired Federal employee, professional writer, political activist, aviator, motorcycle enthusiast, and conservative. He writes at The Blue Eye View. Tags:Barack Obama, Economics, entitlements, God, immorality, PL Booth, socialismTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Today in Washington D. C. - April 2, 2009 - Party on Dude Attitude Prevails
The Senate resumes consideration of S. Con. Res. 13, the $3.5 trillion fiscal year 2010 budget resolution. Votes on amendments are expected to being around 11:30, eventually moving into the annual vote-a-rama, where senators will vote on a large number of amendments in succession until all remaining amendments are disposed of. Once these votes are completed, usually late at night, the Senate will likely then vote on final passage of the budget.
Yesterday, the Senate adopted the Johanns amendment prohibiting the use of reconciliation to move cap-and-trade legislation by a vote of67-31 and rejected the Whitehouse amendment allowing such a process if the Senate determines climate change a threat by a vote of 42-56. The Senate also approved the Cornyn and Ensign amendments, which would require 60 votes to raise income taxes, by votes of 82-16 and 98-0, respectively.
With the Senate entering the home stretch on in debate over the $3.5 trillion budget, even some Democrats are uncomfortable with key aspects of it. Foremost among those is the nationwide energy tax that would be the result of a carbon cap-and-trade bill. The AP reported last night, “By a 67-31 tally, the Senate adopted an amendment by Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., against allowing controversial cap-and-trade legislation to pass the Senate with fewer than 60 votes. As important, the vote seemed to reflect considerable Democratic skepticism on climate change legislation generally; 26 Democrats voted for the amendment.”
Warning: Regardless of a few Democrats "uncomfortableness," keep in mind that the Johanns, Cornyn and Ensign amendments could (and probably will be) be stripped in conference committee since the House leadership is keen on including reconciliation instructions in their budget. The Washington Post noted the possibility yesterday that House Democrats might include cap-and-trade in reconciliation so they could use revenue from that program to pay for health care reform. Also, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell discussed some of the Republican amendmentsthat have attracted bipartisan support. He noted the Republican sponsored amendments that would make it harder to raise taxes received overwhelming support. McConnell said, “It showed Republicans fighting to keep our nation from an irreversible drift to the Left, and it showed some Democrats agreeing to some of our proposals. But the proof of their commitment is in the final product.” The primary point is that these amendments almost certainly will be stripped by Democrats in conference resolutions between the House and the Senate versions of the budget.
Many Democrats understand that the budget presented by their party spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows far too much from future generations. Democrats troubled by these facts would do well to join Republicans in opposing this budget. However, the backroom deals and pressures may be too great for even the "blue dog" Democrats to withstand the Reid, Pelosi & Obama machine. These democrats hope their constituents will forget by the next election that they in fact failed to protect their constituents and instead presented them with token short-term benefits while saddling their constituents' children with a massive debt.
Democrats in Washington D.C. appear to be in an "eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die" operational mode. Also, have you noted the lavish parties being given at the White House(not the obligatory State parties required by a head of state but the Obama "party on dude" events)? Our tax dollars at work having fun! I thought Obama said times were tough and we needed to conserve and sacrifice. Leadership begins at the top, but apparently there is none! Tags:cap-and-trade, energy tax, 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!
Arkansas State Sovereignty & Rescinding Application on Constitutional Convention
Secure Arkansas, Little Rock, Arkansas - HCR1011 addressing State Sovereignty - 10th Amendment bill and HCR1022 addressing the stopping of a call 30 years ago for a constitution convention made it through the Arkansas House committee yesterday. Both bills now move on to the full House for a vote and hopefully on to the Senate. Time is short. We need them to pass! Please email and call your state Representatives RIGHT NOW to urge approval of both of these bills. Also, call your Senators, because if these pass the House, they'll go right to the Senate.Contact your Arkansas Representative and Senator: House: 501-682-6211 Senate: 501-682-2902
HCR1022 (Hobbs) TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES THAT IT CALL A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION TO BALANCE THE PUBLIC DEBT.
Just a little bit about the Constitutional Convention. This bill is to rescind the application by the 1979 Arkansas General Assembly to the Congress of the United States to call a Constitutional Convention to balance the public debt. This call was made 30 years ago when the chance of maintaining our liberties was still viable. However, since there is no way to limit the actions of a Constitutional Convention, it would be very risky to hold one and to see them abandoned our Bill of Rights. There is no way to insure that a convention would obey and stick to one subject. After convened, it would be too late to stop it if we would not like its agenda. Whatever gain might be hoped for would not be worth the risk involved. Yes, it would be ideal if the Federal Government would balance the public debt, but it should not take an amendment to the Constitution to do it
HCR1011 (Hobbs) CLAIMING SOVEREIGNTY UNDER THE TENTH AMENDMENT.
The 10th Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights, states that, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." HCR1011 is a resolution that would enable Arkansas to reclaim its 10th Amendment right to reject any and all acts of Congress that go beyond its enumerated powers in violation of the 10th Amendment. We are telling the federal government that we are a sovereign state and want to be treated as such. We are not a branch of the federal government.
It is inconceivable that a State Representative would not treasure States Rights. Voting for a simple bill that makes the statement that the people of Arkansas believe in, support and expect our States Rights to be honored, is the patriotic action we would expect of our elected officials. Please contact these legislators and ask them to vote YES regarding our state rights!! Tags:10th Amendment, action alert, alert, Arkansas, Constitutional Convention, Secure Arkansas, State SovereigntyTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
What's the Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives?
Research by The Barna Group shows conservatives are guided by faith, while liberals are more self-reliant. One-third of U.S. adults consider themselves to be "mostly conservative" on social and political matters, while about half as many (17%) say they are "mostly liberal" on such matters. That's according to a new study conducted by The Barna Group that tracks the substantially different spiritual beliefs, behaviors and alignments of the two groups. Liberals are less than half as likely as conservatives to firmly believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches. Liberals are also far less likely than conservatives to strongly believe their religious faith is very important in their life (54% vs. 82%). . . [More Info]
Tags:Barna Group, CitizenLink, conservatives, Faith, infringement on religion, liberalsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Rich Immigrants Are Behind $18 Million to Force Passage of Amnesty for Illegal Aliens This Year
by Roy Beck, NumbersUSA: Born in 1930 and 1934 (in Hungary and Iran) and moving to the United States in 1956 and 1958, two immigrants are at the heart of a massive flow of money into groups intent on forcing a vote this autumn to grant amnesty to 12 million or more illegal aliens.
Is there something just a little unseemly about immigrants using their good fortune to try to radically change the country that adopted them? The Soros Foundations Network and Carnegie Corporation are two of the key money sources backing all the groups that are insisting on a giant amnesty for illegal aliens this year. Both are led by immigrants who apparently like America so much that they will spare no expense in changing it as rapidly as possible through immigration.
I get a call from at least one news reporter a day asking what we are going to do to stop what looks to the journalists to be an invevitable vote this autumn on a giant amnesty. To each one, I say that it makes no political sense at all to vote to give 7 million illegal-alien foreign workers permanent access to U.S. jobs while 12 million Americans are trying to find a job and can't find one (and 8 million more have had to settle for part-time jobs).
But the reporters respond back that the pro-amnesty groups have so much money that they believe they can force the vote. How much money? Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times interviewed a large number of the pro-amnesty leaders and wrote this:
To bolster their cause, advocates are planning an $18-million media and grass-roots campaign for the fall. The funding is coming primarily from liberal foundations, including one founded by billionaire activist George Soros.
Soros was born in Hungary in 1930. He moved to New York City in 1956. Amassing billions as an international financier, he spends profusely on projects to open the United States to residency for the rest of the world.
Another foundation committing millions to the pro-amnesty effort is the Carnegie Corporation which has made rewards for illegal immigration one of its top projects. Carnegie openly touts its decision to be a central organizing leader to pull foundations together in a consortium to ensure amnesty and increased future immigration.
The open-borders leadership was begun at Carnegie under its new president, Vartan Gregorian. Gregorian was born in Iran of Armenian parents in 1934 and received his secondary education in Lebanon. He moved to the United States in 1958 (two years after Soros) to study at Stanford and apparently never left. Now, they exercise control over incredible fortunes, and they are using that control to promote their agendas of massive U.S. population growth and a globalized U.S. labor market.
Not all immigrants treat their adopting country like Gregorian and Soros do. NumbersUSA is proud of all of our members who are themselves immigrants (or children, spouses and parents of immigrants) and who join us in insisting that immigration policies be run in the national interest in ways that do not harm the people already living in the United States. The question is whether enough of the people of America (native-born and foreign-born) love their country enough to stand up and fight for it as hard as Gregorian and Soros intend to fight to overwhelm it with out-of-control immigration. Tags:amnesty, Gerorge Soros, illegal aliens, immigrants, NumbersUSA, Roy Beck, Vartan GregorianTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
The Government-Backed DMV Automotive Repair Center!
H/T Adam Bitely, NetRight Nation: This video accurately portrays what we have in store now that Obama has guaranteed all of the warrantee's on failed car companies. "Stop worrying about the warranty on your GM or Chrysler automobile. President Obama has announced that your warranty will be backed by the US Government. Now, getting service will be as easy as a trip to your local DMV office Introducing the Department of Motor Vehicles Automotive Repair Center!"
Tags:Adam Bitely, auto bailout, automakers, Barack Obama, Chrysler, Detroit, DMV, General Motors, GM, NetRight Nation, video, warrantiesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Congressional GOP Proposes Alternative Budget, To Avert Country's Turn Towards “Socialism.” ALG News Bureau - April 1, 2009, Fairfax, VA: House Republican members today unveiled an alternative proposal to the Democrat budget, calling for $4.8 trillion less spending over the next decade and an immediate freeze on non-defense discretionary spending.
Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) elaborated, on why it was necessary for the House of Representatives to introduce an alternative Budget.
"On the Senate side, we are not introducing an alternative budget; the House only gets four hours to do a debate, so they have to do it in a comprehensive way. On the Senate side, we get 50 hours of debate – so we are taking each item of the budget and putting in a substitute for that item. If just half of the things that the Republicans in the Senate are introducing are accepted, it would be an acceptable budget. It would drive down those costs and debt and taxes!” [Video ==>>
Senator Enzi, added that it is important to get “back to basics” and attempt to halt a massive train wreck of spending. The alternative budget also includes proposal to make the President Bush's 2001 and 2003 taxes permanent.
Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) detailed on the importance of an alternative budget that places emphasis on restructuring our capitalist economy and avoiding the rapid move towards Socialism:
"We are moving rapidly [towards socialism], in three month time we have moved so far, that its just unbelievable, who would have ever thought that we own the current interest in AIG, and in Wall Street and in the Big banks of America, and in the Big car companies….People are saying we are moving toward a European style Socialism, we are moving more towards a pilgrim style socialism, because half of them nearly starved that first winter…the answer is not more socialism, its going back to basic that made us the greatest country in the history of the world, before its too late." [Video ==>>
The Republican proposal comes on the heels of one of the largest budgets proposed by Democrats in the nation's history. According to Republicans, at the Alternative Budget unveiling, Obama's 3.7 Trillion is simply “Unacceptable”. With limited numbers in both the House and Senate, the Republicans are not likely to pass their version, unless they are able to pressure moderate Democrats into a deal.
The GOP proposal also includes measures to assist businesses by cutting the corporate income tax from a record 35% to 25% and cutting the capitol gains tax in 2009 and 2010. Congressman Robert Adelhort (R-AL) predicted the astonishing tax rates that will be implemented on the public, if the current spending levels continue at this rate.
“…the tax rates, the lowest will be about 25%, the middle will be at about 65% and the highest for small business will be 88%, and so with those numbers, when people see those numbers, and see what that does to their children and grandchildren, I think that they will fall behind what the Republican alternative will be.” [Video ==>>
The Alternative Budget bill is expected to come to the house floor this afternoon. Tags:ALG, Barack Obama, Budget, Democrats, economy, fiscal responsibility, GOP, joint hearing, Louie Gohmert, Mike Enzi, news, Republicans, Robert Aderholt, videosTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
The Senate resumed consideration of S. Con. Res. 13, the $3.5 trillion fiscal year 2010 budget resolution. There could be ten or more votes on budget amendments this afternoon. Among these could be a key amendment from Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE), which would prohibit carbon cap-and-trade legislation from being included in reconciliation instructions.
Yesterday, the Senateadopted an amendment from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) that would require any cap-and-trade legislation to not increase “the overall burden on consumers,” giving Democrats cover to vote for legislation that will increase energy prices. The Senate also adopted an amendment to the budget by Sen. John Thune (R-SD) which would have required that any cap-and-trade legislation not increase energy prices which Democrats supported after the Boxer amendment passed.
Senators rejected an amendment from Sen. Gregg which would have required any budget increasing the debt greater than the amount accumulated in the last 220 years (between the year 1789 and January 2009) to get 60 votes to pass.Stop reflect on this --America's citizens are facing more debt from Obama's budget that all the accumulated yearly debt added together in the last 220 years. Wake Up America! That is more than created by ALL wars and the great depression added together.The Senate is supposed supposed to be the body that protects the United States against the more populous voting House members and the President. For this much debt, at minimum 80% should have to agree!
As both the House and Senate consider the Democrats’ budget resolutions, Republicans from both chambers joined together this morning to underscore their opposition to a budget that spends too much, taxes too much, and as House Republican Leader John Boehner said, “borrows too much from our kids and grandkids.” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell summarized the key issues with the $3.5 trillion budget, saying “What we are facing here is a mountain of debt. The Democratic budget will double the national debt in five years and triple it in 10. Looking at it another way, they will accumulate more debt than all of the presidents from George Washington up to and through George W. Bush. This is indeed an explosion of taxation and debt and spending. And as Leader Boehner has indicated, obviously this will have to be paid for by our children.”
Writing in The Washington Post today, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, addressed some of the Democrat excuses for the excesses in the budget. Sen. Gregg writes, “[D]on’t be fooled when the president says the economy he inherited is the reason that future deficits and debt skyrocket. The president’s budget makes clear that a huge expansion of government is not just about today’s economic downturn. Once the recession is behind us, this budget will continue pushing for more and more government in our everyday lives. Instead of tightening Uncle Sam’s belt the way so many American families are cutting back these days, the president’s proposal spends so aggressively that it essentially adds $1 trillion to the debt, on average, every year. . . . The new spending is coupled with the largest tax increase in U.S. history -- $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Who will pay all those taxes? The president says it’s just the rich. But let’s keep in mind that a lot of these ‘rich’ people are actually small-business owners, and small businesses create 70 percent of the new jobs each year. When millions of Americans are out of work, taxing job creators and making it harder to run a business are certainly not the answer.”
Meanwhile, on the question of reconciliation being included in the budget (rules that would bypass potential filibusters of health care and climate legislation), Democrats continue to talk out of both sides of their mouths. The Washington Post reports today that Democrats are leaving the door open to such a tactic.Tags:reconciliation, federal budget, 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!
By Isaac MacMillen: As ALG News mentioned last week, Rep. Virginia Foxx's (R-VA) amendment banning so-called “volunteer” organizations from using taxpayer funds to political purposes was stripped from its parent bill in the Senate, and replaced by an amendment allowing those organizations to skirt the law and continue lobbying. This week, the House will approve the Senate version, and President Obama will no doubt sign it shortly thereafter.
The battle to kill this bill in Congress is very likely over. Unless the Blue Dogs can muster enough support to halt Speaker Pelosi's march to madness, the American taxpayer will have to pony up another $5 billion for paid “volunteers” (an oxymoron if there ever was one) to politically-oriented organizations, the aims of many of which they will invariably oppose.
So when groups like ACORN and the DNC come knocking at the government's door for taxpayer funds and “volunteers,” the only thing standing in their way will be a hollow “promise” to not use them for partisan purposes. Of course, strictly speaking, they can get around that by using the volunteers and funding to create and manage the 'non-partisan' infrastructure, thus enabling them to shift more non-government dollars into lobbying and partisan efforts. It's called “fungibility.” And the “volunteer” front groups know how to use it well.
In essence, a new army has been created—a civilian army, ready to do the will of those organizations that have the political shrewdness to hire them. By creating this massive influx of government-managed, taxpayer-funded positions, President Obama will enable any group (with the proper connections, of course) to access this talent pool and influence Washington—all at taxpayer expense. Another unintended (or was it?) consequence will be the further reliance on government support fostered through it. When the 250,000 openings are created, the agencies that hire the 'volunteers' will begin to depend on the federal government for the many services they will no-doubt create as a result of the additional manpower and monetary assets at their disposal.
The citizens who 'volunteer' will also share a type of attachment, similar—albeit to a much lower degree—to that held by many veterans to their branch of service. This affinity will, of course, result in opposition to future attempts at clamping down on these government-funded 'volunteer' programs. Americans will turn on their TVs to hear tear-jerking stories of how much it meant to the participants, and those they helped. Of course, absent from such presentations will be the waste and fraud accompanying the government funds, and the simple fact that actual volunteering can be accomplished without the government's support—individuals have been doing it for millenniums.
But whatever the case may be, one certain result is that the surge in openings will put the federal government in a more powerful bargaining position, enabling it to assert greater control over organizations, many of which influence public policy. For a President who believes that government is the solution, that vision of the future is understandably appealing. There can be no dispute that the propaganda value of such a large corps of youthful “volunteers”—drawn largely from the ranks of the unemployed, no doubt—would be enormous. Spread across the country, these highly-political 'volunteers' could create the American equivalent of the infamous Castro Youth, Mao's Red Guard, or Lenin's Little Potatoes. As ALG News reported last year, President Obama promised to expand the National Service Corps—including AmeriCorps, the recipient of the $5 billion taken involuntarily from the pockets of American taxpayers.
With $5 billion and hundreds of thousands of present “volunteers,” there clearly will be an aura of 'national service' uber alles attached to AmeriCorps. By having Americans involved in 'community development' projects—which are sure to include such things as voter registration for ACORN, staff work for the DNC, and administrative assignments for MoveOn.org—the political landscape will change. And any who resist such “change” will be cast in the role of willful obstructionists. Equipped with both the tools and means of advancing a radical agenda, President Obama will feel free to pursue his nationalistic policies with near impunity. And in the process, the next generation will be brought into agreement with the liberal philosophy, supporting government expansion both of size and in role.
If the Blue Dogs don't stop this bill now, the damage done will be enormous. Americans will want to watch their wallets as they grow ever thinner. But they will also want to be on the lockout for hundreds of thousands of thoroughly indoctrinated youthful “volunteers” marching in lockstep to the beat of a collectivist drum—bought and paid for with taxpayer dollars. It won't be pretty. Isaac MacMillen is a Contributing Editor of ALG News Bureau. Tags:ACORN, ALG, Americans for Limited Government, AmeriCorps, Barack Obama, China, Isaac mcMillen, Obama CorpsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
On April 15, be part of the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) party rally in your community
On the day you pay your taxes, Wednesday, April 15, join others across the country and in your hometown who will be participating in TEA party rallies in front of their county or city halls. Check the scheduled time for your area TEA Party rally as starting times vary.
Are you fed up with a Congress and a president who: * vote for a $500 billion tax bill without even reading it?
* are spending trillions of borrowed dollars, leaving a debt our great-grandchildren will be paying?
* consistently give special interest groups billions of dollars in earmarks to get re-elected?
* want to take your wealth and redistribute it to others? * punish those who practice responsible financial behavior and reward those who do not?
* admit to using the financial hurt of millions as an opportunity to push their political agenda?
* run up trillions of dollars of debt and then sell that debt to countries such as China?
* want government controlled health care?
* want to take away the right to vote with a secret ballot in union elections?
* refuse to stop the flow of millions of illegal immigrants into our country?
* appoint a defender of child pornography to the Number 2 position in the Justice Department?
* want to force doctors and other medical workers to perform abortions against their will?
* want to impose a carbon tax on your electricity, gas and home heating fuels?
* want to reduce your tax deductibility for charitable gifts?
* take money from your family budget to pay for their federal budget?
If so, participate in the TEA party rally, the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) party.
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” - Thomas Jefferson
There are lists for cities in every state! This is the list of cities in Arkansas that have made definite plans for a Tea Party: Alexander, Arkadelphia, Batesville, Bella Vista, Conway, Decatur, El Dorado, Fayetteville, Ft. Smith, Harrison, Hot Springs, Lamar, Little Rock, Magnolia, Monticello, Mountain Home (The Ozark Tea Party), Nashville, Paragould, Pine Bluff, Pocahontas, Russellville, Searcy, Sherwood, Sulphur Rock, and Yellville. New Cities Added Daily. Tags:Arkansas, taxed enough already, tea partyTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Outrage at the Arkansas Capitol - Pelosi Tactics Used by House Committee
House Committee Refuses to Pass Ban on Domestic Partnership Registries[Watch the Video Here] by Jerry Cox,The Family Council Action Committee: HB 2176, a bill to ban domestic partnership registries, failed to pass the House City County Local Committee today. The bill by Rep. Bryan King would have prevented cities and counties from issuing domestic partnership certificates like ones offered by the City of Eureka Springs. Family Council president, Jerry Cox, testified that the registry and accompanying certificates are an effort by the City of Eureka Springs to circumvent the marriage amendment passed by Arkansas voters in 2004. The amendment says, “Legal status for unmarried persons which is identical or substantially similar to marital status shall not be valid or recognized in Arkansas.” The ACLU opposed King’s bill, along with the mayor of Eureka Springs. The Mayor of Eureka Springs testified against the bill for approximately 20 minutes. In her testimony she contradicted herself by first claiming the domestic partnership registry was symbolic and didn’t do anything, and a few minutes later she indicated that couples were using the registry as a way of obtaining health insurance.
Committee Chairman Rep. Tommy Baker demonstrated his bias against the bill by allowing an ACLU representative to testify against the bill even after Rep. King, the sponsor of the bill, had made his final closing remarks for the bill. House rules allow the sponsor of the bill to have the final word on his or her bill before a vote is taken. Once the member “closes” for his bill there should be no further testimony by someone outside the committee. This was clearly a violation of House rules. Rep. John Burris attempted to raise this issue with the Chairman, but Burris’ complaint was overruled.
A voice vote was taken (all in favor say “aye”, all opposed say “no”) with what sounded like an equal number of the 20 representatives voting on each side. Most did not vote. Chairman Baker immediately ruled that the bill had failed to pass. Almost simultaneously, Rep. Kathy Webb, the only openly gay member of the legislature, bolted for the door, followed by Rep. Barbara Nix, Rep. Steve Breedlove, Rep. Ray Kidd, and others. As those members were bolting for the door, two or three members of the committee immediately asked for a roll-call vote—one in which each member’s name would be called and their vote recorded. Ignoring their motion for a roll call vote, Chairman Baker abruptly adjourned the meeting. The House rules require that a roll-call vote be taken if two of the committee members request it. When asked about his refusal to allow a roll-call vote in which the members specific votes would be recorded, the Chairman replied that there wasn’t time.
Why were the rules ignored? It appeared that the Chairman and members of the committee had planned this in advance as a way of defeating the bill without having their votes recorded and letting their constituents know how they voted. They succeeded. One member of the committee told me that the Democratic Party in Little Rock was pressuring members to vote against the bill, but that the members knew their constituents back home would want them to support the bill.
In 20 years of lobbying at the legislature I have never seen this kind of disregard for House Rules and decorum. Testimony from the ACLU is not allowed after a member closes for a bill; a proper request for a roll-call vote is always recognized by the chair; and members don’t bolt out of their seats as they vote “nay” against a bill. It was very clear to everyone in the room that the committee did not want the public to know their vote on this bill. A House member who chairs another committee was present in today’s meeting, and indicated that a roll-call vote should have been taken.
The hearing lasted 45 minutes, and it is difficult to keep up with every member of the committee, but here is our best assessment regarding what each member did. The bill required 11 affirmative votes to pass.
1. John Burris (R) - Voted for the bill
2. Les Carnine (R) - Voted for the bill
3. Beverly Pyle (R) - Voted for the bill
4. Garry Smith (D) - Was not present
5. James McLean (D) - Was not present
6. George Overbey (D) - Was not present
7. Randy Stewart (D) - Was absent for legitimate reasons
8. Steve Cole (D) - Was present, but left before the vote was taken
9. Mark Perry (D) - Was present for the entire hearing
10. [Corrected] Steve Breedlove (D) - Was present - say he supports the bill
11. Ray Kidd (D) - Hurried out the door before a roll-call vote could be taken
12. Barbara Nix (D) - Hurried out the door before a roll-call vote could be taken
13. Toni Bradford (D) - Was present for the entire hearing
14. James Word (D) - Unknown
15. Darrin Williams (D) - Unknown
16. John Edwards (D) - Was present for the entire hearing
17. Tommy Baker (D) - Committee chairman, was present for the entire hearing
18. Nancy Blount (D) - Was present for the hearing
19. Otis Davis (D) - Voted against the bill
20. Kathy Webb (D) - Voted against the bill and hurried out the door before a roll-call vote could be taken.
------------------- [Note: Watch this video which shows the above actions by legislatures] Action: Contact the Speaker of the House, Representative Robbie Wills by email and by phone and complain about Committee Chairman Rep. Tommy Baker's violations of House Rules. And Contact Chairman Rep. Tommy Baker email@example.com and tell him what you feel about his behavior. Switchboard phone where you can leave a message is 501-682-6211. Tags:Arkansas, ban, domestic partners, House, Jerry Cox, registryTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Today in Washington D. C. - March 31, 2009 - Congressional Gimmickry - Tigers Awake!
Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Senate resumed consideration of S. Con. Res. 13, the $3.5 trillion fiscal year 2010 budget resolution. Under Senate rules, the budget may be debated for 50 hours, not counting voting time. According to Senate contacts, the annual vote-a-rama on budget amendments is likely to begin Wednesday or Thursday with a final vote on the budget expected late Thursday or Friday.
The first two Republican amendments to the budget were filed last night. Sen. John Thune (R-SD) is offering an amendment to require that any climate change plan does not increase energy prices. And Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) is offering an amendment to prohibit reconciliation rules being used for any carbon cap-and-trade legislation. Debate on both amendments is scheduled today, and votes are possible. My guess is Democrats kill the amendments.
Democrats are being less than forthcoming with Americans on the budget’s provisions on spending, taxation, and reconciliation. The Cleveland Plain Dealer writes today, “If Congress, in its infinite wisdom, should ever decide to create a federal Department of Smoke and Mirrors, we know just who should be in charge: Either Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. of South Carolina or Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota. . . . Each claims to be outraged about the large deficits envisioned in President Barack Obama's proposed budget. Each has offered an alternative aimed at saving hundreds of billions of dollars -- which sounds impressive until you realize that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the president's plan would run a $9.3 trillion deficit over the next decade."
Much was made last week in the press of the slight spending differences between the administration’s budget proposal and that of Senate Democrats but all this really amounted to was “gimmickry,” as The Washington Post described it. Democrats are not being forthright when it comes to the tax increases included in the budget. The Wall Street Journal points out, “Lawrence Summers, President Obama’s chief economic adviser, declared recently that ‘Let’s be very clear: There are no, no tax increases this year. There are no, no tax increases next year.’ . . . [However,] The President’s budget calls for the largest increase in the death tax in U.S. history in 2010. . . . The announcement of this tax increase is buried in footnote 1 on page 127 of the President’s budget. That note reads: ‘The estate tax is maintained at its 2009 parameters.’ This means the death tax won't fall to zero next year as scheduled under current law . . . .”
Democrats have been cagey, down right deceptive, about potential "reconciliation instructions" which would prohibit Republican filibusters on health care and carbon cap-and-trade (i.e., energy tax) legislation. Democrat leaders, in cooperation with the White House, are pushing behind the scenes for action to block the "Mr. Smith" Republicans from filibustering thus getting the American's public attention. Speaking on the floor yesterday, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) explained how this would work, “It is obvious. This is a game, a very dangerous game. The House puts in reconciliation instructions but the Senate doesn’t put it in because the leadership knows that maybe it cannot get that across the floor and doesn’t want a vote on such a thing. So they can take it to conference and, much to nobody’s surprise, the conference budget comes back with reconciliation instructions, which control activities on the Senate floor.”
Transparency from Congress on the issues of massive expenditures of money, far-reaching tax increases, and sweeping legislative changes is greatly needed. But the Democrats are not supporting that transparency and open debate beyond occasional rhetoric. They hope to slip the federal budget by the sleeping tigers, the American Public. But those tigers are awakening and starting to strut and roar - consider the rising number of TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Parties occurring and developing across America. If these former sleeping tigers gets any more riled up, the Democrats can expect their offices to be taken from them by 2010. And Republicans had better remain alert, exceed rhetoric and prove their value, for a tiger or two can handle a donkey (ass) and several tigers can easily dispatch an elephant.
And for ALL former as well as current members of Congress -- let's see how long those outlandish congressional retirement and benefit plans survive when the public demands that future legislators dish out "change" for your failed public service that lead to ruining the American economic system that all Americans have enjoyed. The failures and oft times corrupt actions that have lead to the bankrupting and bringing down our Great Nation is not going to be relegated to platitudes. It will be sweet justice to see you face "The Union" of tigers -- the American taxpayers who work daily to keep our economy working. Tags:American Public, deficit, federal budget, government transparency, tea party, tigers, US Congress, US Debt, 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!
Personal Tweets by the editor: Dr. Bill - OzarkGuru
Married 48yr #Conservative #Constitution #NRALife #GunRights #USAF 22yr #military #veteran #Christian #CCOT #ProLife #TEAParty #GOP #TCOT #SGP #schoolchoice
Comments by contributors or sources do not necessarily reflect the position of ARRA, its Officers, memberships or the Editors.
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.