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: Dr. Bill Smith [OzarkGuru] - firstname.lastname@example.org
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Arkansas State Senator Kim Hendren Makes National News With One Word
Arkansas State Sen. Kim Hendren reportedly referred to U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as “that Jew” at a Pulaski County Arkansas GOP meeting last week. As a result, this one word comment has vaulted him onto national websites like Politico, CQ Politics, MSNBC, The Hill, the Republican Jewish Coalition and numerous more. And, the comment has and is still pachinkoing around the blogs. The Republican Jewish Coalition condemned his remark in strongest terms and noted that Sen. Hendren has since apologized for that comment. They also identified that they have a long record of denouncing such comments when made by fellow Republicans or Democrats.
Having been asked the who, what, where and when of this incident, the ARRA was not there so we would just parroting the best source on the topic, fellow blogger Jason Tolbert at the Tolbert Report. In summary, "At the meeting I was attempting to explain that unlike Sen. Schumer, I believe in traditional values, like we used to see on 'The Andy Griffith Show.' I made the mistake of referring to Sen. Schumer as ‘that Jew’ and I should not have put it that way as this took away from what I was trying to say,” Hendren said.
For the full story, visit The Tolbert Report: Sen. Kim Hendren: Without a Teleprompter!. There is no indication as to the effect this will have on Hendren's intent to attempt to run for the U.S. Senate against Senator Blanche Lincoln. If he does, he will first have to get though a Republican primary as there are other people interested in this race. Tags:Arkansas, Jewish coalition, Kim Hendren, Republicans, RJC, state senator, The Tolbert ReportTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Can you believe it? After creating the largest spending program and largest deficit in American history, President Obama warns us about something every Tea Party American knows: that the American Debt Load is unsustainable. Thanks for putting us in this position Mr. Obama! In the following video, note that Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal is not surprised as he has been warning of this from the beginning. However, Greta Van Susteren, of Fox News, seemed a little surprised as she had hoped the President's big stimulus and rescue plan would work out. No one should be surprised. Remember Barack Obama is well versed in relying on the use of OPM (Other People's Money) both as a ACORN community organizer and as a Illinois legislator and U.S. Senator. He was already in a mindset to send America down this road of indebtedness to China and other countries.
Tags:Barack Obama, Blogburst, video, Fox News, Greta Van Susteren, National Debt, news, OPM, Steve Moore, US DebtTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
The misnamed Employee Free Choice Act, backed by Big Labor, would diminish worker freedom, abolish secret-ballot elections in union organizing drives, and dramatically expand the role of the federal government in the regulation of businesses and workplaces. Rian Wathen, former Collective Bargaining Director for the UFCW Local 700, Indianapolis, discusses the binding arbitration provision in the Employee Free Choice Act [Card Check]:
Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: In the below William Warren cartoon, we see illustrated the desires of the Democrat donkey being played out by a large number of conservatives. The big lie being bantered about by various conservative groups is "we can win all by ourselves." While each group in the GOP conservative triad (i.e., social, economic and national defense) could run their own candidate, we have already learned that this does not work. Some limited government / economic conservatives would prefer to abandon the social conservatives and to avoid being too hawkish with the national defense conservative. Social conservative have a track record of advocating that if you don't run their candidate, then they won't show up at the polls. Finally, while the national defense conservative have a very important issue, the average voter doesn't wish to be continually reminded that there are enemies who want to destroy America.
If any of the triad members are absent, we wind up with a "GOP Lite" party. At the same time, we are seeing conservatives sapped off by third parties. There are libertarian conservatives supporting hard core Libertarian (i.e., we should be able to do anything we want party) candidates who lose. Then there is the well founded "'I love the Constitution" conservative who are mixing it up with the radical "do it our way or we are going to take our State and leave the Union" and supporting losing Constitution Party candidates. And now there is the potential of numerous frustrated conservatives and independents being caught up in new mini-parties promoted by leaders with the "Ross Perot" complex.
In the military, each military member must lay down their political positions and their individual rights for the good of the Country and its citizens. They submit themselves to the greater calling of duty, honor, country. It is disconcerting to observe conservatives being fragmented into groups and not committing together in a greater calling to stop the expansion of socialism. It's time to wake up -- the 2010 elections are is right around the corner. If the conservative movement is divided, the winner will be the donkey riding on every ones back. The GOP needs to be a Big Tent; one large enough for a conservative coalition where members of the coalition have both a "will to win" and are accepting of other conservatives with different concerns and priorities.
by William Warren: Tags:conservative coalition, conservatives, Democrats, GOP, political cartoon, Republican Party, Republicans, RNC, William WarrenTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Tony Perkins, FRC Washington Update: According to research released yesterday by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), America is rapidly becoming a nation of unwed parents. While the social shift has been underway for years, few could have predicted just how quickly it would sweep the country's households. In 2002, 1.4 million babies were born to unmarried women--doubling the number from 1980. Five years later, the data spiked to 1.7 million babies born to unwed moms in their 20s and 30s. To put things in perspective, four of every 10 babies are now born to single mothers.
In the blink of an eye, the United States has gone from a relatively gradual uptick in unwed births to being completely Europeanized. Experts cite plenty of reasons for the surge, but the de-emphasis of marriage and family is by far the largest. As more men retreat from responsibility, women are delaying marriage or foregoing it altogether. That's bad news for children and for anyone hoping for a return to limited government. As the foundation of our homes splinter, Washington will look for new ways to fill in the cracks. Most liberals, like those presently in control of government, believe that Washington can do a better job supporting families and raising children. Instead of policies that strengthen families, the White House will look for ways to bolster the government's role in them.
Of course, a lot of fiscal conservatives ignore marriage as a policy issue because they think of it as a cultural or religious institution. What they fail to realize is that it's also an economic institution that has enormous implications for the role of the federal government. Every year, state and federal governments fork over $280 billion in welfare, food stamps, and other anti-poverty programs just to keep these broken families afloat. That means that in one decade, the decline of marriage has taken $3 trillion dollars out of taxpayers' pockets.
As our own Dr. Pat Fagan writes, "This system is a massive injustice. Married people are the source of a massive transfer of payments to broken families. Those who stay together are also paying for those adults who do not." If the federal government could reduce family breakdown by a single percent, taxpayers would save around $3 billion dollars a year. And those are just the fiscal benefits. Having a happy, two-parent home to grow up? That's priceless. See also:Washington Post: Number of Unwed Mothers Has Risen Sharply in U.S. Tags:babies, FRC, mothers, parents, Tony Perkins, unwed, Washington UpdateTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: I looked at the onlne version of an opinion article byKarl Rove in The Wall Street Journal addressing "Congress and Waterboarding." Rove hits hard and identifies that "Someone important appears not to be telling the truth [sic, it's called lying] about her knowledge of the CIA's use of enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs). That someone is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi."
Rove details dates, times and conflicting positions and comes to the conclusion, "So is the speaker of the House lying about what she knew and when? And, if so, what will Democrats do about it? If Mrs. Pelosi considers the enhanced interrogation techniques to be torture, didn't she have a responsibility to complain at the time, introduce legislation to end the practices, or attempt to deny funding for the CIA's use of them? If she knew what was going on and did nothing, does that make her an accessory to a crime of torture, as many Democrats are calling enhanced interrogation? . . . Mrs. Pelosi is hip-deep in dangerous waters, and they are rapidly rising." [Read Full Story]
We all know that there has never been any love lost between Rove and Pelosi. However this time, Rove has hit the proverbial nail, or should we say "Speaker," on the head. This morning in her press conference, Nancy Pelosi walked up to the edge of a cliff and instead of stopping she stepped right off the cliff. Now we wait for the fallout and for her to hit bottom. Consider the audacity of her calling one of the most close knit secret agencies committed to the protection of America - the CIA - liars. I would guess that the CIA has special plans for her future. It is bad enough that she is constantly fixated on the past, but now she calls the CIA liars! They are not going to take this laying down. They have loved, sacrificed, protected and cleaned up the global trash for America without public approval, recognition, or rewards. A leak here and there and some exposed dirt will certainly add to Pelosi's political grave.
However, maybe we should the "blood letting" doesn't happen too quickly. The unraveling of Pelosi is a gift that seems to keep on giving. The more she opens her mouth, the more she waggles her finger, the more she imposes herself on the elected sovereign representatives, and the more she is in the news, then the more America will be glad with her departure form the Speaker's platform. As the 3rd in line to become President, Lord please protect President Obama, she scares a majority of Americans. Others may be more corrupt and even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid may have been in the "political ratings toilet" previously with Pelosi, but it appears everyone is stepping back to let Pelois have her time in the "dung." After all, who wants to join Pelosi on the wrong side of the CIA or a government investigation.
In conclusion, a thank you and ahat tip to Founding Bloggers who took the liberty of redesigning theofficial seal of the Speaker Liar of the House appearing above. They made only one small adjustment in the interest of accuracy.NancyPelosi has earned this new seal! Tags:Carl Rove, CIA, liar, Nancy Pelosi, SEAL, waterboarding, Bill Smith To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
The Senate will resume consideration of a bill to place restrictions on credit card companies, H.R. 627. Yesterday the Senate rejected three amendments to the credit card bill, including one by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) to require appropriations legislation to explain its effect on the national debt and require government websites to include a debt clock and one by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to establish a national usury rate.
Also, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the nomination of David Hayes to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior by a vote of 57-39. The vote failed in part due to Republican frustrations with Interior Department foot-dragging on oil and gas leasing issues in the West.
Today, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has scheduled a press conferenceto address her roll in oversight responsibity of enhanced interrogation at GITMO. Has anyone ever seen her to take responsibility? Will be a surprise, if she does.
Politicol reported on the House Democrat leaders actions this week prior to a vote on Republican Rep. Jeff Flake’s push for an ethics inestigation involving Rep. John Murtha and other senior appropriators. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, assistant to Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent an email to the other Democrats with an unmistakable message: “Don’t be a Flake.” In another pre-vote e-mail, the office of House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC) warned Democrats that they would suffer in 2010 if Republicans succeeded in forcing an ethics investigation into the relationships Murtha and other veteran Democratic lawmakers had with the PMA Group. When the House took up Flake’s resolution Tuesday night, Democrats again voted overwhelmingly to table it. What happened to Pelosi's "most transparent and open government"?
The AP reports today, “New legislation by Senate Democrats would fund the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but it would block the transfer of any of the detainees to the United States. The move to sidestep a political minefield is a rebuff to President Barack Obama, whose promise to close the Guantanamo facility within a year of taking office has run into Republicans and Democrats opposed to bringing accused terrorists onto U.S. shores. . . . The administration has yet to produce a plan for what to do with the approximately 240 Guantanamo detainees, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that between 50 and 100 would end up in U.S. facilities.”
Democrats have clearly become uneasy about the administration’s complete lack of a plan for what to do with the dangerous detainees housed at Guantanamo, as The New York Times discusses today. The Times article points out, “Republicans are not oblivious to the Democrats’ internal disagreements. In the Senate, the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, is making speeches nearly every day about the dangers of shuttering the Guantánamo camp.”
A senior Democrat Senate aide confirmed nervousness of Democrats on the detainee issue to Roll Call, “acknowledg[ing] that the majority might not have the votes to retain the funding once the bill hits the Senate floor next week. ‘Many members of the caucus don’t want to walk the plank on this,’ said the aide.”
Regardless of party positions, Guantanamo is first and foremost a safety and security issue. Indeed, according to the AP, lawmakers in Missouri just passed a resolution urging Congress “not to send any Guantanamo detainees to Missouri or even transport them through the state.” The resolution also asks that Congress not send detainees next door to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
Tags:ethics investigation, Gitmo, Jeff Flake, John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, 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!
by Tony Perkins, FRC Washington Update: While President Obama tries to clamp down on credit card companies for hiking the rates on consumers, the latest figures suggest that the administration is busily raising its fees on you and me. Under today's deficit projections, which are up $89 billion from the White House's original estimates, the government will have to borrow almost half--46 cents--of every dollar it spends this year. As a result, the U.S. debt, which clocked in this morning at an astronomical $11,272,897,541,856.93, is expected to grow even faster than experts predicted. By the end of 2009, Americans will face a deficit that accounts for 12.9% of the GDP. And considering this administration's aggressive agenda, this "credit card spending spree" shows no sign of stopping. With an unprecedented $3.6 trillion budget plan on the table, Americans are on the hook for 10-year deficits of $9.27 trillion that cannot be blamed on President Bush. While he did inherit a mountain of debt, President Obama's appetite for government expansion is pushing taxpayers to the brink. On his watch, Congress has put taxpayers on the hook for bailing out Wall Street, spending billions in economic stimulus, and carrying a back-breaking budget. Earlier this month, the administration put up a facade of restraint by cutting $17 billion from next year's budget, but to most the gesture was laughable. Even USA Today pointed out that it's the equivalent of cutting a $100 grocery bill by returning a 50-cent pack of gum. Despite the deficit, President Obama is putting his foot on the accelerator of a massive health care overhaul. The spending and proposed spending are beyond irresponsible; they're endangering our economy and mortgaging our future in exchange for political porridge. See:AP: White House: Budget deficit to top $1.8 trillionTags:deficit, Tony Perkins, US Debt, Washington UpdateTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
The Patriot Post: "Give President Obama credit -- he at least made the proverbial offer Chrysler's secured creditors couldn't refuse. The way Obama strong-armed creditors who rightfully expected to be treated justly under the law was right out of Juan Peron's playbook. Like the Argentinian strong man, Obama muscled the owners and creditors out of a productive private company and gave it to union leaders, who will then fill his campaign coffers in gratitude for his generosity. The Examiner's Michael Barone -- who has forgotten more about American government and politics than most Washington political experts know -- was correct to dub Obama's Chrysler heist 'an episode of Gangster Government.' Forget what anybody in the White House or what is left of the Chrysler executive corps claims to the contrary because the UAW effectively owns the company now, holding 55 percent of its stock. True, the union doesn't get an explicit controlling majority of the board of directors, but who needs that when you've got the White House guaranteeing your work and the U.S. Treasury Department making sure you never have to worry about the bottom line. ... Contrasting mightily with the Pennsylvania Avenue Gang's thuggery is the quiet confidence of Ford Motor Company's president and CEO, Allan Mullaly. He had the foresight three years ago to strengthen his firm's cash and credit reserves in anticipation of the inevitable decline of auto sales. ... When GM and Chrysler headed hats-in-hand to Washington last fall, Mullaly said Ford didn't want a bailout and then watched quietly as his two cross-town rivals committed corporate suicide. Now Ford is positioned strongly to be the last great American car company. With a guy like that at the helm, it's enough to make people who love American free enterprise go out and buy a new Ford." -- The Washington Examiner Tags:auto industry, Barack Obama, Chrysler, Ford, gangster government, GM, Obama administration, The Patriot PostTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Today in Washington D. C. - May 13, 2009 - More Stimulus Problems
This morning, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the nomination of David Hayes to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior by a vote of 57-39. Later today, the Senate is expected to resume consideration of a bill to place restrictions on credit card companies, H.R. 627.
Yesterday, the Senate voted 67-29 to approve an amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) to allow individuals to carry guns in national parks, in accordance with state laws.
More Stimulus Problems: Money Paid Out Slowly & Paid To Dead People, Unions Though the $787 billion stimulus package was originally supposed to be timely, temporary, and targeted, it’s become clear over the three months since it passed that it is none of those things. This week, even more problems with the bill have come to light, ranging from slow distribution to poor targeting and even potential political issues.
The New York Times reports today, “Nearly three months after President Obama approved a $787 billion economic stimulus package, intended to create or save jobs, the federal government has paid out less than 6 percent of the money, largely in the form of social service payments to states.” The Times notes, “The intent of the stimulus program was to pump money into the economy quickly, and many members of Congress said at the time of its passage that speed was of the essence. But the huge program has been a challenge to administer for both a new administration and for states and local governments grappling with their own fiscal problems.”
Calling the stimulus program “a challenge to administer” may be a bit of an understatement in light of a report from WBAL-TV in Baltimore yesterday that a stimulus check was sent to a Maryland man’s mother, who died in 1967. The report noted that as many as 10,000 stimulus checks may have gone to dead people.
Even when stimulus money gets where it is supposed to go, it hasn’t been having the intended effect. According to The Washington Post, “Eleven weeks after Congress settled on a stimulus package that provided $135 billion to limit layoffs in state governments, many states are finding that the funds are not enough and are moving to lay off thousands of public employees.” Little wonder, then, that “some economists have questioned the administration’s claims that the bill has saved or created 150,000 jobs,” as The New York Times points out.
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday about a dispute between over $6.8 billion in stimulus money for the state of California. According to the report, “Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration said they were notified by senior Obama staff on May 3 that California’s plan to cut wages for unionized home healthcare workers violated the law that authorized the stimulus package.”
The LA Times writes, “The Obama administration’s stance has sparked concerns about the influence of the Service Employees International Union. The wages at issue are paid to unionized workers who look after about 440,000 disabled and elderly Californians. . . . SEIU opposed the cuts and asked the Obama administration to look into whether they ran afoul of stimulus package provisions. . . . SEIU has myriad political ties to the Obama administration . . . The union was among President Barack Obama’s largest campaign donors, contributing $33 million. The White House political director, Patrick Gaspard, is a former executive vice president of SEIU 1199 . . . SEIU’s California State Council is actively opposing a May 19 state ballot measure, with help from a consulting firm founded by one of Obama’s most trusted advisors.”
John Ruberry at the Marathon Pundit identified an interview with the Las Vegas Sun, where Service Employee International Union (SEIU) President Andy Stern said: "We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million to be exact — and we're proud of it." Ruberry wonders, "Are there other organizations--on the left or the right--that spend that kind of money on a presidential race?"
Given how Congress was told that speed was important in getting stimulus funding out and given California’s unemployment rate reaching 11.2% in March, it is more than odd that the Obama administration would consider holding up funds for the state based on complaints from a state emplyees union unless it is payback time for SEIU's $60.7 million investment in Obama's campaign. This appears to be an unconstitutional dictatorial attempt to force California and potentially other sovereign state to make decisions not in their own best interests but rather in the interests of SEIU, another union or special interest group. Also, this may not be very pragmatic unless in truth the Obama political machine expects further quid pro quo from SEIU or other special interest groups exceeding the potential blow back from tramping on the Constitutional rights of the States to govern themselves.
Tags:Stimulus Problems, 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!
Montana Firearms Freedom Act (House Bill 246) was signed into law. The Flathead Beacon reports: " The governor signed into law a bill that exempts Montana-made firearms from federal regulations. While this affects a tiny number of gun makers in the state, sponsor Rep. Joel Boniek, R-Livingston, and other gun rights advocates hope the bill could trigger a Supreme Court case over how the federal government regulates gun sales." The Bill says it all - Excepted below -
AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA . . . Short title . . . "Montana Firearms Freedom Act". . . . Declarations of Authority. . . .
1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. . . .
2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights, as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. . . .
3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.
4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889 . . .
5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists, as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889. . . .
A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana. . . .
[This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.
Montana has drawn a line in the sand. The Federal Government now either takes on Montana or will risk the future, as well as past, actions by federal agents. Montana may well now arrest the federal agents that try to enforce the federal firearms acts which violate Montana law. The Montana Government in Helena has made history calling out Federal Government which has continued to establish gun control laws with the end result being the absolute control and confiscation of guns, ammunition, and accessories.
It is time for other states to pass laws restricting the actions of the Federal Government. Also it is time to stop taking money from the Federal Government with restrictive strings on rights of citizens. Tags:gun control, gun rights, Montana, State SovereigntyTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Tags:Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, George Soros, Obamanopoly, Robber Barons, Timothy Geithner, William WarrenTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
by Dr. Chuck Baldwin, Chuck Baldwin Live: First, it was a Missouri Analysis and Information Center (MIAC) report; then it was a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report; now it is a New York congressman's bill. Each of these items, taken on their own, is problematic enough; taken together they portend "a clear and present danger" to the liberties of the American people. It is getting very serious now.
As readers may recall, the MIAC report profiled certain people as being potential violence-prone "militia members": including people who supported Presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself. In addition, anyone who opposed one or more of the following were also included in the list: the New World Order, the U.N., gun control, the violation of Posse Comitatus, the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, the Ammunition Accountability Act, a possible Constitutional Convention, the North American Union, the Universal Service Program, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), abortion on demand, or illegal immigration.
The MIAC report prompted a firestorm of protest, and was eventually rescinded, with the man responsible for its distribution being dismissed from his position. The DHS report profiled many of the same people included in the MIAC report, and added returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans as potentially dangerous "extremists."
As I have said before, it is very likely that when all of the opinions and views of the above lists are counted, 75% or more of the American people would be included. Yet, these government reports would have law enforcement personnel to believe we are all dangerous extremists that need to be watched and guarded against. If this was not bad enough, a New York congressman has introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to deny Second Amendment rights to everyone listed above.
According to World Net Daily, May 9, 2009, "A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans a potential 'threats,' could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others--any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential 'extremism.'
"Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any 'known or suspected dangerous terrorist.' The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is 'appropriately suspected' of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general 'has a reasonable belief' that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.
"Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill's language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person's Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being 'dangerous.'"
WND quotes Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt as saying, "By [DHS] standards, I'm one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano's terrorists. This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they're all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009." Pratt was also quoted as saying, "Unbeknownst to us, some bureaucrat in the bowels of democracy can put your name on a list, and your Second Amendment rights are toast." He went on to say, "This such an anti-American bill, this is something King George III would have done."
Now that DHS has established both a list and a lexicon for "extremists," it looks to Congress to confer upon it police-state-style powers through which these individuals may be disarmed and eventually done away with. Rep. Peter King is accommodating this goal with H.R. 2159. Let me ask a reasonable question: how long does anyone think it would be, after being profiled by DHS and denied the lawful purchase of firearms, that those same people would be subjected to gun confiscation? And how long do you think it would be before DHS began profiling more and more groups of people, thus subjecting them to gun confiscation?
This was exactly the strategy employed by Adolf Hitler. The Jews were the first people denied their civil rights--especially the right to own and possess firearms. Of course, after disarming Jews, the rest of the German citizenry was likewise disarmed. And we all know where that led. I'm not sure how many of the American people realize that it was the attempted confiscation of the colonialists' cache of arms in Concord, Massachusetts, that started America's War for Independence. Yes, my friends, it was attempted gun confiscation that triggered (pun intended) the "shot heard 'round the world." And now it would appear that, once again, a central government is on the verge of trying to deny the American people their right to keep and bear arms.
I am told that as of 2004, 50% of the adults in the United States own one or more firearms, totaling some 270 million privately owned firearms nationwide. I would venture to say that the vast majority of these gun owners would find themselves matching the DHS profile of a potential "extremist." I wonder how many gun owners realize the way they are now being targeted by their government, and just how serious--and how close--the threat of gun confiscation has become?
If one doubts the intention of the elitists in government today to deny the American people their right to keep and bear arms, consider what former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is purported to have said just a couple of weeks ago. Kissinger attended a high-level meeting with Russian President Medvedev that also included former Secretaries of State James Baker and George Shultz; former Secretary of Defense William Perry; and former Senator Sam Nunn. Included in the discussions was Kissinger's assertion that the American people were now ready to accept a "New Global Order." He is also reported to have told Medvedev, "By September we'll have confiscated all privately owned guns so it really doesn't matter what we do, we'll still be in charge." (Even though the national news media has not reported this statement, the Internet is abuzz with Kissinger having said it. Whether Kissinger actually made that statement or not, he, and rest of his ilk, have repeatedly called for a New World Order, in which there will be no constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms.)
This leads to a very serious question: how many of America's gun owners would allow their government to deny them gun ownership? Further, how many would passively sit back and allow their guns to be confiscated? As humbly and meekly as I know how to say it: as for me and my house, gun confiscation is the one act of tyranny that crosses the line; debate, discourse, discussion, and peaceful dissent cease and desist at that point. I say again, it is getting very serious now. Tags:Chuck Baldwin, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, gun rights, Janet Napolitano, MIAC, New York, Peter King, right-wing extremistsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
The Notre Dame Pro-Life Student Response: Don't Show Up!
Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: As a pro-life evangelical Christian with children who are faithful pro-life Catholics, I have been disturbed by the scandal of Barack Obama being invited to be the commencement speaker at a prestigious Catholic University - Notre Dame - and being honored with an honorary degree. The Vatican has already rejected Obama's pro-abortion nominations for Ambassador. Why would Notre Dame force its graduating students and their families to be subjected to listening to the words of an outspoken abortion advocate who is anathema in every sense of the word to a major belief - the sanctity of life - of the Catholic Church?
Archbishop Raymond Burke, Prefect of the Vatican’s highest court, the Apostolic Signatur, received a standing ovation from the crowd of more than 1,200 when he called it “rightly the source of the greatest scandal.” Archbishop Burke added that if "we as individuals are not willing to accept the burdens” of the Catholic witness to life, “we are not worthy of the name Catholic.”
Hundreds of thousands of Catholics, hundreds of priests, and dozens of bishops have called upon Notre Dame to end this scandal by withdrawing its invitation to President Obama. Since this has not happened and graduating seniors do not have the authority to stop this scandal, many are opting for doing what they do have in their power to do -- they are recommending to fellow graduates that they "Don't Show Up!" They believe that participating the commencement will serve to obscure rather than highlight the Church's pro-life teaching and the true spirit of Notre Dame. They plan to have their own ceremony, the Class of 2009 Vigil for Life, on another part of the campus at the very hour that pro-abortion President Obama will speak and be honored by the University.
They have invited Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director, Priests for Life who has devoted his entire life and ministry to ending abortion to lead . Pavone explains:
In standing with these students, I am standing with the true spirit of Notre Dame: a pro-life spirit, in harmony with human reason and Catholic Faith. The scandal that has been generated does not represent what Notre Dame is all about; it represents a radical betrayal of what Notre Dame is all about. I am encouraged by the pro-life activities of so many student groups on this campus activities that are carried out all year round.
The seniors who do this are manifesting the real meaning of "commencement": they are carrying out the witness to truth and service that their hard-earned degrees have prepared them to give in the world. We shouldn't at all be surprised that many others will fail to understand not only the courageous actions of these students, but also the concern voiced by so many across our nation. After all, the fact that many don't have a problem with Barack Obama sitting in a place of honor at a Catholic Commencement is simply a corollary of the underlying problem that so many don't have a problem with Barack Obama sitting in the White House. Our concern is not just that he is at odds with Catholic teaching. Our concern is that he is at odds with "American" teaching, and the very meaning of public service which requires being able to tell the difference between serving the public and killing the public. He should neither be at Notre Dame nor in the White House.
Nearly a thousand priests and deacons have joined their voices to a statement that Priests for Life has written, and we invite more to sign up. Meanwhile, we invite all the faithful to join the Notre Dame students in a Rosary Campaign for reparation for this scandal, and for the conversion of the President and all who support legal child-killing.
Fr. Frank Pavone has also released the following video. - - -> See also:Notre Dame Scandal
Tags:abortion, Barack Obama, Notre Dame, pro-life, ScandalTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Senate will resumes consideration of H.R. 627 - a bill to place restrictions on credit card companies.
The NRCC will be airing an ad linking Arkansas Rep. Vic. Snyder to supporting of the funding for Rep. John Murtha's pork ladened John Mutha Airport in Pennsylvania. What did Arkansas or Vic Synder get in return? "ABC News says 800,000 of Snyder’s wasteful spending went to re-pave a runway at a Pennsylvania airport that only has three flights a day. The airport averages just 20 passengers a day, but one of those customers happens to be powerful Democrat John Murtha." This is the same airport that has been mentioned by MSNBC and CBS and related news on FBI investigations of Rep. Murtha. The NRCC ad identifies that "Snyder’s voted for Nancy Pelosi’s wasteful 787 billion dollar spending plan. Snyder’s been voting with Pelosi 97% of the time. It's unbridled power with no accountability."
National Security / GITMO: It’s been almost four months since President Obama’s hasty order to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, but the administration still does not have any plans for what to do with the dangerous detainees housed there. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seemed to acknowledge that even Democrats believe this to be the case, saying on the floor yesterday that money to close Guantanamo would be included in this year’s supplemental appropriations bill, but “it wouldn’t be available until the president came up with a plan.”
Yet Americans have gotten nothing but “vague assurances” from the administration that whatever "they" plan to do with these detainees will "not" make Americans “less safe,” as National Security Advisor Jim Jones said on Sunday. Even some democrats also seem frustrated with this approach. A “knowledgeable Senate Democratic aide” told Roll Call, “The White House completely dropped the ball on this, has given us no cover, and Members don’t know what to say.” This comes on the heels of Democrats in the House simply stripping funding to close Guantanamo from the appropriations bill.
Though Attorney General Eric Holder has spent more time discussing the issue with leaders of foreign governments than members of Congress, even those government don’t feel like the Obama administration has given them enough information about the detainees or the legal questions surrounding them. Stars and Stripes reports, “Germany’s interior minister says the United States must answer some key legal questions before his country considers accepting detainees from Guantanamo Bay.” The German interior minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, had some familiar questions for the administration: “‘First of all, can it definitely be ruled out that these people are not a security threat?’ he asked. ‘Secondly, why can the U.S. not take on these people? And, thirdly, do these people have any relation to Germany at all?’”
Speaking on the floor today, Sen. McConnell said, “I can’t think of a congressional district in America that would welcome terrorists. Local communities want the administration to explain how transferring or releasing detainees won’t make them ‘less safe’. And the American people want the administration to explain its plans to their elected representatives in Congress.” Are there any Congressman out there wanting these prisoners? Well there is Rep John Murtha (D-PA) who could use them to sweep his John Murtha Airport. Murtha has said that he would be willing to house the enemy combatants in his Pennsylvannia congressional district (PA-12): "Sure, I'd take 'em," Murtha told a reporter. "They're no more dangerous in my district than in Guantanamo." What do your constituents want Murtha?
Holder has yet to respond totwo letters sent to him by the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), asking whether he has the legal authority to release some detainees into the United States. Nor has Holder responded to letters from Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) asking about potential transfers of detainees to Alexandria, Virginia. The administration has not explained itself in any of these areas, but it continues to press ahead with an arbitrary deadline for closing Guantanamo when Democrats, Republicans, and even foreign government officials can see there are no plans on what to do with the terrorists housed there. Tags:Arkansas, Barack Obama, Gitmo, John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, national security, Pennsylvania, US Congress, US House, US Senate, Vic Snyder, Washington D.C.To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
H/T Gary Bauer: The White House today announced more growth, but unfortunately it was in our deficit, not in jobs or GDP. It seems that the estimate they made in February, roughly 80 days ago, was slightly off—by $89 billion. One billion equals 1,000 million, so this is real money not just a rounding error. Just more debt that will end up on the backs of our children.
Every day, the president announces many things. He even took time last week to remind us to wash our hands. But this little $89 billion pothole announcement was left to the White House bureaucrats to make. This also kept the president away from another announcement today—that we won't stop losing jobs until sometime in 2010. The president’s only personal announcement today was his new health care initiative—more billions in future spending. Tags:deficit, federal spending, ObamacareTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Today in Washington D. C. - May 11, 2009 - Budget Deficit Will Exceed $1.8 Trillion
Senate will reconvene at 2 PM today and begin consideration of a bill to place restrictions on credit card companies, H.R. 627. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) will offer a substitute amendment from himself and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) as the basis for debate.
Back in January, the Obama team released a report claiming that if Congress passed an economic stimulus bill, the unemployment rate would be held around 8% and was the basis for the White House claim that the bill that was eventually signed would “save or create” 3.5 to 4 million jobs. Of course, events have not borne this out. Unemployment now stands at a troubling 8.9%, the level the White House’s January report said the country would reach without passing a stimulus bill. Clearly, the report was wrong.
The White House, though, apparently wants to continue to be able to claim that the $787 billion stimulus bill “saved or created” 3.5 to 4 million jobs. But if the report this claim is based on was wrong, what can be done? The administration has decided to write a new report, according to USA Today: “The figure of 3.5 million jobs saved or created, the report says, is the difference between the projected number of jobs during the last three months of 2010 with the stimulus and the projected number of jobs without if there had been no stimulus plan.”
There continue to be questions about just how effective the stimulus bill is. The bill was originally supposed to be timely, temporary, and targeted. But the AP reports today that “[c]ounties suffering the most from job losses stand to receive the least help from President Barack Obama’s plan to spend billions of stimulus dollars on roads and bridges, an Associated Press analysis has found.” Indeed, “[t]he analysis also found that counties with the highest unemployment are most likely to have been passed over completely in the early spending.”
The administration’s shifting claims about the stimulus and the continuing reports about the money from the bill not doing what it was designed to do again highlight the question of whether spending so much money in this way was wise. That question is underlined by the White House announcement today that the budget deficit will exceed $1.8 trillion, more than 4 times the record deficit set in 2008. Tags:deficit, budget, budget deficit, Federal spending, 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!
Timothy P. Carney:The Obama-Rattner plan puts UAW in charge of Chrysler, which is good news for the Democratic Party.
UAW’s political action committee spent $13.1 million last election cycle, a slow year for the union’s political arm. Of the PAC’s $2.3 million in direct contributions to candidates and candidate PACs, more than 99 percent went to Democrats. Of 42 Senate candidates to get UAW money, only one was Republican, and that was Arlen Specter. The union’s PAC also reported $4.5 million in independent expenditures supporting Obama, plus an additional $423,000 opposing John McCain.
So, here’s the arrangement: You pay your taxes, the Obama administration funnels some of the money to Chrysler, whose profits enrich the UAW, which in turn funds Obama’s re-election. Read the full editorial: Obama’s auto policy: All in the Democratic family Tags:Barack Obama, Chrysler, Democratic Party, General Peter pace, UAWTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
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.