News Blog for social, fiscal & national security conservatives who believe in God, family & the USA. Upholding the rights granted by God & guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, traditional family values, "republican" principles / ideals, transparent & limited "smaller" government, free markets, lower taxes, due process of law, liberty & individual freedom. 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 or by this "Blog" - no paid ads - no payments for articles.Fair Use Doctrine is posted & used. Blogger/Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru & 2010 AFP National Blogger of the Year] Contact: editor@arranewsservice.com (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home PageFollow @arra
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato
(429-347 BC)
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Biggest Secret in Washington, D.C.
Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: I hate to point fingers at conservatives. Certainly in this situation, I have no fingers pointing back -- as I definitely am not on the "cash circuit." If this revelation makes independent conservative writers feel a little used by the larger conservative groups, it is understandable. While cash is needed to advance causes; are some causes advanced more because of cash payments to their leaders?
William J. Murray, Director of the Religious Freedom Coalition, said this week:
It is no surprise that several of the larger conservative groups have "leaders" who also operate "consulting services." However, frequently the clients of the consulting firms have their agendas moved forward by the associated "conservative group." On some occasions economic conservative groups just flat out ask corporations for money to assist them with promoting legislation. Recently the American Conservative Union told Federal Express that for a mere $2 million dollars, the group would assist them in fighting a union supported bill in Congress. See Politico.com for details. The demand for cash was astonishing even by Washington standards. Other economic conservative groups have accepted funds from Islamic nations or Islamic corporations. Those groups never side with social conservatives trying to stop the spread of militant Islam.
In the future, I think I need to review closer all those organizations mailing us requests for donations to determine which directors or persons of influence are "providing personal consulting services" to influence which agenda these organizations address. I know money talks, but please, how about a little transparency here! The secret is out! See also:Conservative group offers support for $2 Million Tags:conservatives, influence, money, transparency, Washington D.C., William J. MurrayTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
by William J. Murray: - When a president signs a bill into law he may add a signing statement telling how he intends to implement the law. Obama has made a practice of saying in his signing statements that he intends to ignore provisions in the law. This practice has become so flagrant that even the far left homosexual Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) is now angry. Concerning Obama's signing statement on a war supplemental bill Franks' said, "There's kind of a unilateralism, an undemocratic, unreachable way about these signing statements." Obama had said he would ignore an amendment to the bill that was passed by the House. Members of the House are so outraged that they passed the amendment restricting funds to the World Bank again, this time by a margin of by 429 to 2 with support of both parties. Read More Tags:Barack Obama, President ObamaTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
The shift in the American mood has caught many Democrats from conservative states flat-footed. Following Obama's January inauguration, these politicians bought the party line that the election gave them a mandate to completely reorganize the United States into something more closely resembling Venezuela, Cuba, or the old Soviet Union. Self-proclaimed Blue Dog Democrats marched in solidarity with the left-wing radicals of their party as they quadrupled the federal deficit and helped enslave future generations to mountains of new US debt. As you might imagine, the public's evaporating approval of Obama is rubbing off on those Democrats who want their constituents to believe they're fiscal conservatives. So what's a Blue Dog Dem to do?
Judging from my Congressman and Senators, they're sitting on the fence until the last possible moment. Yesterday I called the offices of Congressman Marion Berry (D-AR-01), Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR), and Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR). I asked for each of their positions on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA aka "Card Check") and the Health Care Reform legislation currently making their way through Congress. Their responses were noncommittal and vague, worthless really. Pryor's office informed me the Senator was waiting to see what came out of committee before making any statement. The young lady I spoke with in Lincoln's office informed me the Senator had not made a public statement on either of these pieces of legislation. Congressman Berry's aide with whom I spoke told me Berry was waiting to see what happened with "Card Check" legislation in the Senate before taking a position. The best news I received from any of the three was Berry's office's response on the House Democrats' health care bill. I was told they were reading the "chronically long" bill and wouldn't be able to take a position until they'd sorted through the 1,018 pages to see what's inside.
At least Berry's reading the bill. That's the best I could get from both my Senators and my Representative, all Democrats, on two key pieces of legislation. Even when asked what conditions would need to be met to earn or lose their support, none of the three would step up and give specifics. Best I can tell…they're not taking a stand, at all. Their sitting on the fence as long as they can in the hopes of correctly judging the dominant political winds at the last possible moment.
To me, such a political strategy demonstrates a lack of conviction. I want elected officials who will stand on principles rather than sit on fences. So I thought I'd ask some of the potential Republican candidates who will challenge Lincoln and Berry next year to see if they're standing up for their principles or polishing the top rail of this fence as well. I emailed Rick Crawford, Curtis Coleman, and Tom Cox and asked the same questions. Crawford has announced his intent to run for Berry's seat next year, while Coleman and Cox are interested in unseating Lincoln. Though I haven't heard back from Cox, Crawford and Coleman quickly responded. Read on and you'll see these two Republicans who wish to represent you in Washington aren't fence-sitters. They're willing to take a stand based on principle. To avoid redundancy and for brevity, I'll cover Coleman's response to the Health Care legislation and Crawford's response to "Card Check."
Coleman informed me of a new, comprehensive post he released Obamacare Here, he blasts Senator Lincoln for cosponsoring the original bill with Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) in the Senate during the 109th Congress. He goes on to state the government "will completely control your health care." Coleman also notes something in his paper that inexplicably escapes virtually every Democratic politician. Though the Dems like to try and sell their Socialized medicine saying the government will pay for everyone's health care, Coleman emphatically states "Of course the government won't be paying for your health care -you will be. The government only has the money it takes from you."
Health care needs to be reformed, not destroyed. And destruction of the finest health care in the world is exactly what this seemingly harmless little "public health insurance option" will do. -Curtis
That doesn't sound like Coleman has any doubts where he stands, unlike his Democratic rival and her Democratic colleague. Now let's take a look at what Rick Crawford has to say about the inappropriately named Employee Free Choice Act (aka "Card Check").
In Crawford's reply to my questions, there was no hesitation, no equivocation. "I do not support the Employee Free Choice Act, or Card Check. I'm against denying anyone the right to a secret ballot - a critical element of a representative republic such as ours. That's the fundamental issue - a secret ballot," he states. This one statement displays a glaring contrast between Rick and his opponent, Marion Berry. While Berry sits on the sidelines, waiting for the battle to be nearly over, waiting to make up his mind, the left-wing zealots pushing this legislation are gaining strength in their efforts to force virtually all American workers to pay extortionists in the form of union organizers. Vocal, steadfast opposition from Berry would show courage and conviction in standing up for his constituents. The worst part is that Berry isn't hesitating in order to make the right decision, but to make the decision that involves the least amount of political risk. That's not leadership, it's self-serving political preservation devoid of the hindrance of any principles or moral base. Crawford, on the other hand, stands tall and clearly states his position based on his belief in what is best for the country and his would-be constituents.
The Republican candidate for Arkansas' 1st Congressional District described the adverse economic impact Card Check will impose also -especially on low-income Americans. The suffering Americans will endure will come in the form of higher prices and higher unemployment when American companies are forced to 1) raise prices for their products, 2) move their operations offshore, or 3) both. If we force companies and jobs overseas through this legislation, the federal government will see a net decrease in tax revenues as a result. Then where do you think they'll come to make up their shortfall? That's right, us! So even though Card Check won't directly charge us a tax, in the end it will cause tax rates to increase to cover the cash crunch created by the Democratic geniuses who pushed this through.
Crawford closed his response to my questions with the following statement that addresses the history of union thuggery that will almost certainly be encouraged if this bill becomes law.
If pro-union groups are so convinced that a union shop is the best choice for American workers, it ought to be an easy sell. Rather than implement strongarm tactics, let workers enjoy the sanctity of the secret ballot without fear of reprisal. If unions are such a great deal, pro-union groups should have no doubt what the outcome would be. -Rick Crawford
I think we can safely infer from Crawford's response that he's not sitting on the fence either.
Unlike their Democratic incumbents, Crawford and Coleman know where they stand on these important issues and they're not afraid to let the people know. We need real leaders in the Senate and House, real leaders who will stand for what's right, not just what's politically expedient. Our Democratic Senators and Representatives are showing themselves to be anything but leaders. They've voted too many times as lap dogs for Pelosi and Obama, instead of conservative Blue Dogs. It's time we had real conservative leaders representing Arkansans' conservative values.
Contact Berry, Lincoln, and Pryor and let them know if they won't stand up for Arkansans, there are folks who are willing to send them home when their terms are up. Next year for Berry and Lincoln, 2014 for Pryor.
Congressman Marion Berry
2305 Rayburn H.O.B.
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-4076
(202) 225-5602 FAX
Senator Blanche Lincoln
355 Dirksen Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510-0404
Phone: (202)224-4843
Fax: (202)228-1371
Senator Mark Pryor
255 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-2353
Fax: (202) 228-0908
Tags:AR, Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln, Card Check, Curtis Coleman, Democrats, EFCA, GOP, health care, John Allison, labor unions, Marion Berry, Mark Pryor, Obama, Obamacare, Rick Crawford, unionsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
President Obama supports an international treaty creating sweeping gun control efforts. Click for the full text of this treaty. The below CNN News Story shows the extent to which Obama and the Democrats will go to eliminate the Second Amendment, and this by using a foreign treaty as the process. The second CNN video addresses the Obama's administration via Eri Holder threatening gun ownership by Americans. Afraid yet?
Tags:2nd Amendment, ammunition, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, gun control, gun grabbers, gun rights, treaties, United StatesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Today in Washington D. C. - July 16, 2009 - Obamacare is Trojan Horse to Control Our Lives
The Senate recessed until 1 p.m. on Monday, July 20 when it will resume consideration of the fiscal 2010 Defense authorization bill, S. 1390. Last night, by a vote of 63-28, the Senate invoked cloture on an amendment by Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to expand hate crimes laws to cover gender, sexual orientation or gender identity.Following the vote, the amendment was agreed to by voice vote. Prior to invoking cloture on the amendment, senators voted 78-13 to approve a 2nd degree amendment from Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) to require the Leahy amendment not burden the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Senators rejected an amendment to the Leahy language from Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) which would require a government study of the need for expanded federal hate crimes laws before the provisions could take effect.
The Post story continued, “Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose ‘the sort of fundamental changes’ necessary to rein in the skyrocketing cost of government health programs, particularly Medicare. On the contrary, Elmendorf said, the measures would pile on an expensive new program to cover the uninsured.”
Aside from the obvious issues of piling on debt and spending in a year of soaring deficits and with entitlement programs that are already fiscally unsustainable, this announcement flies in the face of President Obama’s requirement that any health reform control costs. In a press conference last month, Obama said, “And I've said very clearly: If any bill arrives from Congress that is not controlling costs, that's not a bill I can support.” Yet, The Post writes, “[Elmendorf’s] remarks suggested that rather than averting a looming fiscal crisis, the measures could make the nation's bleak budget outlook even worse.”
This set off another round of recriminations, complaints, and infighting among Democrats over their health care bills. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Majority Whip Dick Durbin both complained about CBO, as a Dow Jones article noted. The New York Times reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered “similar criticism.” Meanwhile, Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) complained about President Obama not being helpful in creating a bipartisan health care bill: “Basically, the president is not helping us,” Baucus said. “That’s making it difficult.” And even before the CBO testimony yesterday, Reid was upset that the Democrat National Committee had decided to run ads targeting fellow Democrat senators on health care. And in the House, three Democrats joined all the Republicans in voting against the House bill in the Ways and Means Committee.
On top of all of this, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal blasted the fiscal irresponsibility of the expensive House health care proposal in editorials today, while a USA Today article warned, “Three tax increases proposed by President Obama and House Democrats on the richest Americans could produce the highest tax rates in a quarter-century.”
The WSJ editors summed up the week’s events nicely, writing, “[T]he most remarkable quality of this health-care exercise is its reckless disregard for economic and fiscal reality. With the economy still far from a healthy recovery, and the federal fisc already nearly $2 trillion in deficit, Democrats want to ram through one of the greatest raids on private income and business in American history.”
As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said yesterday, while Americans want real health care reform, “[w]hat Americans don’t want is a government takeover masked as a reform that leaves them paying more for less.” The CBO testimony yesterday makes it clear that that’s exactly what Americans would be getting if the Democrats’ bills are passed.
With the growing objection to nationalized health care, President Obama decided to again speak out and in summary say -- let's get this done. Although he supports rushing something through, he offered little substance to address the growing concern of the public and his fellow Democrats. The Media Research Center identified:
A recently released CNN/USA Today poll confirmed that the vast majority of Americans have real concerns about current efforts to overhaul our health care system.
81 % believe health care overhaul will reduce their quality of care
79% believe “ObamaCare” will limit their choices of doctors or treatments
82% think their health insurance coverage will be reduced
84% believe “ObamaCare” will increase their health care costs
84% say a government-run system will sharply increase the federal deficit
Despite the fact that most Americans have serious reservations about “ObamaCare,” Congress is charging ahead at lightning speed to pass their government-run health care scheme before the August recess! It's obvious that they don't want us to understand the impact this so-called “reform” will have on every America's access to quality health care.
And why are our lawmakers ignoring the very people who put them in office? Health care “reform” is a Trojan Horse—an opportunity for the government to take more control over our lives! The vast majority of media outlets are in the tank with liberal lawmakers and the President, refusing to look at the facts and instead choosing to do whatever it takes to rush this 1,000+ page bill through Congress! (most of the media haven’t even read the proposals.)
Recommended References: JoinPatientsFirst.com and ObamaCareTruth.org. Tags:Defense funding, hate crimes, National Debt, nationalized health care, Obamacare, 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!
Confused about why rations are the rational choice? We at the Health Administration Bureau have created a nifty video that will address all of your concerns!
Tags:health care rationing, political satire, Sam Adams Alliance, Socialized medicine, universal healthcareTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
by William Warren: Tags:health care rationing, political cartoon, universal healthcare, US Congress, William WarrenTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
By Ken Blackwell: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently unburdened herself to the New York Times:
“Yes, the ruling [in Harris v. McRae that the federal government does not have to pay for elective abortions] surprised me. Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
Here, if ever there was one, is a smoking gun. Here is confirmation of what pro-lifers have long maintained — that liberal abortion is, in Jesse Jackson’s words, “black genocide.”Or did Justice Ginsburg simply mean the poor, in general? Are they the population we don’t want too many of?
Could she have been describing children of prisoners? Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once approved the forcible sterilization of an innocent person in Virginia saying -- infamously -- “three generations of imbeciles is enough.” Might Ginsburg be referring to with disabilities? Let her explain if that’s who she means. Exactly who does Justice Ginsburg think is a “population we don’t want too many of?” Shouldn’t she be required to give a full explanation of this despicable phrase?
Thirty-three years ago, Republican Ag Secretary Earl Butz told a dirty joke that ridiculed black Americans. He was forced to resign -- and perhaps should have been. Twenty-five years ago Republican Interior Secretary James Watt described his advisory board as “a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple.” Watt was forced to resign -- and purpose should have been. Then, Republicans joined the chorus of denunciations.
Will liberals now demand Ginsburg’s resignation? Justice Ginsburg, so far, has gotten away with a far more offensive statement. What she means is that these “populations we don’t want too many of” should be killed before they are born. That’s what she said abortion is for. She says she was surprised by the Supreme Court’s 1980 opinion in Harris v. McRae that Medicaid funds did not have to go for abortions because she seems to have thought getting rid of these undesirable populations was the whole point of Roe v. Wade.
This is not letting the cat out of the bag. Ginsburg has let a man-eating tiger out of the bag. Justcie Ginsburg’s statement is not just an offensive, racist joke. This is not just a callous reference to disabled people, this is life and death. Ginsburg lines up on the side of death.
Why has there been no uproar in the liberal press? Why no demands for Ginsburg to step down? This smoking gun has a silencer attached. Oh, she was talking about abortion. That makes it all OK.
Her office will probably clean up all the rhetorical blood on the ground and issue a clarification. They’ll probably say the Justice misspoke, that she was really expressing her concern that these “populations” would be underserved by the cutoff in Medicaid funding.
When you read the entire quote, don’t forget: There are whole segments of America that Justice Ginsburg thinks we’d be better off without. Not just criminals. They’re not the ones accessing Medicaid. Her deadly sweep includes the poor, minorities, many people in Appalachia, some people with disabilities. It’s a large and growing list that Justice Ginsburg thinks “we don’t want too many of.”
This smoking gun will only be silenced if you remain silent. Let’s speak up against the lethal logic of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and liberal abortion. When we call our highest judges “Justice,” shouldn’t we cry out when they become instead advocates for injustice? ----------------- Mr. Ken Blackwell is a conservative family values advocate. He granted the ARRA News Service Editor permission to print and use his article which first appeared in Townhall.com where he is a contributing editor. Blackwell is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and American Civil Rights Union.Tags:abortion, black genocide, genocide, Ken Blackwell, population control, pro-life, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, US Supreme CourtTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!Tags:abortion, black genocide, genocide, Ken Blackwell, population control, pro-life, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, US Supreme CourtTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Today in Washington D. C. - July 15, 2009 - Hate Crimes Amendment to DOD Funding Bill
Senate resumed consideration of the fiscal 2010 Defense authorization bill, S. 1390. The bill would authorize $679.8 billion in military funding. Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offered and filed cloture (thus no debate allowed) on an amendment to the bill to expand hate crimes laws to cover “gender, sexual orientation or gender identity.” The cloture vote could be at 1 AM Friday. Democrats are seeking for an agreement to hold the vote earlier in the day. This a hate crimes bill is being proposed to be added to (hidden within) the Pentagon's budget which would inital target the civilians and setup a conflict with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
This morning, the Judiciary Committee resumed hearings on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Today’s hearing continues the second round of questioning of the nominee. Each senator will have up to 20 minutes to question Judge Sotomayor. If senators finish their questions today, witnesses for and against Judge Sotomayor will be heard from, including Frank Ricci of the New Haven Fire Department.
On the third day of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearings on Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court, three important themes emerged. First, questions from Republican senators again exposed a series of inconsistencies between Judge Sotomayor’s record and her statements in the hearing yesterday. Second, members of the press and other observers noticed that Sotomayor was, in The Washington Post’s description, “increasingly avoiding . . . questions.” Third was the undercurrent that these hearings are also setting the stage for future judicial nominations under President Obama.
As Republican senators pressed Judge Sotomayor on a number of areas, her testimony again seemed to conflict with her prior record. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) wanted her to clarify her views on courts making policy. Sotomayor said, “We don’t make policy choices in the court.” But Sen. Coburn replied, “I’m reminded of one of your quotes that says you do make policy.” Just four years ago, Judge Sotomayor was saying at Duke University, “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.” Sen. Coburn also brought up the subject of courts using foreign law in deciding on U.S. constitutional issues. Sotomayor said, “I have actually agreed with Justice Scalia and Thomas on the point that one has to be very cautious even in using foreign law with respect to the things American law permits you to.” Yet, The New York Times has video of a speech Sotomayor gave only a few months ago where she criticized Justices Scalia and Thomas for their critiques of the use of foreign law. Senators also returned to the subject of Sotomayor’s work at the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF). Ranking Republican Jeff Sessions (R-AL) asked Sotomayor, “Isn’t that true that you were more active [in that group] than you may have suggested to Senator Graham yesterday?” She again tried to distance herself from the group’s advocacy activities. However, PRLDEF litigation committee minutes confirm that board members including Sotomayor were routinely briefed on litigation. At one point, Sotomayor chaired PRLDEF’s litigation committee and was responsible for reviewing current litigation and briefing the board on it.
Despite these inconsistencies, The Washington Post noted that Sotomayor was “increasingly avoiding [senators’] questions. By midafternoon [yesterday], even two Democrats on the panel sounded frustrated by her long, elusive replies.” ABC News’ Jan Crawford Greenberg wrote, “[I]t was striking to see Sotomayor dance around issues [and] decline to defend liberal philosophy . . . .” And the Los Angeles Times pointed out, “Sotomayor sidestepped questions on abortion, gun rights and gay rights Wednesday . . . leaving both conservative and liberal activists troubled.”
Meanwhile, The New York Times looks down the road today to examine how these hearings will affect future nominations. The Times points out, “both sides are trying to use the Judiciary Committee hearings to define the parameters of an acceptable nomination in case another seat opens up during Mr. Obama’s presidency” Critically, the NYT notes, “By forcing Judge Sotomayor to retreat from Mr. Obama’s desire for justices with ‘empathy,’ Republicans have effectively set a new standard that [his] future nominees will be pressed to meet.” Indeed, “Several legal experts said Judge Sotomayor’s testimony might make it harder for Mr. Obama to name a more liberal justice next time. She repudiated the president’s assertion that ‘what is in a judge’s heart’ should influence rulings and rejected the liberal idea that the Constitution is a ‘living’ document whose meaning evolves with society.”
Are Blue Dogs Pelosi Lab Dogs, Drawing Straws & Howling at the Moon?
by Robert Romano, Editor, ALG News Bureau: The Blue Dog Democrats claim they have 40 members who are at least hesitant to vote in favor of government-run health care. That would be enough to kill the legislation currently being proposed in the House that will effectively take away private health care options from the American people.
At the very least, the alleged Blue Dog opposition would be enough to slow the bill down, making it much more likely that it will eventually be killed. But now with breaking news that the proposal is to be unveiled today, it is hard to believe that the Blue Dogs are doing anything but howling at the moon.
The truth is, the Blue Dogs have to prove that they’re not just drawing straws to see who gets to vote against the proposal in order to cover themselves on a bill they already know is likely to pass. In everything from the trillion-dollar "stimulus" to the Waxman-Markey climate change bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not lost an important vote all year long, despite occasional Blue Dog bleating of discontent.
A large part of the reason for this is that the so-called "conservative" Democrats - the self-proclaimed Blue Dogs - always seem to come up just shy of the votes needed to block the House Majority's Big Government agenda. The fact is, the Blue Dogs look more like lap dogs, yelping in protest - while willingly heeling in submission to the House Speaker's adjustable leash.
Congressman Mike Ross (AR-CD4), chairman of the Blue Dog Health Care Task Force, stated that if the House Majority brings their bill to the floor as proposed, an “overwhelming majority” of his 52 member coalition would vote against it. In the letter sent by 40 members of the Blue Dog coalition in the House of Representatives, members demanded that any House proposal on health care be deficit-neutral, protect small businesses, and that the legislation "must be available to all Members and the public for a sufficient amount of time before we are asked to vote for it."
The letter also required that "sufficient time" would be needed for "any amendments or changes to the bill" stating that "We need time to review it and discuss it with our constituents. Too short of a review period is unacceptable and only undermines Congress' ability to pass responsible health care reform that works for all Americans." The Blue Dogs' letter hardly put a damper on Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer's plans ram the bill down the throats of the American people with its expected introduction today. House leadership had wanted to unveil the legislation last Friday, get it out of committee this week, and have it on Barack Obama's desk in time for the August recess.
So, the Blue Dog baying apparently had little effect - and now Nancy Pelosi apparently has the legislation back on schedule. But, even with the slight delay - while the Blue Dogs "negotiated" with Democrat leadership and Barack Obama eve talked about delaying the August recess - there is every reason to believe that now that an apparent compromise has been worked out that the House is simply returning to the frightening, lightning pace that it has been moving legislation into law.
So, no wonder the Blue Dogs would want to pretend they are dragging their heels at least a little on socialized medicine. "We need to slow down and do it right," said Congressman Ross. Or better yet, Mr. Ross, not at all. The fact is, nobody is going to believe that the "fiscal conservative" Blue Dog Democrats stand for anything if they cannot, in fact, stop anything. Now, more than ever, they have a high-profile chance to prove to their constituents whether their bite is as good as their bark—or whether they’ve just been dogging it all along. Tags:ALG, Arkansas, Blue Dogs, conservative democrats, Lap Dogs, Mike Ross, nationalized health care, Obamacare, Robert Romano, universal healthcareTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
by K. Ryan James: Just in case you were confused how the House version of Obamacare would affect you, here is an easy-to-read reference chart:
I'm pretty sure conservative Arkansans would not want their representatives voting for this mess. Will Messrs. Ross and Berry hear their voices? Click here for the easier-to-red easy-to-read version. Tags:Arkansas, healthcare, Obamacare, US HouseTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
$1 TRILLION for Democrats' Criminalization of America's Health Care
Yesterday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other House democrats rolled out their health care plan called "America’s Affordable Health Choices." Part of their plan would force employers to offer workers health coverage or face severe fines. Also it would forcw individuals to participate in a health insurance plan or face penalties that would generally vary with their income level. Maybe it should have been called "Criminalizing of America's Health Care" or the "Destroy Individual Choices in Health Care."
The Heritage Foundation is reporting the cost of the bill at $1.3 Trillion. The bill is 1,018 pages and comes to $1.264 billion per page. It even includes universal abortion coverage at taxpayer expense. The Congressional Budget Office, not a conservative "right minded" think-tank, reported that the health care reform plan proposed by House Democrats on Tuesday will add more than $1 trillion ($1,042 billion) to the national federal budget deficit over 10 years (2010–2019) . And, this is only their preliminary estimate of the damage.
The CBO report states that its cost estimates are not comprehensive. They are only preliminary as administrative and other costs are not yet projected. Heritage advises, "But even this analysis understates the true costs of the bill. The CBO only scores bills on a ten-year time frame, and House Democrats have designed their bill to obscure the catastrophic long-term fiscal path on which it places our country."
Heritage identifies that according to the CBO, the cost for the first four years is just $84 billion, but then it accelerates sharply. By 2019, the new entitlement is set to cost American taxpayers $254 billion. So while many Americans may look at the $1.3 trillion price tag over ten years and conclude the plan will cost $130 billion a year, in reality it will cost nearly double that. By backloading all the spending, the House is hiding the true cost of their plan from the American people. Between 2018 and 2019, federal costs for the new entitlement and the enlargement of Medicaid would increase by a combined 8.9%.
Last week CNS News reported that Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) introduced legislation calling for a $540-billiontax hike to pay for the health plan that President Barack Obama insists will be “deficit neutral.” This tax is a new surtax on households earning $350,000 and above. It starts at 1%, bumping up to 1.5% at $500,000 in income and to 5.4% at $1 million. Since many small business owners fall within this income range, this surtax will also be a huge job killer.
The Washington Post writes: [T]here is no case to be made for the House Democratic majority’s proposal to fund health-care legislation through an ad hoc income tax surcharge for top-earning households. …There is simply no way to close the gap by taxing a handful of high earners. … Pretending that “the rich” alone can fund government, let alone the kind of activist government that the president and Congress envision, is bad policy any way you look at it.
Summary: President Obama, Democrats in Congress, powerful special interests and influential lobbyists are hard at work in Washington, D.C. trying to drastically change our current health care system. They are seeking to replace it with a "nationalized health care " system where the politicians and government officials will dictate the kind of medical services you and your family receive and the rules under which you access care and coverage. Read :Patients First - Vote No on Government Run Health Careand then take action. Tags:CBO, Charlie Rangel, Democrats, health care plan, Heritage Foundation, Nancy Pelosi, nationalized health care, Patients First, reduced jobs, surtax, tax increases, US HouseTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Today in Washington D. C. - July 15, 2009 - Reid Pushes Hate Crimes onto DOD Funding Bill
DOD Funding & Hate Crimes Bill: The Senate resumed consideration of the fiscal 2010 Defense authorization bill, S. 1390. The bill would authorize $679.8 billion in military funding.
Warning: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today has filed a hate crimes amendment to the DOD Authorization Bill. He then filled the tree, which means no amendments can be offered to his amendment, and filed cloture on the amendment. He is calling for cloture to rush the bill through before any debate can take place. As identified by Americans for Limited Government this "hate crimes" bill may be one of the most dangerously bigotted pieces of class warfare legislation ever to come before Congress.
Consider the dishonesty and deception of adding this amendment to a military budget. Congress has determined homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service. Homosexual "conduct" is addressed in Article 31, UCMJ and is a crime under the code. As a result of the Clinton administration's "don't ask - don't tell," under DOD Policy, Homosexual orientation is not a bar to service entry or continued service unless manifested by homosexual conduct . This a hate crimes bill which addresses sexual orientation as a class is being proposed to be added to (hidden within) the Military's Pentagon budget which would initial target the civilians and setup a conflict with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
Judge Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings: The Judiciary Committee resumes first round of questioning the nominee - Judge Sonia Sotomayor - to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Each senator has 30 minutes to question Judge Sotomayor and 8 senators remain to question the nominee. Following the first round of questioning, the committee will go into closed session to review Judge Sotomayor’s FBI report, a routine check done for every nominee. After that, second round questioning will begin, with each senator allotted 20 minutes. If senators finish their questions at the end of the day, on Thursday, and possibly Friday, witnesses for and against Judge Sotomayor will be heard from, including Frank Ricci of the New Haven Fire Department.
Under questioning from Republican senators yesterday, Judge Sonia Sotomayor gave a number of answers that clearly conflict with her record. Among these were statements concerning her “wise Latina” remarks, her role at the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), and her decision in the Ricci case.
Sotomayor was asked early in the day to explain her speech where she said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Politico reports, “[E]ven though Sotomayor told an audience in 2001 that she was ‘not so sure’ she agreed with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s oft-stated view that a ‘wise old man’ and a ‘wise old woman’ would reach the same result in cases, Sotomayor said Tuesday that her comments actually showed her ‘agreeing with the sentiment that ... O’Connor was attempting to convey.’” The claim that she was agreeing with Justice O’Connor is the complete opposite of what Sotomayor was saying at the time.
When Sotomayor was asked about her time at PRLDEF, she tried to downplay her involvement with the group, even though The New York Times wrote in 1992, “For 12 years she was a top policy maker on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.” And The Times pointed out in May that lawyers for the group said that Sotomayor “was an involved and ardent supporter of their various legal efforts during her time with the group.” Given these reports and the various high-level positions she held with the group, it seems odd that when she was asked about the extreme positions taken on abortion rights by PRLDEF, Judge Sotomayor said, “I never reviewed those briefs.”
The case of the white and Hispanic New Haven firefighters who were denied promotion because not enough minority candidates passed a promotion test, Ricci v. DeStefano came up several times, and both Judge Sotomayor and Senate Democrats claimed repeatedly that she was just following precedent in ruling against the firefighters’ discrimination claims. However, Sotomayor failed to cite any prior precedent in her opinion and judges on the district court, Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court all agreed that “few, if any, precedents in the Court of Appeals” addressed the issues presented in Ricci.
Meanwhile, Senate Democrats repeatedly distorted statements by Judge Sotomayor and Justice Sam Alito, from when he appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In a “Fact Check” piece, the AP wrote, “In endorsing Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy did some creative rewriting of history. And he put quote marks around it. Trying to head off criticism of a controversial comment, Leahy misquoted Sotomayor's own words in kicking off the second day of her confirmation hearings.” Leahy and others also kept claiming that Alito had said he thinks of his own ethnic background when discrimination cases come up as a way of excusing Judge Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” remarks. But Alito explicitly said “It's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.”
Senator Leahy Hides "Hate Crime Bill" In Pentagon Budget
Action Alert: What do homosexual rights have to do with Pentagon spending? Everything, if you're a Democrat trying to hide an unpopular "pedophile protection" bill from the American people. On Monday, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) spoke on the floor of the U.S. Senate and argued essentially that since he couldn't get 60 honest votes to pass the "Punish Pastors, Protect Pedophiles" hate crimes S. 909 as a stand-alone bill, it should instead be attached as an amendment to S. 1390, the National Defense Authorization Act. Staffers for Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) then admitted the homosexual bill could be attached and voted on as early as Wednesday or Thursday.
The "Hate crimes" legislation represents a massive expansion of federal power that will take the nation a major step closer to investigating, prosecuting and persecuting pastors, business owners, and anyone else who publicly affirms the teaching of scripture, or any other belief system, that homosexual behavior is immoral. The Senate will likely vote on the bill this week. If approved by the Senate, and absent other controversies over defense spending issues (yes, Congress does sometimes use bill titles that refer to the actual content of the legislation), President Obama is expected to sign the bill into law. What can you do?
Next, consider the dishonesty and continual deception of adding this amendment to a military budget. Then pass this post on to your friends and your pastor.
Finally,call your two Senators today (202) 224-3121 and voice your opposition to this inappropriate amendment to an important national defense bill. Contact the local offices of your two Senators and express your opposition. [RRC & Citizen's Link]
Tags:action alert, Budget, CitizenLink, Family Research Council, FRC, Hate Crime Bill, homosexual activism, military, pastors, Tony PerkinsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
The ARRA News Service editor Dr. Bill Smith was featured byFort Hard Knox™ (FHK™) as a "Webwarrior" in their July 8th newsletter and on their website. Jenn's at Tech Tips writes:
This week’s featured WebWarrior is Bill Smith, known as the “Ozark Guru,” by some, and “Dr. Bill” by others. I’ve had the honor of knowing Dr. Bill for over a year, and never cease to be amazed by his dedication and tireless energy in working to promote, as he writes on his blog, ARRA News Service:
“…God, family & country…the rights of citizens under the US Constitution, traditional family values, Republican principles/ideals, transparent & limited government, free markets, & individual freedom.”
Dr. Bill has been a strong supporter of the Ft. Hard Knox project, and we are so thankful. His blog, the ARRA News Service blog is a state blog that has gone national, and gained in popularity because of it’s frequent, well-written, well-documented informational and perspective posts. He has effectively used feeds, a newsletter, and various social networks to extend his influence, establish and grow his web presence and SEO, and bring traffic to his site. His hard work has earned him a Google Page Rank of 5/10 (very impressive for an individual state blogger!).
In between blog posts, Dr. Bill supports over 40 Ning Networks, including Sheridan Folger’s Sovereignty Alliance, which has been a huge promoter of the recent Tea Parties, and state sovereignty movements.
The Ozark Guru is also active in promoting conservatism many other places – online and offline – far too many to list here. We at Ft. Hard Knox wish to thank him for his continued service to our country, and for his enduring support of us and so many other conservatives. We also wish to honor him for his incredible work online.
FHK™ works to assist politically-conservative bloggers, social-networkers, and citizen journalists to navigate the wild, wild world of Web 2.0 more effectively. They strive to provide a place for conservatives to write and publish, a place for collaboration and discussion, and a means to reference news and information important to conservatives online on an as-needed basis. They also provide training and consultation services for politically-active conservatives wanting to expand online, and network more effectively. Tags:Bill Smith, conservative twitters, FaceBook, Fort Hard Knox, Ozark Guru, twitterTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Today in Washington D. C. - July 14, 2009 - Senate Reviews Judge Sonia Sotomayor
The Senate will resume consideration of the fiscal 2010 Defense authorization bill, S. 1390. The bill would authorize $679.8 billion in military funding. There is a pending amendment to S.1390 Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-MI) and ranking member John McCain (R-AZ) to cut $1.75 billion for F-22 procurement.
Yesterday, the Senate voted 76-15 to invoke cloture on the nomination of Robert Groves to be census director. He was subsequently confirmed by voice vote.
At 9:30 this morning, the Judiciary Committee resumed hearings on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Today’s hearing will feature the first, and potentially second, round of questioning of the nominee. Each senator will have 30 minutes to question Judge Sotomayor. Questioning will likely continue Wednesday. On Thursday, and possibly Friday, witnesses for and against Judge Sotomayor will be heard from, including Frank Ricci of the New Haven Fire Department.
Judge Sotomayor opening remarks (The following comments were provided by a Senate Republican staff member):
In Judge Sotomayor’s opening statement yesterday, she made a number of statements about her approach to judging that seem to be contradicted by things she’s said in the past. In particular, there are concerns about her statements concerning her declaration of “fidelity to the law,” how her personal experiences will affect her rulings, and her views on impartiality.
Judge Sotomayor also said, “In the past month, many senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make the law – it is to apply the law.” Yet this seems to conflict with her famous statement in 2005 at Duke University that “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.” So is her judicial philosophy fidelity to the existing law, or that the court is the proper place to make policy?
Judge Sotomayor also sought to addresshow her personal experiences affect her work as a judge. She said, “My personal and professional experiences help me listen and understand, with the law always commanding the result in every case.” But in 2003, she said, “…My experiences will affect the facts I choose to see as a judge… I accept there will be some [differences] based on my gender and my Latina heritage.” So do her experiences “affect the facts [she] choose[s] to see” or will the law command the result?
On the topic of a judge’s impartiality, Judge Sotomayor said yesterday, “…I seek to strengthen both the rule of law and faith in the impartiality of our justice system.” However, during the 1990s, she claimed that “[T]here is ‘no objective stance but only a series of perspectives. . . .” She also said that the “aspiration to impartiality” “is just that, an aspiration . . . .” So does she believe that impartiality is simply an aspiration, or that it is fundamental to our system of justice?
As the hearings continue today, Senate Republicans will be looking for explanations on these seeming contradictions. They will also be looking at whether it’s really the case, as she said yesterday, that her career as an advocate ended when she became a judge. Her record on the Ricci case and her rulings on campaign finance reform call that into question, as Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell discussed yesterday. Sen. McConnell said, “Boiled down, my concern is this: that Judge Sotomayor’s record suggests a history of allowing her personal and political beliefs to seep into her judgments on the bench, which has repeatedly resulted in unequal treatment for those who stand before her.” Republicans will be looking for her explanations on all of this today.
by William Warren: Tags:confirmations, Constitution, judicial activism, political cartoon, SCOTUS, Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court, William WarrenTo 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 - @arra
#Christian Conservative; Retired USAF & Grad Professor. Constitution NRA ProLife schoolchoice fairtax - Editor ARRA NEWS SERVICE. THANKS FOR FOLLOWING!
To Exchange Links - Email: editor@arranewsservice.com!
Comments by contributing authors or other sources do not necessarily reflect the position the editor, other contributing authors, sources, readers, or commenters. No contributors, or editors are paid for articles, images, cartoons, etc. While having reported on and promoting principles & beleifs beliefs of other organizations, this blog/site is soley controlled and supported by the editor. This site/blog does not advertise for money or services nor does it solicit funding for its support.
Fair Use: This site/blog may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as provided for in section Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Per said section, the material on this site/blog is distributed without profit to readers to view for the expressed purpose of viewing the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. Any person/entity seeking to use copyrighted material shared on this site/blog for purposes that go beyond "fair use," must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: I hate to point fingers at conservatives. Certainly in this situation, I have no fingers pointing back -- as I definitely am not on the "cash circuit." If this revelation makes independent conservative writers feel a little used by the larger conservative groups, it is understandable. While cash is needed to advance causes; are some causes advanced more because of cash payments to their leaders?
By Ken Blackwell: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently unburdened herself to the New York Times: 
