News for social, fiscal & national security conservatives who believe in God, family & the USA. Upholding the rights granted by God & guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, traditional family values, "republican" principles / ideals, transparent & limited government, free markets, liberty & individual freedom. All content approval rests with the ARRA News Service Editor. Opinions are those of the authors. While varied positions are reported, beliefs & principles remain fixed. No revenue is generated for this site - no paid ads accepted - no payments for articles. Fair Use doctrine is posted & used. Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru] - firstname.lastname@example.org (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home Page
Saturday, September 05, 2009
Un-American and Unlawful White House Projects
Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: The Obama Administration brags that Cash for Clunkers was a success because it revived the suffering auto industry. But who really benefited from this $3 billion program? The majority of cars bought with taxpayer-paid incentives of $3,500 to $4,500 each were foreign cars. Toyota and Honda were the big winners.
For years, Americans have been pursuing the goal of self-sufficiency in oil, a natural resource essential to our standard of living. But the effort to get our government to revoke its ban on drilling for oil in American waters off of our shores has been consistently checkmated by the liberals and radical environmentalists. Now we hear that the Obama Administration is letting the U.S. Export-Import Bank lend $2 billion to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to drill for oil in the ocean near Rio de Janeiro. Why Brazil, and why not "drill, baby, drill" in U.S. waters?
We know there is an abundance of oil and natural gas right off of U.S. shores, and that drilling would produce good-paying jobs without any need for Stimulus handouts. Does the Obama Administration oppose this because it's an issue Sarah Palin can run with?
The Obama Administration doesn't like criticism, so maybe that's why it is pushing Congress to hurry up and pass the so-called Hate Crimes Act (H.R. 1913). Being squeamish about criticism is also why the Obama Administration launched an un-American project on August 4 as part of what the White House called its "rapid response" Health Insurance Reform Reality Check.
The plan was "to collect and maintain information" on people who criticized the Democrats' health care bill. Obama's friends were instructed to report to the White House email address, email@example.com, any information that they considered "fishy," which everybody understood is a code word to build an Obama political enemies list. That anti-First Amendment totalitarian project was partly withdrawn as a lawsuit was filed against it by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) and the Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE). They charged that the White House project was to "unlawfully" collect information on protected political speech.
The long list of Obama's czars, accountable to no one except Obama himself, is one of his most worrisome and expensive notions. The czars may be substitutes for the nearly half of Obama Administration's executive-branch positions that remain unfilled. The czars' salaries are paid by the U.S. taxpayers but they are not confirmed by the Senate, yet they appear to have the authority to override those who are confirmed. Lack of Senate confirmation means we must rely on Glenn Beck to discover that the Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones, is or was a communist and a self-described "rowdy black nationalist."
So far, Obama has appointed 34 czars. Just listing them is enough to scare anyone who believes in constitutional and representative government: Afghanistan Czar, AIDS Czar, Border Czar, Car Czar, Climate Czar, Copyright Czar, Cyberspace Czar, Drug Czar, Economic Czar, Education Czar, Energy Czar, Executive Pay Czar, Faith-Based Czar, Great Lakes Czar, Green Jobs Czar, Guantanamo Closure Czar, Health Reform Czar, Infotech Czar, Intelligence Czar, Iran Czar, Middle East Peace Czar, Non-Proliferation Czar, Persian Gulf/SE Asia Czar, Regulatory Czar, Science Czar, Stimulus Accountability Czar, Sudan Czar, TARP Czar, Terrorism Czar, Urban Czar, War Czar, and WMD and Terrorism Czar.
At least one Obama pal is functioning in a similar capacity without the awesome Russian title of czar. Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who publicly withdrew from the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services because of non-payment of income taxes, is providing "outside advice" to the President inside the Oval Office and to top White House officials, while continuing as a highly paid policy adviser to hospital and pharmaceutical clients of a law and lobbying firm. Daschle is not registered as a lobbyist; he identifies himself as a "resource" to government and industry. It looks like Daschle has the best of all worlds, both for influence and remuneration.
The senior Senate Democrat, Robert Byrd of West Virginia (who is third in line for the U.S. presidency after Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi), wrote Obama in February saying that these czar appointments are a power grab by the executive branch and violate both the constitutional system of checks and balances and the constitutional separation of powers. He said they are a clear attempt to evade congressional oversight. The President is entitled to have his own advisers, but these czars are directly dictating policy, and nobody really knows the extent of their powers. Whatever happened to Obama's campaign promise of transparency?
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) has introduced the Czar Accountability and Reform Act (H.R. 3226) to cut off the salaries of these czars (estimated at $172,000 plus their staffs of 10+ people). It's unlikely that the Democratic Congress will let this bill see the light of day. Further reading: President Obama's 'Czars' Obama's Czars Health Care Reform Town Hall Meetings Tags:Barack Obama, Czar, czars, Eagle Forum, hidden agenda, Obama administration, Phyllis SchlaflyTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
"Finally, I won't be the worst president in history! - Jimmy Carter"[Satire] Tags:Jimmy Carter, political humor, political satireTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
by Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media: Huffington’s far-left website, the Huffington Post, has been defending the Van Jones appointment and attacking Glenn Beck for exposing his communist background.
The Obama Administration refuses to say how communist Van Jones was hired as the "Green Jobs Czar" and who recommended him. The administration refuses to say who knew what about his communist background. The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), where Jones is employed, told me, in response to a series of Freedom of Information Act requests, that it had no documents about his hiring or communist background. But some possible explanations for the mysterious appointment are now coming into focus.
On the Thursday edition of his Fox News Channel television program, Glenn Beck noted that Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement, seemed to claim credit for the appointment during an appearance at a left-wing bloggers conference last month. Beck made the disclosure while noting evidence that Jones was a member of the 9/11 truth movement, which blames the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on U.S. Government officials. A video had previously surfaced of Jones calling Republicans "assholes."
While Fox News correspondent James Rosen provided a report on the controversy on "Special Report with Bret Baier" on Thursday night, only Accuracy in Media has noted the embarrassing fact that the parent company of Fox News published Jones' book, The Green Collar Economy, last year. The book was hailed by Harper Collins, a subsidiary of News Corporation, as "provocative, personal, and inspirational."
Harper Collins described Jones as "a man who counsels President Barack Obama on environmental policy" but its official biography of the author, like the one distributed by the White House, said nothing about his communist background. The release of the book, which was largely the work of a professional writer and editor by the name of Ariane Conrad, was clearly a significant factor in propelling Jones to national prominence and getting him his White House job.
But the Valerie Jarrett comments highlighted by Beck may be important in understanding the process by which Jones actually got his job. Jarrett is well-connected in Chicago circles. Blogger Trevor Loudon, who broke the story of Jones' Marxism,reports that Valerie Jarrett's late father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, was an associate of Communist Party USA member Frank Marshall Davis and that they worked together in Chicago. Davis, the subject of a 600-page FBI file, is the mysterious "Frank" from Obama's book, Dreams from My Father, and served as a mentor to a young Barack Obama in Hawaii.
But other evidence supports the idea that Rep. Barbara Lee, one of the most extreme members of Congress and an apologist for Fidel Castro, played a key role in the Jones appointment. Lee, perhaps best known for casting the lone vote in the House against U.S. military action to remove the Taliban regime in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, is a close friend of both Jones and President Obama.
But behind Lee and Jones is an influential network of communists known as the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism(CCDS). Lee was a secret member of the group, a spin-off of the Communist Party USA, while Jones was the keynote speaker at a 2006 CCDS fundraiser. Blogger Trevor Loudon reports that the title of the CCDS fundraiser featuring Jones was "Towards Building a Progressive Majority." He notes that many members of the Jones communist group STORM (Standing Together To Organize a Revolutionary Movement) worked closely with the CCDS.
According to a history of STORM, several members of the group traveled to Cuba in 1999 as part of the notorious Venceremos Brigade. "As STORM seldom exceeded 20 members, it is very likely that Van Jones, as a leader of the organization, was on that, or another, Cuba trip," Loudon writes.
It is significant that Lee issued the following statement after Jones' appointment was announced:
"I am so very pleased that Van Jones, a constituent, friend and strong advocate for green jobs has been chosen to be a special advisor to the White House Council on Economic Quality.
"Van has been at the forefront of the green jobs movement and has shown us all the way to utilize green collar jobs as a pathway out of poverty. Were it not for Van, we would not have been able to establish the Green Job Corps in Oakland which provides local Oakland residents with job training, support, and work experience so that they can independently pursue careers in the new energy economy."
"His expertise and vision in the area of green jobs will be a wonderful addition to the White House CEQ."
An article on the website of the Life Science Foundation discloses that "Working with his colleagues and California Congress woman Barbara Lee, [Van] Jones was able to get the City of Oakland to adopt the Ella Baker Center's Green Jobs Corps."
This makes perfect sense, of course. Jones worked in Oakland, founded the Ella Baker Center in Oakland, and Lee represents Oakland. On November 11, 2008, after Obama's election, Jones and Lee appeared together at an event in Oakland, along with actor Danny Glover. Stephen Mufson of the Washington Post attended the event and wrotea puff-piece about it.
"We want the federal government to buy into what is taking place here in Oakland," Lee was quoted by one columnistas saying. "Once the federal government buys in, I believe our nation can see what can be done. We must go green." These sounds like the words of someone who wanted to see Jones implement on the national level what he had done, with Lee's support, in Oakland.
Nicole Y. Williams, communications director for Rep. Lee, did not return a telephone call seeking comment on Lee's possible role in arranging the Jones appointment. However, in her book, Renegade for Peace & Justice, Lee reveals that she served as an Obama presidential campaign adviser because "I liked his message of fundamental change, which was as close to a revolutionary message as we have had in decades." Through her position as Obama's Western Regional co-chair during the campaign, "I participated in rallies, phone banking, and behind-the-scenes advising on issues and politics."
In her book, she declares her support for Communist Cuba, saying, "On many occasions I have taken people to Cuba to educate them about the realities of Cuban society so that they can make judgments for themselves whether the negative propaganda about Cuba that we consume in the United States is justified." She attacks the Bush Administration for deposing Jean Bertrand Aristide, the Marxist proponent of "Liberation Theology" who once ruled Haiti.
Lee freely admits involvement in the "progressive" Black Panther Party, a group that regularly denounced police officers as "pigs," and names one of the other members of the group as Angela Davis, "the noted African American member of the Communist Party." Lee quotes a Panther official as denying that the Panther program was based on the Communist Manifesto but admits that she was called "Comrade Barbara."
The CCDS connection is something that Lee and Van Jones have in common. Herbert Romerstein, a former professional staff member of the House Intelligence Committee, explains, "In 1992, while a member of the California State Assembly, Barbara Lee was elected to the National Coordinating Committee of the Committees of Correspondence. Most, but not all, of the members of this group had been active in the Communist Party USA." However, exposure of Lee's role in the controversial pro-communist group led one of the members to propose a "non-public" status for those wishing to be active behind-the-scenes.
While Lee was apparently embarrassed by the public exposure of her involvement with the Communist Party spin-off group, Jones spoke to the CCDS openly in 2006, prompting blogger Trevor Loudon to comment, "Maybe Jones didn't realize he was addressing a Marxist-Leninist function? Maybe he thought it was a Rotary or PTA group?"
After getting to the bottom of how Jones got his White House job, Glenn Beck should turn his attention to how Jones got his book published by Harper Collins, a subsidiary of the same company, News Corporation, which owns the Fox News Channel and employs Beck. Harper Collins also published the book, Underground: My Life With SDS and the Weathermen, by former communist terrorist Mark Rudd, who said he was paid $50,000 as an advance.
As we noted in our previous column, the Van Jones book includes endorsements from Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, TV host Tavis Smiley, former Senator Tom Daschle, Arianna Huffington, and Larry Brilliant of Google. Huffington's far-left website, the Huffington Post, has been defending the Van Jones appointment and attacking Glenn Beck for exposing his communist background. Tags:Accuracy in Media, AIM, Barbara Lee, Cliff Kincaid, communist, environmental polircy, Fox News, Glenn Beck, green czar, Huffington Post, Obama administration, Van JonesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
The Road To Government-Run Health Care - Snyder Humbled
Heritage Foundation, Morning Bell: llustrating how proponents of Obamacare “lost the month of August,” Politico notes that while Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR) claimed health care would be transformed “under President Obama’s leadership” in late July, by mid-August he had been humbled, telling a 1,000 person townhall: “I’ve never been a big fan of this public option.” How are Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC) planning on bringing the likes of Rep. Snyder back in line? Again from Politico:
Leaders say their strategy is to convince members that nothing is set in stone and that they are more than open to negotiations. And they’re engaging in a softer sell, prioritizing health insurance reforms while pitching the public option as something that’s way, way down the road.
The American people have done a tremendous job this August educating their elected leaders on the fact that they have no desire for government-run health care. And they have every right to believe that President Obama’s “public option” will achieve exactly that. . . . The bottom line is that a public plan will grant the federal government unprecedented power to constantly tinker with the healthcare sector in ways that will make one sixth of our entire economy completely dependent on decisions made in Washington, DC. This is not the way free societies operate. . . . [Full Story] Tags:Arkansas, health care, Heritage Foundation, Morning Bell, public option, Vic SnyderTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Unemployment Hits 9.7%; 3.1 Million Jobs Lost Since Stimulus Bill
Politico reports today, “August may be over, but it’s causing one last headache for the Obama administration as the jobless rate jumped up to 9.7%, the highest point yet this recession and higher than what economists expected from the monthly report. . . . The unemployment rate is now the highest since June 1983, and most economists believe it will eventually top 10%.”
Yesterday, Biden spoke at the Brookings Institution, touting the $787 billion stimulus bill.Biden said, “The Recovery Act has created or saved between 500,000 and 750,000 jobs. Matter of fact: some notable economists suggest the number is as high as a million.” Unfortunately, the reality is that 3.1 million jobs have been lost since February. In a fact check piece, the AP writes Biden’s “glowing assessment overlooks many of the program’s problems, including delays in releasing money, questionable spending priorities and project picks that are under investigation.”
The reality of the economic situation hasn’t reflected well on the Obama administration’s predictions about the stimulus bill. But even worse is their predictions from February when they were trying to sell the stimulus bill to Congress. At the time, President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and a whole host of White House advisors claimed the bill would create 3 to 4 million jobs. Yet, the facts have proven to be far different; since then, 3.1 million jobs have been lost.
Tags:American jobs, economic stimulus, jobs, Joe Biden, unemploymentTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
By Ellen Sauerbrey, Americans for Limited Government: If Mark Lloyd has his way, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Marr and Ron Smith may have to broadcast from an offshore Island. Mark Lloyd is the newly appointed Chief Diversity Officer for the Federal Communications Commission. His writings make it clear that he wants to tax and regulate “right wing” radio out of existence.
Liberals understand that talk radio is the major source of conservative grassroots networking and information sharing. It encourages and empowers individuals to have a voice and to use it. When the Congressional switchboards light up it is often because talk radio has admonished their listeners to “call your member of Congress and tell them how you feel”.
With virtually all of the major network and print media parroting the same liberal message, talk radio remains the only powerful obstacle to the passage of the leftist agenda. Case in point, the effort to jam a dismantling of the U.S. health delivery system through, unread and undiscussed. The strategy has foundered because Rush, Hannity, and a litany of local hosts have revealed on a daily basis new outrageous provisions found buried in the House health care bill. They were equally vocal about Cap and Trade and the budget busting deficits. Vermont’s Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders has complained that talk radio is drowning out their message.
The left knows that a frontal assault on talk radio, re-implementing the Fairness Doctrine would set off a firestorm in the United States. So while there are some members of Congress who are calling for it to be revived, the President said during his campaign that he is not in favor of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.
But there is more than one way to skin a cat. The Administration has created a diversity officer position that has never before existed at the FCC and appointed Mark Lloyd, whose stated goals would tax and regulate conservative and Christian radio into bankruptcy and give the proceeds to public radio.
As a senior fellow of the Soros funded Center for American Progress, Lloyd co-authored a report titled “The structural imbalance of political talk radio”. The conclusion is that there is too much conservative programming and not enough liberal talk. It matters not to the authors that radio station owners air Rush and Hannity and Mark Levin because that’s what the public supports and want to listen to, or that Air America could not attract enough listeners to succeed in the marketplace. The report suggests remedies to fix the “imbalance” that would put local and national caps on commercial radio station ownership and ensure greater “accountability” over radio licensing.
Most astonishingly, Mark Lloyd is calling for each private radio station every year to pay a fee (tax) for their broadcast license, equal to their gross operating budget, with the monies going to the liberal public stations, with whom they compete for listeners. This is a clear formula for driving private radio out of business. And just in case any survived, Lloyd would regulate much of the programming on these stations to make sure they focused on “diverse views” and government activities.
He calls for national and local public stations to be funded at levels above that of commercial broadcasters. He further argues that funding for public radio should not come from congressional appropriations and that sponsorship should be prohibited for all public broadcasters.
It is hard to imagine that even this administration could adopt such whacky ideas but it not hard to imagine a left leaning FCC writing rules that set standards for more “local” programming and meeting diversity needs. The Senate has already passed a bill introduced by Senator Dick Durban that requires local radio stations to set up community advisory boards, including “under-served groups”. These groups would be involved in the license renewal process. Being confronted by Acorn or the Reverend Al Sharpton at a hearing contesting their license renewal would have a chilling effect on decisions made by station owners regarding conservative programming.
Michael Copps, an FCC commissioner has expressed concern that deregulation of media ownership has undermined democracy and has called for re-examining licensing regulations to make them “more reflective” of public interests.
People equal policy. In appointing a radical “Diversity Czar”, the Obama administration has placed a leftist into a position to promote policy that will squelch conservative speech.
--------- Ellen Sauerbrey former head of the United States Department of State's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration along with a guest writer for Liberty Features Syndicate. Tags:ALG, Americans for Limited Government, Car Czar, diversity, Ellen Sauerbrey, FCC, Mark Lloyd, Rush Limbaugh, socialism, talk radioTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
ABC's John Stossel Destroys - Pulverizes - Crushes Obama's anti-American 'Health Care' Plan. Debbie Pelley referred who identified this video asks, "Is this program responsible for the last recent 6% drop in approval of Obama's health care plans. It is down to 40% now."
Tags:ABC, Barack Obama, Canada, Europe, health care, John Stossel, nationalized health careTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
1. The public "option." Both proposals would create a government-run insurance plan which proponents claim would foster honest competition among private insurers. But how can there be fair competition when one of the players -- Washington -- is both writing the rules and playing the game? What's more, this scheme could lead millions of Americans to lose their private health insurance.
2. Centralized regulation. Both the House and Senate bills would result in sweeping and complex federal regulation of health insurance. This would take oversight away from states and concentrate it in Washington -- and this oversight is best left at the state level.
3. Greater dependency on government. Both bills would expand existing government health care programs and introduce massive new taxpayer-funded subsidies to buy health insurance. This would leave millions of Americans dependent on government for their health care.
4. Employer mandate. The plans would force employers to provide coverage for all employees or face a massive tax. These "play-or-pay" mandates will raise prices, stifle economic growth and particularly hurt low-wage earners.
5. Individual mandate. Both bills require that all Americans purchase health insurance. Those without coverage or whose plans don't meet the new federal standards would face tax penalties. Special interests are sure to "lobby intensively to expand the legally mandated health benefits, medical treatments and procedures, and drugs that all Americans must buy under penalty of law."
Taken together or individually, these flaws would inflict serious damage on an industry that represents one-sixth of our nation's economy. . . . [Full Story] Tags:health care, Heritage Foundation, ObamacareTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
When all else fails, play the race card. Is this a New York thing when it comes to politicians…?
When Charlie Rangel’s ethics issues start to close in on him, just how long do you think it will take for the congressman to blame white people for his numerous tax evasions and violations? Bob Parks at Black and Right See also: Charlie Rangel (D, NY) gave money to Democrats on Ethics Committee Tags:Arkansas Faith and Ethics Council, Black and Right, Bob Parks, Charlie Rangel, New York, race cardTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Obama Tries To Control Health Care Message - Americans Not Buying It
by Sam Adams MMIV:The Washington Post writes today, “After spending weeks on the defensive in the fight over his top legislative priority, President Obama will attempt to regain the initiative in the health-care debate with an address to a joint session of Congress next Wednesday night. . . . The White House is scrambling to take control of the health-care debate after watching from the sidelines as various Democratic proposals were assailed in town hall meetings during Congress’s summer recess.” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) provided a bit of understatement, admitting, “Clearly, over the August break we lost some momentum.”
As The Wall Street Journal explains, “Two overarching problems have bedeviled the Democrats’ health-care push. One is the difficulty of persuading people who already have health insurance that the plan offers something for them. Polls suggest many Americans are happy with the coverage they have. The other is the cost, estimated at $1 trillion over a decade.”
The White House can certainly read the polls indicating Americans’ skepticism of Democrats’ health reform proposals, making it obvious why Obama feels he needs to attempt to take control of the debate. But does the administration really understand how much of a problem they have? A CNN poll released Tuesday found that a majority, 53%, now disapprove of the president’s handling of health care policy while 44% approve; in March, his approval on health care policy was 57%-41%. Even worse for President Obama’s expensive proposals, 63% disapprove of his handling of the deficit, compared to March where 52% approved.
CBS News released its own poll on Tuesday, finding that Americans disapprove of Obama’s handling of health care by 47%-40%, a 9 point increase since July. A majority believe “the health care reforms under consideration in Congress” will “mostly hurt” the middle class (43%) or have no effect (21%). Twice as many (46%) believe it will hurt small business than believe it will help them (23%). By two to one, Americans believe the proposals will increase their health care costs and by almost three to one, they believe the proposals will make it harder to see their doctor. In CBS’ June poll, a majority (50%) believed government would do a better job of providing health insurance than private companies; now, a plurality (47%) thinks government would do a worse job and only about a third (36%) believe government will do a better job.
A poll from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released this week found that a majority of Americans, 53%, have now heard “a lot” about “the bills in Congress to overhaul the health care system” while another 40% have hard “a little.” So it seems the more people learn about the proposals from President Obama and Democrats, the less they think they’re a good idea. That might suggest to the president that the problem lies more with the policies than the pitches. As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters on a conference call yesterday, “I don’t think the problem is messaging, I think the problem is the substance. The problem is what he’s trying to sell. I think there’s been serious blowback and a negative reaction across the country to what they are proposing.” Tags:Barack Obama, CBS, CNN, health care, Pew Research, polling, pollsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families: Barack Obama will deliver a nation-wide address to students this coming Tuesday, September 8th. This will be the first day of classes for many children across the country. The White House plans to broadcast the address live from its website. Principals were notified of the plan in a letter addressed to them by Education Secretary Arne Duncan.
The White House claims that Obama will “challenge students to work hard, set educational goals and take responsibility for their learning.” He will also say that it is a “shared responsibility” among parents, students, and educators to make the learning experience as successful as possible. That may seem harmless enough, but we have learned time and again that the Obama Administration usually has a hidden agenda.
The Department of Education has offered educators “classroom activities” to go along with Obama’s message. Younger students in grades K-6 are encouraged to learn about the background of the President of the United States by reading books about former presidents and Obama. For students in grades 7-12 teachers are urged to utilize quotes from Obama’s speeches regarding education so that the students can understand the president’s message. Some of the questions they should ask themselves include: “How will President Obama inspire us? How will he challenge us? And why did he want to speak to us today?”
Once again, the Obama Administration is abusing its power, this time by injecting politics into the classroom. Tuesday may be a good day to sit in on your child’s classes. And be certain to monitor any homework assignments for other pro-Obama propaganda. Tags:Barack Obama, Gary Bauer, indoctrination, political cartoon, school, William WarrenTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Sen. Lincoln Urged to Oppose the Obamacare Public Option
In a press release today, Arkansas Republican U.S. States Senate candidate Col. Conrad Reynolds (US Army, Ret.) urged Sen. Lincoln to 'maintain' her latest position and called on both Arkansas Senators Pryor and Lincoln to oppose using the "reconciliation trick." [Note: Reconciliation is used for budget legislation to prevent delay by a filibuster. It is not appropriate for new legislation. Using this practice prevents amendments on the floor and avoids the 60 vote rule in the Senate to pass new legislation, would indeed be a "trick" by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).]
Reynolds issued the following statement after learning of Sen. Blanche Lincoln's latest position on health care reform and the public option:
"I am pleased Sen. Lincoln has joined me in opposing the public option. After witnessing her changing opinions on the subject over the last several weeks, I urge her to maintain today's position as she prepares to return to Washington and not worry about the reaction of liberal pressure groups who do not reflect the conservative values of Arkansans."
 "U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln said today she opposes a public health insurance option because it would be too expensive ... I would not support a solely government-funded public option," John Lyon, "Lincoln: Public option too expensive," Arkansas News Bureau, 9/1/2009
 "Her position on a new government health plan for the uninsured has been difficult to pin down. She wrote in an op-ed column on July 9 that insurance
options should include 'a quality, affordable public plan or nonprofit plan
that can accomplish the same goals.' A month later, in an interview with a
blogger, she said she 'certainly would not support a public government-funded plan' because it was 'not a competitive choice.' Two days later, she said in an interview that she was 'open to a public plan as long as it's competitive,' meaning it could compete for market share without government financial support," Kevin Sack, "In Arkansas, a Democrat Navigates Health Fight," The New York Times, 8/16/2009
-------------- Conrad Reynolds is a retired Colonel in the United States Army. He was born in Little Rock and graduated in 1978 from Batesville High School. He has a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Central Arkansas and a MBA from Touro University. Reynolds joined the Army Reserves in 1979 and was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in 1982. As a career intelligence officer, he commanded special intelligence units in the war zones of Afghanistan, Iraq and Bosnia. Reynolds retired from the Army on January 1, 2009. Reynolds currently owns a consulting business in Conway and continues contributing to our nation's defense as an independent contractor with the Department of Defense. He is married with three children and is a member of the Second Baptist Church of Conway. For more information, please visit www.VoteConrad.com. Tags:Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln, Conrad Reynolds, Obamacare, public optionTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
by Sam Adams MMIV: Though it’s been only two weeks since the last story describing a White House shift in messaging in health care, it’s apparently time for yet another, according to The Wall Street Journal: “A top White House adviser said he doubted that two Senate Republicans at the center of health-care talks are negotiating seriously, as Democrats adopted a more confrontational tone accusing Republicans of blocking change.”
For those keeping track, the shift to “adopt[ing] a more confrontational tone” is at least the eighth time in the last month there have been reports about the White House retooling the message or reframing the debate on health care. A couple weeks ago, The New York Times reported, “President Obama sought Wednesday to reframe the health care debate as ‘a core ethical and moral obligation,’ imploring a coalition of religious leaders to help promote the plan to lower costs and expand insurance coverage for all Americans.” A day before that, The Washington Post noted that “the main message on health care shifted from cost containment to attacking insurance companies.” On August 11th, the AP reported, “President Barack Obama is switching his message on his overhaul of the nation’s health care system, readying a fresh pitch designed for those who already have insurance.” The same day, another AP story said, “Retooling his message amid sliding support, Obama poked at critics who he said were trying to ‘scare the heck out of folks.’” A day before those reports, The Huffington Post noted, “The administration also sought to reframe the debate on eight core principles for ‘health insurance consumer protections,’ which aides said resonated much better than the ‘health care reform’ push it has made to this point.” At the end of July, the AP wrote, “Barack Obama introduced a retooled message asserting his plan would protect Americans and limit insurers’ power.” And a week before that, a Politico story on Obama’s last primetime press conference noted “He sought to reframe his plans as a matter of improving the lives of most Americans . . ."
Certainly, it’s easy to understand why the Obama administration feels it’s necessary to keep shifting its messaging on health care. Politico reports today, “Aides to President Barack Obama are putting the final touches on a new strategy to help Democrats recover from a brutal August recess by specifying what Obama wants to see in a compromise health care deal and directly confronting other trouble spots . . . .” The Washington Post’sDan Balz has a piece titled, “After a Bruising August, Time for Obama Team to Regroup.”
But even with the constant regrouping, President Obama and Democrats don’t seem to be convincing a skeptical public. A McClatchy/Ipsos poll finds “continuing opposition to Democratic health care proposals — 45 percent opposed and 40 percent supporting — and served as another reminder to Obama that he needs to find a way to reframe the debate if he's to win public and congressional support for a health care overhaul." Is reframing the debate yet again really what President Obama needs to do though? A better idea might be to rethink the policy, to drop the issue or to "start over.” [Sam Adams MMIV is a pen name for an un-named beltway source.] Tags:health care, Obamacare, The White HouseTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families: The intolerance of the liberal Democrats was on full display recently when Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid accused fellow citizens of being “immoral,” “un-American” and “evil mongers” for opposing government-run healthcare. Far from isolated incidents, they were just more evidence of the growing totalitarian impulse of the Left to silence dissent and smear those with policy differences. Here are two more disturbing examples ideological extremism that should concern all Americans who cherish liberty.
President Obama recently appointed Mark Lloyd to be the “diversity czar” at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which regulates the nation’s broadcast airwaves. Lloyd has expressed some outrageous views regarding the First Amendment and the concept of free speech and a free press. For example, Lloyd wrote this in 2006:“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies. [T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.”Lloyd made this statement in a book that essentially championed government-controlled media. Shocking as these views may be, they do help to explain his admiration for the anti-American dictator Hugo Chavez. Just last year, Lloyd said this:“In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela. The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled - worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government - worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country. And we’ve had complaints about this ever since.”Lloyd is not alone in his admiration of left-wing Latin American dictators. Left-coast liberal Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA) recently said this:“It was just mentioned to me by our esteemed speaker, ‘Did anyone say anything about the Cuban health system?’ And lemme tell ya, before you say, ‘Oh, it’s a commu–,’ you need to go down there and see what Fidel Castro put in place. And I want you to know, now, you can think whatever you want to about Fidel Castro, but he was one of the brightest leaders I have ever met. And you know, the Cuban revolution that kicked out the wealthy, Che Guevara did that, and then, after they took over, they went out among the population to find someone who could lead this new nation, and they found… an attorney by the name of Fidel Castro…”Having talked to political prisoners of Castro’s Cuba, I am repulsed by these remarks. I find it very troubling that this anti-American, anti-capitalist ideology has a voice and a vote in the Congress of the United States, and finds refuge in today’s Democrat Party.
America and our free market economy have done more to free and feed more people around the world any other nation or economic system. While deluded Democrats sing Castro’s praises, Cubans die trying to reach our shores. Those who don’t make it die in his jails for trying. By the way, the country that loony liberals love so much is also running out oftoilet paper. Yet we’re supposed to adopt their health care system! Tags:Campaign for Working Families, Car Czar, diversity, FCC, Gary Bauer, intolerant, leftist, looney liberals, Mark LloydTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
by Ken Blackwell, Contributing Author: Many of us remember the Sherlock Holmes story we read in high school. A famous racehorse is stolen from a barn at night. The barn was guarded by a dog. Scotland Yard, England's famous police headquarters, sends Inspector Gregory to investigate, but Sherlock Holmes was on the case.
Inspector Gregory: "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?" Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time." Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time." Holmes: "That was the curious incident." The dog didn't bark. That is what led Sherlock Holmes to conclude that the dog knew the perpetrator.
Now, we have a great national debate on the government takeover of health care. And one of the great questions in that debate concerns whether taxpayers will have to pay for killing unborn children. Or, as the liberals say: abortion services must be fully covered. The Obama administration is going to great pains to deny that abortion is in their health care plan. The President himself says he prefers not to be "distracted" by this question.
As a candidate, Barack Obama went before Planned Parenthood. This evil enterprise annually kills 350,000 unborn children in the U.S. Its international arm gives powerful support to killing more than 50 million unborn children around the world every year. In seeking Planned Parenthood's support, candidate Obama pledged that "the first thing" he would do is to sign what sponsors call the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). This misnamed legislation is often deceptively described as "codifying Roe v. Wade." That's like saying the Germans overran Luxembourg in World War II. They did that -- but so very much more.
FOCA would strike down every protective bill ever passed in Congress or in the states, every bill that even modestly protects unborn human life. Partial-birth abortion would be de-criminalized. Waiting periods would be struck down. Parental notice would be banned. Funding restrictions would be overturned. Informed consent laws, laws mandating that young mothers be offered -- not forced -- the opportunity to see their unborn child on ultra-sound--all these good, wise, and humane laws would be swept away by FOCA.
Well, we know that as President, Obama has not yet signed FOCA. Congressional liberals have not even pressed hard to pass FOCA. Instead, the President is giving his best effort to pass ObamaCare, which he assures us does not require taxpayers to support abortion-on-demand.
Back to the dog that didn't bark. So how come Planned Parenthood isn't barking? Why is it that the entire kennel of pro-abortion groups and abortion traffickers are not baying, yelping, yipping, and growling? Hasn't President Obama obviously failed to deliver on signing FOCA as "the first thing?" They are quiet. Instead, they all wag their tails for ObamaCare.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins weeks ago challenged Planned Parenthood's boss -- Cecile Richards -- to debate. My friend Tony does not ask Richards to debate the entirety of ObamaCare, just the one point: Is abortion funding in there or not? So far, Richards has limited herself to howling for passage of the bill. She won't come out and debate.
Question: Why would Richards and Planned Parenthood support any health care takeover if it did not include abortion-on-demand? Don't they really believe that, as Hillary told a congressional committee earlier this year, that reproductive health care includes "abortion services?"
We can look to the actions so far of congressional committees. Eleven times, pro-life amendments were offered in committee, amendments that would have specifically ruled out abortion funding. Eleven times these amendments were voted down. Pro-life Democrats joined Republicans in voting for these protective amendments. But they could not prevail.
Yet we still have some religious writers and leaders who protest that unless they see the word abortion in the bill, they won't believe it's covered. They won't see appendectomy, hysterectomy, or colonoscopy in the bill, either. Do these religious doubters doubt that those procedures are fully covered?
Too many writers and commentators have arrived on scene like a new inspector from Scotland Yard. It's as if they've never heard of these matters before. We have 33 years of experience fighting to keep American taxpayers from being forced to pay for abortion. We have learned under which shell they hide the marble. Back to the barn. We know the reason the pro-abortion kennel is quiet is that if they get ObamaCare, they will get FOCA and everything else they want. And that's why we must continue to bark. ----------------- Mr. Ken Blackwell is a conservative family values advocate. He submitted this article to the ARRA News Service Editor which appeared first in the American Thinker. Blackwell is a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission and is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and American Civil Rights Union.Tags:abortion, Cecile Richards, Ken Blackwell, Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, pro-life, Tony PerkinsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Late last month, John Allison indicated President Obama might help himself by backing off the health care debate. That was back when he was at the forefront, staging town hall meetings with planted questions from children of supporters. It was a little over a month after his ABC infomercial from the White House. It was around the time Democratic leaders in Congress were calling those of us who opposed the bill un-American and just before the White House asked supporters to turn in Obamacare opponents.
Obama's poll numbers showed a slight uptick when his administration floated a trial balloon for health care reform without a public option, but a threatened mutiny from his far left base quickly shot that down. He then went back to a full court press, insisting there would be a public option and introducing the idea of using the "nuclear option" (a procedural technique for getting around the need for 60 votes in the US Senate) for the first time. Basically he went from trying to sell his plan to telling Americans if they didn't buy it, he'd cram it down their throats.
No, the President didn't drop back and punt. In fact, he didn't drop back at all until last week when he took his family on a millionaire's retreat on posh Martha's Vineyard. With Obama in search of a "news free week," health care almost dropped from the headlines. But it may have been too late.
Today's, Rasmussen's Daily Presidential Tracking Poll showed Obama with his lowest overall approval rating among likely voters since taking office. With only 45% supporting the President and 53% disapproving of the job he's done thus far, one might infer the quiet period came too late. Americans have now recognized this man will lie without conscience to get what he wants.
A majority of likely voters have finally realized Obama's change wasn't what they had in mind last November. Tags:America You Asked for It, Barack Obama, health care, John Allison, Obamacare, polling, Rasmussen ReportsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Economists Echo Public Skepticism Of Obama On Spending, Health Care
by Sam Adams MMIV:The AP reports today that a new survey of business economists finds they’re “skeptical of the government's ability to rein in spending, curb greenhouse gases or overhaul health care . . . .” According to the survey, economists believe that inflation will be higher than the Federal Reserve’s targets in the future. The AP writes, “The prediction reflects economists' concerns about the federal government's ability to reverse the steps it has taken to stimulate growth. A large majority doubt federal lawmakers can bring down spending. Three quarters said they want a more restrictive fiscal policy over the next two years — only 28% expect it to happen.”
Reuters notes, “Most economists in the National Association for Business Economics (NABE) semi-annual poll were concerned about the outlook for the U.S. government budget. Also, they doubted health-care reforms proposed by the Obama administration would lower costs while increasing access and maintaining quality.”
Indeed, according to the AP report, “None of the major health care proposals being debated in Congress drew much support from the economists surveyed. Fewer than half believe most of the proposals would bring overall improvements in health care, give more Americans access to it or drive down costs. Forty-seven percent expect the reforms would ‘decrease quality and increase costs.’”
It seems economists are just as disappointed with the Obama administration’s performance on spending and health care as the public at large. In the recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, Americans disapproved of the president’s handling of health care by 50%-46% and disapproved of his handling of the deficit by 53%-41%. When Congress returns from recess, Democrats might want to reconsider the wisdom of pushing a health care reform plan that will only exacerbate the government’s fiscal problems while doing little to improve health care in the country. [Sam Adams MMIV is a pen name for an un-named beltway source.] Tags:health care, nationalized health care, skepticismTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
ObamaCare's Contradictions & In Government We Trust?
The following Wall Street Journal videos have some eye openers: ObamaCare's Contradictions
Double Talk Shrinking Reform Plan. Journal Editorial Report on the FOX News Channel.
In Government We Trust?
Daniel Henninger at Wall Street Journal discusses the American people's lack of trust in government.
Tags:big government, Daniel Henninger, nationalized banking, Obamacare, Stuart Varney, videos, Wall Street JournalTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Watch this video by Tim Hawkins. You will be smiling and jumping while at the same time agreeing on what the government is doing to you (us). Thank you, Tom Hawkins!
Tags:comedy, government, government waste, health care, parody, socialism, taxes, Tim Hawkins, videoTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
by Mark Steyn: We are enjoined not to speak ill of the dead. But, when an entire nation — or, at any rate, its “mainstream” media culture — declines to speak the truth about the dead, we are certainly entitled to speak ill of such false eulogists. In its coverage of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s passing, America’s TV networks are creepily reminiscent of those plays Sam Shepard used to write about some dysfunctional inbred hardscrabble Appalachian household where there’s a baby buried in the backyard but everyone agreed years ago never to mention it.
In this case, the unmentionable corpse is Mary Jo Kopechne, 1940–1969. If you have to bring up the, ah, circumstances of that year of decease, keep it general, keep it vague. As Kennedy flack Ted Sorensen put it in Time magazine: “Both a plane crash in Massachusetts in 1964 and the ugly automobile accident on Chappaquiddick Island in 1969 almost cost him his life.”
That’s the way to do it! An “accident,” “ugly” in some unspecified way, just happened to happen — and only to him, nobody else. Ted’s the star, and there’s no room to namecheck the bit players. What befell him was . . . a thing, a place. As Joan Vennochi wrote in the Boston Globe: “Like all figures in history — and like those in the Bible, for that matter — Kennedy came with flaws. Moses had a temper. Peter betrayed Jesus. Kennedy had Chappaquiddick, a moment of tremendous moral collapse.”
Actually, Peter denied Jesus, rather than “betrayed” him, but close enough for Catholic-lite Massachusetts. And if Moses having a temper never led him to leave some gal at the bottom of the Red Sea, well, let’s face it, he doesn’t have Ted’s tremendous legislative legacy, does he? Perhaps it’s kinder simply to airbrush out of the record the name of the unfortunate complicating factor on the receiving end of that moment of “tremendous moral collapse.” When Kennedy cheerleaders do get around to mentioning her, it’s usually to add insult to fatal injury. As Teddy’s biographer Adam Clymer wrote, Edward Kennedy’s “achievements as a senator have towered over his time, changing the lives of far more Americans than remember the name Mary Jo Kopechne.”
You can’t make an omelette without breaking chicks, right? I don’t know how many lives the senator changed — he certainly changed Mary Jo’s — but you’re struck less by the precise arithmetic than by the basic equation: How many changed lives justify leaving a human being struggling for breath for up to five hours pressed up against the window in a small, shrinking air pocket in Teddy’s Oldsmobile? If the senator had managed to change the lives of even more Americans, would it have been okay to leave a couple more broads down there? Hey, why not? At the Huffington Post, Melissa Lafsky mused on what Mary Jo “would have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history . . . Who knows — maybe she’d feel it was worth it.” What true-believing liberal lass wouldn’t be honored to be dispatched by that death panel?
We are all flawed, and most of us are weak, and in hellish moments, at a split-second’s notice, confronting the choice that will define us ever after, many of us will fail the test. Perhaps Mary Jo could have been saved; perhaps she would have died anyway. What is true is that Edward Kennedy made her death a certainty. . . .
Ted Kennedy went a different route. He got kitted out with a neck brace and went on TV and announced the invention of the “Kennedy curse,” a concept that yoked him to his murdered brothers as a fellow victim — and not, as Mary Jo perhaps realized in those final hours, the perpetrator. He dared us to call his bluff, and, when we didn’t, he made all of us complicit in what he’d done. We are all prey to human frailty, but few of us get to inflict ours on an entire nation.
His defenders would argue that he redeemed himself with his “progressive” agenda, up to and including health-care “reform.” It was an odd kind of “redemption”: In a cooing paean to the senator on a cringe-makingly obsequious edition of NPR’s Diane Rehm Show, Edward Klein of Newsweek fondly recalled that one of Ted’s “favorite topics of humor was, indeed, Chappaquiddick itself. He would ask people, ‘Have you heard any new jokes about Chappaquiddick?’” . . .
When a man is capable of what Ted Kennedy did that night in 1969 and in the weeks afterwards, what else is he capable of? An NPR listener said the senator’s passing marked “the end of civility in the U.S. Congress.” Yes, indeed. Who among us does not mourn the lost “civility” of the 1987 Supreme Court hearings? Considering the nomination of Judge Bork, Ted Kennedy rose on the Senate floor and announced that “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit down at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution . . . ”
Whoa! “Liberals” (in the debased contemporary American sense of the term) would have reason to find Borkian jurisprudence uncongenial, but to suggest the judge and former solicitor-general favored re-segregation of lunch counters is a slander not merely vile but so preposterous that, like his explanation for Chappaquiddick, only a Kennedy could get away with it. If you had to identify a single speech that marked “the end of civility” in American politics, that’s a shoo-in.
The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775 - they've had 234 years to get it right; it is broke, and even though heavily subsidized, it can't compete with private sector FedEx and UPS services.
Social Security was established in 1935 - they've had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.
Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - they've had 71 years to get it right; it is broke. Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - they've had 39 years to get it right; it is broke. Together Fannie and Freddie have now led the entire world into the worst economic collapse in 80 years.
The War on Poverty was started in 1964 - they've had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our hard earned money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor"; it hasn't worked.
Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - they've had 44 years to get it right; they are both broke; and now our government dares to mention them as models for all US health care.
AMTRAK was established in 1970 - they've had 39 years to get it right; last year they bailed it out as it continues to run at a loss!
This year, a trillion dollars was committed in the massive political payoff called the Stimulus Bill of 2009; it shows NO sign of working; it's been used to increase the size of governments across America, and raise government salaries while the rest of us suffer from economic hardships. It has yet to create a single new private sector job. Our national debt projections (approaching $10 trillion) have increased 400% in the last six months.
"Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009 - - after 80% of the cars purchased turned out to be produced by foreign companies, and dealers nationwide are buried under bureaucratic paperwork demanded by a government that is not yet paying them what was promised.
So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that each and every "service" shoved down our throats by an over-reaching government turns into disaster, how could any informed American trust our government to run or even set policies for America's health care system - - 17% of our economy?
Maybe each of us has a personal responsibility to let others in on this brilliant record before 2010, and then help remove from office those who are voting to destroy capitalism and destroy our grandchildren's future. ----------
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Tags:big government, government failures, government wasteTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
The Washington Times: When it comes to having past views that should frighten every American citizen, Ezekiel Emanuel (see above editorial) has nothing on the president's "chief science adviser," John P. Holdren. The combination of Mr. Holdren with Dr. Emanuel should make the public seriously concerned with this administration's moral compass concerning care for the old and weak.
Earlier this month, Mr. Holdren served as co-chairman when the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology met for the first time. It's a disgrace that Mr. Holdren is even on the council. In "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment," a book he co-authored in 1977 with noted doomsayers Paul R. and Anne H. Erlich, Mr. Holdren wrote: "Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
In case compulsory abortion wasn't enough to diffuse his imaginary population bomb, Mr. Holdren and the Erlichs considered other extremist measures. "A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men," they wrote. "The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control."
It gets worse. The Holdren-Erlich book also promotes "Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods." After noting that, well, yes, there were "very difficult political, legal and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems," Mr. Holdren and his co-authors express hope that their idea may still be viable. "To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements," they wrote. "It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets or livestock."
Most Americans can be forgiven for thinking that mass sterilization through drinking water is never acceptable and that someone who supported such horrors should have no place on a prestigious White House council. The question naturally arises why President Obama chooses to surround himself with extremists like Mr. Holdren or Dr. Emanuel. No matter how much they claim their views have "evolved," health and science under Obamacare would be a frightening prospect with people like this advising the president.Tags:abortion, Ezekiel Emanuel, John P. Holdren, Obama administration, population controlTo 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.