News for social, fiscal & national security conservatives who believe in God, family & the USA. Upholding the rights granted by God & guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, traditional family values, "republican" principles / ideals, transparent & limited "smaller" government, free markets, lower taxes, due process of law, liberty & individual freedom. All content approval rests with the ARRA News Service Editor. Opinions are those of the authors. While varied positions are reported, beliefs & principles remain fixed. No revenue is generated for this site - no paid ads accepted - no payments for articles. Fair Use doctrine is posted & used. Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru & 2010 AFP National Blogger of the Year] Follow @arra Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home Page
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato
Saturday, December 12, 2009
America, We Have A Problem
Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families: 2009 should be remembered as “the year of home-grown jihad.” Jihadists indoctrinated in the United States are a growing problem. While the Obama Administration and the liberal media continue to be in denial about this emerging threat, national security officials admit that these types of terrorists pose an increasing danger to our safety.
Earlier this year, FBI officials in Dallas arrested a Jordanian man attempting to bomb a downtown skyscraper. In Arkansas, a radical Islamist shot and killed a member of the U.S. military outside a recruiting station. In North Carolina, a converted Muslim was arrested for plotting to attack the Marine Corps base in Quantico, Virginia. Officials in New York City prevented another attack on the city’s transit system involving weapons of mass destruction. The deadliest attack occurred at Fort Hood, Texas, where 14 Americans were killed and dozens wounded by a man who called himself a “Soldier of Allah.” Barack Obama refuses to call this atrocity a terrorist attack despite the overwhelming evidence.
Officials revealed yesterday that five Muslim men from the Washington, D.C., suburbs of Northern Virginia were arrested at a home in Pakistan owned by a terrorist organization. The Associated Press reports that the men “told investigators they came to the country to take part in ‘jihad.’” All were between the ages of 19-25. It is worth noting that these men did not come from poverty-stricken homes. Ramy Zamzam, one of the men arrested, was a dental student attending Howard University. Despite being well-educated, these men, and many other terrorist plotters, bought into the hate-filled ideology that is radical Islam.
Top national security officials have been warning for years that al-Qaeda is recruiting and training Westerners to carry out terrorist attacks. Much of our attention has been focused on Europe because of its booming Muslim population. But the FBI has been investigating Somali Muslims in Minneapolis for more than a year after 20 individuals who attended the same mosque returned to Somalia. One became a suicide bomber. With the news from Pakistan and other events throughout the year, it is obvious the threat of home-grown jihad is just as serious here in the United States. See also:American Jihad: FBI, Pakistani agents interrogate US Muslims Tags:al Qaeda, Gary Bauer, homegrown jihadists, homegrown terrorists, Human Society of United States, Jihadist, video, Walid PharesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Bill Smith, Editor: For those who are frustrated and can't put a finger on more than 10 reasons why the President bugs you [maybe you even voted for him] and why his popularity has fallen to "the lowest ever recorded for any president at this point in his term," take a look at the following article by Victor Hanson. After reading, you will recall many other reasons hidden behind the latest issue, gaffe, or other overwhelming incident or action by the Obama administration that threaten your "unalienable Rights . . . among these [there are others] are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." ------------ by Victor Davis Hanson: . . . [Obama] is experiencing the sharpest popularity decline in the history of first-year administrations. The problem is not just that he inherited a bad economy; Reagan did too. Or that the war in Afghanistan heats up, since it is not nearly as bad as the mess Nixon inherited in Vietnam.
Instead, after 11 months there has emerged a series of bothersome incidents that the public has come to associate with Obama, both the man and his philosophies. Some are major policy issues; others trivial acts of no cosmic importance. None in themselves matter all that much. Each gaffe or mistake was contextualized and mended, or attended to by Robert Gibbs. Some are Obama’s fault; others the work of associates. Sometimes mere chance is the culprit. . . .
Again, my point is not trying to adjudicate relative culpability, but rather just to remind us all how and why Obama dived over 20 points in the polls in just 11 months—and his speeches transformed from inspirational to caricatures. In short, taken together, after nearly a year, these fissures have nearly ruined the once pretty texture of the Obama administration, and almost rendered it incapable of effective governance.
Here is a random selection. I provide no chronology or theme. Nor do I judge the relative importance of any one incident. The point, again, is only that each was a fissure, some small, some major—all were glued over. The result is that now the public understands that its china presidency is fragile and held together by mere glue. Here it goes:
Constant apologies abroad for everything from slavery to Hiroshima
Bows to Saudi royalty, the Japanese emperor, and Chinese autocrats
The on-again/off-again Guantanamo shut-down mess
The fight with the former CIA directors
The public show trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed
The reach out to Ahmadinejad Castro, Chavez, and assorted thugs
The Honduras fiasco
The serial “Bush did it”/reset whine abroad
The Queen of England/I-pod fiasco
Gordon Brown gets snookered in his gift-giving
Unceremoniously shipping back the Churchill bust
The end of the special relationship with the UK
The New York on-the-town presidential splurge
Anita Dunn and her Mao worship
Timothy Geithner/Tom Daschle/Hilda Solis and their taxes
What ever happened to Gov. Richardson?
“No lobbyists” = gads of them
The Podestas’ insider influence-peddling empire
Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” chauvinism
The Special Olympics silly quip
Trashing Nancy Reagan
The Skip Gates/police acting “stupidly” mess
The get-Chicago-the-Olympics jaunt to Copenhagen
“Millions of green jobs”
Ignore gas, oil, coal, and nuclear power production
The Joe Biden gaffe machine
Jobs “saved” or “created” rather than references to the actual unemployment rates
Van Jones, the racist and truther
Desiree Rogers won’t testify
The blowback from, and silence about, the Rangel/Dodd corruption
The White House party crashers plan to take the 5th Amendment
The ‘bipartisanship’ con
The pork-barrel stimulus spoils
The demonization of the Town-Hallers
The Acorn Mess
The Kevin Jennings/Safe School Czar embarrassment
The SEIU direct access to the White House
The Asian Tour comedown
The politicization of the take-over of GM and Chrysler
The Obama readjustment in the order of paying back car creditors
Car dealerships closed on shaky criteria
Obama as “Caesar”
The Emanuel “never let a serious crisis go to waste” boast
The Black Caucus/Rangel/Waters bid to bail out the inner-city radio stations
Yosi Sergant and the NEA
$1.7 trillion deficit
The planned $9 trillion added to the national debt
New income tax rates; health care surcharge talk; and payroll tax caps to be lifted
Rahm Emanuel’s promised payback to those states that trash the stimulus
The supposed C-span aired health care debate
The promised website posts of pending legislation
Czechs and Poles sold out on missile defense
Sermons to and finger pointing at the Israelis
The failed ‘Putin helps to stop a nuclear Iran’ gambit
Voting present on the Iranian reformers in the street
Serial but empty deadlines to Ahmadinejad
The good war/bad war twisting and turning on Iraq/Afghanistan
The months-long dithering over Afghanistan
Renditions, tribunals, Patriot Act, etc. once trashed, now OK
The 2,000 page proposed new health code
The embarrassing Nobel Peace Prize nomination
The attacks on surgeons, Chamber of Commerce, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc.
The Islam mythologies in the Cairo Speech
The al Arabiya “Bush did it” interview
Obama’s TV “my Muslim faith” gaffe
The Nobel Speech . . . 1) long again (4,000 words); 2) “I” or “me” 34 times: same old self referencing; 3) the inadvertent cosmic arrogance [“I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war.” = you think?]; 4) straw men trope: some say this; others say that; but I uniquely say…; 5) reference to my own personal inspirational story; 6) trash my predecessor or his policies; 7) end with hopey / changey cadences. . . . [Complete Article] Tags:Barack Obama, Obama administration, The Worst American PresidentTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Obama's 47 Percent Approval Lowest of Any President at This Point
By Bill Sammon - FOX News: President Obama's job approval rating has fallen to 47 percent in the latest Gallup poll, the lowest ever recorded for any president at this point in his term. Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and even Richard Nixon all had higher approval ratings 10-and-a-half months into their presidencies. Obama's immediate predecessor, President George W. Bush, had an approval rating of 86 percent, or 39 points higher than Obama at this stage. . . .
The new low comes as Obama struggles to overhaul the nation's health care system and escalates America's involvement in the Afghanistan war. He is also presiding over a deep and prolonged recession, with unemployment at 10 percent. "There's no doubt Obama's 47 percent is mainly a result of the continuing bad economy," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "But there is also a growing concern about government spending and debt, and a sense that Obama is trying to do too much, too soon." . . .
When Gallup began taking presidential approval polls 71 years ago, Franklin Roosevelt had been president for more than five years. During his remaining time in office, his job approval rating never fell below 48 percent. The next 11 presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, all had higher job approval ratings than Obama at this stage of their tenure. Their ratings were:
-- George W. Bush, 86 percent
-- Bill Clinton, 52 percent
-- George H.W. Bush, 71 percent
-- Ronald Reagan, 49 percent
-- Jimmy Carter, 57 percent
-- Gerald Ford, 52 percent
-- Richard Nixon, 59 percent
-- Lyndon Johnson, 74 percent
-- John Kennedy, 77 percent
-- Dwight Eisenhower, 69 percent
-- Harry Truman, 49 percent
(Read More) See also:New Obama TWAP Poster Spreads Across U.S. - TWAP "The Worst President Ever" Tags:Barack Obama, Gallup Poll, job approval, TWAPTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Speaker Pelosi’s Spendapalooza -TWAS: The Worst American Speaker
by Conn Carroll, Morning Bell, The Heritage Foundation: Next week Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is expected to attach a provision to the Department of Defense appropriations bill that would increase our national debt limit by $1.925 trillion. This debt limit raise would authorize the U.S. Treasury to borrow as much as $14 trillion, which is 30% higher than the $10.8 trillion limit that was in place when President Barack Obama took office.
Defending the unprecedented size of the debt limit, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) told The Examiner: “There is no doubt the debt ceiling will have to be at that level in order to meet our financial obligations at this time next year. This is not creating new debt.” Not creating new debt? Hoyer speaks as though he and his Speaker are completely powerless to control all the federal spending that is driving up “our financial obligations.” In fact, Hoyer’s statement comes on the same day that he and Speaker Pelosi forced through a $447 billion “minibus” spending bill that every single Republican and 28 Democrats voted against. Filled with 5,224 earmarks, this merged appropriations bill provides an 8% hike in discretionary spending for the third consecutive year since Pelosi took over Congress in 2007. Altogether, discretionary spending has jumped 25% since Speaker Pelosi took the gavel, and Congressional Democrats have spent $561 billion more in discretionary spending than if they had limited federal spending growth to the baseline inflation rate. Despite a $1.4 trillion deficit, appropriations bills passed this year have included:
A 67% increase for the Environmental Protection Agency’s State and Tribal Assistance Grants;
A 30% increase for the Corporation for National and Community Service;
A 9% increase for Amtrak;
An 8.4% increase for Lawmakers’ Office Allowances; and
An 8.1% increase for the National Endowment for the Arts.
It is far past time for responsible leaders in Congress to rein in Pelosi’s profligacy. At a bare minimum, lawmakers should demand that any debt-limit increase also statutorily cap discretionary spending growth at the inflation rate (approximately 2.5 percent annually) for the next decade. Even better, a return to federal spending levels of just a decade ago could go a long way towards solving our debt problem. Heritage’s Brian Riedl explains:
In the 1980s and 1990s, Washington consistently spent $21,000 per household (adjusted for inflation). Simply returning to that level would balance the budget by 2012 without any tax hikes. Alternatively, returning to the $25,000 per household level (adjusted for inflation) that Washington spent before the current recession would likely balance the budget by 2019 without any tax hikes.
Tags:federal spending, Morning Bell, Nancy Pelosi, The Heritage FoundationTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Palin op-ed bashing Copenhagen summit has critics steaming
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS — Sarah Palin's Op-Ed in Wednesday's Washington Post slamming the Copenhagen climate change summiteers for using "agenda-driven" global warming science has heated up critics' temperatures... (more)
----------- THE WASHINGTON POST - Copenhagen's political science by Sarah Palin: With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue. . . .
The e-mails reveal that leading climate "experts" deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What's more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.
This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I've always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of "climate change impacts" was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act. . . .
Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits -- not pursuing a political agenda. That's not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate -- far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. . . .
In fact, we're not the only nation whose people are questioning climate change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after it began a cap-and-tax program. Meanwhile, Australia's Parliament recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow suit, particularly as the climate e-mail scandal continues to unfold. . . .
In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to "restore science to its rightful place." But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a "deal." Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats' cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs -- particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.
Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen. Tags:Copenhagen, global warming, Sarah PalinTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner addressing the House Omnibus Bill:Were broke. Americas broke. All year long, our friends on the other side of the aisle have been on a massive spending spree that our nation cant afford. We had a trillion-dollar stimulus bill that was supposed to created jobs immediately, and yet unemployment is now at ten percent in America and three million people have lost their jobs since it was signed into law.
We've got a budget that's going to double the national debt in five years, triple it in ten years. We've got a $12 trillion national debt. We brought a national energy tax bill to the floor that's going to cost a trillion dollars passed it. We had a health care bill here several weeks ago another trillion dollars passed it.
When are we going to say, enough is enough? Here we are today wrapping six appropriations bills together. Were going to spend half atrillion dollars. And its got over 5,000 earmarks in it. Things like: $292,200 for the elimination of slum and blight in Scranton, Pennsylvania; $300,000 for music and education programs at New York Citys Carnegie Hall, where they pay the employee who oversees the props more than $530,000 in salary and benefits; and theres plenty in here for Washington as well: $150,000 for the National Building Museum and $250,000 for the Wolf Trap Center for the Performing Arts, a concert venue.
Listen, I don't know how worthy any of these projects are, but I do have to ask a question: are they more important than our kids and grandkids, who are going to have the pay the debt because we don't have the money to spend on this? Its our kids and grandkids who are going to pay for it, and yet we can't find ways to cut spending.
Before taking office, the President said he would go through the budget and these bills line-by-line, page-by-page. After Congress passed the $410 billion omnibus spending bill with more than 9,000 earmarks, the President signed it, and said, well that was last years business. Now the President says reducing the deficit is next years business that we need to spend our way out of this economic recession were in. Well I think the President ought to go through this bill line-by-line and page-by-page, all 2,500 pages of it. And then maybe hell figure out, we don't need to be spending this money that we don't have and piling more and more debt on the backs of our kids and grandkids. Instead, our bond rating, our AAA bond rating is in jeopardy and our Democrat friends want to raise the debt limit next week by $1.8 trillion. Instead, lets stop the madness and vote no. Tags:earmarks, John Boehner, omnibus billTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Climategate Denial: A Tale of Two Lisas by Victor Morawski, professor at Coppin State: The recent announcement by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson that greenhouse gasses endanger public health lays out the red carpet for a host of new government regulations across a broad swath of industries. And it comes as no surprise to those familiar with publications penned by Jackson underling Lisa Heinzerling.
As counsel in Massachusetts v. EPA, current EPA Associate Administrator, Heinzerling gained notoriety for arguing successfully before the Supreme Court that greenhouse gasses are “air pollutants” that can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. She later castigated the Bush Administration for not doing so when it had the opportunity in 2003.
More recently, claiming that “environmental threats rarely capture the attention of the public and policymakers unless and until they are linked to human health,” she has argued for just such a linking. In “Climate Change, Human Health, and the Post-Cautionary Principle” she proposes “that we move further in the direction of characterizing climate change as a public health threat and not only as an environmental threat.” These views clearly form the inspiration for her bosses’ announcement.
In fact, by claiming that climate change is a human health hazard, Heinzerling would even involve other government agencies in the “aggressive” regulatory action she seeks—agencies like the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, even the United Nations Security Council. So the EPA announcement may signal only the first step on the long, intrusive regulatory road she would take America down.
For her, traveling that road is not only pragmatically wise; it is a “moral imperative.” Potential consequences for human health “make the moral case for aggressive action on climate change unimpeachable.” It is this supposed “moral case” that is in many ways most troubling.
In introductory ethics, students are taught that a moral argument to the effect that “we [morally] ought (or ought not) to do x” has two different elements in its premises: a general moral principle like “We ought to treat others as we would want to be treated,” and a statement of the facts relevant to the case in question.
Within the man-caused global warming debate, those particular facts relate to the science behind the matter. Bringing in what she terms the “latest scientific research” supposedly supporting her “moral case for aggressive” regulatory action on climate change, Ms. Heinzerling repeatedly uses data in her article provided by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That’s the organization whose scientific credibility has been seriously undermined recently because of its heavy reliance on results supplied to it by the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), currently ground zero in the Climategate scandal.
But the compromised scientific data also significantly undermines the moral argument for aggressive governmental action which depends on it. If the consequences are not there because the warming does not exist (or is not man-caused), then neither is the supposed moral imperative for action.
When asked about the surfaced e-mails showing that the CRU manipulated results contradicting the theory of man-caused global warming, EPA Administrator Jackson’s response has ranged from dismissing them — claiming that “The science has been thoroughly evaluated”—to belittling their significance by remarking that the scandal affects only a small sliver of the supporting evidence for man-made global warming.
Whether either contention is true, of course, has yet to be conclusively shown and will come to light eventually when the extent of the scandal is thoroughly investigated. But for Jackson at this point to summarily dismiss its significance is at best disingenuous and at worst dishonest. And given the degree to which the IPCC relied on CRU research, her observations seem unlikely to hold.
On the EPA’s web site, Jackson’s response to the CRU scandal may be accessed under the heading of “Scientific Integrity.” Noting that the public must be able to trust the science underlying the EPA’s public policy decisions, she pledges, “to uphold values of scientific integrity every day.” Her reaction to the challenge posed by the deepening Climategate scandal hardly seems consistent with this pledge. And, yet, she has now joined her major domo, Lisa Heinzerling, in basing broad public health policy on the wholesale abandonment of both the EPA pledge and “scientific integrity.” Tags:Barack Obama, climategate, Copenhagen, environmentalists, global warming, political cartoon, William WarrenTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Three More Polls: Opposition to Democrat Health Bill Grows
CNN: 61% Of American’s Oppose; Fox News: 57% Oppose; NYT: 42% Approval Of President’s Handling Of Health Care
CNN:“Do You Generally Favor [The Senate Health Care Bill] Or Generally Oppose It? … Favor 36% Oppose 61%.” “As you may know, the U.S. Senate is considering a bill that would make major changes in the country's health care system. Based on what you have read or heard about that bill, do you generally favor it or generally oppose it? Dec. 2-3 2009 Favor 36% Oppose 61%.” (CNN Opinion Research Poll, 12/10/09)
·“Do You Think The Federal Budget Deficit Would Or Would Not Increase? … Would Happen 79%” “If a bill similar to the one that the Senate is considering becomes law, do you think the federal budget deficit would or would not increase? Dec. 2-3 2009 Would happen 79% Would not happen 19% No opinion 2%” (CNN Opinion Research Poll, 12/10/09)
·“Do You Think Your Taxes Would Or Would Not Increase? … Would Happen 85%” “If a bill similar to the one that the Senate is considering becomes law, do you think your taxes would or would not increase? Dec. 2-3 2009 Would happen 85% Would not happen 14% No opinion 1%” (CNN Opinion Research Poll, 12/10/09)
WASHINGTON, D.C.- U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Friday regarding the analysis of the Democrat Bill released last night by CMS Chief Actuary Rick Foster:
“Americans were told that the purpose of health care reform was to lower costs, to bend the so-called cost curve down. But a report released last night by the administration’s own independent scorekeeper shows that the Democrat bill gets a failing grade. This chief actuary is the person the Administration depends on to give it straightforward, unbiased analysis of the impact the legislation would have. This is the official referee talking – so this is significant.
“According to the CMS: ·The Democrat bill increases National Health spending. (page 19) ·New fees for drugs, devices, and insurance plans in the Democrat bill will increase prices and health insurance premium for consumers. (page 16) ·This new analysis shows that claims about the Democrat bill extending the solvency of Medicare are based the shakiest of assumptions. ·The Democrat bill creates a new long term insurance program (CLASS Act) that the CMS actuaries found faces ‘a very serious risk’ of becoming unsustainable. (page 19) ·The CMS actuary found that such programs face a significant risk of failure. (page 13) ·The Democrat bill pays for a trillion dollar government expansion into health care with nearly one trillion dollars in Medicare payment cuts. (page 18) ·The Democrat bill is especially likely to result in providers be unwilling to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients, meaning that a significant portion of the increased demand for Medicaid services would be difficult to meet. (page 18 ·The CMS actuary noted that the Medicare cuts in the bill could jeopardize Medicare beneficiaries access to care. ·He also found that roughly 20 percent of all Part A providers (hospitals, nursing homes, etc) would become unprofitable within the next 10 years as a result of these cuts. (page 9) ·The CMS actuary found that further reductions in Medicare growth rates through the actions of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board, which advocates have pointed to as a central lynchpin in reducing health care spending ‘may be difficult to achieve in practice.’ (page 18) ·The Democrat bill would cut payments to Medicare Advantage plans by approximately $110 billion over 10 years, resulting in ‘less generous benefit packages’ and decreasing enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans by about 33 percent. (page 10)
“This report confirms what we’ve long known — the Democrat plan will increase costs, raise premiums, and slash Medicare. That’s not reform. This analysis speaks for itself.” Tags:CMS, government healthcare, Hary Reid, Mitch McConnellTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Yesterday the House passed along party lines the $447 billion omnibus spending measure 221 to 202, with 28 Democrats joining all 174 Republicans present in opposing it. Unfortunately, Glen Beck on his shows today said the Republicans supported this bill. They did NOT. Again ALL House Republicans and 20 Democrats voted against the bill! GOP lawmakers said the measure was overinflated and rushed through with little scrutiny, while Democrats said it would fund key priorities. The Washington Post reports that Rep. Jerry Lewis (CA), the top Republican on the Appropriations panel said: ""There is no question that the era of big government has returned to Washington, D.C. I cannot and will not support this package of spending bills, because it simply spends too much money and makes a mockery of our legislative process."
Yesterday, the Senate voted 56-43 to agree to the motion to proceed to the omnibus appropriations bill and today, the Senate resumes consideration of the conference report for H.R. 3288, the fiscal year 2010 omnibus appropriations bill. The $450 billion omnibus includes 6 appropriations bills that have not been completed: Transportation-Housing and Urban Development, Commerce-Justice-Science, Financial Services, Labor-Health and Human Services-Education, Military Construction-Veterans Affairs, and State-Foreign Operations. Not included is the Defense appropriations bill, which Democrats are holding as a potential vehicle to attach a debt limit increase Votes are possible today on waiving points of order against the omnibus bill. Last night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid filed cloture on the bill, and a cloture vote is expected Saturday.
When work on the omnibus is completed, the Senate will return to the Reid substitute amendment to H.R. 3590, the vehicle for Democrats’ health care reform bill. Because conference reports are privileged under Senate procedure, it will not take 60 votes to return to work on the health care bill.
Votes are possible today or over the weekend on a motion from Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) to send the health bill back to the Finance Committee to make sure it keeps the president’s pledge to not raise taxes on anyone making less that $250,000/year and on an amendment from Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) concerning re-importation of prescription drugs from other countries.
With many in the Senate spending time discussing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s questionable (and somewhat ethereal) new deal on a Senate health care bill, the Obama administration’s actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services has finally had time to review the bill Reid originally proposed last month and which the Senate is currently debating.
And what did CMS find? CMS writes, “[W]e estimate that total national health expenditures under this bill would increase by an estimated total of $234 billion (0.7 percent) during calendar years 2010-2019 . . . .” So contrary to Democrat claims that the bill saves money, and doesn’t raise costs, the truth is that costs would go up under Reid’s bill. In fact, CMS found that under current law total national health expenditures would be $35.253 trillion, but with the Reid bill, total national health expenditures would be $35.487 trillion, $234 billion more than doing nothing at all.
That’s an interesting dynamic, when considered in light of some of yesterday’s polling. A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll found that 57% of Americans oppose the Democrats’ health care reform bill. But the poll also found that “a 54% majority says they would rather Congress ‘do nothing on health care for now . . . .’” According to CMS, that path would apparently save $234 billion.
So CMS has now found that the Senate bill will increase health care costs and the House bill will increase health care costs. These bills violate one of President Obama’s fundamental promises about health care reform. And this is at a time when the national debt has exceeded $12 trillion dollars, with a record deficit for the last fiscal year and record deficits over just the last two months. This is not the right way to go about health care reform. Tags:Government-Run Health Care, omnibus bill, US Congress, US House, US Senate, Washington D.C.To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Saturday, December 12, at 12 Noon: See Michelle Malkin live at the Doubletree Ballroom in Little Rock tomorrow. Please go to www.americansforprosperity.org/Arkansas and register so that we can gauge the size of room we need.
Tuesday, December 15, at 12 Noon: Emergency rally to stop government-run health care will be held in Little Rock. Meet at Blanche Lincoln's office, 912 West Fourth Street. Rally coincides with rallies across the country. Stand up for your health care liberties. Uncle Sam desperately needs your help.
Tuesday, December 15, at 7:30 pm to 9:30 pm: Pulaski and Garland County Tea Parties invite you to our Christmas Party with Dick Armey, former House Majority Leader and organizer of the Washington DC 9/12 Rally. Mr. Armey will discuss Tea Party efforts across the nation, the movement's agenda for next year and the election outlook for 2010.
Complimentary hors d'oeuvres and a cash bar will be provided.
Embassy Suites, 11301 Financial Center Parkway, Little Rock, Arkansas Admittance is free and no reservations are required.
Tags:Arkansas, Dick Armey, Michelle Malkin, Rally, TEA PartiesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
When discussing Republican Michael Lamoureux’s State Senate win, Democrat Party of Arkansas Executive Director Mariah Hatta let her leftist attitude show by having the audacity to call Republican Legislators a partisan ‘cult’ who want to see Little Rock be more like Washington.
Ms. Hatta was using a move from the Democrat leftest playbook - "accuse the opponents of the very thing you are or you are doing." Most Arkansans clearly know that it is not the minority Arkansas State legislators that are trying to make Little Rock look like Washington. It is the Arkansas Majority Democrats Party and its liberal left Democratic leadership in Washington that is bankrupting the futures of our children.
Hatta is a leftist who moved to the state in 1992 to work on Bill Clinton's campaign. We all know Bill, hum! From an article "Born Left" we learn that "Following Clinton's inauguration in 1993, Hatta [followed Bill Clinton to Washington, D.C. and] worked at the office of the U.S. Agency for International Development, . . . in the press office and scheduling. She also worked for the Department of Treasury in scheduling and on the Clinton re-election campaign of 1996.
In 2000, Hatta moved from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles to work at Democratic National Convention, and stayed in Los Angeles working on several elections. . . . Hatta . . . found herself back in Little Rock, working on retired Gen. Wesley Clark's 2004 losing presidential campaign. Following Clark's decision to drop out of the race, Hatta remained in Little Rock, working for [you guessed it] the William J. Clinton Foundation and then for Attorney General Beebe's campaign for governor in 2006." With Beebe's help, she got a job with the Democratic Party, and in July, she became the executive director. Must be frustrating for Ms. Hatta missing out on being close to the "cult of Obama" in Washington. It is interesting that in a State identified predominately as Democrat, the DPA could not find a liberal enough Arkansan to be the DPA Executive Director.
In fairness, the Democratic Party of Arkansas could have been pressured by either "good old" Bill or the the incumbency of Obama administration which could not trust the DPA to have an Arkansan again as executive director. But then again, Obama was defeated by 20% (59% to 39%) in Arkansas. A similar problem occurred with the Bush Administration (won 54.3 to 44.5) which influenced the Republican Party of Arkansas to hire as executive director from outside of Arkansas.
Fortunately the Republican Party has right sided itself and has conservative Arkansans as their Chair and Executive Director. Chase Dugger, RPA Executive Directo,r released the following responses by RPA Chairman Doyle Webb and House Republican Leader Bryan King to Ms. Hatta's "cult" remark:
Representative King: “I guess if you don’t agree with President Obama and Governor Beebe then you get labeled as being part of some crazy cult. I would say partisanship includes things like trying to dissolve the Electoral College so that the average Arkansans vote no longer matters. Something the Democrat members of the House tried to accomplish.”
Chairman Webb: “The people of Arkansas deserve competitive ideas. For too long now one party rule and the Democrat Party has allowed our state to be ranked 48th, 49th, and 50th in almost every aspect. Our Republican Legislators are believers in lower taxes, transparent and limited government, traditional values, and personal freedoms. If those values are challenged by the Democrat Majority in the legislature, they have a right to stand up and defend them.”
“Ironically most Arkansans agree with these conservative views. The Republican Party is the Party that represents the views and values of everyday Arkansans. Ms. Hatta has effectively called a majority of our great State a cult. Surely this liberal opinion isn’t that of most Democrats? I call on Chairman Turner and Governor Beebe to ask her to retract this statement.” Tags:Arkansas, Democrat Party, DPA, Republican Party, RPATo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
A column appears in today's Wall Street Journal by Karl Rove. It highlights the bright prospects for Senate Republicans in 2010. Rob Jesmer, NRSC Executive Director responded today stating "GOP recruitment of well-qualified candidates continues to be strong while Democrats continue to push their deeply unpopular, ultra-liberal agenda. No wonder Congress's approval rating is only at 26%."
These numbers are no surprise when you look at how Americans feel about the government takeover of health care that Senate Democrats are trying to rush to passage. As reported previously, a new Quinnipiac University poll, only 38% of Americans favor passage of Reid's health care proposal, with 52% opposing. Democrats have clearly fallen out of touch with their constituents.
------ by Karl Rove, Wall Street Journal Editorial: Democrats began the year as masters of the political universe, winning the White House and increasing their majorities in Congress. But the year is ending badly for them. Their top initiative, health care, is deeply unpopular. Congress's approval rating is 26%, Speaker Nancy Pelosi's is 28%, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's is an anemic 14%. . . .
With a good environment this election cycle, Republicans have recruited competitive candidates who could turn otherwise close contests into runaway victories, likely defeats into wins or at least close contests that, if things break right, tip to the GOP. . . . One of the most interesting Senate races this year will be in Colorado. Democrat Michael Bennet was appointed to fill the seat of Ken Salazar, who left to become Interior secretary. Mr. Bennett has never held elective office before and faces a tough primary challenge from a former state House speaker. Waiting for whoever emerges is the formidable Republican Jane Norton, a popular former lieutenant governor.
Other Senate seats are competitive because the Democrats who hold them are coming to be seen as out of step with their constituents. In Connecticut, Sen. Chris Dodd trails former Republican Rep. Rob Simmons 35% to 48% in the latest Quinnipiac poll. In Arkansas, Sen. Blanche Lincoln trails Republican State Sen. Gilbert Baker 41% to 47% in the latest polls, though Mr. Baker must first get past a multicandidate GOP primary. In California, Sen. Barbara Boxer is vulnerable. Former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina could be a strong candidate against her if she can win her nomination battle and use it to introduce herself to voters. . . .
The GOP probably won't win control of the Senate, but Republicans lead five incumbent Democratic senators in the polls, often by double digits, and trail in just one seat of their own (by a point). A lot can happen in a year, but if Democrats keep telling themselves that their greatest danger will come from not passing monstrosities like Mr. Reid's health-care bill, Republicans will have a target-rich environment next year. We are once again in a GOP ascendancy, sparked by talented, energetic challengers. . . . [View Complete Article]Tags:2010, 2010 Elections, GOP, Karl Rove, Republicans, US SenateTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Break The Cycle - Turn the Tide (Prison Fellowship)
I hope all readers will watch and rate this video on YouTube. I posted the
Advance Release of video by Prison Fellowship. As a conservative and a Christian, I believe in and support this cause. Join me! Promote this video in your various social networks, websites and blogs. May this touch your heart and may you help to break the cycle of children of prisoners committing crime and thus going to prison. 70% of children of prisoners are likely to eventually themselves to become a prisoner. Help reach these children as well as their parents. Considering the future cost of not doing so, imagine the total financial cost of building more prisons especially as poverty rises. Help influence change by contributing to Prison Fellowship. Visit http://www.prisonfellowship.org to contribute. Prison Fellowship: Changing lives, minds, and Communities through Jesus Christ. Tags:children, contribute, economic cost, prison, Prison Fellowship, prisoners, social cost, taxesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
by Kerby Anderson, Point of View: We have heard lots of discussion these last few weeks about temperature data that was manipulated in order to provide evidence for man-made global warming. But it would be wise to revisit a previous discussion about temperature data that was misinterpreted. In the film "An Inconvenient Truth" Al Gore states that nine of the ten hottest years in the continental U.S. have occurred in 1995 or later. And the hottest year on record was 1998.
This was one of the most powerful statements he made in his documentary. But two years ago we found out that it was wrong. A Canadian mathematician by the name of Stephen McIntyre looked at the temperature data collected by NASA and found an error. It turns out the hottest year was actually 1934. And if you look at the 15 hottest years in America, they are spread over seven decades.
Once this data hit the news, you had two predictable reactions. Both of them are wrong. Some used this new data as justification for calling global warming a "scientific hoax." This is certainly not justified. We now hopefully have more accurate data and can begin to understand what is taking place on our planet.
The other reaction was to simply suggest that this modification of temperature data for America was insignificant. After all, the U.S. accounts for just two percent of the world's land mass. So they argue that any reevaluation of our temperatures doesn't mean much when we are looking at global temperatures.
The problem with that view is simple: if U.S. temperatures registered by one of the most sophisticated systems of temperature monitoring are wrong, so might other temperatures taken around the world. McIntyre notes that many of these stations in China, Indonesia, Brazil, and elsewhere are in urban areas that would be affected by the same errors as he found in the U.S.
So this revised U.S. temperature model for the last few decades is very different from the original U.S. model and should be the one we are talking about. What we are finding is while some of the data was manipulated, other data was misinterpreted. Perhaps it is time to go back and check all the data. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view. Tags:global warming, Kerby Anderson, Point of View, temperaturesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Tony Perkins, FRC Washington Update: As the Senate tosses the abortion question aside, the House is quietly answering it in another major piece of appropriations legislation: the 2010 Omnibus. While Americans are distracted with the business of health care, the House-Senate conference committee agreed to a $446.8 billion bill that expands taxpayer-funded abortion in Washington, D.C. over the objections of the American people.
Unfortunately, the problems with the bill don't stop there. H.R. 3288 also opens new funding streams for needle exchange programs and promotes the legalization of "medical" marijuana, same-sex partner benefits, and the Fairness Doctrine. After a small victory for abstinence education in the health care bill, the Omnibus would zero out any abstinence money and instead direct $110 million to condom-pushing programs--on top of $315.7 million for Title X groups like Planned Parenthood. This would all be buttressed by an international message of sexual irresponsibility with a $103 million increase in overseas "family planning" projects, bringing the total dollars to a whopping $648.5 million. America will also do its part to endorse China's one-child policy with a boost in United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) support to $55 million.
The vote on the omnibus could be as early as Thursday, so while you're calling your senators about health care, please make a point of staying on the phone to dial your House memberand voice your concerns about H.R. 3288. It may be the Christmas season, but even that's no excuse for giving the Left everything on its wish list.Tags:2010, omnibus bill, Tony PerkinsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
A closer look at premium payments in both the House and Senate health care bills shows higher premiums that might discourage couples tying the knot.
For instance, in the House version, an unmarried couple each making $30,000 a year would pay $1,320 combined each year for private health insurance. If that couple chose to marry, their premium would jump to $12,000 a year, a difference of $10,680.
Allen Quist, a former Minnesota State legislator and current candidate for Congress, discovered the penalty while looking at numbers from the Committees on Ways and Means, Energy & Commerce, and Education & Labor. "This extraordinary penalty people will pay, should they marry, extends all the way from a two-person combined income of $58,280 to $86,640, a spread of $28,360," he wrote in a blog post. "A large number of people fall within this spread. As premiums for private insurance escalate, as expected, the marriage penalty will become substantially larger."
The Senate bill includes a similar penalty. "The Senate bill stipulates that two unmarried people, 52 years of age, with private insurance and a combined income of $60,000, $30,000 each, will pay a combined cost of $2,483 for medical insurance," Quist wrote. "Should they marry, however, they will pay a combined cost of $11,666 for insurance — a penalty of $9,183 for getting married." The numbers are based on the government's definition of "poverty level." Those above poverty level will pay higher premiums, and the excess would be redistributed to those in lower income levels.
Quist explains that the government's definitions will play a critical role in whether people will choose to get married. "'Household' is defined in both bills as including those who can be claimed as dependents for federal income tax purposes, thereby clarifying that adults can avoid the marriage penalty by living together unmarried," he wrote. "The new system provides a huge incentive for doing so."
John Helmberger, CEO of the Minnesota Family Council and Institute, said the middle class will once again take the hit financially. "This hidden marriage penalty," he said, "hits hardest the very people that are most suffering from the pathologies resulting from the decline of marriage in our culture." Tags:CitizenLink, Government Health Care, health care, marriage, marriage penaltyTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Examiner Editorial - Czar Obama takes aim at Congress: There are so many deep flaws in the "Endangerment Ruling" announced Monday by President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency that it is quite possible the worst of them will escape notice. After all, it's hard to top the drama of the millions of lost jobs and the crippling energy crisis that will result if the agency begins regulating greenhouse gases -- mainly CO2. The agency unilaterally awarded itself authority to do just that with the ruling. But even worse will be the terrible damage this ruling will inflict upon one of the most basic of American constitutional pillars, the separation of powers among co-equal branches, in this case the president and Congress. Obama has launched a thermonuclear warhead aimed directly at the very heart of congressional authority.
Here's why: The EPA Endangerment Ruling assigns to the agency authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions not included under that law's purview. Indeed, when the original law was approved by Congress, nobody said a word about any agency of the federal government telling any business or industry in America how much CO2 it could emit. By now saying the law gives it unilateral authority to declare CO2 dangerous pollutants, the EPA is grabbing power to regulate the 85 percent of the U.S. economy that depends on energy derived from the burning of carbon-based fuels. Those fuels -- oil, natural gas, and coal -- are heavy CO2 emitters. This ruling thus renders congressional intent irrelevant. If the ruling stands, the law will then be whatever the president and his bureaucratic minions in the executive branch decree, not what the people decide acting through their elected representatives in Congress.
Congressional liberals who failed to get their cap-and-trade scheme approved in the Senate are ecstatic about the EPA's ruling. There was a time when American liberals worried about excessive executive power; today they cheer as Barack Obama dons the robes of the imperial presidency in ways that Richard Nixon never dreamed possible. Consider, for example, the enthusiasm of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who said "the message to Congress is crystal clear: Get moving. If Congress does not pass legislation dealing with climate change, the administration is more than justified to use the EPA to impose new regulations." In other words, if Congress heeds public opposition and refuses to pass cap-and-trade, well, then Czar Obama will act on his own.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute is challenging the EPA Endangerment Ruling in federal court, but Congress ought not wait on the judicial branch to declare this action unconstitutional, as it surely should if and when the Supreme Court reconsiders the issue. Congress must assert its supreme authority now by denying funds for the enforcement of this pernicious ruling and explicitly directing EPA to withdraw it. Like Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are Democrats, but does that mean they must also be his servants? Tags:carbon dioxide, EPA, EPA Restrictions, Evironmental Protection Agency, political cartoon, US Constitution, William WarrenTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Today in Washington D. C. - Dec 9, 2009 - 2 New Polls Show Majority Opposition To Democrat Health Bill
Senate resumed consideration of the Reid substitute amendment to H.R. 3590, the vehicle for Democrats’ health care reform bill. Votes are likely later today on a motion from Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) to send the bill back to the Finance Committee to make sure it keeps the president’s pledge to not raise taxes on anyone making less that $250,000/year and on an amendment from Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) concerning reimportation of drugs from other countries.
Yesterday, 58 Senate Democrats voted to preserve a special deal grandfathering Florida’s Medicare Advantage plan, and denying that to seniors in other states. Also, as reported yesterday, the Senate voted 54-45 to kill an amendment from Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) that would added language similar to what was included in the House bill by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) to prevent taxpayer money from subsidizing health care plans that would cover abortions.
To recap, the Senate Democrats’ health care bill was written in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office behind closed doors for around 5 weeks earlier this fall. The bill has been debated on the Senate floor for only 10 days, and now Democrats are announcing a new back room deal that they want to include in the bill. But Americans don’t want to hear about new deals struck in Senate meeting rooms; they’re sending a clear message that they don’t like the Democrats’ partisan plans and want to scrap the current bill and see Congress start over.
Today’s Washington Post describes some of the details that have come out about the Democrats’ new plans: “Under the deal, the government plan preferred by liberals would be replaced with a program that would create several national insurance policies administered by private companies but negotiated by the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees health policies for federal workers. If private firms were unable to deliver acceptable national policies, a government plan would be created.” So despite news reports that the “public plan” has been dropped from the bill, in fact, this new proposal includes two government plans: one administered by OPM, and another that comes from the “trigger” option. The deal would also expand Medicare, which is already approaching insolvency. According to The Post, “people as young as 55 would be permitted to buy into Medicare”
Clearly, Democrats are scrambling to find any combination of policies that can attract 60 votes. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell indicated he has a dim view of this, saying yesterday, “[L]et me suggest to the Majority, Americans would much rather we get it right than scurry around throwing together untested, last-minute experiments in order to get 60 votes by Christmas.”
In fact, the American people have been remarkably clear in what they’d like to see out of Congress. This morning, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared that the Senate must “answer the American people's call to action,” but he apparently isn’t paying attention to what Americans are calling for. Two new polls today put Americans’ wishes in stark relief.
Quinnipiac finds, “Voters disapprove 52 - 38 percent of the health care reform proposal under consideration in Congress, and they disapprove 56 - 38 percent of President Obama's handling of health care, down from 53 - 41 percent in a November 19 survey . . . .” Further, Quinnipiac finds, “American voters say 63 - 30 percent that extending health insurance to all will raise their cost of health care . . . .” The poll also finds that majorities of Republicans (90%), independents (82%), and Democrats (53%) all believe the Democrats’ health care legislation will violate Obama’s promise that it won’t add to the deficit. Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, was unsparing in the implications of his poll, saying, “It’s a good thing for those pushing the health care overhaul in Congress that the American people don't get a vote.”
Just as interesting is a poll from Democrat-leaning firm PPP. Their poll finds, “Support for Obama on health care has hit another new low with just 39% of voters now expressing approval of his health care plans and 52% opposed. 90% of respondents who said they were opposed to Obama's plan said it was because it involved the government too much in health care with just 6% saying their opposition was because it didn't create enough government involvement.”
Sen. McConnell noted this morning, where Americans have a vote, the results have been unmistakable: “Public opinion is overwhelming. Last month’s gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia were a stinging rebuke to the Democrat approach of more spending, more debt, higher taxes, and endless bureaucracy. And just last night we saw it again in my own state, where a Republican won Kentucky’s 14th District by a landslide. His message was as simple as it was resonant: Don’t let Washington take over our health care. This health care bill is a losing formula all around. That’s the message Americans are sending loud and clear. The signs are everywhere to see. Stop this bill. Start over.” Tags:Government-Run Health Care, polls, US Congress, US House, US Senate, Washington D.C.To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Senator Blanche Lincoln Voted to Support Using Federal Health Care Funds for Abortion
In the U.S. Senate this evening, the Senate rejected, 54-45, a proposal by Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that would have barred individuals who receive federal health insurance subsidies from purchasing private insurance policies that covers abortion, and would ban a government-backed insurance plan popularly known as a "public option" from covering the procedure. The measure included exceptions in cases of rape, incest, or where a doctor certifies that the woman is "in danger of death unless an abortion is performed."
Senator Nelson said during the debate about the amendment, "It's a debate about whether it is appropriate for public funds to, for the first time in more than three decades, cover elective abortions. In my opinion, most Americans and most of the people in my state would say 'no.'"
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) voted against the amendment. Lincoln faces serious competition to retain her seat in 2010 and the majority of Arkansans do not favor using federal money to subsidize or in any other form fund abortion. Lincoln may have voted with her liberal constituents in the Senate but she did not vote with her Arkansas constituents. Some have noted that although as an elected Senator from Arkansas, her positions have become even more liberal after she relocated her family to live in Virginia.
Tabling an amendment only takes 51 votes, so Lincoln could have passed. However, she clearly demonstrated her position in supporting government funded abortions. Obviously, faced with increased opposition in Arkansas, Lincoln was protecting her need for campaign funding and support from the pro-abortion organizations.
Republican United States Senate candidate Col. Conrad Reynolds (U.S. Army, Ret.) issued the following statement condemning Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s vote to table an amendment to the Senate health care bill which will allow federally subsidized health care plans to pay for elective abortions:
“I wholeheartedly condemn Sen. Lincoln’s vote in which she chose her chairmanship over children. It is the height of irony that Sen. Lincoln would vote to table this amendment and deny it an up-or-down vote after being the 60th vote which allowed this mistake of a bill to move forward.
It is well known to all that the liberal Democrats would balk on the health care bill if the ban on abortion funding was added. Tonight, Sen. Lincoln voted to guarantee passage of the bill by the Democrat-controlled Senate – as continued payment for her committee chairmanship – instead of fighting for the conservative values of Arkansans.
Sadly, she no longer hears our voice. She has gone so far to embrace the left she can no longer credibly call herself a conservative as she tries to convince constituents to let her continue as a career politician.
Spending the tax dollars of Arkansans to end the lives of children is an affront to us all. Sen. Lincoln knows this, but chose to ignore it and us. We must restore our commitment to life in this nation. I am proud to be pro-life and, as your Senator, I will fight to ensure our tax dollars are not spent on abortions.”
Update 12/9/09: Republican United States Senate candidate Curtis Coleman issued said today in a news conference in Fayetteville, AR that Arkansas has a “bad case of senatorial laryngitis”.
"We have no voice in the U.S. Senate,” Coleman said in reference to Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s vote last night to table the prolife Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment to the Reid healthcare reform bill now being debated in the U.S. Senate. The proposed amendment mirrored the Stupak-Pitts amendment passed earlier by the House, prohibiting federal funds from being spent on abortions. “This crushing blow to the majority of Arkansans opposed to federal funding of abortion occurred after Sen. Lincoln voted to table the amendment, a procedural move that spells defeat,” Coleman said.
“Sen. Lincoln’s claim that the Nelson amendment would impose significant new restrictions on abortion is simply not accurate,” Coleman said. “The Nelson amendment would have done exactly what the clear majority of Arkansans would have wanted – prevent their tax dollars from paying for insurance companies to provide abortions. It is clear that where Sen. Lincoln is concerned, (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid (D-NV) has two votes and Arkansas has none,” Coleman said.
Tags:abortion, Blanche Lincoln, Conrad Reynolds, Curtis Coleman, government healthcare, US SenateTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
President Obama, White House Climate Czar Carol Browner, and their Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are not waiting for Congress to pass cap-and-trade. Shrugging off the Climate-gate scandal, today EPA administration Lisa Jackson issues a so-called "endangerment finding," paving the way for onerous greenhouse gas regulations to be shoehorned into the 1970 Clean Air Act. Based on a legal theory originally conceived by Climate Czar Carol Browner in the late 1990s, Obama’s EPA is moving ahead with greenhouse gases regulations under the 1970 Clean Air Act even though in 1970 global warming hadn’t even been invented yet, and the doom-saying scientists were instead warning of an impending ice age!
The enormous grassroots reaction to the outrageous Waxman-Markey energy tax bill passing the U.S. House has slowed Senate progress to a crawl. While cap-and-trade remains a major threat (especially with new “tri-partisan” negotiations betweens Senators Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman), the biggest threat of huge new energy taxes and government controls right now comes not from legislation, but regulation.
Next week President Obama will go to Copenhagen to make what he has termed a “politically binding” commitment to reduce greenhouse gases 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050, the same levels in the now-stalled cap-and-trade bill. He is able to make this commitment, we can tell from today’s EPA announcement, because he intends to use EPA regulation to short-circuit the democratic process, boycott the Congress, and put us all under a sweeping regulatory regime.
A 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA opened the door to this mischief, although that ruling was about motor-vehicle regulation. The EPA decision today, judging by their proposed regulations, goes far beyond that. Not only would motor vehicles be regulated, so would light-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks, buses, motorcycles, planes, trains, ships, boats, tractors, mining equipment, RVs, lawn mowers, fork lifts, and just about everything that has a motor. Because there is no control technology for greenhouse gases, the EPA would require complete redesigns and operational changes.
They would also require permitting for businesses and structures that emit as little as 250 tons of greenhouse gases per year. That threshold may make sense for some air pollutants. But for carbon dioxide it’s frighteningly low, and would subject millions of never-before-regulated entities to an expensive and lengthy EPA permitting process. Any building over 100,000 square feet would be pulled in, as would numerous smaller buildings that produce carbon dioxide. Small businesses, restaurants, schools, and hospitals that have commercial kitchens with gas burners would all be affected.
Don’t take my word for it. Even the 1970 Clean Air Act’s original author, Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, who supports cap-and-trade, says the Obama administration’s latest move is a recipe for disaster. He said:
“We are looking at the possibility of a glorious mess being visited upon this country. This is not what was intended by the Congress and by those of us who wrote the Clean Air Act. We are beginning to look at a wonderfully complex world, which has the potential for shutting down or slowing down virtually all industry and all economic activity and growth.”
The 1970 Clean Air Act is such a bad vehicle to address greenhouse gases that EPA is attempting, illegally, to rewrite the law to suit its purposes. EPA wants to handpick which industries and carbon emitters it will regulate, instead of following the law as written. Not only is it illegal, but it’s also ineffective, because state regulators and courts will still be able to use these regulations to shut down the whole U.S. economy.
If the Democrat Congress can’t kill jobs by passing a national energy tax, then the Obama Environmental Protection Agency will. This is nothing more than an attempt by the administration to build international support for a binding political agreement in Copenhagen. It seems liberal Democrats will stop at nothing to overcome the strong objections of the American people to a cap and tax system.
Last month alone an estimated 11,000 jobs were lost. Today’s decision will kill even more jobs at a time when more than 15 million workers are unemployed. The American people should have their voices heard in this monumental decision. The president should listen to the American people and reverse this misguided decision, and allow Congress to work its will on this important issue.
Tags:AFP, Americans for Prosperity, carbon dioxide, EPA, Fox News, greenhouse gasses, Mike Pence, Phil KerpenTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Personal Tweets by the editor: Dr. Bill - OzarkGuru
#Conservative #Constitution #NRA #GunRights #military 22 yr #veteran #professor #Christian #ProLife #TCOT #SGP #CCOT #schoolchoice #fairtax Married-50yr #MAGA
Comments by contributing authors or other sources do not necessarily reflect the position the editor, other contributing authors, sources, readers, or commenters. No contributors, or editors are paid for articles, images, cartoons, etc. While having reported on and promoting the beliefs associated with the ARRA, this blog/site is not controlled by nor funded by the ARRA. This site/blog does not advertise for money or services nor does it solicit funding for its support.
Fair Use: This site/blog may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as provided for in section Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Per said section, the material on this site/blog is distributed without profit to readers to view for the expressed purpose of viewing the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. Any person/entity seeking to use copyrighted material shared on this site/blog for purposes that go beyond "fair use," must obtain permission from the copyright owner.