While Arizona Fights, Arkansas Surrenders its State Sovereignty

Curtis Coleman, Contributing Author: Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel’s refusal to join 21 other state Attorneys General in suing the federal government over the recently passed health care law constituted an uncontested surrender of the State’s sovereignty. By supporting McDaniel’s decision, Governor Mike Beebe is complicit in the surrender. Consistent with his laissez-faire approach to state government, Beebe’s attitude toward state sovereignty was further revealed in his reaction to Secure Arkansas’ petition to deny government benefits to illegal aliens. Beebe’s abdicative response? “Congress should deal with immigration.”

This is an uncontested surrender of state sovereignty because, as Dr. Robert Moffit, Senior Fellow, Domestic and Economic Policy Studies for The Heritage Foundation, writes in his outstanding treatise, Revitalizing Federalism: The High Road Back to Health Care Independence, “Inaction by the states is an invitation to the federal government to take over their legitimate power when there is a popular demand for action.” (Emphasis mine.)

“Federalism.” Now there’s a word most Americans don’t use in their everyday vocabularies. For many Americans, a word association exercise for “Federalism” produces these: “federal”, “the federal government”, and “Washington.” But the word sounds the opposite from what it means. Federalism stands at the very heart of liberty – and very far from the halls of Congress.

James Madison provided one of the best descriptions of federalism:

“The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite…. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the state.”[Federalist No. 45]

Federalism is the policy that limits the powers of the federal government and protects the powers and rights reserved to the states and the people. Federalism is the opposite of a powerful centralized federal government; it is the principle that guarantees the sovereignty of the states and the liberties of the people. Moffit also writes, “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act represents more than a federal takeover of health care; it is a direct threat to federalism itself.”[Federalist No. 45] Moffit could have just as well written, “it is a direct threat to liberty itself.”

Federalism is the battleground for the revival of our commitment to the Constitution and the restoration of our liberties and freedoms being eroded one election, one bill and one vote at a time.  Federalism and the freedoms and liberties it represents are under unprecedented attack. Why? Because socialism demands a powerful centralized government. And because globalization demands the demise of the sovereignty of the individual states.

How real is this attack? Twenty one states are suing the federal government. And the federal government is suing at least one state over its right to protect its borders and it citizens. Very real, I’d say. Perhaps Arkansas will be spared by the victory of 22 Attorneys General and Governors committed to the sovereignty of their states.
--------------------
Curtis Coleman is President of The Curtis Coleman Institute for Constitutional Policy, headquartered in North Little Rock, Arkansas. He submitted this article to the ARRA News Service Editor. Coleman is also the Cofounder and former President and Chief Executive Officer of Safe Foods Corporation. He lectures on team building and servant leadership in the Emerging Leaders program at the Center for Management and Executive Development, University of Arkansas Sam M. Walton School of Business.

---

Tags: Curis Coleman, Arizona, Arkansas, Attorney General, Dustin McDaniel, Governor, Mike Beebe, Federalism, State Sovereignty, Us Constitution  To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Today in Washington, D.C. - July 7, 2010 - Watch-out America, Rationed Health Care has Arrived!

Today, President Obama used a recess appointment to install Dr. Donald Berwick, a 63-year-old pediatrician as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services without a Senate vote. Berwick’s nomination has been controversial since President Obama first put his name forward because of effusive praise for the British National health Care system and for his comments suggesting health care needs to be rationed. President Obama again his determination to strip the American people of their constitution right to have their US Senators input and decide on this appointment.

Speaking on the Senate floor in May, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) noted two of Berwick’s most controversial statements. “Dr. Berwick . . .  is a huge fan, a major champion, and a contributor to the British national health care system called NHS. As a matter of fact, I have a quote of Dr. Berwick regarding the NHS. ‘I am romantic about the National Health Service; I love it. The NHS is not just a national treasure; it is a global treasure.’ . . . Now, why is this important? Because the NHS rations health care. The NHS denies and delays patient access to therapies in regard to breast cancer, Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, kidney cancer, macular degeneration—this happens to be my favorite example: patients required to go blind in one eye first before they get treatment for the other eye—and brain tumors. . . . [Another] quote by Dr. Berwick is: ‘The decision is not whether or not we will ration health care—the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.’”

The New York Times noted, “As a recess appointee, Dr. Berwick will have all the powers of a permanent appointee. But under the Constitution, his appointment will expire at the end of the next session of Congress, in late 2011. . . . The recess appointment was somewhat unusual because the Senate is in recess for less than two weeks and senators were still waiting for Dr. Berwick to submit responses to some of their requests for information. No confirmation hearing has been held or scheduled.”

While this is true, the fact that there will now be no Senate hearing on Berwick, his controversial views on rationing health care, and how they relate to the Obama administration’s new health care law is particularly outrageous. Sen. Dr. John Barrasso (R-WY), one of only two doctors in the Senate, said, “This recess appointment is an insult to the American people. Dr. Berwick is a self professed supporter of rationing health care and he won't even have to explain his views to the American people in a Congressional hearing. Once again, President Obama has made a mockery of his pledge to be accountable and transparent.”

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell was no less outraged: “As if shoving a trillion dollar government takeover of health care down the throat of a disapproving American public wasn't enough, apparently the Obama Administration intends to arrogantly circumvent the American people yet again by recess appointing one of the most prominent advocates of rationed health care to implement their national plan. Democrats haven't scheduled so much as a committee hearing for Donald Berwick but the mere possibility of allowing the American people the opportunity to hear what he intends to do with their health care is evidently reason enough for this Administration to sneak him through without public scrutiny.  Just over three months after passage of this misguided law, with Americans' worst fears about it being realized every day, the fact that this Administration won't allow the man charged with implementing the President's plan to cut $500 billion out of Medicare to testify about his plans for the care of our nation's seniors is truly outrageous.”

Dr. Donald Berwick can do a lot of damage in two plus years. While the lame stream media mocked Sarah Palin for identifying the elitist's agenda of rationed health care and death panels, we now note the formal rolling out of the rationed health care agenda by Obama's recess appointee. From history, we learn that before the German government moved against the Jews, Hitler had at his side his escort physician Dr. Karl Brandt who lead Hitler’s euthanasia programs.

Hitler, Brandt and others devalued life. Brandt created the organization for killing crippled children, and as National Health Commissioner ordered the murder of mental patients throughout the country. They killed the insane and the elderly under the disguise of economics. Then they moved onto other groups incarcerating them and killing them. Finally they actively pursued their "Final Solution" against the Jews while their country was falling in around them. After the war, Hitler had already committed suicide. Brandt and others were convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity and executed. What insanity are we allowing to be played out in America today? It was American Judges participated in judgment over these former crimes.

In the last two days, we have seen played out an interesting set of choreographed events by President Obama. First, President Obama moved to appease American liberal Jewish population by photo opting the scripted meeting with Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who was at the same time not welcome to stay overnight in the White House. In this situation both Barry and Bibi needed something from each other and appeared before the public pleasantly engaged. In reality, Obama has no love for Israel as he does for the Muslim world. However he does need American Jewish voters and their money for this year's election. And Obama does not want to directly attack Iran, the home to one of the Muslim sects. Netanyahu the more experienced in global relationships was willing to suffer limited humiliation for the good of Israel. He needed cover for potential actions against Iran a threat to both Israel and the U.S.

As for the second, it was previously discussed. Obama moves today on the referenced recess appointment to install his own scripted representation of "Dr. Death." Watch-out America, Rationed Health Care has Arrived!

---

Tags: Washington, D.C., US Senate, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel, Iran, Barack Obama, recess appointment, rationed health care, Donald Berwick, Medicare, Medicaid Services, Germany, Hitler, Karl Brandt, euthanasia To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Earth to NASA

The Cartoon is by William Warren

NASA Director Charles Bolden created a firestorm after telling Al Jazeera last month that President Obama told him before he took the job that he wanted him to do three things: inspire children to learn math and science, expand international relationships and "perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering." In the same interview, Bolden also said the United States, which first sent men to the moon in 1969, is no longer capable of reaching beyond low earth orbit without help from other nations.

Officials from the White House and NASA stood by Bolden's statement that part of his mission is to improve relations with Muslim countries -- though NASA backed off the claim that such international diplomacy is Bolden's "foremost" responsibility. White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said in a written statement that Obama "wants NASA to engage with the world's best scientists and engineers as we work together to push the boundaries of exploration.

Former NASA administrator Michael Griffin responded, "NASA ... represents the best of America. Its purpose is not to inspire Muslims or any other cultural entity." Griffin also said that collaboration with other countries, including Muslim nations, is welcome and should be encouraged -- but that it would be a mistake to prioritize that over NASA's "fundamental mission" of space exploration.

It appears that after President Obama closed down the Space Shuttle program and the Constellation program then moved to redistribute the focus and funding of NASA to the Muslim world. Bolden oversaw the cancellation of the agency's Constellation program, which was building new rockets and spaceships capable of returning astronauts to the moon. Stressing the importance of international cooperation in future missions, Bolden told Al Jazeera that the moon, Mars and asteroids are still planned destinations for NASA in partnership with the international community.

Obama's Plan for NASA : Forget Space, Improve Relations With Muslim World

---

Tags: Global Warming, Charles Bolden, Barack Obama, Muslims, NASA, Political Cartoons, William Warren, political cartoon, video, Al Jazeera To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Governor: How Do You Plan To Repay That Federal Loan

Bill Smith, Editor: Is your state borrowing money from the Federal Unemployment Account(FTU)? Arkansans recently discovered that their State Government has borrowed from the FTU Account $390 million in advanced unemployment payments. Arkansas has a low population and incomes, and the payback of this debt is very significant. Today, the Republican Party of Arkansas asked Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe: How do you plan on repaying this loan while still complying with the Arkansas Constitution which requires a balanced budget?

To put the above debt in perspective, as of 2009 when Arkansas borrowed the money, it had a population of 2,889,450. Forty five percent (45%) of the population was under 18 or over age 65. Twenty percent (20%) of the population has a disability. In 2008, over 17% were below the poverty level which was 5% above the National poverty average. Arkansas per capita income was $16,904. [Source: Census Data]

The Arkansas Policy Foundation reported in March 2010, that full-time Arkansas state government employment has expanded 72% in the last 25 years. At the rate of growth, state employment will double from the present 57,179 employees by the end of the decade. In the last 25 years, Government Higher Education doubled and makes up for 44% of state employees while Social Welfare programs account for 18%. The Arkansas Department of Finance and Accounting doubled in size while the Arkansas Department of Corrections tripled in employees. Only one department, the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation, declined 3.4% in size.

To understand the full impact of government employment in Arkansas, one would have to add to the State Government totals the number of all elected politicians, county employees, city employees, state employees, elementary and secondary public school teachers and employees, and federal government employees (military bases, Corp of Engineers, Federal Courts, and all Federal offices in Arkansas). In Arkansas, government is the major employer which is paid for by varied forms of taxes, fees and charges. The impact of Government directly influences the number of lawyers, lobbyists, bonding agencies, government suppliers, and contract employees associated with government

In 2009, 43% of Arkansas population was employed and of the total people employed only 18% worked in tangible farming, construction, manufacturing, mining and logging jobs while the other 82% worked in government, professional, educational, financial and service jobs. It is time for Arkansas to change its dependency on Government for employment and to work to develop private employment jobs. While other states are on their way to bankruptcy, Arkansas still has time to shift direction. They can begin doing so at the polls in November.

A good start this year would be for Arkansans to elect fiscal conservatives to all office, especially to the state offices. It is time to replace the liberal elitist Democrats who continue to expand government and in-debt it citizens. It is critical for Arkansans to be on a safe secure basis while the rest of the country flounders. The allegiance of the Governor, Lt Governor and others should be solely to Arkansas and not to the Obama administration and the Federal Government. In November, Arkansans have the opportunity to choose a path of freedom and prosperity verses the path established by elitist which expands government spending, creates higher taxes and expanded debt and restricts the exercise of individual freedoms.

---

Tags: Arkansas, Governor, Mike Beebe, federal loan, debt, unemployment payments, government jobs, employment, Republican, Democrat, 2010 Election To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Today in Washington, D.C. - July 6, 2010 - Obama & DOJ Sue Arizona - Pelosi Creates Slush Fund for California in Military War Bill - Jobs Lost Due To ObamaCare

DOJ at President Obama insistence is suing Arizona over the state's immigration law. At the same time, the President Obama and his administration have ignored the invasion of America on our Southern borders especially on Dept of Interior lands in Arizona where murder and rape are occurring. It is obvious that Obama is playing politics verses being the President of the LEGAL (lawful) citizens of the Unites States. Both Arizona's Senators Jon Kyle and John McCain were aghast at DOJ suing Arizona. Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell said, “Suing the people of Arizona for attempting to do a job the federal government has utterly failed to execute will not help secure our borders. If the President wants to make real progress on this issue, he can do so by taking amnesty off the table and focus his efforts on border and interior security. It is long past time for this administration to prioritize solving a crisis over imposing an agenda and the first step is to recognize that attorneys and amnesty are not acceptable alternatives to border security and job creation.”

Yesterday the editor of ARRA News Services addressed Speaker Pelosi pushing action to attach a document to the House proposed War Supplemental Bill which is "Deeming Budget Passed Without A Budget." Now we learn that Speaker Pelosi also attached a $10 billion political slush fund identified as state education funding to the pending war supplemental bill last week. The proposed funds would be used to bail out bankrupt states like California and New York that refuse to make necessary cuts to balance their budgets, and whose teacher unions have run up an unsustainable tab for taxpayers. Bill Wilson of Americans for Limited Government responded: " Nancy Pelosi's House is willing to put the mission in jeopardy by holding the supplemental hostage to a bailout of their favored political constituency. This is unacceptable to the American people, who expect troops in harm's way to be funded without controversy. The Senate must do its part to remove any public union bailouts and pass a clean war supplemental."

It’s been a few days since the last story detailing the negative consequences of President Obama’s massive, unpopular health care law, which was the costly tanning tax hitting small business owners across the country going into effect last week. But sure enough, there’s another today.  The Cleveland Plain Dealer has a must-read article explaining how restaurants across the country, and especially Ohio-based White Castle are going to have much higher expenses face fines, and may even be forced to lay off workers thanks to the health care bill.

The Plain Dealer reports, “The White Castle hamburger chain fears that a health insurance reform law adopted earlier this year will put its profits on a downward slide. The Columbus-based family owned restaurant chain . . . says a single provision in the bill will eat up roughly 55 percent of its yearly net income after 2014. Starting that year, the bill levies a $3,000-per-employee penalty on companies whose workers pay more than 9.5 percent of household income in premiums for company-provided insurance. White Castle, which currently provides insurance to all of its full-time workers and picks up 70 to 89 percent of their premium costs, believes it will likely end up paying those penalties. The financial hit will make it hard for the company to maintain its 421 restaurants, let alone create new jobs, says company spokesman Jamie Richardson. White Castle employs more than 10,000 people nationwide, and more than 1,200 in Ohio.”

But it’s not just Ohio restaurants that are going to be hit with all these new costs. National Council of Restaurants “vice president Scott Vinson says the entire restaurant industry will have trouble dealing with costs the bill imposes in 2014, including a $2,000-per-worker penalty that companies with more than 50 employees must pay if their workers end up purchasing federally subsidized insurance rather than getting insurance from their employers. ‘There is the expense of actually providing the insurance, then the expense of not providing insurance,’ says Vinson. ‘It will be expensive either way.’”

The Plain Dealer also spoke with George Ebinger of New Jersey, who owns a number of IHOP restaurants. “He figures he will have to raise prices and possibly lay off workers to come up with the $220,000 he anticipates the penalties will cost. ‘We are still figuring out how to deal with this,’ says Ebinger. ‘Ultimately, either businesses will close or consumers will pay more.’”

Reacting to the White Castle news, House Republican Leader John Boehner, who also hails from Ohio said, “The irony is that in the name of expanding health care coverage, the administration is making it harder than ever for unskilled workers to get started in the workforce.”

The Plain Dealer also notes, “White Castle, which began offering health insurance to workers in 1924, is also examining whether it would make financial sense for the company to eliminate health insurance coverage altogether and have all its employees buy insurance on the federal exchange, says Richardson.” And White Castle isn’t the first employer to contemplate doing so.

Wasn’t health care reform supposed to save money on health care? Didn’t Democrats repeatedly promise that if you like your health care plan, you can keep it? Every week Americans are seeing more and more the negative impacts of Democrats’ health care law, which a majority opposed to begin and continue to view unfavorably. It should be repealed and replaced before any more damage is done to the economy and out health care system.

---

Tags: Washington, D.C., US Senate, US House, US Congress, War Supplemental Defense bill, Nancy Pelosi, earmarks, waste, health care law, job losses, Barack Obama, DOJ, suing Arizona, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Pelosi Black Magic: Deeming Budget Passed Without A Budget

By Bill Smith / Ozark Guru: Many are aware that the proposed War Supplemental Bill in the House Democrats is loaded with 61% non-military earmarks. More info on this at Democrats Load Troop Funding With Pork-Barrel Spending.

But there is greater travesty related to this bill which clearly defines why Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats need to be replaced in Congress. Previously, we noted that the House Democrat leaders were failing (refusing) to introduce a required Congressional Budget for 2011 and a planned "deeming ploy" might occur. Democrats did not want to be on record with a proposed budget for 2011 which they would have to defend with their constituents before the November 2010 elections. Also, they did not want to comply with their own Democratic "Pay Go" rules which requires them to define where they are going to get the funding (new money or cuts in spending in other government programs) for budgeted items. Without a budget, Congress would be forced to fund existing government programs by passing continually resolutions and the growth of government would be debated and likely restricted.

In the land of Fairy tales, we expect to find the Wicked Witch of the West and unreal things to happen. But on July 1st, in the US House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi took on the roll of the Wicked Witch of the West and with her entourage of big spending liberals used "black magic" to "Deem" a 2011 budget into existence. They called for a procedural vote to attach a non-relevant document to the War Supplemental Bill needed to fund our military in a war. The document "deemed as passed" a non-existent $1.12 trillion 2011 budget. Pelosi and her cohorts took fiction and deemed it to be true. They "deemed" a budget to be both real and passed without the budget having existed or having been voted on by the House of Representatives. The execution of the "deeming" document will allows Democrats to start spending money for Fiscal Year 2011 without the constraints of having to introduce or pass a tangible real budget which can be read by the public and debated by your elected representatives.

The "deeming" document passed by 5 votes with 215 Democrats voting in favor and 210 voting against (172 Republicans and 38 Democrats).  Connie Hair of Human Event summed up the situation: "Never before -- since the creation of the Congressional budget process -- has the House failed to pass a budget, failed to propose a budget then deemed the non-existent budget as passed as a means to avoid a direct, recorded vote on a budget, but still allow Congress to spend taxpayer money."

House Budget Committee Ranking Member Paul Ryan (R-WI) warned: "Facing a record deficit and a tidal wave of debt, House Democrats decided it was politically inconvenient to put forward a budget and account for their fiscal recklessness. With no priorities and no restraints, the spending, taxing, and borrowing will continue unchecked for the coming fiscal year. "The so-called ‘budget enforcement resolution’ enforces no budget, but instead provides a green light for the Appropriators to continue spending, exacerbating our looming fiscal crisis." A full Republican Budget Committee staff analysis of the Majority’s Budget Deemer: "An Admission of Fiscal Failure"

---

Tags: US House, Speaker, Democrats, no budget, deeming, Nancy Pelois, wicked witch, lies, speaker of lies, deceptive practices To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

What About The Country, Mr. President?

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today released a new web video challenging President Obama to focus on the American people's priorities after the release of yet another disappointing jobs report. The video, entitled "What About The Country, Mr. President?," features questions posed by Boehner to President Obama regarding jobs, spending, the financial meltdown, and the Gulf oil spill:

SCRIPT: "WHAT ABOUT THE COUNTRY, MR. PRESIDENT?"
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH): "This week, President Obama traveled to Racine, Wisconsin -- a city with 14 percent unemployment -- and used his time there to attack me. But I'd ask the President several questions:"
President Obama: "In the Gulf, we don't yet know what caused the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig."
Boehner: "Why aren't you focused on stopping the oil spill in the Gulf and getting the Gulf cleaned up?"
President Obama: "The second thing we've got to do is make sure that we've got regulations in place so that people don't get tricked into buying homes that they can't afford again."
Boehner: "Why aren't you focused on reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?"
President Obama: "The debt is getting bigger, the deficit is getting bigger. How do we get government spending under control?"
Leader Boehner: "Why aren't you focused on cutting spending now?"
President Obama: "So if I had been just thinking politics I would have sent you one big check with my picture on it."
Leader Boehner: "Why isn't the President focused on creating jobs that the American people are asking for?"
Leader Boehner: "Mr. President, what about the country?"

---

Tags: Barack Obama, John Boehner, important questions, video To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Happy 4th of July! - Independence Day!

 The ARRA News Service and the Arkansas Republican Assembly join you in celebrating our nation's 234rd Birthday - Independence Day. God Bless America and our armed service men and women.


"We Hold These Truths" by William Warren

---

Tags: 2010, 4th of July, Arkansas Republican Assembly, ARRA, ARRA News Service, Independence Day, William Warren To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

After viewing this week's Senate confirmation hearing for SCOTUS nominee Elana Kagan, it seems appropriate to FACT CHECK some more of her positions and statements. This is rather long so you may wish to skim first for items you may be most interested in reviewing.
Fact Check: “We Tried To Implement His Policy Views”
While Working In The Clinton Administration, Elena Kagan Claimed President Clinton’s Position On “Elective” Partial-Birth Abortion Was “A Problem” And Worked To Change It
ELENA KAGAN: “I Worked For President Bill Clinton And We Tried To Implement His Policy Views And Objectives. (Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Confirmation Hearing, 6/29/10)

Kagan Said President Clinton’s Opposition To “Elective” Partial-Birth Abortion Was “A Problem”
MEMO TO PRESIDENT CLINTON: “MR. PRESIDENT: Attached is a memo from Leon, Jack, George and Nancy-Ann Min on the partial birth abortion bill, setting forth four policy options and attaching a proposed letter to Senator Hatch. DOJ believes that only Option 4 is constitutional, while our Counsel’s office believes any of Options 2-4 are constitutionally sound. In essence these are the options:
1. No use of this procedure in pre- or post-viability stage unless the abortion is being performed because the pregnancy itself threatens life or serious adverse health consequences.
2. Same as Option 1 post-viability, but broader use pre-viability -- namely, if woman chooses an elective (non-health) abortion, she could choose to use this procedure as long as the procedure (as opposed to other procedures) were necessary to avert risk to life or serious adverse health consequences.” (Memo, KCL – 0089762, Clinton Library, 2/5/96)

6CLINTON: “Leon [Panetta] agree w/ #1.” (President Clinton, Note On Memo, 6 KCL-0089762, Clinton Library, 2/5/96)

KAGAN: “You’re right – this is a problem. It seems as if he wants Option 1 (which was also Leon’s preference). Call me whenever. Elena.” (Elena Kagan, Note Regarding President’s Decision, KCL – 0089758, Clinton Library, 2/96)

JACK QUINN: “E – HE DOES. JQ.” (Jack Quinn, Note Regarding President’s Decision, KCL – 0089758, Clinton Library, 2/96)

Fact Check: “Full & Good Access”
Military Said That Kagan “Stonewalled” Recruiters
ELENA KAGAN: “Senator, The Military At All Times During My Deanship Had Full And Good Access.” (Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Confirmation Hearing, 6/29/10)

IN 2004, KAGAN “BARRED MILITARY RECRUITERS” FROM HARVARD LAW
“In November 2004, The Appeals Court Ruled, 2 To 1, That Solomon Was Unconstitutional, Saying It Required Law Schools ‘To Express A Message That Is Incompatible With Their Educational Objectives.’” (“Potential Court Pick Faced Dilemma At Harvard,” The New York Times, 5/7/10)

“The Day After The Ruling, Ms. Kagan — And Several Other Law School Deans — Barred Military Recruiters From Their Campuses.” (“Potential Court Pick Faced Dilemma At Harvard,” The New York Times, 5/7/10)

“But The Ban Lasted Only For The Spring Semester In 2005. The Pentagon Told The University Over The Summer That It Would Withhold ‘All Possible Funds’ If The Law School Continued to bar recruiters from the main placement office.” (“Potential Court Pick Faced Dilemma At Harvard,” The New York Times, 5/7/10)

“So, After Consulting With Other University Officials, Ms. Kagan Said, She Lifted The Ban.” (“Potential Court Pick Faced Dilemma At Harvard,” The New York Times, 5/7/10)

MILITARY: KAGAN “STONEWALLED” MILITARY RECRUITERSAIR FORCE JAG RECRUITING CHIEF: “[D]enying Access To The Career Services Office Is Tantamount To Chaining And Locking The Front Door Of The Law School.” “Career Services Offices are the epicenter for all employer hiring activities at a law school. … Without the support of the Career Services Office, we are relegated to wandering the halls in hopes that someone will stop and talk to us.  [D]enying access to the Career Services Office is tantamount to chaining and locking the front door of the law school – as it has the same impact on our recruiting efforts.” (Email From Air Force JAG Recruiting Chief, 1/28/05 (K2DOD – 0001358))

“Harvard Is Playing Games And Won't Give Us An OCI [On-Campus Interviewing] Date; their official window for employer registration has closed.  Their recruiting manager told me today that she's still ‘waiting to hear’ whether they’ll allow us.” (Email From Air Force JAG Recruiting Chief, 1/28/05 (K2DOD – 0001358))

ARMY REPORT TO SENIOR PENTAGON LEADERS: “The Army Was Stonewalled At Harvard. Phone Calls And Emails Went Unanswered And The Standard Response Was – We’re Waiting To Hear From Our Higher Authority.” (Email Forwarding Army Report To Senior Pentagon Leaders, March 2, 2005 (K2DOD – 0001168-69))

HARVARD LAW SCHOOL VETERANS ASSOCIATION: INTERVIEWS ENCOURAGED OFF CAMPUS
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL VETERANS ASSOCIATION: “Interviewers Will Be Strongly Encouraged To Arrange For An Off-Campus Location To Conduct Interviews.” (Harvard Law School Veterans Association, Statement, 2/18/05)

HARVARD LAW SCHOOL VETERANS ASSOCIATION:“ Given Our Tiny Membership, Meager Budget, And Lack Of Any Office Space, We Possess Neither The Time Nor The Resources To Routinely Schedule Campus Rooms Or Advertise Extensively For Outside Organizations, As Is The Norm For Most Recruiting Events. … [Our Effort] Falls Short Of Duplicating The Excellent Assistance Provided By The HLS Office Of Career Services.” (Harvard Law School Veterans Association, Statement, 2/18/05)

Fact Check: The Kind Of  Justice Elena Kagan Would Be??
Kagan Says Committee Should “Look To My Whole Life For Indications” But Her Life Reveals A Long Career As A Political Operative

ELENA KAGAN: “I Think You Can Look To My Whole Life For Indications Of What Kind Of A Judge Or Justice I Would Be.” (Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Confirmation Hearing, 6/29/10)

1980: Worked On Senate Campaign Of Noted Liberal Rep. Elizabeth Hotzman
When Democratic Rep. Holtzman Lost In 1980, Kagan Believed “The World Had Gone Mad, That Liberalism Was Dead.” “She spent a summer working on the Senate race of New York Democratic Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman; when Holtzman lost in the 1980 Republican sweep, Kagan cried. As she later wrote, she believed ‘the world had gone mad, that liberalism was dead.’” (“Nomination Is No Surprise To Those Who Know Kagan,” USA Today, 5/11/10)

ELENA KAGAN: “The Defeat” Of Holtzman “By An Ultra-Conservative Machine Politician Just Come From The Town Of Hempstead Was Not A Pleasant Thing To Watch.” “I worked for Liz Holtzman last summer — some 14 hours a day, six days a week. So that night I was at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, attending what I was fairly certain was going to be a celebration. Instead, it was a wake. And let me tell you there is nothing more depressing than drinking vodka and tonics and watching Walter Cronkite with 500 other people whose expectations had differed similarly from reality. I got kind of drunk that night. A lot of people did. Most of us had grown to admire, even to love, Liz or rather, not Liz herself — actually, she was not terribly personable — but her intelligence, her integrity, her ideals. The defeat of those qualities by an ultra-conservative machine politician just come from the town of Hempstead was not a pleasant thing to watch.” (Elena Kagan, “Fear And Loathing In Brooklyn,” The Daily Princetonian, 11/10/80)

Watching Holtzman’s Defeat, Kagan Hoped A “More Leftist Left Will Once Again Come To The Fore”
“In My More Rational Moments, I Can Now Argue That … Perhaps More Leftist Left Will Once Again Come To The Fore.” “In my more rational moments, I can now argue that the next few years will be marked by American disillusionment with conservative programs and solutions, and that a new, revitalized, perhaps more leftist left will once again come to the fore. ” (Emphasis In Original; Elena Kagan, “Fear And Loathing In Brooklyn,” The Daily Princetonian, 11/10/80)

1988: Worked “Conducting Research On The Opposition” For The Dukakis Campaign“[Elena Kagan’s] Start In Politics Came In 1988, When She Volunteered On Michael Dukakis' Campaign For President. A Self-Described Flunky, She Worked In The Research Department, Defending Dukakis From Political Attacks And Conducting Research On The Opposition.” (“She’s A White House Veteran,” The Los Angeles Times, 5/11/10)

1995-99: Worked “To Score Points Against The Republican Congress” In The Clinton White House
“Government Service: Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, 1997-1999. Associate Counsel to the President, 1995-1996.” (“Elena Kagan - Nominee to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court,” Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Accessed 6/23/10)

KAGAN: “During Most Of The Time I Spent In The White House, I Did Not Serve As An Attorney; I Was Instead A Policy Adviser. … It Was Part Of My Job Not To Give Legal Advice, But To Choose When And How To Ask For It.” (Elena Kagan, Remarks At West Point, 10/17/07)

“E-Mails From Elena Kagan's Work As An Aide In The Clinton White House Portray The Supreme Court Nominee As Driven And Opinionated, With A Flair For Political Tactics And Little Tolerance For Flowery Rhetoric. A Review Of The Tens Of Thousands Of Pages Of Her E-Mails Released Friday Also Shows How Kagan Often Had To Place Political Considerations Before Policy Views.” (“Clinton-Era E-Mails Show Kagan’s Political Savvy,” AP, 6/21/10)

During “Her Stint As A Domestic Policy Aide… She Suggested Transforming What Was Supposed To Be A Routine Literacy Event At A Maryland School Into A Chance To Score Points Against The Republican Congress.” (“Clinton-Era E-Mails Show Kagan’s Political Savvy,” AP, 6/21/10)

ELENA KAGAN On Campaign Finance Proposals: “Soft $ Ban – Affects Repubs, Not Dems!” (Elena Kagan, Notes, DPC – Box 006 – Folder 006, KCL – 0003690, Clinton Presidential Library, 2/3/97)

Fact Check: “Unusual - the Banning of Free Speech”
Dem Senator Pushes Kagan To Say Citizens United Decision Was “Unusual”, However Media Noted That “It Isn’t Often” You Hear The Solicitor’s Office Argue The Constitutionality Of Banning “A Book”

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D-WI):“ So it was the Supreme Court that instead reached out and asked for re-argument and called into question a 100 year old statute that prohibited corporations more generally from spending money on elections. I just want to clarify this. So let me ask you: Wasn’t it highly unusual, if not unprecedented for the court to do this?” (Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, 6/29/10)

It Was Kagan’s Argument That Was Unusual And “Seemed To Shock Some Justices”
“It Isn't Often That A Government Lawyer Stands Before The Supreme Court And Acknowledges That Yes, It Would Be Constitutional To Ban A Book. But That Is What Happened . . ., as Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart defended a campaign-reform law that treated an anti-Hillary Clinton movie in 2008 as an election ad -- an advertisement that could be restricted, even banned, because a corporation paid for it. What if a book contained everything that was in the movie, asked Justice Samuel Alito. After some back and forth, Stewart replied that theoretically, government could prohibit its publication if it used corporate funds. ‘That's pretty incredible,’ said Alito, who noted that most publishing companies happen to be corporations. It was a pivotal moment that clearly upset the court.” (Tony Mauro, “Top Court Reviews ‘Hillary, The Movie,’” USA Today, 3/26/09)

NATIONAL JOURNAL: “What grabbed the justices' attention, however, was a series of admissions by the government's lawyer, Malcolm Stewart. He said that the government construes the First Amendment so narrowly as to allow Congress, if it chooses, to adopt a hypothetical ban on the financing by any corporation -- with the possible exception of media corporations -- even of books, articles, signs, or Internet postings (as well as broadcast, cable, and satellite ads) supporting or opposing federal candidates. That seemed to shock some justices. ‘If we accept your constitutional argument,’ Chief Justice John Roberts said, ‘we're establishing a precedent that you yourself say would extend to banning [a] book’ paid for by a corporation. These concerns may help explain why on June 29 . . . the Court set Citizens United for re-argument on September 9. The order requested new briefs on a big, broad question: whether to overrule ‘either or both’ Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision upholding the 1947 ban on independent corporate campaign expenditures, and the part of the 2003 decision in McConnell v. FEC that upheld McCain-Feingold's ban on corporate funding of electioneering ads.” (“Campaign Finance And Corporations,” The National Journal, 7/11/09)

Fact Check: Kagan on Using Foreign Law
Kagan Responds To Question About Using Foreign Law By Saying She’s “In Favor Of Good Ideas Coming From Wherever You Can Get Them”

ELENA KAGAN On Using Foreign Law: “I Guess I’m In Favor Of Good Ideas Coming From Wherever You Can Get Them.” SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): “Should judges ever look to foreign law for ‘good ideas,’ should they get inspiration for their decisions from foreign law?” ELENA KAGAN: “Well, Senator Grassley, I guess I’m in favor of good ideas coming from wherever you can get them.” (Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Confirmation Hearing, 6/29/10)

Fact Check: Kagan Waffles On Personal Politics
Nominee Responds Differently To Senator Sessions Than She Does To Senator Graham When Asked The Same Question About Her Political Views

TO SENATOR GRAHAM: “MY POLITICAL VIEWS ARE GENERALLY PROGRESSIVE”ELENA KAGAN: “My Political Views Are Generally Progressive.” SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): “Would you consider them -- your political views progressive?” ELENA KAGAN: “My political views are generally progressive.” (Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Confirmation Hearing, 6/29/10)

TO SENATOR SESSIONS: “I’M NOT QUITE SURE HOW I WOULD CHARACTERIZE MY POLITICS”ELENA KAGAN: “I'm Not Quite Sure How I Would Characterize My Politics.” SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): “Greg Craig, the former chief council to President Obama, who's known you for some time, I understand, said of you, "She is largely a progressive in the mold of Obama himself," close quote. Do you agree with that?” ELENA KAGAN: “Well, Senator Sessions, I'm not quite sure how I would characterize my politics.” (Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Confirmation Hearing, 6/29/10)

Fact Check: Kagan's Law Career Vs Political Career
Elena Kagan Touts Her 25-Year Law Career And Dismisses Her 30-Year Political Advocacy
ELENA KAGAN: “Some People Have Said Oh, You Know She’s A Political Person. I've Had A 25-Year Career In The Law. Of that 25-year career, four were spent in the Clinton White House. This was a period of time that I am proud of and that I feel as though, you know, I helped to serve the American people for President Clinton, but this is by no means the major part of my legal career.” (Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Confirmation Hearing, 6/29/10)

1980: Worked On Senate Campaign Of Noted Liberal Rep. Elizabeth Hotzman
When Democratic Rep. Holtzman Lost In 1980, Kagan Believed “The World Had Gone Mad, That Liberalism Was Dead.”“ She spent a summer working on the Senate race of New York Democratic Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman; when Holtzman lost in the 1980 Republican sweep, Kagan cried. As she later wrote, she believed ‘the world had gone mad, that liberalism was dead.’” (“Nomination Is No Surprise To Those Who Know Kagan,” USA Today, 5/11/10)

ELENA KAGAN: “The Defeat” Of Holtzman “By An Ultra-Conservative Machine Politician Just Come From The Town Of Hempstead Was Not A Pleasant Thing To Watch.” “I worked for Liz Holtzman last summer — some 14 hours a day, six days a week. So that night I was at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, attending what I was fairly certain was going to be a celebration. Instead, it was a wake. And let me tell you there is nothing more depressing than drinking vodka and tonics and watching Walter Cronkite with 500 other people whose expectations had differed similarly from reality. I got kind of drunk that night. A lot of people did. Most of us had grown to admire, even to love, Liz or rather, not Liz herself — actually, she was not terribly personable — but her intelligence, her integrity, her ideals. The defeat of those qualities by an ultra-conservative machine politician just come from the town of Hempstead was not a pleasant thing to watch.” (Elena Kagan, “Fear And Loathing In Brooklyn,” The Daily Princetonian, 11/10/80)

Watching Holtzman’s Defeat, Kagan Hoped A “More Leftist Left Will Once Again Come To The Fore”
“In My More Rational Moments, I Can Now Argue That … Perhaps More Leftist Left Will Once Again Come To The Fore.” “In my more rational moments, I can now argue that the next few years will be marked by American disillusionment with conservative programs and solutions, and that a new, revitalized, perhaps more leftist left will once again come to the fore. ” (Emphasis In Original; Elena Kagan, “Fear And Loathing In Brooklyn,” The Daily Princetonian, 11/10/80)

1988: Worked “Conducting Research On The Opposition” For The Dukakis Campaign“[Elena Kagan’s] Start In Politics Came In 1988, When She Volunteered On Michael Dukakis' Campaign For President. A Self-Described Flunky, She Worked In The Research Department, Defending Dukakis From Political Attacks And Conducting Research On The Opposition.” (“She’s A White House Veteran,” The Los Angeles Times, 5/11/10)

1995-99: Worked “To Score Points Against The Republican Congress” In The Clinton White House“Government Service: Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, 1997-1999. Associate Counsel to the President, 1995-1996.” (“Elena Kagan - Nominee to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court,” Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Accessed 6/23/10)

KAGAN: “During Most Of The Time I Spent In The White House, I Did Not Serve As An Attorney; I Was Instead A Policy Adviser. … It Was Part Of My Job Not To Give Legal Advice, But To Choose When And How To Ask For It.” (Elena Kagan, Remarks at West Point, 10/17/07)

“E-Mails from Elena Kagan's work as an aide in the Clinton White House portray the Supreme Court nominee as driven and opinionated, with a Flair for Political Tactics and little tolerance for flowery rhetoric. A review of the Tens of Thousands of pges of her e-mails . . . shows how Kagan often had to place political considerations before policy views.” (“Clinton-Era E-Mails Show Kagan’s Political Savvy,” AP, 6/21/10)

During “Her stint as a Domestic Policy Aide… she suggested transforming what was supposed to be a routine literacy event at a Maryland school into a chance to score points against the Republican Congress.” (“Clinton-Era E-Mails Show Kagan’s Political Savvy,” AP, 6/21/10)

ELENA KAGAN On Campaign Finance Proposals: “Soft $ Ban – Affects Repubs, Not Dems!” (Elena Kagan, Notes, DPC – Box 006 – Folder 006, KCL – 0003690, Clinton Presidential Library, 2/3/97)

“Over The Past Decade” Kagan Has Donated Generously To “Democratic Candidates And Causes”
“Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan Has Given At Least $12,050 Over The Past Decade To Democratic Candidates And Causes — Including To The President Who Nominated Her and a sitting senator who will get to vote on her nomination — according to federal campaign finance records. Kagan maxed out to her boss and appointer, President Barack Obama, with $4,600 in contributions in June of 2008, adding to the $2,000 she gave him when he ran for the U.S. Senate.” (“Elena Kagan Donated To President Obama, John Kerry,” Politico, 5/10/10)

Fact Check: Kagan's Intervention in Medical Views
Kagan Said She Provided President Clinton The “Best Medical Evidence” About Partial Birth Abortion But Documents Reveal That She Provided The President Findings She Helped Fundamentally Change
Kagan Says There Was “No Way” She Could Have Changed A Medical Organization’s “Medical Views” But Clinton Papers Reveal That She Did
Elena Kagan Worked To Re-Write The Findings Of A Medical Group On Partial Birth Abortion, Used Her Adapted Findings To Persuade President Clinton, And Remained Silent When The Adapted Findings Were Used As Medical Evidence In Subsequent Court Hearings

ELENA KAGAN: “We Tried …  To Get [President Clinton] Absolutely The Best Medical Evidence On This Subject Possible.” “President Clinton had strong views on this issue and what he thought was that this procedure should be banned, in all cases except where the procedure was necessary to save the life or to prevent serious health consequences to the woman and those were always his principles. And we tried over the course of the period of time when this statute was being considered, actually twice, to get him absolutely the best medical evidence on this subject possible.” (Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Confirmation Hearing, 6/30/10)

ELENA KAGAN: “Senator Hatch There Was No Way In Which I Would Have Or Could Have Intervened With ACOG, Which Is A Respected Body Of Physicians, To Get It To Change Its Medical Views On The Question.” (Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 6/30/10)

Kagan Said A Draft Statement From American College Of Obstetricians And Gynecologists Saying Partial-Birth Procedure Is Never The Only Option For The Health Of The Woman Is A “Disaster”
ELENA KAGAN: “Todd Stern Just Discovered That The American College Of Obstetricians And Gynecologists (ACOG) Is Thinking About Issuing A Statement (Attached) That Includes The Following Sentence: ‘[A] Select Panel Convened By ACOG Could Identify No Circumstances Under Which [The Partial-Birth] Procedure … Would Be The Only Option To Save The Life Or Preserve The Health Of The Woman.’ This, Of Course, Would Be Disaster – not the less so (in fact, the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the legislation. … they may try, however, to do something that sounds even stricter. Daschle’s staff hopes that this proposal will provide cover for pro-choice Senators (who can be expected to support it) and that it will refocus the debate from the partial-birth procedure to late-term abortions generally.” (Elena Kagan, Memo For Jack Quinn And Kathy Wallman, RE: Partial-Birth Abortion, KCL – 0090912, Clinton Presidential Library, 12/14/96)

Kagan Notes Show “Suggested Options” For New Language For ACOGKagan Notes Show Administration Provided New Language To ACOG Associate Director Of Government Relations: “Suggested Options: This procedure An intact D + X, however, could may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and the a doctor should be allowed to make this determination.” (Clinton Administration To Kathy Bryant (Associate Director Of Government Relations At ACOG), NLWJC – Kagan – DPC – Box 069 – Folder-001, Abortion – Partial Birth ACOG)

Kagan Then Praised ACOG’s Revised Statement On Partial-Birth Abortion After They Adopted The “Suggested Options”ACOG: “An Intact D & X, However, May Be The Best Or Most Appropriate Procedure In A Particular Circumstance To Save The Life Or Preserve The Health Of The Woman, And Only The Doctor, In Consultation With The Patient, Based Upon The Woman’s Particular Circumstances Can Make This Decision.” (ACOG, Statement On Intact Dilatation And Extraction, 1/12/97)

KAGAN: “Here’s The Final ACOG Statement On Partial-Birth. It Turned Out A Ton Better Than Expected. I’ll Let You Know In Person What Happened.” (Elena Kagan, Notes On Statement, 1/13/97)

Kagan Later Called This Statement “The Most Reliable Opinion” In A Memo To President ClintonELENA KAGAN TO PRESIDENT CLINTON: “You have asked whether the so-called partial-birth procedure is ever necessary to save the life of a woman or avert serious harm to her health. Considerable medical uncertainty surrounds this question. ... Perhaps the most reliable opinion is from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynceologists (ACOG), which issued a statement in January addressing the procedure, which it calls intact dilatation and extraction (intact D&X). According to the statement, ‘A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.’ (Emphasis in original.) The statement then went on: ‘An intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision.’ In sum, doctors have other options, but those other options may be more risky or otherwise more undesirable from a medical standpoint.” (NLWJC – Kagan – DPC – Box 069 – Folder-001, Abortion – Partial Birth ACOG, 4/10/97)

The U.S. Supreme Court In Stenberg v. Carhart Relied In Part On This ACOG Statement To Hold That Nebraska’s Ban On Partial Birth Abortion Was UnconstitutionalU.S. SUPREME COURT Syllabus: “ACOG Has Also Asserted That D&X Can Be The Most Appropriate Abortion Procedure And Presents A Variety Of Potential Safety Advantages.” “Held: Nebraska’s statute criminalizing the performance of ‘partial birth abortion[s]’ violates the Federal Constitution, as interpreted in Casey and Roe. … (b) The Nebraska statute lacks the requisite exception ‘for the preservation of the … health of the mother.’ Casey, supra, at 879 (joint opinion). … However, the Court cannot read ACOG’s qualification that it could not identify a circumstance where D&X was the ‘only’ life- or health-preserving option as if, according to Nebraska’s argument (8), it denied the potential health-related need for D&X. ACOG has also asserted that D&X can be the most appropriate abortion procedure and presents a variety of potential safety advantages.” (“Stenberg, Attorney General Of Nebraska, Et Al. v. Carhart” Syllabus, U.S. Supreme Court, 6/28/00)

U.S. SUPREME COURT On Nebraska Argument: “And It Points Out (8) That The American College Of Obstetricians And Gynecologists Qualified Its Statement That D & X ‘May Be The Best Or Most Appropriate Procedure,’ by adding that the panel ‘could identify no circumstances under which [the D & X] procedure ... would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.’ App. 600-601. … We find these eight arguments insufficient to demonstrate that Nebraska's law needs no health exception.” (Stenberg v. Carhart , 530 U.S. At 914, 934 (2000))

U.S. SUPREME COURT Final Decision Using ACOG Statement: “We Cannot, However, Read The American College Of Obstetricians And Gynecologists Panel’s Qualification (That It Could Not ‘Identify’ A Circumstance Where D&X Was The ‘Only’ Life- Or Health-Preserving Option) as if, according to Nebraska’s argument (8), it denied the potential health related need for D&X.” (Stenberg v. Carhart,  530 U.S. At 935-36 (2000))

Summary Fact: Kagan's "Vapid & Hollow Charade”
Media Notes Kagan “Repeatedly Declined To Weigh In,” “Deflected Questions,” “Wasn’t Willing To Answer More Questions,” & Was “Lead Actor In The Very Farce” She Called A “Vapid And Hollow Charade”

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (D-PA): “And Perhaps You Haven't Answered Much Of Anything.” (Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 6/30/10)

THE WASHINGTON POST: “Fifteen Years Ago, Elena Kagan Wrote A Law Review Article Calling The Supreme Court Confirmation Process ‘A Vapid And Hollow Charade’ That Takes On ‘An Air Of Vacuity And Farce.’ Instead Of A Quality Discussion, She Wrote, Nominees Offer ‘Repetition Of Platitudes’ And ‘Personal Anecdotes.’ On Tuesday, Fate Cast Kagan As The Lead Actor In The Very Farce She Correctly Described. And, to nobody's surprise, she played the role according to the standard script: with platitudes, personal anecdotes and an air of vacuity.”(Dana Milbank, “The Dodgy Miss Kagan,” The Washington Post, 6/30/10)

POLITICO: “Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan, Who Years Ago Called Such Hearings ‘A Vapid And Hollow Charade,’ Helped Ensure They Were Exactly That This Week. … One was left wondering if the public would not be better served by forcing nominees to appear on ‘Meet the Press,’ ‘Face the Nation’ and ‘This Week’ — or at the very least ‘Larry King Live’ and ‘The View’ — instead of going through the current process. Would we really learn less? Could we possibly learn less?” (“‘Vapid’? ‘Hollow’? Kagan Nailed It,” Politico, 6/30/10)

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS: “Republicans And Democrats Alike Expressed Frustration That She Wasn't Willing To Answer More Questions Despite Having Once Written A Book Review Saying Supreme Court Nominees Needed To Do Just That.” (“Leahy Predicts Kagan Approval; Hearings Near End,” AP, 6/30/10)

THE WASHINGTON POST: “During More Than Eight Hours Of Friendly Questions From Democratic Senators And Sharper Grilling By Republicans, Kagan Remained Somewhat Guarded. At Times, She Retreated Into Broad Statements About The Constitution Or Recited Legal Precedent On Polarizing Questions Without Divulging Her Own Views.” (“Kagan Refuses To Criticize Supreme Court, Vows To Be Politically Independent,” The Washington Post, 6/30/10)

THE NEW YORK TIMES: “Elena Kagan Deflected Questions About Her Own Views On Gun Rights And Abortion During Her Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings On Tuesday, instead describing Supreme Court precedents. … Ms. Kagan’s responses, during a long and sometimes tense day of parrying with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, were similar to those of Supreme Court nominees past. But unlike her predecessors, Ms. Kagan wrote a 1995 article calling for judicial nominees to be more forthcoming. On Tuesday, minutes into her testimony, she backpedaled, saying she now believed it would be inappropriate even to answer questions that might “provide some kind of hints” about her views on matters of legal controversy.” (“Kagan Follows Precedent By Offering Few Opinions,” The New York Times, 6/29/10)

USA TODAY: “In Her Second Day Of Questions From The Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. Solicitor General Kagan Continued Her Cautious Testimony, Relating The Status Of The Law In Many Areas And Shielding Her Personal Views.” (“On Day 3, Kagan Testifies Cautiously,” USA Today, 6/30/10)

THE NEW YORK TIMES: “Ms. Kagan’s Responses, During A Long And Sometimes Tense Day Of Parrying With Members Of The Senate Judiciary Committee, Were Similar To Those Of Supreme Court Nominees Past. But Unlike Her Predecessors, Ms. Kagan Wrote A 1995 Article Calling For Judicial Nominees To Be More Forthcoming. On Tuesday, Minutes Into Her Testimony, She Backpedaled, saying she now believed it would be inappropriate even to answer questions that might ‘provide some kind of hints’ about her views on matters of legal controversy.” (“Kagan Follows Precedent By Offering Few Opinions,” The New York Times, 6/29/10)

WALL STREET JOURNAL: “Kagan Created Some Distance From The Article Saying She Was ‘Wrong’ When She Said That Nominees Should Be Able To Talk About Past Supreme Court Cases And Whether They Agreed With The Holdings. Now, she said, she thinks that would be inappropriate because those precedents could come before the court again.” (“Kagan Backs Away From 1995 Article On Hearings,” The Wall Street Journal, 6/29/10)

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS: “Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan Is Distancing Herself From A 15-Year-Old Article In Which She Says Nominees Should Be More Forthcoming About Their Views During Confirmation Hearings.” (“Kagan Declines To Offer Ideological Direction,” AP, 6/29/10)

POLITICO: “Elena Kagan Repeatedly Declined To Weigh In.” “Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse took direct aim at the Roberts Court, saying the conservatives on the court have tried to ‘topple’ precedent they don't like. But Elena Kagan repeatedly declined to weigh in, even on the Citizens United campaign finance case in which she took the losing position. ‘I’m not going to characterize the court or any of the justices on the court,’ Kagan said.” (“Kagan Dodges Critique Of Roberts Court,” Politico, 6/30/10)

ROLL CALL: “That Answer Did Not Satisfy Feingold, A Campaign Finance Reform Advocate Who Continued To Press Kagan On Whether She Takes Note Of The Public Reaction To High Court Rulings.” (“Kagan Shows Feisty Side As Questioning Begins,” Roll Call, 6/30/10)

---

Tags: Elena Kagan, SCOTUS, nominee, fact check To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Posted by Bill Smith at 9:08 PM - Post Link 0 Comments - Share Your View

Obama Comments: He Has Nothing Good To Say About America

Bill Smith, Editor, ARRA News Service: The below video was identified of the YouTube accounts that I follow. In the video, Fox News clearly identifies that President Obama has nothing good to say about America both in and outside of the Untied States. Not to be snippy, but the president's comments do cause a a significant number of Americans to wonder why Obama wanted to be President of the United States.

To many people, Obama's continued rhetoric and actions, and the actions of his White house staff, and the prevailing "group think," of his cabinet appointees, causes them reflect on whether Obama would have preferred to be Dictator of the United States. Obama evidences that he enjoys the perks of the office. But also like many who have come into money or into a position they did not "earn," Mr. Obama displays a flamboyant arrogant belligerence of those he resents, those he considers beneath him, and those objecting to his agenda. While many people may pray that their know-it-all, impulsive or rakish children become responsible adults, the American people do not have time to wait for Mr. Obama to improve his behavior after evidencing his behavior and actions for 18 months. Past performance is a great indicator of future  performace.

So, the American people had best establish restraints on President Obama and his administration in the November 2010 elections by electing people of sound character who will stand for responsible but limited government. If this is not done soon, the voices of our elected officials may become muted and obliged to the whims and ways of an out-of-control president be it Barack Obama or the next president that rides a wave of popularity into the White House. Our forefathers feared kings and tyrannical leaders.  They established checks and balances in our Government and a restrictive Constitution to operate within. But these checks and balances only work if an educated citizenry elects competent sound minded people to Congress who do not see it as their responsibility to subjugate their constituents to the Presidency, the Congress or the bureaucratic agencies of the Federal Government.

---

Tags: Fox News, video, Barack Obama, character, arrogance, the presidency, Federal government, checks and balances, 2010 election, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Obama's Visit Forces Hundreds Into Unpaid Leave

Instead of perpetually campaigning for candidates, against conservatives, and about jobs created via Federal earmarks and special legislation verses the economy, President Obama would do well to either remain in Washington, D.C. except for visits to places like the Southern Border where foreign people and powers are invading America, or the Gulf Coasts States affected by teh BP Oil Spill. And even on these suggested visits, Obama would do well to listen and learn verses pontificating. Below is a video of an ABC news report evidencing the impact of  a recent visit by President Obama to East Columbus, Ohio.  On this visit, the White House staged a scene for Obama to pontificate on a fictitious jobs creation program and to attack Republicans including Ohio's Representatives John Boehner. The Irony is of Obama visit is that it forced a few hundred construction workers to be kept off their jobs for the day -- without pay. As evidenced by the report, these workers were not trilled with Obama's visit and no pay for the day. Note, the report did not address the hundreds of other workers affected by Obama's visit.  These Presidential (and even Vice Presidential) visits to these White House staged locations costs the taxpayers (both nationally and in the states and communities) millions of dollars.

Tags: ABC News, Barack Obama, President Obama, East Columbus, jobs, no paym construction workers To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Limp Economy? Flaccid Philosophy? Diagnosis: Electile Dysfunction

Pajamasmedia: Did you vote for Barack Obama? Feeling embarrassed by the results? Don't be so hard on yourself; DE is more common than you think. Nearly 70 million voters may suffer from DE. Have your talk today with Andrew Klavan and find out what you can do to treat DE. You - and your country - will be glad you did.

---

Tags: Andrew Klavan, Barack Obama, 2008 election, democrats, D.E., democratic voters, culture, Dysfunction, Electile Dysfunction,
To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

How To Create One Million Jobs - Follow These 5 Easy Steps . . .

The June jobs report offers yet another sobering snapshot of our country's unemployment situation. Many public opinion polls show "jobs and unemployment" as Americans' top concern. Other polls are beginning to find "federal debt" is most worrisome to the public.

It's no wonder why: 15 million people are unemployed and government spending has created a debt close to the size of our entire economy. We know of a way to help halt the growth of debt AND create jobs. Just follow the 5 Easy Steps outlined in the video.


Step 6 (if there was a Step 6): send this post / video to your friends, family and co-workers before government policy bankrupts our country.

---

Tags: Bankrupting America, unemployment rate, employment, jobs, creating jobs, bureau of labor statistics, White House, Congress, debt, spending, DOL June jobs report, stimulus To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Today in Washington, D.C. - July 2, 2010 - Unemployment Rises! Obama Recovery Summer Delayed

The Labor Department announced today that 125,000 jobs were lost in June, in part due to 225,000 temporary census jobs ending, leaving a gain in private sector employment of only 83,000 jobs. The unemployment rate lowered slightly from 9.7% to 9.5%, in part because 652,000 people stopped looking for work. President Obama claimed "we are heading in the right direction" when he addressed the unemployment report in a short speech on the runway tarmac before boarding Air Force One to go to West Virginia for Sen. Richard Byrd's funeral.  Obama added, "Make no mistake, we are headed in the right direction."  He admitted the the increase in available jobs has been slow.  He then proceeded to announce a several government efforts to fund jobs.

Reuters writes today, “Employment fell for the first this year in June as thousands of temporary census jobs ended and private hiring grew less than expected, dealing a blow to President Barack Obama who has identified job creation as a key priority.” Politico reports, “The U.S. economy created a modest 83,000 private sector jobs in June, adding to concern that the economic recovery is tepid at best . . . . The unemployment rate has remained near a politically perilous 10 percent in what increasingly looks like a largely jobless recovery, if it is a recovery at all. The economy is making very limited headway in replacing the nearly 8 million jobs lost since the recession began following the 2008 credit crisis and banking sector meltdown.”

The Heritage Foundation is identifying that a "weak economy and failed policies are keeping Obama's job deficit high."  The identify that  today's DOL estimates "confirms once again that the $862 billion Obama stimulus legislation — as well as all the subsequent budget-busting legislation Congress has enacted under the rubric of “jobs” bills—has failed, as expected.:  Also, "the weak jobs data means the Obama jobs deficit (the difference between current employment and the jobs Obama promised to create by the end of 2010) now stands at almost 7.4 million workers."

Of course, this in just weeks after Vice President Joe Biden announced that the White House is calling this “Recovery Summer,” despite unemployment remaining high and anemic private sector job growth. And this is despite the $862 billion stimulus bill that Obama signed last year, which Democrats said would create 3-4 million jobs and prevent the unemployment rate from exceeding 8%.

Nor have the subsequent economic policies of the Obama administration been much help. In fact, The Washington Post reported last week, “The chairman of the Business Roundtable, an association of top corporate executives that has been President Obama's closest ally in the business community, accused the president and Democratic lawmakers Tuesday of creating an ‘increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation.’ Ivan G. Seidenberg, chief executive of Verizon Communications, said that Democrats in Washington are pursuing tax increases, policy changes and regulatory actions that together threaten to dampen economic growth and ‘harm our ability . . . to grow private-sector jobs in the U.S.’” And even liberal New York Times columnist Bob Herbert wrote Monday that Obama and Democrats “did not focus on jobs, jobs, jobs as their primary mission.” Instead, they have pursued unaffordable job-killing measures like the costly health care bill and wrong-headed proposals like a national energy tax.

As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said today, “The two things that are growing fastest in this Democrat economy are the size of the federal government and the crushing burden of the national debt. While Americans are working harder and living with less, Washington is saddling them with even more government and insurmountable debt.  When America truly begins creating lasting private sector jobs that help our economy grow, it will be despite the government, not because of it.”

And House republican Leader John Boehner added today, "How much longer are we going to continue with this disastrous spending spree that is scaring the hell out of the American people and piling debt on our kids and grandkids? Instead of whining and making excuses, President Obama should stop turning his back on small businesses, start listening to the American people, and work with Republicans to put people back to work. Taxpayers have had enough of Obamanomics: they want Washington to get out of their way and out of their pocket. Our economy will ultimately recover, but it will do so because of the hard work and entrepreneurship of the American people. Economists say we need to cut spending now to put people back to work, and Republicans have offered better solutions to do just that."

It looks like the “Obama Recovery Summer” has been delayed!

---

Tags: Washington, D.C., US Senate, US House, US Congress, DOL, unemployment, jobs To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!