News for social, fiscal & national security conservatives who believe in God, family & the USA. Upholding the rights granted by God & guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, traditional family values, "republican" principles / ideals, transparent & limited government, free markets, liberty & individual freedom. All content approval rests with the ARRA News Service Editor. Opinions are those of the authors. While varied positions are reported, beliefs & principles remain fixed. No revenue is generated for this site - no paid ads accepted - no payments for articles. Fair Use doctrine is posted & used. Editor: Dr. Bill Smith [OzarkGuru] - email@example.com
Saturday, October 30, 2010
The Times That Try Men’s Souls
Curtis Coleman, Contributing Author: The dream was dead. At least so many thought.
For six months, Gen. George Washington and his Continental Army lost every single battle. No victories. Only horrible, heart-breaking, morale-decimating defeats.
On November 16, 1776 Gen. Washington watched as more than 2,800 of his soldiers were lost in the fall of New York's Fort Washington, many of them slaughtered by Hessian troops as they tried to surrender. He was so shattered by the event that he wept "with the tenderness of a child."
For the next 40 days he led his haggard troops on a desperate retreat, first across the Hudson River into New Jersey, then south through Hackensack, Newark, Brunswick and Princeton, finally crossing the Delaware River near Trenton, relentlessly pursued by battle-hardened British regulars and their rented German army.
His army was in miserable condition and had lost all but about 3,500 of its original force of approximately 30,000 volunteers. Washington observed that "many of 'em [were] entirely naked and more so thinly clad as to be unfit for service." In Quaker Burlington, one "peaceable man" watched American troops march by and observed that "if the War is continued thro the Winter, the British troops will be scared at the sight of our Men, for they had never fought with Naked Men."
At such a moribund moment of this incipient struggle for freedom and liberty, one of the first war correspondents in American history "continued writing at every place we stopt" as he marched with Washington's army on its anxious retreat. He scribbled these words by firelight in makeshifts camps along the road while exhausted soldiers slept around him:
"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."
These were the first lines of Thomas Paine's pamphlet, The American Crisis, the catalyst for an American revival of hope and commitment that would start before Washington's history-altering victories at Trenton, Princeton, and Yorktown.
"This great revival grew from defeat, not from victory," wrote David Hacker Fischer. "The awakening was a response to a disaster. Doctor Benjamin Rush, who had a major role in the event, believed that this was the way a free republic would always work, and the American republic in particular. He thought it was a national habit of the American people (maybe all free people) not to deal with a difficult problem until it was nearly impossible. 'Our republics cannot exist long in prosperity,' Rush wrote. 'We require adversity and appear to possess most of the republican spirit when most depressed.'"
Today's TEA Party, the resurgence of conservatives in the Republican Party, among independents and even among some Democrats, is a 21st century awakening in "response to a disaster." It is a revival growing "from defeat, not from victory." Its passion for liberty and freedom and for a government that enables its people rather than indentures them is what makes this election different from the Republican Party victories of 1994.
To the lament and confusion of progressives and liberals, this awakening leaves no middle ground. As in 1776, the time for compromise has past. As in 1776, there is either victory and liberty or defeat and despotism. Today's battle is not being fought with bullets, bayonets, and bloody feet, but with powerfully articulated principles, unmatched passion and an indefatigable commitment to the same dream that drove Washington and his haggard troops through dark icy nights on bootless feet to fight for liberty and freedom.
As our forefathers 234 years ago, we stand at the precipice of a new chapter in American history. Not as spectators, but as vital participants in the most critical decisions to be made in our lifetime. What we do - or fail to do - will doubtlessly determine the future of freedom for this and future generations of yet-to-be born Americans.
We have been shoved to the edge of the cliff of socialism and we are staring down into the dry gulch of tyranny and despotism. We will not be pushed any farther down this cliff.
Some are being called bigots, racists and uneducated extremists because they believe in smaller government, the principles of the Constitution, personal responsibility, freedom, liberty and loving God with all of their heart, soul and mind and their neighbors as themselves.
We will not be intimidated. We will not be discouraged nor deterred. We will see the return of this country to its faith in God. We will see the restoration of this country's government to the fundamentals of its Constitution, understanding full well that ours may be a no lesser sacrifice than George Washington's tattered soldiers' in 1776.  David Hacker Fischer, Washington's Crossing, 155  Ibid.,140  Ibid.,143
--------------- Curtis Coleman is the President of The Curtis Coleman Institute for Constitutional Policy and contributing author to the ARRA News Service. Tags:Curtis Coleman, Institute for Constitutional Policy, George Washington, Thomas Paine, American revival, Benjamin Rush, Times That Try Men’s Souls, TEA Party, US ConstitutionTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Pelosi Expected to Retire When Democrats Lose House
Pelosi and Reid: Dynamic Duo of Economic Chaos!
NetRight Daily - While a Time headline suggests that Pelosi is expected to retire “if” the Democrats lose control of the House on Tuesday, their headline suggests that there is still a chance that they could reverse a tidal wave of voter frustration that is poised to sweep the Democrats out. A better and much more accurate headline should have read: “Pelosi is expected to retire when the Democrats lose the House on Tuesday.”
The Time article is filled with insight on what the Democrats have to look forward to when the inevitable occurs. First, there could be many resignations–not just Pelosi’s. According to Time:
Other Democrats are sure to follow Pelosi out of the Capitol. After the GOP lost the House in 2006, 27 Republicans called it quits. But in the case of Pelosi’s Democratic cloakroom, the exodus could be deeper: five of the 20 current committee chairmen are her allies from California. Without their champion, some veterans such as Education and Labor Committee chairman George Miller, who has been in Congress since 1975, may be inclined to leave. Even if they don’t head for the exits, they might choose to abandon their gavels: Standards Committee chair Zoe Lofgren, also of California, is serving at Pelosi’s request and has made no secret of her distaste at being her colleagues’ ethical watchdog.
Others are older — Rules Committee chair Louise Slaughter and Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers, both 81, know that life in the minority holds less appeal for octogenarians. And, in any case, it might be time for some fresh blood. The average age of Democratic House chairs is nearly 70, while top Republicans are, on average, a decade younger — thanks, in part, to the 2006 spate of retirements. Democratic chairs have spent an average of 13.5 terms, or 27 years, in office, compared to Republicans who average 9.5 terms, or 19 years, in office.
And this isn’t even taking in to account Democrat Committee Chairs that could lose on Tuesday including: Barney Frank, John Spratt, Ike Skelton, Jim Oberstar, and Nick Rahall. Tags:Barney Frank, Congress, Congressional Committee Chairmanships, Democrat House, Democrats, Democrats Resigning, Elections 2010, Ike Skelton, Jim Oberstar, John Spratt, Nancy Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi Resigning, Nick Rahall, PoliticsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
What’s More Important: Liberty Or The Entity That Protects It?
By Dr. Chuck Baldwin: Let me ask readers a question. What’s more important: freedom and its undergirding principles, or the entity meant to protect it? A word of caution: be careful how you answer that question, because the way you answer marks your understanding (or lack thereof) of both freedom and the purpose of government.
Thomas Jefferson – and the rest of America’s founders–believed that freedom was the principal possession, because liberty is a divine–not human–gift. Listen to Jefferson:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” (Declaration of Independence)
Jefferson could not be clearer: America’s founders desired a land in which men might live in liberty. By declaring independence from the government of Great Britain (and instituting new government), Jefferson, et al., did not intend to erect an idol (government) that men would worship. They created a mechanism designed to protect that which they considered to be their most precious possession: liberty. In other words, the government they created by the Constitution of 1787 was not the object; freedom’s protection was the object.
Again, listen to Jefferson: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” In other words, government is not the end; it is the means. Government is not the goal; it is the vehicle used to reach the goal. Nowhere did Jefferson (and the rest of America’s founders) express the sentiment that government, itself, was the objective. Listen to Jefferson once more:
“That whenever ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (Declaration) (Emphasis added.)
Jefferson is clear: people have a right to alter or abolish ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT that becomes destructive to liberty. To America’s founders, there was no such thing as a sacred cow when it came to government. Government had but one purpose: “to secure these rights.” When ANY FORM of government stops protecting sacred, God-given liberties, it is the right and duty of people to do whatever they deem appropriate to secure their liberties–even to abolishing the government.
To America’s founders, patriotism had everything to do with the love of liberty, not the love of government!
Today’s brand of patriotism (at least as expressed by many) is totally foreign to the fundamental principles of liberty upon which America was built. I’m talking about the idea that government is an end and aim in itself; the idea that government must be protected from the people; the idea that bigger government equals better government; the idea that criticism of the government makes one unpatriotic; the idea that government is a panacea for all our ills; and the idea that loyalty to the nation equals loyalty to the government. All of this is a bunch of bull manure!
When government–ANY GOVERNMENT–stops protecting the liberties of its citizens, and especially when it begins trampling those liberties, it has become a “destructive” power, and needs to be altered or abolished. Period.
Can any honest, objective citizen not readily recognize that the current central government in Washington, D.C., long ago stopped protecting the God-given rights of free men, and has become a usurper of those rights? Is there the slightest doubt in the heart of any lover of liberty that the biggest threat to our liberties is not to be found in any foreign capital, but in that putrid province by the Potomac?
Therefore, we must cast off this phony idea that we owe some kind of devotion to the “system.” Away with the notion that vowing to protect and prolong the “powers that be” makes us “good” Americans. The truth is, there is very little in Washington, D.C., that is worthy of protecting or prolonging. The “system” is a ravenous BEAST that is gorging itself on our liberties!
Patriotism has nothing to do with supporting a President, or being loyal to a political party, or anything of the sort.
Is it patriotic to support our country (which almost always means our government), “right or wrong”? This is one of the most misquoted clichés in American history, by the way. Big Government zealots (on both the right and the left) use this phrase often to try to stifle opposition by making people who would fight for smaller government appear “unpatriotic.”
The cliché, “My country, right or wrong,” comes from a short address delivered on the floor of the US Senate by Missouri Senator Carl Schurz. Taking a strong anti-imperialist position and having his patriotism questioned because of it (what’s new, right?), Schurz, on February 29, 1872, said, “The senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, ‘My country, right or wrong.’ In one sense I say so, too. My country–and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” (Source: The Congressional Globe, vol. 45, p. 1287)
Schurz then later expanded on this short statement in a speech delivered at the Anti-Imperialistic Conference in Chicago, Illinois, on October 17, 1899. He said, “I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves . . . too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of TRUE patriotism: ‘Our country–when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.’” (Source: Speeches, Correspondence and Political Papers of Carl Schurz, vol. 6, 1913, p. 119) (Emphasis in original.)
Amen! In a free society, genuine patriotism demands that our country be RIGHT, as our nation’s policies and practices reflect the values and principles of its citizens. To feign some kind of robotic devotion to a nation without regard to sacred principle or constitutional fidelity is to become a mindless creature: at best, to be manipulated by any and every Machiavellian that comes along, or, at worst, to be a willing participant in tyranny.
As to loyalty to a President merely because he is President, Theodore Roosevelt may have said it best:
“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth–whether about the President or anyone else.”
Hence, freedom-loving Americans cannot afford to become infatuated with Washington, D.C. We cannot allow these propagandists on network television to distort the meaning of true patriotism in our hearts.
Patriotism means we love freedom. It means we understand that freedom is a gift of God. It means we understand that government has only one legitimate function: to protect freedom. It means that our love of liberty demands that we oppose, alter, or even abolish ANY FORM of government that becomes destructive to these ends. And it means that we will never allow government to steal liberty from our hearts.
As I asked at the beginning of this column, What’s more important: freedom and its undergirding principles, or the entity meant to protect it? The right answer is, freedom and its undergirding principles. If you understand that, then you rightly understand that the current government we find ourselves under is in desperate need of replacement. And whatever, however, and whenever that replacement reveals itself is not nearly as important as that liberty is preserved.
On the other hand, if you mistakenly believe that government (the entity meant to protect liberty) is more important than liberty, you are both tragically deceived and pathetically impotent to preserving freedom. You may also have identified yourself as an enemy of freedom.
As for me and my house, we will stand with Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence–in whatever form it may present itself in a modern world bent on dismantling our liberties. In other words, I pledge no loyalty to any government that seeks to destroy our freedom–including the current one! Tags:Chuck Baldwin, liberty, government, Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, Constitution, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
President Obama Supports Rep. Perriell: Who Cares - Vote Him Out!
President Obama is desperate for someone who openly supported ObamaCare to win re-election to the US House. So, Obama continues to "campaign" on our time and dollars for democrats who are willing to associate with him. The following media comments show a desperate president.
The New York Times reported on Tuesday, “President Obama has added a surprise stop to his campaign schedule, heading to Central Virginia on Friday in a last-minute bid to help a freshman Democrat in the House who has been an unapologetic backer of the president’s agenda. That support has cost Tom Perriello support in Virginia’s sprawling 5th District and made him a prime target for Republicans. . . . Mr. Perriello was a vocal supporter of Mr. Obama’s health care legislation, voting for the bill despite the conservative tilt in his largely rural district. . . . Mr. Perriello also voted for a ‘cap and trade’ energy bill in the House, also a controversial vote in his district.”
Analyzing the President’s trip to boost Rep. Perriello today, The Washington Post writes, “What is it about Tom Perriello that makes the president swoon? It's not just that the first-term congressman is an unapologetic Democrat who defends his vote for the health-care overhaul with gusto. It's that, in the thick of the fight last summer, when some Democrats hid from view, Perriello held more town hall meetings than any other congressman in the country. . . . But most important, it's that he's doing it in a conservative central Virginia district with some of the state's highest unemployment rates and a general distaste for Obama. In a national election that is almost certain to be seen as a repudiation of the president and his party's policies, Obama would like nothing more than to point to Perriello as a Democrat who succeeded - not in spite of his party and his voting record, but because he championed them. Both Democratic and Republican polls show Perriello narrowly trailing Republican Robert Hurt.”
Clearly the President’s agenda is unpopular in Perriello’s district. Last year, Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell won 61% of the vote in that district. It’s consistently rated one of the most competitive districts in the country. And The Wall Street Journal reminded yesterday, “A majority of likely voters in the most competitive House districts support repealing the Democrats' health overhaul, according to recent polling data. The figures are one of the sharpest signals yet that Democrats are unlikely to translate their signature legislative achievement into success inside the voting booth. The health bill passed in March is particularly unpopular in the districts that matter most in the Republicans' effort to retake the House.”
Americans said they didn’t want President Obama’s health care plan and opposed the national energy tax that would result from the carbon cap-and-trade legislation the President supports. Yet Rep. Perriello voted for both of these unpopular and ill-considered bills. So while Perrillo appears to have President Obama’s gratitude today, Americans have been speaking out, and iIt’s clear they’re not thanking Perriello or Obama for their policies. It is time to remind President Obama and Rep. Tom Perriello to go home. Those who supported ObamaCare, Cap and Trade, and excessive federal spending are not wanted in Washington. Tags:President Obama, Virginia, Tom Perriello, ObamaCare, Cap and Trade, higher taxes, lower services, campaigning, 2010 electionTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Blanche Lincoln Scatters Money to Farmers On Way Out; Rothenberg Predicts "Bloodbath"
Obama Hearts Blanche Lincoln
She's My Obamacare Girl
She Needs More Stimulus Money
To Spread Around
Carolyn Lochhead, San Fransico Chronicle: We haven't counted up just how much taxpayer cash Sen. Blanche Lincoln is showering on Arkansas farmers on her way out the door. Not a week goes by without a press release from Lincoln, one of the nation's premier defenders/promoters of farm subsidies, touting how much of your money she's spent in a doomed effort to cling to her Senate seat.
Okay, so today it's black farmers. Fine, they've been discriminated against by USDA for going on a century now. But most of the payola is just that. Lincoln, first female chair of the Senate Ag Committee, ain't shy about it either:
"I am proud to deliver this assistance that will help Arkansas's hard-working farmers and ranchers grow their operations and access critical USDA programs," Lincoln said. "I am dedicated to securing funding that will help provide Arkansas's agriculture producers the resources and skills they need to be successful."
As for the rest of us who also need "resources and skills" to be successful, good luck.
Meanwhile, the landscape nationally for Dems doesn't look so great. As in this from independent analyst Stu Rothenberg, editor of the respected Rothenberg Political Report:
"With a week to go until Election Day, House Democrats face the potential of a political bloodbath the size of which we haven't seen since the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
"The largest midterm House loss for the president's party during the last 50 years was 52 seats in 1994. The previous largest losses were 55 seats in 1942 and 71 seats in 1938.
"While some Democrats say their party will keep Republican gains to fewer than 39 seats, Democratic losses are likely to be much higher."
Tags:Blanche Lincoln, Barack Obama, Arkansas, voters, election 2010, farmers, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Mastadon ArmyVideo: In a country, headed toward socialism, where the elitist few ran the government and did not govern for the people, but against them...
In a climate of arrogant words, never before seen flippant attitudes, photo ops, fake news stories, and continued out of control rhetoric...
In a time of rising debt, broken promises, increased taxes, out of control government spending, corporate takeovers and corrupt special interests ...
In a world where evil nations are developing nuclear weapons and where Obama pairs down the United State's arsenal leaving us more and more defenseless....
Now, more than ever, America needs a hero - one who has the power to change the political landscape. That hero, that voice... is You. . . . [Full Script]
Tags: American Hero, vote. Tea Party, Government, United States, November, November is Coming, election, We The People, Constitution, USA, videoTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Below is an important message from Americans for Prosperity - Arkansas.
URGENT. WATCH;THIS IMPORTANT VIDEO
You paid for his $800,000 dollar salary and benefits. Who is he? His name is Chad Causey and he's a Washington "Yes Man," running for Congress in Arkansas' first district. What else did Chad Causey say "Yes" to? Find out by clicking on the video below.
Please forward this email to friends and family and let them know about the Washington "Yes Man" who's running for Congress.
Teresa Oelke, State Director
Americans for Prosperity - Arkansas
Americans for Prosperity® (AFP) is a nationwide organization of citizen leaders committed to advancing every individual's right to economic freedom and opportunity. AFP believes reducing the size and scope of government is the best safeguard to ensuring individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans. AFP educates and engages citizens in support of restraining state and federal government growth, and returning government to its constitutional limits. AFP has more than 1,600,000 members, including members in all 50 states, and 30 state chapters and affiliates. More than 80,000 Americans in all 50 states have made a financial investment in AFP or AFP Foundation. For more information, visit www.americansforprosperity.org
Tags:Americans for Prosperity, Arkansas, Chad Cuasey, Arkansas, 1st District, 2010 election, video, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Progressive Elites Will Not Be Quitting; Neither Should Conservatives
Bill Smith, Editor: Politics in Washington, D.C. has evolved over the years into the professional political big leagues. While our Senators and Representatives are elected by their home state voters, their pay and benefits are paid by the U.S. Congress according to the schedule of pay and benefits that they vote for themselves. With increased years of service, allegiance shifts from their constituents to their political party leaders.
However, we do elect these members of Congress from our home political teams. If the members of the home teams don't fully support the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or local community values, then we can only expect the same when they arrive in Washington, D.C. And, if they are immoral, corrupt, deceitful, lie, cheat or steal, covet their neighbors' property, etc., we can only expect them to become worse after they arrive in Washington, D.C.
In the last 22 months, the elected Democrat progressive elites have shifted government so far left that even their home team Democrats are concerned. Big Government is seeking to control everything. The economy is being destroyed. Former domestic terrorists, anti-constitutionalists czars, thousands of tax cheats, anti "bill of rights" extremists, and big government con artists have been placed in position of authority in the Obama administration.
The voters "do" understand the numbers. They know that the candidate with the most votes should win. They also know that a county is doomed when it has a $13 Trillion debt underwritten by China and other countries. With 10% unemployment and big government strangling its businesses, they know that a country is on the road to loosing as a world power. Those who see confiscation of wealth of others eventually ask themselves when will this stop - will I be next? They understand that when private contracts are broken by the outside force of government, then this same government may seek to break the contracts they have with their clients, neighbors, family, banks, employers, etc.
In 2008, the majority of the voters elected Barack Obama. But this same majority and those who did not vote for Mr. Obama have experienced the heavy hand of Obama's Big Government administration. We have all noted that we are not better off today than we were 20 months ago. We know democrat representatives have voted for bills they didn't even read. We have all been embarrassed to one degree or another by Mr. Obama's bowing and scraping to foreign leaders and potentates. While there is much more that could be listed, the most distressful issue is that in varying degrees, we all feel that our own security and safety are being threatened by those outside of our country and by those in our "big" government.
People are looking again for change but not from the democrats. Even some democrats are supporting Republicans while others are just leaving the Democratic Party. We have noted that President Bill Clinton's former political adviser, Dick Morris, has proudly declared himself to be a Republican. In Arkansas, the electorate is both leaning right and will elect more Republicans than in the previous 136 years of democrat plantation politics.
But there was a seismic shift that occurred in Louisiana on Tuesday, Oct. 26th that was not analyzed or mentioned by the major political pundits. Louisiana's Lt. Governor Scott Angle "changed his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican because of his dissatisfaction with President Barack Obama and the administration's recent actions on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico." And, Angle is not even running for office. In the below video, you can listen to his declaration.
Indeed the concerns expressed previously have awakened the people of America. TEA Parties, Patriot Groups, and actions by former democrats like Dick Morris and Lt. Gov. Scott Angle indicate that a major restoration is at hand. November is Coming! We need to send conservatives to Washington who will counteract the agenda of the Obama administration. It is also very important that conservatives continually work to reshape their local political home teams which will provide the future leaders of our states and our nation. The progressive elites will not be quitting; neither should the conservatives. Tags:progressive, elites, conservatives, Louisiana, Lt. Gov, Scott Angle, Dick Morris, democrats, republicans, conservatives, video, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Stimulus Failure Is Clear; Dems Lose Claims To Job Creation
Failure - No Jobs
As a reminder, Congress remains in a modified form of recess. The House members are totally in recess and out on the campaign trail as all House seats are up for election every two years. The Senate will next reconvene for official legislative business on Monday, November 15th.
However, the Senate never went on long term recess but meets in regularly scheduled pro forma sessions throughout the recess period to prevent President Obama from making recess appointments. The next session will be on tomorrow, Oct 28 Friday at 11:30 AM. The Senate will also hold pro forma sessions on: November 1 at 9:00 AM, November 4 at 9:00 AM, November 8 at 12:00 PM, November 10 at 9:30 AM, and November 12 at 10:00 AM.
The Democrats used this process routinely during the second term of President GW Bush to prevent him from filling critical vacancies being blocked Democrats. The Democrats agreed to the present pro forma sessions at the insistence of Senate Minority Leader Republican Mitch McConnell because President Obama had previously skipped the regular Senate confirmation process and appointed a controversial appointment during a scheduled Senate recess. In reality, any Presidential appointments made at this time would cease to be valid with the convening of the new Congress in January, 2010. The Democrat leadership agreed because many of them were up for re-election and could not afford the distraction of more controversial appointments by President Obama.
The AP reports today, “The job market and the economy will improve only slightly next year, according to an Associated Press survey of leading economists whose outlook for 2011 has dimmed over the past three months. The latest quarterly AP Economy Survey shows economists are pushing back their estimates of when key barometers of economic health — hiring, spending, expansion — will signal strength. In their view, shoppers and employers will stay cautious. Households will keep saving. Inflation will remain tame. And unemployment will dip only a bit from the current 9.6 percent rate to a still-high 9 percent at the end of 2011.”
That’s not the only promise the stimulus has failed to live up to. Shortly after the bill was signed, Vice President Joe Biden boasted, “[T]his is about getting this out and spent in 18 months to create 3.5 million jobs and tee this up so the rest of the good work that’s being done here literally drop-kicks us out of this recession and we begin to grow again . . . .” Since then over 3.3 million jobs have been lost. And today’s AP story notes that economists forecast that “[t]he economy will expand just 2.7 percent next year, scarcely more than the tepid growth predicted for all of 2010. Under an economic rule of thumb, growth would have to average at least 5 percent for a whole year to lower the unemployment rate by 1 percentage point.”
Little wonder, then, that Americans no longer have a lot of confidence in Democrats’ economic solutions. According to The New York Times, a new NYT/CBS poll finds, “On the issue most driving the campaign, the economy, Republicans have erased the traditional advantage held by Democrats as the party seen as better able to create jobs; the parties are now even on that measure. By a wide margin, Republicans continue to be seen as the party better able to reduce the federal budget deficit.”
As Senate Republican Leader McConnell said after the release of the disappointing September jobs report, “[W]ith each passing month, and each new jobs report, it becomes increasingly clear that while massive Washington spending is growing the size of government, it’s clearly not growing sustainable private-sector jobs. The trillion-dollar stimulus didn’t live up to promises made by the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress; the massive growth of the federal government didn’t result in a similar growth of jobs; and the maze of new regulations, health care mandates and taxes are having a predictable impact on the economy. Again and again, Democrats were faced with a problem, and their solution was to ram through some costly, big-government solution Americans didn’t want.”
Many Americans now agree. According to the NYT, “In a follow-up interview, one poll respondent, Judy Berg, an independent from Morton Grove, Ill., said she voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 because she was ‘looking for a change,’ adding, ‘the change that ensued was not the change I was looking for but something totally out of left field.’”
Yesterday, The Times - Picayune reported that Louisiana Lt. Governor Scott Angle "changed his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican because of his dissatisfaction with President Barack Obama and the administration's recent actions on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico." Tags:Democrats, Congress, Barack Obama, stimulus, no jobs, jobs, citizen dissatisfaction To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Unless you are are a progressive liberal, you have to smile at this latest video by our good buddy Bruce Bellott:
Oh we're gonna have a party | Look at all the lovely signs | Nothin like a tea party | To say what's on your mind | We're standin up for our country and God | Our right to freedom of speech | We're gonna have a tea party | For all the world to see | Oh yeah we're gonna have a party | So come along with me | Get off the couch come and pour me some tea | Show me some hospitality | We the People we just want you to know | Your train is runnin out of track | We're gonna have a tea party | And vote to take our country back | We're gonna turn back the hands of time | And vote to take our country back! || Copyright 2010 Bruce Bellott. All rights reserved. Posted by express permission. Tags:tea party, patriot, 2010 election, Bruce Bellott, take our country back, musicTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Bill Smith, Editor: When I received the following quote from a reader [thank you Sandi], she had my attention:
"The Soviet Union used new “mental illnesses” for political repression. People who didn’t accept the beliefs of the Communist Party developed a new type of schizophrenia. They suffered from the delusion of believing communism was wrong. They were isolated, forcefully medicated, and put through repressive “therapy” to bring them back to sanity."
I checked out the source for the quote and found a website (Off The Grid News) that was not on my radar. The following article should create an awareness of a potential threat on another front not usually considered. The article should be of interest to all outspoken conservative political activists, TEA Party members, and leaders of organizations taking on the messages of the establishment. We have already noted in today's political environment of rising secular progressive elitism that they believe that what is yours (rights, freedom, property, wealth, etc.) needs to be redistributed according to their determination. While not wishing to add to the list of fears, the following article reveals that the door may be open to classifying as deviates those who are liberty loving constitutional conservatives.
Most of us have noted the growing rhetoric (attacks) by the Democratic leaders of Congress, the White House, their staff members, and their supporters. They have mocked, ridiculed, and increased their attacks on American citizens who express their public concern and opposition to growth of government, waste by government, rising national debt and attacks on personal freedoms and liberties. But the problem of elitism is not limited to the democrats but crosses party lines as evidenced by the controlling nature of Rockefeller Republicans and RINOs.
Those who have read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" and Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray's "The Bell Curve" would have noted the warnings about elites who seek to institute control over others whom they believe to be inferior. While Ayn Rand's novel was both popular in its day and today with freedom loving people, the "The Bell Curve" came under fire as many failed to read the entire book or focused only on research data and asserted claims that the book was racist. Most readers missed the author's warning about the dangers of elitism of the intelligentsia seeking to create a "custodial state" over the rest of society. But I digress.
The below article warns all freedom loving Americans who are speaking out in defense of individual rights and freedoms. There will be a high price to pay if America does not return to the path intended by the creators of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights. That price may even include:
"[T]he labeling of freethinking and nonconformity as mental illnesses has a lot of potential for abuse. It can easily become a weapon in the arsenal of a repressive state."
by Andrew: Is nonconformity and freethinking a mental illness? According to the newest addition of the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), it certainly is. The manual identifies a new mental illness called “oppositional defiant disorder” or ODD. Defined as an “ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile and defiant behavior,” symptoms include questioning authority, negativity, defiance, argumentativeness, and being easily annoyed.
The DSM-IV is the manual used by psychiatrists to diagnose mental illnesses and, with each new edition, there are scores of new mental illnesses. Are we becoming sicker? Is it getting harder to be mentally healthy? Authors of the DSM-IV say that it’s because they’re better able to identify these illnesses today. Critics charge that it’s because they have too much time on their hands.
New mental illnesses identified by the DSM-IV include arrogance, narcissism, above-average creativity, cynicism, and antisocial behavior. In the past, these were called “personality traits,” but now they’re diseases.
And there are treatments available.
All of this is a symptom of our over-diagnosing and overmedicating culture. In the last 50 years, the DSM-IV has gone from 130 to 357 mental illnesses. A majority of these illnesses afflict children. Although the manual is an important diagnostic tool for the psychiatric industry, it has also been responsible for social changes. The rise in ADD, bipolar disorder, and depression in children has been largely because of the manual’s identifying certain behaviors as symptoms. A Washington Post article observed that, if Mozart were born today, he would be diagnosed with ADD and “medicated into barren normality.”
According to the DSM-IV, the diagnosis guidelines for identifying oppositional defiant disorder are for children, but adults can just as easily suffer from the disease. This should give any freethinking American reason for worry.
The Soviet Union used new “mental illnesses” for political repression. People who didn’t accept the beliefs of the Communist Party developed a new type of schizophrenia. They suffered from the delusion of believing communism was wrong. They were isolated, forcefully medicated, and put through repressive “therapy” to bring them back to sanity.
When the last edition of the DSM-IV was published, identifying the symptoms of various mental illnesses in children, there was a jump in the diagnosis and medication of children. Some states have laws that allow protective agencies to forcibly medicate, and even make it a punishable crime to withhold medication. This paints a chilling picture for those of us who are nonconformists.
Although the authors of the manual claim no ulterior motives but simply better diagnostic practices, the labeling of freethinking and nonconformity as mental illnesses has a lot of potential for abuse. It can easily become a weapon in the arsenal of a repressive state. Tags:big brother, politics, freethinking, nonconformity, mental illness, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, oppositional defiant disorder, ODD, repressive stateTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Just after Democrats passed their unpopular health care bill, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) declared on Meet the Press, “As people learn about the bill, it’s going to be more and more popular. By November, those who voted for health care will find it an asset, those who voted against it will find it a liability.” But that simply doesn’t appear to be the case. According to a New York Times headline today, “Health Care Vote Puts Democrats on Defensive”
The Times writes, “While clearly secondary to economic concerns, the continuing debate over health care has remained prominent in numerous races for the House and Senate. . . . Strikingly, just after Labor Day, the only House Democrats with television ads on the health care law were among the 34 who broke with the party to vote against it. Some of those incumbents have used their votes to demonstrate independence from, and even antagonism toward, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi . . . . ‘I voted against Nancy Pelosi’s trillion-dollar health care bill, because we can’t afford it,’ says Representative Jim Marshall, a Democrat, in an ad broadcast in his middle Georgia district. ‘That’s just one reason why I won’t support her for speaker.’”
It’s little wonder Democrats are running away from their flawed health care bill. It’s been unpopular for over a year. As far back as December 2009 most Americans wanted their member of Congress to vote against the bill. The bill was unpopular when it was signed into law in March, and over six months later majorities still disapprove of the legislation. Just yesterday, National Journal reported, “Just over half of Americans likely to vote in next week’s midterms want the next Congress to repeal this year’s health care overhaul if Republicans gain power on Capitol Hill . . . . Fifty-one percent of voters most likely to vote support taking the new health care law off the books . . . while 41 percent oppose repeal, according to the latest Society for Human Resource Management/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll, conducted with the Pew Research Center.”
In the wake of Democrats’ sweeping promises about their health care bill and the stark contrast reality has shown over the last several months, Americans have simply seen their concerns about the bill come true. It’s easy to understand why Democrats would want to run away from it. Voters will finally have the opportunity to have their say on the health care bill next week. Tags:Democrats, government health care, ObamacareTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Poll: Majority Of Likely Voters Back Obamacare Repeal; GOP Leaders "Committed To Its Repeal"
National Journal reports today, “Just over half of Americans likely to vote in next week’s midterms want the next Congress to repeal this year’s health care overhaul if Republicans gain power on Capitol Hill, according to a new poll, a dramatic rebuke to a sitting president and freshly minted statute. Fifty-one percent of voters most likely to vote support taking the new health care law off the books if the GOP takes the House and Senate, or either, while 41 percent oppose repeal, according to the latest Society for Human Resource Management/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll, conducted with the Pew Research Center.” Interestingly, among registered voters, 53% of independents support repeal, and nearly 1 in 4 Democrats (23%) do as well.
During the debate over their unpopular health care legislation, Democrats insisted that people would eventually like it. Back in July, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) actually claimed, “Remember, any poll you see today, the majority of the American people support what we did here with health care.” Of course, that wasn’t the case then, nor was it at the time the bill was passed, nor is it today, considering the National Journal poll. In March, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on Meet the Press, “As people learn about the bill, it’s going to be more and more popular. By November, those who voted for health care will find it an asset, those who voted against it will find it a liability. . . . As people learn what’s actually in the bill, six months from now at election time this will be a plus because the parade of horribles — particularly the worry that the average middle-class has that this will affect them negatively — will have vanished and they’ll see that this will affect them positively.” But the parade of horribles has only continued in the half year the bill has been law, and nearly every week Americans learn about another Democrat health care promise running up against reality. No wonder a recent Politico headline read, “Democrats run away from health care.”
Republicans explained all along that the Democrat bill would raise taxes, raise premiums, cut Medicare, and increase health costs. They warned it was a flawed, bloated bill that the public had rejected. But Democrats passed the bill anyway, over the objections of the American people, congratulating themselves the whole way. Since then, Republicans have made clear that the bill must be repealed and replaced.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell reiterated last week, “While we were unable to block the Democrats from passing the health spending bill — the single worst piece of legislation that’s passed since I’ve been in the Senate — the Republican leadership in the House and Senate is committed to its repeal. While Democrats will filibuster our efforts, and if we’re successful the President will veto, I believe we should give them that opportunity. We should vote, again, for repeal. Americans have spoken out, loud and clear, and we heard them.Repeal is part of the Pledge to America, and the Republican leadership is united in that effort.” Tags:poll, voters, Obamacare, repeal the billTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
"As reported by Congressional records, Causey was even funded by a radical Turkish Imam named Fathullah Gulen for a 10 day paid trip to Turkey to participate in training (indoctrination) in Turkey. In fact the Gulen Movement adherents already have a foothold in Arkansas and currently run two schools called the Little Scholars of Arkansas (LISA) academies, one in Little Rock and one in Sherwood, AR. Utah has already taken action to close one of the network's school."
A group of concerned Arkansas women have scoured the records and other sources in an effort to either prove or disapprove the above statements related to Chad Causey. Causey cannot hide from the documented facts presented. The report documented references alone lead to serious questions and observations.
Why did Chad Causey accept funding from a radical Imam to go to Turkey to attend at this "training?" Why did Congressman Berry approve the paid trip by this radical organization? But then again, maybe Berry's office chief Chad Causey approved his own trip or slipped the item past his boss. Going to Turkey for "training" by a group supported by the "most dangerous Islamist in the world" would not be the choice of most Congressional staffers or Arkansans.
What did Causey know about the Gulen Movement? Why did this radical group spend the money on a young staffer working for an Arkansas Congressman? Either Causey clearly knew what he was doing when he accepting this trip and became involved with this Islamist group, or Causey is a total dunce and ignorant of the dangers of foreign threats to our country and our American culture. Causey must explain his involvement with this group!
We wish this information had been discovered sooner as it shines another light on the extreme differences between the candidates running for Congress for Arkansas 1st District.
Chad Causey has lived and acted as a liberal in Washington. He has no military experience; has avoided committed relationships. Now, we have learned that he found time to associate with Islamists and attended one of their extended training programs in a foreign county developed by one of the "most dangerous Islamist in the world." Causey's only claim to experience is his vicariously co-opting of his boss's experience.
Again, why did Chad Causey accept Islamist funding to travel to Turkey for an extended training program? Why did his request form claim he would be in one location and his personal report identify that he attended the training 200 miles from the original location? Was he required to file a report with the FBI of this training and actions overseas with this group? Causey has shown an ignorance of foreign affairs by his willingness to associate with extreme radicals. Chad what were you thinking?
Why are liberals and the national DNC pouring so much money into the 1st Congressional district? Would they do that for a "conservative" candidate? Obviously not! The big lie is evident in the television and radio ads promoting Causey and attacking a decorated conservative veteran, Rick Crawford.
Please read the below article. But for a quick read, review the references at the end of the article. Shocking information!
Fethullah Gulen has been called the most dangerous Islamist in the world and has been exiled from Turkey. So just why did Democrat candidate for US Representative Chad Causey post a glowing report on Gulen's website describing his $3,020.00 trip to Turkey that he took in 2008. Causey's trip was sponsored by the "Rumi Forum for Interfaith Dialogue" and approved my Representative Marion Berry. Rumi Forum's website confirms that Fetuallh Gulen is Honorary President of the Rumi Forum.
Gulen is known for the schools he has established around the world and has been called by some a Turkish Khomeini. USA Today reported in an article covering the controversial aspects of Gulen that "Gulen was charged with trying to create an Islamic state in Turkey." Turkey's National Security Council condemned Gulen for "trying to undermine the country's secular institutions, concealing his methods behind a democratic and moderate image." Gulen fled Turkey in 1998 to avoid prosecution on these charges of trying to establish an Islamic government.
"According to Bayram Balci, a Turkish scholar, the Gulen schools that have been established throughout the world seek… to bring about a universal caliphate ruled by Islamic [Sharia] law. Fethullah Gülen trained and worked as a state imam from 1959 to 1981.
"Several countries have outlawed the establishment of Gulen Schools and communities within their borders—including Russia and Uzbekistan," and the Netherlands that embraces pluralism and tolerance has cut funding for the Gulen schools. Just why would Rumi Forum sponsor a $3,020.00 trip for Chad Causey as Chief of Staff for Marion Berry to go to Turkey? Obviously the intent of the Rumi Forum and Gulen was to feed Causey propaganda in an effort to gain favors of some sort and perhaps to seek Causey's help to establish some charter schools in Arkansas – of course under pretense of bringing Christians and Muslims together under "interfaith dialogue." Ninety of these charter schools have been established in the United States already and paid for by taxpayers.
But how many parents would send their children to Gulen-inspired schools if they knew what they were all about? They bring many Muslim teachers from Turkey to work in these charter schools.
And why would Causey go on the trip? Did he fail to investigate this organization and learn about Gulen's controversial techniques before going on the trip. And why did Causey''s glowing report on the trip show up on Gulen's website. On Rumi and Gulen's part, I am sure it was to enhance their standing among governmental officials.
Did Causey still fail to see through the Rumi Forum on "interfaith dialogue" even after he made the trip? Or does he hold the philosophy as many liberals do that all religions are equal and have the same root. Or does he have a soft spot for the Muslim nation as does the leader of his Democrat Party, President Obama?
Before any Arkansans consider voting for Causey to a position of great power in this country, they need to know the answers to these questions.
If a state cannot protect its secrets from its enemies, it cannot develop. If an army reveals its strategy to its antagonists, it cannot attain victory. If key workers are won over by the competitors, their employers cannot succeed.
Explain what you must, but never give away all of your secrets. Those who freely publicize the secrets of their hearts drag themselves and their nation toward an inevitable downfall."
AND THESE PEOPLE TRAINED CHAD CAUSEY
TAGS:Arkansas, Congressional District 1, AR-01, US House, democrat, Chad Causey, Democrat, trip, training, Fathullah Gulen, radical, Muslim, Imam, TurkeyTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
TEA Party Song: Obama Won't You Buy Me a Mercedes Benz
Sheila wows them at the Drain the Swamp Rally in Hartford, Connecticut. Sheila Valastro is a frequent performer at tea parties in Connecticut. On Saturday, Oct. 2, Velastro stylized parody of Janis Joplin in her revision of Joplin's famous lament, Mercedes Benz, at the state Capitol in Hartford. The occasion was a Grass Roots Alliance Rally exactly one month before the November 2 Mid-term election. [video]
Tags:Sheila Valastro, TEA Party, Hartford, Connecticut, Barack obama, parody, song, Mercedes Benz, Janis JoblinTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Dem Leaders Complain People Don't Know About What They Did . . .
. . . But Americans Know All To Well What the Democrats Did, and They're Upset
Recently, Democrats have been expressing their frustration at a lack of support for their policies. Some key Democrat leaders have apparently decided the reason is because they haven’t been bragging enough about the bills they’ve passed. Last week, President Obama lamented, “[I]t was very difficult for us to spend a lot of time doing victory laps and advertising exactly what we were doing, because we had to move on to the next thing.” The same day, David Axelrod told Roll Call, “We didn’t have time to unpack it . . . . We didn’t have a chance to really take victory laps around each element of what we were doing.” On Friday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told CNBC, “I think the biggest thing we didn't do right was tout what we've done.” And today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, “[W]e haven't really gotten the credit for what we have done . . . .”
Apparently Obama, Axelrod, Reid, and Pelosi all forgot that there’s a reason Democrats haven’t spent much time recently talking about what they’ve done. Back in August, the Los Angeles Times reported, “In an effort coordinated with the White House, congressional leaders are urging Democrats to focus less on bragging about what they have done — a landmark healthcare law, a sweeping overhaul of Wall Street regulation and other far-reaching policy changes — and more on efforts to fix the economy and on the perils of Republican control of Congress.” Democrats back home talking to their constituents are avoiding discussing their own record, which was originally the White House’s idea.
However, there’s a more basic explanation: most Americans still don’t like Democrats’ policies. According to a new Politico / George Washington Univ. Battleground Poll, “Expressing deep dissatisfaction with President Obama’s policies and performance, independent [voters] have increasingly sided with conservatives in the belief that government grew too large, too fast under Obama - and that it can no longer be trusted.” Politico notes, “Instead of heeding the warnings, Democrats proceeded with the $1 trillion health care law and banked on an economic recovery that hasn’t come. On health care: 62% of independents hold an unfavorable view of the new law (compared to 52% overall).” Also, Politico reports, “On the economy: 66% of independents say the recovery legislation is not working (compared to 57% overall). The percentage saying the ‘stimulus’ is not working spiked 12 points since Labor Day. On the question of governance overall, 69% of independents say they have less faith in government now than they did just before Obama was elected.”
Americans are just fed up with the Democrat agenda in Washington. That’s why Democrats aren’t talking about it, even if Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and Axelrod disappointed that they aren’t. As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said before the Senate left town, ‘. . . The public didn't like the stimulus. The public didn't like the health care bill. The public wasn't sure what the Wall Street bill was about. And the public is deeply concerned that we are spending too much, borrowing too much, and engaging in too many Washington takeovers." On November 2, 2010, the American public is going to express their voice very clearly on what the Democrats and some compromising Republicans have done to the American people! Congress had better listen or they will face an even greater wrath from the American public at the 2012 elections. Tags:Congress, democrats, Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Axelrod, the public, polls, dissatisfaction, 2012 elections, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
by David McIntosh and Ralph Benko: The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States explicitly and strongly protects the free exercise of religion from interference by Congress and, by implication and extension, other government agencies.
The Fifth Amendment unequivocally mandates that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law. The Constitution's due process clause, as interpreted by standing decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court (and as noted by Justice Kennedy, the First Amendment principles protecting freedom of speech, belief, and religion) protects the right to marry, to bring up and protect the innocence of children, and generally to enjoy all privileges recognized by common law.
The common law, very much neglected by the law schools but very much alive as part of our operative jurisprudence, gives the force of law to traditional practices...such as the six-thousand-year-old, worldwide tradition that marriage is exclusively recognized as uniquely between a man and a woman and is not extended to commitments exchanged by lovers of the same gender.
Although it is not often noted or advocated in this manner, religious liberty, the right to life, and traditional values such as classical marriage are clearly protected from unlimited government power by the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, as demonstrated by 33 (out of 33) referenda upholding the traditional definition of marriage, these are not only explicitly constitutional, but also popular, democratic values.
Traditional values are challenged, rather than cherished, by modern cosmopolitan elites who are disproportionately influential in the public discourse, policy, and legal processes. In the trampling of explicit constitutional rights and democratic sentiments, America's status as a liberal democracy is being badly eroded. The values of a new elitist social aristocracy are being imposed over the will of the people and the clear text, and history, of the Constitution itself. Severe erosion has taken place both in liberality -- the understanding of what rights are sacrosanct even from a majority -- and democracy -- "the consent of the governed."
Classical Liberalism may be summed up succinctly and definitively in the lucid words of the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Democracy -- from French démocratie, via late Latin from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos "the people" + -kratia "power, rule" -- thus connotes popular rule. This is translated into action by the U.S. Constitution as (small-r) republicanism, the election of representatives to carry out the will of the people.
Conjoined, the phrase "liberal democracy" holds that government is legitimate insofar as it reflects the will of the people in support of their self-evident rights. The Declaration forthrightly states that the government's fundamental mission -- and therefore the foundation of its legitimacy -- is to secure such rights. The Constitution defines them, clearly and unambiguously, but its text and historical meaning are being ignored by the new political class that sees itself as a group of leaders, rather than representatives, of the people.
Traditionalists, conservatives, and populists have the opportunity to make a compelling argument on behalf of the key issues of the day by direct reference to our clearly stated constitutional rights and the democratic process. A constitutional populist analysis brings with it the highest degree of legitimacy and effectively confounds elitists, who attack those whose civic vision is founded in religiously informed values.
The arrogance of the elites is provoking a "citizens' movement." The Tea Party Patriots -- the largest, most vital, and most generally respected association of the Tea Party (with 2,800 chapters and rapidly approaching half a million members on Facebook), defines itself as a non-partisan grassroots organization of individuals united by our core values derived from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill Of Rights as explained in the Federalist Papers. *** We hold that the United States is a republic conceived by its architects as a nation whose people were granted "unalienable rights" by our Creator. Chiefly among these are the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
The black letter, as well as the spirit, of the Bill of Rights and other constitutional guarantees, plus the historical role of government in securing such rights by iconic figures such as Washington and Jefferson, makes the case for conservative, traditional, and populist values more persuasively, legitimately, and decisively than we poor moderns can.
As a thought experiment, consider this. Every member of Congress, upon being sworn in, takes this oath: "I, Your New Congressman, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." The president takes a similar oath.
Imagine approaching your elected Representative and asking her, or him, to sign a pledge that says, I shall not in any way support any bill or take any action prohibiting the free exercise of religion. So help me God.
Having already sworn to support the Constitution, there can be no principled opposition to reiterating support for a provision drawn literally from the First Amendment to the Constitution. This is exactly what a lawless federal judge did this summer when he struck down Proposition 8 -- the California referendum defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Turning the Constitution on its head, the judge took the law into his own hands and second-guessed the will of the majority of the people. He reasoned that the 52% of the voters who supported Prop 8 must have been animated by their private moral views. Precisely because the citizens were exercising their freedom of religion to vote on a public matter based on the tenets of their faith, the judge struck down the law. This type of reasoning is the greatest threat to religious -- and indeed all -- liberty in our country today.
A constitutional analysis which extends to our economic as well as moral rights is a very powerful one. Today we are being subjected to suppression of our constitutional liberties, often from a faction calling itself, Orwellianly enough, "liberals." For example, MoveOn.org, possibly the most savvy and principled liberal group active today, is actively attacking the ruling of the Supreme Court in Citizens United under the rationale that "corporations are not persons" and thus not entitled to freedom of speech.
MoveOn's argument sloppily, or perhaps cunningly, overlooks the actual words of the First Amendment, which plainly says, "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, or of the press." The First Amendment makes no mention of "persons"! What, one wonders, is there about "Congress shall make no law" that liberals are having trouble understanding? The plenary prohibition on Congress could not be plainer.
By relying on a rigorous constitutionalist perspective, conservatives, traditionalists, and Tea Partiers make the strongest possible -- and arguably bulletproof -- case for demanding that the values, including religious values, held by the majority of Americans -- and protected by the Constitution -- be reflected in our laws, honored by the executive branch, and respected by the judiciary.
Let us begin, then, by demanding that our officials restore our First-Amendment right to religious liberty. Let us demand that they uphold our Fifth-Amendment right not to be deprived of life without due process of law and the Due Process and First and Fifth Amendments' protections of marriage as understood by our common law, and common sense, as applying uniquely to a man and a woman. And let us further demand that they uphold our right to determine the upbringing and education, thereby guarding the innocence, of our children.
-------- David McIntosh is a former congressman from Indiana. Ralph Benko, author of The Websters' Dictionary: How to Use the Web to Transform the World, was a deputy general counsel to two White House agencies under President Reagan and is an advisor to The American Principles Project. The article which first appeared in the American Thinker was submitted to the ARRA News Service editor for reprint by contributing author Ralph Benko Tags:Constitution, politics, U.S., Framers of the Constitution, U.S. Constitution, 1st Amendment, 5th Amendment, First-Amendment,religious liberty, Fifth-Amendment, due process of law, Due Process, rights, protections of marriage, common law, common sense, David McIntosh, Ralph BenkoTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Comments by contributors or sources do not necessarily reflect the position of ARRA, its Officers, memberships or the Editors.
Fair Use: This site/blog may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as provided for in section Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Per said section, the material on this site/blog is distributed without profit to readers to view for the expressed purpose of viewing the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. Any person/entity seeking to use copyrighted material shared on this site/blog for purposes that go beyond "fair use," must obtain permission from the copyright owner.