News for social, fiscal & national security conservatives who believe in God, family & the USA. Upholding the rights granted by God & guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, traditional family values, "republican" principles / ideals, transparent & limited "smaller" government, free markets, lower taxes, due process of law, liberty & individual freedom. All content approval rests with the ARRA News Service Editor. Opinions are those of the authors. While varied positions are reported, beliefs & principles remain fixed. No revenue is generated for or by this site - no paid ads accepted - no payments for articles.Fair Use doctrine is posted & used. Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru & 2010 AFP National Blogger of the Year] Follow @arra Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home Page
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Judges Get Their Comeuppance
by Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: The most important decision the voters made on November 2 may turn out to be Iowa sending out to pasture three state supreme court judges who had voted to make same-sex marriage constitutional, overriding the wishes of the people in Iowa and their elected representatives. The reverberations are cascading nationwide, and we hope this landmark election signals the beginning of the end of rule by arrogant supremacist judges.
During the last several decades, many judges have decided they are supreme over the other branches of government. They are backed up by a chorus of lawyers, law school professors, and leftwing activists who say we must accept judicial pronouncements as the law of the land.
The Founding Fathers designed the judiciary to be the weakest of the three branches of government. But supremacist judges over the last half century have expanded the judiciary into the most powerful branch of government, making policy decisions on the most vital and controversial issues of the day (such as the supremacist federal judge who presumed to overrule the massive vote of Californians on the issue of same-sex marriage).
Iowa is a good example: the Iowa state legislature had defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. But the state supreme court decided to overrule the legislature and make Iowa the first state in the Midwest to put same-sex marriage on a par with husband-wife marriage. When the three Iowa judges received only 45 percent approval on November 2nd, the law school professors were indignant. From far-away California, the Irvine law school dean cried, "Something like this really does chill other judges."
Bob Vander Plaats, who led the campaign to defeat the three judges, rejoiced about the chill, saying, "I think it will send a message across the country that the power resides with the people." Drake University political science professor Dennis Goldford admitted, "Kicking out those three justices would be a warning shot across the judiciary's bow." Some states elect their state judges in a general election in which candidates run against each other. Iowa is one of the states that, instead, use what is called the Missouri plan.
Under this procedure, the governor appoints state judges from a very small list of nominees chosen by the state bar association and then, after a term of years, the judge goes on the ballot, without any opponent, where the people can simply vote Yes to retain him in office or No to bounce him out. If the judge gets a majority (sometimes a super-majority is required) of Yes votes, he wins "retention" and serves another term. If not, he is history.
Since states began adopting the Missouri plan in the 1960s, nearly all judges win retention, and very, very seldom is any judge rejected. Not a single Iowa judge has lost his perch on the bench since Iowa adopted the Missouri plan in 1962. Almost the only judge who lost retention that the public remembers was California's supreme court Judge Rose Bird and a couple of her associate judges who were cast out in 1986.
The powers that be in Iowa tried to tell Iowa voters that they had an obligation to vote Yes on the three judges in order to maintain an independent judiciary. But what kind of an un-American election is that when you are told by important people you should vote Yes but not No?
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who for several years has been trucking around the country to support judicial supremacy, injected herself into the Iowa campaign by trying to make it unacceptable to vote No on any judge. She also joined the political campaign in Nevada where ballot Question 1 on November 2nd would have replaced the current voters' election of judges with the Missouri plan. Robo-calls from O'Connor to Nevada voters were mistakenly activated to ring in voters' homes at one o'clock in the morning. That inconvenient, unwanted phone call was unlikely to win votes, and Nevada sensibly rejected Question 1 by 58 to 42 percent.
Oklahoma also allowed its citizens to make important decisions on November 2nd. A ballot referendum passed by 75 percent to require that official state actions be in the English language, a second ballot referendum passed by 70 percent to forbid courts from using or considering international law or sharia law, and a third referendum passed by 74 percent to require that each person present a document to prove his identity in order to vote.
We hope judicial supremacists don't try to overrule the vote of the people in Oklahoma. Fortunately, the judges can't do anything about the firing of the three Iowa judges; they are gone. Tags:judges, Iowa, 2010 election, defeated judges, activist judges, supremacist judges, Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle ForumTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Boehner Files Brief Challenging Constitutionality of Individual Mandate at Heart of ObamaCare
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) filed a legal brief on Friday backing the growing state legal revolt against the job-killing health care law, which Boehner -- a former small businessman -- and other Republicans have warned will continue to cost our economy jobs unless it is repealed and replaced.
Boehner’s brief supports a lawsuit filed by 20 state attorneys general and the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), the nation’s largest small business association.
"“I’m proud to stand with these states and the NFIB on behalf of America’s workers in the revolt against this job-killing health care law. Of course, the easiest way to prevent this health care law from costing our economy more jobs is to heed the outcry for its repeal. That’s why Republicans have made a pledge to America to repeal this job-killing health care law and replace it with reforms that bring down costs and protect American jobs.
Boehner’s brief requests leave from the trial judge to file an amicus brief challenging the constitutionality of the ‘individual mandate’ at the heart of the job-killing health care law. In August, primary voters in Missouri rejected the mandate by a nearly 2.5-to-1 margin. Two months prior to that, House Democrats voted to reject a GOP proposal to repeal the mandate.
Spending Shows Union Bosses Out of Touch From Workers' Interests
by Anthony Riedel, National Right to Work: Earlier this year, Gerry McEntee, president of the powerful AFSCME union, explained to The Hill newspaper that his union's futile $87.5 million political spending blitz in the 2010 Congressional midterm elections was intended to protect unpopular incumbent Democrats in Washington, D.C.
Yesterday, Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation, was published in Investor's Business Daily exposing how union members actually overwhelmingly oppose their union bosses' political spending and agenda. From Investor's:
Top union officials spent an estimated one billion dollars of union dues in an attempt to re-elect incumbent Democrat politicians back into Congress during the 2010 midterm election cycle. But just how do the rank-and-file workers feel about that?
Despite the claims by union heads based in Washington, D.C., when it comes to the critical political and policy questions of our day, union officials do not espouse the beliefs of the rank-and-file members that they claim to represent...
The poll, conducted October 26-28 by long time pollster Frank Luntz, found that 60% of union members oppose their union bosses' record political spending in the midterm elections, viewing it a complete waste for union bosses to use union dues and treasuries to protect unpopular incumbent Democrat politicians in Washington, D.C.
A majority of union members even believe that union boss political spending should be used to “throw the bums out” instead, and half support replacing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with someone else while only 30% want her to remain Speaker;
In light of Big Labor’s 2010 political spending spree, 59% of union membership would actually vote to replace their own “union leadership” if given a secret ballot election to do so;
Half of union members view President Obama and the Democratic Congress’s healthcare reform bill as a failure, while only 37% view it as a success;
Majorities also view the 2009 stimulus bill and the 2008 corporate bailouts as failures;
Overwhelming majorities oppose future government spending and debt to rejuvenate the economy, and two-thirds of union members instead trust entrepreneurs, small businesses, and employers to lead America to better job growth.
But what should scare union bosses the most is that 80% of union members also support the Right to Work principle that would strip union officials of their government-granted special privileges to force workers into paying union dues or fees as a condition of employment. Perhaps next time union bosses should pause before spending massive amounts of workers' money to push an agenda that the workers disagree with. Tags:AFSCME, Forced Unionism, Mark Mix, National Right to Work Foundation, Right to Work, Union Political Activities, Union Politicking, Union PoliticsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
AFP - California Video: "Common Sense with David Spady." $69 million of taxpayers money ripped off by California welfare recipients using government provided ATM cards to fund trips to Florida, Vegas, and Hawaii. Get ready to get angry and ready to demand changes.
Tags:AFP, Americans for Prosperity, California, welfare, ATM, fraud, waste, abuse, taxpayer, money, vacations, Las Vegas, South Beach, Miami, ATM, Disney World, Florida, Hawaii, cruisesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
If Virginia, why not Arkansas, Texas and a lot of other states? The states would make money form these specialty plates. The numerous TEA Party and Patriot groups in Arkansas and Texas need to get busy and ask their legislators to support the addition of the below license plate in their state. Now for the background story:
912 Richmond, a group under the umbrella of the Virginia Tea Party Patriots federation, is soliciting motorists to apply for the plates on its Web site. Last month, members promoted the plate at the statewide Tea Party convention. . . .
So far, a group official said, 600 people have expressed interest.
Before a specialty plate can be issued in Virginia, 350 prepaid applications must be submitted to the state Department of Motor Vehicles.
Liberal Groups Pressuring Obama To Reject Preventing Tax Increases In January 2011
When Congress returns next week to begin its lame duck session, one of the key issues that needs to be tackled is preventing the massive tax hikes in January. If current tax rates (set by the tax relief packages in 2001 and 2003) are not extended before the end of the year, every American will face a huge tax increase. Republicans have been pushing to make the current tax rates permanent and provide some certainty for job creators, but some Democrats, and President Obama, have resisted.
However, this week the White House sent signals it might be willing to consider extending all the rates. Reuters reported yesterday, “The White House sent more signals on Thursday of the potential for a tax cut compromise with newly emboldened Republicans, who want to extend the cuts for wealthier Americans as well as the middle class. ‘The president has been clear that extending tax cuts for middle-class families is his top priority and he is open to compromise to get that done,’ said White House spokesman Bill Burton.”
Hopefully, the White House is beginning to agree with the several Senate Democrats and over thirty House Democrats who have signaled that they want to prevent any tax increases at the end of the year. In September, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) said, “I support extending all of the expiring tax cuts until Nebraska’s and the nation’s economy is in better shape, and perhaps longer, because raising taxes in a weak economy could impair recovery.” Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) said, “I don’t think it makes sense to raise any federal taxes during the uncertain economy we are struggling through. The more money we leave in private hands, the quicker our economic recovery will be.” Democrat West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin, now Senator-elect, said, “I wouldn’t raise any taxes.” And Thirty-one House Democrats wrote to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), “Raising any taxes right now could negatively impact economic growth.” Meanwhile, Rep. Gary Peters (D-MI) was even more emphatic: “Extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for all earners is the right thing to do as anything less jeopardizes economic recovery.”
Today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in an interview with NPR reaffirmed Democrats’ opposition to stopping the massive tax hike that will hit every American family and small business in less than 50 days. At the same time, businesses across America continue to speak out against the job-killing uncertainty caused by the tax hike, which is making it impossible for them to plan for the future or create jobs. Yesterday, the Milwaukee Business Journal highlighted the struggle that job creators are facing.
As an S corporation, Inland Power Group Inc., Butler, would be hurt by higher income taxes, said Don Stacy, executive vice president and a minority owner. Profits at S corporations, partnerships and most limited liability companies are taxed as the owners’ personal income.
“With less income, Inland owners would be less inclined to reinvest money into the company on expenses such as equipment and new hires, Stacy said. … the worst part of the current situation is the uncertainty." … "That uncertainty is causing many business owners to hold off on major decisions," said Doug Pessefall, an attorney with Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek SC in Milwaukee. "Clients want to wait and see what will happen with the tax cuts before they decide how to act," he said.
Yet President Obama is apparently being pulled back from this emerging bipartisan consensus by his far-left base. According to The Washington Post today, “On the heels of the Democratic Party’s huge losses in last week’s midterm elections, liberal activists have begun planning to push President Obama on a series of issues, demanding that he not cede any ground to Republicans. Liberal groups have blasted Obama at times over the past two years as not being sufficiently dedicated to their positions - history that factored into their criticism of the White House on Thursday for signaling that it will compromise with the GOP on the issue of extending tax cuts that are scheduled to expire this year. . . . [The president] has signaled that he wants to find big issues on which to compromise, with an eye toward his reelection campaign in 2012. But that signal has not gone over well with the liberal base. Nor did comments Wednesday by top Obama adviser David Axelrod, who told the Huffington Post that ‘we have to deal with the world as we find it.’ Liberals viewed the remarks as suggesting that the White House would accept a temporary extension of tax cuts for family income above $250,000. (The White House played down the remarks and said no formal decision has been made.)”
The Wall Street Journal adds, “The White House scrambled Thursday to tamp down a burst of anxiety among liberals worried that President Barack Obama would agree to extend Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Liberal economists and activists were responding to comments senior White House adviser David Axelrod made to the Huffington Post, which reported that Mr. Axelrod said the administration was ready to accept a temporary extension of all such tax cuts, which are due to expire at the end of the year. . . . Liberals jumped in . . . accusing Mr. Obama of capitulating without a fight. . . . White House advisers sought to reassure liberals that Mr. Obama’s position hadn’t changed.”
So will President Obama side with liberals who apparently want to raise taxes on small businesses come January, or with a growing chorus of Democrats in Congress saying now is not the time to raise taxes on anyone? While Democrats remain steadfast in their unwillingness to end the economic uncertainty and allow small businesses to get back to creating jobs, Republicans are listening to the American people and keeping up the fight to permanently stop all the job-killing tax hikes.
House Republican Leader John Boehner told Bloomberg, " A permanent extension of tax cuts is needed ‘to reduce the uncertainty in America’ that’s chilling business investment and hiring, John Boehner…said today. Asked whether he’s willing to compromise with President Barack Obama on the tax reductions enacted in 2001 and 2003, the Republican leader said he wants the cuts, which expire at the end of this year, to be made permanent for all taxpayers.” ABC News reported that Boehner said that "making the tax cuts permanent, not settling for a temporary extension, will help end the uncertainty that’s stopping employers from hiring more people. … You can’t invest when you don’t know what the rules are, when you don’t know what the tax rates are going to be next year. And that’s why making these permanent will be the most important thing we could do to help create jobs in the country."
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell told Reuters, “While the president and some of his allies in Congress have a strange desire to raise taxes on hundreds of thousands of small businesses across the country, we would welcome the president’s help to extend all the current tax rates so that no one sees a tax hike.”
When Congress returns to Washington next week, Republicans appear ready to fight to stop the job-killing tax hikes as part of the Pledge to America, a new governing agenda designed to help create jobs by cutting spending, stopping the tax hikes, and reforming government. Republicans have repeatedly called for the enactment of the entire Pledge to America to help our nation’s job creators put the 14.8 million unemployed Americans back to work. Tags:Obama, Pelosi Reid, Democrats, tax increases, lost jobs, McConnell, Boehner, Pledge to America, no tax increase, more jobs, US House, US Senate, Washington, D.C., lame duck session, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: Barack vs. Bibi- Obama did it again. In Jakarta, Indonesia, President Obama took a shot at Israel for building homes in Jerusalem, saying, "This kind of activity is never helpful when it comes to peace negotiations." Prime Minister Netanyahu's office fired back with a statement reading, "Jerusalem is not a settlement; Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel."
Why should the construction of homes for Jews in Israel's capital be unhelpful for peace negotiations? The explanation is obvious: The Palestinians are attempting to delegitimize Israel's entire existence. If Israel's claim to Jerusalem is undermined, its claim to any part of its land is undermined.
That Obama made his remarks in Indonesia (as he was again promising better relations with the Muslim world) was a slight not lost on the media. Even the New York Times noted, "On Tuesday, [Obama and Netanyahu] were worlds apart in symbolism as well as substance: the president voiced his criticism of Israel while on a visit to Jakarta, capital of the world's most populous Muslim country."
Israel is one of our closest allies. Yet it is constantly under fire from President Obama, who this time stoked the flames while in a Muslim nation. For a man who is supposedly a foreign policy genius (compared to that cowboy, Bush), his instincts seem bizarre.
While Barack Obama was singing Indonesia's praises, I was reminded of the time my daughter Elyse spent in that country a few years ago. In conversation after conversation with Indonesians, she learned that they all believed that "the Jews" caused 9/11. Anti-Semitism is rampant in this supposedly modern and model Muslim nation. How hard would it have been for the president to say that Israel has as much right to be a Jewish nation as Indonesia has to be a Muslim nation?
If you want to know what a true friend and ally sounds like, contrast Obama's remarks with these outstanding comments, delivered this week by Stephen Harper, Canada's conservative prime minister.
Barack vs. Uncle Sam - If the president's comments toward Israel weren't enough, I've been seething for days about his remarks toward his own country. In Mumbai, India, this last weekend, Obama suggested we were a nation in decline. At least he didn't apologize for America again.
A quick read of the president's remarks might not sound that bad. He claims to be standing up for American jobs and for better relations with other countries. But there is no question how his comments were interpreted in the foreign media. Consider this excerpt from the Times of India: "Implicitly acknowledging the decline of American dominance, Barack Obama on Sunday said the U.S. was no longer in a position to 'meet the rest of the world economically on our terms.'"
Even if you believe that, please, Mr. President, don't say it in another country! The American people elected you to lead us, not to encourage other countries.
The most serious threat to America's competitive standing comes from the socialist policies that have bankrupted Europe and which he and his left-wing allies have tried to impose upon us. Thankfully, the American people seem to be coming to their senses. Last week, they took a huge step toward stopping Obama's socialism, but the battle is far from over Tags:Barack Obama, Gaza, Jakarta, Indonesia, India, Israel, Uncle Sam, Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
By Phil Kerpen, AFP Vice President for Policy: Nearly every major media outlet is reporting that if the president’s fiscal commission gets agreement among 14 of its 18 members, it will force a vote in Congress. They are wrong.
A little history is in order. On January 26, 2010, the U.S. Senate decisively rejected the original Conrad-Gregg proposal for a fiscal commission. Many Republicans voted no out of concerns that the panel would recommend unprecedented tax hikes — a concern that has been proven correct by the chairmen’s recently-released proposals.
On February 18, 2010, President Obama disregarded that vote and created his own commission by issuing Executive Order 13531. But an executive order cannot prompt Congress to act. It is merely advisory.
Therefore the final recommendations, with 14 votes, would carry no greater legal weight than the chairmen’s draft, and certainly no ability to prompt Congress to act.
I inquired with the fiscal commission about the claim that a final report would trigger votes in Congress, and they provided a letter from Vice President Joe Biden to Kent Conrad relaying a promise from Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to take up the commission’s recommendation before the end of this Congress. But a promise from Reid and Pelosi — via Biden — is far from a binding fast-track procedure. There are dozens of other issues on which Reid has promised votes in the lame-duck session that are unlikely to happen.
Moreover, as much as Reid can commit to a vote, Sen. Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans can — and should — commit to block one. There is no justification for Congress forcing through massive tax hikes and Social Security changes with limited public scrutiny under any circumstances. But to do it in a matter of weeks over the holiday season? In a body full of people who already lost re-election? Without the benefit of proper hearings or committee action?
Americans want a budget balanced through spending cuts and real reforms, not higher gas taxes, payroll taxes, and the reduction of their home mortgage interest and charitable contribution deductions.
The deficit commission is 18 unelected, unaccountable individuals who deliberated largely behind closed doors. Their approach to Social Security makes a bad deal for workers even worse by raising taxes and cutting benefits. Real reform would raise benefits by harnessing the power of real investment returns.
Congress should recognize that not only is a lame-duck session no time to force through the commission’s recommendations, but it is an inappropriate time for any significant policy changes. This Congress should simply extend current policy on taxes and spending until the newly elected Congress can be seated and go home. The people’s elected representatives can take up the many serious issues the country faces next year, and do it the right way. Tags:lame duck, lame duck Congress, politics, fiscal commission, debt commission, Phil Kerpen, AFP, Americans for ProsperityTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Editor's Comment: For each person this Veterans Day is different. For me, it is summed up in my words posted on FaceBook: "Veterans Day. While many celebrate, many of us cannot for we recall lost comrades & friends trapped in time until we join them. USAF 1966-1988. This day - My name is written on the Vietnam War Memorial Wall, but I am not. God rest the soul of he who shared our name but did not return."
From the Archives: This Veterans Day please take a moment to reflect on the sacrifices made by our nations heroes and their families. When our nation called they answered and we will forever be in their debt.
[Video] The quote is from Judge William S. Sessions, former FBI Director and Captain – United States Air Force 1951-1955 - and read by his son, NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions. Tags:NRSC, tribute, veterans, Veterans Day, Vietnam War Memorial, Bill Smith, Pete Sessions, William S. SessionsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Two bills would get the job done:
• The “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” - a bipartisan bill sponsored by Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL), would create a government-wide statutory ban on abortion funding including those funding provisions contained in Obamacare.
• The “Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act” - sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), would ensure that abortion providers, including organizations like Planned Parenthood, do not receive federal dollars under the Title X federal family planning assistance program.
The pro-life movement really flexed its muscles in the 2010 election. Many representatives learned the consequences of their vote for a health care bill that included taxpayer funding of abortion when they were thrown out of office by the constituents they betrayed. Those Members have been replaced by authentic pro-life voices that are supported by a strongly pro-life GOP leadership.
With its promise to defund abortion in its Pledge to America, that leadership team has shown it understands the urgency of addressing the tragedy of nearly 4,000 abortions a day. Now it’s time for the pro-life Republican majority in the House to make good on that Pledge. It should start by ending all taxpayer funding of abortion.
We showed our strength in key Congressional races across the country; now it’s time to do so on Capitol Hill. You can help by taking two minutes to sign the SBA List’s Stop Abortion Funding petition today. It’s a call on the 112th Congress to pass the lifesaving legislation mentioned above to prevent our hard-earned tax dollars from paying for abortion. Tags:Abortion, Marjorie Dannenfelser, Pro-Life Movement, Right to Life, Stop Abortion Funding, Susan B. Anthony List, Susan B. Anthony, pro-lifeTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
John Boehner and Greg Walden
Transition Briefing 11/10/10
House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), the presumptive next speaker of House, and Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) held a news conference to discuss the GOP Transition Team priorities for the 112th Congress. Walden: "Remember this is the public's business we are doing, how do we open it up, how do we make it more accessible, how do we bring the public in, and turn this government back to the people. How do we reform this process, how do we get at the cost savings we all know can be achieved here, how do we improve efficiency, how do we do we do the things for reform if you were in charge. Let's start and build a House that works for the people, because this is the people's house."
Summary of Boehner's responses to press questions: [We need to] "figure out how to make all the tax cuts permanent so we can help the uncertainty that is stopping employers from hiring more people ... how we can reduce spending, I think it is important that we reduce spending to pre-bailout pre-stimulus levels. . . . If you look at the Pledge to America, we say there should be a freeze on the hiring of new federal employees and frankly we ought to freeze the pay. It has gotten to the point that the average Federal worker makes twice as much as the average private sector worker. ... over the last 20 years I have flown back forth to my congressional district on commercial aircraft. And I am going to continue to do that. . . . The House need to be more open, more transparent, and more accountable and you will see from day one that I mean what I say and I say what I mean." Tags:John Boehner, Greg Walden, Republican, Transition Briefing, US House, press briefingTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
McConnell To File Brief Supporting Anti-Obamacare Lawsuit, Urges Other Senate Republicans To Join Him
The Hill reports today, “Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will file a brief in a Florida court in support of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new health reform law. The top Senate Republican will file an ‘amicus curiae’ (‘friend of the court’) brief in the Florida case, and has urged GOP colleagues in the Senate to sign onto the filing, too.
“‘While I strongly believe that we should repeal the law and replace it with the types of commonsense reforms Americans support, I also strongly support the efforts of over twenty States that have challenged this law in the courts,’ McConnell wrote in a dear colleague letter.”
Politico adds, “McConnell argues in his brief . . . that the requirement that nearly all Americans buy insurance ‘dramatically oversteps the bounds of the Commerce [Clause] which has always been understood as a power to regulate, and not to compel, economic activity.’ He also argues that if the mandate is deemed constitutional, there will no longer be any real limit on Congress’ power to regulate citizens’ activity.”
And Human Events notes, “The amicus brief will also argue that accepting the constitutionality of the individual mandate would remove ‘any meaningful limit on Congress’ power to regulate its citizens under the Commerce Clause.’ This clause has already been used as a bear trap to capture any activity that might conceivably involve a transfer of power across state lines, but McConnell argues that forcing individuals to buy health insurance would inflate Congress’ specific power into ‘a general police power, all but eliminating the constitutional distinction between federal and state regulatory authority in our federal union.’”
It’s worth recalling that the individual mandate has consistently been one of the most unpopular provisions of the overwhelmingly unpopular health care law that Democrats pushed through Congress in March. This week, the Kaiser Family Foundation released its November 2010 Health Tracking Poll. Over the past two years, the Kaiser poll has generally shown more support for Democrats’ health care law than other public polling, but in the November Health Tracking Poll, Americans’ displeasure with the individual mandate can be plainly seen. The poll asked respondents, and specifically those who voted in last week’s midterm elections, whether certain aspects of the law should be kept or repealed. When it came to the individual mandate, 68% overall said it should be repealed, and 70% of voters said the same thing. A whopping 88% of those who voted for Republicans want the individual mandate repealed, and even a plurality of those who voted for Democrats, 49%, would like to see the individual mandate repealed (compared to 44% who would prefer lawmakers to keep it in place).
In a letter to his colleagues urging their support for his brief to the court, Sen. McConnell wrote, “Senate Republicans have long expressed grave misgivings about the constitutionality of Public Law 111-148 (2010), otherwise known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (or ‘PPACA’). During last December’s floor debate, Senate Republicans unanimously supported two constitutional points of order lodged against the legislation . . . . As the Supreme Court noted, the Framers of our Constitution conceived of limitations on government ‘to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties.’ By preventing ‘the accumulation of excessive power,’ the Constitution is designed to reduce ‘the risk of tyranny or abuse from either’ state or federal government. Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991). The PPACA would remove an important bulwark of this protection. I hope you will join me in arguing to the court . . . why that should not happen.” Tags:US Senate, Mitch McConnell, Republicans, Obamacare, Public Law 111-148, lawsuit, Florida, legal brief, amicus brief, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PPACA, individual liberty, freedom, US Constitution, Commerce Clause, tenth amendment, repeal the bill, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" is a philosophical riddle that raises questions regarding observation and knowledge of reality. by William Warren: I know, Olbermann is back on MSNBC. But does it even matter?
Tags:Keith Olbermann, MSNBC, tree falls in the forest, Political Cartoons, William WarrenTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
by Bill Smith / Ozark Guru:There has been a myth around Arkansas for years: "Democrats rule and they always will." For the majority of years since reconstruction, Arkansas has been Democrat territory. However, being an Arkansas Democrat is normally a far cry from being a progressive liberal. Most Arkansans considered themselves conservatives, support the US Constitution with emphasis on the Bill of Rights and special focus on the 2nd and 10th amendments.
However, being democrats they elected several democrats to Congress who aided in moving the nation left. And, in recent years, even with liberal roots reaching into Arkansas (consider Hillary Clinton, Vic Snider, Blanche Lincoln and Bill Halter). Bill Clinton was omitted from the short list because he was a conflicted democrat, dabbling in liberalism and then scampering back to the center.
Thus over the years, Arkansans sent mostly democrats to Congress with an occasional Republican being elected. But in the last three presidential elections they have rejected the Democrat candidate and voted Republican. They did so because the Republican candidates were closer to their conservative roots. In 2008, they rejected Barack Obama by a significant vote and the President Obama returned the favor by not visiting Arkansas, the home of former Democrat President Bill Clinton.
For several years, Arkansans have struggled with the brand which no longer represented them. They remain may be die hard fans of their state and their sport teams, but in politics, they began to migrating to voting for a Republican. They even elected a Republican Governor and Lt Governor a few times but elections did not reach into the heart of many of the local county races. However, Republicanism has taken root in a few counties in the Northwest Arkansas where major industries led to a booming economy and in retirement hot spots like Baxter County. But, a major transformation in politics in Arkansas remained minimal until November 2nd, 2010.
Several things helped to make this transformation possible in Arkansas:
1. The election of Barack Obama with his progressive agenda & Chicago style politics.
2. Control of both Houses of Congress by progressive elitists led by Democrat Sen. Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
3. Advancement of a socialist agenda by Congress and the White House.
4. Passage of massive spending bills and bills like Obamacare restricting individual freedom and choice.
5. Sen. Blanche Lincoln ignored the majority of her Arkansas Constituents.
6. The development of TEA Parties and Patriot Groups in Arkansas citizen activists.
7. The establishment of sound leadership in the Arkansas Republican Party.
8. The interest in Arkansas by national organizations like Americans for Prosperity and American Majority.
By the time the primary elections arrived, Historical numbers of Republicans had filed for offices at all level of government. Eight Republicans ran for the US Senate for the privilege of taking on Democrat Sen. Blanche Lincoln. She was even challenged by Democrats in her own party.
By the time the November 2, 2010 general elections were over, Arkansas became a two party state: The RPA reported, "One United States Senator. Three out of four United States Congressmen. Three out of seven Constitutional Officers. Forty-four out of 100 State House Members and 15 out of 35 State Senators. Hundreds of Republicans elected to offices like Mayor, Justice of the Peace and City Council. Never in Arkansas’ history has the Republican Party held so many offices at so many different levels of government."
Among those elected at the local level was 19 year old Richard Caster as a JP on the Baxter County Quorum Court. He is the youngest elected JP in Arkansas and Caster was the founder of Ozark TEA Party. Baxter County is represented by three State Representatives. In the past the county garnered only one Republican because the other two positions were gerrymandered with other counties to give the Democrats the advantage. But this election, Republicans won all three races. There are numerous conservative success stories all across Arkansas, but the following story out of Garland County, Arkansas is truly amazing.
by Chuck Chatham: In the past, Garland County Arkansas has not had a truly effective Republican Party. The county offices and the vast majority of the JP districts as well have been traditionally tightly held by Democrats. To suggest that someone run for office here as a Republican would be met with the comment that "You can't win a county-wide office in Garland County as a Republican." That myth was busted!!!
As a result of hard recruiting effort for good qualified candidates on the part of the local Republican party and the Garland County Tea Party, a slate of eighteen candidates for almost every Garland County office emerged. This was the first time ever in the history of this county that many of those offices had even received serious opposition. Of those candidates ALL but one won. The offices of county judge, county clerk, circuit clerk, tax assessor, treasurer, all fell to Republican challenges. The Quorum Court changed from nine Democrats and four Republicans to nine Republicans and four Democrats. Only one Democrat that ran against the new Republican challengers won a seat as a JP! Most of these positions have been held for forty years or more by Democrats. Some for 130 years and had never been held by a Republican!
Keith Crass tragically died Oct 27th
The sitting county judge, running for the state legislature, lost to the Republican Kieth Crass that tragically died of a heart attack last week. Keith had worked hard for the last 18 months to achieve a lifelong dream to go to the state legislature. I can think of no tribute to him that would be better than the one given by the voters of Garland County yesterday in his win in that election. . . . According to state law, there will now be a new election to fill that office and the likelihood is that it too will be filled by a well-qualified Republican. . . .
Now the job for us the voters of Garland County will be to hold those new officers to their pledges to convert the county government from the tired old good-old-boy, tax-and-spend policies of the past to a sound and responsible business model for the future. They have a hard job to accomplish and if they are not responsive to those who elected them, in two years we will repeat the process with another slate of well-qualified candidates to replace them with others who will.
The myth is busted and the voters along with our kids and grandkids are the big winners in Garland County Arkansas . . . [Full Article]
Indeed the myth is busted. Republicans were elected in significant numbers. If the Obama, Pelosi, Reid agenda continue, and the newly elected Republicans in Arkansas steadfastly support conservative principles including limited government, accountability and transparency, then Arkansans can be expected to elect more Republicans in 2012 possibly placing Republicans in control of the legislature and Arkansas constitutional offices. The new Myth is that the 2010 election cycle was a fluke. I don't believe Arkansas voters are into making flukes. Looking forward to 2012, when this new myth is busted.
Tags:Arkansas, myth, myth busted, votes, voters, Republicans, Democrats,To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Kaiser Health Poll Shows: 56% Of Midterm Voters Want Obamacare Repealed
The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza writes this morning, “A new Kaiser Family Foundation post-election poll suggests that a majority of people who voted on Nov. 2 favor repealing some or all of the health-care legislation passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress and signed into law by President Obama earlier this year. Fifty-six percent of midterm voters said they wanted to see some or all of the of the law repealed, a number that divided sharply along partisan lines. . . .”
It’s worth recalling that over the past two years, Kaiser Foundation polls have often had results showing the public much more favorable to Democrats’ massive health care law, compared to most other public polling. Yet today’s poll shows that among those voting last week, 49% have an unfavorable opinion of the health care bill, with 42% showing a favorable opinion. Intensity continues to be on the side of Americans who oppose the Democrats’ new law: 37% of voters have a “very unfavorable” opinion of the law, while only 20% have a “very favorable” opinion.
As with most other polls, today’s Kaiser poll shows barely a quarter of voters believe their families will be better off under the new law, while 40% say they will be worse off. Another 29% say it won’t make much difference. A plurality of voters, 44%, say the country as a whole will be worse off under the Democrats’ law, as opposed to 39% who say the country will be better off.
Importantly, a plurality of all those polled, 49%, say some or all of the Democrat health care bill should be repealed. Among voters, the number who say it should be repealed all or in part rises to 56%, including almost one in four Democrat voters. Among those who voted for Republicans, 54% say the bill should be repealed entirely.
Cillizza notes, “Republicans insist that health-care was a central piece of their successful argument that change was needed in Washington. That's a position that some Democratic observers also ascribe too, though few do so publicly. . . . Among the 17 percent [in the Kaiser poll] who said that health-care was a major influence on their vote, there was a strong GOP tilt; those voters picked a Republican candidate over a Democratic candidate by 15 points. And, within that same voting bloc, a whopping 56 percent said they had a ‘very unfavorable’ view of the health-care legislation. So, for those to whom health-care mattered, it was an overwhelmingly negative factor in their vote -- driving them to Republican candidates in hordes.”
As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell told CBS’ Bob Scheiffer Sunday, “This was a huge, huge issue in the election last Tuesday. A vast majority of Americans feel very, very uncomfortable with this new [health care] bill. People who supported us, political independents, want it repealed and replaced with something else. I think we owe it to them to try. Admittedly, it will be difficult with [President Obama] in the White House. But if we can put a full repeal on his desk and replace it with the kind of common-sense forms that we were advocating during the debate to reduce spending, we owe it to the American people to do that.” Tags:health poll, poll, Obamacare, repeal the billTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
by Robert Romano, ALG News Bureau: In a post-election interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer, outgoing Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said she had “no regrets” about the way she had governed. Really? No regrets?
“They are very proud of what they have done,” Pelosi said of now-defeated House Democrats who will not be returning to Washington in January. Are these people living in a bubble? How about the persistently high unemployment, which came in at 9.6 percent for the month of October? Does Pelosi regret that?
According to Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson, October was the “18th straight month that unemployment has been at or above 9.4 percent — the longest period of time of sustained high unemployment since the Great Depression.” It wasn’t supposed to be this way. Unemployment never was supposed to go above 8 percent — because of the Pelosi-Obama “stimulus”. Instead, there are some 14.8 million who are completely jobless, and another 11 million are underemployed.
In many ways, the failure of the $812 billion “stimulus” is one of the main reasons the American people chose to jettison Pelosi’s majority. But she remains unapologetic.
Pelosi accused Republicans of having no ideas, saying that now “they say they have some ideas on job creation. We had hoped they would have suggested them before, they just said no.” Only, during the debate over “stimulus”, in addition to proposing permanent tax relief for the American people, House Republicans did propose an alternative package. The House even voted on the Republican alternative, and defeated it, under Nancy Pelosi’s leadership. Senate Republicans, too, offered amendments that included slashing the corporate tax rate to 25 percent. Those too were defeated, under Harry Reid’s leadership. Nonetheless, for the past two years, Democrats have pretended as if Republicans never presented any alternatives. It was not true then, and it remains untrue to date.
On everything from ObamaCare to energy, Republicans had real alternatives they have offered. All were rejected by the then-Democrat majority, even as they pretended those alternatives did not exist, akin to a game little children play on each other. In short, because they didn’t need Republican support to pass everything, Democrats didn’t ever bother compromising on anything. Was it any surprise Republicans voted no on legislation they had no input in? Now, only when they need House Republicans to get anything done are Democrats interested in compromise. “We want to hear what they have to say,” Pelosi told Sawyer. Maybe she’ll pay attention this time.
The only thing Pelosi apparently finds “disappointing” is not the sorry state of the economy she failed fix, but the loss of the election itself. She would do well to consider the economy, however, as it was one of the major reasons she lost her job as Speaker.
She should consider everything government did do and what it failed to do, according to ALG’s Wilson: “It is time for the Obama Administration to change course, and for the newly elected Congress to plot a new direction. ObamaCare and its many mandates are getting in the way of hiring decisions by employers. The automatic tax increases at the end of year are aimed directly at small business owners and other job creators.” And when those taxes increase on employers, that will just mean more lost jobs. But what does Pelosi care? She has “no regrets.”
Wilson continued, “The Obama ‘stimulus’ program has failed, and has only contributed to an unsustainable $13.6 trillion national debt.” In short, we need a new direction. One that Pelosi never provided.
Pelosi said the election went against her party because “progress was not fast enough.” But, really, it’s that there was no progress at all on “jobs, jobs, jobs,” which she had promised. Publicly, Pelosi may have “no regrets,” but privately maybe what she regrets was that she didn’t listen to the American people when she had the chance. Tags:Nancy Pelois, regrets, no regrets, no jobs, unemployment, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Obamacare s a Job-Killer: Small Business Owners Speak Out
In a recent interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) made clear that she has “no regrets” about passing the job-killing government takeover of health care that is raising costs and jeopardizing coverage for millions of Americans, and making it harder to create jobs. While Democrats may have “no regrets” about the disastrous impact of ObamaCare, small business owners across the nation clearly regret their inability to grow, hire new workers or plan for the future with all of the regulatory uncertainty and job-killing mandates being handed down from Washington:
“[Omaha Friendly Services owner Paul Fraynd] and Adam Kalyn, the company’s manager, also said they have been fearful of what the newly passed health care legislation could mean for the firm.They said they believe the Republicans will alter the bill in ways that will help. ‘I think (the health care bill) very much hurts small businesses,’ Kalyn said. … ‘It’s very adversarial to small businesses right now.’” (Omaha World-Herald, 11/7/10)
“Cliff Lindholm III, president and CEO of Passaic-based Falstrom Co., which makes precision metal products, said changes to the health care bill are a top priority. He said his health care insurer, hiking the cost of Falstrom’s coverage by 30 percent, recently blamed the increase in part on the health care bill’s requirement that insurers cover dependents until age 26. … [L]indholm added, congressional gridlock ‘could provide certainty about nothing happening. So that would, in essence, be a positive for business, because they don’t see a potential for new rules and regulations coming down from Washington.’” (The Bergen Record, 11/7/10)
“Ron Ruff, president of Winfree, Ruff & Associates … said he walked away with many concerns for his business. ‘It’s a very complex process and it’s going to be, on the surface, looks like, expensive for small businesses,’ he said. ‘As the years click off, there’s a lot of things that are going to start applying to small businesses. Are they going to have resources to keep up with this?’ Ruff said he is concerned about potential penalties that could be assessed to his business for not fully complying with the new [health care] guidelines. ‘My concern is a lot of these regulations aren’t written yet. Weekly, monthly, we hear new things come out. It’s a big unknown in the future,’ he said. ‘There’s a lot of unknowns; that’s the scary part about this.’” (The Lancaster Eagle-Gazette, 11/7/10)
“Rankin, the president and owner of EBC Carpet Services Corp., finds fault with a particular provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that mandates all companies to issue tax forms, known as 1099s, to any individual or corporation from which they purchase goods or services worth more than $600. … ‘The lawmakers are going to have to find a way to pay for this thing that they’ve created, but is it going to help? No,’ said Rankin… ‘There are going to be a lot of businesses that are small and mid-sized that will hurt from this.’ … ‘We’ve got it coming and going,’ he said. ‘A portion of some of my workers’ jobs will now have to go toward taking care of this.’” (The News-Journal, 10/31/10)
“Miami Valley small business owners fear they could find themselves buried in additional paperwork stemming from a new tax rule attached to the Health Care Act. … That means local start-ups and mom-and-pop shops with limited bookkeeping resources would have to collect tax ID information and file 1099 forms for every gas station or office supply store they spend $600 with to support their business. ‘There has got to be a better way,’ said Ed Fritz, owner of Centerville Coin & Jewelry Connection. ‘It’s just creating a big headache for small business owners.’” (Dayton Daily News, 10/25/10)
Last week, Speaker Pelosi tweeted about the “urgency … of protecting” ObamaCare, proving once again that Democrats are in denial about the message millions of Americans sent to Washington last Tuesday. Republicans are listening to the American people, and – in stark contrast to Democrats – are focused squarely on the urgent need to protect small businesses and promote their ability to put millions of unemployed Americans back to work. In an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) reiterated Republicans’ commitment to repeal the job-killing ObamaCare law and replace it with better, common-sense solutions:
“This health care bill will ruin the best health care system in the world and it will bankrupt our country. …
“We are going to repeal Obama Care and replace it with common sense reforms that will bring down the cost of health insurance. …
“First and foremost, this is about the greatest health care system in the world. And secondly, let’s not forget, this is also about jobs. And if you look at all of the requirements on employers, you can understand why they’re not hiring new employees, because we’ve raised the cost of employment.
“Beyond repealing Obama Care, we’re going to do everything we can to stop this bill from being implemented, to make sure it never happens.”
REPEALING AND REPLACING OBAMACARE WITH BETTER SOLUTIONS. In an op-ed in today’s USA Today, Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), the top Republican on the House Ways & Means Committee, explains the disastrous impact ObamaCare is having, and will continue to have, on health care costs and access, especially for millions of America’s seniors. Rep. Camp also lays out specific proposals that will lower costs and provide better patient protections, in line with the GOP’s Pledge to America. Republicans will continue fighting to repeal ObamaCare and implement all of the common-sense reforms laid out in the Pledge to America. Tags:ObamaCare, jobs, job-killer, small business, Pledge to America, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Is Obama Commiting To Allowing Tax Increases On Americans In January?
The Hill reported on Saturday, “Days after Democrats received a self-described ‘shellacking’ at the polls, President Obama called for an end to campaigning and an embrace of compromise. But he signaled no willingness to bend on the first challenge likely to face him from a Republican House as he advocated the permanent extension of Bush-era tax cuts for families making less than $250,000 a year despite the GOP’s resolve to extend the tax cuts for all income brackets.”
Obama said in his weekly address, “[A]t a time when we are going to ask folks across the board to make such difficult sacrifices, I don’t see how we can afford to borrow an additional $700 billion from other countries to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent, even for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. We’d be digging ourselves into an even deeper fiscal hole and passing the burden on to our children.”
But this is the wrong way to look at it, as New Jersey Governor Chris Christie explained to NBC’s David Gregory on Meet the Press yesterday: “This is about maintaining the current tax structure in a time we have a very weak economy. And so I favor extending these for another two years, extending the current tax system and not having a tax increase. . . . what I’m saying is you should keep the current tax structure in place until our economy gets stronger.”
Appearing on CBS’ Face the Nation, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said, “This has been the tax rate for almost a decade, almost a decade. The federal government doesn’t have this problem because it taxes too little. It’s got it because it spends too much. We don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. So the whole nomenclature surrounding this that somehow we’re doing people a favor by giving them their-- their own money back, I just don’t accept.”
Sen. McConnell elaborated, “Let me make sure everybody understands what we’re talking about here: These aren’t tax cuts, these are tax increases—tax increases in the middle of a recession.” He emphasized, “We don’t think raising taxes on small business is a good idea. And you can’t do what [the President is] suggesting you might do without having a small business tax increase. . . . [O]ur view is don’t raise taxes on small business. We would rather not do it at any time—in fact I’ve introduced the only bill that would make the current tax rates permanent—but certainly you wouldn’t want to do it in the middle of an income slowdown.”
Indeed, many Democrats in Congress share the view that no one should face a tax increase next year. Senators Joe Lieberman (ID-CT), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Jim Webb (D-VA), and Evan Bayh (D-IN) have all indicated they believe that now is not the time to raise taxes. Back in September, 31House Democrats signed a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) saying that the current tax policies should be extended and raising taxes now “could negatively impact economic growth.”
There is bipartisan agreement that it is now the wrong time to raise taxes, and Republicans are calling for the current income tax rates to be extended so that no Americans face a massive tax increase in January. If President Obama is really interested in working with Republicans, he has an opportunity during the lame-duck session to support the Republican proposal to prevent taxes from going up on anyone next year.
But we must also consider that after traveling like royalty to India, it appears he is more interested in being a global leader than leading the United States out of the debt. The Telegraph (UK) even noted that "Obama’s trip to India bears all the hallmarks of failure at home. In the past, when things were going badly for the president domestically, he went on a foreign tour designed to highlight his stature as a world leader. But this lavish visit is simply highlighting the administration’s incompetence in foreign affairs. . . .American newspapers have been noting the cost of $200 million a day. For a president that runs up new spending in the trillions, this is small change. But he will be coming back to face a new Congress. And, after a two-year spending binge, he is asking it to make some major cuts – in the defence budget. As it happens, the defence budget is the main source of President Obama’s lavish travel budget."
In answer to the opening question, with President Obama's proclivity to waste and spend the American people's money like a drunken sailor, we can only surmise that he wants more money thus more taxes and will remain committed to allowing tax increases in January, 2011 on Americans - or at least the richest American's who still have any money. He promised hope and change. Now, the American people hope Obama stops spending and taxing our remaining change. Tags:President Obama, tax increase, Americans, wasteful trips, spending by Oabama, spending, Barack Obama, India, hope, changeTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Former Republican Party of Arkansas Chairman Dennis Milligan Wins Saline County Circuit Clerk
The Saline Courier: Bryant business owner Dennis Milligan has been elected as the Saline County Circuit Clerk after winning 52 percent of the votes after a close finish in the election against Circuit Clerk Doug Kidd, who had 47 percent of the votes. . . . Milligan is just one of the many Republicans who won in this year's election, a trend that was seen locally as well as nationally. . . .
Milligan is a former chairman of the Republican Party of Arkansas from 2007 to 2008. Before that, he served as treasurer of Republican Party of Arkansas and chairman of the Saline County Republican Party. . . . [Full Story] Tags:Dennis Milligan, RPA, Saline County, Clerk, 2010 election, Arkansas To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Races for Secretary of State are very important for many reasons to the residents of each state. But to all Americans, the races are also very important because each Secretary of State provides at minimum general oversight of elections rules, procedures and elections in their State. Out of the 22 state races, Republicans won 15 of the races. In Arkansas, voters elected the first Republican Secretary of State since 1870 (140 years). Below is the Election Law Center summary of the wins in the Secretary of State races.
----------- by Christian Adams, Election Law Center: A Secretary of State roundup with thanks to CQ. Four Democratic Party incumbents were defeated by Republican challengers. Three of the four were among the more partisan Secretaries of State in the country - Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa, all part of the class of 2006.
Secretary of state races: Alabama — Republican incumbent Beth Chapman defeated Democratic challenger Scott Gilliland. Arizona — Republican incumbent Ken Bennett defeated Democrat Christopher Deschene. Arkansas — Republican Mark Martin defeated Democrat Pat O’Brien California — Democratic incumbent Debra Bowen defeated Republican challenger Damon Dunn. Colorado — Republican challenger Scott Gessler defeated Democratic incumbent Bernie Beuscher. Connecticut — Democrat Denise Merrill defeated Republican Jerry Farrell. Georgia — Incumbent Republican Brian Kemp defeated Democrat Georganna Sinkfield. Idaho — Republican incumbent Ben Ysursa defeated Democratic challenger Mack Sermon. Indiana — Republican Charlie White defeated Democrat Vop Osili, and Libertarian Mike Wherry. Iowa — Republican challenger Matt Schultz defeated Democratic incumbent Michael Mauro. Kansas — Republican challenger Kris Kobach defeated Democratic incumbent Chris Biggs. Massachusetts — Democratic incumbent William Galvin defeated Republican William C. Campbell and third-party candidate Jim Henderson. Michigan — Republican Ruth Johnson defeated Democrat Jocelyn Benson. Minnesota — Democratic incumbent Mark Ritchie defeated Republican challenger Dan Severson and third-party candidate Jual Carlson. Nebraska — Republican incumbent John Gale defeated Democratic challenger Janet Stewart. Nevada — Democratic incumbent Ross Miller defeated Republican challenger Rob Lauer and third-party candidate John Wagner. New Mexico — Republican challenger Dianna Duran defeated Democratic incumbent Mary Herrera. North Dakota — Republican incumbent Al Jaeger defeated Democratic challenger Corey Mock. Ohio — Republican Jon Husted defeated Democrat Maryellen O’Shaughnessy, and Libertarian Charlie Earl. Rhode Island — Democratic incumbent Ralph Mollis defeated Republican challenger Catherine Terry Taylor. South Dakota — Republican Jason Gant defeated Democrat Ben Nesselhuf. Vermont — Democrat Jim Condos defeated Republican Jason Gibbs. Wyoming — Republican incumbent Max Mayfield defeated Democratic challenger Andrew Simons. Tags:Secretary of State, races, 2010 election, electionsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Voters Continue To Say No to Higher Taxes, More Government Spending
Rasmussen Reports:: Voters continue to believe that raising taxes and increasing government spending will dig our economy deeper in a hole, and they don’t see things getting any better under the Obama administration. . . . 58% of Likely U.S. Voters say tax increases will hurt the economy. Just 18% feel increasing taxes will help our economy, while 14% say it will have no impact. . . .
- 58% believe increases in government spending will hurt the country fiscally
- 24% feel it will help
- 10% say more government spending will have no impact. . . .
52% - decreases in government spending will help the economy
25% - decreases will hurt economic conditions in the country
14% - cutting government spending will have no impact.
61% - tax cuts will improve the nation’s economy
18% - feel tax cut wil hurt the economy
14% - cutting taxes will have no impact on the country.
..... [Full Story] Tags:Rasmussen Reports, voters, poll, higher taxes, government spending, the economy, economy, United StatesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Personal Tweets by the editor: Dr. Bill - OzarkGuru
#Conservative #Constitution #NRA #GunRights #military 22 yr #veteran #professor #Christian #ProLife #TCOT #SGP #CCOT #schoolchoice #fairtax Married-50+yrs #MAGA
Comments by contributing authors or other sources do not necessarily reflect the position the editor, other contributing authors, sources, readers, or commenters. No contributors, or editors are paid for articles, images, cartoons, etc. While having reported on and promoting the beliefs associated with the ARRA, this blog/site is not controlled by nor funded by the ARRA. This site/blog does not advertise for money or services nor does it solicit funding for its support.
Fair Use: This site/blog may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as provided for in section Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Per said section, the material on this site/blog is distributed without profit to readers to view for the expressed purpose of viewing the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. Any person/entity seeking to use copyrighted material shared on this site/blog for purposes that go beyond "fair use," must obtain permission from the copyright owner.