News for social, fiscal & national security conservatives who believe in God, family & the USA. We seek to uphold 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. The ARRA News Service is an outreach of the Arkansas Republican Assembly. However, all content approval rests with the Editor. While varied positions are reported, our beliefs & principles remain fixed. No revenue is generated by this blog, no paid ads accepted and no payments for articles. Note the posted Fair Use doctrine. -- Editor: Dr. Bill Smith [OzarkGuru] - editor/arranewsservice.com (Published Since July, 2006)
Considering Prosecutorial / Judicial Misuse or Abuse of the Arkansas Animal Cruelty Laws
By Dr. Bill Smith: When Arkansas passed the new animal cruelty laws in 2009, “safeguards” were in place to protect property owners against frivolous lawsuits and charges when protecting their properties, persons and livestock from the threat of roaming dogs of irresponsible pet owners. Or, did it? The law was untested and left to individual municipalities to sort out.
It was in the courtroom of Judge Bruce Anderson, Bradley County District judge, in Warren, Arkansas that the first two cases of that county were tried, two remarkably similar cases with inexplicably different results.
The first case involved Mr. John Fierce. Mr. Fierce appeared before Judge Anderson, represented by Ken Harper, Esq. Mr. Fierce was accused of shooting a Labrador mix which was left to roam the neighborhood while its owner was at work. The Labrador, according to court testimony, had killed Mr. Fierce’s chickens in the past and the owner had not responded to his requests to keep the animal restrained. Mr. Fierce, upon seeing the animal in his yard, shot the dog based upon the past experience of the dog killing his chickens.
The second case involved Mark R. Taylor who was also represented by the same Mr. Harper. Taylor was accused of shooting and killing a pit bull belonging to Maxley Parker. Parker had a camper trailer parked on the property of Rayburn and Elois Taylor. It was the policy of Briar Patch RV Park that pets must be kept restrained and, while Parker’s camper was parked in an area of their farm outside the park, near Mark Taylor’s home, he was, according to court testimony, told the animal had to be retrained. Parker disappeared in the summer of 2009, leaving his camper in its spot and his pit bull to roam the neighborhood, killing animals on the Taylor farm and terrorizing neighbors. When the pit bull charged Mrs. Betty Doss and then Mark Taylor’s own son, Rayburn and Elois asked Mark’s assistance.
Two cases: similar circumstances, same prosecutor, same defense attorney, same judge. In both cases, an animal whose actions had presented clear and present danger was allowed to roam unrestrained throughout the neighborhood. In both cases, the dog owner showed no remorse or concern over the actions of their pets. Neither man had a criminal record.
On July 23, 2010, Mr. Fierce received his verdict. Not guilty. Judge Anderson’s opinion was that due to the past actions of the Labrador mix, the killing Mr. Fierce’s chickens was enough to justify his actions.
On July 22, 2010, Mark Taylor received his verdict. Guilty. Taylor was sentenced to 24 hours in jail, mandatory psychiatric evaluation and possible counseling at his expense and a $350 fine. While the verdict did not award restitution that Parker requested for his dog, it further stated that Parker could file a civil suit against Taylor. He immediately filed an appeal with the Bradley County Circuit Court. That case is due for trial the week of March 21, 2011. Taylor was convicted on a charge filed with Prosecuting Attorney Thomas Deen’s office by a claimant who only came to him with third-hand knowledge of what happened to his dog. “Parker didn’t even know who Mark was until the day we arrived in court,” said Taylor’s wife, Renee.
What precedents do the rulings of Judge Bruce Anderson set for the rest of the state? Does the cruelty to animals’ statute place the risk of injury or death of an animal, such as a chicken, over the risk of injury or death of a human, such as Mr. Taylor’s neighbor or his son? In Judge Anderson’s courtroom, this seems to be the case.
Act 33, the Arkansas Cruelty to Animals Act allows for exemption if one is protecting a persons or a person’s property from damage and humanely killing an animal on the property of the person if the person is acting as a reasonable person would act under similar circumstances and if the animal is reasonably believed to constitute a threat to the physical injury or damage to any animal under the care or control of the person. In both cases, Mr. Fierce and Mr. Taylor were acting reasonably to protect property, animals and people from dogs allowed to roam free by irresponsible owners.
Are all Arkansans at risk of rogue judges imposing dangerous interpretation of a vague law? Are we at risk of seeing the lives of stray dogs and cats placed above the welfare of humans? Will we be at risk of being hauled into court because someone told someone else who told another that you shot his dog? The implications of the law are staggering to law-abiding property owners, as they face large attorney’s fees, time lost from work to appear in court and, as in the Taylor case, the possibility of a criminal record all because of irresponsible pet owners.
Another important factor is the financial implications of this law. What if the Taylors did not have the resources to even get the appeals process started? Renee Taylor revealed that “this appeal has been a financial strain but we had to appeal because it was not right for Mark to be found guilty for protecting his son and neighbors.” She indicated that they may even have to sell property for future attorney fees. So far, they have paid $2500 and it definitely looks like there will be more costs. Then, we must also consider the income lost for all the court appearances.
However, the irresponsible owner of the dog, a convicted felon with an extensive record, is out pocket nothing. Fortunately, in the first mentioned case, Mr. John Fierce did not have to appeal and thus did not incur additional costs as he was found not guilty for fearing that more of his chickens might be killed. But Mr. Mark Taylor was found guilty for protecting his child and neighbor from a dog allowed to roam by its owner.
After reading the written verdicts in both cases before the judge, it appears to this author that there might have been bias by the judge in the Taylor case. Others are invited to review the labored effort by the judge to justify a verdict of guilty. There was no finding of fact as to Mr. Taylor being biased against pit-bulls terriers. But it appears to be that of judge had his opinion as to prevailing bias against the breed. Based on having reviewed numerous Federal cases, this labored effort by Judge Anderson caught my attention.
As a result, another question was asked the Taylors, “Did either of them have any prior personal or business activity with of Judge Bruce Anderson?" Renee Taylor identified that Judge Bruce Anderson had been Mark Taylor’s former corporate attorney and that they had had other issues with him in the past when he was assistant prosecutor. She shared that she had called Anderson “an idiot and sorry excuse of a lawyer for sending us a letter” on a personal family issue.
Inquiries to other Arkansas District judges which described the general prior relationship of a judge and the defendant but not the case or its outcome garnered the opinion that the judges would have “recused” themselves from hearing the case. So, why didn’t Judge Anderson recuse himself?
After the above review, this author questions the injustice done in the Taylor case. Based on the law and on the actual situations of the above two cases, why did the prosecutor even bring these cases to trial? The safeguards have previously been discussed by the legislature. Under the Arkansas Constitution, County Prosecutors have sole discretion as to which cases they wish to pursue in their jurisdiction? Was this prosecutor trying to redefine Arkansas law? Did he have grudges against these two defendants? Is he an animal rights activist?
And, why did the judge make the correct decision in the first case, but a questionable if not incorrect decision in the second case? Why didn’t the judge recuse himself after having previously represented or having had differences with the defendant or his family? Most rural Arkansans would have done the same as both Mr. Fierce and Mr. Taylor. Is the Judge an animal rights activist? Why did the Judge order Mr. Taylor to undergo psychological evaluation with respect to shooting a roaming “pit bull” dog? Was the Judge seeking to affect Taylor’s present occupation?
Animal cruelty laws are necessary to prevent mistreatment to animals. However, after discussion with members of the legislature, it is more than questionable that the Arkansas legislators intended the application of the term “cruelty to animals” to be used to punish rural Arkansans for putting down rogue or unattended dogs in rural locations. In fact, all parties asked said that it was not the intent of the law. Barring testimony to the opposite (not the opinion of a judge) the “Castle doctrine” of protecting one’s property and family should extend to any person making a judgment on their property to “put down” a dog or other animal that they believe may injure humans or livestock on their property or on another’s property when assistance is being rendered.
Before the reputations of more Arkansans are damaged, before more jobs are placed at risk, before more family financial resources are consumed, and before any further enforcement of the animal cruelty laws are enforced, more education on the law is necessary for law enforcement, prosecutors and, of course, judges! Legislators are encouraged to re-evaluate their former efforts and reaffirm or even improve the “safeguards” placed in effect to protect property owners against frivolous lawsuits and charges when protecting their properties, persons and livestock from the threat of roaming dogs belonging to or abandoned by irresponsible pet owners.
------------------ Dr. Bill Smith is the editor for the ARRA News Service and a contributor to other publications. He retired from the Air Force as a Federal Acquisitions Contracting Officer rendering contract decisions on multi-million dollar as well as billion dollar contracts after reviewing precedent legal cases. While he has had cases appealed to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, this Court never reversed or overturned his decisions. None of his decisions were ever appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Tags:Warren, Arkansas, animal cruelty laws, animal cruelty, legislator, Judge, Bruce Anderson, Bradley County District Judge, trials, precedence, appeals, roaming dogs, danger to humans, Arkansas law, John Fierce, Mark Taylor, rogue judges, Arkansas legislature, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
More Voters Still Think Federal Govt Encourages Illegal Immigration
Rasmussen Reports: Most voters continue to believe that the policies of the federal government encourage illegal immigration, but voters are now almost evenly divided over whether it's better to let the federal government or individual states enforce immigration laws.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters think the policies and practices of the federal government encourage illegal immigration, comparable to findings in October 2009 . . . Twenty-one percent (21%) disagree and say the federal government does not encourage illegal immigration through its actions, but another 22% aren't sure.
Forty-seven percent (47%) say relying on the federal government to enforce immigration laws is a better approach than allowing individual states to act on their own to enforce them. Forty-four percent (44%) take the opposite view and say the better approach is to allow states to enforce immigration laws, but that's down 11 points from September. . . . [Full Article] Tags:Rasmussen Reports, federal government, promotes illegal immigration, illegal aliens, illegalsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Today in Washington, D.C. - Feb. 7, 2011 - The Senate will reconvene this afternoon at 2 PM today and will resume consideration of S. 223, the FAA reauthorization bill. At 4:30 PM, the Senate will proceed to executive session to consider 3 district court nominees. Following an hour of debate, the Senate will vote on confirming the nominees.
President Obama spoke at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce today where he urged cooperation and asked business leaders to support his economic agenda. The Wall Street Journal noted the Chamber includes “some of his toughest business critics” and points out, “Chamber and White House officials clashed during Mr. Obama's first two years in office over the president's health-care and financial-markets regulatory overhauls, as well as environmental rules and tax policies.”
Yet the president’s outreach to the business community seems to once again be more rhetoric than reality. According to the AP, “White House officials say Obama's speech will not break new policy ground, nor will he offer an olive branch.”
Indeed, today’s speech appears to be part of a pattern where President Obama will double down on policies harmful to business and job creation like his unpopular health care bill, the complicated Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, or EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, but then the White House will declare a new outreach to the business community to smooth things over.
One year ago, The Washington Post reported, “Declaring himself an ‘ardent believer in the free market,’ President Obama tried to rally business leaders Wednesday to support the administration's goals of health-care reform, climate legislation and financial regulation.” In July of last year, after Democrats in Congress pushed through the health care and financial regulation bills, Politico wrote, “The White House has launched a coordinated campaign to push back against the perception taking hold in corporate America and on Wall Street that President Barack Obama is promoting an anti-business agenda.” In November, The Washington Post wrote, “President Obama is moving to cool down his war with the United States Chamber of Commerce, one of the most bitter political feuds of the last two years.” And a month later The Post reported, “The Republicans in Congress aren't the only people the White House is trying to make peace with. President Obama will meet Wednesday with a group of 20 chief executives, including the heads of American Express, Google and UBS, as he continues a persistent but at times unsuccessful effort to win the business community's trust.”
And yet little has changed in the way of policy. As the WSJ reported last month, “President Barack Obama's government-wide review of federal regulations will have little effect on two of the president's major regulatory victories: an overhaul of Wall Street and the health-care market, according to a White House budget official.” And according to a report in today’s Journal, “The Environmental Protection Agency, which enforces rules that affect the U.S. economy from factories to farms, is the No. 1 target of complaints from business groups collected by House Republican leaders. EPA rules were cited more than those from any other agency in more than 100 letters sent by trade associations, businesses and some conservative groups to House oversight committee chairman Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) in response to his call for businesses to identify regulations they deemed burdensome, according to documents reviewed by the Wall Street Journal.”
The Washington Post adds, “The Post reviewed more than 200 letters and reports that businesses sent to Issa targeting regulations across the federal government. The rules under scrutiny include familiar issues such as greenhouse gas emissions, health-care reform and the landmark Wall Street overhaul. . . . In their letters, business leaders express alarm about the slow pace of the economic recovery and what they characterize as the growing role government is playing in the private sector. ‘Business owners remain on edge regarding the tidal wave of federal government regulation that has been advanced or proposed over the past two years. . . .The pain of the harsh recession was intensified and lengthened by this hyper-regulatory environment,’ Karen Kerrigan, president of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, wrote in a Jan. 12 letter to Issa.”
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) responded to President Obama’s speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce: “President Obama has retooled his rhetoric, but not his job-destroying policies, which are eroding confidence, fostering uncertainty, and crowding out private investment. Far from changing tack, his administration is taking steps to protect the job-crushing regulations in its health care and permanent bailout laws, while plotting a backdoor national energy tax. Time and again, the Obama Administration has used its regulatory powers to go around Congress and impose hidden taxes on employers and small businesses. Instead of committing to much-needed spending cuts and reforms, President Obama has urged Congress to raise the debt limit and pass more ineffective ‘stimulus’ spending disguised as ‘investment.’ It’s clear from his policies that President Obama isn’t as interested in winning the future as he is in rigging it for big government.
“Instead of more regulations and more ‘stimulus’ spending, we need less spending, more freedom, and more certainty for those in America who create jobs. With the Pledge to America, Republicans have a plan to get our economy back to creating jobs by stopping job-crushing federal mandates, cutting unnecessary spending, and ending the Washington spending binge. This week, the new House majority will empower our committees to root out the rules and regulations that are making it harder to create jobs. Last month, Congressman Geoff Davis introduced the REINS Act, common-sense legislation requiring congressional approval of any new regulation with an economic impact of more than $100 million. We’re also holding multiple hearings and seeking input from the nation’s employers and entrepreneurs as we work to free them from the tangle of red tape that undermines job creation.
“If President Obama is truly interested in what’s good for employers and best for our workers, he’ll listen to the American people and work with Republicans to break down barriers to job creation instead of creating new ones.”
With only 36,000 jobs added last month, it’s clear that more needs to be done to foster an environment where businesses can create new jobs. Unfortunately, the White House seems more focused on presenting the image of reaching out to business, instead of changing its policies that are stifling job creation. Tags:Washington, D.C., US House, US Senate, Barack Obama, rhetoric, Chamber of Commerce, business, jobs, unemployment, John Boehner, Lisa BensonTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Oklahoma City Pastor Defends Citizen's Right to Bear Arms
Note that in the in the discussion on the video, it is revealed that the original shooting that prompted the comments by the Chief of Police was a shooting of an officer by an ILLEGAL alien who illegally possessed a firearm. Also, note that since Oklahoma stopped its restriction of AR-15s, the murder rate has declined not increased in Oklahoma. What we have is response by a liberal biased Police Chief buying into the liberal left media instead of being thankful that the citizens of Oklahoma are prepared to defend themselves. It is tragic that we have another case of an illegal alien committing a felony in the Unites States.
Another point made is that the AR15 is NOT and assault rifle. [“AR” stands for Armalite rifle, not “assault rifle.” NSSF.org states, “AR-15 ‘style’ rifles are NOT assault weapons or rifles. An assault rifle is fully automatic – a machine gun.”] Cam Edwards (NRA) talks to Pastor Tom Vineyard from Windsor Hills Baptist Church in Oklahoma City, OK about his "Open Letter" - NRA News - January 24, 2011.
Below is a copy of the letter complements of AxXiom for Liberty: This letter was sent in response to a Bryan Dean’s January 17 article in the Oklahoman: “Oklahoma City Police Chief Laments Criminals’ Access to Military-Style Guns.”
Open Letter to Chief Bill Citty January 19, 2011 Dear Chief Citty:
I want to start this letter by saying thank you for your 33 years of service in law enforcement. Having personally been the victim of a violent crime, I cannot emphasize enough how grateful I am to all those who put their lives on the line every day in order to keep the citizenry safe.
Since 1985, the members of Windsor Hills Baptist Church have had the privilege of honoring city, county, and state law enforcement officers on our annual Law and Order Sunday. By our conservative estimation, we have honored approximately 300 such officers, of which at least 75 have been from the Oklahoma City Police Department. We even made efforts this last fall to invite Officer Katie Lawson in order to honor her.
I am writing this letter because of the January 16 article written by Bryan Dean that was printed in the January 17 Oklahoman. There are some things in the article that you were quoted as stating that I feel need to be addressed. Mr. Dean stated in the article that you see “no practical reason why someone needs an AR-15 or similar weapon.” A few paragraphs later you said, “There are just more and more assault rifles out there, and it is becoming a bigger threat to law enforcement each day. They [law enforcement] are outgunned.”
With all due respect, Chief Citty, I would like to point out a few things about the article and your comments in it. It needs to be clarified that there is a great difference between an AR-15 and an assault rifle. To place both in the same group is incorrect and misleading.
The Free Online Encyclopedia defines an assault rifle as a “military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and has the capacity to switch between semi-automatic and fully-automatic fire.” The definition goes on to state that “assault rifles have become the standard infantry weapon of modern armies. Their ease of handling makes them ideal for mobile assault troops crowded into personnel carriers or helicopters, as well as for guerilla fighters engaged in jungle or urban warfare.”
Please note that the U.S. M16, NOT the AR-15, is included on the list of Military/Assault rifles. The website NSSF.org additionally explains that sporting rifles based on the AR-15 cosmetically look like military rifles but do not function the same way that Military/Assault rifles do.
“AR” stands for Armalite rifle, not “assault rifle.” NSSF.org states, “AR-15 ‘style’ rifles are NOT assault weapons or rifles. An assault rifle is fully automatic – a machine gun.” The article goes on to state that the term “assault weapon” is a political term created by California anti-gun legislators in order to ban some semi-automatic rifles there in the 1980′s.
Additionally, NSSF states that the AR-15 style rifles fire “only one round with each pull of the trigger. Versions of the modern sporting rifles are legal to own in all 50 states, provided the purchaser passes the mandatory FBI background check required for all retail firearm purchases. AR-15 style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the 30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag.”
Chief, may I respectfully remind you that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution assures the right and responsibility of individuals to protect themselves, their family, and their property: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
May I also respectfully remind you that the Constitution of our great state of Oklahoma clearly states in Section II-26: “The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.”
As a Christian and a pastor, I feel it my duty to also respectfully remind you that it is the God-given right and responsibility of every individual to protect themselves, their family, and their property.
Abraham armed his trained servants in Genesis 14:15 in order to recover Lot, his family, and his goods as well as everything else from Sodom. Abraham was just one man in a strange land.
David armed himself with the sword of Goliath in 1 Samuel 21:9. By 1 Samuel 25:13, every one of David’s men was armed with a sword.
When Nehemiah and the men of Jerusalem went to rebuilding the wall, they each had their sword girded by their side, working in the work with one hand and holding their weapon with the other. (Nehemiah 4:17-18)
Even the Lord Jesus Christ instructed His disciples who did not have a sword to go and buy one. (Luke 22:36)
This is just a few of the many examples that the Bible presents, from Abraham to Christ, of people who armed themselves with the preferred weapon of their time, the sword. We could very easily say that it was the AR-15 of their day.
Mr. Dean stated that you see “no practical reason why someone needs an AR-15 or similar weapon.” Again, with all due respect, Chief Citty, you have obviously never been the victim of a violent crime.
In just a few days, sir, will be the sixth anniversary of my family being robbed in our home while we were missionaries in Africa. Every day since then, when I look in the mirror to brush my teeth, wash my face, shave, or comb my hair, I see what I call my trophy from Africa, a scar on my forehead where I suffered a skull fracture from a rifle that was used on me while I was fighting to defend my family against five armed men who broke into our home. I nearly lost my hearing and my ear in the attack, and still have daily headaches to remind me of it.
Please understand that when they entered our home, we were unarmed. The law there in that country prohibited citizens from possessing firearms of any kind.
We cooperated with the thieves and even went so far as to show them where things were so that they could take what they wanted and then be on their way. For reasons we still do not know, they were unsatisfied with what we had and proceeded to tell us that they would kill our children if we did not give them more money. Chief, all that I had left that I could do to protect the lives of my children was to fight with my hands. It was not enough. To borrow your expression, I was “outgunned.”
Again, with all due respect, sir, I beg to differ with you that THERE IS a practical reason why someone needs an AR-15 or a similar weapon. If you and your family were ever robbed by someone who was armed while you were unarmed, you would understand.
You used the term “unscrupulous gun sellers.” How is it unscrupulous to engage in commerce? Are you implying that those who sold the gun did it with the intention of him shooting a police officer? Can you not see that to raise the restrictions on firearms such as the AR-15 is simply to take them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens but not out of the hands of the bad guys?
You stated that Officer Lawson was outgunned. I would like to ask why? From what I understand in talking to police officers, they are permitted to carry shotguns and even AR-15′s in their vehicles. Did she not have one? Is your department underfunded and unable to provide each officer on duty with a shotgun and AR-15? If so, may I help you in a fund raising effort to provide each on-duty officer with a shotgun and AR-15? I am confident that with the multitude of law-abiding citizens who are thankful for law enforcement that we could easily raise the needed funds to properly arm our law enforcement officers.
According to the December 31, 2010, article that Bryan Dean wrote, “Oklahoma City officer recounts night she was ambushed,” Mr. Dean reported that police carry their own AR-15 rifles in their cars, but that Lawson “never had a chance to retrieve hers.” So it is obvious that Officer Lawson was not completely outgunned; she was only taken by the element of surprise. What law could be passed to stop such a crime if the death penalty is already in effect in Oklahoma? The answer is NOT to prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing sporting rifles such as the AR-15.
The question was asked, “How does a teenager get an AR-15?” While an 18 year old is still a teenager, an 18 year old is also old enough to drive, to vote, and even to go serve our country in Iraq or Afghanistan. It is understandable that since the majority of 18 year olds are law-abiding citizens it is legal for them to purchase a firearm if they can afford it and so desire to do.
Chief, it is unacceptable that the military would trust some 18 year olds enough to send them overseas with a fully-automatic weapon in their hand to defend themselves and their country while at the same time you want to take semi-automatic sporting rifles out of those same law-abiding citizens’ hands in order to “make it harder for criminals to get such weapons.”
The article states that the gun was tracked to a dealer in Tulsa. The original sale was a legal sale. The weapon was tracked to its source. The shooter was found. Were you able to put it in his hand when he committed the crime? I believe the correct answer is yes. Adding extra hoops for law-abiding citizens to have to jump through will not keep criminals from breaking the law by shooting or killing someone. It makes absolutely no sense to cumber law-abiding citizens with even more regulation and further hinder them from protecting their families from those who have no regard for the law and will get and use guns even if they were completely outlawed and banned. It has been said that everywhere that gun regulation has been implemented, it is eventually followed by gun confiscation. Simply look across the pond to our friends in England and to those in the southern hemisphere in Australia as proof of this. Please understand that I am not implying this of you personally, but the reason that our founders included the 2nd Amendment in our Constitution was to protect the citizens from a government overstepping its bounds.
I challenge you to research the statistics in places such as Chicago, Washington D.C., Australia, and Great Britain where guns are prohibited. You will find that crimes with firearms still take place. More restrictive laws will not keep bad guys from committing crimes. Has the sign with the little pistol with the slash through it ever stopped a crime from being committed in places where firearms are forbidden? No, absolutely not! There are still school shootings like the one yesterday in California or the school board shooting in Florida. Even the shooting in Arizona would have most certainly turned out differently if the Safeway there had been “Concealed Carry” friendly.
At the end of the article, you said that officers are running into guns at a much higher rate now than they did 20 years ago, “even on routine traffic stops.”
A clarification of your term “guns” would be helpful. Are you speaking of the encyclopedia definition of a fully-automatic Military/Assault rifle, or a sporting AR-15 rifle, or are you speaking of the legal conceal carry pistols that law-abiding citizens are permitted to carry? Well, there is a problem if what you are referring to is the legally permitted conceal carry or even a rifle or shotgun without a round in the chamber.
Correct me if I am wrong, but does not Oklahoma law permit the transportation of firearms in the vehicle as long as there is not a round in the chamber? Are you speaking of those type guns that are legal under Oklahoma law?
I want to respectfully challenge your statement about running into guns at a much higher rate now than twenty years ago. I don’t know if you are from Oklahoma or how long you have been here, but when I was a teenager growing up here in Oklahoma, I remember seeing pickup trucks with gun racks carrying a rifle. Our school would play other schools in smaller, more rural towns where it was common to see them even in the pickups of the boys we played in football. That’s Oklahoma, Chief! Go back and study the statistics of shootings in smaller, rural towns. I am sure that you will find that while the guns in the back windows of pickups were common, the shootings were few and far between.
Oklahomans, in general, are good people, Chief. The majority of us are law-abiding citizens. We respectfully reserve the right to keep and bear our arms, even our AR’s, protecting ourselves and our families. It is our state Constitutional right. It is our U.S. Constitutional right. And if either or both of them were to be taken away from us, it is our God-given right!
God forbid that those who would seek to disarm the citizens of the United States or the citizens of Oklahoma ever get their way here as they have elsewhere. My personal sentiment is and my reaction will be that of Charlton Heston, “I’ll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands!”
If our Oklahoma City police officers are truly outgunned, then let me help you get an AR in each of their patrol cars. I would like to boldly suggest though that the real problem is not the style of guns that citizens are allowed to possess, but the illegal immigrants who are the cause of many such crimes.
Mr. Dean’s article completely overlooked the fact that Mr. Hector Mercado who had previously been deported and was in the country illegally was pulled over for a traffic violation.
May I remind you, Chief Citty, that after HB 1804 was passed, law enforcement offices all across the state were permitted to cross-train some or all of their officers and deputies with ICE agents to help apprehend and deport illegal aliens. I would like to know if you have accepted this offer for Oklahoma City police. I am further going to research to see if Sheriff Whetsel has allowed his deputies to be trained in this program.
I think that I can confidently speak for the majority of law-abiding citizens in the state of Oklahoma that they would much rather you focus your attention upon the much more pertinent issue of illegal immigrants in our state and in Oklahoma City than to try to fabricate illegitimate reasons to regulate the state and country’s lawful liberty to keep and to bear arms.
Sincerely your friend and servant, Tom Vineyard, Pastor Windsor Hills Baptist Church, 5517 N.W. 23rd Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73127 (405) 943-3326
Tags:Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, pastor, Tom Vineyard, gun rights, Second Amendment, NRA, NRA News, firearm, gun control, police Chief, Bill Citty, Chief Citty, AR-15, illegal alienTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Bill Smith, Editor:I planned to write my own post on Ronald Reagan as I proudly served under President Reagan and had a small part in the efforts necessary to bring the Soviets to the table for the fist START Treaty. Having seen the results of attacks of terrorist first hand, I remember well how President Reagan responded swiftly and decisively to the Islamist terrorist threats to military units in Europe. However, for the following reason, I am sharing below today the excellent post by "Findalis" on the blog "Monkey in the Middle." Hard to improve on excellent.
In the last three days, I have been occupied driving over 1000 miles to and from Northern Illinois to attend the funeral of a great man in my life. Mr. James Palmer was my uncle. He was also an Army WWII vet and part of the greatest generation.
James Adell Palmer, 87, of Horseshoe Bend, Arkansas died on Tuesday. He was born Sept. 6, 1923 in Orfordville, Wisconsin. He lived in Illinois and Wisconsin most of his life before moving to Arkansas in 1992. During the closing days of the WWII, he met the love of his life, Elizabeth, at Camp Grant, near Rockford, Illinois. She was delivering military supplies. At his death they were married 66 years. Jim and his wife became Christians within a few years of being married and they committed their life to being a Christian example to their children, family and friends. It was through them that I learned about Christ's love.
He was great not for the same reasons that people identify for President Ronald Reagan. Palmer was not an actor or President of the United States. But James Palmer was an honorable man who loved his God, his wife, children and grandchildren and others. He was a good father and provider for his family and a living Christian example to others. He was a conservative and a Republican and we often talked about politics and the events going on in the world. He prayed often for others, for country and for the troubled world. James was a defender of life long before his fellow Illinoisan Ronald Reagan came to this same position.
I will think often of James Palmer in my remaining days. But, I have hope in Christ that I will meet both James Palmer and Ronald Reagan in the future.
Regardless of what field of endeavor Ronald Wilson Reagan perused, he left his mark upon the profession he was associated with. Born in Tampico, Illinois on Feb. 6, 1911 he was not a son of privileged. At a time when only the affluent were able to send their sons and daughters to University, Ronald Reagan worked his way through Eureka College receiving a Bachelor of Arts in Economics and Sociology. He played football and received his first acting experience while in College. His first job after graduation was as a radio broadcaster first in Iowa then moving to California in 1937. In 1937 he was offered a acting contract with Warner Brothers studio.
Reagan volunteered in 1937 for the Army Enlisted Reserve on April 29, 1937, as a private assigned to Troop B, 322nd Cavalry at Des Moines, Iowa. He was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the Officers Reserve Corps of the Cavalry on May 25, 1937.
Reagan was ordered to active duty for the first time on April 18, 1942. Due to his nearsightedness, he was classified for limited service only, which excluded him from serving overseas. His first assignment was at the San Francisco Port of Embarkation at Fort Mason, California, as a liaison officer of the Port and Transportation Office. Upon the approval of the Army Air Force (AAF), he applied for a transfer from the Cavalry to the AAF on May 15, 1942, and was assigned to AAF Public Relations and subsequently to the 1st Motion Picture Unit (officially, the "18th AAF Base Unit") in Culver City, California. On January 14, 1943 he was promoted to First Lieutenant and was sent to the Provisional Task Force Show Unit of This Is The Army at Burbank, California. He returned to the 1st Motion Picture Unit after completing this duty and was promoted to Captain on July 22, 1943.
In January 1944, Captain Reagan was ordered to temporary duty in New York City to participate in the opening of the sixth War Loan Drive. He was re-assigned to the 18th AAF Base Unit on November 14, 1944, where he remained until the end of World War II. He was recommended for promotion to Major on February 2, 1945, but this recommendation was disapproved on July 17 of that year. He returned to Fort MacArthur, California, where he was separated from active duty on December 9, 1945. By the end of the war, his units had produced some 400 training films for the AAF.
While never a great actor, he did have a good career as a 'B' actor. His acting career took off in the 1950s when he became a star on Television. From 1947 to 1952 and again in 1959 he became president of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG). Reagan led SAG through eventful years that were marked by labor-management disputes, the Taft-Hartley Act, House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) hearings and the Hollywood blacklist era.
Originally a Democrat, Reagan became disillusioned with the Democratic Party and in 1962 formally became a Republican. He ran for Governor of California in 1966 serving as Governor from 1967 to 1975. In 1975 he challenged President Ford for the Republican nomination. While he lost, he did gain valuable experience from the race. Enough experience to return in 1979 and not only win the nomination, but defeat President Carter in landslide, returning again in 1983 to trounce Walter Mondale with the greatest landslide since George Washington.
President Ronald Reagan retired to California after his second term. He was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1994 at a time which there were very limited treatments for the disease. Ronald Wilson Reagan died his home in Bel Air, California on the afternoon of June 5, 2004. He was 94.
Instead of posting all his quotes and achievements, I'll let the man speak for himself.
Today pundits and left-leaning commentators are saying that President Barack Hussein Obama is the new Ronald Reagan. Listen to the first video and see if President Obama's policies are more like Reagan's or like Khrushchev's?
History will place President Obama with the appeasers, but will praise Ronald Wilson Reagan as a true peace maker. Tags:Conservative, President, Republican, Ronald Wilson Reagan, James Palmer To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
William Warren: Tags:Al Gore, Global Warming, Green Environmentalism, Political Cartoons, Record Snowfall, William WarrenTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
"It simply is not credible that the unemployment rate could drop by .4% with only 36,000 jobs created. This supposed drop is at least partially a result of the Obama Administration changing the methodology for determining who was in the workforce. This change in methodology coupled with a massive drop in the top line unemployment rate leaves the data open to the perception that they may have been politically manipulated.
"However, taking the numbers at face value, the Obama Administration cannot avoid the harsh reality that their economic policies have resulted in almost one million people leaving the workforce in the past two months alone. The January reported decline of 504,000 is a startling indictment of the failure of the past two years, as Americans have voted with their feet to leave the workforce.
"The bottom line is that our nation needs to create more than 100,000 jobs a month for sustained economic growth, and this report reveals that the main driver of the unemployment rate decline is that Americans are giving up on the American dream of getting a job and making a better life for their families.
"In the past year, more than two million Americans have left the labor force with the labor participation rate dropping from 64.8% to 64.2%. The labor participation rate when Obama took office in January 2009 stood at 65.5% when Obama took office in January 2009.
"This is a devastating indictment of the Obama economic policy, and if not reversed will have severe implications for our nation's economic future." Tags:unemployment, jobs, U.S., economy, Americans for Limited GovernmentTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Dems Ignore Nov. Message, Rally Lobbyists To Defend Their Massive Spending Against GOP Cuts
Yesterday, the Senate voted 55-42 to kill an amendment from Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) that would have restricted funding for projects subject to the Davis-Bacon Act. The Senate also voted 96-1 to make it a federal offense to point laser pointers at aircraft. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said he wants to the FAA Reauthorization bill, S. 223, the week of Feb. 14th.
Over the course of this week, Democrats in have made it quite clear that they still have not heard the message Americans sent Washington in November to reduce spending, debt, and the size of government. In contrast to Republicans, who have been working to find ways to reduce spending, lower the deficit, and repeal the bloated, unpopular health care takeover, Democrats have instead looked for every way to dig in to protect the massive spending increases they instituted over the last two years.
ABC News reports today, “As Congress prepares to make deep spending cuts, an army of lobbyists is gearing up to fight back. In an e-mail obtained by ABC News, a top staffer for the key Senate Appropriations subcommittee called for a meeting of lobbyists and interest groups that would be affected by expected cuts to the Labor and Heath and Human Services budget. The Jan. 24 meeting was attended by approximately 400 people, sources told ABC, and served as a ‘call to arms’ for those determined to fight Republican budget cuts.
“‘One thing everyone should be able to agree on now is that a rising tide lifts all boats, and that a higher [Labor, Health & Human Services] allocation improves the chances for every stakeholder group to receive more funding,’ the committee staffer for Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, wrote in an e-mail inviting people to the meeting. The meeting is in contrast to the rampant calls all over Capitol Hill to cut federal spending.”
According to ABC, “Another source familiar with the meeting said Democrats used the meeting as ‘an attack on House Republicans.’ ‘They said these evil House Republicans are here and they're going to kill all these programs that support little kids, senior citizens, and health care,’ the source said. ‘They're trying to instill the fear of God that Republicans are basically going to blow up all these programs, kill these programs, defund them.’”
In other words, before Republicans even presented any proposal to cut spending, Democrats have already called on their lobbyist friends to coordinate protecting their piece of the special interest spending pie.
Democrats have also launched a messaging war against spending cuts. According to a Politico report yesterday, “The plan, conceived in meetings between top White House officials and key senators, is already on display with Senate Democrats playing the role of attack dog, going after House Republicans for what they call draconian policies that would kill jobs, add to the budget deficit, lead to privatization of Social Security and Medicare and shut down the government.” And The New York Times added, “Through statements, news conferences and summoning expert testimony, Democrats are raising red flags about the threat to the economic recovery posed by the possibility of even a temporary interruption in government services or a federal default.”
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) didn’t have a lot of patience for Democrats’ posturing and told the NYT, “If they spent as much time on the policy of getting together and solving the problems as they do on the politics, I think we would all be much better off.”
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell appeared on Laura Ingraham’s radio show today to discuss the Democrats’ attempts to rally lobbyists to fend off Republican spending cuts. McConnell told her, “Sure, there are interest groups all across America who are represented here in this town, which they have a constitutional right to do, of course, who are here to defend this outrageous level of spending and that’s what we’re up against here. But I would remind everybody, you’ve got a lot more listeners than the democrats have lobbyists, and the American people are expecting us to do this. We are going to give it our best shot.”
But, Leader McConnell emphasized, “The American people here are lobbying for us to reduce spending and the various interest groups who are vested in this high spending level that we’ve engaged in the last couple of years are certainly going to be heard from. They’ll make their best arguments. And I think the important thing is for us to resist all of these special interest groups who don’t want us to reduce spending.” Tags:Washington, D.C., US House, US Senate, Dems, Lobbyists, Massive Spending, GOP CutsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
By Dr. JD Foster: The massive federal budget deficit is unsustainable today because of out-of-control spending. Consequently, the federal government is about to run up against its statutorily imposed debt limit. Fortunately, Congress has options, and it has time to consider them carefully.
If Congress chooses not to raise the debt ceiling, then it could act swiftly to indicate that net interest is the highest priority to allay any remaining concerns about the possibility of defaulting on the debt. Congress could also declare exactly where spending should be cut to align total spending with receipts, not leaving this to a President acting without statutory guidance. If Congress inclines toward raising the debt limit, then it should also impose immediate, substantial spending reductions along with strong new rules such as hard spending caps to require continued, sharp spending reduction in future years. The outcome should reflect a clear, quick path to a sound fiscal policy. The responsibility for driving down spending and borrowing rests—under our Constitution—squarely with the Congress and the President of the United States. [Read Full Report]
- - - - - -
J. D. Foster, Ph.D., is Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Tags:Congress, debt limit, options, The Heritage FoundationTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Today in Washington, D.C. - Feb. 3, 2011: Sen. Dems Vote To Retain Obamacare; Reps Say The Fight Is Not Over
Feb 6, 1911-2011
The Senate resumed consideration of S. 223, the FAA Reauthorization bill. At 1 PM, the Senate will for 2 hours for Senators to pay tribute to President Ronald Reagan’s 100th birthday.
Votes on amendments to the FAA bill are possible later today. Yesterday, 51 Senate Democrats voted to preserve President Obama’s deeply flawed, unpopular health care law. All 47 Republicans voted to repeal it.
However, Democrats finally embraced repeal of a piece of the law that was going to bury small businesses in paperwork, the 1099 reporting requirement. After a year of voting against repealing that requirement, Democrats took Sen. Mike Johanns’ (R-NE) proposal and used it for their own amendment, which passed 81-17. Johanns did such an outstanding job raising awareness about the 1099 requirement that Democrats took the idea and are now claiming it as their own.
However, prior to that vote, an amendment from Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) to do the same thing while raising taxes on oil and gas companies at a time of rising gasoline prices was rejected by a vote of 44-54.
Yesterday, Senate Republicans made good on their promise to force a vote on repealing President Obama’s massive, unpopular health care spending law. Unfortunately, every Senate Democrat present for the vote, 51 in total, voted against repeal. All 47 Republicans voted to scrap the 2,700-page monstrosity and start over.
Following the vote, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell released a video, saying, “The Senate Republicans promised the American people we would vote to repeal Obamacare, and we have done that. But this fight isn’t over. We intend to continue the fight to repeal and replace Obamacare with sensible reforms that would lower the cost of American health care, like medical malpractice, like selling insurance across state lines.”
Politico explains today, “Just holding the vote is a political victory for Republicans: McConnell managed to force the roll call on the floor of the Democratic-controlled Senate. And some moderate Democrats are now on the record with a vote in favor of Obama’s signature legislative achievement — something that GOP campaigns are sure to exploit over the next two years. The country is relatively split in its support for the law, particularly in states where moderate Democrats will face reelection in 2012. Republicans hope that support for the law will further erode, forcing Democrats to reconsider their support for health reform.”
Politico also points out, “Senate Republicans pledge that their first crack at repealing the health care overhaul won’t be their last. ‘Yes, we were unsuccessful, but we know where everyone stands,’ said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). ‘It’s not too late to start over. We should repeal this bill and start over. We may not do it today, and we may not do it tomorrow, but we will defeat this bill,’ he said. . . . McConnell has promised to force numerous votes against the health care reform law. ‘We think this is just the beginning,’ he told reporters after the failed vote. ‘This issue is still before us, and we are going to go at it in a variety of ways.’”
The Washington Post adds, "'here’s a narrative I’ve seen and read out there that this was somehow a futile act because Republicans didn't have the votes to repeal Obamacare. But I have to tell you, these are the first steps in a long road that will culminate in 2012 whereby we will expose the flaws and the weaknesses in this legislation,’ Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.) said at a news conference held by GOP leaders after Wednesday’s vote. Republicans in Congress will seek to deny the Obama administration the money it needs to implement parts of the law. They could try to strip out specific provisions, such as some of the cuts to Medicare. They might win a few of these skirmishes. But even if they lose, Republicans could use the assault as a campaign issue in 2012.”
And according to Politico, “Republicans have a bill pending that allows states to ‘opt out’ of the individual requirement to buy insurance, the requirement for large employers to provide coverage and the state expansion of the Medicaid program. They’re also eyeing a repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which will control the growth of Medicare, and the individual mandate. The expiring continuing resolution to fund the government could give Republicans a new opportunity to attack the law. McConnell said they might try to ‘delete the funding for bureaucrats to ramp up Obamacare.’”
An email from Speaker Bohner's office this morning signaled the House, Republican leaders are willing to "slash domestic agency spending by almost 20 percent in their drive to bring it back to levels in place before President Barack Obama took office."
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, House Budget Chair says this is "the first salvo in a battle with Obama as they seek to keep a campaign promise to cut $100 billion from domestic programs." The GOP promise was to reduce spending for domestic agencies whose budgets are set by Congress each year back to levels in place under the last budget approved by former President George W. Bush. The AP responded this morning stating: "The hard-charging GOP freshman class may have some second thoughts when confronted with big cuts . . ."
Tags:Washington, D.C., US House, US Senate, Obamacare, government healthcare, repeal the bill, budgets, 1099 ReformTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Tags:Bob Parks, commentary, Black History Month, history, blacks, democrats, republicansTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Bill Smith, Editor: Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor joined other liberal democrats in voting against repealing the federal health care law (Obamacare) which has been declared unconstitutional and void. The vote was on amendment offered to the FAA Re-authorization bill by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) which was identical to the text of the House-passed bill (H.R. 2) to repeal the Democrats’ health care law. At last count the vote was 47 Yes and 51 No on the amendment.
Four hours prior to the vote, Senator Pryor responded as follows via email to my request for him to vote to repeal the bill. Note that his email response even promoted a non-government website:
February 2, 2011
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Smith,
Thank you for contacting me regarding health care reform. I appreciate hearing from you.
On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) into law. Since being signed into law, PPACA has helped over 43,000 Arkansas seniors who fall in the "donut hole" afford their medicines and provided tax credits to small businesses in Arkansas that offer health coverage to employees. It has also prohibited insurance companies from placing lifetime limits on coverage, ensuring that 1.4 million Arkansans who have private insurance are not abandoned when they need health coverage the most.
While the passage of health care reform was a step in the right direction for making health care more affordable and expanding access to health care in rural America, there is still work to be done. I will continue to consider changes and improvements to PPACA as implementation moves forward. Please know that I will continue to work to ensure that health coverage is available to and affordable for all Americans.
Again, thank you for contacting me. I value your input. Please do not hesitate to contact me or my office regarding this or any other matter of concern to you.
Sincerely,
Mark Pryor
United States Senate
Save money at the pump by taking the Drive Smarter Challenge: www.drivesmarterchallenge.org
After the final vote, Senate Republican Leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) made the following statement on the Health Spending Bill and the Senate GOP effort to repeal it: “The Senate Republicans promised the American people we would vote to repeal Obamacare, and we have done that. But this fight isn’t over. We intend to continue the fight to repeal and replace Obamacare with sensible reforms that would lower the cost of American health care, like medical malpractice, like selling insurance across state lines. This fight isn’t over, so I hope you’ll stay in the fight with us.” Tags:Arkansas, Senator, Mark Pryor, votes NO, U.S. Senate, repeal of healthcare, email, Bill Smith, Mitch McConnell To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Not True: Dems: ‘If You Like Your Plan, You'll Be Able To Keep It’
Dems: ‘If You Like Your Plan, You'll Be Able To Keep It’
To
Unless You Have ‘Child-Only Health Insurance,’ Or You’re A ‘Retiree,’ Or You Have ‘A Medicare Advantage’ Plan, Or You Get Your ‘Insurance Through An Employer’
COLORADO: Insurer ‘Will Terminate Current Policies Held By State Residents’
“Aetna … Will Terminate Current Policies Held By State Residents.” “A spokeswoman for Aetna confirmed Monday that the insurer will no longer sell new individual-market health insurance policies in Colorado and will terminate current policies held by state residents no later than July 31, 2012. The change represents Aetna’s third major recent pull-back on health-insurance offerings in Colorado. … Insurers have complained that federal health care reform has made offering their product more expensive” (“Aetna Retrenches In Colorado,” Denver Business Journal, 1/31/11)
“Aetna was the sixth largest insurer of individual health-care customers in Colorado, reporting 22,400 of them at the end of 2009, which is the most recent statistic available from the Colorado Division of Insurance. That represented 4.29 percent of the individual health care market in the state.” (“Aetna Retrenches In Colorado,” Denver Business Journal, 1/31/11)
“Aetna Was Part Of A Large Group Of Insurers That Left The Child-Only Individual Insurance Market Last September When The Affordable Care Act Banned Insurers From Denying Policies To Kids With Costly Existing Conditions.” (“Aetna Retrenches In Colorado,” Denver Business Journal, 1/31/11)
“Then, Later In The Year, Aetna Announced That It Also Was Leaving The Small-Group Market. A Provision In The Affordable Care Act Requires That At Least 85 Percent Of Insurance Premiums In The Small- And Large-Group Markets Must Go To Health Care Costs.”(“Aetna Retrenches In Colorado,” Denver Business Journal, 1/31/11)
‘Carriers Drop Child-Only Health Insurance’
“Twenty States Now Have No Insurers Offering Child-Only Policies. Since September, the health reform law has barred insurers from withholding policies to children under 19 who have a pre-existing condition. Rather than take on the burdensome cost of writing policies for potentially-pricey medical conditions, many carriers decided to leave the market altogether.” (“Child-Only Health Plans Endangered,” Politico, 1/27/11)
“One Of The Largest Insurance Markets In The Country, Texas, Has Seen All Their Carriers Drop Child-Only Health Insurance, As Have Other Large States Including Florida And Illinois.”(“Child-Only Health Plans Endangered,” Politico, 1/27/11)
“Other States That No Longer Have Carriers Selling Child-Only Plans Include Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia And Wyoming, according to the investigation by GOP staff on the Senate Health, Labor and Pensions Committee.” (“Child-Only Health Plans Endangered,” Politico, 1/27/11)
‘Stop Selling’ To ‘People Who Receive Their Insurance Through An Employer’
“The Principal Financial Group Announced On Thursday That It Planned To Stop Selling Health Insurance, Another Sign Of Upheaval Emerging Among Insurers As The New Federal Health Law Starts To Take Effect. The Company, Based In Iowa, Provides Coverage To About 840,000 People Who Receive Their Insurance Through An Employer.”(“Insurer Cuts Health Plans As New Law Takes Hold,” The New York Times, 10/1/10)
“At The Principal Financial Group, The Company’s Decision Reflected Its Assessment Of Its Ability To Compete In The Environment Created By The New Law. 'Now scale really matters,’ said Daniel J. Houston, a senior executive at Principal, which is headquartered in Des Moines. ‘We don’t have a significant concentration in any one market.’” (“Insurer Cuts Health Plans As New Law Takes Hold,” The New York Times, 10/1/10)
‘Drop… Medicare Advantage Health Insurance Program’
“Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Has Notified Customers That It Will Drop Its Medicare Advantage Health Insurance Program At The End Of The Year, Forcing 22,000 Senior Citizens In Massachusetts, New Hampshire, And Maine To Seek Alternative Supplemental Coverage. The decision by Wellesley-based Harvard Pilgrim, the state’s second-largest health insurer, was prompted by a freeze in federal reimbursements and a new requirement that insurers offering the kind of product sold by Harvard Pilgrim — a Medicare Advantage private fee for service plan — form a contracted network of doctors who agree to participate for a negotiated amount of money.” (“Harvard Pilgrim Cancels Medicare Advantage Plan,” The Boston Globe, 9/28/10)
Lynn Bowman, Vice President Of Customer Service At Harvard Pilgrim’s Office In Quincy: “We Know That Cuts In Medicare Are Being Used To Fund National Health Care Reform."(“Harvard Pilgrim Cancels Medicare Advantage Plan,” The Boston Globe, 9/28/10) Tags:federal healthcare, democrats, keeping your plans, false claimsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Today in Washington, D.C. - Feb. 2, 2011: Vote This Afternoon In US Senate To Repeal Obamacare
The Senate reconvened at 10 AM and Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) gave his first speech on the Senate floor. Following that speech, the Senate resumed consideration of S. 223, the FAA Reauthorization bill.
Votes are scheduled later today on amendments offered to the bill by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). The McConnell amendment is identical to the text of the House-passed bill (H.R. 2) to repeal the Democrats’ health care law.
The Stabenow amendment is almost exactly the amendment that Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) has been championing for over a year, to repeal the onerous 1099 reporting requirements on businesses imposed by the health care law.
In fact, Leader McConnell observed today, “It turns out Senator Johanns did such an outstanding job raising awareness about the 1099 requirement that Democrats took the idea and are now claiming it as their own.”
The Hill reports today, “Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will force an up-or-down vote on the repeal of healthcare reform on Wednesday, testing the unity of Democrats who had promised the rollback would never see the light of day in their chamber. The vote in the Senate will come two weeks to the day after the House voted, largely along party lines, to repeal the healthcare law.”
Politico notes, “Senate Republicans promise that the first vote to repeal the health care reform law, which is likely to happen Wednesday but is expected to fail, won’t be the last strike at President Barack Obama’s signature legislation. . . . The vote represents the first chance to force moderate Democrats to make a tough vote to stand by the health care reform law, which has not become more popular since it passed in March. Through this vote and others, Republicans are hoping to build public momentum for repealing the law.”
And Human Events points out, “Both before and after the House passed ObamaCare repeal, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) said that he would never allow a vote on repeal in the Senate. Despite Reid's opposition and mainstream media reports, McConnell said that he would force a vote on the House-passed repeal. McConnell said on Jan. 19: ‘The Democratic leadership in the Senate doesn’t want to vote on this bill. But I assure you, we will.’ Reid conceded yesterday that the repeal vote was inevitable.”
Speaking on the floor this morning, Leader McConnell emphasized, “The case against this bill is more compelling every day. Everything we learn tells us it was a bad idea. That it should be repealed and replaced.”
Indeed, every day there are more stories about how the Democrats’ unpopular health care law hurts job creators. Scott Womack, the president of Womack Restaurants in Terre Haute, Indiana, told the House Ways and Means Committee last week, “Restaurants are unable to raise prices in this economy. We don’t have a way to replace the lost income. Our only alternative is to cut costs. Cutting costs means cutting staff, means reducing hours. It means pushing people into part time status. … To that end, we are asking the Congress to repeal its health care law.” And Mike Sudweeks, who has a MAACO auto shop in Glendale, Arizona, told the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) last month, “We are going to have to drop employees.” And Darcey Gunn, of 5 Star Roofing in Loveland, Colorado lamented, “I have been struggling to keep my doors open the last few years. I have never laid off any employees. The last thing I need is more expenses. This is the wrong time to hurt small business owners. I will have to pull the plug.”
Meanwhile, the health law continues to have other negative consequences on ordinary Americans. According to the Denver Business Journal, “A spokeswoman for Aetna confirmed Monday that the insurer will no longer sell new individual-market health insurance policies in Colorado and will terminate current policies held by state residents no later than July 31, 2012.
The change represents Aetna’s third major recent pull-back on health-insurance offerings in Colorado. The Hartford, Conn.-based company announced in the second half of 2010 that it will also stop selling new small-group and child-only individual-market policies.” The Business Journal points out, “Insurers have complained that federal health care reform has made offering their product more expensive. . . . Aetna was the sixth largest insurer of individual health-care customers in Colorado, reporting 22,400 of them at the end of 2009, which is the most recent statistic available from the Colorado Division of Insurance. That represented 4.29 percent of the individual health care market in the state.”
Leader McConnell said this morning, “Later today, as I noted yesterday, the Senate will have a rare opportunity. For those who’ve supported the health spending bill in the past, it’s an opportunity to revisit your first vote. To listen to those who have desperately been trying to get your attention. To say, yes, maybe my vote for this bill was a mistake, and that we can do better. To listen to the small business owners who’ve been contacting our offices every day and telling us all the ways this bill keeps them from creating the jobs we need. To show that you’ve actually noticed that most Americans don’t want this bill. To show that you’re aware more people want it repealed than don’t. To show that you’ve noticed the town halls in your states. To show that you’ve noticed the opposition to this bill continues to grow. To show that you’ve noticed the federal court rulings that said this bill is unconstitutional at its core. It’s not every day that you can get a second chance on a big decision after you know all the facts. This is that second chance.” Hopefully, Democrats will take advantage of their opportunity and vote with Republicans to take the first step to repeal and replace this seriously flawed, unpopular law. Tags:Washington, D.C., US House, US Senate, Obamacare, government healthcare, repeal the bill,To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Arkansas Bureaucrat Appear To See No Way to Cut Taxes or Expenses
Arkansas Spending Revolt Bus Tour
Bill Smith, Editor:Today, Andrew DeMillo reported:
A lower-than-expected amount of tax refunds and a boost in individual income tax collections helped keep Arkansas' revenues above last year's figures and expectations, the state finance office said Wednesday.
The Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration [DFA] said that the state's net available revenues in January totaled $459.8 million, which were $19.7 million above last year and $4.4 million above forecast. The state's gross general revenues totaled $529.9 million, which was above last year by $4.6 million but below forecast by $15.2 million, but the drop in individual and corporate tax refunds kept the state's coffers healthy, the department said.
A follow-up to DFA confirmed that DFA Director Richard Weiss told the media:
I think it shows that we're still growing. This whole recovery for us and everyone in the nation has been rocky. There's not been a smooth increase or a surge upward, but I think we're still on a good trajectory, if you will, of getting out of the recession and getting the economy back on track.
Director Weiss, a typical bureaucrat, doesn't see any room for future tax cuts because he obviously can't imagine government cutting the size of government. Fortunately, the republicans do! Weiss of course is supporting Gov. Mike Beebe proposed roll back of another half-cent cut in the grocery tax which supposedly according to the bureaucrats would cost about $15 million in general revenue. It continues to amaze most of "We the People" that government has the audacity to identify as a "cost" both their spending and reductions in taxation. This is perverted application of modern government accounting that was not an accepted government accounting practice before the 1971 when I completed a business degree with 29 credit hours of accounting.
Republican legislators are seeking to roll back spending increases in Beebe's proposed $4.6 billion budget for the coming year, including $23 million for a cost-of-living increase for state workers, to pay for other proposed tax cuts including reductions in the used car and capital gains taxes.
Data provided by Arkansas DFA:
Net available revenues for the current fiscal year (July 1, 2010 June 30, 2011), total $2.7 billion and are $7.9 million above forecast.
Individual income tax collection as of January 2011 totaled $311 million and was $28.9 million above last year and $5.9 million more than originally forecast.
Sales tax collections for January 2011 totaled $173.9 million which was $5.5 million below last year and $9 million below forecast.
Corporate income tax collections totaled $11.6 million which was $21.1 million below last year and $11 million below forecast.
Based on the above general numbers, it is imperative that Arkansas Government need to be cut! Also, other practice of plantation politics like big dinners for Fish and Game commissioners and gifts to members of new guns and life-time fishing and hunting licenses need to be stopped. If members of oversight committees do not wish to serve on unpaid commission, decline the acceptance of the appointment. [And, it does not matter who is paying for these "gifts."]
There are also numerous other "tradition and practices" in Arkansas that need to cease. These "traditions and practices" reach into almost all branches of Arkansas government, agencies, and government. Fleecing of money from people needs to be stopped even if it appears inconsequential. Spending other people's money (OPM) is always consequential.
As promised before, there will be no free passes for "traditions and practices" costing Arkansas taxpayers. Numbers don't lie, but unfortunately liars, bureaucrats and politicians use numbers to support lies and their deceptions.
It is time for Arkansans, "We The People", to demand that Gov. Mike Beebe as the "head of government" provide ways to cut (not increase) government expenses by 20% in the two years. We should expect for him to locate and eliminate all gravy "tradition and practice" items / issues but he must find meaningful cuts in spending expenses NOT increase in revenue. And, we must demand that all the other Constitutional Officers and independent agencies cooperate in reducing "spending" cost. And if we have revenue surpluses, "cut taxes" or returned the surplus to the citizens and corporations that paid those taxes.
If these elected officials will not cooperate, they have failed in their duties. The legislature should aid then by unilaterally cutting their budgets. And for those Democrats, or even Republicans, in the legislature do not cooperate, expect defeat or in 21 months in the next election. Tags:Arkansas, government spending, taxes, DFA, plantation politics, traditions, practices, waste, taxpayers money, Department of Finance and Administration, commissionsTo 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.
he Senate reconvened at 10 AM and Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) gave his first speech on the Senate floor. Following that speech, the Senate resumed consideration of S. 223, the FAA Reauthorization bill.
