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)
Definition:Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, from Ancient Greek: κλέπτης (thief) and κράτος (rule), is a term applied to a government subject to control fraud that takes advantage of governmental corruption to extend the personal wealth and political power of government officials and the ruling class (collectively, kleptocrats), via the embezzlement of state funds at the expense of the wider population, sometimes without even the pretense of honest service. The term means "rule by thieves". A Kleptocracy is rather a pejorative for a government perceived to have a particularly severe and systemic problem with the selfish misappropriation of public funds by those in power. - Wikipedia Tags:A.F. Branco, Comically Incorrect, political cartoon, rule by thieves, misappropriation of public funds, Kleptocracy, Democrats To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
by William Warren: Big Labor is already filing behind Obama’s 2012 campaign before there is even a nominee from the other party, which really shows how biased the leadership of the unions are.
Tags:Big Labor, Unions, National Education Association, NEA, Obama, Barack Obama, 2012 Campaign, Political Cartoons, William WarrenTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
When Do We Get A U.S. Attorney General We Can Trust?
Today in Washington, D.C. - July 7, 2011:
The Senate reconvened and voted 74-22 to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1323, a nonbinding Sense of the Senate resolution offered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). S.1323 says people making over $1 million per year should be required to “sacrifice” in resolving the budget deficit.
No more votes are scheduled for this week. The remainder of the week and Monday afternoon will be spent on consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1323. On Monday at 5:30 PM the Senate will vote on adoption of the motion to proceed to S. 1323.
In the House, a bipartisan group of House members led by Congressman Tim Griffin (AR-02) sent a letter to the new U.S. Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, urging him to ensure the Department of Defense (DOD) continues to make reforms to be more responsible with taxpayer dollars. Griffin’s letter to Secretary Panetta is just part of his effort to ensure accountability within DoD. In May, the House passed the National Defense Authorization Act, which included a provision by Griffin that would establish benchmarks to ensure the DOD meets their statutory requirement to produce auditable financial statements by 2017.
Mexican Trucks Can Roll Trough The USA:GOPUSA/ AP reports that yesterday, "U.S. and Mexican officials signed an agreement Wednesday allowing each country's trucks to traverse the other's highways, implementing a key provision of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement . . . Transportation secretaries Ray LaHood and Dionisio Perez-Jacome signed the three-year memorandum, which is based on an agreement announced in March by Presidents Barack Obama and Felipe Calderon. NAFTA, signed in 1994, had called for Mexican trucks to have unrestricted access to highways in border states by 1995 and full access to all U.S. highways by January 2000. Canadian trucks have no limits on where they can go. But until now, Mexican trucks have seldom been allowed farther than a buffer zone on the U.S. side of the border. In retaliation, Mexico had imposed higher tariffs on dozens of U.S. products. The Mexican government has now agreed to suspend those tariffs as long as the agreement is in place."
Impeach is an Option.
The Other is Jail!
Focus On Attorney General Eric Holder: Despite the triumph of finally getting Osama bin Laden, recent news in the war on terror indicates that the Obama administration is once again back to insisting that foreign terrorists be tried in civilian courts.
Politico reported yesterday, “In a move that has angered some congressional Republicans, a Somali man accused of having ties to two terrorist groups — who was secretly interrogated for months aboard a U.S. Navy ship — will be prosecuted in civilian court in New York by the Justice Department, the Obama administration said. The indictment, unsealed in the Southern District of New York, charged Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame with nine counts related to supporting Al Qaeda in Yemen and the Shabab in Somalia terror groups — but the White House didn’t reveal his capture until after he had already been brought onto American soil.”
As ABC News noted, this isn’t sitting well with Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. “Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY., blasted the Obama administration this morning for the decision to bring Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame, the Somali man facing terrorism charges to New York for trial, saying the administration’s ‘ideological rigidity’ is ‘harming the national security’ of the country. ‘Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame is a foreign enemy combatant,’ McConnell said on the Senate floor this morning, ‘He should be treated as one; he should be sitting in a cell Guantanamo Bay, and eventually be tried before a military commission. Warsame is an admitted terrorist.’ . . . ‘It’s astonishing that this Administration is determined to give foreign fighters all the rights and privileges of U.S. citizens regardless of where they are captured.’ . . .”
According to Fox News, “Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the transfer ‘directly contradicts congressional intent and the will of the American people.’ ‘Congress has spoken clearly multiple times – including explicitly in pending legislation – of the perils of bringing terrorists onto U.S. soil,’ he said. . . . ‘A foreign national who fought on behalf of al Shabaab in Somali -- and who was captured by our military overseas -- should be tried in a military commission, not a federal civilian court in New York or anywhere else in our country,’ said Sen. Susan Collins, the top Republican on the Homeland Security Committee.”
Meanwhile, the Eric Holder and the Justice Department are moving ahead with civilian trials in Kentucky for two Iraqi terror suspects, even though they are not U.S. citizens. The Bowling Green Daily News reported, “McConnell, the Senate minority leader, sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder asking Holder to reconsider his decision to hold civilian trials for Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, both arrested on terrorism charges in Bowling Green in May.”
In the letter, Leader McConnell wrote, “As you know, Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi are not United States citizens or legal permanent residents of this country. They are foreign nationals who apparently entered this country illegally after having fought our troops in Iraq. In addition, as the United States Attorney for the Western District of Kentucky has noted, none of their actions—both those from the past and those they planned for the future—relate to targeting our civilian population in this country. In Iraq, Alwan conducted IED attacks against our troops for several years . . . . Hammadi also engaged in IED attacks in Iraq and was part of a group of insurgent fighters that possessed eleven surface-to-air missiles. . . . [O]ur priority with enemy combatants like these should be to capture, interrogate, and detain them—indefinitely, if need be. If, after these priorities are achieved, we determine they should be tried for violating the laws of war, we should use our military commission system to do so. Our civilian criminal justice system simply is not intended for these purposes.”
As McConnell said yesterday, “[I]t has become abundantly clear that the Administration has no intention of utilizing Guantanamo unless an enemy combatant is already being held there. Instead, the Administration has purposefully imported a terrorist into the U.S. and is providing him all the rights of U.S. citizens in court. This ideological rigidity being displayed by the Administration is harming the national security of the United States of America. Alwan, Hammadi, Warsame, and all future foreign enemy combatants belong in Guantanamo. They do not deserve the same rights and privileges as Americans. The administration’s actions are inexplicable, create unnecessary risks here at home, and do nothing to increase the security of the United States.”
As outlined by others, the Obama Administration and especially Eric Holder are showing extreme arrogance and defiance of the American people and in fact willing to endanger the American public. Holder has yet to answer to the American public, why foreign terrorists like Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame, Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi are entitled to all the rights and privileges of U.S. citizen? And consider this, "who are the peers under common law who can sit as jurors in judgement of these cases? What is the reasoning an factors and the intents of President Barack Obama and AG Eric Holder that are and have led to their bringing terrorists onto American soil and trying them under American civil law verses military law. This action will lead to higher risks, higher costs (multi-millions of dollars) to Americans and in fact, may have results even more harmful to American citizens in the future.
Shame all US Senators who willingly voted to confirm Eric Holder as Attorney General based on the premise that the president should have whoever he wishes verses what is best for the protection of the American people. A new low is now being set in American justice - lower even than when Attorney General John Mitchell was convicted.
Holder has both abused his authority and has placed American lives at risk or worse (they died). Is that part of his sworn Constitutional Authority? Be it enforcement of laws regarding illegals, to sanctioning gun running to Cartels in Mexico, to transport of terrorists from overseas for trial within the U.S., trying foreign terrorists in the US verses at Gitmo under established tribunals, to failing to prosecute Black Panthers for intimidating voters with violence, his actions as Attorney General have not been in the best interest of the American people. But of greatest concern is that AG Eric Holder is presently and has endangered America. When Do We Get A U.S. Attorney General We Can Trust? Tags:Washington, D.C., US Senate, US House, Mexican Trucks, Eric Holder, terrorists, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
"We can't spend more than we have. ... This is no longer a matter of right versus left, liberal versus conservative, we can prove our conclusion on this by basic mathematics. The United States Federal Government from all sources, for all purposes, takes in $2.2 trillion a year. Keep that number in mind. $2.2 trillion a year. We have total unfunded liabilities of $65 trillion, $2.2 trillion in revenue, $65 trillion in total unfunded liabilities. That is more than 30 to 1 leverage. If the United States Federal Government were a bank regulated by itself, they would shut themselves down. We live in a nation where not long ago our United States Secretary of State [Hillary Clinton] was on rhetorical bended knee in communist China pleading with the Chinese to continue to buy our debt, because if they don’t buy our debt and other foreign sovereign wealth funds don’t buy our debt our beloved United States of America can’t pay its bills. The United States of America my friends is not a beggar nation." ~ Gov. Tim Pawlenty H/T: Thurber's Thoughts Tags:Tim Pawlenty, United States, beggar nation, not a beggar nation, presidential candidate, quoteTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Years of High Unemployment Ahead at Recovery’s Pace
If things continue at the current pace, the high unemployment problem will be around indefinitely.
by James Sherk, The Heritage Foundation: Despite the official end of the recession in June 2009, the labor market remains stagnant. Employment has fallen by nearly 7 million jobs since the recession began. Unemployment remains above 9 percent. This is the weakest recovery of the post–World War II era. Current policies have not stimulated business hiring. If job creation occurs at the same rate as in the 2003–2007 expansion, unemployment will not return to pre-recession levels until 2018. If job creation continues at the low rate of the past year, unemployment will remain permanently high. Congress needs to act to prevent this by removing federal barriers to business investment and success.
Deep Recession, Weak Recovery The collapse of the housing bubble and the resulting financial crisis plunged the U.S. economy into a deep recession in 2008. Unemployment rose above 10 percent, and employers shed more than 8 million net jobs.
The recession officially ended in June 2009, but payroll employment remains 6.9 million jobs below its December 2007 peak. The average unemployed worker has been without work for 39.7 weeks (nine months)—the longest since the government began keeping track in 1948.[1]
This is the weakest recovery of the post–World War II era. In past recessions, employment fully recovered within two to three years. As of May 2011—three and a half years after the recession’s onset—payroll employment remains 5 percent below pre-recession levels. Unemployment stands at 9.1 percent.
How Long Until Unemployment Falls? Some unemployment will always exist in the economy. Even in good economic conditions it takes time for workers to move between expanding and contracting businesses. Economists estimate that the “natural rate of unemployment” in the U.S. economy is 5.2 percent.[2]
The Heritage Foundation used data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics[3] to calculate how long, given certain levels of job creation, it would take unemployment to return to its natural rate.[4] These estimates are not a prediction of how quickly unemployment will fall; instead, they illustrate what different rates of monthly job creation imply about the speed of the labor market recovery.
Even with strong economic growth, it will take time for unemployment to return to normal levels. If employers add an average of 260,000 net jobs per month—the rate the payroll survey showed during the late 1990s tech bubble[5]—then unemployment will not return to its natural rate until August 2014.
If employers add 216,000 net new jobs per month—the rate the household survey showed in 1997, the year of the greatest job growth in the tech bubble[6]—unemployment will return to its natural rate in October 2015.
Slow Recovery Likely These are optimistic assumptions. The late 1990s was a period of unusually strong economic growth. During the 2003–2007 expansion, employers added an average of 176,000 jobs per month.[7] If the recovery takes that more recent pace, unemployment will not return to normal rates until January 2018. Matching the rate of job growth in the recovery from the last recession would mean Americans would wait seven years for unemployment to recover.[8]
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects that the recovery will occur at roughly the same pace as the 2003–2007 expansion.[9] The CBO’s latest economic forecasts show the economy returning to full employment in 2017. In other words, the CBO expects employers to soon begin hiring at a slightly faster rate than during the best years of the last decade. Even at that pace, unemployment would not return to normal levels until after the 2016 presidential election.
Unfortunately, the recovery has not proceeded even at this pace thus far. Following anemic job growth in 2010, the first quarter of 2011 showed strong employment gains. This raised hopes that the economy had finally begun a strong recovery. The most recent data suggests these hopes were illusory—hiring stalled and unemployment rose in April and May. The labor market appears stuck in neutral.
If that is the case, Americans will wait a long time for unemployment to fall. Modest job growth does not necessarily mean lower unemployment. The economy needs to add between 100,000 and 125,000 jobs per month to keep pace with population growth.[10] Unemployment will rise if employers consistently create fewer jobs than this
Over the past year, employment has grown by an average of just 122,000 jobs per month.[11] If job growth continues at this rate, then the unemployment rate in January 2021 would stand at 7.4 percent. At the current rate of recovery, high unemployment will become the new normal.
Improve the Business Climate Congress and the Administration should take immediate action to encourage job creation. Successfully doing so requires understanding why employers create jobs. Businesses and entrepreneurs hire workers to take advantage of opportunities to create goods and services consumers value—at a profit. Many government interventions in the economy reduce those opportunities. Small businesses currently identify taxes and government regulations as their most important problems.[12]
Congress and the Administration can encourage lasting job creation by creating a better business climate. Removing barriers to business success and reducing unnecessary costs encourages businesses to hire. Such measures include:
Repealing Obamacare and its associated employer mandates and tax increases;
Preventing the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon dioxide;
Passing tort reform to reduce the cost of meritless lawsuits;
Expanding trade agreements;
Permitting more domestic energy production; and
Reducing spending to mitigate the specter of enormous tax increases.
Congress can significantly intervene in the economy and erect barriers to business success—or Congress can remove artificial barriers to entrepreneurship and encourage risk-taking and innovation. Americans do not have to settle for 9 percent unemployment. Lasting economic stagnation is a policy choice. James Sherk is Senior Policy Analyst in Labor Economics in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation. [1] Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “The Employment Situation,” December 2007 to May 2011, data collected by Haver Analytics.
[3] The Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts two monthly surveys of the labor market: the household survey and the establishment survey. The household survey is a monthly survey of individuals that includes questions about whether they are working or unemployed, and is the source for information on the unemployment and labor force participation rates. The establishment survey asks businesses how many employees they have on payroll and is the source for the monthly job creation figures reported in the press. The establishment survey has a considerably lower monthly margin of error in estimating total employment than the household survey, but it omits some categories of workers included in the household survey, such as agricultural employees and the self-employed. Over time, they typically report similar—but not identical—results. In the tech boom of the late 1990s, the payroll survey showed greater job creation than that of the household survey. In order to avoid combining the results of two distinct surveys, figures from the household survey were used to calculate future unemployment rates.
[4] The employment, unemployment, labor force, and population sizes reported in the May 2011 household survey were taken as the starting point for the economy. The (16 and over) population was inflated at a 1.0 percent annual rate to account for population growth, as projected by the Census Bureau. Total employment in June 2011 and subsequent months was estimated by adding to the previous month’s employment the assumed level of monthly job growth. The size of the labor force was estimated by multiplying the labor force participation (LFP) rate by the population projections. Unemployment was calculated as the difference between the size of the labor force and total employment. The unemployment rate was the ratio of the estimated unemployment level to the estimated labor force. LFP rates were derived from the CBO’s March 2011 LFP projections. Current LFP rates are below the CBO projections of the LFP rate for 2011. Consequently, the simulations held LFP at 64.2 percent between June 2011 and May 2012 and then decreased by 0.1 points per year until it reached the CBO’s estimated rate of 63.9 percent in 2015. Thereafter, the CBO’s projected LFP rates were used.
[5] This is the average monthly job creation for the payroll survey between 1997 and 1999. These figures are for illustration only. The household survey and payroll survey measure jobs differently. While they show similar trends over time, they measure different universes of employees and are not strictly comparable. All other monthly job creation estimates used the household survey results.
[6] The household survey showed average monthly payroll growth of 216,450 jobs in 1997. This figure omits estimated December to January employment changes, which are skewed by updates made to the population estimates.
[7] Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Household Survey/Haver Analytics, August 2003 to November 2007. Figures omit December to January employment changes because of the updates to the population controls.
[8] This is close to the rate the establishment survey shows for the first quarter of 2011 (+165,000 jobs per month).
[10] The Census Bureau projects that the population 16 and over will grow by 1.0 percent per year over the next decade—roughly 190,000 people per month. A 64 percent labor force participation rate implies a monthly expansion of the labor force of 120,000 workers. To keep unemployment from rising above 9 percent, 110,000 of those workers need to find jobs.
[11] Heritage Foundation calculations using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Household Survey/Haver Analytics.
The Emerging New Monetarism: Gold Convertibility To Save The Euro
Image Via @daylife
by Ralph Benko, Contributing Author: Professor Robert Mundell urges gold convertibility for the euro, the currency which he fathered, as well as for the dollar. This is a major step forward. Thought leaders are abandoning “old monetarism,” which was vainly fixated on quantity. Even its chief proponent, Milton Friedman, acknowledged old monetarism as unsuccessful in a 2003 interview with the Financial Times. An emerging “new monetarism” is quickly taking its place — one that focuses on the quality, not quantity, of money.
Empirical data suggest that the gold dollar represents the epitome of quality. As Forbes’ own Steve Forbes advised the presidential candidates last week, the “debate should be focused on what the best gold system is, not on whether we need to go back on one.”
Pimm Fox: You’ve written about the role of gold in the world economy, Professor Mundell. Do you think that we’re going to see any kind of return to the gold standard?
Mundell: [T]here could be a kind of Bretton Woods type of gold standard where the price of gold was fixed for central banks and they could use gold as an asset to trade central banks.
The great advantage of that was that gold is nobody’s liability and it can’t be printed. So it has a strength and confidence that people trust. So If you had not just the United States but the United States and the euro tied together to each other and to gold, gold might be the intermediary and then with the other important currencies like the yen and Chinese yuan and British pound all tied together as a kind of new SDR that could be one way the world could move forward on a better monetary system.
Mundell is the world’s most distinguished living economist. He is a Nobel Economics Laureate. He was the primary source of the original supply-side manifesto, “The Mundell-Laffer Hypothesis,” which led to the low-tax-rate, strong-dollar policy at the heart of Reaganomics. He has acted as a privy counselor to the Chinese government (which in appreciation has named a university for him). Mundell’s guidance, of course, is one of the reasons why mainland China has had 30+ years of uninterrupted double-digit economic growth. Mundell’s work also laid the foundation for the common European currency, the euro.
Although Mundell is less of a pop culture celebrity than Paul Krugman, another Nobel winner, the impact of Mundell’s life work is epochal, while Krugman caps his career as a New York Times blogger. I have argued elsewhere that Mundell’s work has helped create something like $100 trillion of new wealth. The world’s GDP in 1980 was around $11 trillion, reports the World Bank. Today it is around $60 trillion. Mundell had much to do with this.
The added $50 trillion-per-year capitalizes to over $100 trillion in new wealth — even when adjusted for inflation. Lower tax rates, free trade and more stable currencies moved something like 2 billion people out of dollar-a-day penury into prosperity. That achievement arguably makes Mundell the greatest living humanitarian. In becoming the first Nobel-class economist to advocate the gold standard it suggests that his greatest contribution to human flourishing may lie ahead.
Let us now take the next step from the 20th century’s “Mundell-Laffer Hypothesis” to a 21st century “Mundell-Tamny Hypothesis.” Tamny, editor of Forbes‘ Opinions page, proposed in his June 12 column that we:
… define the euro in terms of gold, and make euros redeemable in the yellow metal. If so, the euro’s staying power and eventual rise to preeminence among currencies would almost be assured. Strong money that is stable in value is much demanded as a ticket used to exchange real wealth, and if the euro had a stable definition, it would quickly trump the dollar.
Of course the mythmakers predicting the euro’s demise would argue that a gold-defined euro would lead to certain debt default by Greece and Ireland (to name but two struggling countries), and that both would quickly exit the euro under such a scenario. The thinking here is wildly incorrect. ….
[T]he governments of Greece and Ireland are having trouble with their debts to some degree because economic growth has withered alongside tax receipts. If so, far from a weight on growth, a strong, stable euro would attract the investment that would drive company formation and job creation that would bolster the ability of both governments to remain current on interest payments. For good or bad, economic growth is always the best fix for governments in arrears to creditors.
Many economists are already considering restoring the classical gold standard. From the rising economies known as the BRICS, S.S. Tarapore, former deputy governor of the Reserve Bank of India, has publicly articulated the virtues of the gold standard. Zhou Qiren, dean of Peking University’s National School of Development and a member of the People’s Bank of China Monetary Policy Committee recently, while not minimizing the political challenges of doing so, told a reporter Ye Weiqiang:
If the currency of each major country is bound to gold, financial headaches would of course be reduced. Taking QE2 as an example, if this were the 1880s, the currencies of the major western countries would be measured in gold. Unless the U.S.Treasury suddenly gained a large quantity of gold reserves, it would be impossible for (U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben) Bernanke to print US$ 600 billion to purchase long-term debt. If there is a commitment to a gold standard system, such as the Bretton Woods system in place until 1971, the Fed could not easily ease its monetary policy, because not only could each country with dollar holdings hold them accountable, they could also redeem their dollars for gold to see how much Uncle Sam’s promise is worth.
A gold standard also would eliminate exchange rate wars. Since all major currencies could be exchanged for gold or other currencies pegged to a currency that follows the gold standard, exchange rates would remain stable without anyone doing anything. Where would exchange rate disputes come from? In short, the gold standard would effectively prevent each country’s government from recklessly levying ‘inflation taxes’ domestically and passing troubles to others by manipulating currency exchange internationally.
Of course, this is an excellent monetary system.
This, of course, is but the tip of an iceberg with commentators such as Larry Kudlow pushing gold as the “crown” of an economic growth strategy, with the gold standard’s eminence grise, Lewis E. Lehrman, with whose eponymous institute this writer is professionally associated, emerging as a leading presence in the economic discourse, with American Principles in Action, with which this writer is professionally associated, teaming up with the Iowa Tea Party to raise public, and the presidential candidates’, awareness of the gold standard. And far more.
Keynes wrote, in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money:
The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.
It is time, and long past time, for the practical men of our era — such as our president and the Republican presidential aspirants — to throw off the shackles of various defunct economists, cease to distill frenzy from some academic scribblers, embrace the Mundell-Tamny hypothesis, and move forward, immediately, to multilateral convertibility of currencies to gold.
The gold standard is the key to human flourishing. If we grasp the opportunity of gold convertibility this still-dawning millennium beckons with the possibility of becoming a new golden age.
------------ Ralph Benko is senior advisor, economics, to American Principles in Action’s Gold Standard 2012 Initiative, a lead participant in the Iowa Tea Party’s upcoming Bus Tour. He co-led the gold standard breakout session at the Tea Party Patriots’ American Summit and is the editor of the Lehrman Institute’s The Gold Standard Now This article which first appeared in Forbes was submitted to the ARRA News Service editor for reprint by contributing author Ralph Benko. Tags:Ralph Benko, Gold Standard, emerging new monetarism, gold, convertibility, EuroTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Coleman: Its Time Has Come - The Parental Rights Amendment
Protecting Children by Empowering Parents
Arkansas Administrators: “The state needs to take ownership of its children…”
Curtis Coleman, Contributing Author: On the last day of the most recent session of Arkansas’s Legislature, the House Education Committee considered and defeated SB774, commonly known as “the Tim Tebow bill” which, if adopted, would have allowed home-schooled students to participate in public school interscholastic activities.
The bill was opposed by the Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators represented by the group’s Executive Director, Dr. Richard Abernathy, who spoke against the bill. Dr. Abernathy’s comments should send chills down the spine of any parent, regardless if they have their children in public or private schools or their children are home-schooled.
Dr. Abernathy explained that public school administrators view home schools as a “legalized method of dropping out of school.” “We have created by law a legalized method whereby parents can pull their kids out of school,” Abernathy said. “At some point the state needs to take ownership of its children we are allowing to drop out of school.”
Abernathy brushed aside the thousands of home-schooled children in Arkansas who are performing often above their public-schooled peers and focused all of his opposition on those significantly fewer instances where parents get angry with school administrators and, in frustration, pull their children out of school, abusing home school laws in the process. (View all of Abernathy’s testimony - Look for the video for the House Education Committee on 4-1-2011.) It should be noted that Dr. Abernathy’s opposition affected primarily if not only those excellent home-schooled students he brushed aside.
This article is not intended to disparage Arkansas’s public schools. I have good friends who are public school teachers and administrators and members of my family who have taught or do teach in Arkansas public schools. They, and many others like them, have a genuine concern and love for those they teach. And I’ve talked with enough administrators and school board members to know that many of them often feel as if they are little more than regulatory compliancy officers. Probably nowhere in current American culture do we more desperately need to get the federal government off of our backs and out of our personal lives than in our public schools.
With public schools in America now experimenting with “gender education” and the United Nations advocating and publishing public school guidelines for “Sexuality Education,” the view expressed by Dr. Abernathy brings the issue too close to home to overlook any longer.
SECTION 1
The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.
SECTION 2
Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.
SECTION 3
No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.
The right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children has been recognized and upheld for centuries. But there are dark clouds on the horizon.
According to ParentalRights.org, “Today parental rights are coming under assault from federal judges who deny or refuse to recognize these rights. Adding further danger to the child-parent relationship, international law seeking to undermine the parental role is advancing on the horizon. Together, these threats are converging to create a ‘perfect storm’ that looms over the child-parent relationship.
“In the early 1980s, a landmark parental rights case reached the Washington State Supreme Court. The case involved 13-year-old Sheila Marie Sumey, whose parents were alarmed when they found evidence of their daughter’s participation in illegal drug activity and escalating sexual involvement. Their response was to act immediately to cut off the negative influences in their daughter’s life by grounding her.
“But when Sheila went to her school counselors complaining about her parent’s actions, she was advised that she could be liberated from her parents because there was ‘conflict between parent and child.’ Listening to the advice she had received, Sheila notified Child Protective Services (CPS) about her situation. She was subsequently removed from her home and placed in foster care.
“Her parents, desperate to get their daughter back, challenged the actions of the social workers in court. They lost. Even though the judge found that Sheila’s parents had enforced reasonable rules in a proper manner, the state law nevertheless gave CPS the authority to split apart the Sumey family and take Sheila away.
DANGEROUS PRECEDENT - “Parental rights are under attack in our nation, with the first threat originating from within the federal court system. As this story illustrates, a growing disregard for parental rights has been spreading within the courts of our nation.
“Across the country, many judges are beginning to deny the vital role of parents in the lives of their children, instead inserting the government into a parental’ role in a child’s life. This dangerous assertion is leading to the severance of the child-parent relationship in numerous instances across the nation—removals that cause unnecessary pain to both children and their parents.
“A thirteen-year-old boy in Washington State was removed from his parents after he complained to school counselors that his parents took him to church too often. His school counselors had encouraged him to call Child Protective Services with his complaint, which led to his subsequent removal and placement in foster care. It was only after the parents agreed to a judge’s requirement of less-frequent church attendance that they were able to recover their son.
HANGING BY A THREAD - “Not all judges hold a low view of parental rights. Some, like Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, believe that parental rights are among the ‘inalienable rights’ of Americans enumerated in the Declaration of Independence but they are finding it increasingly difficult to rule in favor of parental rights when it is not explicitly included in the language of the Constitution.
“In Troxel v. Granville, the last major parental rights case heard by the Supreme Court, Scalia himself voted to deny parental rights the status of an enforceable constitutional right. And other federal court judges are following in his footsteps, citing a mounting belief that no right can be protected by the federal courts unless explicitly stated in the Constitution.
“The dwindling support for parental rights found on the federal level has opened the door to a growing, blatant disregard of parental rights within the lower courts of our nation. Parental rights violations are on the increase across the country, as courts exchange parental involvement for government control in the lives of America’s children.
“The right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is hanging by a thread.
“A West Virginia mother was shocked when a local circuit judge and a family court judge ordered her to share custody of her four-year-old daughter with two of the girl’s babysitters. Referring to the sitters as ‘psychological co-parents,’ the justices first awarded full custody to them, only permitting the mother to visit her daughter four times a week at McDonalds. Eventually she was granted primary custody, but forced to continue to share her daughter with the sitters.
“When her case finally reached the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in October 2007, the beleaguered mother was relieved to finally be granted full custody of her daughter.
“In their October 25 opinion Supreme Court justices wrote that they were ‘deeply troubled’ by the utter disregard’ for the mother’s rights. One justice referred to the mother’s right as the ‘paramount right in the world.’
“Chief Justice Robin Davis summed up the case in one simple question.’Why does a natural parent have to prove fitness when she has never been found unfit?’ he asked.
THE THREAT FROM INTERNATIONAL LAW -“The precarious state of parental rights within our nation is reason enough for serious concern. With cases like these filling the courts, every parent should be concerned about the protection and preservation of their rights.
“But another storm is rapidly forming on the horizon.
“International law that seeks to empower the government to intrude upon the child-parent relationship is becoming an increasing threat. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), a seemingly harmless treaty with dangerous implications for American families, is approaching possible ratification by the United States.
“If this treaty is made binding upon our country, the government would have the power to intervene in any child’s life to advance its definition of ‘the best interests of the child.’ The scenarios that could occur—and are occurring—as a result of this dangerous notion are both manifold and frightening.
“Under the UNCRC, instead of following due process, government agencies would have the power to override your parental choices at their whim because they determine what is in ‘the best interest of the child.’
“In essence, the UNCRC applies the legal status of abusive parents to all parents. This means that the burden of proof falls on the parent to prove to the State that they are good parents—when it should fall upon the State to prove that their investigation is not without cause.
A SHELTER IN THE STORM - “There is only one solution to this approaching storm: a constitutional amendment that places current Supreme Court doctrine protecting parental rights into the explicit language of the U.S. Constitution. This amendment will shelter the child-parent relationship from the coming storm, ensuring that parents have the right to direct the upbringing and education of their children.
“No government, regardless of how well-intentioned it might be, can replace the love and nurture of a parent in the life of a child. Parents care, not because their children are “wards” for whom they are responsible. Parents are willing to brave danger and sacrifice, hardship and heartache to ensure the best for their kids.
Learn more about protecting parental rights through a constitutional amendment and join the campaign now and see which senators have signed on to sponsor this amendment in the U. S. Senate.
--------------- Curtis Coleman is the President of The Curtis Coleman Institute for Constitutional Policy and contributing author to the ARRA News Service. Tags:Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators, Parental Rights Amendment, parentalrights.org, public schools, Richard Abernathy, SB774, Tim Tebow bill, UNCRC, American Culture, Arkansas, Constitution, Education, Religious Freedom, States Rights, Curtis Coleman, The New South ConservativeTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Pantation Politics - ICYMI: Gov. Beebe's Good Old Boy Network Exposed
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Editorial:
“Picky, picky, The education of a pol,” Wednesday, July 6, 2011
The statewide newspaper has now joined the chorus of those critical of Governor Mike Beebe’s good old boy appointment of Shane Broadway to a position he is not legally qualified to have.
“THOSE picky Republicans. Some of them are even objecting to Mike Beebe’s choosing one of Arkansas’ leading Democrats to head the state’s Department of Higher Education. They say he isn’t qualified. What nonsense. Shane Broadway has the most important qualification of all for such an appointment: He’s a political crony of the governor’s. He was Governor Beebe’s running mate last year, and is a member in better than good standing of the Democratic establishment and the state’s good-old-boy network, which aren’t always easy to tell apart. What more could you ask?”
Today’s editorial further proves that Governor Mike Beebe is not correct in his interpretation of the law.
“Because according to said law, if anybody cares, the director of the Department of Higher Education in this state has got to have a considerable amount of it himself. Including experience as an educator at a college or university. And, oh, yes, be the product of the usual search-and-selection process. Shane Broadway would seem to be free of any such encumbrances. He’s got something much better: friends in high places. But why go into such technicalities? Shane is the Guv’s boy and a good ol’ boy at that. He’s had quite a lot of experience if not on campus then at handing out all the appropriations, college scholarships and other goodies his department can deliver.”
Former State Senator and Representative Shane Broadway co-sponsored the legislation in Arkansas House of Representatives which established the legal requirements for the Department of Higher Education Director.
“Each in its way can doubtless provide a fine education in the lower arts, like political maneuvering and bureaucratic finagling in general, but somehow we don’t think that’s what those who drafted Arkansas Code Annotated 6-61-203 had in mind when they referred to higher education.” Click here for full editorial (Subscription Required) [H/T Communications Director, Republican Party of Arkansas] Tags:Arkansas, Governor, Mike Beebe, Shane Broadway, Dept of Higher Education, political payback, Good Old Boys, Plantation Politics, Arkansas DemocratTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
In A Job Crisis, Common Sense Dictates Opposing More Simulus Spending and Tax Hikes
Today in Washington, D.C. - July 6, 2011:
The Senate reconvened at 10 AM today and resumed consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1323, a nonbinding Sense of the Senate resolution offered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). S.1323 says people making over $1 million per year should be required to “sacrifice” in resolving the budget deficit. No votes are scheduled for today.
Yesterday, Reid pulled the Libya resolution, S.J. Res. 20, from the floor, and instead filed cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1323. A cloture vote is scheduled tomorrow on the motion to proceed to S. 1323.
The Washington Post writes today, “President Obama on Tuesday rejected calls for a short-term increase in the legal limit on government borrowing and summoned congressional leaders to the White House to restart negotiations over a long-term plan to restrain the deepening national debt. With an Aug. 2 deadline closing in, Obama urged lawmakers in both parties to break the stalemate that halted talks nearly two weeks ago and seize what he called ‘a unique opportunity to do something big’ to rebalance the nation’s finances.”
Speaking on the Senate floor this morning, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said, “Yesterday I accepted the President’s invitation to the White House to discuss what the two parties can do together to reduce our nation’s out-of-control deficit and debt, to create jobs and to put the American economy back on solid footing. . . . Thursday’s meeting will give us the chance to see if the President means what he says. It’s an opportunity to see if the President is finally willing to agree on a serious plan to pay our bills without killing jobs in the process.”
Unfortunately, Leader McConnell pointed out, “Until now, the President’s proposals have been inadequate and, frankly, indefensible. It’s ludicrous for the administration to propose raising hundreds of billions in taxes at a time when 14 million Americans are looking for work and job creators are struggling.”
Indeed, The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday, “Democrats have floated ideas that could raise tax revenues by some $400 billion over the next decade as they negotiate deficit reductions with Republicans, according to people familiar with the plan, posing the most contentious issue as talks reach a critical stage this week.” In fact, Democrats have been fixated on the idea of tax hikes over the last few weeks, with Vice President Joe Biden even saying that “the pieces most important to us Democrats [are] revenue.”
As Leader McConnell explained, “Just this last December the President acknowledged that preventing a tax hike meant more resources were available for job creators to add employees. Does the President now think the economy is doing so well, that unemployment is so low and economic growth so rapid that we can take billions of dollars away from these very same job creators?”
Meanwhile, Reuters noted recently that “Democratic leaders called . . . for new spending” as part of debt negotiations. Leader McConnell said, “It’s equally ludicrous to propose more stimulus spending as part of a deficit reduction package. Republicans and, yes, some Democrats oppose those ideas because they won’t solve the debt crisis and they won’t create jobs. . . . Americans expect that in a negotiation about a debt crisis that we actually do something to significantly reduce the debt. And with so many still out of work, we expect the President to not insist on proposals that his own administration says will put even more on the unemployment line. . . . We don’t think it’s absolutist to oppose more stimulus spending. We don’t think it’s maximalist to oppose hundreds of billions of dollars in tax hikes in the middle of a jobs crisis. We’d have a better term for it: common sense.” Tags:Washington, D.C. Us Senate, Obama Administration, unemployment, jobs, higher taxes, stimulus spendingTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Bill Smith, Editor: We have marveled at the growth in the readership of the ARRA News Service. We began five years ago in July, 2006 and will share more about our beginnings on the anniversary post later this month.
We began as a "news letter" blog for the Arkansas Republican. In less than a year, we had to expand our focus to address the growing readership out side of Arkansas. Eventually, we renamed the blog the ARRA News Service and launched a new logo.
With our readership via subscriptions feeds, cross-posting of articles, social networking is in the hundreds of thousands, and based on comments and conversations and seeking the opinion of others, today we launched a "new image" on our logo.
Our message and reported content remains the same. We will still be share news and opinions for social, fiscal and national security conservatives who believe in God, family and the USA. We will continue to uphold the rights granted by God and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, traditional family values, "republican" principles / ideals, transparent and limited government, free markets, liberty and individual freedom.
While the positions reported on this site are varied, our beliefs and principles remain fixed. We will speak out not only against those advancing positions we do not value, but we will also hold accountable those claiming to have our values and beliefs. All content approval continues to rest with the Editor.
In discussions at recent national events, I noted while many agreed with our content, belief’s and principles, they were figuratively "slapped in the face" with our image. Many were tired of all political parties. We already actively support numerous non-partisan groups outside of the established political parties such as the TEA parties, Patriot groups, etc. We value our country and believe that our beliefs and principles are those that make for a best America. We also wish to expand the outreach of the ARRA News Service as a valuable source of information, opinions, and positions to members of conservative coalitions and groups and even for "independent" readers.
Today, we replaced the "red elephant" image on our logo which remains the image used by our sponsoring agency, the Arkansas Republican Assembly (ARRA). We continue to be a conversational voice of our sponsoring organization. However, we are seeking to expand our outreach to more readers and the number of those browsing our site by using an image that does not turn away people from reading our content. As Dr. Pat Briney, AARA President, expressed last year, "I'd like to work on putting together a coalition of conservative groups in Arkansas for the purpose of building a coordinated, cooperative effort to advance conservatism . . ." We support this effort and the building of the national conservative voice of people. Studies have shown that most U.S. Citizens are conservative in their lives.
Our name - ARRA News Service - and our content remains the same. But, the new logo now has a "patriotic" soaring eagle.
We considered various images in the public domain. We chose not to use the images already used by various conservative groups to promote their efforts. We also opted not to use any images of eagles that are often associated with or represent government.
Instead we settled on revising our logo to add an image that reflects hope verses the hopelessness offered by the present administration. Hope for the return of sanity to America. Hope for the return of less burdensome government, less big spending, and less personal intrusion by government. Hope for the return to the principles of individual liberty and rights as well as personal responsibility that made our country great. Again our beliefs and principles remain fixed. Tags:Bill Smith, editor, ARRA News Service, new logo, imageTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
The Empty Obama Ploy - Default is a political choice
By Bill Wilson – Left-wing pundits and their cronies in Congress delivered a well-timed second punch to the Obama news conference on the continuing fight over an increase in the U.S. debt limit today. While Obama tried to show he was “involved” in the negotiations, his henchmen announced that it might not matter; that Congress really had no saying in the debt limit.
The thrust of their argument is that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires the President to do whatever he wants in order to ensure, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law … shall not be questioned.” Overlooking the entire context of the section of the Amendment – ensuring debts incurred to battle the Confederacy were honored and barring the government or any state from assuming the debts of the rebel government – the apologists for the Administration assert that it is a universal mandate. From this they claim the President has the power to ignore Congress and issue as much new debt as he deems appropriate.
As with so many conflicts with this gang, they are trying to divert attention from the reality of the situation and present one of Obama’s “false choices.”
Were Congress to truly represent the People who by large margins oppose an increase in the debt limit, the government would not immediately go into default. Default is a political choice. Money still flows to the Treasury every day. As interest payments came due, the money would be there to pay them. As old debt was retired, new debt could be issued up to the current limit.
What the Administration could not do is incur new debt, additional debt. They could not spend trillions of dollars more than they take in. An instant balanced budget would result. So, there is no legal right or claim of the President to overturn Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution which gives the House of Representatives the sole power to originate “the raising of revenue.” And let’s be clear, adding new debt is new revenue. The President has no role.
In fact, the 14th Amendment would tie Obama’s hands in the event the debt limit is not raised. He would be required to pay interest first, he is not allowed to default. There is enough money for that. Everything else would then become a political decision. Does he pay Social Security claims and deny our armed forces their pay? Does he play the time honored game of past hucksters and charlatans by looking to block funding with the aim of hurting the public in order to get the legislative branch to give in? Or, is there a statesman inside that otherwise apparent empty suit?
Obama could shut down all the wasteful and needless departments and agencies of the government – HUD, Commerce, Labor, etc. He could cut the federal workforce by millions while proposing less costly support programs to get the bureaucrats back into the productive private sector. He could tell the states to manage their own affairs and pull the federal bribes. He could end the US presence in over 100 countries, tell the Europeans to start defending themselves and deploy the returning military personnel to the border with Mexico to help that country deal with the raging drug violence.
The list of things Obama could do is near endless, things that would save money so he could meet the constitutional mandate of the 14th Amendment while pairing back the monstrous federal government. But it would be his choice, his political decision.
So, as the negotiations continue over the debt ceiling and other budget matters, it might be good for Obama and his PR spin-doctors to stop the empty threats and silly ploys and get down to work. Blowing smoke and threatening a coup d’etat only makes them — and the country — look worse than they already do. Bill Wilson is the President of Americans for Limited Government. You can follow Bill on Twitter at @BillWilsonALG. Tags:Bill Wilson, ALG, Americans for Limited Government, 14th amendment, Congress, Constitution, Debt Limit, National Debt, Barack ObamaTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: You know it is never good news when the Obama Administration releases a new report on a Friday, especially one just before a major holiday weekend. But that is exactly what happened with the latest "progress" report on the stimulus bill.
Prepared by Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, the report says that just under $670 billion has been spent so far and it claims that the stimulus "saved or created" somewhere between 2.4 million and 3.6 million jobs.
Remember, the stimulus bill was supposed to prevent the unemployment rate from exceeding 8%. Today it is 9.1%. One study indicated that the stimulus bill actually suppressed private sector job growth.
But for the sake of argument, let's accept the administration's figures and let's do the math. Under the "best case" scenario, Obama's stimulus bill saved or created 3.6 million jobs at a cost of $186,000 per job. Under the "worst case" scenario, it saved or created 2.4 million jobs at a cost of $279,000 per job.
Neither scenario is a good deal for taxpayers. This is a perfect example of why job creation should be left to the private sector and not Big Government!
By the way, in recent days President Obama has been warning that the country cannot afford to make "draconian cuts" in spending, and should instead "invest in infrastructure." There isn't a day that goes by without some commentary about the state of America's crumbling infrastructure -- from bridges to roads, schools and airports.
But Obama and the Democrats sold the stimulus bill as an investment in infrastructure. What happened to all of those "shovel-ready" projects? As it turns out, Democrats didn't invest in infrastructure. Much of the stimulus bill was a bailout for state and local governments, a payback to public employee unions.
There is no doubt that America could benefit from real investments in infrastructure. But Obama and the Democrats have zero credibility on this issue.
Obama: "I've Got Five And A Half Years Left" At a fundraiser in Philadelphia last week, President Obama tried to rally his depressed liberal base with these words of encouragement:
"I know there are some of you who are frustrated because we haven't gotten everything done that we said we were going to do in two and a half years. It's only been two and a half years. I got five and a half years more to go!"
My friends, America can't afford another five and a half years of Barack Hussein Obama! I mean that literally -- we can't afford it. According to CNSNews.com, the national debt has increased $3.7 trillion during the first two and a half years of Obama's administration. That is a historic achievement, albeit a regrettable one.
For perspective, the article notes that the national debt increased nearly $5 trillion under George W. Bush. But that included all eight years of Bush's administration. At his current pace, Obama is on track to add more than $10 trillion to the national debt if he gets another five and a half years!
And if Obama gets a second term, he will pack the courts, including the Supreme Court, with more left-wing activists, meaning the culture war will likely be lost. After another five and a half years of Obama, America will be economically bankrupt and our culture will be morally bankrupt. Tags:Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families, private sector, job creation, jobs, Obama Administration,To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Dems Heeding Calls Of Liberals For More Taxes, Higher Spending?
Stop Spending My Money
Today in Washington, D.C. - July 5. 2010:
The Senate reconvened this afternoon and at 5 P.M. scheduled to vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 20, a resolution on Libya.
Sen. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said that he and Senate Democrats (no Republicans allowed) will review today a draft FY'12 budget resolution by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad. Conrad has said that his plan will be broadly based on the work of the Simpson-Bowles commission and cut the deficit by $4 trillion over a decade. The House passed its budget resolution in April. However, Senate Democrat leadership has dragged their tails.
Reid also identified that ti was time for the Senate Democrats to meet again tomorrow (without Republicans) with Obama and Vice President Biden and then on Thursday with members of Obama's economic team. With regard to the various constituents represented by Democrat Senators, makes you wonder who is speaking for the Constituents. Is it their Senator or is it the President and his keep staff making all the decisions for the Senate Democrats?
As one example, Sen. Mark Pryor (D) of Arkansas represents a state that overwhelmingly rejected Obama and his policies not once but twice. That rejection included a majority made up of Democrats, Republicans and Independents who rejected Obama as president in 2008 and then in 2010, voted out Democrat Senator Blanche Lincoln and elected three out four Republican House seats to Republicans. Is Senator Pryor going to surrender representing the people of Arkansas to the liberal left wing? Lately his track record has not looked good.
With regard to poor track records, the same can be said for other US Senators from other states. Regardless of political party, no U.S. senator or representative should be kissing the back side of any president or his administration. Don't tell us what you did 6 yrs ago, etc. Tell us what you are willing to do to stop this Obama led pending train wreck. People are tired of bailouts, union thuggery in return for campaign funds, continued federal spending on programs that should not be funded at the Federal level, threats and actions by the Obama administration of more government intervention/ interference in decisions belonging to the states or to individuals, inflation robbing our money, and the unimaginable, being involved in more wars (or the euphemisms: military action, NATO support, etc.) in the last 30 months than in the prior administration.
The House returns tomorrow, Wednesday, and is expected to continue consideration of H.R. 2219, the 2012 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, with a potential vote Thursday or Friday. Also on Wednesday, the House is also expected consider H.Res. 268, which reaffirms the United States’ commitment to a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through direct Israeli negotiations, and H.R. 515, the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act.
On Thursday or Friday, the House is expected to begin consideration of H.R. 2354 the Energy and Water Appropriations Act, and H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance Act.
Over the weekend, liberal columnist Frank Rich wrote a long piece for New York Magazine, calling on President Obama to implement more policies that could make the economy worse: more taxes and ever more government spending. Unfortunately, Rich may not have to worry, since Democrats seem determined to push more of these failed policies on the country.
Rich wrote that Obama “hit a welcome note last week when he urged some higher corporate taxes for hedge funds and the like.” And in his press conference last week, Obama said, “You can't reduce the deficit to the levels that it needs to be reduced without having some revenues in the mix.” Indeed, Democrats are fixated on tax increases. Vice President Joe Biden recently referred to “the pieces most important to us Democrats, revenue” and Talking Points Memo wrote that Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) “made clear that the talks frayed over Democrats' insistence that tax increases of some sort be part of the final deal.”
Meanwhile, Democrats are also back calling for more stimulus spending, despite the nearly $1 trillion spent on the original failed stimulus package. In his piece, Rich lamented the “the too-small stimulus” and pined for “[a] once-hoped-for WPA-style public-works program.” Democrats have been calling for new spending for weeks now. In fact, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) said that “[t]here’s very broad support” among Senate Democrats “for more infrastructure spending,” according to The Hill.
As Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN) said in the Weekly Republican Address this weekend, “The President and Democrats in Congress must recognize that their game plan is not working. It’s time to acknowledge that more government and higher taxes is not the answer to our problem.”
Democrats should be offering solutions that will create jobs and reduce the debt, not pushing policies that would do just the opposite and in fact only make our economic and fiscal problems worse.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Chairman, Republican Study Committee said today, "After celebrating Independence Day, I am reminded once again what our Founding Fathers intended for America. In the Declaration of Independence they set the framework for the American Dream. And this dream did not include a government that unfairly taxes and regulates citizens and private enterprises because of its failure to live within its means.
After focusing for the last few months on a $2 trillion or more debt limit increase, some in Washington are now talking about a smaller increase to buy another seven months or so. I believe Washington must show some discipline for once. Cuts promised today could become spending increases tomorrow unless we pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. As a growing number of Americans have pledged, I will not consider any debt-ceiling increase – regardless of the size – without immediate cuts, enforceable caps on spending, and a Balanced Budget Amendment being sent to the states." Tags:Washington, D.C., US Senate, US House, Democrats, More spending, more taxesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Majority Say July 4th One of Nation’s Most Important Holidays
Rasmussen Report:: While many people look forward to the Fourth of July for barbecues and fireworks, most Americans recognize the importance of our nation’s Independence Day . . . 65% consider the Fourth of July, Independence Day, one of the nation’s most important holidays. Just 3% consider it one of the least important, and 31% see it as somewhere in between.
Today is the great American holiday: The Fourth of July. But do we Americans truly understand what we are celebrating, and why it so important? Listen Now | Download | or Read Below.
by Chuck Colson, BreakPoint: The great British intellectual G. K. Chesterton wrote that “America is the only nation in the world that is founded on [a] creed.”
Think about that for a moment. Other nations were founded on the basis of race, or by the power of kings or emperors who accumulated lands -- and the peasants who inhabited those lands.
But America was -- and is to this day -- different. It was founded on a shared belief. Or as Chesterton said, on a creed.
And what is that creed that sets us apart? It is the eloquent, profound, and simple statement penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
I’ll never forget when I graduated from Brown University during the Korean War. I couldn’t wait to become a Marine officer, to give my life if necessary, to defend that creed. To defend the idea that our rights come from God Himself and are not subject to whims of governments or tyrants. That humans ought to be free to pursue their most treasured hopes and aspirations.
Perhaps some 230 years later, we take these words for granted. But in 1776, they were earth-shaking, indeed, revolutionary.
Yet today, they are in danger of being forgotten altogether. According to Gallup, 66 percent of American adults have no idea that the words, “We hold these truths . . .” come from the Declaration of Independence. Even worse, only 45 percent of college seniors know that the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are proclaimed in the Declaration.
As America grows more and more diverse culturally, religiously, ethnically, it is critical that we embrace the American creed. Yes, America has always been a “melting pot.” But what is the pot that holds our multicultural stew together? Chesterton said the pot’s “original shape was traced on the lines of Jeffersonian democracy.” A democracy founded on those self-evident truths expressed in the Declaration of Independence. And as Chesterton remarked “The pot must not melt.”
Abraham Lincoln understood this so well. For him, the notion that all men are created equal was “the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.”
So go to the Fourth of July parade. Go to the neighborhood barbecue and enjoy the hot dogs and apple pie. But here’s an idea for you. Why not take time out at the picnic to read the Declaration of Independence aloud with your friends and neighbors.
Listen -- and thrill -- to those words that bind us together as a nation of freedom-loving people: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
These are the words that Americans live for -- and if necessary, die for. Tags:Chuck Colson, BreakPoint, American Creed, Declaration of Independence, 4th of JulyTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
The ARRA News Service and the Arkansas Republican Assembly join you in celebrating our nation's 235th Birthday - Independence Day. God Bless America and our armed service men and women.
Tags:2011, 4th of July, Arkansas Republican Assembly, ARRA, ARRA News Service, Independence Day, William Warren, America's Birthday, We Hold These Truths,To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Obama Determined To Raise Taxes On Business Despite Bad Economy
Job Loss in Arkansas - In just one week, Arkansas lost approximately 673 jobs. On Thursday, Yarnell’s Ice Cream, an Arkansas staple, announced they were ceasing operations, leaving 200 jobless. Simmons Prepared Foods announced Monday they were cutting 223 jobs at its plant in Siloam Springs, and Rheem Manufacturing Co. out of Forth Smith moved 250 Arkansas jobs to Mexico last Friday.
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama is renewing an old fight with the business community by insisting that $400 billion in tax increases be part of a deficit-reduction package. His proposals have languished on Capitol Hill, repeatedly blocked by Republicans, often with help from Democrats. Some would raise big money. Limiting tax deductions for high-income families and small business owners could raise more than $200 billion over the next decade.
Tags:Barack Obama, taxes, killing business, going out of business, bad economy, ArkansasTo 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.
Definition: Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, from Ancient Greek: κλέπτης (thief) and κράτος (rule), is a term applied to a government subject to control fraud that takes advantage of governmental corruption to extend the personal wealth and political power of government officials and the ruling class (collectively, kleptocrats), via the embezzlement of state funds at the expense of the wider population, sometimes without even the pretense of honest service. The term means "rule by thieves". A Kleptocracy is rather a pejorative for a government perceived to have a particularly severe and systemic problem with the selfish misappropriation of public funds by those in power. - Wikipedia
The bill was opposed by the 
The right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children has been recognized and upheld for centuries. But there are dark clouds on the horizon.
“The precarious state of parental rights within our nation is reason enough for serious concern. With cases like these filling the courts, every parent should be concerned about the protection and preservation of their rights.
This amendment will shelter the child-parent relationship from the coming storm, ensuring that parents have the right to direct the upbringing and education of their children.
