News for social, fiscal & national security conservatives who believe in God, family & the USA. Upholding the rights granted by God & guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, traditional family values, "republican" principles / ideals, transparent & limited government, free markets, liberty & individual freedom. All content approval rests with the ARRA News Service Editor. Opinions are those of the authors. While varied positions are reported, beliefs & principles remain fixed. No revenue is generated for this site - no paid ads accepted - no payments for articles. Fair Use doctrine is posted & used. Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru] - email@example.com (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home Page
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Afterburner with Bill Whittle: Three and a Half Days
Bill Whittle: The Occupy Wall Street protesters are complaining about everything from corporations to having to repay student loans. Is America the victim of its own success? Have we created a generation of self-entitled cry babies? Is it time to make these people spend three and half days in the woods so that they can appreciate what capitalism has given them? Find out.
Tags:Bill Whittle, PJTV, Afterburner, Occupy Wall Street, Ipads, College, Kids, Civilization, Prosperity, Entitlement, State, Precious Snowflakes, reality, Wall Street, Corporations, goods and servicesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Obama Administration Mandating Bikeways And Walkways - Why?
Letter to the Editor
by Debbie Pelley, Jonesboro, Arkansas: Why is [President] Obama’s Secretary of Transportation mandating bikeway and walkways in all transportation plans? If bikeways were for recreation, surely in this desperate economic time, they would be put on hold.
Just 21⁄2 years after the $840 billion stimulus bill that was supposed to fuel all kinds of jobs and economic growth, Obama has asked for another $447 billion stimulus bill. Except this time Obama is calling it a “jobs” bill.
To sell his jobs bill, Obama has campaigned across the country bewailing our crumbling roads and bridges. If our bridges are as dangerous as Obama contends and bikeways are for recreation, then isn’t it foolish for Obama to mandate spending money on bikeways instead of bridges?
The following quotes are from the U.S. transportation secretary’s Regulation and Recommendation, March 11, 2010. “Every transportation agency, including DOT, has the responsibility to integrate walking and bicycling into their transportation systems. The secretary has the authority to withhold approval for projects that would negatively impact pedestrians and bicyclists.” In the recommendation section is this bullet point: “Considering walking and bicycling as equal with other transportation modes.” [Link to the article]
Little Rock is now seeking a federal $12 million grant for finishing a 14-mile bikeway - at least $1 million a mile. The U.S. department has deemed this project worthy of funding.
In his 2012 budget Obama has proposed $556 billion for a 6-year surface transportation plan and “$53 billion over six years to improve passenger rail service...reaching the president’s goal of providing 80 percent of Americans with convenient access to a passenger rail system within 25 years.” [White House link]
So what are the bikeways and passenger rail really all about? Michael Moore speaks for Obama and global warming advocates: “The things we call cars may have been fun to drive, but they only lead to the ruin of our species and much of the planet.”
On Nov. 3 Republicans tried but failed in their third attempt to eliminate federal money for bikeways, walking trails and other mass transportation projects. Mandating bikeways and doing away with our cars is definitely a Democratic move, not a Republican one.
----------- Debbie Pelley is Retired Arkansas Teacher of 27 years. She is presently a grassroots citizen activist, researcher and writer who advocates for the Arkansans and for transparent and limited government. Additional Notes From Debbie Pelly:
Below is a section of an article I was invited to do for the Jonesboro Sun on October 31 (a Question and Answer article) that explains more than my letter to the editor would allow. Below that see another letter to editor confirming the truth of my statement about hearing at our Jonesboro MPO meeting last year: That leaders of the MPO believe in the near future that not only our children and grandchildren but we older adults will be riding bicycles and walking rather than driving cars.
Q: Earlier this year you voiced opposition to plans by the Jonesboro Area Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization to start several local transportation projects. Some of those projects include sidewalks, bicycle trails, greenways, etc. Why do you oppose these efforts?
A: Conservatives want less government, not more. The Jonesboro Area Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is incorporating many aspects of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Agenda 21 document adopted in 1992. Agenda 21 is a comprehensive blueprint of action to be taken in every area in which people directly affect the environment [global warming]. Federal legislation now requires the formation of an MPO for any urbanized area in the nation with a population greater than 50,000. So our Jonesboro MPO originated with international and federal government rather than local or state government. The Jonesboro MPO uses the words “Sustainable Development” in their literature.
Sustainable Development is designed to change our very way of life, our housing, our property, our mode of transportation, and where we live. Al Gore called it a “wrenching transformation” in his book “Earth in the Balance.” The scientific fraud of the 2009 Climategate scandal confirmed conservatives’ fears that the global warming scare was just another created crisis to allow more government control over our lives.
Eliminating as much transportation by cars (for global warming purposes) as possible is a goal of the U.N. Sustainable Development...Jonesboro MPO’s Transportation Plan includes numerous goals and policies to implement bikeways and walkways in their written plan. Following is just one example. “Work towards...increasing trips by bicycle and foot by a certain percentage over 2010 levels.”
At the first MPO meeting I attended, the speakers kept talking about bikeways and walkways, so I asked: “Are the bike trails for the purpose of recreation or for actual transportation to reduce the number of cars on the road?” Mr. Muhammad Ulkarim (Director of MPO) answered: “The bike trails are mostly recreational now, but in the near future they will be for transportation and to reduce the number of cars on the road.” After a couple more questions, we asked, “So do you envision a future where our children and grandchildren will be riding bicycles rather than driving cars?” The answer: “It won’t be just our kids and grandchildren, it will be you and me — us,” indicating it would be coming very soon. (Most of the people there were over 50 and probably over 60.)
There is no way Americans are going to depend on walking and biking and mass transit unless the government forces it on them through high gas prices, expensive cars, regulations, etc. There are all kinds of energy that could be tapped in our own country including drilling in Alaska, offshore and other places. Therefore, the government is imposing extreme unnecessary hardships on its citizens, and the MPO is knowingly or unknowingly cooperating with the federal government in its endeavors.
All this money is being wasted on bikeways, walkways, mass transit, light rail, etc., just like our president has wasted it on Solyndra and other solar plants for global warming purposes. According to Fox, President Obama has included a $53 billion investment in national high-speed intercity passenger rail network in this year’s budget and is pushing ahead with his plan to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail within 25 years. Amtrak has lost $13 billion in the last 10 years. [This 80% figure is confirmed on this White House website link]
Smart Growth, a partner with the Environmental Protection Agency, is a Sustainable Development program the Jonesboro MPO promotes. The following quote on the EPA Web site describes how broad the Sustainable Development program is. “Smart growth development practices support national environmental goals by preserving open spaces and parkland and protecting critical habitat; improving transportation choices, including walking, bicycling, and transit, which reduces emissions from automobiles; promoting brownfield redevelopment; and reducing impervious surfaces, which improves water quality.” Tags:Mandating, Bikeways, Walkways, Obama administration, Smart Growth, Environmental Protection Agency, Sustainable Development, Secretary of Transportation, letter to editor, Debbie PelleyTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Which Presidential Candidate Will Keep America Safe?
Another Republican presidential candidate debate will soon be upon us. Why not have some fun with friends. Get a Heritage Foundation "Free Presidential Debate Watch Party Kit." Gather friends and family at your house to watch the debate, which airs live nationally Tuesday, November 22, at 8:00 p.m. on CNN.
If you would like to host a Debate Watch Party, RSVP and receive a Heritage Debate Watch Party Kit check out the following:
Join Our Online Debate Watch Party!
For the 2012 Presidential Debate on Foreign Policy and National Security
Co-hosted by The Heritage Foundation, CNN and
the American Enterprise Institute
Tuesday, November 22, 2011 in Washington, D.C.
RSVP to Join the Conversation Online: Starting at 8:00 p.m. ET Tuesday, November 22, you'll be able to join the conversation online with Heritage and supplement live TV coverage on CNN, CNN International and CNN en Español. At Foundry.org/Debate you'll have access to Heritage's expert commentary and notes from our behind-the-scenes participation at DAR Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C.
The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation
Tags:GOP, Republican, Presidential Debate, CNN, Heritage Foundation watch party, friends, neighborsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Tags:Balanced Budget Amendment, deficit spending, Democratic Attack machine, Super Committee, super congress, U.S Budget, A.F. Branco, political cartoonTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Senators Demand Details On Kagan’s Health Law ‘Role’
Letter to Attorney General Holder: ‘It appears that former Solicitor General Kagan’s participation in the Obama Administration’s defense of the PPACA may satisfy both requirements for recusal’
Key Senate Republicans sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder on Friday urging him to comply with Congressional oversight requests regarding former Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s role in the administration’s defense of the health care law. Their letter states: “when a former member of the Administration is in a position to rule on litigation in which she apparently had some involvement and which concerns legislation she herself supports, public confidence in the administration of justice is undermined. Your Department’s refusal to provide information to the Congress that could eliminate this apparent conflict of interest only undermines that confidence further.”
The letter is signed by Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican Whip Jon Kyl, Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Charles Grassley and Senator Mike Lee. Full text of the letter below:
November 18, 2011
The Honorable Eric Holder
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Attorney General:
Members of Congress have been trying to determine whether Justice Elena Kagan has a conflict of interest with respect to participating in litigation in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) due to her involvement with and support for this legislation while a member of the Justice Department. Unfortunately, your Department has rejected all Congressional oversight requests for information about her role in the Obama Administration’s defense of this law. You recently told the Senate, incredibly, that you were not even aware of Congressional requests on this topic, and that your Department handled her duties as it relates to such matters in a way that is belied by the facts, namely that you physically removed her from all meetings discussing the litigation. Because of the highly questionable manner in which your Department is handling this important issue, we write to underscore the importance to the rule of law of an informed resolution of this question, and to apprise you of the legal and factual bases for our concerns.
Federal law requires recusal from a case if a judicial officer of the United States “has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(3). In addition, a federal judge must disqualify herself from participating in a matter if her “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Id. at § 455(a). It appears that former Solicitor General Kagan’s participation in the Obama Administration’s defense of the PPACA may satisfy both requirements for recusal.
Then-Solicitor General Kagan acknowledged to the Senate Judiciary Committee last year that, in fact, she played a “role” in the Obama Administration’s defense of the PPACA, including attending “at least one meeting” that discussed the litigation. But she minimized her degree of involvement in the litigation, characterizing it as not “substantial.” Federal law, however, requires recusal if a government official participated in a matter that is the subject of litigation; it does not require the government official’s past participation in that same matter to be “substantial” (as determined by the self-same government official).
Moreover, emails finally produced by your Department in response to lawsuits to enforce the Freedom of Information Act suggest involvement by then-Solicitor General Kagan in the Administration’s preparations for defending the PPACA. In January 2010—two months before then-General Kagan was even aware she was being considered as a potential nominee to the Supreme Court—your Department began planning to defend this law against legal challenges. Neil Katyal, Ms. Kagan’s principal deputy, stated he would “speak with Elena” about her office participating in a Department working group that would plan the Administration’s litigation strategy, exclaiming that he wanted the Administration to “crush” those challenging the PPACA. A few hours later, Mr. Katyal indicated that he had spoken with Ms. Kagan about the legal working group, and said she “definitely” wanted her office to participate in it. (“Elena would definitely like OSG [Office of the Solicitor General] to be involved in this set of issues.”) He said the working group would “bring Elena in as needed.” A few days later another member of your Department made clear that the working group would discuss the legal “claims that will be asserted and how [the Obama Administration] will defend against them.” This email then listed the major legal issues that likely would arise in legal challenges to the PPACA over which the working group would deliberate. (Your Department has redacted that part of the email: “The big areas of possible litigation are [redacted].”) Mr. Katyal then underscored that Ms. Kagan’s office was to be “heavily involved” in planning the Administration’s legal strategy “even in the d[istrict court].”
In March—two months before then-Solicitor General Kagan was nominated to the Supreme Court—she was party to a discussion involving the head of the PPACA litigation defense working group (Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli) and Mr. Katyal. Specifically, Mr. Katyal added Ms. Kagan to an email discussion with Mr. Perrelli so Mr. Katyal could advise her of a draft litigation complaint challenging the PPACA. Mr. Katyal raised particular parts of the complaint with Ms. Kagan and Mr. Perrelli, including his analysis of the plaintiff’s litigation strategy. He also provided a link to a website so Ms. Kagan and Mr. Perrelli could review the document themselves. Mr. Katyal then recommended to them the next steps the Justice Department should take to respond to this upcoming legal challenge. He specifically noted that he was now including then-Solicitor General Kagan to apprise her of his recommendation, presumably so she could express any disagreement with it (“I haven’t discussed this with Elena, but am cc’ing her here”). It should be noted that according to then-General Kagan’s own testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, during the time of this discussion of a particular legal challenge to the PPACA, she was still performing her duties as Solicitor General as normal.
Just three days later, then-Solicitor General Kagan expressed her glee to another member of your Department, Legal Advisor and Law Professor Larry Tribe, about the PPACA’s likely passage in the Congress. In an email entitled, “fingers and toes crossed today!”, Ms. Kagan happily says to Professor Tribe, “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.” Professor Tribe then gives Ms. Kagan his view of a recent modification to the legislation. (“So health care is basically done! Remarkable. And with the Stupak group accepting the magic of what amounts to a signing statement on steroids!”)
President Obama chose to nominate a member of his Administration to the Supreme Court knowing it was likely that, if confirmed, she would be in a position to rule on his signature domestic policy achievement—“litigation,” Mr. Katyal noted to former Solicitor General Kagan, “of singular importance” to the Administration. Among other involvement in this matter, it appears that she was privy to discussions of legal claims and litigation strategy concerning court challenges to the PPACA. And it is apparent that she herself enthusiastically supported this legislation as a member of the Administration which is now defending it. When a former member of the Administration is in a position to rule on litigation in which she apparently had some involvement and which concerns legislation she herself supports, public confidence in the administration of justice is undermined. Your Department’s refusal to provide information to the Congress that could eliminate this apparent conflict of interest only undermines that confidence further.
The Justice Department noted at the time the Congress was considering the current mandatory recusal law for federal judges that a purpose of its stricter standards was to avoid the possibility “that public confidence in the federal judicial system may be weakened.” We urge you to reconsider your Department’s decision not to respond to Congress’s oversight requests so that the public can have confidence in the resolution of this important litigation.
Republican Leader Mitch McConnell
Republican Whip Jon Kyl
Judiciary Committee Ranking Member, Senator Charles Grassley
Senator Mike Lee
Tags:U.S. Senators, Letter to Attorney General, Eric Holder, Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, PPACA, health care law, SCOTUS, recusalTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
SuperMajority Have Unfavorable Opinion of Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae
Rasmussen Reports : Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are seeking billions more in taxpayer money to stay afloat, and Americans have a lower opinion than ever of the government-backed mortgage lenders. Both remain in deep financial trouble after lending to many who couldn’t afford their mortgages, and Americans continue to strongly oppose that policy. 77% Have Unfavorable Opinion of Freddie Mac, 73% Say Same of Fannie Mae. [Full Report] Tags:Rasmussen Reports, study, polling, housing, government, homes for sale, foreclosures, Freddie Mac, Fannie MaeTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Government Funded to Dec 16th - Balanced Budget Amendment Vote Today
Update 3:50 PM: U.S. House failed (261-165 to approve a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. A majority but short of the 290 votes needed; it was supported by 236 Republicans and 25 Democrats and opposed by 4 Republicans and 161 Democrats.
------------- Today in Washington, D.C. - Nov 18, 2011:
The Senate resumed consideration of S. 1867, the Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Authorization bill. No votes are scheduled for today.
Last night, the Senate voted 70-30 to approve the conference report for H.R. 2112, which then went to the president for his signature. H.R. 2112 combines the FY 2012 Agriculture, Transportation-Housing and Urban Development, and Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bills as well as a continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government through Dec. 16th. The Hill notes the bill “eliminates most funding next year for high-speed rail programs.”
Yesterday, the U.S. House also easily passed the “minibus,” H.R. 2112.
today, the House is scheduled to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment. Note, there are several version of the Balanced Budget Amendment. Some conservatives do not see the present offered BBA as the strongest version because it does not address capping spending in some form or fashion and it does not require a super majority to raise taxes to "balance the budget" which is a standard ploy of Democrats.
Curtis Coleman, President, Curtis Coleman Institute of Constitutional Policy said, "the so-called “clean” balanced budget amendment scheduled to be voted on by the House tonight must be defeated. . . . House Joint Resolution 2 is a balanced budget amendment currently pending before the House of Representatives. It is a sorry substitute for the real thing and a political ploy to try to embarrass conservatives. First, it contains no requirement for a super-majority to raise taxes. . . . Second, there is no cap on spending in this amendment. Washington has an overspending problem, not an under-taxing problem. . . . Second, there is no cap on spending in this amendment. Washington has an overspending problem, not an under-taxing problem."
Yesterday, Energy Secretary Stephen Chu testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations about the $535 million taxpayer loan to the bankrupt solar power company Solyndra and other Energy Department loans.
Reporting on Chu’s testimony, The Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein noted, “Chu acknowledged before the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s oversight panel that if he knew in September 2009 what he knows now, he never would have authorized the $535 million loan guarantee to solar panel manufacturer Solyndra, which ended up going bankrupt. But he said he was making the decision based on the information available to him at the time. Earlier in the hearing, asked how much money taxpayers could hope to recover from the failed company, Chu said it ‘remains to be seen’ but acknowledged it would be ‘not very much.’”
Meanwhile, Glenn Kessler, who writes The Washington Post’s Fact Checker blog, caught a couple of statements by Secretary Chu that he found questionable. Kessler noted Chu claimed, “Through the loan programs, the Energy Department is supporting 38 clean energy projects that are expected to employ more than 60,000 Americans . . . .” And, Kessler writes, “[Chu] also made the case that the collapse in solar panel prices — which helped sink Solyndra — was ‘totally unexpected’ by most financial analysts at the time when the department went forward with the loan in 2009.”
On Chu’s jobs claim, Kessler points out, “We always warn readers to be wary of claims about the number of jobs created by some government, congressional or corporate initiative. These are almost always suspect and based on dubious assumptions. . . . As it happens, Carol D. Leonnig and Steven Mufson of The Washington Post examined the job-claim figure two months ago and found it wanting. ‘The program — designed to jump-start the nation’s clean technology industry by giving energy companies access to low-cost, government-backed loans — has directly created 3,545 new, permanent jobs after giving out almost half the allocated amount, according to Energy Department tallies,’ they reported on The Post’s front page. . . . [I]f you dig deeper into the 60,000 number, you find that more than half of it comes from a single program — 33,000 jobs at Ford that were supposedly converted to green technology because of a $5.9 billion loan. The Energy Department translated those as “saved” jobs, even though the number amounts to nearly half of Ford’s total workforce. . . . The Post article had quoted an economist as saying that the 33,000 job estimate for Ford appeared to be the result of “fuzzy math.” Ford spokeswoman Meghan Keck was quoted as saying that the loan provided flexibility in manufacturing that was key to “helping retain” the jobs. That’s pretty fuzzy language for “saved” and in fact appears to relate more to job security than anything else. Translation: A plant that once had a single truck line would now be able to create four different vehicles, allowing jobs to be shifted as demand changed.”
Examining Chu’s claims that the collapse in solar panel prices was “totally unexpected,” Kessler finds, “Chu’s other quote — concerning the unexpected collapse in solar prices — is also open to question. . . . [T]he shakiness in the market was readily apparent at the time DOE pressed the White House budget office to sign off on the Solyndra loan. Note the Aug. 31, 2009 e-mail below, from an Office of Management and Budget official to a DOE official, asking that an announcement of the loan be postponed. The e-mail includes links to articles with headlines like ‘As Prices Slump, Solar Industry Suffers.’ . . . One article mentioned in the e-mail noted that prices had already dropped 40 percent since the middle of the previous year, and ‘many experts expect panel prices to fall further, though not by another 40 percent.’ (It did.)”
Kessler concludes that “the job number” is “inflated by the inclusion of the loan to Ford.” He says, “As we have demonstrated, these are not new jobs or even saved jobs — just people who might, just maybe, have a little more job security, in part because of the loan. Chu’s comments on the unexpected “tsunami” that hit Solyndra are also troubling. The OMB e-mail shows that at least one arm of the government was aware that Wall Street was quickly souring on solar energy and that the tsunami that swept the industry should not have been such a surprise.” Kessler’s verdict on Chu’s claims? “Three Pinocchios.”
House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) on Friday said Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s lack of knowledge about the problems plaguing now-bankrupt Solyndra demonstrates poor management skills that preclude him from being an effective Cabinet-level official. “I would look to have somebody else manage the Department of Energy. Things were going on that he did not know about. That’s not the way you should be managing.” Tags:Washington, D.C. US House, appropriations bill, continuing resolution balanced budget amendment, Solyndra scandal, Energy Secretary, Stephen ChuTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
The following article by "donhays" says what many believe but haven't put in words. I don't know the author, but I owe him his favorite beverage if we ever meet:
Ninety-Nine Percent in America? REALLY??!!
. . . speaking of morons . . .
I am conflicted every time I see coverage of these Occupy schlubs. On one hand, like anyone who has actually earned a paycheck, I would like to see most of the them told that they are too old for the sandbox – time to go get a job. On the other hand, I jump for joy over the fact that these morons have no clue that they have royally over-stayed their welcome; and that even their most staunch supports’ patience is wearing thin.
But as a person with the heart of a teacher, I really want them to grip how silly their premise is…. Actually, I just don’t want anyone else drinking that kool-aid. My question is this:
“How can the 1% REALLY lord it over the other 99% in a democratic republic?”
SHORT VERSION: They can’t. Thanks for playing, have a safe trip back home (to your parent’s basement)
LONG VERSION: Listening to your Bolshevik teachers (who, by the way, said in their youth, “never trust anyone over 30″…. and now they are your professors) you would think that the evil capitalists have been holding down the hoi-polloi since those white dudes in wigs forced out the peace loving British who only want to spread the wealth around (back to England of course). And it got worse from there! As the centuries past, the unwashed masses grunted along to the tune of “Look Down” from Les Miserables, being forced by those mean Republicans to accept slavery, Jim Crow Laws, Poll taxes, grandfather clauses…. oh wait…. that’s right, it WASN’T the Republican that did that. Wanna take a guess at which party that was?
Generation after generation, the 99% stood there and took it, until finally (cue the Halleluiah Chorus) kids barely out of diapers came running down to Zuccotti Park, dragging their massive craniums behind them to solve the unsolvable, cure the incurable, to DREAM… the IM-POSS-I-BLE….. you get the picture.
They, inspired by their “fundamentally transform American President” (erk… had to fight off some GERD there), have solved society’s problems by occupying a private park, taking dumps on cop cars, practically driving the MIDDLE CLASS vendors in the area out of business (fat cats order in during an occupation, check the manual) and of course, changed western civilization as we know it by coming up with call and response phrases like, “this is what democracy looks like!” – which with the cerebral skill of a parrot, the rest of the crowd repeats… over and over and over and over…
Ya know what? That IS what democracy looks like! Tell ya what, I’ll get back to that in a minute.
SO…. if this has always been the condition of America, then why hasn’t it been fixed?! HMMMM?!!! If it really has been 99% versus 1%…… in a representative republic – then why are we just NOW getting to the problem? Why wasn’t it fixed 100 years ago when Mr. Smith really could go to Washington? How about 435 Mr. Smith’s in the house…. or I suppose if the OWS stats are correct, it would be 430-5? Well?? And the Senate? Hey, back then I bet you could have pulled 100% given that Senators were elected by state legislatures, who I am just sure were made up of purely 99%ers.. Right??
During the Great Depression? FD who? Who needs a President when you’ve got 430-5 and 99-1, right?!! I am sure you could’ve had some wealth spreadage back then? WELL????
Want to know why??.. Uh oh, here it comes….
BECAUSE IT ISN’T 99% VS 1% IN THIS COUNTRY!!! Nine out of every 10 of the 1% in America (statistically is families and businesses making $350,000 or more per year) are FIRST GENERATION RICH! Meaning that they started somewhere other than Richville. AND most of the so-called rich (tell someone living in downtown Manhattan and ONLY making 350k per year they are rich) from 30 years ago have cycled OUT of Richville and have been replaced by new 1%ers. In other words, there is no LOCK on wealth in this country other that the fact that it takes a huge amount of blood, sweat, tears and TIME!! The ‘microwave generation’ (I want it now, now, now!!) doesn’t grip that.
Oh, and getting back to what democracy looks like? Yep, that what it looks like alright – a mob that shares space, food, braincells, joints and other things I can’t mention. It is exactly the reason why our framers did NOT give us a democracy, but a republic. If the “take up oxygen” crown would have gripped that back in civics class, they probably wouldn’t be fertilizing Zuccotti Park the way they have been doing. Then again, if they would have paid attention in econ class, they would be working on getting to the other side of the glass on Wall Street. Tags:democrat, Occupy Wall Street, OWS, OWS protesters, 99%, A.F. Branco, political cartoon, donhays, America, Conservative Daily NewsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Sec. Chu Testifies On Solyndra Loans - Continuing Resolution and Balanced Budget Amendment Pending
Today in Washington, D.C. - Nov. 17, 2011:
The House has passed the Senates Veterans Jobs bill (422 to 0); now headed to the President for signature.
The U.S. House takes up a "mini-bus" spending bill, H.R. 2112, to fund multiple government agencies, a short-term spending bill to keep the government running until December 16th, and a balanced budget amendment. The bill wraps together three funding bills for fiscal year 2012 ( Agriculture, Commerce/Justice/Science, and Transportation/Housing and Urban Development). The House and the Senate have already reconciled the differences between their versions of the bill, and the House is expected to vote to pass the bill today. The Senate could take it up shortly after the House passes.
Note that if Congress fails to complete nine other appropriations bills before December 16th, it would need to pass another Continuing Resolution to keep the government running.
Also today, the House debates a measure that would add a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. Each chamber must vote on the measure before the end of the year pursuant to the terms of the bill passed last August to lift the debt ceiling.
The Senate began consideration of S. 1867, the Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Authorization bill.
After the House votes on the conference report for the first minibus bill, H.R. 2112 the Senate is expected to take up the bill. The conference report also includes a continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government through Dec. 16th, since the current CR expires on Friday.
As Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu testifies before the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight & investigations today, there are a number of troubling news reports about the $535 million taxpayer loan to the bankrupt solar power company Solyndra and other Energy Department loans that the Obama administration needs to better explain.
Earlier this week, The Washington Post reported, “The Obama administration, which gave the solar company Solyndra a half-billion-dollar loan to help create jobs, asked the company to delay announcing it would lay off workers until after the hotly contested November 2010 midterm elections that imperiled Democratic control of Congress, newly released e-mails show. The announcement could have been politically damaging because President Obama and others in the administration had held up Solyndra as a poster child of its clean-energy initiative, saying the company’s new factory, built with the help of stimulus money, could create 1,000 jobs. Six months before the midterm elections, Obama visited Solyndra’s California plant to praise its success, even though outside auditors had questioned whether the operation might collapse in debt. As the contentious 2010 elections approached, Solyndra found itself foundering, and it warned the Energy Department that it would need an emergency cash infusion. A Solyndra investment adviser wrote in an Oct. 30, 2010, e-mail — without explaining the reason — that Energy Department officials were pushing “very hard” to delay making the layoffs public until the day after the elections. The announcement ultimately was made on Nov. 3, 2010 — immediately following the Nov. 2 vote.”
Meanwhile, according to Fox News, “As the White House rejects charges that the Obama administration was motivated by politics in its decisions on green energy loans, scrutiny is increasing over the preference given to Democratic donors seeking federal loans. . . . The rolls of green energy subsidies show that beyond a few headline-grabbing cases, several well-connected Democrats obtained taxpayer assistance for environmentally friendly projects. Among the recipients are:
“-- Solyndra, which received $535 million in loan guarantees and whose chief investor was the George Kaiser Family Foundation. George Kaiser was an Obama campaign bundler.
“-- Brightsource Energy, which received $1.6 billion and whose senior adviser is Robert Kennedy, Jr., an early Obama backer;
“-- Solar Reserve, which got a $737 million loan, and whose major investor is a company run by Michael Froman, who was a deputy assistant to the president. Froman bundled up to $500,000 for the president's 2008 campaign;
“-- Granite Reliable Wind Generation, which received a $168.9 million loan. The company's majority owner is a firm formerly led by Nancy Ann DeParle, now a White House deputy chief of staff and former head of the president's health care communications team during the reform debate; and
“-- Abound Solar, which received a loan guarantee worth $400 million. A key investor is billionaire heiress Pat Stryker, who gave $87,000 to Obama's inauguration committee, and hundreds of thousands more to Democratic causes.”
All of these concerns about the Obama administration’s energy loans deserve scrutiny by Congress, both in today’s hearing and in the future. Tags:Washington, D.C. US House, US Senate, hearings, Solndra, Depatment of Energy, Sec. Chu, bad loans, Continuing resolution , veterans jobs bill, Balanced Budget Amendment, BBATo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Tim to Stop This Government Shame - Tme For Fiscal Fidelity
Bankrupting America: We all have heard the classic Washington scandal of a Congressman being unfaithful. The indiscretion usually causes a public outcry leading to a public apology and resignation. But what happens when a member of Congress is unfaithful to the economy?
For decades Washington has spent far beyond its means. This overspending has saddled the country with a national debt of over $15 trillion – a point at which it is now hamstringing economic growth. And even now, as the economy begs for attention, lawmakers are unable to make things right.
As millions of Americans sit out of work and a recovery falters, isn’t it time Washington shows a little fiscal fidelity?
With our national debt approaching $15 trillion and our continued slow economic growth, the real scandal in Washington is the inability of Congress to take our fiscal matters seriously.
The supercommittee must keep their promise to cut government spending by at least $1.5 trillion. This would be a strong signal that our government is taking our financial woes seriously. [Video Source]
Tags:budget, Congress, debt, deficit, federal deficit, supercommittee, fiscal fidelity, Bankrupting AmericaTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Kagan refuses to recuse on Obamacare - Associate Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has declined to recuse herself from ruling on the upcoming Obamacare case NFIB v. Sebelius, to be decided next summer, joined by 26 states arguing that abortion-funding nationalized health insurance is unconstitutional. Tags:Elena Kagan, Justice Kagan, ObamaCare, Supreme Court, William Warren, Political Cartoons To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
House Budget Committee: We just passed $15 trillion in national debt, making today an infamous day in U.S. history. You deserve better than leaders who are unwilling to tackle this problem. In the House of Representatives, we've advanced bold solutions that lift this crushing burden of debt so that our economy can grow and Americans can flourish.
The Undisputed Debt King Takes The Balance On The Nation’s Credit Card To Unprecedented Heights
THE NATIONAL DEBT HAS HIT THE $15 TRILLION MARK
The National Debt Is Now $15.0 Trillion Dollars.(US Department Of The Treasury,TreasuryDirect.gov, Accessed 11/16/11)
Since President Obama Took Office, The National Debt Has Risen $4.4 Trillion, An Increase Of Over 41 Percent.(US Department Of The Treasury,Ibid,Accessed 11/16/11)
·Under Obama’s Watch, Each Citizen’s Share Of The National Debt Has Risen $14,273.02 To A Total Of $48,692.55.(US Department Of The Treasury,Ibid, Accessed 11/16/11)
HOW MUCH IS $15 TRILLION?
$15 Trillion Is More Than The Value Of All The Goods And Services Produced In The United States Last Year.(“Gross Domestic Product,” Bureau Of Economic Analysis,BEA.gov, Accessed 11/3/11)
15 Trillion One-Dollar Bills Would Wrap Around The Earth’s Equator Over 58,000 Times.(“Earth: Facts & Figures,”NASA, Accessed 11/3/11)
In FY2010, The Bureau Of Engraving And Printing Produced $974 Million Worth Of Currency. At That Rate, It Would Take 15,400 Years To Print $15 Trillion.(“Annual Production Figures,”Bureau Of Engraving And Printing, Accessed 11/3/11)
·It Would Take The Average Household Over 300 Million Years To Pay Off The National Debt On Their Own.(Press Release, “Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2010,”US Census Bureau, 9/13/11)
To Pay Off $15 Trillion In Debt, The Federal Government Would Have To Devote Every Dollar Of Revenue To Paying Off The Debt For 6.5 Years.(“Monthly Budget Review,”Congressional Budget Office, 10/7/11)
UNDER OBAMA, THE NATIONAL DEBT HAS SKYROCKETED
Politifact: Barack Obama Is “The Undisputed Debt King Of The Last Five Presidents.” “So by this measurement -- potentially a more important one -- Obama is the undisputed debt king of the last five presidents, rather than the guy who added a piddling amount to the debt, as Pelosi’s chart suggested.”(“Nancy Pelosi Post Questionable Chart On Debt Accumulation By Barack Obama, Predecessors,”Politifact, 5/19/11)
·Congressional Budget Office: “The Amount Of Federal Debt Held By The Public Has Skyrocketed In The Past Few Years …”“The amount of federal debt held by the public has skyrocketed in the past few years, rising from 40 percent of GDP at the end of 2008 to reach an estimated 67 percent by the end of this year.”(“The Budget And Economic Outlook: An Update,”Congressional Budget Office, 8/24/11)
The Washington Post’s Fact Checker: Obama’s Record On The Debt Looks “Pretty Bad For Obama After Not Even Three Years In Office.” “If the chart were recast to show how much the debt went up as a percentage of GDP, it would look pretty bad for Obama after not even three years in office.”(Glenn Kessler, “A Bogus Chart On Obama And The Debt Gets A New Lease On Life,”The Washington Post's" The Fact Checker",9/29/11)
·Fact Checker: “[Obama’s] Record On The Growth Of National Debt Is The Worst Of Recent Presidents.”“An improvement in the nation’s economy would boost the gross domestic product, which would certainly begin to reduce his ratio. But the fact remains that under basic economic measures, not phony ones, his record on the growth of the national debt is the worst of recent presidents.”(Glenn Kessler, “A Bogus Chart On Obama And The Debt Gets A New Lease On Life,”Ibid, 9/29/11)
Obama Is Responsible For “The Most Rapid Increase In The Debt Under Any U.S. President.”“The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion. It's the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.”(Mark Knoller, “National Debt Has Increased $4 Trillion Under Obama,”CBS News,8/22/11)
·By Next Election Obama Will Have Added “$22,500 In New Debt For Every Man, Woman And Child In The Nation — Enough To Pay For A New Toyota Corolla For Each Of Them.”“By the time the next election rolls around, the government will have taken on almost $7 trillion in debt under Obama. It’s hard to explain away a number so big. Republicans will find clever ways to make that number more digestible, including handy stats such as reducing that amount to $22,500 in new debt for every man, woman and child in the nation — enough to pay for a new Toyota Corolla for each of them.”(Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen, “President Obama’s Big Drags,”Politico, 8/4/11)
OBAMA HAS REPEATEDLY CHOSEN NOT TO TAKE THE LEAD ON FISCAL DISCIPLINE
Obama Broke His Promise To Cut The Deficit In Half
PROMISE: Obama Pledged To Cut The Deficit In Half By The End Of His First Term.OBAMA:“And that's why today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office.”(President Barack Obama,Remarks At The Fiscal Responsibility Summit, Washington, D.C., 2/23/09)
·“President Barack Obama Plans To Cut The U.S. Budget Deficit To $533 Billion By The End Of His First Term …”“President Barack Obama plans to cut the U.S. budget deficit to $533 billion by the end of his first term by increasing taxes on the wealthy and cutting spending for the war in Iraq, according to an administration official. Obama wants to reduce the deficit because he’s concerned that over time, federal borrowing will make it harder for the U.S. economy to grow and create jobs, said the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.”(Hans Nichols, “Obama Plans To Reduce Budget Deficit To $533 Billion By 2013,”Bloomberg, 2/21/09)
FAIL: Even If Every Part Of Obama’s Deficit Reduction Proposal Was Enacted, The Deficit At The End Of His First Term Would Still Be $1.33 Trillion, Over Double What He Promised.(“The President’s Plan For Economic Growth And Deficit Reduction; Table S-3,”Office Of Management And Budget, 9/19/11)
·Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner Said Even If Congress Enacted The President’s Budget “We Would Still Be Left With A Very Large Interest Burden And Unsustainable Obligations Over Time.”GEITHNER: ““You’re absolutely right that with the president’s plan, even if Congress were to enact it, and even if Congress were to hold to it and reduce those deficits to three percent of GDP over the next five years, we would still be left with a very large interest burden and unsustainable obligations over time.”(Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner,Remarks Before Senate Budget Committee, Washington, D.C., 2/17/11)
Instead Obama Racked Up Three Record Deficits
FY2011’s Budget Deficit Was The Third Highest In The Last 65 Years, Behind Obama’s Previous Two Record Deficits.“At 8.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the $1.3 trillion budget deficit that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects for 2011 will be the third-largest shortfall in the past 65 years (exceeded only by the deficits of the preceding two years).”(“The Budget And Economic Outlook: An Update,”Congressional Budget Office, 8/24/11)
·FY2009: The Federal Budget Deficit Was $1.416 Trillion, The Highest In U.S. History.(“Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2010,”Congressional Budget Office, 10/7/10)
·FY2011: The Federal Budget Deficit Was $1.299 Trillion, The Second Highest In U.S. History.(“Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2011,”Ibid, 10/7/11)
·FY2010: The Federal Budget Deficit Was $1.291 Trillion, The Third Highest In U.S. History.(“Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2010,”Ibid, 10/7/10)
Obama Ignored His Own Fiscal Commission
Obama Promised That “Once The Bipartisan Fiscal Commission Finishes Its Work, I Will Spend The Next Year Making The Tough Choices Necessary To Further Reduce Our Deficit And Lower Our Debt.”OBAMA:“And once the bipartisan fiscal commission finishes its work, I’ll spend the next year making the tough choices necessary to further reduce our deficit and lower our debt -- whether I get help from the other side or not.”(President Barack Obama,Remarks At The Cuyahoga Community College West Campus, Parma, OH, 9/8/10)
President Obama Said His Fiscal Commission “Can't Be One Of Those Washington Gimmicks That Lets Us Pretend We Solved A Problem.”OBAMA: “That's why I've called for a bipartisan, Fiscal Commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The Commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline.”(President Barack Obama,Address Before A Joint Session Of Congress On The State Of The Union, 1/27/10)
Obama Did Not Opt "For The Bold, Comprehensive Approach To Reining In The Fast-Growing Federal Debt” That His Fiscal Commission Recommended When He Crafted His Budget."With the budget he is to unveil Monday, President Obama has not opted for the bold, comprehensive approach to reining in the fast-growing federal debt that his own fiscal commission has said is needed, now."(Jackie Calmes, "A Cautious Approach Seeking Bipartisan Appeal,"The New York Times,2/13/11)
After Shelving Their Recommendations, NBC’s Chuck Todd Asked The President “What Was The Point Of The Fiscal Commission?”(President Barack Obama,The President’s News Conference, Washington, D.C., 2/16/11)
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD): “I Think, In Retrospect, The President Probably Should Have Embraced [Bowles-Simpson].”(KSNV’s “Face To Face,” 8/30/11)
Obama’s Budget Proposed Record Spending And Masked It With Phony Math
Given The Chance To Show Leadership With His Budget, Obama "Chose Instead To Duck" Behind "The Sort Of Budgetary Gimmicks He Once Derided.""Having been given the chance, the cover and the push by the fiscal commission he created to take bold steps to raise revenue and curb entitlement spending, President Obama, in his fiscal 2012 budget proposal, chose instead to duck. To duck, and to mask some of the ducking with the sort of budgetary gimmicks he once derided." (Editorial, "President Obama's Budget Kicks The Hard Choices Further Down The Road,"The Washington Post, 2/15/11)
·President Obama’s FY2012 Budget “Declined To Propose Major Changes To Social Security, Medicare Or Medicaid.”“Even as the administration said it wants to reduce the deficit by more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years, it declined to propose major changes to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, which combined account for more than 40 percent of federal spending.”(Perry Bacon Jr., “In Third Year, Obama Proposes A More Modest Course,”The Washington Post, 2/14/11)
Obama’s Budget Showed That He “Would Not Take The Lead On Any Aggressive Measure To Eliminate The Nation’s $14 Trillion Debt.”"The plan shows that Obama will not take the lead on any aggressive measure to eliminate the nation's $14 trillion debt. This sets up the Obama administration on a collision course with Republicans, who are calling for serious deficit reduction and spending cuts."(Jake Tapper, "President Obama's Budget And The Pending Budget Fight,"ABC News' "Political Punch" Blog, 2/14/11)
Obama Would Rather Use Gimmicks Than Actually Control His Binge Spending
The Washington Post: “The Administration’s Claim To Have Come Up With $4 Trillion In Deficit Reduction Is Misleading. The More Accurate Amount Is Barely Half That …” “The administration’s claim to have come up with $4 trillion in deficit reduction is misleading. The more accurate amount is barely half that, including about $1 trillion in domestic and security spending cuts already agreed to as part of the debt ceiling deal, and $1.5 trillion in tax increases on the wealthy.”(Editorial, “In Debt Plan, Mr. Obama Goes ‘Medium’,”The Washington Post, 9/19/11)
The President Counted $1 Trillion In Savings From Ending The Wars In Afghanistan And Iraq “Already Incorporated In Any Realistic Base Line.”“The administration gives itself credit for another $1 trillion by counting savings — already incorporated in any realistic base line — from winding down military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.(Editorial, “In Debt Plan, Mr. Obama Goes ‘Medium’,”Ibid, 9/19/11)
Obama Counted $866 Billion Worth Of Tax Hikes As “Savings.”“The administration further pads its results by giving itself credit for $866 billion in ‘savings’ from letting the George W. Bush tax cuts expire for those making more than $250,000 a year.”(Editorial, “In Debt Plan, Mr. Obama Goes ‘Medium’,”Ibid, 9/19/11)
If You Remove The Gimmicks From Obama’s Plan “Somewhere Between $1.5-$2 Trillion Worth Of Deficit Reduction Evaporates.”“It's also not really designed to particularly reduce the budget deficit--as Lori Montgomery's piece in the Washington Post makes clear, most of the deficit reduction comes from gimmicky changes in the baseline: assuming that war spending will continue at last year's high levels, and assuming that the Bush tax cuts for the affluent would have been extended indefinitely. If you take away those two assumptions, somewhere between $1.5-$2 trillion worth of deficit reduction evaporates.”(Megan McArdle, “Obama’s Deficit Reduction: A Campaign Document, Not A Policy Plan,”The Atlantic, 9/20/11)
Tags:government, national debt, 15 trillion debt, debt spending, Economy, Crisis, Obama administration, Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Occupy Wall Street, Paul Ryan, Barack Obama, The Big Fail, news sourcesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Rep. Darrell Issa: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paid its top six executives more than $35 million from 2009-2010 even as the companies lost $121.6 billion.
Lawmakers Target Freddie, Fannie Pay, Wall Street Journal. Outraged by six-figure bonuses, lawmakers are moving to slash pay for employees of the mortgage-finance companies. Tags:Rep. Darrell Issa, House Oversight, infographic, government sponsored luxury, Lawmakers Target Freddie, Fannie Pay, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, top six executivesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Open Letter From Bob Russell:
As we head into another Presidential election cycle, racism has once again becoming front and center in the focus of American political discourse. Unfortunately racism, and the hypocrisy that goes with it, is indeed alive and well in our nation today, 146 years after the Civil War ended and 46 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed. It saddens me to see that some in this country have not progressed any further along the road to acceptance of race as a non-factor in life.
If you don’t believe racism is real, just look at the media treatment of Herman Cain. Like him or not, agree with his policies or not, Herman Cain is an authentic American who happens to be black. He is not a hyphenated American; he is an American, period. When I say he is an authentic American I mean that he believes in the Constitution and the values that have made this country great. When I say authentically black, I mean both of his parents are black.
The same media knotheads, who call me a racist because I oppose the policies of Barack Obama, publicly call Herman Cain names like “token negro”, “Oreo cookie”, “bad apple”, “Uncle Tom”, “a black man who knows his place”, and accuse him of “smoking a symbolic crack pipe”, “currying white favor”, and the like- things that I would never dream of saying. Some of these self-absorbed, pretentious “journalists” and commentators are white and some are black, but none of them have a clue what main stream America is about.
Where were these kinds of references in 2007 and 2008? Barack Obama received an awful lot of the white votes. Why were these kinds of comments not made when he was receiving so much support from the white community? You didn’t hear conservatives uttering such tripe; and these same “journalists” and commentators fawned over Obama like he was a god. Conservatives talked about Marxism and socialism running for the White House, not the “house negro”.
Why is Obama, whose mother was white, blacker than Cain, whose parents are both black? Could it be because Cain is a conservative, the worst thing in life a “person of color” can be? I have heard black people and white people, all of them liberals by the way, call Cain vile names that I would never call him, or any other person, regardless of the color of their skin. Obama is of mixed race, Cain is of pure race, yet Cain is the one who is “not black enough”. That is an interesting concept; not a sensible one, but an interesting one, none the less.
Karen Finney, a Democrat “strategist” appearing with Martin Bashir on MSNBC, said that Herman Cain is “a black man who knows his place” and therefore is acceptable to the TEA Party and makes them “feel like they are not racist because they like this guy”. Bashir’s response is “thank you for spelling that out”.
Does anyone else find this as vile and ridiculous as I find it? Has anyone ever heard a TEA Party person make such an asinine
statement? No, I didn’t think so. Lloyd Marcus seems to be accepted at TEA Party events, as are any other “people of color”, who believe in liberty, justice, and the American Way.
Does anyone remember the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court hearings? Thomas referred to the attacks on him as a high-tech lynching. It wasn’t conservative Republicans who trashed Clarence Thomas, it was liberals, Democrats, both black and white, but all of them liberals who are supposedly consumed with “racial equality”. Thomas was ridiculed because his wife is white, not by conservatives, but by liberals. And who could ever doubt the “Reverend” Al Sharpton when he tells us that Cain is not an “authentic black man” because he doesn’t espouse the “oh woe is me” attitude that only government can provide for success in the black community. Cain isn’t being reviled by conservatives but by liberals. We “conservative TEA Party racist types” accept Herman Cain but liberals don’t. Hmmm, curious, this race question.
When a liberal calls me a racist because of my stand for freedom and against the Obama, Reid, Pelosi brand of Marxism, I count it as a compliment. I know I am not a racist and so do they. The key is that they know they have nothing else to stand on so they try the age-old intimidation tactic of name calling. Well, it just doesn’t work any longer. We, the supposed racists, have wised up, and now ignore this tactic. We are no longer intimidated by name calling.
The true racists in the country are those telling American citizens ”of color” that they cannot accomplish anything on their own, that the only way for them to have anything is to hold their hand out to liberal white folks who know what is in their best interests. Or they can hold their hand out to “Reverend” Al Sharpton or “Reverend” Jesse Jackson, who will go to their white liberal overseers and ask for “alms for their poor black folks”. Just as a side note, I consider myself a “person of color” also. As far as I know white is still a color, and actually, except for my beard, I am more beige than white.
Have you noticed that the pundits and mouthpieces for racism, black or white, seem to be doing just fine, financially, in the pundit world? And how do the “Justice Brothers”, Al and Jesse, make their money? Do they actually have churches they pastor or do they make their money pandering to white liberal guilt, the government, and telling black Americans that they are less than whites? I surmise that the “Justice Brothers” make their money extorting money from anyone they can find to extort money from. If one doesn’t give them money it must be because one is racist. It can’t possibly be because one believes they are “race hustling poverty pimps”.
And before anyone labels me a racist on that last statement, it is a quote from J. C. Watts, a former Oklahoma Republican Congressman and quarterback at the University of Oklahoma. He made that statement on the floor of the House of Representatives in speaking of “Reverend” Jackson. He must also be a racist in the books of “Reverends” Al and Jesse, and apparently another “house negro telling whites what they want to hear”.
I never tell anyone they can’t make it on their own. I never tell anyone of any color that the answer to their problems is a government hand out, that they are too stupid to succeed, or they are incapable of making a success of themselves. Is the key to success in our nation really a government handout or is it hard work, honesty, integrity, and dedication?
Racism is alive and well in the liberal sections of society. Conservatism says hard work and dedication will bring success, without ever bringing skin color into the mix. Herman Cain worked his way through college. His parents worked at least 2 jobs each when he was young so they could help their children get the education they would need to become successful in life. They didn’t sit back and wait for Al and Jesse to bring them a handout to keep them in line and in poverty. Cain’s parents had a vision of what it takes to succeed in life and they instilled that in their children.
Herman Cain has been successful because he understands how to be successful. He has worked his way up to where he is today through education, dedication to values, and the willingness to apply himself to accomplish the tasks assigned by those above him in authority. He wasn’t content to sit on his butt and wait for Al and Jesse to hand him the pittance they normally hand their dependants. I believe the key to his success as much as anything else is his treatment of others. He is as considerate and respectful of the doorman at a hotel as he is to a CEO of any corporation.
To say in 2011 that Herman Cain has succeeded because he is the “house negro” of the TEA Party and conservative Americans is insulting to all Americans of all colors. It shows where racism dwells and it isn’t in conservative circles. This treatment of Cain shows once again that “people of color” who don’t tow the liberal line will be subjected to attacks of all kinds to keep them in line. For anyone to say that any “person of color” cannot succeed by their own initiative in today’s America is as racist as one can get.
Many Americans, including this writer, oppose Barack Obama because of his Marxist policies and his promise to “fundamentally transform America”. We are called racists and bigots because no one can really oppose his “enlightenment”; it absolutely has to be racism. I am not in Cain’s camp but I do respect and like the man based on his accomplishments and his vision for America.
Neither Cain nor Obama have any standing with me, for better or worse, due to the color of their skin. My opinions of both are based entirely on their policies and their vision of the future of the nation I cherish. I find it rather odd that the people who support Obama are not racists but those who oppose him are racists. And those who support Herman Cain are racists but those who oppose him are not racists. I am like the duck in the AFLAC commercial shaking my head and going, HUH?????????????????
I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.
November 4, 2011 Tags:racism, Racist, Bill Maher, Liberal propaganda, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, A.F. Branco, political cartoon, Open Letter, Bob Russell, Okalhoma, racism, hypocrisyTo 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.