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] - firstname.lastname@example.org (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home Page
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Two Years Later: ObamaCare Remains A Trojan Horse
Two Great Cartoonists. One warned us Two Years Ago! The second Now reveals the problem is at the door.
Tags:ObamaCare, Trojan Horse, It's a tax, IRS agents, hidden enemies, political cartoons, Gary Varvel, AF BrancoTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Household income rose faster in North Dakota than any other state between 2005 and 2010. Only the District of Columbia — home to the bloated federal government and overpaid bureaucrats — had a bigger increase, according to U.S. Census data. Three other energy-producing states — Colorado, West Virginia and Wyoming — rounded out the top five.
The rise in household income for North Dakota began around the time of the oil boom in the mid-2000s. It continues today, evidenced by the stories of North Dakotans featured in a recent video (below) produced by Heritage and the Institute for Energy Research about the often-maligned fracking process and the state’s embrace of drilling.
Susan Gordon moved from California with her daughter to open the WildcatZ Grill in Tioga, ND. “We saw the opportunity for both of us to come here and make something of it,” she said. “Back in California the opportunity wouldn’t have been such.”
North Dakota was one of only 14 states (and the District of Columbia) to experience a rise in household income between 2005 and 2010, according to the most recent Census data. The overall U.S. average during that time declined 4.4 percent. (Complete ranking of all 50 states.)
The oil boom has other benefits for North Dakota as well. The state has an unemployment rate of 3 percent, lowest in the country. The U.S. unemployment rate is 8.2 percent.
Energy has helped boost income in other states as well. The U.S. Energy Information Administration ranks Wyoming, West Virginia and Colorado among the top 10 energy-producing states in America. All three had a household income increase above 4.8 percent.
The opposite is true for Alaska. The state, which has suffered a drop in oil production, had a 6.8 percent decline in household income. The federal government has placed large areas of Alaska off limits for energy production.
Tags:Alaska, bakken, Chart of the Week, Colorado, district of Columbia, employment, energy, Energy Information Administration, fracking, Institute for Energy Research, North Dakota, oil production, unemployment rate, West Virginia, Wyoming, Rob Bluey, Heritage InvestigatesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Sept. 12, 2008: Speaking in Dover, New Hampshire candidate Obama said: “I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” [Video]
Oct. 3, 2008: During a nationally televised Vice-Presidential debate in St. Louis candidate Joe Biden said: “No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama’s plan will see one single penny of their tax raised whether it’s their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax.” [Transcript]
Feb. 24, 2009: In an address to a joint session of Congress President Obama restated the promise in forceful terms: “If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.” [Transcript] [Video]
April 15, 2009: During a White House press briefing, spokesman Robert Gibbs was asked if Obama’s tax pledge applied “to the health care bill.” Gibbs replied: “The statement didn’t come with caveats.” [Transcript] [Video]
Yet Obama’s commitment to the American people was thrown out the window when he signed the healthcare bill into law. The seven Obamacare tax increases that break his “firm pledge” are:
1. The Obamacare Individual Mandate Excise Tax: Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance – as defined by Obama-appointed bureaucrats -- must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following:
2. The Obamacare Medicine Cabinet Tax: This tax took effect in January 2011 and prevents Americans from being able to use their health savings account (HSA),flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).
3. The Obamacare Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax”: Starting in January 2013, Obamacare imposes a cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited under federal law). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.
4. The Obamacare "Haircut" to the Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI: Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). Beginning in January 2013, this new Obamacare provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI.
5. The Obamacare HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike: This provision, which took effect in January 2011, increases the tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
6. The Obamacare Tax on Indoor Tanning Services: Since July of 2010, Americans using indoor tanning salons face a new 10 percent excise tax.
7. Obamacare Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans: Starting in 2018, this provision imposes a new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). Higher thresholds exists for early retirees and those in high-risk professions.
Tags:ATR, Americans for Tax Reform, Obamacare, Stealth Care, Obama lied, mandate is a tax, taxesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Tags:William Warren, political cartoon, ObamaCare, SCOTUS, Barack Obama, Judtice Roberts, taxpayers, It is just a taxTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
White House, Dems Won't Agree With SCOTUS And Admit Individual Mandate Is A Tax
Today In Washington, D.C. - June 29, 2011:
The Senate reconvened and began a period of general business awaiting action from the House. If the House passes the conference report on the highway bill, H.R. 4348, the Senate is expected to take it up later today. The conference report includes language reforming the national flood insurance program and extending student loan rates without raising taxes (despite President Obama’s repeated unwillingness to discuss the issue).
The House reconvened and in addition to conference report issues on H.R. 4348, the Highway Bill, they will continue debate and is expected they will vote on HR 5972 - Fiscal 2013 Dept of Transportation-HUD spending - Appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013
Yesterday the passed the following bills by voice vote: HR 1447 — Aviation Security Advisory Committee HR 3173 — Transportation Worker Identification Credential HR 5843 — Grant funds for training conducted in conjunction with a national HR 5889 — Nuclear terrorism and maritime hijacking.
The also voted and passed the following two Homeland Security bills: HR 4005 (411-9) — Port security gaps - direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a study and report to Congress on gaps in port security in the United States and a plan to address them. HR 4251 (402-21 ) — Port security programs - authorize, enhance, and reform certain port security programs through increased efficiency and risk-based coordination within the Department of Homeland Security.
With the Supreme Court ruling yesterday that the Obamacare mandate that individuals must purchase insurance is a tax, Democrats have gone out of their way to avoid admitting that the mandate is a tax.
Yahoo News writes, “The White House argued on Friday that the individual mandate at the heart of Obamacare is a penalty, not a tax, contradicting the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling a day earlier upholding the historic health care law. . . . ‘You can call it what you want,’ [White House Press Secretary Jay] Carney said, underlining Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will affect only 1 percent of Americans. ‘It is not a broad-based tax.’”
On NBC today, Matt Lauer asked Obama advisor David Axelrod, “Back in 2009 the president adamantly denied that health care reform ways going to be a tax on the American people. Does he now agree this legislation, this law is a tax?” Axelrod ducked, saying, “Whatever you call it, Matt, whether a mandate or tax, what it is is a penalty . . . .” According to Politico, “A top surrogate for President Obama insisted Friday that the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act was not a tax — despite the fact that the Supreme Court narrowly preserved the law on those grounds. ‘Don't believe the hype that the other side is selling,’ Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick told reporters on a conference call. ‘This is a penalty,’ Patrick said.”
Meanwhile, Roll Call writes, “Already, Democratic leaders were stumbling Thursday when asked about the ruling that the mandate was a tax — an argument that was quickly becoming a GOP talking point,” noting that“Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), who heads the Democrats’ communication and policy arm, also sidestepped the question.” And The Daily Caller reports, “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wouldn’t say if he agrees with the Supreme Court ruling that the individual mandate in the health care law is constitutional as a tax.”
The Washington Free Beacon points out, “Obama did not mention the word tax in post-decision remarks calling on the country to ‘move forward.’ The White House website still hosts a blog post that claims to ‘set the record straight’ on Obamacare. ‘The health insurance reform bill being considered in the Senate does not raise taxes on families making less than $250,000,’ wrote Deputy Director of the National Economic Council Jason Furman.”
Tags:White House, Democrats, government healthcare, mandate tax, US Senate, US House, Highway bill, Homeland Security bills, Fiscal 2013, DOT-HUD spendingTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
American's For Prosperity: President Obama promised that his healthcare law, aka Obama Care now aka Stealth Care, was not a tax increase, but now we know it is actually one of largest tax increases in history. Tell Obama: repeal the healthcare bill and pass patient-centered reform. Check out and signthe new AFP "Hands Off My Healthcare" petition.
Editor's Note - Added info from other video archives: The following video posted Sept 20, 2009, by Raginglib shows the president says Five Times the Individual Mandate Was Not A Tax. Comment on the video: "I don't know that it matters how cleverly the president sidestepped George Stephanopoulos on this question: People are still going to view it as a tax increase."
Tags:AFP, Americans for Prosperity, Obama care, Stealth Care, Government Health Care takeover, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, PResident Obama, its a Tax, taxes, Hands off my HealthcareTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Mark Darr, Arkansas Lt. Governor: Today the Supreme Court made its ruling on the Constitutionality of Obamacare. As you know, I stood firm with you and was the only elected official in Arkansas to file suit against this over-reaching mandate pushed on us by the Federal Government.
Like you, I was disappointed with today’s decision. Now, more than ever, it is time for Conservatives in Arkansas to stand firm in our beliefs. Together we can repeal and replace this law and, in turn, work to establish the real healthcare reform our country needs.
I hope you will take a moment to view my statements in the following video. Please let me know your feelings on this important issue.
Tags:Arkansas, Lt. Gov., SCOTUS, Supreme Court, Obamacare, decisionTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
SUPREME COURT: “…the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax… read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance.”(Supreme Court Of The United States Syllabus, National Federation Of Independent Business Et Al. V. Sebelius, Secretary Of Health And Human Services, Et Al., 6/28/12)
Obama Promise: ‘My Plan Won’t Raise Your Taxes One Penny’
SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): “And if you're a family making less than $250,000 a year, my plan won't raise your taxes one penny -- not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Orlando, FL, 8/3/08)
SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): “You will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.” “And if you make less than $250,000 -- if you make less than $250,000 a year, you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.” (Sen. Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Espanola, NM, 9/18/08)
SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): “No family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase.” “And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase – not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Dover, NH, 9/12/08) Tags:Stealth Care, Barack Obama, mandate, tax, mandate tax, middle classTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Supreme Court Ruling Destroys the Concept of Limited Government by Curtis Coleman, Contributing Author: “We crossed the line into the complete destruction of the Founders constitutional design of a limited government,” said Curtis Coleman, Chairman of The Institute for Constitutional Policy, in commenting on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”). “The Court's ruling that the health insurance mandate is constitutional creates a legal precedent giving the federal government the ability to control any and every area of American human life as long as the government taxes the human activity or claims the activity is part of the general welfare or interstate commerce.”
“Chief Justice John Robert’s opinion that the federal government can require individuals to buy health insurance because Congress is taxing the activity makes it possible for Congress to totally control any human activity as long as it taxes it. This is an incredible annihilation of the Constitutional limitation on the power of the federal government,” said Coleman.
“Even if the Congress should eventually repeal Obamacare in the future, the devastating effect on the Founder's design of a limited government will remain. But we must remember that the Supreme Court is not the final court of judgement in our country - it's 'we the people.' Members of the Supreme Court are nominated by the President. 'We the people' elect the President. The President's nominations are affirmed or rejected by the U.S. Senate. 'We the people' choose our U.S. Senators. We must elect a President and U.S. Senators who will select conservative justices who will overturn today's constitutionally catastrophic ruling."
---------------------------- Curtis Coleman is the President, Curtis Coleman's Institute for Constitutional Policy and contributing author to the ARRA News Service.
Tags:Obama Constitution, William Warren, political Cartoon, Curtis Coleman, Supreme Court Ruling, Destroys Limited GovernmentTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Today the People Lost - Chief Justice Roberts Saved Stealth Care
Today in Washington, D.C. - June 28, 2012:
The Supreme Court’s ruling today shocked most of us. SCOTUS upheld President Obama’s unpopular health care law. The SCOTUS action underscored the need for repealing and replacing the law.
We can now call the healthcare bill the Stealth Care. The law was sold to American people on deception. SCOTUS ruled the mandate provision on its own was unconstitutional and then they turned around and decided (5-4) - even though Congress said clearly that the mandate was not a tax and was put in the healthcare bill under the commerce clause, that it didn't matter. They accepted the arguments of the Obama White House that the mandate was really a tax. Thus a deceptive tax disguised as the unconstitutional mandate.
In a conference call today with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), the senator seems as stunned as the rest of us over the decision. When the call was set-up, noone expected this decision.
In March, during the oral arguments on this case, Sen. Johnson told Fox News, “Basically what this law does is it will compel a free individual to engage in a commercial activity for the purpose of the federal government to regulate that activity. It’s an unprecedented power grab by the federal government. . . . Obamacare will further bankrupt this nation. It’s the reason I came here. . . . Obamacare is so unpopular because people just inherently understand that the federal government has no capability of taking over 1/6 of our economy.”
Johnson said today, "The Supreme Court rewrote the law not based on a penalty but on a tax." He also identified that the medicade expansion was struck down. The CBO had estimated the cost to the states as $60 - $100 billion to state budgets. Now this cost will be born at the federal level and that in fact we can expect these costs to be underestimated. The government is already fiscally overburdened and this may force us quicker towards bankruptcy.
Sarah Palin responded today, "This proves to be such an unsettling time in America as we undergo the fundamental transformation that Barack Obama promised he would do to us if elected. Obamacare was dealt in deception and confusion by flooding the public with an overwhelming amount of conflicting “rationale” via thousands of pages of unread legislative detail, which is the radical left’s M.O. Obama promised the American people this wasn’t a tax and that he’d never raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000. We now see that this is the largest tax increase in history. It will slam every business owner and every one of the 50% of Americans who currently pay their taxes. The other 50% are being deceived if they think they’re going to get a free ride – because Medicaid is broke. Recipients of Obama’s “free health care” will have fewer choices and less accessibility. Trust me – this much more expensive health care WILL be rationed; to claim otherwise defies all economic and common sense."
Congress: Today, the House voted (255-67) to; find Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. This is the first time in history that the House has held a cabinet member in Contempt of Congress
The House Democratic Leader, Nancy Pelosi led a walkout off the vote and thus did not vote. So, she and many other democrats refused to vote no on impeaching Eric Holder. In-other-words, they were not willing to vote in support of Eric Holder even though they say otherwise. Amazingly 108 democrats and 2 Republicans did not vote and 1 democrat voted present. However 17 democrat representatives, including Rep. Mike Ross (AR-04), voted yes for holding Holder in contempt while 2 Republicans voted no.
Yesterday, the House yesterday HR 4018 by voice vote - "To improve the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program."
Today, the Senate will likely to return to S. 1940, the flood insurance bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has filled the amendment tree, blocking amendments to the legislation. Votes are possible today.
On the Senate floor today, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell responded to the Supreme Court's decision, “Two and a half years ago, a Democrat president teamed up with a Democrat-led Congress to force a piece of legislation on the American people that they never asked for, and that has turned out to be just as disastrous as many of us predicted. . . . [T]he President of the United States himself promised up and down that this bill was not a tax.This was one of the Democrats’ top selling points — because they knew it would have never passed if they said it was. The Supreme Court has spoken. This law is a tax. This bill was sold to the American people on a deception.”
Recalling President Obama’s famous interview from 2009 with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos where Stephanopoulos asked him over and over again if the individual mandate was a tax. Obama said, “[F]or us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.” Stephanopoulos pressed, “But you reject that it's a tax increase?” “I absolutely reject that notion,” Obama replied.
Leader McConnell pointed out, “We pass plenty of terrible laws around here that the court finds constitutional. Constitutionality was never an argument to keep this law in place, and it’s certainly not one you’ll hear from Republicans in Congress.”
Further, Bloomberg News writes, “The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the bulk of the 2010 health-care law means wealthy investors may sell assets before the end of the year as taxes in the overhaul remain in place and will take effect next year. The health-care law includes levies and fees that are projected to raise an estimated $813 billion in revenue over 10 years to help pay for the expansion of insurance coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That figure includes the penalties under either the employer mandate or the individual mandate, which the court ruled was constitutional under Congress’ taxing power.”
Meanwhile, ABC News reported yesterday, “Just 36 percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll express a favorable opinion of the health care law . . . . While the law’s popularity is weak, barely more than half, 52 percent, see it unfavorably, including 38 percent who have a ‘strongly’ unfavorable opinion.”
Both Speaker Boehner and Senate Republican Leader McConnell agree that the only one way to ‘fix’ Obamacare is a full repeal of the bill that clears the way for common-sense, step-by-step reforms that protect Americans’ access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost. It appears that's precisely what Republicans are committed to doing.
In conclusion: Obama Care can now be called Stealth Care!Today the People Lost - Chief Justice Roberts Saved Stealth Care. Tags:SCOTUS, Supreme Court, Obama Care, Stealth Care, US House, Eric Holder, Contempt of CongressTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), a good friend of the Constitution and We the People, has sent President Obama a powerful letter co-signed by 20 Senators. The letter spells out many unlawful aspects of Obama’s recent announcement that he will not enforce U.S. laws against young illegal aliens and will reward their illegal status with residency and work permits.
Grassley doesn’t mince words in his letter. He accuses Obama of taking an action for which he lacks legal authority, is contrary to his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” is an affront to representative government and the legislative process in bypassing Congress, and is an inappropriate use of Executive power.
Grassley points out that Obama has full knowledge that his action was unlawful. Just last year, Obama stated, “This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. … We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.”
Here are a few of the 29 questions (slightly paraphrased and condensed) which Grassley asked the President to answer. Why has your position on your legal authority changed?
Did you consult with attorneys about this and get a legal opinion and, if so, please provide copies of those legal opinions and emails. How will you treat the parents and others who deliberately violated federal immigration law by illegally bringing these young people into the U.S.?
What criteria will you use to decide who gets work permits and who doesn’t, and what will be the status of the illegal aliens after the expiration of the two-year span of your executive order? Will the implementation cost of this gigantic program be paid by those who benefit, or be loaded onto the U.S. taxpayers?
Obama supporters try to justify his illegal order by claiming that the young people were brought into the U.S. through no fault of their own. Then we must assume that the fault belongs to the parent or whoever brought the kids, so those persons should be deported and allowed to take their children with them.
Although Obama bragged that his executive order will make our policies “more fair” and “more just,” Grassley prefaced his litany of legal and fiscal questions about Obama’s executive order by citing its fundamental unfairness. American citizens of ages comparable to the illegals whom Obama is rewarding, ages 16 to 24, are suffering 17 percent unemployment, and another 32 percent of American citizens aged 18 to 29 are underemployed.
Grassley wrote: “It is astonishing that your administration would grant work authorizations to illegal immigrants during this time of record unemployment.” No wonder Obama wouldn’t answer a reporter’s question as to why he favors foreign workers over American.
Obama argues that he has the authority to stop deportations of illegal aliens and reward them with work permits because he was using “prosecutorial discretion.” But prosecutorial discretion is properly applied only on a case-by-case basis to deal with extenuating circumstances, not for cancelling prosecution of a million people.
Obama’s action is an open invitation to fraud and lies. For example, Obama says his plan is for illegal aliens who arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16 and are still under the age of 30. Will the young illegal aliens Obama is favoring be required to prove their age with verifiable documents such as birth certificates, school records, W-2s, or tax returns, or affidavits under penalty of perjury?
Obama’s estimated figure of eligibles is 800,000, but the Pew Hispanic Center says it will be 1.4 million. The bipartisan amnesty of the 1980s was estimated to top out at one million, but wholesale document fraud coupled with lack of enforcement of sanctions increased the number to 3 million.
Obama undoubtedly thinks he will benefit from the Mainstream Media’s continued failure to report the many costs to U.S. taxpayers of tolerating the influx of illegal aliens. According to Victor Davis Hanson, California is a showcase of the problem: taxes are the highest and rising, 70 percent of the last 10 million new Californians are on Medicaid, public schools have plunged to 48th and 49th in English and math test scores, and 50 percent of college freshmen need to take remedial courses.
Obama’s pitch to illegal aliens is one more unlawful, unilateral, dictatorial action added to his Administration’s 21 specific violations of law that were itemized in an amazing document issued a few weeks go by the Attorneys General of nine states.
Obama’s gambit to admit illegal aliens will not help our country. It is clearly designed to help Obama attract a bloc of voters to reelect him in November, and that’s no excuse for violating the laws of the United States. Further Reading:
Tags:Phyllis Schlafly, Senator Chuck Grassley, questions, Obama administration, DOJ, U.S. not enforcing US Law, border control, illegal aliens, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
NY Democrat AG Investigating Political Free Speech
Today in Washington, D.C. - June 27, 2012: Tomorrow the Supreme Court releases their decision on the Affordable Care act.
The Senate reconvened today and is likely to return to S. 1940, the flood insurance bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has filled the amendment tree, blocking amendments to the legislation. Votes are possible today.
Yesterday, the Senate voted 92-3 to confirm Robin S. Rosenbaum to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida. Also yesterday, the Senate voted 92-4 to concur with the House amendment to S.3187, the FDA user fee bill, thus passing the bill.
The House reconvened and is scheduled continue debate from yesterday on HR 4018 - Public Safety Officers' (Police) Benefits Program and HR 5972 - Fiscal 2013 Dept of Transportation-HUD spending - Appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013.
Yesterday, the House passed by voice vote:
HR 4850 — Energy-saving innovations
HR 5625 — Hydroelectric projects
HR 4223 — Theft of pre-retail medical products
HR 2297 — D.C. Southwest waterfront
The House passed motion to instruct conferees on HR 4348 (201-194) — Surface transportation - Other motions pending.
The House also began and suspended debate on the following bills:
HR 5889 — Nuclear terrorism and maritime hijacking
HR 5843 — Grant funds for training conducted in conjunction with a national laboratory or research facility
HR 4251 — Port security programs
HR 4005 — Port security gaps
HR 3173 — Transportation Worker Identification Credential
HR 1447 — Aviation Security Advisory Committee
Bills naming government buildings, including post offices, are not listed.
Free Speech Continues To Be Attacked:
As previously addressed, Sen. McConnell warned that “[I]f disclosure is forced upon some but not all, it’s not an act of good government, it’s a political weapon. And that’s precisely what those who are pushing [the DISCLOSE Act] have in mind. This is nothing less than an effort by the government itself to exposes its critics to harassment and intimidation, either by government authorities or through third-party allies. And that should concern every one of us.”
And sure enough, The New York Times reports today, “Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman [D] of New York has begun investigating contributions to tax-exempt groups that are heavily involved in political campaigns, focusing on a case involving the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has been one of the largest outside groups seeking to influence recent elections but is not required to disclose its donors. Mr. Schneiderman issued a wide-ranging subpoena on Tuesday to executives at a foundation affiliated with the chamber, seeking e-mails, bank records and other documents to determine whether the foundation illegally funneled $18 million to the chamber for political and lobbying activities, according to people with knowledge of the investigation. . . . In a complaint filed last year with the attorney general, watchdog groups asserted that the loan [they’ve asked Schneiderman to investigate] had been used to finance lobbying for ‘tort reform’ legislation in Congress and to run issue advertising in the 2004 presidential and Congressional campaigns, most of it against Democrats. . . . Calls from Democrats and ethics watchdogs for tighter oversight of the groups’ political activities have resulted in little action by either the Federal Election Commission, which is deadlocked over the issue, or the Internal Revenue Service, which regulates charities at the federal level. But the subpoena from Mr. Schneiderman, a Democrat who made tougher campaign finance laws a centerpiece of his 2010 election campaign, suggests that he — like his predecessors Eliot Spitzer and Andrew M. Cuomo — is preparing to aggressively exploit the unusually broad regulatory powers of his office to vault onto the national stage.”
In other words, the Democrat Attorney General of New York is now issuing subpoenas asking about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s donors in part because Democrats and liberal groups don’t like its political activities and he is hoping himself for future personal gain.
As McConnell previously explained, “Justice Thomas thought the majority opinion in Citizens United didn’t go far enough. Citing recent accounts of people who’ve been blackmailed, threatened, and targeted for retaliation for speaking out on various political issues over the past couple of years, he said the Court failed to acknowledge their constitutional significance.” McConnell noted, “His opinion reminds us that the courts have found the chilling effect of harassment and intimidation on free speech can actually run afoul of the First Amendment. . . . it’s of a different order of magnitude from the government itself facilitating or encouraging these things … or the government using its own powers to harass or intimidate those who participate in the political process..” Tags:Washington, D.C., House bills, Senate bills, free speech, New York, chamber of commerceTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
As Tony Branco details, Barack Obama is the most Transparent President Ever and his administration is as well; We can actually see right to the Disaster, usurper, amateur, corrupt, crony capitalist, lawless, race divider, socialist that he shows forth with arrogance, pride, and a disdain for America as clearly revealed by Denesh D'Souza.
Denish D'Souza writes: "So who was Barack Obama Sr.? First and foremost he was an anticolonialist. He came of age during Africa’s struggle for independence from European rule. . . . Anticolonialists divide the world into two groups: the colonizers (white Western oppressors) and the colonized (Third World victims). For modern anticolonialists, the problem is no longer Europe; America is the rogue elephant overrunning the Third World.
"If Obama shares his father’s anticolonial ideology, this would explain a lot about his eagerness to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. It would also explain his sympathies for the Lockerbie bomber, not because Obama favors the killing of Americans, but because he views Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi as a resister in a noble cause. Since America is the rogue elephant with a mammoth nuclear arsenal, we can understand why Obama seems more eager to reduce America’s nuclear stockpile than to prevent Iran from obtaining its first nuclear bomb. . . .
"Obama’s other mentor was his teacher at Harvard Law School, Roberto Mangabeira Unger, perhaps the leading anticolonial scholar in the field of legal studies. . . . Basically he advocated pulling down the existing power structures and replacing them with alternative structures more reflective of Third World and minority interests. . . .
"Given what Obama learned from Unger, we can now better understand why Obama might want to hire defense attorneys for Muslim fighters captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has found a way to use law as an instrument of politics, and in this case he has chosen to make it a weapon of anticolonial resistance, of giving jihadis the full legal protection of U.S. citizens – and doing it at taxpayer expense. . . .
"Barack Obama was elected president as perhaps the least known man to occupy the Oval Office. Now, two years later, we are only beginning to understand what drives Obama, what makes him do the strange and scary things he is doing. In sum, we are finally finding out the truth about our president – a truth that he has done his best to hide and suppress."
Denish D'Souza is involved in a movie production which will be "Coming this summer to a theater near you will be one of the most important and politically explosive films of the decade, 2016 Obama’s America. The new trailer is now available for you to view.
"2016 Obama’s America is a thrilling journey to uncover President Obama’s past, understand Obama’s current actions, and how Obama will seek to redefine America’s future.
"2016 Obama’s America takes audiences on a gripping visual journey into the heart of the world’s most powerful office to reveal the struggle of whether one man’s past will redefine America over the next four years. The film examines the question, 'If Obama wins a second term, where will we be in 2016?'" Tags:Barack Obama, transparency, political cartoon, AF Branco, Denish D'Souza, View of Obama, moviem 2016 Obama's AmericaTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
From 'Reboot' to Replay provides clear evidence that while President Obama may not know what he is doing, Mr. Teleprompter both faithfully works (more than Obama) and has a memory card which keeps Mr. Obama on track when he forgets. However we also do not forget. Time to change direction.
Tags:from reboot, to replay, President Barack Obama, repeat speech, Cleveland, Ohio, 2012 election, Obama campaign, class warfare, attack republicans, TOTUS, telepropter, commercial ad, RNCTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Federal Advisory Committee Members Land Millions in Taxpayer Backing
Lachlan Markay, Heritage Investigates: Members of a federal advisory committee on the adoption of biofuels have seen millions in taxpayer dollars steered to their companies while sitting on the committee, Scribe reports in today’s Washington Examiner.
The Biomass Research and Development Board, created in 2000, makes recommendations to the Secretaries of Energy and Agriculture on federal incentives for and adoption of biofuels. It contains an advisory committee with some very noteworthy members.
The presence of at least six taxpayer-backed companies on the advisory committee raises serious conflict of interest questions, as I explain in the Examiner.
The San Francisco-based company Solazyme made headlines in December when the Navy and the Ag Department jointly announcedthat the former would purchase biofuels from the company for up to $15 a gallon. Less reported was the presence of Solazyme Co-founder and President Harrison Dillon on the panel advising Agriculture on the adoption of biofuels…
The Navy biofuels deal also steered federal dollars to a company called Dynamic Fuels, which manufactures biofuels from used cooking oil. Dynamic is a joint venture of Syntroleum Corp. and Tyson Foods. Sitting on the biofuel advisory committee is Robert Ames. Ames was Tyson’s vice president in charge of commercializing the company’s renewable energy projects, including Dynamic Fuels, when the contract went through. In January 2012, Solazyme hired him as its vice president of fuels commercialization.
Advisory committee member William Provine, now the director of Science and Technology External Affairs at DuPont, was until April 2012 a board member at Butamax Advanced Biofuels, a joint venture of DuPont and BP. In 2010, Butamax announced an $8.8 million cost-sharing agreement with DOE for the production of a sugar-based biofuel called isobutanol.
DOE has steered massive sums to Archer Daniels Midland for biofuel-related projects since the committee’s creation. ADM landed a $99.2 million contract in 2010, for carbon sequestration technology for biofuel producers. The year before, it got a $24.8 million grant to develop and commercialize advanced biofuels. Meanwhile, Todd Werpy, ADM’s vice president for Biofuels and Biochemical Research, sat on the advisory committee.
In October 2011, DOE announced up to $4 million in grants for LanzaTech, whose CEO sits on the advisory committee, to develop a biofuel called butadiene. The same month, ArborGen, whose then-vice president of product development had a seat on the committee, got $6.3 million from DOE to develop wood-based biofuels.
Via GOPUSA: It seems like a liberal's best friend is a bad economy. After all, when things aren't going well, it's the perfect time for government to step in, take more of our money, and "fix" things. Right? Now, not only are more than one in seven Americans on food stamps, but Obama wants more people to enroll. Go figure!
That's right... more than one in seven Americans are on food stamps. Think about that for a moment. Now consider the fact that millions are being spent by the Obama administration to advertise and encourage more people to sign up.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been running radio ads for the past four months encouraging those eligible to enroll. The campaign is targeted at the elderly, working poor, the unemployed and Hispanics.
The department is spending between $2.5 million and $3 million on paid spots, and free public service announcements are also airing. The campaign can be heard in California, Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio, and the New York metro area.
"Research has shown that many people -- particularly underserved seniors, working poor, and legal immigrants -- do not understand the requirements of the program," said Kevin Concannon, a USDA under secretary.
So, let's get this straight.... millions of taxpayer dollars are being spent on a program that the targeted audience is currently doing without. They are getting by without becoming part of the governmental machine that loves to lure people in and keep them in need forever.
Some 46.4 million people are in the food stamps program, also known as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. That's just a touch below the record high hit in January.
Still, more than one in four Americans eligible for food stamps do not participate, according to USDA records.
And the rate is much lower among the the elderly and people just above the poverty line. Nearly two-thirds of folks in these categories aren't enrolled.
When you consider Obama's plans for health care, housing, student loans, food stamps, and more... it's not too surprising that today's youth are expecting the government to "give them" a job. Read the full story at CNN.com Tags:Food Stamps, DOA, Dept of Agriculture, USDA, Obama administration, enslavement, government doleTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Unlike Obama Spiking the Osama Football,
The Taxpayers, Not An Egotist, Will Be
Spiking the Obamacare Football
Today in Washington, D.C. - July 26, 2012: Editorial comment: The Supreme Court announced its intention to release it's decision on Federal Affordable Healthcare Act, aka, ObamaCare, on Thursday. While some Republican leaders and others are asking that we taxpayers stop addressing the issue using the term ObamaCare, they do not run this or other "free speech" sites. Speaker Boehner has even warned House Republicans not to "spike the football" in celebration if the Supreme Court decides in favor of the States.
Well, to be blunt! We understand the difference between "Obama spiking the Osama football" as pictured again today and what we as taxpayers will be doing if the proper decision is made by the Supreme Court. We the taxpayers are not running for office and we will "spike the obamacare football. We definitely are not stupid. We understand that real threat to the Constitution. We moved and motivated our state officials and others to listen and to file the lawsuits against ObamaCare. We - Americans are tired of their rights, property and money being trampled on by the "button collared" Washington establishment, who, as a majority, have no idea what it is like to live, work, pay the bills, and suffer under the debt incurred by Washington, D.C. Big Government spending and frivolousness waste!
If the Obamacare is determined to be unconstitutional, damn right, I will join millions of others in "spiking the football" and will be jumping up and down and then falling on my knees and thanking God for the wisdom that He gave our forefathers in establishing separation of powers. If the decision is only a partial victory with the "mandate to buy healthcare insurance" being struck down. we will still cheer, thank God, and then get on my computer and with letters to Congress to "Repeal the Bill." The House reconvenes at 2 p.m. for legislative business. Potential bills for on their schedule for consideration:
HR 4850 — Energy-saving innovations
HR 5625 — Hydroelectric projects
HR 5889 — Nuclear terrorism and maritime hijacking
HR 4223 — Theft of pre-retail medical products
HR 4018 — Police benefits program
HR 2297 — D.C. Southwest waterfront
HR 4251 — Port security programs
HR 4005 — Port security gaps
HR 1447 — Aviation Security Advisory Committee
HR 5843 — Grant funds for training conducted in conjunction with a national laboratory or research facility
HR 3173 — Transportation Worker Identification Credential
Under an open rule:
HR 5972 — Fiscal 2013 Transportation-HUD spending
HR 4348 — Surface transportation
The Senate reconvened and resumed post-cloture consideration of the motion to concur with the House amendment to S.3187, the FDA user fee bill.
At 11:30 AM, the Senate will take up the nomination of Robin S. Rosenbaum to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida. Following a half hour of debate, the Senate will vote on the nomination which means Rosembaum has little or no opposition to being confirmed.
This afternoon, the Senate will resume post-cloture consideration of the motion to concur with the House amendment to S.3187, the FDA user fee bill. If all the remaining debate time is not used, a vote on the motion to concur (which would send the bill to the president for approval) could occur this afternoon.
Yesterday, the Senate voted 89-3 to invoke cloture (cut off debate) on the motion to concur with the House amendment to S.3187. Also yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) filled the amendment tree on the flood insurance bill, S. 1940, blocking ALL amendments to the legislation.
Two excellent editorials today rightly praise the Supreme Court for its important decision yesterday reaffirming the Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling protecting political speech. Unfortunately, the decision seems to only have emboldened liberal efforts to go after First Amendment protections of political speech.
The Wall Street Journal editors write, “Believe it or not, the Supreme Court means what it says about the First Amendment. That was the short but sweet message from the Justices on Monday as they affirmed that their 2010 campaign-finance decision in Citizens United is the law of the land—and that goes for states too. In a two paragraph per curiam (speaking without a single author but for the Court) decision in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, the High Court summarily reversed a Montana Supreme Court ruling that upheld a state law limiting corporate expenditures to candidates or political action committees that support candidates. The rebuke was necessary because the Montana court had willfully ignored the legal precedent and had seemed to be baiting the High Court to formally accept the case and reconsider Citizens United.”
And the editors of the Chicago Tribune, President Obama’s hometown paper, ask, “What part of ‘free speech’ does the Montana Supreme Court not understand? That was the question that arose after it upheld a state ban on corporate campaign spending — in defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 ruling that corporations are entitled to participate in debate about elections. On Monday, the court informed the Montana justices: We meant what we said.”
The Tribune editors write, “Not that such realities cut much ice with those who regard the Citizens United ruling as a threat to democracy and a boon to special interests. The special interests that supposedly gained such entree from the ruling, contrary to myth, have shown little interest in exploiting their new freedom. As an amicus brief filed by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell pointed out, of the $96 million contributed to Super PACs supporting one GOP presidential candidate or another in the primaries, less than 14 percent came from corporations. Less than 1 percent came from publicly traded corporations, which were assumed to be the chief beneficiaries.”
Of course, the Tribune editorial notes, “There were howls of outrage and anguish during the primaries when these committees blanketed radio and TV outlets with ads touting one candidate or trashing another. This free-for-all confirmed the belief of many liberal groups that corporations were brazenly trying to buy elections.” And the WSJ editors add, “This won't be the end of the matter, because the political left has begun to treat Citizens United as the moral equivalent of Dred Scott, as preposterous as that is. They'll keep hoping that one of the majority Justices retires if President Obama wins a second term.”
But Roll Call reports that the Left is pursuing another avenue: trying to amend the First Amendment. “The Supreme Court’s Monday ruling to strike Montana’s ban on corporate campaign spending opens a new chapter in the political money wars, fueling an improbable but increasingly vocal movement to amend the Constitution. . . . More than a dozen Members of Congress have proposed various constitutional amendments in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling to deregulate corporate and union political spending. Some declare that corporations are not people; others empower Congress and the states to restrict campaign spending and contributions. Until now, such proposals have garnered little notice, given the slim likelihood that any could clear the high bar set for amending the Constitution . . . . But the court’s 5-4 ruling in the Montana case, known as American Tradition Partnership Inc. v. Bullock, makes crystal clear that an amendment is needed, watchdogs say.”
In his address at AEI on threats to the First Amendment, Senator Mitch McConnell called this idea “the ultimate act of radicalism.” He said, “Democrats in the House and Senate recently proposed the so-called ‘People’s Rights Amendment’, which basically repeals the First Amendment. And just [recently], citing Citizens United, the President’s top political advisor, David Axelrod, told an audience in Manhattan that, quote, ‘When we win, we will use whatever tools are out there, including a constitutional amendment, to turn [it] back.’ This, my friends, is all you need to know about this administration’s view of free speech. The courts have said that Congress doesn’t have the authority to muzzle political speech. So the President himself will seek to go around it by attempting to change the First Amendment. Amending the First Amendment for the first time in history would be the ultimate act of radicalism.” Tags:SCOTUS, decision, Obamacare, spiking the Football, US House, Us Senate, free speech, democrats attack on free speechTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Herman Cain, Ken Blackwell: Holder's Dereliction of Duty
Bill Smith, Editor: I respect and hold in high regard the following two individuals. Please listen to this short video presentation in which Herman Cain and Ken Blackwell discuss real threats to Americans' voting rights, and the irresponsibility of Obama Attorney General Eric Holder in refusing to deal with these threats.
J. Ken Blackwellformerly served as mayor of Cincinnati, as of State of Ohio, and as Ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Commission. He also serves on the boards of the Club For Growth, the National Taxpayers Union and is a senior fellow for family empowerment at the Family Research Council. a National Federation of Republican Assemblies board member. He is a contributing author to the ARRA News Service.
Herman Cainis a national speaker, American author, business executive, radio host, syndicated columnist, and Conservative Tea Party activist from Georgia. He was a candidate for the 2012 U.S. Republican Party presidential nomination. His articles and speeches have appeared in the ARRA News Service. Tags:Herman Cain, Ken Blackwell, Eric Holder, Dereliction of Duty, Voting rights, Barack Obama Administration. 2012 Election, electionsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
SCOTUS Votes For Free Speech While FCC Seeks to Stamp Out Free Speech
Bill Smith, Editor: It is interesting how those that who object to your free speech are very intent on affecting and limiting your right to it. Today, the Supreme Court again defended free speech in a 5-4 decision released today. The Supreme Court upheld their previous Citizens United decision on free speech by striking down a a 100-year-old Montana state law that banned corporations in that state from spending any of their corporate cash to support or oppose a candidate or a political party. More Info on this decision.
However, yesterday Seton Motley, President of Less Government addressed in the below article that the Obama Administration FCC officials are claiming that your free speech is not protected when you use a computer.
When will the attacks on Free Speech cease? They will cease when the right to free speech has ceased to exist. Which means: when none of the rights of American's set forth in the Bill of Rights continue to exist. When this has happened the free press, pamphleteers, bloggers, cartoonist, investigative journalists, etc. will no longer have a voice. The only voice you will hear is Big Government or at least the voice of the Tyrant of the times.
And on February 4, 2011 Wu became: (A) senior advisor to the (Obama Administration’s) Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for consumer protection and competition issues that affect the Internet and mobile markets.
Great news, eh? What First Amendment goodness has Obama Administration Advisor Wu been up to of late? This.
Free Speech for Computers?
In today’s world, we have delegated many of our daily decisions to computers. On the drive to work, a GPS device suggests the best route; at your desk, Microsoft Word guesses at your misspellings, and Facebook recommends new friends.
In the past few years, the suggestion has been made that when computers make such choices they are “speaking,” and enjoy the protections of the First Amendment.
This is a bad idea that threatens the government’s ability to oversee companies and protect consumers....
Wu wants the government to know where we go via GPS, what we write on word processing software and who we Friend on Facebook.
That isn’t at all totalitarian and creepy.
(W)hen you turn to Google with a question, the search engine must decide, at that moment, what “answers” to give, and in what order to put those answers. If such answers are speech, then any government efforts to regulate Google, like any efforts to bowdlerize Ann Landers, must be examined as censorship....
But if we call computerized decisions “speech,” the judiciary must consider these laws as potential censorship, making the First Amendment, for these companies, a formidable anti-regulatory tool.
Ummm, yeah--that’s sort of the point.
Wu is absurdly asserting that what you type in the “Search” field is protected speech--but the results you get are not. The “Search” results being, of course, a dead giveaway as to what you typed in the “Search” field.
Do you want the government having blanket access to where you go, what you write and for what you search--just because you did any of it on a computer? Neither do I. Wu does.
ObamaCare contains in its monstrous folds the regulation of any computer or device on which you do anything health-related, including storing health records. Wu--obviously an overachiever--goes several huge steps further.
The First Amendment has wandered far from its purposes when it is recruited to protect commercial automatons from regulatory scrutiny....
The line can be easily drawn: as a general rule, nonhuman or automated choices should not be granted the full protection of the First Amendment, and often should not be considered “speech” at all....
Computers make trillions of invisible decisions each day; the possibility that each decision could be protected speech should give us pause.
“Computers make trillions of invisible decisions”--devised, designed and elicited by...people. For whom the First Amendment acknowledges unlimited free speech.
What should give us pause is that people like Wu teach at our universities--and are “advisors” to this administration.
To give computers the rights intended for humans is to elevate our machines above ourselves.
No, it means when we speak via our computers -- we’re still speaking. Which makes us the masters of our machines--and our machines free from Congressional speech abridgment.
The First Amendment--and the Constitution in its entirety--makes us the masters of our government. Wu wants to turn that relationship the other way round. Tags:frees speech, computers, FCC, limiting frees speech, stopping frees speech, Tim Wu, Net neutrality, Seton Motley, President of Less GovernmentTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
After ObamaCare, Let's Start Over and Get It Right
Jim Jordan, Chairman, Republican Study Committee: [This week], the Supreme Court will announce its ruling on an unworkable, unpopular, and – I believe – unconstitutional law. But no matter how the Court rules on ObamaCare, the law will always be bad policy. It will make health care even more expensive and push many businesses to hire fewer people and stop offering insurance to their employees.
Even if the Court rules the individual mandate or other provisions unconstitutional, it could leave much of the law intact. Whatever remains after Thursday should be completely repealed. We can then start over and take the time to get health care reform right with strong public support. We don’t need a complicated, 2,700-page law to make health care more affordable. We just need to put the decision-making power in the hands of patients and families.
There are a number of simple, common sense ways to do this. One you may not have heard much about is tax reform. For decades, employer-sponsored insurance has received a tax break not given to health insurance bought on the individual market. That means the federal government encourages us to carry insurance that disappears if we lose or change our jobs. People should not pay a penalty for using their own money to find coverage that fits their needs and continues from one job to another. We should treat insurance the same no matter how it’s purchased.
As you wait for the Court to release its decision, you can read about many other ideas for reform proposed by RSC members in this 27-page document.
------------------- Editor's Note:Those Watching ObamaCare: note that the "The number of pages depends on font size, line spacing, and margins. . . . Obamacare bill was over 2,000 pages long. This was true when it was in bill form. But now that it has been signed into law, its statute form is just 961 pages. But because Obamacare has the same number of words no matter how you format it, word count is a more accurate way of calculating its length. Just how long is 2,163,744 words? The epic novel War and Peace is only 560,000 words long. Atlas Shrugged weighs in at 645,000 words."
Regrdless, it appears that reading the RSC proposed 27 pages will be a lot easier to digest. Tags:Obamacare, repeal obamacare, RSC, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Personal Tweets by the editor: Dr. Bill - OzarkGuru
Married 48yr #Conservative #Constitution #NRALife #GunRights #USAF 22yr #military #veteran #Christian #CCOT #ProLife #TEAParty #GOP #TCOT #SGP #schoolchoice
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.