Happy Talk, Sad Results - Obama Economy Contracts

Despite News Of A Shrinking Economy, The Democrat Leader Continues To Repeat Party Talking Points

Four Years Of Dem Rhetoric: ‘An Economic Recovery Has Begun’

TODAY: Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): “We are in a recovery.” (Sen. Harry Reid, Floor Remarks, 1/31/13)

2013: President Obama: “An economic recovery has begun.” (President Obama, 2nd Inaugural Address, 1/21/13)

2012: Vice President Biden: “America has turned the corner.” (Vice President Biden, Remarks At Democratic National Convention, 9/16/12)

2011: President Obama: ‘We are now turning the corner.’ “We didn’t just rescue the economy we put it on the strongest footing for the future. … Here’s the good news, because of these historic efforts, we are now turning the corner.” (“Obama: 'We're Turning The Corner,'” Politico, 3/8/11)

2010: “Vice President Joe Biden Thursday helps kick off what the White House calls ‘Recovery Summer,’ A Six Week Long Push To Highlight What The Administration Says Will Be Jobs Created This Summer And Fall By A Surge In Federal Stimulus Spending Across The Country.” (“White House Begins New Stimulus Push,” CNN, 6/17/10)

• Sec. Geithner: “Welcome to the Recovery.” (Sec. Geithner, “Welcome To The Recovery,” The New York Times, 8/3/10)
• Sec. LaHood: “Welcome, everyone, to the Summer of Recovery!” (Sec. LaHood, White House Blog Post, 6/18/10)

2009: Vice President Biden: The stimulus will “literally drop-kicks us out of this recession.” “This is a monumental project, but I think it's doable. But I just think we got to stay on top (inaudible) and we got to stay on top of that on a weekly basis. Because this is about getting this out and spent in 18 months to create 3.5 million jobs and do -- to set -- tee this up so the rest of the good work that's being done here literally drop-kicks us out of this recession and we begin to grow again and begin to employ people again.” (Vice President Biden, Remarks At Recovery Plan Implementation Meeting, The White House, 2/25/09)

Reality: ‘Real Gross Domestic Product … Decreased’

AP: “US economy shifted into reverse in late 2012” (“US Economy Shifted Into Reverse In Late 2012,” AP, 1/30/13)

NPR: “In 4th Quarter, economy shrank for first time since '09” (“In 4th Quarter, Economy Shrank For First Time Since '09,” NPR, 1/30/13)

CBS: “Economy shrinks 0.1% in Q4” (“Economy Shrinks 0.1% In Q4,” CBS, 1/30/13)

“Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- decreased at an annual rate of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012 (that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to the ‘advance’ estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP increased 3.1 percent.” (“National Income And Product Accounts, Gross Domestic Product, 4th Quarter And Annual 2012,” Bureau Of Economic Analysis, 1/30/13)

Unemployment Rate: 7.8% (“The Unemployment Situation – December 2012,” Bureau Of Labor Statistics, 1/4/13)

---

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY): “Yesterday, we learned that our economy contracted for the first time in more than three years. This news comes, of course, after President Obama spent an entire election promising Americans that a return to robust economic growth was right around the corner, and little more than a week after the President said in his inaugural address that ‘economic recovery has begun.’” (Sen. McConnell, Floor Remarks, 1/31/13)

---

Tags: Democrat, Happy Talk, Sad Results, the economy, GDP, GDP decreased, gross domestic product, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Obama Nation Proclamation: Back to Future

AF Branco:

---

Tags: AF Branco, editorial cartoon, Obama Nation Proclamation, slavery, for all To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Obama's Act of Constitutional Disobedience

Phil Kerpen, Contributing Author: The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals emphatically smacked down the crazy idea that the president has the power to make recess appointments while the Senate is not in recess.

"An interpretation of 'the Recess' that permits the President to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction," Chief Judge Judge David B. Sentelle wrote. "This cannot be the law."

The decision means the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which lacks a quorum to function without the improperly appointed members, should shut down until legitimate board members are confirmed by the Senate. But it won't. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney insisted the decision "does not have any impact, as I think the NLRB has already put out, on their operations or functions, or on the board itself."

So the administration is openly defying the courts and the Constitution. But why? The NLRB has to go to federal court to enforce its orders, and companies can seek review in the D.C. Circuit — the very court that just smacked down the NLRB.

There is some chance the Supreme Court could overturn the decision on appeal, but while they might take a more expansive view of the Recess Appointments power than the D.C. Circuit did, it's hard to imagine they would accept the idea that the president can decide the Senate is in recess, even when the Senate thinks it isn't. And regardless, the D.C. Circuit decision is good law unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise.

So the continued functioning of the NLRB seems to be, more than anything, an act of "Constitutional Disobedience," a concept now being touted by Georgetown Professor Louis Michael Seidman in a variety of mainstream media outlets.

Seidman was recently given space on the New York Times op-ed page to trash the Constitution, writing: "While we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance." On CBS Seidman insisted we "take back our own country" from the Constitution.

Obama was thinking along similar lines more than a decade ago. "As radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical," Obama, then a University of Chicago Law School senior lecturer in constitutional law said in a 2001 radio interview. "It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution."

Unconstitutionally operating a federal agency in open defiance of the courts is about as good an example of breaking free from essential constraints as can be imagined, and it may be testing the waters for the outright rejection of the Constitution Seidman proposes.

Given the stakes, it is imperative for Congress to immediately zero out the NLRB's budget in upcoming negotiations over the continuing resolution to fund the federal government. If they instead acquiesce to Obama's apparent act of "constitutional disobedience," they may embolden him to push further towards Professor Seidman's goal of giving up on the Constitution altogether.
----------------
© Copyright 2012 Phil Kerpen. He is the president of American Commitment where he first shared this article; a contributing author for the ARRA News Service and the author of Democracy Denied: How Obama is Bypassing Congress to Radically Transform America – and How to Stop Him.

---

Tags: Phil Kerpen, American Commitment, Barack Obama, Constitutional disobedience, illegal appointments, NLRB, recess appointments, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Leon Panetta’s Cowardly Decision

Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: In a newsworthy act of political cowardice, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta ran through the Pentagon’s exit door as he announced he is striking down the 1994 Combat Exclusion Law. His timing means his successor, presumably Chuck Hagel, will inherit the task of defending the order to assign women to front-line military combat.

Of course, Panetta doesn’t want to be grilled about his order. It’s lacking in common sense and it is toadying to the feminist officers who yearn to be 3- and 4-star generals based on the feminist dogma of gender interchangeability and on their desire to force men into situations to be commanded by feminists.

Panetta’s order may be illegal or even unconstitutional because the authority to make such a radical change was specifically granted to Congress, according to former Defense Department Inspector General Joseph E. Schmitz. A constitutional expert, Schmitz held the position of the Defense Department’s top investigator from 2002 to 2005 after 27 years of service in the U.S. Navy, including 5 years of active duty.

Schmitz said the order will surely lead to a “degradation of good order and discipline.” Here are some of the questions Panetta can now avoid being asked.

Will the new policy of women in combat assignments be based on gender norming? That means giving women and men the same tests but scoring them differently; i.e., grading women “A” for the same performance that would give a man a “C,” but clearing both as passing the test on the pretense that equal effort equals equal results.

Please explain how your new women-in-combat policy will be impacted by your policy of “diversity metrics,” which is a fancy name for quotas. In order to create the illusion that your new feminist policy is a success, will men be required to pretend that women are qualified and entitled to career promotions?

Do you really believe that the assignment of women to combat infantry will improve combat readiness? What is your plan for non-deployability rates of women due to pregnancy and complications of sexual misconduct ranging from assault to fraternization?

In order to make the weight-lifting requirement for combat assignments gender neutral, how many pounds will be taken off the test? The gender differences in weight-lifting ability and upper-body strength are well documented.

Will men be expected to conceal female physical deficiencies in order to make the new policy “work”? Will men’s careers be harmed if they report the truth about women’s inability to do the “heavy lifting”?

Military women are already complaining about increased sexual assaults, and of course those problems will skyrocket. Only men will be deemed at fault because it is feminist ideology that men are innately batterers and women are victims.

The military is already plagued with reports of large sex scandals in our current coed army. At the Lackland Air Force Base in Texas, 32 instructors allegedly took advantage of their power over 59 recruits, and at least two instructors allegedly had sexual encounters with 10 different recruits.

Do you recognize that the demand for the change in combat exclusion comes only from female officers who want higher rank and pay but not from enlisted women who will bear the burden of the really tough and dangerous work? Where are your surveys of enlisted women’s opinions?

Will assignment to combat jobs be voluntary for women but involuntary for men? Will the military ask women “do you want to go to combat?” but just assign men wherever bloody, fatal fighting is needed?

Will promotions for field commanders depend on their attainment of “diversity metrics” that can be achieved only by creating a “critical mass” of women in infantry battalions? Explain the test of Marines in last year’s tryouts for the Infantry Officer Course, where only two women volunteered, one washed out the first day, the other after one week?

How do you answer the fact that women do not have an equal opportunity to survive in combat situations, and did you consider the fact that women in the military get injured at least twice the rate of men? Please explain why the National Football League does not seek diversity or gender equality with female players.

Canada dealt with the problem of creating new standards for the gender integration of combat forces by renaming the process. Canada didn’t create “lower” or even “equal” standards, they just adopted “appropriate” standards. Will the U.S. play word games like that?

Retired Army Major General Robert H. Scales explained in the Washington Post that we know from experience with war that the intimate, deliberate, brutal killing of our country’s enemies is best done by small units or teams of men. Four solid buddy pairings of men led by a sergeant compose a nine-man battle-ready combat squad.

These squads are bound together by the “band of brothers” effect, a phrase borrowed from Shakespeare’s Henry V. Centuries of battlefield experience have taught us that this brotherhood is what causes a young man to risk and even sacrifice his life willingly so his buddies can survive, and that cohesion is a male-only relationship that would be irreparably compromised by including women in the squad.

Combat doesn’t mean merely firing a gun; of course women can do that. Combat doesn’t mean merely getting wounded and dying; of course women can do that. Combat means aggressively seeking out and killing the enemy.

A lot of people have a very sanitized view of what battlefield fighting is all about. They seem to think it means a quick gun fight and then returning to the base with separate shower and toilet facilities and a ready mess hall.

Let’s hear from men who have actually fought in close-combat situations. Ryan Smith, a Marine infantry squad leader in our 2003 invasion of Iraq, described the reality of spending 48 hours in scorching Middle Eastern heat, with 25 Marines stuffed in the back of a vehicle designed for 15, dressed in full gear, sitting on each other, without exiting the vehicles for any toilet needs.

I’ll spare you his description of the unsanitary conditions. They went a month without a shower and finally all stood naked to be sprayed off with pressure washers. What kind of men would put women through this?

Panetta won’t have to deal with any of these questions. He left them for his successor and more particularly for the field commanders whose careers will depend on compliance.
--------------------
Phyllis Schlafly has been a national leader of the conservative movement since 1964. She founded and is president of Eagle Forum. She has testified before more than 50 Congressional and State Legislative committees on constitutional, national defense, and family issues.

---

Tags: Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum, political cowardice, Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, unconstitutional action, combat, battlefield fighting, 1994 Combat Exclusion Law, women in combat, feminist dogma, gender interchangeability To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Imperial President

Lloyd Marcus, Chairman of the Conservative Campaign Committee PAC, has announced the released of their first national TV ad pushing back against Obama’s socialist agenda and imperialistic modus operandi.

---

Tags: Lloyd Marcus, Conservative Campaign Committee, TV ad, Imperial President To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Are Democrats Prepared To Cut This Kind Of Waste?

Today in Washington, D.C. - Jan 30, 2012:
The House was not in session. The Senate was in session but no bills were considered. The Judicial Committee began hearing on potential gun legislation today.

At some point in the next few days, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) may bring up the House-passed bill to raise the debt ceiling through May. Yesterday the Senate voted 94-3 to confirm Sen. Kerry to be Secretary of State.

This morning the to the latest report by the Bureau of Economic Analysis latest report showed the U.S. economy shrank at an annualized rate of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012. Christmas holiday shopping and the 2012 election spending made no dent on the  economy other than to mask how bad things really were.  Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson responded:"The economy is once again shrinking despite White House and economists' expectations of 1.1 percent growth for the quarter. And all in spite of renewed quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve, which will be pumping $1 trillion of new 'stimulus' into the economy every year perhaps for the rest of our lives. Half will go to buying government debt, and the other half to bailing out financial institutions still weighed down with dodgy mortgage backed securities from the financial crisis.

"None of which will boost growth, as can already be seen. A printing press is no replacement for real productivity, a lowered cost of doing business, and regulations that welcome company creation. Instead, we have a spiraling national debt backed only by the Fed's useless paper trade, taxes that were just increased on small businesses, and a regulatory environment in health care, the environment, and labor that would make Soviet Russia blush. The result is sustained high unemployment and no growth. We're in another depression.

"This is simply unsustainable. The only problem is that seemingly nobody in Washington, D.C. is listening. To get the economy back on track, we must get our fiscal house in order, roll back regulatory agencies in the nation's capital that are holding back growth, and return to sound money. We got into this mess because of too much debt, and yet more of it from Congress, the White House, and the Fed will never get us out."It was four years ago that Senate Democrats last passed a budget, and in that time our national debt has ballooned to more than $16 trillion. Reducing that debt burden on future generations is one of the keys to promoting long-term economic growth and avoiding another credit downgrade. The only way to do so is to get spending under control – and that starts with passing a budget.

When asked by Harper Polling whether they “support or oppose the [GOP] plan to give Congress and the President three months to pass a meaningful budget or Congress will stop getting paid,” more than 72 percent said they support “no budget, no pay.”.

The Associated Press summed up “the logic behind ‘no budget, no pay’” like this: since “passing a budget is the core responsibility of Congress … why should lawmakers get paid if they don't do their main job?”

“Congress should do its job,” argues the Seattle Times. “Or be ready to make some personal financial sacrifices.”

But Americans not only expect a budget from lawmakers – they want one that actually addresses our debt. A recent Pew survey found the same number of respondents – 72 percent – say “reducing the budget deficit should be a top priority, up 19 points from four years ago.”

This morning, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell again made the case that now is the time for Congress to tackle our out-of-control federal spending. “A few weeks ago, President Obama reportedly said that America doesn’t have a spending problem. Well, he’s wrong. This is completely at odds with what independent experts tell us. And last week, I brought this chart:

"As everyone knows, we’re already running trillion dollar deficits. What this chart shows is that the gap between government spending and revenue just keeps getting wider and wider in the years ahead. . . . Clearly, we need to address spending. There’s simply no other way to solve the problem.

“We also need to shine a light into every corner of the budget, especially the dark corners that often evade real scrutiny. And we need to root out waste, which will serve as the first real test of Democrats’ seriousness in this debate. I mean, why is the federal government funding Chinese studies on pig manure, and research into the smoking habits of Jordanian college students, and reality TV shows in India? Are Democrats prepared to cut this kind of waste?”

Following him on the Senate floor was Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a liberal Democrat from Rhode Island. Interestingly, Sen. Whitehouse candidly admitted, “So yeah, do we have a spending problem? Of course we do.” Unfortunately, he followed that up by suggesting that he’d be skeptical of cutting pig manure studies because that could lead to cuts in Social Security.

Of course, this precisely illustrates Leader McConnell’s point. If Democrats aren’t prepared to cut even this obvious waste, he said, “there’s really no hope of ever putting our country back on a path to prosperity.” As he concluded, “For those who want to pretend that our country does not have a spending problem, now is the time to face reality. We can take on this challenge together if both sides are ready to do the necessary work to reform spending. But we have to get started today. Not next week. Not in April. Today.”

---

Tags: government spending, government waste, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. economy shrank. the economy, economy To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Fox News In the Way

Bill Smith, Editor: In the below editorial cartoon, Tony Branco depicts the Liberal Media, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, PBS and even Hollywood carrying out the propaganda that it is not fair for Fox News to be standing in the way of Obama's "big government" programs. Branco is absolutely correct.  And, a number of liberal members of Congress are also advancing this same propaganda. Just, yesterday, Louisiana's democratic U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu said, "I am not going to keep cutting the discretionary budget, which by the way is not out of control, despite what you hear on Fox News."

Unfortunately, Fox News Channel may be showing signs of weakening under this propaganda efforts and displaying signs of the "battered news network syndrome."  Lately, more of their primary news reporters / commentators on the national network appear to be more compromising and even excited at the bad news affecting the United States.

Their actions and comments are often infuriating to their viewers who listen to Fox News to get the "unvarnished" truth regarding events, the economy, and who, where, what, how and when Big Government is trampling over peoples rights liberties, and property (including money). And address governments overspending, advancing the National debt and placing us at risk in foreign countries while ignoring those who are invading our own country.

Some Fox News shows allege to be "fair and balanced," but ignore "right and wrong." Also noted are moderators / commentators who imply that they are conservative, but after they finish their antics and comments, the viewers are left wondering. Most the time, viewers are fairly sure who the liberals are as their agenda gives them away or they often welcome the progressive label. For some shows, their appears to be an obvious attempt to drag in more liberals and then allowing their comments to go unchallenged regardless of what they say while also giving little time to or ignoring the conservative brought on the show to counterbalance the liberal.

Fox News even seems to be bending over backwards to keep liberal / democrats on some of the "shows" even when their language and open attitudes are demeaning and or degrading in normal society. Why does Fox News subject their audience to these people?

Also, why are some Fox News anchor women dressing in such a fashion that verges on pre-routine dress for a strip club? And the camera seem to zoom in on an overly short skit or low cut blouse or dress. Are women on Fox News being forced to dress this way?

Regardless, Fox News remains the primary channel competing for ratings against the to unabashed progressive liberal media. That issue is addressed by the below editorial cartoon.

by AF "Tony" Branco:

---

Tags: Fox News, editorial cartoon, AF Branco, progressive, liberal media, big government To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Hillary and Your Family

Hillary On the Hill

Ken Blackwell, Contributing Author: Hillary Clinton finally faced down her critics on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week. She fired back at Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) when he tried to get her to acknowledge that the entire story of an anti-Islamic video inflaming mobs who then murdered Amb. Chris Stevens and three other brave Americans in Libya had been, to put it charitably, wholly unsubstantiated. All along, Hillary had acted as if this was someone else’s issue. She was, after all, the Secretary of State who gets “1.43 million cables come into my office” a week. They’re all addressed to me, she petulantly shot back.

Now, just for a moment, let’s consider that statement. Can she really mean she has put in place no system for determining what she must see? She describes a process she allowed to stay in place for four long years that apparently is like drinking from a fire hose. No, that would be 1.43 fire hoses. The military has a standard protocol for distinguishing routine cables from those that deserve higher priority and those that are urgent. An imminent threat to American lives would seem to justify an urgent category, wouldn’t you think?

That she was allowed to dance through this hearing with the press corps audibly swooning in the aisles is a national disgrace. “The Clintons have no shame,” their man George Stephanopoulos told us, “and that’s a great advantage in politics.”

And the Hillary press corps that exclaimed: “Memorable!” “A vivid impression!’” “A riveting performance”? They can gush. They can’t blush.

Maybe she’ll reprise it as a one-woman show on Broadway. Already, they are talking her up for 2016. Why not? With her incredible lightness of being, what could stop her?

Recall that famous political ad she ran in 2008. It’s the spot they called “3 AM.” It shows a red telephone ringing urgently. The announcer talks about the call that might come into the White House at that hour. You and your family need to have a tested leader there when a crisis erupts somewhere in the world.

Like a crisis in Libya? With all due respect, Madame Secretary, those in mortal danger who called you at 3 AM, who sent more than one of those “1.43 million cables” you complained of, got no answer. They got a busy signal.

But this total avoidance of responsibility, is one of the longest running acts in Washington. As First Lady, Hillary presided over the collapse of health care negotiations. She has seemingly swum away from that shipwreck without ever admitting that she was at the helm when the liner struck the rocks.

Worried about losing the liberal lock on Congress in 1994, she told Newsweek (Oct. 31, 1994) that abortion was “wrong.” She has spent the rest of her career pushing this “wrong” thing throughout the world.

Let’s not forget about her outrageous show of temper in Ottawa. Her open and tactless attack on Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative Government was unprecedented in all of Canadian-American relations. Even the liberal Toronto Globe and Mail was surprised by her “hot under the collar” choler.

Was she planning to celebrate the bicentennial of the War of 1812 by starting another? Hillary denounced Harper for what? For trying to help save the lives of African mothers—without offering them abortions. Call the Nobel Peace Prize Committee.

FOX News’s senior analyst Brit Hume reviewed her tenure at Foggy Bottom. There’s no treaty, no doctrine, no breakthrough, no resolution of any intractable international problem. There’s no one thing for which she can credibly claim responsibility—except the skillful avoidance of responsibility.

Don’t worry, though. If your family members come under attack, if God forbid, you lose a loved one overseas, you can be sure Hillary will be there to pat the casket, to caress the flag, and to go on TV to offer an emotion-filled testimony about them. Here’s a phone card. Save it for that 3 AM call.
-------------------------
Ken Blackwell is a conservative family values advocate. Blackwell is a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission and is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and a visiting professor at Liberty University School of Law. He is a contributing author to the ARRA News Service.

---

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, hearings, Benghazi, no solutions, Your Family To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Tim Phillips: Obama’s Wasted Opportunity

Tim Phillips, President, Americans for Prosperity: For generations, presidents have used their inaugural address to unite the nation in aspiring to new heights of achievement. But earlier this week President Obama chose to deliver a harshly ideological, aggressively partisan speech more appropriate for the campaign trail than the solemn occasion of our nation's 57th inaugural address. Rather than bring all Americans together with a celebration of common ground, his address read like a liberal laundry list with global warming at the top.

Although President Obama was sworn in with his hand on Abraham Lincoln’s Bible, he did not echo the tone of unity for which Lincoln was so well known.

Lincoln’s second inaugural address is remembered as the quintessential example of using that moment before the entire nation to unite rather than divide. Lincoln offered “malice toward none” and “charity for all,” even though the nation was still embroiled in war. Even President Clinton, who went through a government shutdown, faced impeachment hearings and often decried Republicans, used his second inaugural address to try to unite with phrases like, “We need a new government … that is smaller, lives within its’ means, and does more with less.”

Past presidents have understood that the inaugural address is a unique opportunity to uplift and inspire a divided nation – but not this president.

President Obama chose to label those who oppose his big government policies as anti-science and unwilling to aid our nation’s most vulnerable citizens.

The President laid out his agenda in stark terms: more spending on the same failing big government programs, refusing to address the impending crisis in Medicare or Social Security, and an aggressive push for a global warming agenda that drives up energy prices and takes away more of our freedoms in the name of personal ideology. A common thread through his proposals was the requirement that government continue to get bigger and spend more.

Using almost Orwellian language he stated that “preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action,” a phrase used to justify the continual expansion of government.

Demonstrating his ideology first approach, the president made no mention of the need to curb government overspending, despite the federal government spending over $1 trillion more than it has received for the past four years. Indeed, he actually reserved some of his most personal barbs for those who have the political courage to take on government overspending. These opponents of the president seek to cut spending while actually preserving the long-term solvency of vital programs, by reforming entitlements like Medicare and Social Security. But, in the president's world, those who wish to ensure that our seniors in need actually still have a Medicare that is not bankrupt are uncaring monsters.

Meanwhile, environmental extremists were singing hosannas over the president's haughty call for action on "extreme weather," the latest iteration of an ideological crusade that began as “global warming” before morphing to “climate change.” Either way, President Obama, after insulting his opponents as anti-science, used the unmatched platform of the inaugural address to call for new legislation. It appears on this initiative the president will seek to drive up the cost of gasoline for our automobiles and electricity for our homes and offices while taking away personal freedoms. Americans rejected cap-and-trade in 2010 and they will reject this latest "collective action" in the name of global warming.

Decades after John F. Kennedy's inaugural address his words still ring with grace across the generations, "Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country."

... President Obama reduced the momentous opportunity of a similar inaugural address to just another shrill, petty, small campaign speech. How sad.
-------------------
Tim Phillips is president of Americans For Prosperity (AFP). AFP is an organization of grassroots leaders who engage citizens in the name of limited government and free markets on the local, state, and federal levels. His article first appeared on TownHall.

---

Tags: Campaigns and Elections, Media and Culture, Global Warming, Barack Obama, opportunity, liberal ideology, second inaugural, Tim Phillips, AFP, Americans for Prosperity To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

President Obama Lost His Shirt to Speaker Boehner

by Ralph Benko, Contributing Author: The House, under the leadership of Speaker John Boehner, has precipitated a postponement in the debt ceiling fight until May. This represents a strategic choice by Boehner to make the Sequester fight, not the debt ceiling fight, the next major engagement. Much of the mainstream media now is accusing Congress of “kicking the can down the road.” They are missing the strategic implications.

In retrospect, at the Battle at Fiscal Cliff, Boehner took President Obama to the cleaners. He did it suavely, without histrionics. While Obama churlishly, and in a politically amateurish manner, publicly strutted about having forced the Republicans to raise tax rates on “the wealthiest Americans” Boehner, quietly, was pocketing his winnings.

Dazzled by Obama’s Ozymandias-scale sneer most liberals failed to notice that Boehner quietly made 99% of the Bush tax cuts permanent. As Boehner himself dryly observed, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board member Steve Moore, “”Who would have ever guessed that we could make 99% of the Bush tax cuts permanent? When we had a Republican House and Senate and a Republican in the White House, we couldn’t get that. And so, not bad.’”

“Not bad” is a resounding understatement. Dealt a weak hand, Boehner managed to 99% outfox, on tax policy, a president who had the massive apparatus of the executive branch, the Senate majority, and a left-leaning national elite media whooping it up for a whopping tax increase. Even more impressively, Boehner pulled it off with steady nerves while under heavy pressure from the anti-spending hawks in his own caucus.

Boehner, deftly, also dramatically raised the threshold, on which Obama had campaigned, at which the modest 3.6% rate increase kicked in. Yet his biggest win may have been in making the Alternative Minimum Tax patch permanent. This changes the baseline with profoundly positive implications for future tax reform and economic growth.

Boehner thereby won a triple jackpot, a bonanza for conservatives and supply-siders … while Obama, giving up all that for a trivial symbolic victory, lost his Progressive shirt. The mainstream media, with a few exceptions such as Howard Kurtz at the Daily Beast, was too deep in the tank to report that the Emperor has no clothes.

But Obama ended up, at least, shirtless. Next … off come the pants. Here come the real spending cuts. As reported by Moore, Boehner privately told Obama “’Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem.’ He repeated this message so often, he says, that toward the end of the negotiations, the president became irritated and said: ‘I’m getting tired of hearing you say that.’”

Boehner, last week, again bested Obama by pushing the debt ceiling fight back to May. This is a double whammy by Boehner. According to specialists, by structuring the law to allow new borrowing only to the extent of obligations “outstanding on May 19, 2013, exceeds the face amount of such obligations outstanding on the date of the enactment of this Act” Boehner effectively instituted a spending freeze. This, in the face of Obama’s relentless demand for even more spending, is a victory for anti-profligacy hawks.

There’s a much bigger whammy embedded. Pushing the debt ceiling fight back to May, as the New York Times put it, “re-sequenced” the fight. Re-sequencing was not an idle gesture. It was a major tactical win by the House. The Times reported that “’The president stared down the Republicans. They blinked,’ said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York.” Schumer speaks with macho naiveté.
The Democrats, apparently, still don’t know what Boehner has hit them with. Thanks to the Sequester anti-profligacy conservatives now negotiate from strength. What are the implications of putting the Sequester fight before the debt ceiling fight? Steve Moore:

“The Republicans’ stronger card, Mr. Boehner believes, will be the automatic spending sequester trigger that trims all discretionary programs—defense and domestic. It now appears that the president made a severe political miscalculation when he came up with the sequester idea in 2011.

“As Mr. Boehner tells the story: Mr. Obama was sure Republicans would call for ending the sequester—the other ‘cliff’—because it included deep defense cuts. But Republicans never raised the issue. ‘It wasn’t until literally last week [columnist’s note: just before the deadline] that the White House brought up replacing the sequester,’ Mr. Boehner says. ‘They said, ‘We can’t have the sequester.’ They were always counting on us to bring this to the table.

“Mr. Boehner says he has significant Republican support, including GOP defense hawks, on his side for letting the sequester do its work. ‘I got that in my back pocket,’ the speaker says. He is counting on the president’s liberal base putting pressure on him when cherished domestic programs face the sequester’s sharp knife. Republican willingness to support the sequester, Mr. Boehner says, is ‘as much leverage as we’re going to get.’”Will the support of the defense hawks hold? It appears Boehner’s not bluffing. Although Obama’s outgoing defense secretary, Leon Panetta, infamously called the sequester “catastrophic,” the secretary obviously is falling back on the old bureaucratic tactic called “squealing louder than it hurts.” The Washington Post afterward called Panetta “the former (emphasis added) deficit hawk.”

As the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and nobody’s patsy, crisply notes about the Sequester: “This cut is significant to be sure, but it does not reach that of previous postwar drawdowns.”

Catastrophic? Oh please. Panetta surely knows better. The Post reprised a younger Panetta who, at a 1992 hearing (when the deficit was less than half its current size), stated:
“I think the most dangerous threat to our national security right now is debt, very heavy debt, that we confront in this country.”

“As chairman of the House Budget Committee and later as budget director in the Clinton administration, Panetta was an unforgiving enforcer of the bottom line as the United States grappled with record-size debts. As the largest government agency, the Pentagon found itself a frequent target of his whip, especially as it struggled to justify its missions in the aftermath of the Cold War.

“’I think the most dangerous threat to our national security right now is debt, very heavy debt, that we confront in this country,’ Panetta lectured then-Defense Secretary Richard B. Cheney and Gen. Colin L. Powell, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during a hearing in 1992.”It now should be clear to every Tea Party Patriot that Boehner is acting with integrity, with acute political sophistication, as an authentic conservative serious about reducing the debt by reducing spending. His claim, to Moore, that “he has significant Republican support, including GOP defense hawks … for letting the sequester do its work,” promises to be a game changer.

Given the assessments by sober defense analysts — and according to other, private, reports from Capitol Hill — there is no reason to think that Boehner is bluffing about having the support he needs to take the Sequester or barter it for even better cuts. And Boehner’s abhorrence of debt appears completely authentic. Moore: “He sees debt as almost a moral failing, noting that when he grew up in a little middle-class, blue-collar neighborhood’ outside of Cincinnati, ‘nobody had debt. It was unheard of. I just don’t do debt’.”

Boehner, having shrewdly identified the conservatives’ point of maximum leverage, appears poised for an historic victory. Boehner may prove himself to be the guy big enough and smart enough finally to engineer something that eluded even the great Reagan: pushing federal spending onto a downward trajectory.

If Boehner succeeds in closing the deal as he, with a critical assist from Senate Minority Leader McConnell, seems about to do he will go down in history as having brought about “the moment when the rise of the oceans (of debt) began to slow” … and our republic “began to heal.” If so John Boehner will deserve to be more than a Republican, conservative, and tea party, hero. He will go up in popular esteem, and down in history, as the master who staunched Washington’s hemorrhaging of America’s wealth.
------------
Ralph Benko is senior advisor, economics, to American Principles in Action’s Gold Standard 2012 Initiative, and a contributor to he ARRA News Service. The article which first appeared in Forbes was submitted for reprint by the author.

---

Tags: President, Barack Obama, Speaker John Boehner, Ralph Benko, commentary, Forbes To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Standing With Israel & Against Chuck Hagel

Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: The Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing this Thursday to consider Barack Obama's ill-conceived and dangerous nomination of former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense.

Last night I was honored to attend a great gathering of pro-Israel Christians in Washington, D.C. With just a week's notice, Christians United for Israel Action Fund brought 500 people from 46 states to our nation's capital to stand for a strong national defense and a solid U.S./Israeli alliance, and against the nomination of Chuck Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Pastor John Hagee delivered passionate speeches outlining why Hagel would be a disaster for our national security and for the balance of power in the Middle East. I reminded the audience about Hagel's incredibly bad voting record, but also pointed out his repeated use of rhetoric most often associated with anti-Semites.

Today, the members of Christians United for Israel Action Fund, fired up from our time together last night, visited over 65 Senate offices, making the case against Hagel in person on Capitol Hill. I accompanied Pastor Hagee to a meeting with Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), an outstanding conservative champion and the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

As Iran continues its reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons and its meddling in the Middle East, the nomination of Chuck Hagel sends the worst possible signal of weakness and ambivalence to our enemies as well as our allies.

In fact, I fear that Hagel's nomination will embolden our enemies and invite acts of aggression and terrorism. Add to this Obama's recent arms transfer of F-16s and M1 tanks to Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood-controlled government and you have a prescription for disaster.
-------------
Gary Bauer is is a conservative family values advocate and serves as president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families where his articles are also shared.

---

Editor's Observation. The gifting (via the American taxpayers) by the Obama administration "of F-16s and Mi tanks to Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood-controlled government" begs teh question concerning the relationship with members of the Obama administration who are identified as members of the Muslim brotherhood. Is their a relationship, you decide. Below is a photo and link to a recent story on these individuals.

Names Released of Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrators in the White House

- An Egyptian magazine, Rose El-Youssef, has claimed that six American Islamist activists who work with the Obama administration are Muslim Brotherhood operatives who enjoy strong influence over U.S. policy.

---

Tags: F-16s, M1 tanks, Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, President Obama, nomination, Nebraska, Chuck Hagel, anti-Irael, Secretary of Defense, Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

The Year-Round Super Bowl Ad Bought By The Federal Government

Consider this: Every 30 seconds the government spends almost as much as a
30-second Super Bowl spot costs, about $3.4 million, just to keep our country running.

Bankrupting America: The Super Bowl is an American pastime. On that Sunday morning millions of Americans will fire up the grill, put on the jersey of the team they actually root for (which probably didn’t make it to the Super Bowl), and get the Cheez Whiz and pigs-in-a-blanket ready to go.

We will be watching the game, the half-time show and subsequent “wardrobe malfunctions” and, of course, those really expensive ads, which cost an average of $3.8 million per 30 seconds this year. Some ads are funny, a few have you scratching your head, while others leave you thinking, “They just flushed their money down the drain.”

But what if you saw a 30-second ad touting the successes of Washington and the federal government? Maybe it wouldn’t be so shocking. Consider this: Every 30 seconds the government spends almost as much as a 30-second Super Bowl spot costs, about $3.4 million, just to keep our country running.

If you think about it, that means the entire fiscal year is just one big, expensive but not-very-funny Super Bowl ad bought by the American government and paid for by you—the American taxpayer. Washington buys a Super Bowl ad every 30 seconds of every day of the year, and we have to pay the bill.

So next time you see Larry Bird play Michael Jordan for a Big Mac or hear those annoying frogs burp out noises that sound like Budweiser, remember that those ads were really expensive, and you are paying roughly the equivalent of what it cost to run them every 30 seconds of your life.

It’s time lawmakers in Washington understood that the money they spend is real and that they are borrowing from future generations while destabilizing the U.S. economy. I don’t know about you, but if I had $3.8 million to run an ad during Super Bowl Sunday, it would be to tell the government to cut spending and waste and to reduce the debt and deficit.

---

Tags: Super Bowl, ad, federal government, government spending, Bankrupting America To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Dems: Discretionary Spending Is Not Out Of Control | GOP: Why Are Taxpayers Funding Moroccan Pottery Classes

Today in Washington, D.C. - Jan. 29, 2013
The Senate reconvened at 10 AM today and it’s possible Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could schedule a vote today on the nomination of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) to be Secretary of State. Kerry's nomination was voted out of committee yesterday. Also, yesterday, the Senate voted 62-36 to pass H.R. 152, the Sandy Relief. Prior to final passage, the Senate voted down 35-62 an amendment from Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) which would have offset the cost of the bill with spending cuts.

The House convened at 1 pm and 4 minutes later adjourned until 11 a.m. on Friday, February 1, 2013.  However, Feb 1st being a Friday, it will be short formality. The House will meet at 2 p.m. on Monday, Feb 4th.

Dems: Discretionary Spending Is Not Out Of Control
The Weekly Standard’s Daniel Halper noticed Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) saying on the Senate floor that “I am not going to keep cutting the discretionary budget, which, by the way, is not out of control, despite what you hear on Fox News . . . .” It’s rather amazing that Democrats are so blind to our spending problems that some will go as far as to claim they’re a mirage somehow created by Fox News.

GOP: Why Are Taxpayers Funding Moroccan Pottery Classes
In a speech in December, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell named example after example of questionable discretionary spending that Sen. Landrieu seems to think isn’t a problem: “Senator Coburn has shown all of us some of the ridiculous things the taxpayers are paying for with their tax dollars, some of the things that cause us to spend a trillion dollars more than we take in every year. Last year, he put out a report showing how we could save more than $100 billion — or about one tenth of the annual deficit — just by eliminating duplicative and overlapping government programs. We’ve got 94 federal initiatives aimed at encouraging ‘green building’ through 11 federal agencies. We’ve got 14 programs with the sole purpose of reducing diesel emissions. . . . Senator Coburn issued a study that showed taxpayers are funding Moroccan pottery classes, promoting shampoo and other beauty products for cats and dogs, and a video game that allows them to relive prom night. Get this: taxpayers also just spent $325,000 on a Robotic squirrel named RoboSquirrel.”

Sen. Landrieu says spending “is not out of control” but taxpayers are funding Moroccan pottery classes and robotic squirrels?

In the Weekly Republican Address on Saturday, Senator John Thune discussed the scope of the spending problem: “Over the past four years, our country has added nearly $6 trillion to the national debt. At $16.4 trillion, our nation’s total debt is now larger than our entire economy. This means that every man, woman, and child owes a $53,000 share of this debt. That level of spending is unsustainable. . . . Needless to say, we can’t go on like this forever. Eventually, we are simply going to run out of money. And no tax increase, no matter how high, will be enough to save us. The only way—the only way—to dig ourselves out of this hole and put our country on a sound financial footing is to get spending under control.”

Leader McConnell said today, “Republicans have done their part. The budgets passed by House Republicans over the past couple of years contained fresh ideas that would help solve our fiscal crisis. And policymakers from both chambers — and from statehouses across the country — have put forward a number of their own ideas and proposals too. But . . . Four years on, President Obama and Congressional Democrats still have yet to offer a serious plan to address the economic challenges we face. They’ve been content to wage political war instead. . . . Last week, I came to the floor with a chart that showed that even if the President got every single tax increase he asked us for, we still would not even come close to solving this problem. Not even close. So let’s not waste time with more pointless arguments about tax increases. We had that debate already; it’s done, it’s over. Instead, I call on Democrats to approach the spending debate with the seriousness it demands, and to do it through regular order.”

No Budget, No Pay
Rep.Steve Scalise Chairman, House Republican Study Committee responded today to the Democrats refusal to establish a budget for the last four years and to live up to the same standards as most American families and businesses do when the establish budgets.

Scalise points out that the actions of the U.S Senate are "not only irresponsible - it’s also illegal." He added. " Yet the Senate has simply ignored the law for the last four years. In order to preserve the American Dream for future generations, Washington must stop the budget gimmicks and rein in the out of control spending that is killing American jobs and placing an unbearable mountain of debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren. It is long-past time that the Senate pass a budget as required by law. It is time to put American families first by moving the federal government towards a budget that balances within the next ten years.

"Last week, the House, with the collaboration of the RSC, took the first step in halting Washington’s spending addiction by voting for H.R. 325 ('No Budget, No Pay'), which places Members’ salaries in escrow after April 15th until they pass a budget. “No Budget, No Pay,” will force the Senate to do its job and craft a budget for the first time in four years. Since regaining control of the House of Representatives two years ago, House Republicans have passed a budget each year, but because of the Senate’s lack of action, American families have suffered.

"'No Budget, No Pay,' was the first of many steps to put us on a path to a balanced federal budget within 10 years, but it is certainly not our last step. We must do more. Entitlement spending is out of control, accounting for about 60% of federal outlays, and we will never get our debt crisis under control until we tackle serious entitlement reform. To add insult to injury, the liberals’ tax, spend and regulate approach is killing our small businesses and American jobs, further jeopardizing our ability to create economic growth for our country. Washington’s old way of operating by spending now and sending the bill to our kids is over, and I am proud of the work we just started to make Washington tighten its belt so we can get our economy back on track and preserve the American Dream for the next generation."

---

Tags: Washington, D.C. John Kerry, nomination, Secretary of State, Democrat spending, wasted spending, no budget, no pay To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Sen. Sessions: Immigration Plan Could Swell Debt By Trillions

Img via Dharma Dialogues

ARRA News Service - U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, (R-AL) spoke out in response to a renewed push by President Barack Obama and Senate leaders for comprehensive immigration reform and amnesty. President Obama is expected to unveil his immigration reform goals in a high-profile speech Tuesday in Las Vegas.

Session said, “A large-scale amnesty is likely to add trillions of dollars to the debt over time, accelerate Medicare’s and Social Security’s slide into insolvency, and put enormous strain on our public assistance programs. We know already that the administration refuses to enforce existing law restricting immigrant welfare use, and in fact promotes expanded welfare use to immigrants—including food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid. I joined with four Ranking Members to obtain answers from the Department of Homeland Security about this evisceration of law, and the Administration has suspiciously defied three consecutive oversight requests… The ICE union also held their own agency head, John Morton, in no confidence with a unanimous vote…What good are promises of future enforcement when the Administration covertly undermines those laws now in place?”

In a release speech, Sen. Sessions added:“Americans overwhelmingly oppose illegal immigration. They have pleaded with Congress to end the mass illegality for decades to little avail. All the while, millions have been added to the total of those illegally here.

It’s time to fix that broken system. Now we are told that the Obama Administration and members of Congress say they have a plan that they promise will do the job. So, the American people will need to watch closely. And, members of Congress must insist that they have a full and complete opportunity to study and amend such legislation.

We would be in a much better position to achieve immigration reform if the Obama Administration had spent that last four years enforcing federal law rather than dismantling it. Brave immigration agents have been left with no recourse but to sue their own Department head, simply so that they—like any other law officers—will be allowed to do their jobs. Just last Friday a federal judge made an important preliminary ruling in their favor. The ICE union also held their own agency head, John Morton, in no confidence with a unanimous vote. The first task for every media agency in the country ought to be to study this lawsuit, to listen to the long-documented complaints of ICE agents, and to review the record of stymied attempts at congressional oversight of DHS.

No comprehensive plan can pass Congress as long as this administration continues to defy existing federal law. What good are promises of future enforcement when the Administration covertly undermines those laws now in place?

Yet, without consulting the law officers who have the duty to enforce the law, another group of senators, meeting in secret—just like the last time comprehensive reform failed—have set forth an outline with no legislative language. We have seen too often before that the promises made by bill sponsors do not match up to the reality when the language is produced. No secret accord with profound consequences for this nation’s future can be rushed through. That means a full committee process and debate and amendments on the floor of the Senate.

Several points need to be understood. Amnesty will not help balance our budget. In fact, a large-scale amnesty is likely to add trillions of dollars to the debt over time, accelerate Medicare’s and Social Security’s slide into insolvency, and put enormous strain on our public assistance programs. We know already that the administration refuses to enforce existing law restricting immigrant welfare use, and in fact promotes expanded welfare use to immigrants—including food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid. I joined with four Ranking Members to obtain answers from the Department of Homeland Security about this evisceration of law, and the Administration has suspiciously defied three consecutive oversight requests.

These and other critical issues must be carefully considered as we go forward. Certainly, our current system is broken. Work must be done to fix it. That effort must occur.

All Americans, immigrant and native born, will have a better future if American continues to stand unique among nations for the special reverence it places in the rule of law.”[Note: To view a series of oversight requests, stonewalled by DHS, regarding the Obama Administration’s waiver of an existing law that prohibits potential immigrants to the U.S. from being welfare reliant, please click here, here, and here.

---

Tags: Senator, Jeff Sessions, immigration plan, amnesty, national debt, increase, trillions To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Expanding Opportunity Through School Choice #SCW

Generation Opportunity is a proud partner of National School Choice Week

Washington, DC – Generation Opportunity, the nation’s leading youth advocacy group for 18-29 year olds, is joining National School Choice Week as a proud partner.

Beginning January 27th, National School Choice Week will be marked by a series of events and activities across the country focused on highlighting success stories, advancing school choice and education reform in America, and promoting “effective education options for every child.” The quality of America’s education system has a direct impact on the future success of the young people it is set up to serve and, ultimately, on the nation’s ability to sustain a cutting-edge workforce that is able to compete in the global economy.

“Generation Opportunity supports commonsense policy ideas that can expand opportunities for young people, both now and in the future, as many of us are proud parents, committed teachers, caring older brothers and sisters, and active members of our community. We see firsthand the positive impact that emerges when parents are empowered to make the right decisions for their children,” said Terence D. Grado, Director for National and State Policy at Generation Opportunity. “We are not a partisan generation and are instead focused on achieving results. School choice enjoys broad bipartisan support and has a clear track record of success. Thus, we are excited to join this broad coalition that has come together to advance opportunity through innovation in education.”

In 2011, Generation Opportunity supported school choice advocates in New Jersey in an effort to pass the Opportunity Scholarship Act in partnership with the Garden State Education Reform Coalition, among other efforts. Grassroots organizers launched the “Jersey Proud School Choice Tour” and helped organize a rally at the State House in Trenton. Generation Opportunity’s grassroots field team will participate in Virginia’s 2013 School Choice Day at the Capitol, partnering with the Virginia Coalition for Public School Options for a rally in Richmond. The group also plans to participate in other events this week to hear firsthand from students, teachers, and parents about their priorities and concerns.

Visit SchoolChoiceWeek.com for more information or to find an event in your area.

Read more: Education Reform.
Former Florida Jeb Bush Joins A+ Arkansas for Education Rally and Summit.
About Our Kids: School Choice Week.
-----------
Generation Opportunity is a national, non-partisan youth advocacy organization focusing on Millennials ages 18-29.

---

Tags: school choice, school Choice Week, Generation Opportunity To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Appeals Senate Passes Sandy Bill | Court Rebukes NLRB "Recess" Appointments . . .

. . . "A Particularly Timely Warning" To Obama On Executive Power Overreach!
Today in Washington, D.C. - Jan. 29, 2012:
The House was not in session today. They return tomorrow. The House recently passed a measure that would suspend the debt ceiling until May 19th. The legislation allows the president to continue to borrow money to fund the government operations.

The U.S. has already reached the debt ceiling, but is currently undertaking “extraordinary measures” to continue to meet its financial obligations. While there are many who will argue whether or not we should raise the debt ceiling, delaying this debate gives Washington an opportunity to have a frank discussion about our budget and what our priorities should be over the next year.

The Senate reconvened and at 4:30 PM, they took H.R. 152, Hurricane Sandy disaster relief package. Following an hour of debate, the Senate voted on an amendment from Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) providing for offsets for the bill, and then on final passage. The bill passed 62-36. The long-delay by democrats is finally over and the hurricane Sandy relief package is being sent to the President Obama who has said he will sign it. As noted in prior articles,  the House passed this bill two weeks ago after stripping out much of the spending unrelated to disasters. And the Senate Democrat leader sat on the bill.

Tomorrow, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he plans to consider the nomination of despicable Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) to be Secretary of State.

Reviewing Friday’s court decision striking down President Obama’s “recess” appointments, The Wall Street Journal editorializes, “President Obama has shown increasing contempt for the constitutional limits on his power, and the courts are finally awakening to the news. A unanimous panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday that the President's non-recess recess appointments are illegal and an abuse of executive power. . . . In the 46-page opinion, the three-judge panel said that ‘not only logic and language, but also constitutional history’ reject the President's afflatus. . . . ‘An interpretation of “the Recess” that permits the President to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement,’ wrote Chief Judge David Sentelle for the court, ‘giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction. This cannot be the law.’ Judge Sentelle added, in a clear warning to the lawyers who let Mr. Obama walk out on this limb, that ‘Allowing the President to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution's separation of powers.’”

The WSJ editors also note, “[T]he ruling potentially invalidates dozens of NLRB decisions since the illegal recess appointments were made. A similar mess occurred in 2010 when the Supreme Court ruled in New Process Steel v. NLRB that some 600 decisions made by the NLRB without a three-member quorum were invalid.”

Yet according to The Washington Post, the Obama administration and its NLRB appointees have apparently decided to act as if nothing has changed. “The impact of that decision by a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Noel Canning v. NLRB will depend on what the Obama administration does next. First things first, the NLRB said Friday that it plans to move forward with business as usual, issuing decisions in labor disputes as though nothing has changed. NLRB spokeswoman Nancy Cleeland said more than 100 such cases are pending with the board. . . . If the administration appeals Friday’s decision to the Supreme Court, the ruling there would determine the validity of all board decisions since Obama made his appointments in January 2012 — and the validity of the board members themselves. The board has already ruled on more than 200 disputes since Obama made his appointments, according to Cleeland, who said at least a dozen of those cases have been appealed to circuit courts.”

Of course, as the WSJ editors write, “White House spokesman Jay Carney criticized the unanimous decision Friday, which is consistent with the President's sense of constitutional entitlement. . . . Mr. Obama has also signaled his intention to govern as much as possible by stretching the legal bounds of regulation and executive orders. The D.C. Circuit ruling is thus a particularly timely warning that while Mr. Obama was re-elected . . . he's subject to the rule of law like everybody else.”

---

Tags: Senate, Sandy bill, Court decision, illegal recess appointments, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Arkansas: State Senate Passes Church Carry

AR State Sen, Bryan  King

Update - Feb 1, 2012: Arkansas Senate Bill 71, the Church Protection Act, was sent to the full House by the House Judiciary Committee with the recommendation that it pass. This important Right-to-Carry reform bill could be heard as early as Monday, February 4th.
-------------
ARRA News Service - Today, the Arkansas Senate passed Senate Bill 71 by a 28-4 vote, with three senators not voting. This legislation, introduced by state Senator Bryan King (R-5), would remove the absolute prohibition on concealed carry permit holders from being able to defend themselves in any church or other place of worship. If SB 71 is passed and enacted into law, churches and other places of worship will be able to decide if permit holders will be allowed to carry concealed firearms on their property for self-defense.

Sen. Bryan King (R-Green Forest) said it’s an issue of safety, especially for small rural churches. "This is not the type of bill that you're really happy about having to pass," King said after the vote. "It's just in today's society, you know as we see, there's violence and crime in church and it just gives each church the right to make their decisions on how they want to handle security."

Included in those testifying last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee was an NRA representative. The NRA also opposed an amendment, to weaken this bill by requiring places of worship to acquire liability insurance if they allow permit holders to carry concealed firearms on their property. The amendment was defeated in committee.

This legislation now goes to the House, where it may face more opposition than in the Senate. Arkansans are encouraged to contact their state Representative and request their support of Senate Bill 71 in committee and on final vote.

---

Tags: Arkansas, State Senate, Passed Church Carry bill, gun rights, Bryan King,  To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!