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 "smaller" government, free markets, lower taxes, due process of law, 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 or by this site - no paid ads accepted - no payments for articles.Fair Use doctrine is posted & used. Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru & 2010 AFP National Blogger of the Year] Follow @arra Contact: 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, February 02, 2013
Henson Ong at Gun Violence Prevention Public Hearing
This is great!!!!! Pay attention........ Take notes.
Mr. Henson Ong (a proud legal immigrant) schools the commission and audience at this Gun Violence Prevention Public Hearing in Hartford, CT, on Jan. 28, 2013, as well as the rest of us on the Second Amendment.
"A free people can only afford to make this mistake once!" Video Source
Tags:second amendment, rights, reasons, Henson Ong, legal immigrant, Gun Violence prevention hearing, Hartford, CTTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Liberal Thinking In Regards To “Safe Schools” Is Ridiculous
By David M. Huntwork, Op-Ed: Liberalism, or ‘progressivism’ if you prefer, can be for many a very puzzling ideology to understand at times. The latest issue where common sense has been suspended for the sake of political expediency is the question as to whether or not armed guards or teachers should be allowed in schools. The premise being that the only true and constitutional way to protect the most vulnerable among us and only effective way to stop a mass shooter would be by armed intervention by another.
The logical mind would say that a trained and armed, law-abiding citizen is the one thing that would effectively stand between a school or other vulnerable place being an attractive target to the most sick and twisted among and a tragedy being prevented. Currently schools are little more than a building full of sitting ducks for those who might wish to turn it into a shooting gallery with there being no hope whatsoever of stopping anyone who would decide to vent their frustration with life and society on helpless children.
It’s a pathetic state of affairs in a society where all concepts of personal responsibility, empathy for others, and the glorification of violence now permeates the culture and all forms of popular entertainment.
After the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut the National Rifle Association called for armed security at all schools. And any concealed carry advocates pointed out that ‘gun-free’ zones such as movie theaters have proven that they only attract those intent on harming large groups of helpless victims and do absolutely nothing to protect innocents. Since that shooting, there have already been several instances where armed persons have stopped a potential similar tragedy from occurring again because someone was armed and prepared to use force to stop the perpetrator.
I guess our liberal friends are aghast that, once again, their “solution” of gun-free zones has been shown to be fatally flawed. For them, guns are universally evil unless solely in the hands of the military or police, and even then they are viewed with great suspicion. To ever admit, even for a second, that an armed citizen might be able, available, and encouraged to be called upon or put in a position to save a fellow citizen from death and maiming by a madman is simply not acceptable to them. Even when that person might be trained and responsible, or someone that we otherwise put in a position of trust (pilots, teachers etc.).
In my home state of Colorado, a bill sponsored by my state senator that would have allowed teachers to carry concealed weapons in Colorado schools was recently defeated in a party line vote by Democrats. They would rather retain the status quo that leaves my children completely vulnerable and unprotected every single school day than provide them even a chance of being protected by an armed and trained individual. Explain to me how that is being responsible with the best interests of children in mind.
The typical idiocy of those who oppose the safe school concept was expressed in that particular debate by state Sen. Jesse Ulibarri, D-Commerce City, who asked whether armed teachers might just end up shooting their students, who would be in a crossfire.
“I want to make sure that I’m not allowing something worse to happen.”
Really? Seriously? The idea that Sandy Hook, Aurora theater, or Columbine massacres might have “been worse” because of some mythical “crossfire” that has never before happened in the history of mass shootings but is trotted out a valid and reasonable excuse to keep unarmed children and citizens completely unprotected is simply asinine.
Such thinking is mind boggling. It’s ridiculous, irresponsible, ignorant, dishonest, and ultimately dangerous in practice.
-------------- David Huntwork is a conservative activist, blogger, and columnist in Northern Colorado. He believes that Faith, Family, and Freedom is the formula for success and the key to a good life and a healthy nation. David blogs at Constitutionclub.org. Tags:liberal thinking, safe schools, school shootings, unprotected children, op-ed, David HuntworkTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Blogs For Borders - Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has introduced new legislation (S.202) in the U.S. Senate that would require all employers in the United States to use E-Verify. Sen. Grassley serves as the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees immigration policy in the Senate. He also sits on the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security. The Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act of 2013 would make the E-Verify program permanent and would require all employers to use the system within 12 months of enactment.
"With employers using the program on a voluntary basis, E-Verify has already proven its value in helping to enforce immigration laws by giving employers a tool to determine if individuals are eligible to work in the United States. And, if we can help stop employers from hiring people here illegally, we can help stem the flow of individuals crossing the border for jobs," Sen. Grassley said. "E-Verify will safeguard opportunities for legal workers and give employers a reliable tool to have a legal workforce."
The bill was introduced with 10 original cosponsors, including John Boozman (R-AR), Bob Corker (R-TN), Michael Enzi (R-WY), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), David Vitter (R-LA), and Roger Wicker (R-MS.). Sen. Grassley's bill would:
Makes permanent the E-Verify program that was created in 1996;
Makes E-Verify mandatory for all employers within one year of date of enactment;
Clarifies that federal contractors and the Federal Government (executive and legislative branches) must use it, and allows the Secretary to require “critical employers” to use it immediately;
Increases penalties for employers who don’t use the system or illegally hire undocumented workers;
Reduces the liability that employers face if they participate in E-Verify when it involves the wrongful termination of an individual;
Allows employers to use E-Verify before a person is hired, if the applicant consents;
Requires employers to check the status of existing employees within 3 years;
Requires employers to re-verify a person’s status if their employment authorization is due to expire;
Requires employers to terminate the employment of those found unauthorized to work due to a check through E-Verify;
Helps ensure that the Social Security Administration catches multiple use of Social Security numbers by requiring them to develop algorithms to detect anomalies;
Amends the criminal code to make clear that defendants who possess or otherwise use identity information not their own without lawful authority and in the commission of another felony is still punishable for aggravated identity fraud, regardless of the defendant’s “knowledge” of the victim;
Establishes a demonstration project in a rural area or area without internet capabilities to assist small businesses in complying with the participation requirement; and
Provides an offset to pay for any upgrades or expenses required by the legislation using unobligated funds from various departments.
Tags:Senate Bill, Chuck Grassley, mandatory e-verify, illegal aliensTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Romina Boccia, Heritage Foundation: Both houses of Congress have now voted to suspend the debt ceiling until May 19, buying lawmakers more time to develop a budget. The Senate would put together a budget for the first time in three years—and the details of that budget are crucial.
To prevent the federal debt from growing further out of control and harming economic growth in the long term, Congress must balance the budget in 10 years and keep it balanced—without raising taxes further.
This 5-point checklist covers the do’s and don’ts of balancing the budget in 10 years: 1. Do not raise taxes. Despite the President’s repeated assertions that he favors a balanced approach to deficit reduction, the latest budget debate over the fiscal cliff concluded by allowing 13 new or higher taxes to take effect, while it produced a net increase in spending of $47 billion. The tax hikes are hurting the economy and American workers by dampening investment and job creation. Yet our debt challenge remains. Only significant reductions in spending will effectively curb debt and deficits.
2. Reform entitlement programs. Congress must make much-needed reforms to entitlement programs to provide an affordable safety net. Congress should first repeal Obamacare or at least stop the subsidies and Medicaid expansion that begin in 2014. Social Security and Medicare should become true safety net programs and focus assistance on seniors in need. The eligibility age for both programs should match and reflect increases in longevity. Social Security’s cost-of-living adjustment should be based on a more accurate measure of inflation.
3. Reduce discretionary spending. Congress should immediately stop all spending for programs that benefit only a few and have even the appearance of cronyism, like subsidies for public broadcasting, agriculture, green energy, and ethanol. The federal government should focus on a limited number of appropriate national duties. States and local governments are better able to meet the needs of local populations in areas such as transportation, education, job training, economic development, and environmental conservation.
4. Do not use budget gimmicks. Congress must put the federal budget on a firm course to balance in 10 years and keep it balanced, without employing budget gimmicks. Congress should abstain from abusing disasters, like Hurricane Sandy, to push through excess spending. Neither should Congress enact laws that count on spending outside the 10-year budget window, as is the case with Obamacare’s coverage expansion provisions.
5. Do not sacrifice the nation’s security. Allowing myopic cuts to reduce military capabilities today risks incurring higher rebuilding costs tomorrow. Congress should responsibly fund defense at adequate levels.
The debate about the debt ceiling is the perfect opportunity to talk about America’s real budget priorities. Growing federal spending has put the nation on a track to fiscal collision, and a significant course correction is necessary.
Average historical tax revenues are 18.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). We can’t keep spending more than we take in. Spending must be reduced to this level over the 10-year budget window to balance the budget. The Heritage plan, Saving the American Dream, shows how Congress can prudently balance the budget in 10 years, without burdening Americans with higher taxes or compromising the nation’s national security.
--------------------- Romina Boccia is research coordinator for the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Tags:Heritage Foundation, Balancing Budget, balanced budget, budget, debt, Debt Ceiling, debt limit, deficit, deficit reduction, disasters, federal budget, federal spending, fiscal cliff, GDP, gross domestic product, Hurricane Sandy, Morning Bell, Obamacare, Repeal Obamacare, Saving the American Dream, Sequestration, social security, tax hikes, taxesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Government Targeting Conservatives A Disturbing Trend
Why are law enforcement and the military listening to the Southern Poverty Law Center? And did Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano perjure herself when she testified about the discredited right-wing extremism memo?
It was the one that defined the ideology as “groups, movements, and adherents that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority” and “groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”
This was the same memo that suggested veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan might be recruited by terrorists.
In one broad swoop, it appeared that the government was targeting millions of Americans solely on the basis of their political beliefs, and even because they had served their country at war. When it became public, it caused a firestorm nationwide.
But the key one to remember is the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center.
At the time ALG President Bill Wilson noted, “Not a single study or report was from any government source,” said Wilson. “There was no evidence of any actual active recruitment of ‘disgruntled veterans’ by these groups, no evidence showing that folks who purchase guns or oppose gun-control legislation are necessarily dangerous, and no evidence that the economic downturn or the election of Barack Obama that is fueling any actual ‘resurgence’ of ‘extremism.’”
“The memo did not illuminate on any actual planned attacks or any groups known to be planning attacks, or any groups with histories of perpetrating attacks that are currently conducting any types of operational recruitment, meeting, or planning attacks,” Wilson added. In other words, there was no evidence presented in the report itself.
Putting a fine point on the matter, he said, “The background DHS used was not based on credible intelligence sources, reporting, and analysis. Instead, what we found is that the Department was apparently surfing the net to see what news stories happened to turn up to support a pre-determined conclusion.”
Then, weeks later, a DHS Domestic Extremism Lexicon, whose release the Department claimed was a mistake, contained 9 pages of terms and political identifications that the DHS linked to potential domestic terrorists. The definition of “rightwing extremism” from the controversial DHS memo also appeared in that report.
Eventually the original memo was withdrawn, and Napolitano was forced to admit in congressional testimony that “The wheels came off the wagon because the vetting process was not followed,” and to boot that “An employee sent it out without authorization.”
Originally, she was defending the report, but once Congress started prying, those involved were promptly thrown under the bus.
The MIAC advisory also stated that potential domestic terrorists would be attracted to gun shows, shortwave radios, action movies, movies with white male heroes like Rambo, Tom Clancy novels, and presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin.
Much like the DHS memo, the Southern Poverty Law Center was cited, this time directly in the MIAC memo itself, as a top source of information.
And much like the DHS memo, it was withdrawn by the agency that put it forward, followed by public apologies from government officials. Missouri Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder (R-MO) even asked that Missouri Public Safety Director John Britt be placed on administrative leave.
And who could forget the written exam administered by the Pentagon that defined “protests” as a form of “low-level terrorism,” raising serious concerns among civil liberties advocates about how the military views the exercise of First Amendment freedoms like civil dissent?
This report warns of the rising militancy of so-called “anti-federalists” that Perliger says embrace ideas like “civil activism, individual freedoms and self-government.” And so-called “anti-federalists” who “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights.”
Judicial Watch notes that Southern Poverty Law Center lists as hate groups several conservative organizations like the Family Research Council, American Family Association, and Concerned Women for America.
“The Southern Poverty Law Center has, in the past few years, taken to labeling organizations with conservative views on social issues as ‘hate groups,’” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Fitton added, “Given these fawning emails, one would have thought that a head of state was visiting the Justice Department. The SPLC is an attack group, and it is disturbing that it has premier access to our Department of Justice, which is charged with protecting the First Amendment rights of all Americans.”
The fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center has been used so prominently in three major intelligence assessments by DHS, Missouri’s “fusion center,” and now even at West Point confirms that the organization’s reach into the security apparatus of the U.S. is far and wide indeed.
Wilson said the West Point memo was “part of a wider pattern of targeting Americans by the military and security establishment that ought to be disturbing to all Americans regardless of political stripe.”
Yet, except for some right-leaning outlets and organizations that are crying foul, the story is receiving little attention in the mainstream media.
Perhaps one reason why is on account of a growing body of evidence that the American people are being targeted by security officials, law enforcement, and now the military, singularly based on their political beliefs. And apparently at the behest of a politically motivated, radical left-wing organization. All the while, a complicit or complacent media turns a blind eye.
“When a liberal group like the Pew Research Center finds that more than half of the American people feel the government is a threat to their liberty, this a hardly a fringe concern,” Wilson noted, concluding, “Maybe the American people have every right to be afraid of the government after all.”
---------------- Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of Americans for Limited Government. Tags:Robert Romano, ALG, Americans for Limited Government, Government targeting of conservatives, infringement on free speech, liberty, press, Big governmentTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison, Contributing Authors: Former Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel’s nomination to be Secretary of Defense should be withdrawn now. He delivered what may be the worst performance at a confirmation hearing ever given. He was described as “confused,” “befuddled,” and “self contradicting.” One of Mr. Hagel’s own backers deplored the lack of “charisma” the nominee showed during the hearings.
Was this just a "Bad Hair Day"for Mr. Hagel?
“Hagel, who can be hilarious, didn’t show much of that today,” said Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation. Let the record show that never before has “hilarious” been offered as a qualification for a Cabinet officer supervises America’s nuclear arsenal.
Perhaps the lowest moment of the entire dismal day occurred when an aide helpfully passed Sen. Hagel a note. We are not privy to its contents, but it prompted the embattled nominee to correct himself.
He did not—as he had just testified under oath—support the president’s containment policy toward an Iran with nuclear weapons. That was because the president has said over and over again: He favors preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, not containing a nuclear Iran. He does not have a containment policy.
In a chess game, you would turn over your king. In tennis, you’d hop over the net to congratulate your victorious opponent. In short, if you have to do something like that under the full glare of klieg lights, you’ve lost all credibility.
Before yesterday’s hearings, the Chuck Hagel nomination was simply very controversial.
He had made alarming statements and cast alarming votes during his Senate career. He had opposed economic sanctions against Iran. We have expressed our own skepticism about the efficacy of these sanctions.
But Sen. Hagel also opposed naming the Iran’s Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization. It is common knowledge that Iran backs Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Both of these outfits are terrorist gangs, so described routinely by the U.S. government. Naming the home office of Mideast terrorism a terrorist organization should not be hard. But it was too hard for Chuck Hagel.
After yesterday’s hearings, we have an entirely new set of concerns. Sen. Hagel has never administered any large organization—in private industry or in government. The Pentagon is a huge bureaucracy.
He seems to be telling us it isn’t a problem all the wild things I’ve said because I will not be in a policy-making position. If he is confirmed and not making policy, that fact would speak volumes about this administration’s lack of seriousness on national defense.
Since the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947, the civilian head of the Pentagon has performed a vital role in the highest counsels of government. In 1948, it was the new department’s critically important task to integrate the U.S. Armed Forces—and to undertake the defense of encircled West Berlin through the now-famous Berlin Airlift.
Throughout the decades since, some Secretaries of Defense have been deeply controversial—like Robert Strange MacNamara during the Vietnam War. Some have been great and capable leaders—like Caspar Weinberger during the highly successful Reagan years. But we have never had a Secretary of Defense who promises on entering office to be inconsequential.
For President Obama to go forward with this deeply flawed nomination now is to take upon himself the responsibility for inviting chaos and confusion at a time of international peril. The prospect of nuclear weapons in the hands of the mullahs in Tehran who invented suicide bombing should concentrate the thoughts of even our distracted Washington policy makers.
Democrats should privately, or publicly if necessary, appeal to the president to reconsider this nomination. We are reminded of the brave stance of the late Paul Weyrich. This conservative leader testified against the nomination of former Sen. John Tower in 1989, not because of Tower’s record on defense issues, with which Weyrich largely agreed. But Weyrich said he had seen the Texan’s all-too-frequent inebriated state. It took courage for Paul Weyrich to put country above party then, and it’s what we ask of Democrats now.
President Obama has successfully avoided serious questioning about his foreign policy.
We have praised his raid to take out Osama bin Laden. We remain concerned that the president does not take seriously enough the menace of Iranian nukes.
Yesterday’s hearing makes clear why the Iranians might want Chuck Hagel leading the Pentagon; it does not make clear why most Americans should. It seems the president chose an old Senate chum who could be relied upon to rubber stamp the administration’s social engineering of the military.
The first duty of the President of the United States is to safeguard the American people and our Constitution. If he goes forward with this flawed nomination, President Obama will be saying loudly on national defense: Whatever.
Mr. President: Now is the time to prevent future grief for our nation and our all-volunteer military. Now is the time to withdraw this nomination. Chuck Hagel.
--------------------- Ken Blackwell is an advisor to the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and a conservative family values advocate. He is a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission and is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council. BobMorrison is a Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council. He has served at the U.S. Department of Education with Gary Bauer under then-Secretary William Bennett. Both are contributing authors to the ARRA News Service. Tags:Ken Blackwell, Bob Morrison, Chuck, Hagel, nomination, Secretary of Defense,To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Senate Dems Now Face No Pay If No Budget | Unemployment | Troubled Nominations
Today in Washington, D.C. - Feb 1. 2012
The White House announced today that Energy Secretary Steven Chu is stepping down. Wonder if those federal loans Chu made for the Obama administration to the failed solar company Solyndra were "to charged up"?
Yesterday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics report showed that the unemployment rate increased for the second month in a row to 7.9 percent as 126,000 more Americans reported that they were unemployed in January than in December. Since the November election, the number of Americans reporting that they are unemployed has increased by more than 330,000 people or roughly the equivalent of the entire population of Cincinnati, Ohio.
Generation Opportunity, a national, non-partisan organization advocating for Millennials ages 18-29, reported that the youth unemployment rate for 18-29 year olds was 13.1 percent (NSA) and for subset categories: African-Americans22.1 percent; Hispanics13.0 percent; and women11.6 percent. The declining labor participation rate has created an additional 1.7 million young adults that are not counted as "unemployed" by the U.S. Department of Labor because they are not in the labor force, meaning that those young people have given up looking for work due to the lack of jobs.
Terence Grado, Director of National and State Policy at Generation Opportunity said, “President Obama says America should be ‘investing in the generation that will build its future,’ yet four years of his government-driven economic policies have left us with record youth unemployment and an economy that is literally shrinking. My generation is suffering disproportionately. Instead of staying the course and doubling down on failure, we need a new strategy that encourages the private sector to grow, invest, and provide real opportunities for the millions of young people who have great skills, are ready to contribute, and have waited long enough.”
Yesterday, The Washington Timesreflected on the initial Senate hearings on former Sen. Chuck Hagel nomination for Secretary of Defense: ">Hagel appears to face an even steeper climb to become the next defense secretary after a rocky confirmation hearing Thursday in which his fellow Republicans blasted him for positions on issues and for what they called his willingness to alter positions "for the sake of political expediency." Bill Smith, editor of the ARRA News Service, notes, "The tables sure are different on the Hagle nomination. The Democrats are supporting a RINO (thus a democrat) nominee who is far less qualified that the outgoing Sec of Defense Leon Penetta, a democrat. It is left to Republicans to make the effort to vet and to bring out the major flaws and why Hagel's nomination should not be approved. Having served under several different Secretary of Defense in my 22 year military career, both Democrats and Republicans, I find it disturbing that Hagel was even nominated. His is major qualifications seem to be his anti-Zionist sentiments, his pro-Muslim sentiments, his opposition to former military actions, a disrespect for former military operations and former senior military officers, and finally his connection to and former Chairman and CEO of American Information Systems, now called Election Systems & Software (ES&S) company in Nebraska. ES&S is a corporation that provides a majority of electronic voting machines in the United States and there have been numerous questions regarding his involvement and influence with this company in regard to election results.
Congress was not in session today. However, yesterday, the Senate voted 64-34 to pass H.R. 325, the House-passed bill to extend the debt ceiling for three months. Prior to final passage, Democrats voted to table (kill) 3 Republican amendments to the bill designed to provide for a more responsible process concerning the debt limit. Tabled were an amendment from Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), which would have required that any debt limit increase be balanced by equal spending cuts over the next decade, a second amendment from Sen. Portman which would have prevented government shutdowns by providing for automatic continuing resolutions if appropriations bills are not passed before the end of the fiscal year, and an amendment from Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) that would have ensured that the U.S. government’s creditors are paid first in the event that a debt limit increase is not passed. Also tabled was an amendment from Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) to prohibit the sale of F-16s to Egypt. In addition, senators voted to table a motion from Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) to commit the bill to the Finance Committee and have it returned with provisions to cut spending over the next decade.
However, in passing the bill, the Senate democrats who run the Senate have agreed to finally pass a budget after nearly four years of inaction or be faced with no pay. the bill contains a 'No Budget, No Pay' provision which places Members’ salaries in escrow after April 15th until they pass a budget. this “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.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) commented after the passage of H.R. 325 by the Senate: “Every hardworking family and small business in America puts together a budget, and our elected leaders have a responsibility to do the same. It shouldn't have taken legislative action by the House to force the Democratic majority in the Senate to do its job -- but after nearly four years of inaction on a budget by Senate Democrats, that's what it came to. Because of the efforts of House Republicans, Senate Democrats are now required to do their job for the American people and pass a budget, or lose their pay. Now Senate Democrats should take the task seriously and present a plan that balances the budget and responsibly addresses the government's spending problem.
“Our shared goal should be to help grow the economy and expand opportunity. To do that, we need to budget responsibly. House Republicans have consistently passed budgets that promote economic growth and address our debt crisis -- which is the result of out of-control spending by Washington -- and we will do so again this year.”
Speaker Boehner also made a statement Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) bill: Require a PLAN Act. If passed and signed into law by the president (some doubt there). the Act requires President Obama to also submit to Congress a balanced budget: Boehner said, “So long as Washington isn’t balancing its checkbook, it’s going to be harder for families and small business owners to balance theirs. Getting Senate Democrats to finally agree to do a budget was a good start, but we need President Obama to do his job as well. With this measure, we are giving the president a chance to kick his habit of submitting budgets that spend, tax, and borrow too much. That approach clearly isn’t working. By requiring the president to show how he would balance the budget, all we’re doing is holding him to the same standard any family tries to meet. Given that the president’s budget will be late, it may as well be right.”
Another nominee may also face troubles in the confirmation process, The AP reported today, “Senate Republicans say they will oppose President Barack Obama's nominee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, unless the office created after the 2008 financial meltdown is significantly changed. Obama has renominated current director Richard Cordray, who had been named in a recess appointment last year.
“Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and 42 other GOP senators sent a letter Friday to Obama saying the consumer office has little accountability to Congress and wields too much regulatory authority. They said they would oppose any nominee, no matter his or her party affiliation. ‘Far too much power is vested in the sole CFPB director without any meaningful checks and balances,’ the letter from the senators said.”
The Hill adds, “Senate Republicans are renewing their vow to block any nominee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) unless major changes are made to its structure . . . . The refreshed blockade comes just days after President Obama re-nominated Richard Cordray to serve as CFPB director. The president installed Cordray in the position one year ago, using a controversial recess appointment after running into similar Republican opposition.”
The AP notes, “Cordray's recess appointment is under court challenge. Obama appointed Cordray last year, on the same day he placed three members on the National Labor Relations Board whose appointments were ruled unconstitutional by a federal appeals court last month. A ruling on Cordray is pending.”
Further, The Hill points out, “Cordray's recess appointment, due to run through the end of 2013, has come under fresh scrutiny, with many believing the move could be ruled unconstitutional. One week ago, a federal appeals court ruled that a trio of recess appointments made the same day to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional, leading many to believe it is only a matter of time under Cordray's appointment faces a similar fate.”
In their letter, the Republican senators write, “As presently organized, the CFPB is insulated from congressional oversight of its actions and its budget. Far too much power is vested in the sole CFPB director without any meaningful checks and balances. We again urge the adoptions of the following reforms: 1. Establish a bipartisan board of directors to oversee the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 2. Subject the Bureau to the annual appropriation process, similar to other federal regulators.”
Leader McConnell noted, “The CFPB as created by the deeply flawed Dodd-Frank Act is one of the least accountable in Washington. Today’s letter reaffirms a commitment by 43 Senators to fix the poorly thought structure of this agency that has unprecedented reach and control over individual consumer decisions—but an unprecedented lack of oversight and accountability.” Tags:Washington in Review, Obama nominations, unemployment, budgetsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
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)
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)
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!
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.
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 interchangeabilityTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
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 PresidentTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
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 andavoiding 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.”
"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, economyTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
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.
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 FamilyTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
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 ProsperityTo 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
#Conservative #Constitution #NRA #GunRights #military 22 yr #veteran #professor #Christian #ProLife #TCOT #SGP #CCOT #schoolchoice #fairtax Married-50+yrs #MAGA
Comments by contributing authors or other sources do not necessarily reflect the position the editor, other contributing authors, sources, readers, or commenters. No contributors, or editors are paid for articles, images, cartoons, etc. While having reported on and promoting the beliefs associated with the ARRA, this blog/site is not controlled by nor funded by the ARRA. This site/blog does not advertise for money or services nor does it solicit funding for its support.
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.