Friday, August 22, 2014
by Rick Manning: President Obama has officially become the laughingstock of the world, happily ensconced in the wonderland of Martha’s Vineyard on one of his many vacations, while a junior varsity terrorist group runs amok lopping off heads of everyone in their path, the borders remain a sieve, Gaza remains a battleground, and the Russians toy with taking the Ukraine among a few crises that are boiling over.
It is utterly appalling that Obama, the king of optics, would make a perfunctory statement about the beheading of an American journalist by the terror group Islamic State (ISIS) and then head off for another round of golf.
It is even more appalling that he has largely ignored the religious cleansing that is being perpetrated by this Islamic group that seeks to establish a new caliphate.
At a time when the Canadians, Brits and even the French have come to the fore as leaders, Obama hasn’t even led a hashtag campaign against the religious thugs that are attracting Islamic soldiers from around the world.
Now it is unfair to completely castigate the Duffer in Chief, as the U.S. and Great Britain are flying bombing sorties against ISIS positions. But that is not enough. Now is the time when the leader of the free world should be making the moral case against the spread of ISIS with the goal of putting an international coalition together. Instead, Obama is spending time with celebrities and wealthy friends on the links, and the world notices this abdication of power.
What really should make every American’s blood boil about this don’t care presidency is that it sends a message to the world that future President’s commitments are only as good as their term in office. If any Iraqi or Afghan tribal leaders, interpreters and others who allied themselves with the United States survive the next two and a half years, they will provide an indictment against taking America’s side in any conflict. An indictment sealed by their unanswered pleas for assistance and expedited relocation out of harm’s way.
No, Obama has not only wasted the blood of American and other allied troops that was shed in Iraq and Afghanistan, but through his dereliction of duty, he has wasted the blood spilled all over the globe over the past 73 years which established our nation as the only dependable beacon of freedom.
But at least when his term in office mercifully ends in 2016, Obama’s handicap will be low enough so he doesn’t embarrass himself in Pro-Am tournaments, and some other President can try to restore the world’s trust in America.
Unfortunately, they will likely have to do so by sending our young people back into much more significant and deadly battles as the price of Obama’s destroying America’s hard earned veneer of invulnerability. The price of freedom is always high, but it gets even more expensive when the rest of the world doesn’t believe that you are willing to pay it.
And that will ultimately be Obama’s legacy – a man too small for the job at a time when our nation needed a giant.
Rick Manning (@rmanning957) is the vice president of public policy and communications for Americans for Limited Government. This article was also shared on NetRightDaily.
Tags: Obama golfs, world burns, Rick Manning, Americans for Limited Government, editorial cartoon, William Warren To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Judicial Watch Sues TSA over Cover-Up: Passenger Complaints “Assaults Relating to Sexual Misconduct”
FOIA lawsuit seeks TSA 2013 records from Dulles, Chicago, Denver, Miami, and Los Angeles airports
(Washington D.C.) – Judicial Watch announced on August 21, 2014 that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) seeking “Incident Reports” of alleged sexual misconduct throughout 2013 by Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers at Dulles, Chicago, Denver, Miami, and Los Angeles airports (Judicial Watch v U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:14-cv-01179)). The lawsuit was filed on July 11, 2014.
The Judicial Watch lawsuit was filed pursuant to a March 5, 2014, FOIA request seeking the following:
TSA sexual misconduct allegations drew nationwide attention in early January 2014 when a Colorado woman, Jamelyn Steenhoek, filed a complaint against TSA officers at a checkpoint at Denver International Airport saying the frisking she received amounted to sexual assault. According to a news report on Denver TV station CBS4:
“At that point she did a pretty invasive search. They are just areas of the body I’m not comfortable being touched in. On the outside of my pants she cupped my crotch. I was uncomfortable with that.”
Steenhoek said the agent repeatedly dug her fingers into Steenhoek’s armpits.
“The part of the search that bothered most was the breast search. You could tell it shouldn’t take that much groping. To me it was as extensive as an exam from my physician — full touching and grabbing in the front. I felt uncomfortable, I felt violated.”
“So it didn’t make any sense. The whole search was done over and more touching and grabbing than the first time.”
On January 30, 2014, former TSA officer Jason Edward Harrington wrote an article for Politico.com entitled “Dear America, I Saw You Naked,” and subtitled, “And yes we were laughing. Confessions of an ex-TSA agent.” In the article, Harrington revealed that TSA agents had a code for women they found sexually attractive and who may be put through a revealing full body scan procedure:
In August 2013, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report revealed that misconduct is rampant among TSA officers. According to the report, from 2010 to 2012 TSA officers were cited for more than 9,600 cases of misconduct. In nearly 2,000 cases officers were sleeping on the job, not following procedures, or letting relatives and friends bypass security checkpoints. Thousands of others failed to show up for work, appeared late or left their post without permission. Some TSA workers were caught stealing expensive electronic items, cash and other valuables from passengers. According to the GAO report, “TSA does not have a process for conducting reviews of misconduct cases to verify that TSA staff at airports are complying with policies and procedures for adjudicating employee misconduct.”
“With 56,000 employees and a $7.7 billion budget, the TSA is a massive government agency that requires diligent oversight,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is bad enough that many experts argue that it is unnecessarily intrusive and ineffective. The fact that TSA would stonewall basic information about potentially egregious and criminal assaults on airline passengers is a further proof this agency is out of control. This agency now must answer in federal court for its illegal secrecy. President Obama, despite his supposed commitment to transparency, continues to allow his agencies to flout our nation’s basic open records law without consequence. When will President Obama take personal responsibility for his administration’s repeated violation of federal law?”
Tags: Judicial Watch,press release, sues, FOIA request, 2013 records, TSA, coverup, passenger complaints, assaults, sexual misconduct, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Truly Transcending Obamacare
by Phil Kerpen, Contributing Author: While the dominant Republican slogan on health care remains “repeal and replace,” there is little agreement on what “replace” means. But if we wait until Obamacare can be repealed before developing a consensus on positive health care changes, major parts of Obamacare will be even more entrenched and its seductive goal of universal coverage may push us instead toward fully government-controlled single-payer system.
So what to do?
Two competing visions have been offered by leading conservative health care analysts. Manhattan Institute scholar Avik Roy has introduced a provocative new universal coverage plan that – if it worked as advertised – would be clearly superior to Obamacare in all of its particulars: it would lower premiums, cover more people, save taxpayers trillions, and do so without an individual or employer mandate.
Roy believes his plan would “transcend Obamacare,” and therefore could potentially gain Democratic support and clear the 60 vote hurdle in the Senate. But Democrats have shown no willingness to act on anything related to Obamacare, blocking dozens of House-passed bills making even minor changes like restoring the 40 hour workweek.
Even if Republicans take control of the Senate, few if any Democrats are likely to support a plan like Roy’s that moves future retirees off of Medicare and into reformed Obamacare exchanges. So the plan accepts the premise universal coverage as a goal for a perceived benefit of political pragmatism that is unlikely to materialize.
Robert Graboyes of Virginia Commonwealth University is also sharply critical of “repeal and replace,” but from a very different perspective. The problem with repeal and replace, he points out, is that it “assumes some enlightened Congress and president can muster the wisdom, altruism and ability to reinvent one-fifth of the economy. One new law would sweep away the old and fix the problems that preceded it” – a criticism that also applies to Roy’s plan with its system of universal coverage through exchanges.
Americans are more distrustful of grand plans than ever before, and they are increasingly skeptical of the idea that it’s the federal government’s job to guarantee health insurance.
Obamacare has created a backlash among the public that gives us an opportunity to smash the premise that guaranteeing health insurance is a proper function of government, and instead focus on getting the incentives right for more innovation and individual choice and better health outcomes.
Annual polling from Gallup tells the story: as recently as 2006, 69 percent of Americans said it was the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage. The rollout of Obamacare has sent that number tumbling to a low of 42 percent last year. A high of 56 percent said it is not the federal government’s responsibility.
This shifting reality means plans like Roy’s are calibrated to address a political problem that no longer exists. Americans no longer want a new government bureaucracy to give everyone health care – because it’s become apparent that, in practice, the results are unlikely to be anywhere near what’s promised.
Thus Graboyes proposes a new paradigm: “The real divide in health care is between what I call ‘fortress and frontier.’ The fortress fears risk and protects insiders. The frontier tolerates risk and allows outsiders to compete.”
Indeed it is this paradigm shift – not a new comprehensive federal plan – that can actually transcend Obamacare.
Vast technological change is poised to transform American health care, delivering the promise of happier, healthier, longer lives through innovations that we can scarcely imagine – and that will be fiercely resisted by existing large institutions and their captive regulator and legislator allies.
We need to focus on public policies that put patients and doctors in charge of their health care, give greater choice and control, and knock down bureaucratic barriers to unleash the creative energies of Americans to innovate new cures and devices to enhance and extend our lives and improve our health.
We can’t need to wait for a big “repeal and replace” push; we need to start immediately with policies that will improve the lives of Americans now and in the future.
Phil Kerpen is president of American Commitment and an ARRA News Service contributing author. He is on Twitter and on Facebook.
Tags: transcending Obamacare, Avik Roy, new universal coverage plan, Phil Kerpen, American Commitment To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
ISIS Warnings | Israel Update | Scandal Update - GAO Reports Obama Administration Broke The Law
And this is the group that Barack Obama once dismissed as "junior varsity."
By the way, Obama is getting slammed for the terrible optics of cutting loose on the golf course while the Foley family was publicly grieving the loss of their son, Jim. Ezra Klein, a leading Obama apologist, tweeted: "…golfing today is in bad taste. Not sure how to reconcile."
The New York Daily News ripped Obama's "Golf War" on its front page yesterday. The article added, "President Obama put his own spin on the oft-quoted advice of predecessor Teddy Roosevelt: speak strongly and carry a nine iron."
These sorts of episodes -- optics, scandals and policy blunders (more on that below) -- are seriously hurting Obama in the polls. "Big deal," you may be thinking. "He's not on the ballot again." That's true, but his allies are -- and Obama is hurting them too.
A recent Marist poll found that voters are angry with Obama, and by a 10-point margin they said planned to vote against Democrat candidates because of Obama.
Everything Republicans say and do must make this election a referendum on Obama: Do voters want to elect more Democrats who will support Obama? Or do they want to elect Republicans who will fight him?
Israel Update - If Israel had bombed a home and 18 innocent Palestinians died, the streets of Paris, London and New York would be filled with angry demonstrators. Well, Hamas just summarily executed 18 Palestinians without trial. There is zero outrage from the U.N. to the streets of major Western cities.
The IDF has released a report finding that Hamas has fired 1,600 rockets at Israel since July 8th from civilian areas -- mosques, schools, playgrounds, graveyards, U.N. facilities, etc.
Scandal Update - Yesterday, the non-partisan Government Accountability Office issued a report finding that Obama Administration officials broke two laws when they traded five Taliban generals for a suspected Taliban sympathizer.
First, they failed to sufficiently notify Congress that it was releasing the terrorists. Second, they spent money in the process that was never appropriated for that purpose, funds that "were not technically available," in violation of the Antideficiency Act.
Noting that federal employees who violate the Antideficiency Act are subject to administrative and even criminal penalties, Senator Saxby Chambliss, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, is demanding a special prosecutor to investigate the release of the Taliban 5.
Wednesday, a federal judge ordered the Justice Department to release documents demanded by House Republicans as part of their investigation of Operation Fast and Furious, the Obama Administration's gun-walking scandal that resulted in the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. Attorney General Eric Holder has impeded that investigation, even refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena. Two years ago, House Republicans voted to hold him in contempt of Congress.
If Republicans succeed in taking the Senate back this November, it will be much easier for Congress to act against these kinds of outrageous abuses when both the House and the Senate are united and working together.
Gary Bauer is a conservative family values advocate and serves as president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families
Tags: ISIS Warning, Israel, update, scandal update, GAO Reports, Obama Administration, broke the law, 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. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Obama Golfs While Obamacare Train Wreck Continues
The President is on vacation - Golfing most days. He returned to Washington, D.C. for two days to meet with staff. However even the press wonders what he is doing as chaos rumbles across the globe especially in Iraq.
It has also been noted by all active duty and veterans that President Obama failed to attend the funeral of Major General Harold "Harry" J. Greene who was killed in Afghanistan earlier this month. General Green was buried on August 14th in Arlington Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia. Gen. Green the highest-ranking U.S. service member killed in a combat zone since the Vietnam War. Greene, 55, deputy commander of the Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan, was killed Aug. 5 at an Afghan military academy near Kabul by a man believed to be an Afghan soldier — an insider attack that sent shock waves through the U.S. military. The assailant wounded 15 other military personnel, including eight Americans, before he was killed by Afghan security forces.
The House and the Senate are adjourned for August recess to allow senators to work in their home states.
The Senate will return for legislative business on Monday, September 8th. When the Senate returns, votes are scheduled on nominees to the Social Security Advisory Board and on the nomination of Jill Pryor to be a judge on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Though many things in Washington are quieter in August, news of Obamacare’s problems rarely takes a break. The law is so flawed that there’s almost always a new report of some broken promise, failing system, or negative consequence.
Yesterday, The Denver Post wrote, “The Colorado Division of Insurance has reported that there were about 2,100 health-plan cancellations in the state over the past two months, bringing this year's total to more than 6,150. The division reported the figures for June 15-Aug. 15 to Senate Minority Leader Bill Cadman last week. Senate Republicans have requested monthly on the numbers. Since 2013, there have been about 340,000 policy cancelations in Colorado. Many customers received notices last fall as the Affordable Care Act was rolling out. . . . Opponents of the Affordable Care Act cite the cancelations as proof that it is hurting consumers more than helping.”
And while these stories always feature some Obamcare proponent making excuses for the unpopular law, the fact is that the president pledged in 2009, “If you like your current plan, you will be able to keep it.” And numerous Democrats made similar promises, like Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) saying, “If you like the insurance that you have, you'll be able to keep it”; and Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) claiming that “people who have insurance they're happy with can keep it.”
Meanwhile, the bureaucratic snafus of Obamacare continue apace. The administration, just a couple months out from this year’s enrollment period is still struggling to reconcile problems and inconsistencies from last year’s enrollment. According to The Hill, “Federal health officials are warning some consumers to send in citizenship and immigration documents or forfeit their ObamaCare coverage on Sept. 30. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is sending the notices to consumers whose ObamaCare application data was inconsistent with federal records. . . . At issue are hundreds of thousands of disparities between ObamaCare applications and federal records pertaining to immigration status and citizenship. Many consumers obtained coverage before an inconsistency in their application was rectified. While HHS believes that most of the problems are not the result of fraud, some Republican critics of the healthcare law said the system is too loosely monitored to protect itself against bad actors.”
In addition, the Obama administration is being less than transparent when it comes to the security protocols of its infamously flawed health care exchange website, leaving Americans with few assurances that their data is safe. The AP reported last week, “After promising not to withhold government information over ‘speculative or abstract fears,’ the Obama administration has concluded it will not publicly disclose federal records that could shed light on the security of the government's health care website because doing so could ‘potentially’ allow hackers to break in. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services denied a request by The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act for documents about the kinds of security software and computer systems behind the federally funded HealthCare.gov. The AP requested the records late last year amid concerns that Republicans raised about the security of the website, which had technical glitches that prevented millions of people from signing up for insurance under President Barack Obama's health care law. . . . Obama instructed federal agencies in 2009 to not keep information confidential ‘merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.’ Yet the government, in its denial of the AP request, speculates that disclosing the records could possibly, but not assuredly or even probably, give hackers the keys they need to intrude. . . . Keeping details about lockdown practices confidential is generally derided by information technology experts as ‘security through obscurity.’ Disclosing some types of information could help hackers formulate break-in strategies, but other facts, such as numbers of break-ins or descriptions of how systems store personal data, are commonly shared in the private sector. ‘Security practices aren't private information,’ said David Kennedy, an industry consultant who testified before Congress last year about HealthCare.gov's security. Last year, the AP found that CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner took the unusual step of signing the operational security certificate for HealthCare.gov herself, even as her agency's security professionals balked. That memo said incomplete testing created uncertainties that posed a potentially high security risk for the website.”
Despite Democrats blowing smoke about embracing Obamacare or its fading as an issue of concern to Americans, Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report writes, “Has this issue [Obamacare] finally run its course? Short answer: No. Obamacare remains a liability to Democrats this fall. It remains widely unpopular in southern red states where control of the Senate will be determined. It may not be the issue this cycle, but it is still a top negative for Democrats. Plus, the more unpopular the President, the more politically toxic any issue associated with him or his administration.”
Obamacare has been a bureaucratic train wreck from the beginning. Each passing week only brings more stories of Americans who lost coverage or can’t get coverage as well as an endless stream of more regulations, red tape, higher costs, premium increases and technological troubles, all of which were predicted by those who opposed this legislation in the first place. It needs to be repealed and replaced with real step-by-step reforms to health care that will actually lower costs.
Tags: Obama golfs, Senate, House, recessed, work sessions, campaigning in districts, Obamacare, Train Wreck, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Big Fat Lies About Fat
by Alan Caruba, Contributing Author: Americans are obsessed with fat; either with eating it or being it. We’ve been told that we’re too fat and we’re told that eating fat is bad for you.
Being fat is your own business. You’ll feel better if you lose a few pounds, but you will enjoy your next meal if it has a fat content rather than being a bland cereal…which explains why so many cereals today have some surgery covering or content.
The fact is you can eat almost anything you like and remain a healthy weight if you just don’t eat too much of it. It’s not rocket science.
For politicians, however, controlling what we eat has become an obsession. A demented Democratic Representative, Rosa DeLauro, from Connecticut, has proposed a bill—the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Act—SWEET for short, that would penalize people one-cent for every teaspoon of sugar used in their drink of choice. It’s none of her business, let along the government’s, what you want to drink.
This obsession with what we eat has been personified by First Lady Michelle Obama who championed the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kinds Act that overhauled nutrition standards affecting more than thirty million children in schools around the nation.
It authorized the U.S. Department of Agriculture to set standards for all food and beverages sold during the school day. The law includes vending machines, snack cards, and daytime fundraisers. That now means that campus bake sales, the most popular fundraiser, now has to pay heed to a federal law that forbids selling cakes, cupcakes, or cookies.
Laws like this are a perfect example of how intrusive into the ordinary lives of Americans of all ages are laws that are slowly killing the concept of personal choice and personal freedom. They also demonstrate how wrong such laws are when they are written and passed by people who are clueless about nutrition.
A recent Gallup poll on “consumption habits” revealed that “Nearly twice as many Americans say they are actively trying to avoid fat in their diet (56%) as say they are actively avoiding carbohydrates (29%). However, fewer Americans are avoiding fat now more than a decade ago.”
Over the years as a book reviewer and avid reader, I have read “You Must Eat Meat” by Max Ernest Jutte, MD and Frank Murray, and “The Cholesterol Delusion” by Ernest N. Curtis, MD. Both books authoritatively debunk what Americans have repeatedly been told about meat and cholesterol, but my earliest advisor on these and other food related topics was Rebecca Caruba, my Mother, who taught gourmet cooking for three decades in local adult schools and who authored two cookbooks. She was a keen student of nutrition and early on warned students against margarine, telling them to use real butter and to enjoy all manner of meats, cheeses, and other foods we are constantly told are not good for us.
At this point I want to add Nina Teicholz to the list of heroes like my Mother and the authors of the two books mentioned above. A skilled journalist, she has written a 479-page book, “The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat, and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet” ($28.99, Simon & Schuster). The fact that it includes nearly 140 pages of tiny, single-spaced notes regarding every detail in the book tells you why it took some nine years to write it.
Simply stated, everything Americans think they know about our diets is wrong, the result of a deliberate campaign to convince us that eating fat is bad for us when, in fact, creamy cheeses and sizzling steaks are the key to reversing the obesity, diabetes, and heart disease that affect too many Americans.
As William Davis, MD, author of “Wheat Belly: Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight and Find Your Path Back to Health” said, “A page-turner story of science gone wrong…Misstep by misstep, blunder by blunder by blunder, Teicholz recounts the statistical cherry-picking, political finagling, and pseudoscientific bully that brought us to yet another of the biggest mistakes in health and nutrition, the low-fat and low-saturated fat myth for heart health.”
The myth began in the 1950s with Ancel Benjamin Keys, a biologist and pathologist at the University of Minnesota. He was searching for the causes of heart disease. The nation was extremely fearful about it and the heart attack that President Eisenhower had while in office only added to their fears. Keys concluded that cholesterol was a major factor, but as Teicholz points out “It is a vital component of every cell membrane, controlling what goes in and out of the cell. It is responsible for the metabolism of sex hormones and is found at its highest concentration in the brain.”
Keys and other researchers, however, noting that cholesterol was the primary component of atherosclerotic plaques, assumed it to be “one of the main culprits in the development of coronary disease…This vivid and seemingly intuitive idea,” says Teicholz, “has stayed with us, even as the science has shown this characterization to be a highly simplistic and even inaccurate picture of the problem.” Keys would devote his life to advocating his misinterpretation of cholesterol and fat.
The problem with the word “fat” is that it has two very different meanings. One is the fat we eat and the other is the fat on our bodies. A book worth reading is “Fat: It’s Not What You Think” by Connie Leas, published in 2008 by Prometheus Books. As Ms. Teicholz notes, “A large number of experiments have since confirmed that restricting fat does nothing to slim people down (quite the reverse, actually), yet even so, the idea that there could be such a thing as ‘slimming fat’ will probably always seem to us like an oxymoron.”
I know that few will read Ms. Teicholz book, but you will surely welcome knowing that “saturated fat has not been demonstrated to lead to an increased risk of heart attacks for the great majority of people, and even the narrowing of the arteries has not been shown to predict a heart attack.”
The problem for all of us is that the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health both adopted the incorrect analysis of Keys et all, institutionalizing the diet-heart hypothesis and thus are setting the nutrition agenda.
My Mother cooked the most wonderful meals every day and more so on Sundays. She lived to 98 and my Father to 93, eating all manner of meat dishes along with fish and other choices. We all ate cheeses with gusto. And, yes, we loved pasta and Mother’s fabulous home baked breads and desserts. I am coming up soon on age 77 and my diet reflects what kept them alive and disease-free for all of their years.
If you or someone you know is seriously obsessed with their weight and health, recommend “The Big Fat Surprise” to them. I recommend it to you!
Alan Caruba is a writer by profession; has authored several books, and writes a daily column, Warning Signs". He is a contributor to the ARRA News Service.
Tags: Alan Caruba, warning signs To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Montana Democrats Replace Plagiarist with Revolutionary Socialist
by Phil Kerpen, Contributing Author: Democratic U.S. Senator John Walsh brazenly plagiarized nearly the entire thesis that got him an unearned master’s degree. When this fact came to light, he withdrew from his campaign for reelection (although he remains in the Senate). Good. But Montana Democrats nominated in his stead State Rep. Amanda Curtis, a member of the radical, revolutionary socialist group Industrial Workers of the World (IWW).
Rep. Curtis was nominated for the United Stated Senate by the Montana Democratic Party on August 16, 2014. Less than two weeks earlier, on August 4, she tagged herself in this photograph featuring IWW banners and identifying Curtis as a FW, or “Fellow Worker,” the term used in IWW for group members:
The mission statement for the Two Rivers General Membership Branch of IWW, of which Kevin Curtis is a leader and Amanda Curtis is a member is:
It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.
On August 7, 2014, Rep. Curtis changed her Facebook profile photograph to a picture of former Communist Party USA chair Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, who received a state funeral from the Soviet Union in 1964.
Rep. Curtis frequently posts statements from radical socialist and labor leaders to her Facebook page (made private on August 21; print-out available here) frequently sharing her husband’s “Today's Labor History” posts.
One post of Mr. Curtis’s that Rep. Curtis shared on July 31 suggests that, in the event she and her allies cannot accomplish their objectives through electoral victories, they will resort to “sterner means”:
Despite her known extremist ideas and associations, Rep. Curtis’s candidacy for the U.S. Senate has been enthusiastically embraced by national Democrats, including Harry Reid, who said Democrats are “doing really well in Montana,” Kirsten Gillibrand, who has already sent a fundraising email for Curtis, and Jim Dean, whose group Democracy for America endorsed Curtis and called her a “progressive hero.”
Apparently, in 2014 plagiarism is beyond the pale in the Democratic Party, but revolutionary socialism is perfectly acceptable.
It should be noted that the ideology’s most virulent expression, communism, killed approximately 100 million people last century.
Phil Kerpen is president of American Commitment He is on Twitter and on Facebook. Kerpen is the author of Democracy Denied: How Obama is Bypassing Congress to Radically Transform America – and How to Stop Him and is a contributing author for the ARRA News Service.
Tags: Montana, democrats, Senator John Walsh, plagiarist, State Rep. Amanda Curtis, revolutionary socialist, 2014 election, Phil Kerpen, American Commitment To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
The Media and the Mob
We all know what has happened since then — and it has been a complete disgrace by politicians, the media and mobs of rioters and looters. Despite all the people who act as if they know exactly what happened, nevertheless when the full facts come out, that can change everything.
This is why we have courts of law, instead of relying on the media or mobs. But politics is undermining law.
On the eve of a grand jury being convened to go through the facts and decide whether there should be a prosecution of the policeman in this case, Governor Jay Nixon of Missouri has gone on television to say that there should be a "vigorous prosecution."
There was a time when elected officials avoided commenting on pending legal processes, so as not to bias those processes. But Governor Nixon apparently has no fear of poisoning the jury pool.
The only alternative explanation is that this is exactly what he intends to do. It is a disgrace either way.
Race is the wild card in all this. The idea that you can tell who is innocent and who is guilty by the color of their skin is a notion that was tried out for generations, back in the days of the Jim Crow South. I thought we had finally rejected that kind of legalized lynch law. But apparently it has only been put under new management.
Television people who show the home of the policeman involved, and give his name and address — knowing that he has already received death threats — are truly setting a new low. They seem to be trying to make themselves judge, jury and executioner.
Then there are the inevitable bullet counters asking, "Why did he shoot him six times?" This is the kind of thing people say when they are satisfied with talking points, and see no need to stop and think seriously about a life and death question. If you are not going to be serious about life and death, when will you be serious?
By what principle should someone decide how many shots should be fired? The bullet counters seldom, if ever, ask that question, much less try to answer it.
Since the only justifiable reason for shooting in the first place is self-protection, when should you stop shooting? Obviously when there is no more danger. But there is no magic number of shots that will tell you when you are out of danger.
Even if all your shots hit, that doesn't mean anything if the other guy keeps coming and is still a danger. You can be killed by a wounded man.
Different witnesses give conflicting accounts of exactly what happened in the shooting of Michael Brown. That is one of the reasons why grand juries collect facts. But, if Michael Brown — a 6 foot 4 inch, 300 pound man — was still charging at the policeman, as some allege, there is no mystery why the cop kept shooting.
But, if Michael Brown was surrendering, as others allege, then there was no reason to fire even one shot. But the number of shots tells us nothing.
None of this is rocket science. Why bullet counters cannot be bothered to stop and think is a continuing mystery.
Among the other unthinking phrases repeated endlessly is "he shot an unarmed man." When does anyone know that someone is unarmed? Unless you frisk him, you don't know — until, of course, after you have shot him.
The only time I ever pointed a firearm at a human being, I had no idea whether he was armed or unarmed. To this day I don't know whether he was armed or unarmed. Fortunately for both of us, he froze in his tracks.
Was I supposed to wait until I made sure he had a gun before I used a gun? Is this some kind of sporting contest?
Some critics object when someone with a gun shoots someone who only has a knife. Do those critics know that you are just as dead when you are killed with a knife as you are when you are killed by a gun?
If we can't be bothered to stop and think, instead of repeating pat phrases, don't expect to live under the rule of law. Do you prefer the rule of the media and/or the mob?
Thomas Sowell is an American economist, social commentator, and author of dozens of books. He has a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Chicago and degrees from Columbia University and Harvard University. He is a retired professor of Economic and presently is a Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Visit his website with list of other articles.
Tags: Thomas Sowell, commentary, the media, the mob, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Bipartisan Group Calls for Further Fed Restrictions
by Norbert Michel, Heritage Foundation: Fifteen Members of Congress have come together to urge the Federal Reserve to further restrict its emergency lending authority, something the 2010 Dodd–Frank Act failed to adequately do.
The group of lawmakers—Republicans and Democrats from both chambers of Congress—rightfully pointed out:
Although Dodd–Frank purported to restrict these types of Federal Reserve loans, roughly half of the Fed’s emergency lending programs during the 2008 crisis would have been allowed had the Dodd–Frank changes been in place prior to the financial meltdown.
The bipartisan group also highlighted a key issue concerning these types of emergency/crisis loans: the lack of a clear distinction between firms that are insolvent and those that are “teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.”
The truth is that there is no purely objective way that the Fed—or any other regulator—can single out firms that are near bankruptcy. The best way to restrict the Fed’s emergency lending authority is to stop the Fed from making emergency loans in the first place.
As a rule, the government should not use public funds to bail out private firms. If, however, Members of Congress want to use taxpayer dollars to save troubled firms, they should do so transparently so that voters may hold them accountable. Doing so via the Fed should be completely disallowed, because it is indirect and lacks transparency.
The main purpose of a central bank is to conduct monetary policy, and this goal can be accomplished solely through open-market operations. If necessary, the Fed can supply emergency liquidity to the entire market by temporarily expanding its open-market operations, thus enabling private banks to expand lending as they see fit. Monetary policy does not require the Fed to lend to individual firms.
Norbert Michel studies and writes about housing finance, including the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as The Heritage Foundation’s research fellow in financial regulations. Follow him (@norbertjmichel) on twitter.
Tags: The Fed, Federal Reserve, emergency lending, emergency loans, Dodd–Frank, Norbert Michel, Heritage Foundation To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
President Obama's Golf: The Real Problem
by Newt Gingrich: A lot of people have commented on and made fun of the frequency of President Obama’s golfing.
The more I watched President Obama, however, the more I concluded the problem was what was not happening between golf rounds.
Two earlier presidents, Eisenhower and Reagan, golfed frequently but their presidencies were stunningly successful. The difference seemed to be that Eisenhower and Reagan were really effective when they weren't golfing.
President Eisenhower was a very serious golfer who had been a varsity football player at West Point. Eisenhower joined Augusta and routinely played with business leaders and pro golfers.
When Ike wasn't golfing, however, he was the best trained strategist to ever occupy the White House. From being first in his class at the Army Command and General Staff College to serving as General MacArthur's speechwriter to rising meteorically from lieutenant colonel to general of the Armies (five stars), Eisenhower proved to be exceptionally smart and hard-working.
As leader of the Allied forces in Europe, he made many of the biggest decisions in World War II. Ike knew how to run meetings, establish strategies, and manage people to get things done.
Eisenhower's White House staff actually urged him to get out on the golf course. They knew he was so intense and so driven to succeed that he needed time away from the office to decompress.
President Reagan had a very different background from President Eisenhower but a very similar approach to disciplined, strategic leadership and focusing on what mattered.
Reagan had actually learned from Eisenhower that it helped to be underestimated and seen as pleasant and not particularly intense. Reagan used to quip, “They say hard work never killed anyone, but why take chances?”
The Reagan presidency was focused on three very large goals: defeating the Soviet Empire, relaunching American economic growth, and rebuilding the spirit of American civic culture. He achieved all three.
While Reagan knew how to relax, he also knew how to focus intensely on the three goals that mattered. Look at the personal effort he put into defeating the State Department and insisting on keeping the “tear down this wall" line in his Berlin speech in 1987.
The problem with President Obama's golf outings is the lack of strategic thinking and systematic leadership when he is not on the golf course.
The confusion over Syria, Iraq, ISIS, Hamas, Israel, and Libya is only one example of the growing incoherence of his entire administration.
Lurching from crisis to crisis and story to story with no strategic purpose or long-term implementation makes his golf matches look more consequential than his presidency.
If the economy was growing, the border was controlled, the Middle East was stabilizing and there were no outbreaks of violence in the streets of major American cities, no one would comment on the number of golf games President Obama played. But none of that is the case--which gives you a sense of the achievement gap between the Eisenhower-Reagan model of strategic leadership and the Obama model of tactical improvisation.
Just remember: it's not the golfing hours, it's the non-golfing hours that are a problem.
Newt Gingrich is a former Georgia Congressman and Speaker of the U.S. House. He co-authored and was the chief architect of the "Contract with America" and a major leader in the Republican victory in the 1994 congressional elections. He is noted speaker and writer. The above commentary was shared via Gingrich Productions.
Tags: Newt Gingrich, President Obama, golf, the real problem, off the course To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Obamacare's Medical Device Tax Misadventure
by Sean Hackbarth, Contributing Author: You may recall that a 2.3% medical device tax was imposed as part of Obamacare. The IRS’s watchdog has determined that collecting the tax is a mess. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) succinctly said, "Everything from this ill-conceived tax's structure to its implementation has been a disaster.”
That’s putting it lightly.
First, it’s not raising as much money as expected, The Hill reports:
An AdvaMed report estimates that as many as 165,000 jobs have been lost because of the medical device tax. In addition the report found that research and development (R&D) has already been cut and more cuts are expected in the future.
A recent Milken Institute study found that medical devices lifted GDP by $106.2 billion annually from 2008 to 2010. Allowing the medical device tax to continue will mean fewer medical and economic benefits from this industry.
Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) summed it up well:
Sean Hackbarth is a policy advocate and blogger at U.S Chamber of Commerce. He twitters at @seanhackbarth and is a contributing author at the ARRA News Service.
Tags: Obamacare, medical device tax, Sean Hackbarth To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Faulty Ideas About Marriage
by Phyllis Schlafly: Political junkies will remember how former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels was being groomed to run for president in 2012 before he made his foolish statement that the next president should “call a truce on the so-called social issues.” Americans do not want a leader who is unable or unwilling to articulate and lead on important social issues.
Four years after the Daniels misstep, many have failed to learn that lesson. The New York Times has proclaimed the “libertarian moment” has arrived, by which they seem to mean libertarian ideas about marriage and the family.
We hear people say the libertarian view is to “get the government out of marriage.” But where did that slogan come from? There is simply no basis for that notion in the works of classic libertarian writers.
As a Harvard graduate student, I was present for what could be considered the beginning of libertarian thought in America. It was the first American speech by Friedrich Hayek following the worldwide success of “The Road to Serfdom,” which had been read by millions of Americans through its publication in the Reader’s Digest.
The thesis of Hayek’s great book is that government efforts to redistribute the benefits and burdens of economic activity inevitably involve a loss of individual freedoms, which could lead to a totalitarian state as happened in Germany and Russia. Now 70 years later, Hayek’s basic idea is part of most Republican stump speeches and forms the basis for Republicans’ adamant opposition to Obamacare.
But nothing in “The Road to Serfdom,” or in any of Hayek’s later works or those of his fellow Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, questioned the value or necessity of civil marriage in a free society. There is nothing to suggest that regulation of marriage was somehow inconsistent with individual freedom.
Mises’ American disciple, the radical libertarian Murray N. Rothbard, once famously proposed selling off lighthouses to private owners who would then be supported by voluntary contributions from passing ships. Rothbard wanted to privatize nearly everything, but he never suggested privatizing marriage.
Another influential libertarian was the Russian-born novelist Ayn Rand, whose novels depict a titanic struggle between the creative geniuses who need maximum freedom to produce, versus the “looters” and “second-handers” who try to regulate them and share their wealth. Ayn Rand attacked Christianity and other conventional beliefs, but never questioned the value and necessity of civil marriage defined by law.
If nothing in Hayek, Mises, Rothbard or Rand supports the abolition, redefinition, or privatization of marriage, then where did those ideas come from? The answer is that they came from writers on the left — most significantly, from the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx and published in 1848.
To be sure, Marx did not originate the notion of undermining the family, which had been introduced by the utopian socialists Charles Fourier and Robert Owen, but he eagerly endorsed and propagated it. After Marx’s death, his partner Friedrich Engels wrote a whole book elaborating on Marx’s anti-family ideas.
A major part of the Communist Manifesto is its unrelenting attack on the so-called “bourgeois family” which Marx believed was responsible for the inequality he despised. If communism was to succeed, he wrote, the bourgeois family had to be done away with.
The bourgeois family is the Marxist term for what modern liberals call the “Ozzie and Harriet” or “nuclear” family. It means a husband and wife who are legally married to each other, using the husband’s name, with the husband as provider and authority figure, and the wife as nurturing homemaker, and with both parents raising and educating their own children within the household.
Marx hated the bourgeois family, not only because it provided the means of transmission and accumulation of private property, but also because the family controlled the formation and education of children. Marx wanted to break the family so that children could be raised and educated communally, free from patriarchal ties and religious beliefs.
With all that history which should be familiar to every educated American, it’s incredible that we’re now seeing the worst of Marxist ideas, the deconstruction of the family, presented in the name of libertarianism and even conservatism.
Besides marriage, Marx’s ideas on education have influenced too many education reformers on the right, including, unfortunately, the Bush family’s obsession with remaking public education. George H.W. Bush wanted to be the “education president,” George W. Bush wanted to “leave no child behind,” and now Jeb Bush wants to impose the Common Core.
As conservatives seek new leadership for 2016 and beyond, let’s insist on candidates who recognize that marriage and the nuclear family are the essential foundation of a free and prosperous society.
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, Faulty Ideas, marriage To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Voters Think Focus Of Immigration Policy Should Be Protecting American Workers
by Bill Smith, Editor, ARRA News: A "Sam Adams" source inside the U.S. Senate shared with the ARRA News service a new Polling report released by Kellyanne Conway, President & CEO of The Polling Company, inc./WomanTrend. The report revealed that 57 percent of voters now say immigration is their item of greatest concern or among their top three items of greatest concern.
Among all voters, there is broad and deep agreement that the focus of US immigration policy should be fairness for working Americans. They believe businesses should improve wages, and recruit the unemployed, instead of suppressing wages by bringing in more labor from abroad. In short, after decades of record immigration, voters of all backgrounds want to see a profound redirection of US immigration policy towards the needs of current US workers. It represents the latest and most absolute repudiation yet of the Senate / White House immigration bill, which doubled future immigration rates.
It also underscores that the words “immigration reform” often obscure more than they reveal – voters’ idea of how to reform our immigration laws represents the complete opposite of what the Gang of Eight and President Obama both propose. They want an immigration policy that serves them – not borderless multinationals.
This new poll also was released on the same day as a report from the National Employment Law Project demonstrating the continued decline in workers’ wages. CBS News writes: "real median hourly wages have declined across low, middle and high income levels from 2009 through 2013…No matter if workers were in the lowest bracket ($8.84 to $10.85 an hour) or the highest ($31.40 to $86.34), median hourly wages declined when you take into account the impact of inflation. So while your utilities and grocery bills continue to rise, your take-home pay, in real dollars, may not be going as far as it had before the recession. Across all occupations, real median hourly wages slipped 3.4 percent since 2009…"
Highlights from the poll follow:
The US currently provides green cards to an additional 1 million permanent residents each year (who are eventually able to attain citizenship) in addition to about 700,000 temporary guest workers and 200,000 relatives of those guest workers. The inflow of guest workers includes a large number of STEM workers that are displacing American STEM-trained college graduates and recent immigrants. Since the year 2000, the US has issued nearly 30 million visas for permanent immigrants or temporary guest workers. As reported by the Pew Research Center, the total number of immigrants in the U.S. has eclipsed a record 40 million. The share of the U.S. population that was born in another country, per the Census Bureau, has quadrupled.
According to Harvard labor economist Dr. George Borjas, high immigration rates during the last two decades of the 20th century reduced wages for lower-skilled U.S. workers by more than 7 percent.
Consider, then, this fact: President Obama, every single Senate Democrat, and virtually every House Democrat has endorsed legislation to double the rate of permanent immigration into the United States and double the admission of temporary guest workers. Massively expanding the labor supply would, of course, mean yet lower wages and higher unemployment (as CBO confirmed) – including for immigrant workers living here today hoping to see their pay rise and their financial dreams realized.
Recommend reading Civil Rights Commission Member Peter Kirsanow’s letter to the President about how this executive amnesty would be disastrous for black workers in the United States.
However, President Obama indicates that he wants to immediately add another 5 million illegal immigrants to the legal workforce through an executive action.
Note: Sam Adams is the pen name for un-named beltway sources. While receiving information from many sources, this Sam's source need to be credited. Thanks to all the Adams patriots who speak up for America.
Tags: polling, illegal immigration, voters, focus, protecting American workers, jobs, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Climate Change A Symbolic Battle Against An Unpleasant, Toxic Way Of Llife
by Marita Noon: I suspect most readers of my column do not religiously read The Atlantic. I don’t either. But I have people — readers who alert me to news and information I might not see otherwise. Though the Atlantic has gained recent notoriety for the interview with Hilary Clinton, in which she says: “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle,” there is more to it. With so much focus on the Clinton quote, it would be easy to overlook an article within the September issue: How to Talk About Climate Change So People Will Listen.
While I don’t think the author of the nine-page article, Charles C. Mann, ever really offers the answers the title posits, and is seven pages in before he even attempts to advise the reader on the premise, he does offer some noteworthy insights.
Mann is obviously a believer in anthropogenic (or man-made) climate change. Much of his essay is spent deriding the left for its unrestrained rhetoric that it uses to “scare Americans into action.” He says: “the chatter itself, I would argue, has done its share to stall progress.”
Within his argument is some history and context that is illustrative for those who see climate change as cyclical — something natural that has happened before and will happen again, rather than something that is new, scary, and human-caused. Those of us who believe the climate changes, but that human activity is, certainly, not the primary driver, struggle to understand the cult-like following of alarmists like Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org (“A group that seeks to create a mass movement against climate change”) — who Mann spends several paragraphs criticizing.
While I doubt that this is Mann’s intent, a careful reader will realize that today’s climate hysteria has less to do with the climate and more to do with control and economic change.
Mann starts his history lesson with Paul Erlich, author of The Population Bomb — whom I wrote about in June. Mann calls Erlich’s book “a foundational text in the environmental movement” — yet, he points out that Erlich’s “predictions didn’t pan out.” Instead of discrediting Erlich, his work, somehow, gave birth to what Mann calls “environmental politics.” Continuing, Mann asserts that Earth Day “became an opportunity to denounce capitalist greed.”
Using acid rain as an example, Mann points out: “environmentalists meanwhile found out the problems were less dire than they had claimed” and that “Today, most scientists have concluded that the effects of acid rain were overstated to begin with.”
Because I follow the politics of energy policy, I found this point Mann makes most interesting: “Environmental issues became ways for politicians to signal their clan identity to supporters.” He observes: “As symbols, the ideas couldn’t be compromised.” And, he states: “climate change is perfect for symbolic battle.” He calls carbon dioxide “a side effect of modernity.”
Addressing the charts and graphs that so frequently accompany the climate change hyperbole, Mann says: “In the history of our species, has any human heart ever been profoundly stirred by a graph? Some other approach, proselytizers have recognized, is needed.”
When he gets to McKibben, Mann accuses him of stoking concern “Erlich-style.” Mann explains: “The only solution to our ecological woes, McKibben argues, is to live simpler, more local, less resource-intensive existences” — which McKibben believes “will have the happy side effect of turning a lot of unpleasant multinational corporations to ash.” He concludes his section on McKibben with this: “McKibbenites see carbon dioxide as an emblem of a toxic way of life.”
In response to McKibben’s model, Mann cites French philosopher Pascal Bruckner, who argues: “people react with suspicion, skepticism, and sighing apathy — the opposite of the reaction McKibbenites hope to evoke.” Bruckner, according to Mann, likens ecologism to “moral blackmail” as it attempts to “force humanity into a puritanical straitjacket of rural simplicity.” “Ecologism” according to Mann/Bruckner, “employs …bludgeons to compel people to accept modes of existence they would otherwise reject.”
Elsewhere, Mann acknowledges: “Nobody seems to have much appetite for giving up the perks of an industrial civilization” that Mann calls a “boon to humankind,” for which he credits “cheap energy from fossil fuels.” He says: “an unprecedented three-century wave of prosperity” was “driven by the explosive energy of coal, oil and natural gas.”
“True,” says Dan Sutter, professor of economics with the Manuel Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University, and who has taught environmental economics and energy economics and done extensive research on extreme weather, as well as the political economy of environmental policy. Sutter told me: “The underlying change that enabled the industrial revolution was the emergence of economic freedom and a market economy. The essence of the market economy is decentralized decision making, and this has led to the harnessing of energy to the benefit of humankind.”
Sutter continued: “Stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide at something close to current levels (or lower) will require centralized control over the allocation of energy, meaning centralized control over the economy. Thinking about the distant future is difficult, but energy central planning will bring a halt to the market forces that have produced the first significant improvement in human standards of living in thousands of years.”
So, while Mann concedes that cheap energy from fossil fuels “has been an extraordinary boon to humankind;” and that previous crises — Erlich and acid rain, for example — “didn’t pan out,” “have been less dire,” or have been “overstated;” and that environmental issues have become political; and that today’s climate crusaders are clinging to a “symbolic battle” with the ultimate goal of “asking nations to revamp the base of their own prosperity,” though “nobody seems to have much appetite for giving up the perks of industrial civilization,” Mann is still searching for a way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal.
The answer, Mann posits, is “retrofitting 7,000 industrial facilities” — coal-fueled power plants. For what? For a crisis that is “overstated” like those before it and turns out to be “less dire,” we should allow the “symbolic battle” of the climate crusaders to remove that which has been “an extraordinary boon to humankind?”
Toward the end of his tome, Mann states: “the environment has become a proxy for a tribal battle.” He doesn’t state what the tribes are, but from the preceding pages, it is clear that he means the left and the right; the Democrats and the Republicans; those who want to turn corporations to ash, denounce capitalist greed, and force humanity into a straitjacket of rural simplicity and those who understand that the industrial revolution, the market economy, and “cheap energy from fossil fuels” have been “an extraordinary boon to humankind.”
Yes, Mann is correct. “The environment has become a proxy for a tribal battle.” But, as Mann points out, the climate alarmists scare tactics aren’t working — only 20 percent of likely U.S. voters believe the scientific debate about global warming is over. He believes it is because they “don’t know how to talk about climate change.” I believe people are smarter than he gives them credit for. They have heard the “chatter.” They’ve seen, that like Erlich, the “predictions didn’t pan out.”
The “political back-and-forth has become less productive,” which is why we see a switching of sides. Democrats, like Senator Joe Manchin (D-VA), are defending coal. “Full-throated green-energy champions,” like Mark Udall, are supporting fracking. At risk of alienating environmental groups, those who just two years ago voted to restrict oil-and-gas exports, like Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), are now voting to speed up the government’s reviews of applications to export natural gas, which the Wall Street Journal calls: “a move long sought by energy companies.”
What would cause this shift in the tribal battle? The answer, I believe, is simple: no one wants to be in the losing tribe. As Mann unwittingly makes the case for, alarmist claims are met with “suspicion, skepticism, and sighing apathy” — and those are not the battle cries of a winner.
Marita Noon is author of Energy Freedom and executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and for Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). H/T NetRight Daily for this article.
Tags: Marita Noon, Climate Change, symbolic battle, against, toxic way of lifeINSERT TAGS To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Don't miss anything!
Subscribe to the
ARRA News Service
It's FREE & No Ads!
You will receive a verification email
& must validate you subscribed!
You Then Receive One Email Each AM
With Prior Days Articles / Toons / More
Also, Join us at:
Dr. Bill - OzarkGuru
#Conservative #Constitution #NRA #GunRights #military 22 yr #veteran #professor #Christian #ProLife #TCOT #SGP #CCOT #schoolchoice #fairtax Married-50+yrs #MAGA
Arkansas State Senators
AR State Representatives
Arkansas Governor Office
Arkansas Attorney General
US House of Representatives
Family Research Council
ARRA News Service
Arkansans Against Big Government
Alley-White Am. Legion #52
Catholics & Protestants United Against Discrimination
End Taxpayer Funding of NPR
Overturn Roe V. Wade
Republican Liberty Caucus of Arkansas
The Gold Standard
US Atty Gen Loretta Lynch, aka Eric Holder, Must Go
Veterans for Sarah Palin
Why Vote for Hillary (Satire)
Arkansas For Sarah Palin
Arkansas Conservative Caucus
Arkansas County Tea Party
Arkansans' Discussion Group on National Issues
Blogs for Borders
Defend Marriage -- Arkansas
Arkansas for FairTax
Friends of the TEA Party in Arkansas
Let's Mine AR Lignite NOW!
Pro-Life Rocks - Arkansas
Republican Liberty Caucus of AR
Reject the U.N.
A Patriotic Nurse
America, You Asked For It!
Americans for a Free Republic
America's Best Choice
An Ol’ Broad’s Ramblings
As A Matter of Fact
As The Crackerhead Crumbles
Black & Right
Blogs For Borders
Blogs for Palin
Blow the Trumpet Ministry
Cap'n Bob & the Damsel
Chicago Ray Report
Chuck Baldwin - links
Conservative Observer AZ
Conway Real Deal
Defeat Obama's Agenda
Franklin Online Outreach
Freedom For US Now
Free Zone Media Center
For God and Liberty
Garland County Republicans
Greater Fitchburg For Life
Guns and Religion
Lasting Liberty Blog
Liberal Isn't Amy
Monkey in the Middle
No Runny Eggs
Our Voices Arkansas
Real Debate Wisconsin
Religion and Morality
Right on Issues that Matter
Rocking on the Right Side
Stop Obama Satire & Cartoons
The Arkansas Patriot
The Audacity of Logic
The Blue Eye View
The Bobo Files
The Born Again Americans
TEA Party Cartoons
The Conservative Citizen
The Foxhole | Unapologetic Patriot
The Liberty Republican
The Looking Spoon
The Maritime Sentry
The O Word
The Path to Tyranny Blog
The Real Polichick
Truth About Obamacare
Women's Prayer & Action
Twitter Dr. Bill Smith @arra
Twitter Arkansas @GOPNetwork
Accuracy in Media (AIM)
American Culture & Faith Institute
American Enterprise Institute
American Family Business Institute
Americans for Limited Government
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Tax Reform
American Security Council Fdn
AR Faith & Ethics Council
Arkansas Policy Foundation
Ayn Rand Institute
Bill of Rights Institute
Campaign for Working Families
Center for Individual Freedom
Center for Immigration Studies
Center for Just Society
Center for Freedom & Prosperity
Citizens Against Gov't Waste
Citizens in Charge Foundstion
Coalition for the Future American Worker
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Concerned Veterans for America
Concerned Women for America
Declaration of Am. Renewal
Family Research Council
Family Security Matters
Franklin Center for Gov't & Public Integrity
Global Incident Map
Gold Standard 2012 Project
Gun Owners of America (GOA)
David Horowitz Freedom Center
Institute For Justice
Institute for Truth in Accounting
Media Reseach Center
National Center for Policy Analysis
National Right To Work Foundation
National Rifle Association (NRA)
National Rifle Association (NRA-ILA)
O'Bluejacket's Patriotic Flicks
Presidential Prayer Team
Religious Freedom Coalition
Ron Paul Institute
State Policy Network
Tax Policy Center
The Club for Growth
The Gold Standard Now
The Heritage Foundation
The Leadership Institute
FairTax Nation on FaceBook
Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.