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: email@example.com (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
Friday, January 23, 2015
Bauer's Weekend Review: Global Joke | Jindal Gets It | Radical Islam | The New Persian Empire
by Gary L. Bauer, Contributing Author: A Global Joke - You might think that is a comment about Barack Obama's foreign policy, but it is actually a statement about our immigration policy. There are disturbing reports from Capitol Hill that the so-called border security bill currently being drafted by the House Homeland Security Committee represents a step backwards.
First, The Daily Caller reported that the bill unbelievably reduces the amount of double-layer fencing along the border. Now, Kenneth Palinkas, president of a union representing 12,000 United States Citizenship and Immigration Service officials, is blasting the bill for undermining the enforcement powers of immigration officers. In a letter released yesterday, Palinkas wrote:"H.R. 399 . . . does nothing to preclude anyone in the world from turning themselves in at the U.S. border and obtaining automatic entry and federal benefits. Almost anyone at all can call themselves an asylum-seeker and get in; it's a global joke. . . .
"We admit individuals who have no business being admitted the United States, whether public charges, health risks, or radicalized Islamists, and in large numbers. It is unfair to employees, unfair to taxpayers, and unfair to anyone concerned about immigration security."Jindal Gets It - I noted with interest something Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal said yesterday regarding immigration. While discussing our history and current threats, he said the following:"We need to stand up and say, 'If you want to come to America to be Americans, if you want to learn our language and our values, we welcome you here. But you can't come here if you want to overthrow our culture, set up your own communities where you don't abide by the same laws and freedoms we expect for everybody.' . . . If people don't think America is this great country, don't come here. They can stay where they came from."I've written about America being a country in which we let a thousand flowers bloom. But what if there were an imaginary faith that felt black men and women were not people for the purposes of protection under the law. Would anyone say, "Come on in. This is a land that welcomes anyone who believes whatever they want"? Would we want to welcome such a group with open arms?
Let's put aside the Islamist propaganda of our president and the ayatollah for a moment and look at the facts about Islamic countries around the world.
According to one recent report, Muslim-majority nations represent nine of the ten worst violators of religious liberty.
The status of women in Islamic countries is dismal. Two women are currently on trial for driving in Saudi Arabia. They didn't hit anything. They were not intoxicated. Saudi women simply are not permitted to drive cars.
Let's put illegal immigration aside. Why isn't there a serious national debate about whether we should be permitting legal immigration from those who think women should be treated like property, who reject religious pluralism and think you should be put to death if you insult Muhammad?
America's great experiment in ordered liberty under God is not a suicide pact, as one Supreme Court justice famously said about the Constitution. Nothing in our history should require us to knowingly bring into the country those who in many cases appear to reject all of our founding principles.
Radical Islam Must Be Defeated - I know it can be tempting to ignore events beyond our borders. But history has proven the dangers of doing so. That's why I feel compelled to share with you the statements of German journalist Jurgen Todenhofer.
Todenhofer recently spoke with Al Jazeera about his brief time embedded with ISIS fighters in Iraq. Ponder this exchange:Al Jazeera: What was the most difficult discussion or uncomfortable issues?
Todenhofer: . . . As far as our meetings with the ISIL fighters were concerned, the discussions were very hard. I have read the Quran many times in German translation, and I always asked them about the value of mercy in Islam. I didn't see any mercy in their behaviour. Something that I don't understand at all is the enthusiasm in their plan of religious cleansing, planning to kill the non-believers. . . .
"These were very difficult discussions, especially when they were talking about the number of people who they are willing to kill. They were talking about hundreds of millions. They were enthusiastic about it, and I just cannot understand that."There is no negotiating with barbarians like that. And the enemy isn't just ISIS. It's Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeda and Shiite mullah's chanting "Death to America! Death to Israel!" Radical Islam -- in all its forms -- must be defeated.
The New Persian Empire -
The death of King Abdullah has put Saudi Arabia in the spotlight. For their part, the Saudis feel like they are in a vice: ISIS is on the march to their north, while Iranian-backed Shiite rebels have seized Yemen to their south. (By the way, the Saudis are building a serious border security fence. Why can't we?)
Charles Krauthammer writes that a new Iranian empire, stretching from Syria to Yemen, is emerging in the Middle East. And pro-American Arab states are looking on in horror as Barack Obama acquiesces not only to Iran's territorial gains but to its nuclear ambitions as well. Tags:Gary L. Bauer, Campaign for Working Families, Weekend Review, Global Joke, Jindal Gets It, Radical Islam, The New Persian Empire To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Federal Agencies Stonewall House Committee’s Benghazi Investigation
Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., listens as ranking member
Elijah Cummings, D-Md., speaks during the House Select
Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist
Attack in Benghazi hearing on Wednesday, Sept. 17, 2014.
(Photo: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call / Via The Daily Signal)
by Sharyl Attkisson: : Some federal agencies continue to stonewall when it comes to the ongoing investigation into the Benghazi terrorist attacks, according to insiders familiar with the process. They say the House Benghazi Select Committee isn’t getting access to all relevant documents and witnesses.
That will be the topic of the committee’s first public hearing of 2015 called for Tuesday next week.
Most of the committee’s work since a (slightly) bipartisan vote created it May 8, 2014, has quietly focused on the massive task of gathering information. The committee has provided relevant federal agencies a list of several dozen witnesses it wishes to interview.
But Republican staff members are encountering some of the same roadblocks that other committees met as they investigated pieces of the events surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya. Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, died in the assaults.
One congressional official noted that some federal agencies, such as the Justice Department, appear to be working to comply with committee requests, engaging in productive negotiations over requested materials and access to witnesses. However, the official says that there are still outstanding issues with the Justice Department, and that other agencies, including the State Department and some in the intelligence community, have not been as cooperative.
The House resolution creating the committee authorized it to investigate all aspects of what happened in Benghazi, as well as looking at how to improve executive branch cooperation with congressional oversight. Tuesday’s hearing is part of the effort to obtain a complete record of the events before, during and after the attacks, on a timely basis.
The committee’s goal is to strike a balance between information and witnesses withheld for legitimate reasons of national or individual security—and the possibility that those reasons may be improperly invoked to prevent the release of information embarrassing or damaging to the Obama administration or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Much of the Benghazi committee’s work will be done in non-public interviews rather than public hearings. Committee Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., a former prosecutor, has said that format allows members and staff to spend “hours” with a relevant witness rather than having to ask questions in short, restricted bursts under the rules of a public hearing.
Democrats, including Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, praised Gowdy’s measured approach last fall when he agreed to their request to have the first hearing be on their topic of choice: the Accountability Review Board’s recommendations and progress on implementing them.
“I sincerely hope the select committee will stay on the course of constructive reform and keep this goal as our north star,” Cummings said. “It would be a disservice to everyone involved to be lured off this path by partisan politics.”
Cummings did not respond to a request for comment for this article.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., has called the continuing investigation into Benghazi a Republican “witch hunt,” and said there have been more than enough hearings and all questions have been answered.
When asked to comment on the impetus behind next week’s hearing, Gowdy said it would be a “reasonable inference that we would not be having a hearing to compliment [the federal agencies] on the speed with which they have complied with [our] requests.”
What happens if federal agencies simply refuse to provide documents to Congress, as they have done in the past?
It’s not clear there is much Congress can or will do about it.
One official said they could try to get help from Senate Republicans to exert pressure, or could figure out a way to use the federal funding process, which is in the House’s hands, to exert pressure.
Among the many outstanding issues and questions the committee is expected to take on:
1) Interviewing key witnesses who have never yet appeared before any congressional committee.
2) Obtaining the elusive military “after action” report(s) that detail the military response and any issues encountered.
3) Piercing secret processes used by the Accountability Review Board in its investigation into the State Department’s actions.
4) Who was behind the administration’s decision to direct the narrative of the attacks as having been prompted by a YouTube video that caused a protest to spiral into violence?
5) Who wrote the original talking points and who was behind the edits and deletions before they were used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice when she appeared on Sunday network talk shows to discuss the attacks?
6) What did Rice know, and from whom, prior to her appearances on the programs?
7) Was there a State Department “document separation” operation designed to withhold embarrassing documents, as former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Raymond Maxwell alleges? If so, who was behind it?
8) What role did presidential adviser Ben Rhodes and former Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell play in the talking points and narrative?
9) What light can former CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus shed on the events?
-------------- Sharyl Attkisson, an Emmy award-winning investigative journalist, is a senior independent contributor to The Daily Signal. She is the author of the book, "Stonewalled." Learn more at SharylAttkisson.com and follow her (@SharylAttkisson). Tags:House Benghazi Select Committee, Benghazi, investigation, stonewalled, Federal agencies, Sharyl Attkisson, The Daily SignalTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Tags:King Obama, Kindom good, SOTU, Not so good, editorial cartoon, William WarrenTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
The Senate will reconvene at 4:30 PM on Monday. At 5:30 PM, there will be a vote on cloture on the Murkowski substitute amendment, as amended, to S.1, the bill to authorize construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.
Last night, the Senate voted on 15 more amendments to the Keystone bill.That is the same number of votes on amendments Democrats allowed in the entire year of 2014. The Senate Senators voted:
55-44 to reject an amendment from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) expressing the sense of Congress on public land designations,
54-45 to reject an amendment from Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE) limiting the designation of new protected public lands,
53-46 to table (kill) an amendment from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) expressing the sense of Congress that climate change is real and caused by human activities,
56-42 to table (kill) an amendment from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), expressing the sense of Congress that climate change is real and caused by human activities and calling for a transition to renewable energy,
51-47 to reject an amendment from Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) speeding the process of issuing drilling permits,
75-23 to adopt an amendment from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) expressing the sense of the Senate that the law should be modified so that oil sands should be subject to an excise tax funding the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund,
50-47 to reject an amendment from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) classifying oil sands as crude oil in order to subject them to the excise tax,
51-46 to reject an amendment from Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) expressing the sense of the Senate that the greenhouse gas emissions agreement with the Obama administration announced with China has no force and effect. Americans for Limited Government had supported this amendment (additional info at the end of this article).
64-33 to adopt an amendment from Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) clarifying that any eminent domain activities around the Keystone XL pipeline must be consistent with the requirements of the Constitution,
43-54 to reject an amendment from Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) prohibiting the use of eminent domain for the construction of the pipeline,
53-42 to table (kill) an amendment from Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) delaying the construction of the pipeline until oil sands are treated as crude oil for excise tax purposes,
57-38 to table (kill) an amendment from Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) to impose a fee of 8 cents per barrel on oil transported through the Keystone XL pipeline,
52-43 to table (kill) an amendment from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) requiring new campaign finance disclosures for people receiving revenues in relation to oil sands development,
53-41 to table (kill) an amendment from Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) removing a provision giving original judicial review of civil actions relating to the pipeline to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals,
49-45 to table (kill) an amendment from Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) expressing the sense of the Senate that the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) should be funded at least $4.7 billion per year.
Next week, then, Americans will finally get to see if all the Democrat senators who have previously voted for and vocalized their support for this shovel-ready job-creating infrastructure project will vote for it when it counts and send the bill to the president’s desk.
Then President Obama will have the opportunity to follow through on his constant exhortations to send him bills creating jobs and supporting American infrastructure. Unfortunately, the list of veto treats emanating from the White House is growing almost daily, among them the Keystone XL pipeline bill.
As Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “Keystone has support in both parties. It’s an important piece of infrastructure for our country. And, according to what the Obama Administration’s own State Department has said previously, constructing the pipeline would support thousands of jobs. It’s already passed the House. We’re currently working to pass it through the Senate. It will be on the president’s desk before long. We see no reason for him to veto these jobs.”
Yesterday, Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning had urged passage of the Blunt-Inhofe amendment against the
China climate deal:He said, "President Obama's China climate
change deal puts the United States economy and our workers at a competitive
disadvantage and the Senate is urged to pass a sense of the Senate resolution
opposing its implementation without having gone through the full ratification
"American workers continue to be hurt
by President Obama's extremist environmental policies with stagnant wages and
lost job growth opportunities. Obama's
China deal would further escalate the cost of electricity stunting the
rebuilding our nation's manufacturing base.The Senate must stand up for
America's workforce by making it clear that the President's China climate deal
should not be implemented."
New U.S. Senate Holds More Amendment Roll Call Votes In One Week Than
Total Held Last Year; And Even Democrats Are Praising The Change
SEN. MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY):“We’ve actually reached a milestone here that I think's noteworthy for the Senate. We just cast our fifteenth roll call vote on an amendment on this bill, which is more roll call votes on amendments than the entire United States Senate in all of 2014. … This is the way the Senate ought to work.” (Sen. McConnell, Floor Remarks, 1/22/15)
Dems Are ‘Very Excited,’ Praise ‘Healthy Environment On The Floor’
SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): “I welcome what Senator McConnell, our new majority leader, has envisioned as a more active floor in the Senate where we … bring amendments to the floor, debate them, vote on them, and ultimately pass legislation.That is the procedure of the Senate which historically had been honored but fell, sadly, into disrepair over the last several years.”(Sen. Durbin, Congressional Record, S.29, 1/7/15)
DURBIN: “I think that we are in a healthy environment on the floor of the Senate where we are pursuing amendments and active debate, and it is great to see that happening… I commend not only the leadership on the majority side but I commend my colleagues too.” (Sen. Durbin, Floor Remarks, 1/22/15)
SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): “I am very excited about the process, the open amendment process. … This presents an incredibly valuable opportunity to accomplish some of our Democratic priorities...” (Sen. Manchin, Congressional Record, S.162, 1/13/15)
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): “I thank Senator Murkowski and Senator Cantwell for working on a sensible process.”(Sen. Sanders, S.329, 1/21/15) Tags:U.S. Senate, new era, votes on the floor, more votes, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Legislatures Should Curb Judicial Supremacy Over Marriage
by Phyllis Schlafly: It’s Roe v. Wade all over again, as the Supreme Court is poised to invent a new right to same-sex marriage found nowhere in the four corners of the Constitution. Fortunately, the Founders gave us checks and balances against this overreaching in power.
The Framers understood the tendency of a branch of government to expand, and they empowered both Congress and the States with the legislative tools necessary to avert the encroachment. A branch of government will transgress its boundaries until the other branches exercise their authority to restrain the breach.
When the Supreme Court ruled that the State of Georgia should give land back to an Indian tribe, President Andrew Jackson reportedly responded by saying, Chief Justice “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” Both Georgia and Jackson then ignored and declined to enforce that act of judicial supremacy.
President Abraham Lincoln, himself an esteemed attorney, reacted similarly when the Court subsequently overstepped its bounds in the Dred Scott case. He rejected submission to “that eminent tribunal.”
It is the duty of legislatures to step up and limit the federal judiciary’s expansion of power, particularly on marriage, a matter central to state sovereignty. Both Congress and the States should fulfill their obligations to safeguard the Constitution and the American people against a usurpation in power by the Supreme Court over marriage.
Congress should enact laws denying funding and withholding jurisdiction from enforcement of any redefinition of marriage by the federal judiciary. Congress has repeatedly withdrawn power from the federal courts over many other topics, ranging from Medicare reimbursement to the clearing of underbrush in South Dakota, and marriage is certainly no less important an issue.
On the Second Amendment, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” which abruptly shut down pending litigation against gun manufacturers for crimes committed with guns. That legislation properly ended judicial activism against guns.
On the Establishment Clause, President Clinton signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, which had passed by unanimous consent, including a provision to deny funding for the enforcement of an order to remove a Cross from public land. Courts do not enforce their own orders, and the withholding of funding to enforce overreaching federal orders is a proper curb on judicial supremacy.
Congress should also exercise its special authority under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment to clarify that States retain full authority to limit marriage between one man and one woman. Unlike the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which depend on the federal courts for enforcement, the Fourteenth, which contains the equal protection clause relied on by same-sex marriage advocates, gives Congress the power to enforce its provisions against the States.
Republican presidential candidates should make clear that, if elected, they will not allow the executive branch to bully States into adopting same-sex marriage against the will of their residents.
States should act on their own to protect their sovereignty over marriage, without waiting for Congress or the election of a new president. Good bills have already been introduced in South Carolina (H3022) and Texas (HB 623) to ensure that no taxpayer dollars, including official salaries, are spent on same-sex marriages that are prohibited by state law there.
The costs of same-sex marriage include billions in new entitlements, consumption of family court resources, and lawsuits for alleged discrimination. The elected branches of federal and state government, which retain the “power of the purse,” should not have to foot the bill for those costs, and the Constitution ensures that they can cut off the money.
Forty-two years ago this week, a 7-2 majority of the Supreme Court invented a new constitutional right to abortion and many politicians mistakenly thought that settled the issue. But the advantage in the polls formerly enjoyed by the pro-abortion side has completely disappeared.
Moreover, even the Court that had declared a “right” to abortion subsequently held that Congress and the States retain power to cut off money for abortion, and to regulate that dirty business to promote the health of its victims. Likewise, States have full authority to cut off money for the homosexual agenda today.
History may soon repeat itself with a judicial mistake of similar magnitude, but the Constitution allows Congress and the States to counteract it. They should immediately enact laws to “check and balance” this brazen power grab by the judicial supremacists over marriage.
-------------------- 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:State, Federal, legislatures, curb, judicial supremacy, marriage,Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle ForumTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Phil Kerpen, Contributing Author: For decades conservatives have advocated scaling back the role of the federal government in transportation, yet the federal gas tax that was supposed to end in 1969 is still hanging around 46 years later. Fortunately, there is a feature of the current law that gives states the the upper hand, and they should seize the opportunity to act.
Most of the federal gas tax is temporary, set to automatically expire. If Congress simply does nothing, the tax will automatically drop from 18.3 cents per gallon on September 30, 2016 to just 4.3 cents the next day and thereafter. (The permanent 4.3 cent tax is Al Gore’s crowning achievement: a vestige of Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax hike that was – try not to laugh – supposed to be dedicated to deficit reduction.)
To allow that date to come and go as scheduled, each state should pass a pick-up law that would take effect if and only if the temporary portion of the federal gas tax lapses. The pick-up law would replace the lapsed 14 cent federal tax with a lower state gas tax of 8 to 10 cents. Freed of all the strings that come with running money through Washington – most infamously the Davis-Bacon requirements that inflate construction costs – states could easily deliver more while motorists receive a net tax cut.
Momentum would build as more states enacted such laws. There would eventually be a stampede as the expiration date approached and it became apparent that many states, and their congressional delegations, were prepared to let the federal tax expire. Fearing being left out and stuck with no replacement for lost federal gas tax dollars, even the most liberal states might consider pick-up laws as a safeguard.
States and local governments are already responsible for most of the country’s transportation spending.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, in 2013 governments at all levels spent a staggering $156 billion on highways and another $60 billion on mass transit. Federal funding was only a quarter of the total. But it comes with all kinds of insidious strings attached to reward union bosses and empower federal bureaucrats, radical environmentalists, and even the nanny-staters who gave us the national 55 miles-per-hour speed limit and 21 year-old drinking age.
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 established the Highway Trust Fund to dedicate federal gas taxes exclusively to the construction of the Interstate Highway System, which the Eisenhower administration consideration a federal responsibility for national defense reasons. The system was supposed to be completed by 1969, at which time the gas tax was supposed to sunset.
It didn’t happen. Instead, the tax was hiked repeatedly, with funds diverted to mass transit starting in 1983. Since the passage of the 1991 bill, funds raised from motorists at the pump have been diverted to bicycle paths, scenic landscape designs, pedestrian walkways, parking garages, and almost any non-highway project you can imagine.
Republicans lost Congress in 2006 in large part because they had elevated wasting federal gas tax dollars to an art form with embarrassing pet projects and earmarks including the infamous Bridge to Nowhere.
Of course, states can and do waste taxpayer dollars too. But running the taxes you pay at the pump through a vast political apparatus and massive bureaucracy in Washington before it returns to the states can only make things worse.
Fortunately, the bulk of the federal gas tax is set to expire. If states seize the initiative and pass pick-up laws, Congress can achieve a major policy victory simply by doing what it’s best at: nothing.
------------------ Phil Kerpen is president of American Commitment. Follow him at (@kerpen) and on Facebook. He is a contributing author at the ARRA News Service. Tags:States, force, Federal Gas Tax, cut, Phil Kerpen, American CommitmentTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Tags:editorial cartoon, AF Branco, President Obama, O-FLATE-GATE, SOTU, State of the Union, inflating job performanceTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Alan Caruba, Contributing Author: Over the course of its history the Supreme Court has made some very bad decisions and the decision to declare abortion legal ranks high among them. On January 22, 1973, in Roe v. Wade the Court interpreted the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to extend a right of privacy to a woman’s decision to have an abortion prior to the third trimester of pregnancy.
There have been 57.5 million abortions since 1973—42 years—when the decision became the law of the land. In all the wars America has fought, going back to the Revolution, the total of those killed in combat as of September 2014 was 1,343,812.
The casualties of the Supreme Court’s decision about unborn Americans reveal the wide gap between the morality, as opposed to the legality, of the Court’s decision.
Now the Court has taken on cases that will determine the legality of same-sex marriage and here again the morality of sanctioning this definition of marriage is a world apart from the morality of marriage occurring exclusively between a man and woman as has been the norm since the earliest history of mankind.
Marriage has always been understood as the critical cornerstone of a healthy functioning society. It has always been understood that children raised by a mother and father are a benefit to society while those deprived of this union are frequently subject to problems of one sort or another.
In the United States, however, many of the traditional morals that served the interest of society have been abandoned since around the middle of the last century. The gap between liberals and conservatives has widened.
One result was recently announced in a Pew Research Center study that found that less than half of all American children now live in a two-parent household with two married heterosexual parents who are, in fact, their own parents.
The Daily Caller reported that “In addition, fully 41% of all American babies are currently born out of wedlock. By way of comparison, in 1960 73% of all American children” lived in a traditional married household.
An earlier Pew Research Center study, announced in August 2013, depicted mothers as the main provider in 40% of American households with children. Jennifer Marshall, Director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at the Heritage Foundation, noted that 25% of “households with children under 18 are supported by a single mother.” Their median income was $23,000 and 44% are never-married moms. “More than a third of these single mothers aren’t working at all—meaning they are much more likely to depend on government welfare.”
What all these statistics add up to is a nation in which traditional marriage is under attack while living together unmarried or having children as a single mother have become accepted at an alternative lifestyle.
Now we are being told that America should abandon the concept of legal citizenship and accord it to anyone who crosses the border. This isn’t how an orderly society or sovereign state is defined. It is a definition of anarchy.
As the Supreme Court gets ready to hear the same-sex marriage case, the rest of us are wondering why a tiny minority of society should be granted a right that no society in history has ever imparted.
How small is it? In September 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a report that men who have sex with men (gay and bisexual) comprise about 2% of the U.S. population. When you add in lesbians the number moves up to about 3%.
The CDC tracks such things because “In 2010, among persons newly infected with HIV, 63% were men have sex with men (MSM) and among persons living with HIV, 52% were MSM.” According to the CDC, it is contracted primarily through anal sex. Despite federal spending to combat AIDS, between 2008 and 2010 “new infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) gay and bisexual men and 13% among gay and bisexual men overall” regardless of age.
So the nation has been experiencing a holocaust of murdered fetuses thanks to the Supreme Court’s ruling and now we are supposed to abandon the ancient definition of marriage to accommodate a tiny minority of those who engage in sex with the same gender. If justification for that can be found in the Constitution, then it can be interpreted in any manner to degrade our society and the nation.
Same-sex marriage is an issue that President Obama said was “America at its best” in his State of the Union speech. Seven years earlier, campaigning to become President, he said that marriage was “a sacred union” and was “between a man and a woman.”
I don’t care that a number of states have already extended a legal status to same-sex marriage. I don’t care that it applies to a very small number of Americans. They can have “civil unions” that resolve any legal issues, but “marriage”? No.
Just as I say no to those who want to strip the practice of religion from any public ceremony or remove the saying of prayer in our schools, I will say no to those who want to remove the moral pillars that have served our society and all societies over the millennia.
We can only hope that enough of the current Supreme Court justices feel that way too.
----------------- Alan Caruba is a writer by profession; has authored several books, and writes a daily column, Warning Signs He is a contribution author on the ARRA News Service. Tags:Supreme Court, malfeasance, Roe v. Wade, abortions, gay marriage, CDC HIV, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Fact Checking Obama's SOTU Claims About Job Growth
Compilation by Heritage analysts: President Obama talked at length about jobs, the minimum wage and salaries during his State of the Union speech. Here we look at some of his claims and whether they’re true or not.
Claim 1: “Our economy is growing and creating jobs at the fastest pace since 1999.”
Heritage Foundation senior policy analyst in labor economics James Sherk:President Obama celebrated the fact that the economy created jobs at the fastest pace since 1999. These figures are far less exciting news when put in context. Americans have suffered through the slowest recovery of the post-war era. The recession started seven years ago. Only in mid-2014 did the economy recover the jobs lost during the downturn. Full-time jobs have still not recovered – the entire net employment gains since 2007 come in part-time positions. Furthermore, the Obama administration’s policies have contributed to this sluggishness. Half of small business owners cite taxes or government regulations as their single greatest problem. A delayed recovery certainly beats the alternative of even slower job growth. But the administration should hardly want credit for such an anemic recovery.
Claim 2: “Our unemployment rate is now lower than it was before the financial crisis.”
Heritage’s Sherk writes:Obama touted the fact that unemployment has fallen to 5.6 percent. That’s good news. But he neglected to mention the fact that the proportion of Americans with jobs has changed little over his presidency. The vast majority of the improving unemployment picture comes from Americans dropping out of the labor force and no longer looking for work. In part that has to do with demographics—the ageing of the baby boomers means more retirees and thus fewer workers. But demographics only explain one-quarter of the drop in labor force participation. For many workers the economy offers less opportunity than it did before the recession. The official unemployment figures hide that fact.Claim 3: “This Congress still needs to pass a law that makes sure a woman is paid the same as a man for doing the same work. Really. It’s 2015. It’s time.”
Heritage Foundation’s federal spending and the national debt analyst Romina Boccia responds:Actually, Congress did pass such a law in 1963 and President John F. Kennedy signed it. It is called the Equal Pay Act and the country is 52 years into it. Now on to statistics. Based on previous remarks by the president, the gender wage gap is the basis for the president’s claim that women do not receive the same pay for the same work as men. Yet even that claim has little basis in reality. The president’s very own Labor Department concluded that “the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.” No thank you, Obama, we’re doing more than fine making our own choices without your misguided labor policies—they only promise to do more harm than good.Claim 4: “We still need to make sure employees get the overtime they’ve earned.”
Sherk comments:Obama proposed boosting wages by expanding overtime. He failed to mention that even economists close to his administration think it won’t work. When the government expands overtime businesses offset that cost with lower base wages. In the end, workers get essentially what they made before. Economists of all political stripes understand this. As Jared Bernstein, former chief economist to Vice President Biden, wrote last year the argument that overtime raises wages: “erroneously assumes that the incidence falls on the employer, not the worker. Labor economists consistently assume otherwise—that the incidence falls on the worker—which in this case means that the wage offer reflects expected overtime hours.” Bernstein supports expanding overtime, but even he recognizes this will do little to help “families make ends meet.” It will effectively convert millions of salaried workers into hourly workers. Overtime eligible workers must log their hours. This makes it very hard for employers to give them workplace flexibility. If employers make a mistake tracking hours worked remotely they risk massive lawsuits. The president’s proposal would hurt many of the workers he wants to help.Claim 5: “To everyone in this Congress who still refuses to raise the minimum wage, I say this: If you truly believe you could work full-time and support a family on less than $15,000 a year, go try it. If not, vote to give millions of the hardest-working people in America a raise.”
Sherk comments:The president argues that Americans need a raise. On that pretty much everyone agrees. But he proposes doing it by raising the minimum wage. Getting by on $15,000 a year is tough. This approach doesn’t work. Researchers at UC-San Diego recently released a new study through the National Bureau of Economics Research. They tracked workers for two years after the 2009 federal minimum wage hike. So how did it affect low-wage workers? Their pay dropped. While some indeed saw a pay increase, over a million more either lost or couldn’t find jobs at the new rates. In total the average earnings of low-wage workers dropped by $150 a month. The true minimum wage remains $0.00 an hour. Employers will not pay workers more than their productivity justifies. Trying to force employers to pay more will destroy jobs and hurt the very workers president Obama intends to help.Claim 6: “Wages are finally starting to rise again.”
Yes, wages are growing. But so are costs. Heritage’s senior policy analyst in macroeconomics Salim Furth proposes some ways the White House could increase real wages:The government can promote real wage growth by removing regulations and taxes that keep prices high. In the government-dominated sectors of education and health care, prices have risen much faster than wages over the past generation. Electricity and fuel are made more expensive by the Environmental Protection Agency’s “war on coal.” The Dodd-Frank financial reform raises prices by making it more difficult for small banks to comply with all the new rules. And land-use regulation and permitting processes make rent for families and businesses much higher than it could be. Instead of mandating higher wages (and fewer jobs), Obama could raise real wages by taking the lead in reducing costly regulations.
After the this weeks 2015 State of the Union address, Katrina Trinko in The Daily Signal noted, "President Obama President Obama touted shrinking deficits in today’s State of the Union address. This is about the only time in the foreseeable future the president will get to say that. The average annual deficit over the next decade is projected at $950 billion, just shy of a trillion. Starting this year and looking out as far as projections go, the deficit–absent further policy changes – is only heading in one direction: Up. Why address chronic and rising deficits confronting the nation, when you can enjoy a talking point while it lasts?"
Tags:the economy, economy, budget deficit, president Obama, State of the Union, SOTUTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
House Votes To Prohibit Taxpayer Funded Abortions | Senate Votes On More Amendments In 3 Weeks Than In All Of 2014
Today in Washington, D.C. - Jan 22, 2014
The biggest event in Washington, D.C. is the annual pro-life "March for Life" calling for the end of the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision 42 years ago that legalized wholesale abortion in the United States. Since that time, there have been approximately 57,762,169 abortions that have destroyed the lives of unborn children.
The House reconvened at 9 AM and immediately proceeded to consideration of H.R. 7 — "To prohibit taxpayer funded abortions." After debate, at 1:16 PM, the House passed the bill along party lines by a vote of 242 - 179.
The House had been expected to vote today on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. According to a November Quinnipiac poll, 60 percent of Americans back banning abortion, except in cases of rape or incest reported to the authorities, after 20 weeks. According to The Daily Signal, "Conservative commentators and pro-life advocates expressed frustration with the last-second decision to change course. Some said that those opposed to the original bill were ceding to politics over policy. . . . During debate, Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., who led the effort to pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, called late-term abortion “the greatest human rights atrocity in the United States today.”"
"Prominent Republican members who rallied against the plan to limit late-term abortions include Reps. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, Renee Ellmers of North Carolina and Jackie Walorski of Indiana. . . . Conservative commentators and pro-life advocates expressed frustration with the last-second decision to change course. Some said that those opposed to the original bill were ceding to politics over policy."
The Senate reconvened at 9:30 AM today. Following an hour morning business, the Senate resumed consideration of S.1, the bill to authorize construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.
More votes on amendments to S.1 are planned for this afternoon and evening.
Yesterday, the Senate rejected five amendments to the Keystone bill and adopted one. By unanimous consent, all these amendments required 60 votes for adoption.
Senators voted 54-45 to reject an amendment from Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) to cap legal fees on lawsuits under the Endangered Species Act, 41-58 to reject an amendment from Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) that would have prevented construction of the pipeline until the EPA produced guidelines about a substance known as petroleum coke, 54-45 to reject an amendment from Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) to exempt power plants that burn coal refuse from new EPA standards, 59-40 to reject an amendment from Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) expressing the sense of the Senate on climate change, and 50-49 to reject an amendment from Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) expressing the sense of the Senate that human activity significantly contributes to climate change.
Senators also voted 98-1 to adopt an amendment offered by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) expressing the sense of the Senate that the climate changes.
Politicoreports today, “The Senate is about to reach a milestone: By the end of this week, it will have held more amendment votes than it did in all of 2014. On Thursday — just three weeks into the new year — the chamber is set to surpass last year’s total of 15 amendment votes, thanks to a flurry of voting centered almost entirely on the Keystone XL pipeline. The only non-Keystone vote so far this year came on an amendment by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on changes to the Dodd-Frank financial law. . . .
“‘Just 15 roll call amendments, that was in all of 2014,’ said Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). ‘My hope is that we’re going to exceed last year’s total, hopefully here today.’
“Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has made opening up the Senate’s amendment process a key mark of his new reign. . . . ‘It’s great to see a real debate on the floor of the Senate again,’ McConnell said Thursday. ‘I saw some action in the chamber yesterday, even some unpredictability.’ . . .
“Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada has taken most of the blame for producing last year’s dearth of amendments by using Senate procedure to protect bills from alteration.”
A year ago, in a key speech, Leader McConnell set forth his views on how to restore the Senateto its traditional role as a place of prominent debates about policy and the direction of the country. He said, “[B]ills should come to the floor, be thoroughly debated, and include a robust amendment process. . . . The answer is to let folks debate; to let the Senate work its will. And that means bringing bills to the floor. It means having a free and open amendment process. It means legislating.. . . It’s time to allow Senators on both sides to more fully participate in the legislative process, and that means having a more open amendment process around here. Inevitably, this would involve taking tough votes from time to time. But that’s always been the cost of being a Senator. . . . Voting on amendments is good for the Senate, and it’s good for the country. Our constituents should have greater voice in the process. They should also know where we stand on the issues of the day . . . .”
As Politico notes, in just the first three weeks under the new Republican majority, the Senate is on its way back to being a place of consequential debate, where ideas are actually voted on. Today’s milestone says a lot about the different vision Republicans have for the Senate and how the previous Democrat majority mismanaged this chamber. Tags:House, no federal funding for Abortions, abortions, Senate voting, amendmentsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Listen to the American People: Secure the Border, No Amnesty
by Michael Johns, Contributing Author: “He was tortured, beaten to death, strangled and then set on fire,” Laura Wilkerson said earlier this month in McAllen, Texas. She was recalling her beloved 18-year-old son Josh, who was brutally murdered by illegal alien Hermilio Moralez in November 2010.
The details of Josh Wilkerson’s murder are gruesome. Moralez, in the United States illegally from Belize, violently kicked Wilkerson in the stomach, slicing both his liver and spine and rupturing his spleen. The illegal alien then proceeded to beat Wilkerson over the head with a closet rod with such force that the rod ultimately shattered in four pieces. With Wilkerson defenseless and motionless, Moralez then took two dollars from Wilkerson’s wallet, purchased gasoline, and set Wilkerson’s motionless body aflame. Moralez's mugshot reveals a young man smiling smugly. Later, at his trial, the illegal alien would speak from the stand about how he was a “trained killer” and that his “killing instincts” had taken over. There was no remorse.
Young Josh Wilkerson is just another life lost and another cost paid in a long list of lives lost and costs paid because Washington, D.C. policymakers continue to fail to do what logic and all sensibility dictate should have been done decades ago: Securing the United States border with Mexico so that illegals are not afforded access to the United States.
The U.S. federal government’s multi-decade failure to secure its 1,989-mile border with Mexico now stands as the most glaring example of both major political parties’ ongoing refusal to be responsive to the American people’s overwhelming belief that this border needs to be secured. Josh Wilkerson’s murder stands as just one of many examples why it is now perhaps the most critical issue facing the nation, presenting increasingly grave economic, security and other threats.
It’s worth asking the obvious question: With more than 35,000 illegals monthly now crossing the border into the U.S., why exactly has this border not been sealed? Laughingly, the Obama administration has said that the border with Mexico is more secure than it has ever been. It’s a sentiment shared by Congressional Democrats. “The border is secure,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid absurdly stated last month. Other policymakers acknowledge the obvious, but obfuscate the issue, speaking wrongly of supposedly insurmountable challenges associated with keeping illegals from entering the country.
The reality, of course, is the very opposite. The U.S. border with Mexico is consciously not secure because (for decades now) both parties have seen a political self-interest in ensuring it is left unsecured. Democrats, envisioning ultimately granting citizenship to these illegals, see the influx as politically advantageous: Millions of largely government and benefit-dependent illegals who, once afforded amnesty, will (Democrats believe) represent a groundswell of additional votes for their party and its candidates, possibly ushering in generations of Democrat victories in national and regional elections. Similarly, some Republicans, influenced by the desire of some private sector forces to attract cheap, illegal and sometimes sub-minimum wage labor resources, see the influx as a means to breaking organized labor and serving as a deflationary force in the largely blue collar and labor positions these illegals are likely to assume. Never stated openly is this reality: The U.S. does have a policy on the border, and it is--scandalously--to keep it open.
In many respects, it is exactly this sort of unresponsiveness of elected officials to the concerns of the American people that gave birth to America’s Tea Party movement in 2009. Five years later, the practical reality of Washington’s unresponsiveness is such that this crisis may now well be left to the Tea Party movement to solve. Should the Tea Party embrace this cause, as we must, the movement can count on more ridicule from Washington elites. But the Tea Party will find an ally in the American people, who see the seriousness of the border crisis, resoundingly support logical conclusions to it and importantly believe this administration has been at least complicit and likely even a force behind the latest influx of illegals that now threatens the nation.
Support for border security and opposition to amnesty is broadly popular. In a Rasmussen Poll taken last month, on July 17, a clear majority of likely voters (59 percent) were clear: They want those who have entered this country illegally to be returned to their home countries. And the American people largely recognize this is not a blameless crisis: Another Rasmussen poll, also taken last month, found that nearly half of likely voters (46 percent) believe the Obama administration, through its policies and statements, has contributed to it. Understandably, an overwhelming majority of Americans (58 percent, according to the same poll) believe the top priority in the crisis is for the U.S. to gain control of its border.
The arguments for urgently securing the border with Mexico and opposing Washington’s illogical amnesty initiatives are extensive and they strike at the very heart of the issues that most concern Americans:
1.) National security. The American people have patiently endured extensive and intrusive governmental security measures since the September 11, 2011 attacks, ostensibly designed to protect the country against an al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda-aligned terrorist attack. They can be forgiven for asking a reasonable question: What point exists in prohibiting American citizens from boarding U.S. airlines with, say, 3.5 ounces of non-flammable liquid, as opposed to the mandated 3.4 ounces, when literally any non-citizen--including the bloodiest of terrorists--can simply walk across our southern border?
As it is today, our government cannot answer basic questions about the flood of illegals across our border. How many illegals exactly have crossed the border and are in this country? There are only estimates (more than 12 million and as many as 20 million or more). Where in the U.S. are these illegals located? Answer: Just about everywhere, but no government agency can say exactly. And how many of these millions of foreigners have crossed the border illegally with malicious intentions for this country? We do know that they have included members of a broad range of global terrorist movements, violent gangs (including arguably the most violent, MS-13) and felony criminals, including murderers, violent criminals, rapists, and sexual offenders. And even when (by good fortune alone) they have been detained, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have released thousands of these illegal felons into the general U.S. population. As evidence of the utter lack of border security to criminals and potential terrorists, videographer James O’Keefe last week released video of him crossing the Rio Grande from Mexico into the U.S. dressed as Osama bin Laden. What barriers did O’Keefe encounter in entering the U.S. dressed as the infamous al-Qaeda terror leader? Answer: None.
2.) Jobs. America’s job crisis is vastly worse than what one might gather from the numbers released monthly by the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, which systematically exclude the many millions of Americans who comprise the long-term unemployed and those who have simply given up looking for work. Including these, there are roughly 102 million working-age Americans without jobs as of August 2014, an all-time high and growing. A stunning study released by the Center for Immigration Studies this past June found that all of the net gain in American jobs created since 2000 has gone to illegal and legal immigrants—that is, there has been no job growth for 14 years for native U.S. citizens.
It is absurd that the obvious must be stated: Basic supply and demand economics indicate that granting amnesty to the estimated 12 to 20 million illegals now in this country will only further exacerbate the U.S. employment crisis, both adding to the existing number of jobless Americans and also contributing to wage deflation (lower pay) as a greater number of Americans compete for a fewer number of existing jobs. As such, it should not prove surprising that sealing the border and opposing amnesty are items very high on the agendas of traditionally progressive constituencies, including labor unions and African-Americans, both of whom correctly see amnesty and a failure to secure the border as a recipe for higher unemployment and wage deflation, especially in traditional blue collar and lower wage occupations.
3.) Public resources. It is perhaps the greatest irony of all that progressives who clamor for vastly greater federal and state funding for health care, education, transportation and other public services are also those spearheading the opposition to border security initiatives and amnesty support. The influx of millions of illegals has only made all of these mounting problems worse as illegals consume these resources (and, of course, pay no offsetting federal or state taxes in exchange for them).
4.) Fairness. Many millions of foreigners from all over the world are, right now, legally seeking U.S. citizenship. The legal process to obtain U.S. citizenship is cumbersome, bureaucratic and lengthy. Unlike the illegal aliens now here because of their brazen disregard for U.S. federal law and national sovereignty, these would-be U.S. citizens follow this process both legally and patiently. Under amnesty proposals, however, these foreigners, those we might call “legal immigrants,” continue waiting in their foreign lands as those who crossed our southern border in violation of U.S. federal law are rewarded with U.S. residency, access to many of our country’s public benefits and infrastructure, and ultimately citizenship. These illegals will enjoy the backing of an entire U.S. political lobby that (motivated by its own selfish political and economic agendas) seeks to reward their lawless entry with the same highly-coveted U.S. citizenship denied those now following the process legally.
5.) Will of the American people. There are few issues on which Americans are more united than the fact that the borders of the country should be secure and that those who enter this country illegally in violation of U.S. federal law should not, in turn, be rewarded. The American people remain understandably compassionate towards those fleeing tyranny, but they are united in their logical, on-target conclusion that open borders and amnesty are harming the U.S. in multiple ways. Indeed, perhaps never before in the modern history of the conservative movement, has there been such an enticing opportunity for conservatives (and now the Tea Party movement) to build political alliances with unions, minorities and low-wage workers than there is right now in supporting an urgent securing of the U.S. border and opposing amnesty, showing that the Tea Party and conservative movements stand with working Americans and the rule of law.
Of course, all of these are facts lost on most Washington policymakers who are increasingly disengaged from the sentiments and concerns of the American people they purport to represent. Americans in 2014 are hurting. Failing to secure the border and granting amnesty to millions of illegals stand to further inflame these problems, damaging the already anemic U.S. job market, increasing crime and the demand on public resources, and perhaps even opening the door for what Americans have feared most since September 11, 2001: a coordinated terrorist attack on the U.S. mainland. These are deadly serious problems. But a political movement that can, right now, understand and communicate these facts with the urgency they require is likely to find broad support among the American people.
----------------- Michael Johns is a health care executive, former U.S. federal government official and conservative policy analyst and writer. He has held executive management responsibilities in several components of the U.S. and global health care industry. In addition, Michael has served as a White House speechwriter to President George H. W. Bush, a senior aide to former New Jersey Governor and 9/11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean (R-NJ), and as a senior United States Senate aide to U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME). Michael began his career as a policy analyst at the globally-respected Heritage Foundation and was an editor of the foundation's Policy Review. He blogs at Michael Johns and is an ARRA News Service contributing author. Tags:Listen to American People, Secure the Borders, No Amnesty, amnesty, border, border security, employment, Michael JohnsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Tags:Editorial Cartoon, AF Branco, Michael Moore, Seth Rogen, American Sniper, movie, cowards, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Jim DeMint: President Obama delivers a good speech. But it’s the content of the State of the Union address that really matters, not the delivery.
The content was more of the same: more spending, more regulation, and more government. You want something better—and you deserve better. So do the American people. In fact, a recent Gallup study found that Americans believe government is the biggest problem facing the country.
And while liberals celebrate their tired left-wing agenda, they continue to pretend conservatives have no plan to govern. It’s just not true.
Just last week, more than 20 lawmakers came to The Heritage Foundation for the Conservative Policy Summit, hosted by Heritage Action for America. These lawmakers outlined specific legislation that will make lives better for all Americans, not just the special interests who can manipulate big government to their advantage.
That’s not all: Heritage Foundation experts have compiled a 192-page plan that offers a comprehensive, conservative alternative to the liberal status quo. This plan details conservative solutions on issues ranging from repealing Obamacare and implementing a free-market alternative; to simplifying and reforming taxes; to cutting red tape and regulation; and much more.
With your dedication and support, we can get America back to the principles you believe in: free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
----------------- Jim DeMint is President of the The Heritage Foundation and former U.S. Senator (R-SC) from 2005-2013 when he resigned to lead The Heritage Foundation. DeMint promoted the appointment of Tim Scott as his replacement in 2013. DeMint served as a U.S Representative from 1999-2005. He is aligned with the Tea Party movement and founded the Senate Conservatives Fund, a political action committee (PAC), which supports conservative, small government, Tea Party–allied Republican politicians in primary challenges and general elections. Tags:Jim DeMint, Heritage Foundation, Opportunity for All, Favoritism to None, Alternative, President Obama, SOTU, State of the Union, President ObamaTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Michelle Malkin's Perspective On Colorado Springs Bombing
Four Conservative Activists (2011)
David Crow (left), Michelle Malkin,
Randy Alexander & Dr. Bill Smith (right)
Bill Smith, Editor I knew it wouldn't be long and we would learn the facts and the perspective from one of my favorite tenacious conservatives, Michelle Malkin, about last weeks "bombing of NCAAP Headquarters" in Colorado Springs. Malkin released the following article earlier to several syndicated locations. A few hours ago she posted it to her own site.
---------------- The “NAACP bombing”…or the Barbershop Bang? by Michelle Malkin": COLORADO SPRINGS — From the liberal media’s coverage of my beautiful adopted hometown, you’d think we live in a KKK-infested hotbed where every person of color fears for his or her life.
Take a look at these ominous headlines:
–“Bombing of NAACP headquarters harkens to bad old days” — MSNBC
–“Colorado Springs explosion recalls violence against NAACP” — The Washington Post
–“NAACP Bombing Evokes Memories of Civil Rights Strife” — Time magazine
–“Explosion outside NAACP office could be a hate crime, officials say” — Los Angeles Times
Let me and my brown skin assure you, America: Bull Connor is not running loose on our streets. Water fountains here in the Rocky Mountain West are segregated by height, not race. The only bonfires I know of are being set outside by local residents roasting s’mores.
Never one to let reality intrude on a ripe race hustle, Texas Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee claimed last week that the so-called NAACP bombing “undermines years of progress” and now “demands federal review” of the case. Georgia Democratic Rep. John Lewis, who clearly missed the thousands of local, state, national and international newspaper, magazine, web and cable news stories on the incident, lamented: “It reminds me of another period. These stories cannot be swept under the rug.” Professional agitator and social justice detective Shaun King, based in Ferguson, Mo., accused a phantom “domestic terrorist” of perpetrating the alleged crime. CNN immediately blared an apocalyptic headline about my town that invoked “domestic terrorism” (this from the feckless news channel that pixelates Mohammed cartoons and whitewashes proven jihadi terrorism). And the national president of the NAACP is now headed out here for a visit this weekend.
But the so-called “NAACP bombing” … isn’t. There is simply no evidence yet to label it as such. The FBI reported in a press conference: “We don’t know who was targeted.” One top local law enforcement source told me this week that, in his years of experience, “this in no way looks like anything that can be called ‘targeted.'” The case could just as fairly be called “The Barbershop Bang” as “The NAACP Bombing.”
While racial opportunists rush to invoke Jim Crow and incite panic for political gain, doubts and unanswered questions about the incident are piling up.
To recap: On the morning of Jan. 6, a crude device — reportedly a flare placed inside a pipe, which was enclosed in a gas can — caused minor damage and charring on the outer wall of Mr. G’s Hair Design Studio. The NAACP office is located on the opposite side of the building.
“There was as much opportunity to hit the NAACP side of the building, but only (the) barber shop side was affected,” he pointed out. Cardillo’s Colorado law enforcement sources told him that “the Feds are in a bind because there isn’t much pointing to a verifiable hate crime,” but “politics” is the “driving force.”
President Obama’s FBI has disseminated a sketch of a “person of interest” described as “white,” “balding” and “in his 40s.” But sunglasses obscure his eyes. Even more unfortunate: His facial features appear as though he could just as easily be a light-skinned Asian, Hispanic or Pacific Islander — or, as many acerbic critics of the poorly drawn sketch observed, a chubby gray alien from outer space.
I asked local law enforcement sources to tell me more about the witness or witnesses who identified the Bald Specter. But all questions are being referred to the FBI, which did not return my call by deadline.< There is also a futile-seeming hunt for a white pickup truck allegedly driven by the Bald Specter. But I’ve driven through the neighborhood where the barbershop and NAACP office are located. Every other vehicle in the area is a pickup. And as blogger and citizen journalist Bill O’Keefe observed, another Google street view image of the premises taken last fall shows a white pickup matching the FBI description sitting in the parking lot on the NAACP side of the building.
These are all things that make you go “hmmm,” not things that justify knee-jerk and unsubstantiated cries of “RAAAACISM!” Something certainly happened at 603 South El Paso Street in Colorado Springs on the first Tuesday after New Year’s. But what exactly occurred and why are as wide open as the Colorado sky. Tags:Michelle Malkin, Perspective, Colorado Springs, Bombing, NCAAPTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - 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.