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
Saturday, September 05, 2015
NFRA: Cruz Wins 2016 Endorsement After Trump Wins Straw Poll
Donald Trump Speaking at 2016 NFRA Endorsement Convention. Trump won straw poll with 52%
Nashville, Tennessee: - Donald Trump wins Straw poll but Ted Cruz received the endorsement of Conservative Republicans attending the National Federation of Republican Assemblies 2016 Presidential Preference Endorsing Convention, held in Nashville on August 29th in Nashville, TN.
Sharron Angle, NFRA President said, “The NFRA vetted all 17 Presidential Candidates based on our principles and values, which are posted at RepublicanAssemblies.org. Donald Trump was well received by the crowd at Rocketown and won the NFRA straw poll [editor's note: Donald Trump 52%, Cruz 24% & and Carson was 3rd.], entertaining the hundreds of attendees wishing to hear him. After a thoughtful deliberation and lengthy review of all the candidates, the NFRA membership endorsed Ted Cruz. Donald Trump came in second place, and Scott Walker was third.”
After the Trump “hoopla” died down, Angle encouraged the membership, “We’ve had fun today but now we must be serious. Take care not cast your ballots based on a winning smile, a magnetic personality, or a Chris Matthews ‘tingle up our leg.” In the NFRA 2012 endorsing convention in Iowa, Ron Paul enthusiasts crammed the hall to vote for their candidate in the straw poll. Ron Paul won the straw poll that year but, Rick Santorum won the NFRA endorsement. After winning the NFRA endorsement in 2012, Rick Santorum went on to win the Iowa Caucus.
The NFRA membership voted by an overwhelming two-thirds majority to endorse Ted Cruz. “We work hard to support the candidates we endorse in all the states, because we are in this to win.” [Editor's Note: Ted Cruz declined the invite to the NFRA Convention]
Americans Across America: Sharron Angle sees the wave coming, “We start early, we work hard. NFRA members vote in primaries! We bring critical thinking to the process of selecting a Presidential candidate. The NFRA members came from Nevada, Florida, Texas, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Alaska, Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas, Arizona, Utah, Alabama, Rhode Island, Virginia, California, and others. They went home united for Cruz. We believe our early support will help Ted Cruz surge to a -lead just as Santorum surged in 2012.”
------------ For interviews with NFRA President Sharron Angle, call 775-247-4122 to schedule an appointment. For interviews with one of the candidates, call their campaign or contact them at an event they actually attend. Tags:2015, NFRA, 2016 Presidential Endorsement Convention, Nashville, Tennessee, endorsement, Ted Cruz, 2016 GOP Primary, Donald Trump, straw poll, Sharron Angle,To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
All that money. All that outrage. All those antigun editorials in big city papers. All those academics and “researchers” churning out antigun papers that immediately get picked up by the media. All those celebrity endorsements. All those years of work.
And the Tweets! Fingers aching from endless antigun Tweets!
This was supposed to be their time. Other fringe political movements are getting traction. Why not them?
But to CSGV anti-gunners Josh Horwitz and Ladd Everitt, we ask, has it really come to this? SWATting? Calling the cops on your competition and hoping to provoke confrontations? Maybe getting a law-abiding citizen, or even a police officer, killed? Maybe mistaking a cop for an armed citizen and pitting cop against cop?
This is extremism at its very worst. We’re tempted to say we’re surprised.
But not really. We’ve seen this coming. We took the gun control movement to task over this issue a while ago, but that was different. Those were just cranks commenting on gun control websites. Still, we said, you ought to at least have the decency to disavow those tactics.
America, this is the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Ironic name for a group wishing to provoke armed confrontation between police officers and law-abiding citizens. They’ve never accomplished anything to stop violence of any sort, or even accomplished what they really want, which is the banning of guns. They are angry. And they want you to lose your guns, and more. They want police officers and gun owners to see each other as enemies, with all the implications that entails.
But it’s okay. Police officers and lawfully armed citizens have been getting along just fine throughout America’s history, and they will undoubtedly continue to do so. In fact, the police, who keep our streets safe, believe in the law-abiding citizens’ right to keep and bear arms and reject gun control as the magic panacea against violent crime. Maybe that’s why Josh Horwitz and Ladd Everitt are willing to put them at risk, too.
Nice try, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, but we’re fully confident that the responsibility and good sense of law-abiding gun owners and the professionalism of America’s law enforcement community will carry the day. Tags:NRA-ILA, NRA, ILA, Antigun Group, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, provoke Congrontation, police, Lawful CarriersTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
It has a series of common-sense (and very popular provisions). The ERA:
Guarantees a majority of the employees have the right to a secret ballot before union leaders can declare a strike (88% of union households support).
Makes any union threat of violence against members a criminal offense (93% of union households support).
Protects worker privacy during an organizing campaign (84% of union households support).
Guarantees that a majority of all employees have a right to a secret ballot paper election about organizing their company (85% support among union households).
Strengthens the National Labor Relations Act to block unions from intimidating or coercing employees from exercising their rights, including the right to decertify the union (75% support among union households).
Protects the individual worker’s political rights by insisting that unions have to get opt-in permission from each member to use his or her union dues for purposes other than collective bargaining (85% support from union households).
At every step, the Employee Rights Act strengthens the individual against large institutions that could coerce them or threaten them. Perversely, many of the laws that were first created in the 1930s to protect workers by strengthening unions now have the unintended effect of allowing big unions to abuse their members–and even those employees who want nothing to do with them.
As a few of the victims themselves testify in this video, unions can be recognized in workplaces without a secret ballot election. They can spend employees’ money supporting political candidates that employees oppose even without their permission. And they can continue to represent workers in companies where not a single employee had the opportunity to vote for them.
These practices are unfair and should be unacceptable in the 21st century.
Senator Hatch and Congressman Price are to be commended for having the courage to provide leadership in an area which has not been reformed in modern times.
This Labor Day we should focus on the rights of workers, not just the rights of union leaders. The Employee Rights Act has the right focus and the right reforms.
---------------------- 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, Republican, labor day message, Employee Rights Act To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Cowardly, Un-American Deal With Iran - #BadIranDeal
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a statement saying they will continue to support rogue activities.
by Star Parker: Many Americans rightly watch in disbelief as leaders of our country push to conclude a dangerous and ill-conceived nuclear agreement with an incorrigible and evil nation, a leading sponsor of terrorism.
Since when does the United States negotiate out of fear, out of weakness? But this is what is happening. How else to explain moving forward with a deal this complicated and dangerous with people no rational person would trust?
Abrogation of American leadership, meaning America acting in an unprincipled and cowardly way, leads inevitably to a world more dangerous and less free. We should be ashamed.
Many have already written about the technical problems of this so-called deal. Huge time lags in follow-up inspections, allowing Iran to re-build its conventional arms arsenal, and that this will accelerate rather than decelerate the nuclear arms race in the Middle East and lead inevitably to a nuclear-armed Iran.
Administration officials don't even try to deny that the hundreds of billions that will be released to Iran as result of lifting sanctions will provide funding for terror.
According to President Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, "We should expect that some portion of that money would go to the Iranian military and could potentially be used for the kinds of bad behavior that we have seen in the region up until now."
Per testimony of Adam Szubin, acting undersecretary of the treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence: "I expect we'll continue to see that..." regarding Iranian terrorism support.
And Wendy Sherman, undersecretary of state for political affairs, said, "As for Iran's behavior, the United States is under no illusions."
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a statement saying they will continue to support rogue activities. "Whether or not this drafted (nuclear agreement) text is approved through legal process in the country, the Iranian nation will not stop supporting the oppressed nation of Palestine, Yemen, Bahrain as well as the nations and governments of Syria, Iraq and the honest combatants in Lebanon and Palestine."
The Wall Street Journal's Mary O'Grady has written extensively about Iranian activities in Latin America.
"Iran has targeted Latin America since the mid-1980s," O'Grady reports, "by establishing mosques and cultural centers to spread the revolution.
An arm of Hezbollah, Iran's Islamic fundamentalist proxy, took responsibility for the 1992 terrorist attack on the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires. Argentine prosecutors named Iran as the mastermind behind the 1994 terrorist attack on the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA) in the same city."
O'Grady continues, "In 2013 Alberto Nisman, the Argentine prosecutor who was investigating the AMIA case, released a 500-page report about the extensive Iranian terrorism network in the hemisphere. One of his more chilling findings was that the foiled 2007 plot to blow up New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport was an Iranian operation, run by a Guyanese recruit. In January Nisman was found in his Buenos Aires apartment with a bullet through his head."
Iran is already violating sanctions. Senator Ted Cruz noted in the recent Republican debate that Iranian General Qasem Soleimani is "head of the al Quds forces ... responsible for the murder of over 500 American servicemen in Iraq" and recently travelled to Russia against travel restrictions.
Freedom House, based in Washington, D.C, rates Iran, on a scale of 1-7 (1 being "most free") a 6 on political rights and 6 on civil liberties.
It's not just the American people and the Israeli people that need American leadership now. It is the Iranian people and the vast populations of people living in un-free Muslim nations.
Who will be the voice for freedom and civility in the world if not America?
No sane, responsible person does business with rogues that cannot be trusted. Not even a simple deal.
Our national anthem says that America is the "land of the free and the home of the brave."
Free and brave people don't do deals like this.
------------ Star Parker is an author and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education. CURE is a non-profit think tank that addresses issues of race and poverty through principles of faith, freedom and personal responsibility. Tags:Star Parker, Center for Urban Renewal and Education, CURE, Un-American, deal wit Iran, Nuke DealTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
307,000 Veterans May Have Died Waiting for VA benefits - This Must Change
Vets Experience Death by Delay of Service
by Amber Smith : Remember the Department of Veterans Affairs scandal in April, 2014 that exposed veterans had died as a result of waiting for healthcare?
Veterans were placed on fake wait lists and were signed up for ghost clinics and records were manipulated.
Deceit had become the norm in order to make the VA look better in an attempt to not draw attention to the dysfunctional leadership failures running rampant through the bureaucracy.
The result: veterans suffered, veterans died.
Nearly a year and a half later what has changed? Nothing.
CNN has reported that the Veterans Affairs Inspector General has found that roughly 800,000 records and applications were delayed in the VA system for healthcare enrollment.
Of those delayed, 307,000 veterans may have died while waiting on an answer from the VA on their application for benefits.
These aren’t veterans waiting on healthcare appointments who are already in the system, but veterans merely trying to accomplish the first step, applying for VA healthcare.
The investigation additionally discovered that a veteran who died in 1988 still had an unprocessed application in the system 26 years later.
Another veteran had applied for VA healthcare enrollment in 1998 had a “pending” status on his record 14 years later.
The Inspector General also found that due to improper management and marking of unprocessed applications, Veteran Affairs employees had likely deleted over 10,000 applications in the past five years.
The report additionally noted that in 2010, employees concealed veterans’ applications in their desks so they didn’t have to process them at that time.
In standard VA practice, the employees were not recommended to be disciplined for their actions.
Recently Veteran Affairs Secretary Bob McDonald voiced his concern that politics were setting the VA up for failure.
His attempt to shift blame is unacceptable as the VA’s top leader.
Enough with the excuses, veterans deserve better than that.
They deserve the quality and timely healthcare they earned, but sadly are not getting.
It’s time for results, not continual empty rhetoric.
The agency has an annual budget of roughly $160 billion. In 2014 congress gave the VA an additional $16.3 billion to provide veterans with more choice when it came to their healthcare.
The VA manipulated the intentions behind the choice program, making the option virtually impossible for veterans to use. Again, the VA chose to put the agency ahead of veterans well-being.
The VA has evolved into a massive bureaucracy that facilitates an unethical culture that refuses to accept change.
Its leadership climate fosters zero accountability within the department.
A year and a half after the scandal broke, the VA continues to resist reform that will produce effective results.
Enough is enough. The status quo is unacceptable. The VA needs accountability, choice and access for private care options, and a cultural shift that puts veterans first.
VA reform must become a priority now. Veterans have made tremendous sacrifices and put country before self.
They deserve a VA that serves them, not the other way around.
Because as it stands now, the disgusting reality is that our nation’s finest are left to fight for the benefits they’ve earned – some dying without receiving any of them at all.
-------------- Amber Smith (@AmberSmithUSA) is a writer and commentator. She is a former U.S. Army helicopter pilot and combat veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan war. Her article was first shared on The Daily Signal. Tags:veterans, vets, deaths, waiting for VA benefits, VA, VA Reform, Amber Smith, 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:Editorial Cartoon, AF Branco, editorial cartoon, Iran Side Deal, less safe, entire world, IsraelTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
National ID or Uncontrolled Immigration – Make Up Your Mind
by Tom Balek, Contributing Author: As a teenage baseball pitcher I had a pretty good fast ball, and liked to throw everything hard. But my curve ball just wasn't working. Then I got a physics lesson from my coach. "Son, " he said, "you can either get speed on the ball or spin. But not both."
He was right of course. The more spin you put on the ball, the more it will curve. With less spin, the ball will go straighter, and faster. Watch the "jugs" gun at a professional baseball game. A good pitcher throws a 95 mph fast ball, but his curve ball will come in at about 80 mph.
I think of that lesson whenever a news story reveals the trade-off between security and freedom.
Conservative Americans tend to guard their anonymity. They don't think the government has any right to know a lot of details about their lives. Many just don't trust the government to keep our information confidential, and recent examples of sloppy data security and failure to prevent hacking would seem to support that skepticism.
Others worry that corrupt government officials might actually use personal data to harm us for political purposes. Again, there is recent evidence that this kind of stuff happens; the IRS has become a weapon of personal destruction. It's not hard to see why many Americans would prefer to be invisible to their own government.
But many of the same people who want to fly beneath the government's radar also demand that the government provide us optimum security, which would require the feds to know a lot about everybody who is inside our borders. Here's the hard truth: you can have security or anonymity, but not both. Speed or spin.
The United States has a serious problem with immigration in all varieties: legal, illegal, and refugee. Unskilled and under-educated illegals, mostly Mexicans, flow across our southern border, wreaking havoc here that would not be tolerated in their home country. USA Today reported this week that 76% of immigrant families with children are on welfare. Media sources say about 30% of inmates in our federal prisons are illegal immigrants, but that number is based on "self-reported" immigration status by prisoners and is likely much higher. Criminals who are illegal immigrants are routinely released by law officers in our sanctuary cities. Illegal immigrants have made a multi-billion dollar industry out of tax fraud- the IRS is totally indifferent to the outrageous refunds they receive, using fake tax returns and fake social security numbers.
Immigrants who are legally admitted to the US with temporary visas for work, education, or other purposes, often overstay their visas or take up permanent residence. Vote fraud by citizens and non-citizens alike is a growing problem, largely due to the failure of precincts to prove that voters are legitimate. Identity theft losses continue to accelerate.
Homeland Security, ICE, and the other federal agencies all say there is nothing they can do about any of these problems because they just can't keep track of everybody.
Well, people, it's time. It's time for all legal American citizens to have a micro-chipped USA identification card, and the federal government must update its technology to be able to identify every human being within our borders. Our government should collect DNA, retinal scans, palm scans, or any other physical individual identification from everybody who lives here, visits here, or is discovered to have arrived here. The technology is readily available, and the cost should be more than offset by savings.
But so is the reality of thousands of Muslim refugees arriving on our shores unvetted at a time when Iran is on the verge of receiving $150 billion and a free pass to build nuclear weapons which it will share with its aligned Muslim terrorist groups from all over the Middle East. So is the prospect of a US economy crushed under the weight of an exploding population of needy, unskilled third-world immigrants and refugees, reproducing at a much greater rate than native-born Americans. So is the loss of our national identity, our character, our traditions, our heritage, and our sense of unity, as American-born citizens become outnumbered by foreigners who don't speak the same language, don't understand our unique system of government, don't recognize our laws, and don't intend to assimilate into our common culture.
It may be hard to trust the government after what we have been through the last several years. Under the circumstances we have no choice but to trust, and we'd better be careful who we put in power. I don't see how we will ever get this hot mess back under control until we know who is who.
Speed or spin. Security or anonymity. Time to make up our minds.
--------------- Tom Balek is a fellow conservative activist, blogger, musician and contributes to the ARRA News Service. Tom resides in South Carolina and between playing in bands including his family band Caution! Blind Driver, he seeks to educate those too busy with their work and families to notice how close to the precipice our economy has come. He blogs at Rockin' On the Right Side Tags:Tom Balek, Rockin' On The Right Side, national ID, uncontrolled immigration, conservatives, corruption, immigration, economic mess, illegal immigration, immigration, national identification To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Ken Blackwell Discusses Kim Davis and Religious Liberty on MSNBC
by Ken Blackwell, Contributing Author: I discuss Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis' arrest, religious liberty, and President Obama's double standards when it comes to the "law of the land" on MSNBC with Jose Diaz-Balart.
------------------ Ken Blackwell is a conservative family values advocate. Blackwell is a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and a contributing author to the ARRA News Service. Tags:Ken Blackwell, Religious Liberty, Kentucky, County Clerk, Kim Davis, arrest, MSNBC, Family Research CouncilTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Lesson for Black Liberals about “Do Nothing” Republicans
by Kevin Jackson: Black Liberal Democrats constantly complain about the do-nothing Republicans.
Republicans have every reason to ignore their ignorance, since they gladly “step-n-fetchit” for any Democrat willing to publicly sodomize them.
One of my friends posted on Craigslist the answer to those who say the Republicans do nothing.Liberals said The Republican solution to the problem has been to “do nothing” for 150 years and the solution for the future is more “do nothing.”
Answer: Yes, the solution is “do nothing” or as all good anti-slavery Americans said, “make the most of it.”
The reason former slaves begged Democrats to please just leave them alone and “do nothing” for them was because, as Frederick Douglass said, their “doing” was causing them “positive injury”. Nothing has changed.
Democrats keep pushing their slave system on people who don’t want it.
Republicans have always been champions of the free market. Free-market capitalism is the only system in the history of the world that can lift people out of poverty. Dependency does not bring people out of poverty.
On the other hand, the Democratic Party’s slave system replacement program of payment in food and medical “instead of pay in money” is designed to prevent people from owning property (not even so much a lawn-mower to cut grass for a living!).
Welfare gives the slave only just enough food and shelter to keep him on the hook voting for his daily bread, and is a political control mechanism.
In 1857, when the Democrats first began proposing socialism as a “replacement” for free-market capitalism, the New York Times fired back, saying:“The South tells us that some thousands of us suffer want once in twenty years. We answer, we know it, and are sorry for it; but if Slavery is our only remedy, we welcome the calamity. If it were necessary to secure our liberty, thousands of us would not only starve, but hundreds of thousands would submit to be pounded with round shot and hacked with sabres.”
“We are willing to give our opponents all possible odds–we are willing to concede to Slavery all the advantages they claim for it–we are willing to put all money value of negroes out of sight–to acknowledge, for the sake of general argument merely, to having twenty thousand men and women starving in New York at this moment, and yet maintain that our [free market] system is incomparably better than theirs. Granted that no man in the South ever suffers from want–and granted that in the North a great number do suffer from it every year, and once in twenty years during financial crises like the present in greater number still–we still assert that Slavery is a great curse and a great calamity, and free labor a great good. This is our creed: make the most of it.”Oh how the New York Times has changed! And so have black people.
Blacks have gone from asking the government to “do nothing,” to asking it to “do EVERYTHING!” Who needs a mower, when there is an illegal Mexican nearby, brought courtesy of Barack Obama as the behest of Al Sharpton.--------------- Kevin Jackson is a highly sought national speaker, and he has graced the stage with luminaries as Sarah Palin, Neal Boortz, Herman Cain, Judge Napolitano, and Andrew Breitbart. He blogs at The Black Shere and has been a contributor to BigGovernment, American Thinker and guest on FoxNews. Tags: Kevin Jackson, The Black Shere, black liberals, "do nothing" Republicans, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Generation Opportunity announces its Millennial Jobs Report for August 2015. The data is non-seasonally adjusted (NSA) and is specific to 18-29 year olds:
The effective (U-6) unemployment rate for 18-29 year olds, which adjusts for labor force participation by including those who have given up looking for work, is 13.2 percent (NSA). The (U-3) unemployment rate for 18-29 year olds is 8.1 percent (NSA).
The declining labor force participation rate has created an additional 1.767 million young adults that are not counted as “unemployed” by the U.S. Department of Labor because they are not in the labor force, meaning that those young people have given up looking for work due to the lack of jobs.
The effective (U-6) unemployment rate for 18-29 year old African-Americans is 17.6 percent (NSA); the (U-3) unemployment rate is 15.1 percent (NSA).
The effective (U-6) unemployment rate for 18-29 year old Hispanics is 13.6 percent (NSA); the (U-3) unemployment rate is 9.5 percent (NSA).
The effective (U-6) unemployment rate for 18-29 year old women is 11.0 percent (NSA); the (U-3) unemployment rate is 7.9 percent (NSA).
Generation Opportunity National Spokeswoman Patrice Lee issued the following statement:
“Millions of millennials have no work to celebrate this Labor Day Weekend. Lacking employable skills that can lead to a good job, college grads and non-grads still struggle to find a job in this economic recovery.
“Policymakers should support 21st-century reforms to our education system that help all young people. Instead, they cling to tired solutions based on the model that touts a four-year college degree as the only way to get a good job. That model is broken:It graduates students with record-high loan debt and stigmatizes those who don’t go to college. We need to reboot our education system to prioritize expanding choice, lowering education cost and debt, and preparing our youth for available employment opportunities.”
-------------- Generation Opportunity is a national, nonpartisan organization advocating for economic opportunity for young people through less government and more freedom. Tags:Generation Opportunity, emplyment report, August 2015To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
‘Hope … Is Not A National Security Strategy’ - #BadIranDeal
‘Hope…Is Not A National Security Strategy’ Majority of Americans, Leading Congressional Democrats Oppose Iran Deal
SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ (D-NJ):“Whether or not the supporters of the agreement admit it, this deal is based on ‘hope’…Hope is part of human nature, but unfortunately it is not a national security strategy.”(Sen. Menendez, Remarks, 8/18/15)
‘Ever-Growing Majority’ of Americans Oppose Iranian Nuclear Deal
NEW YORK POST: “Solid majorities in each house of Congress oppose the deal — as does an ever-growing majority of the American people, as every poll shows. It’s easy to see why: Far from denying Iran a nuclear weapon, it (at best) leaves Tehran a nuclear breakout state in 15 years. And it gives Iran hundreds of billions of dollars to aid its terrorist allies and buy countless non-nuclear arms — because the deal repeals all embargoes on Iran.” (“The Obscene Drive To Avoid Any Senate Vote On The Iran Deal,” New York Post, 8/30/15)
MONMOUTH UNIVERSITY: “Part of the uncertainty in public opinion may be due to a sense that Iran got the better end of the bargain. Four-in-ten (41%) say Iran got more of what it wanted from this deal, while just 14% feel the U.S. came out on top.” (Monmouth University Poll, 1,203 A, MoE 2.8%, 7/30-8/02/15)
Sen. Schumer: ‘Iran Will Not Change… While Ultimately Retaining Its Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Power’
ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER: “That respected Democrats have parted ways with Obama on the Iraq nuclear deal puts the fritters to the president’s repeated insinuation that opposition to the deal on Capitol Hill is mostly a matter of Republican partisanship. Indeed, we agree that Congress faces one of those momentous votes that come along once ever several years. And, if lawmakers reject the deal, we are confident most will do so based on the merits rather than petty political considerations.” (“Editorial: Iran Nuclear Deal Losing Democratic Support,” Orange County Register, 8/10/15)
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): “Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power.” (Sen. Schumer, Press Release, 8/6/15)
“In the first ten years of the deal, there are serious weaknesses in the agreement. First, inspections are not ‘anywhere, anytime’; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling.”(Sen. Schumer, Press Release, 8/6/15)
SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ (D-NJ): “The agreement that has been reached failed to achieve the one thing it set out to achieve – it failed to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state at a time of its choosing. In fact, it authorizes and supports the very road map Iran will need to arrive at its target.”(Sen. Menendez, Remarks, 8/18/15)
“The President and Secretary Kerry have repeatedly said that the choice is between this agreement or war. I reject that proposition…”(Sen. Menendez, Remarks, 8/18/15)
“So in reality we have purchased a very expensive alarm system. Maybe we’ll have an additional nine months, but with much greater consequences in the enemy we might face at that time.” (Sen. Menendez, Remarks, 8/18/15)
REP. ELIOT ENGEL (D-NY): “But after careful consideration of all of the material; more than a dozen hearings since the beginning of the negotiating period; and conversations with Administration officials, experts, and many of my constituents, I regret that I cannot support this deal.”(Rep. Engel, Press Release, 8/6/15)
“The answers I’ve received simply don’t convince me that this deal will keep a nuclear weapon out of Iran’s hands, and may in fact strengthen Iran’s position as a destabilizing and destructive influence across the Middle East.” (Rep. Engel, Press Release, 8/6/15)
Tags:Hope, Not National Security Strategy, Iran Nuke Deal, #BadIranDealTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
World’s First Clean Oil Sands Project: An Interview With Dr. Gerald Bailey
by James Stafford, Contributing Author: After decades of exhaustive attempts to overcome the dirty reputation of oil sands, we finally have an environmentally-friendly and low cost method to tap into these vast resources in the state of Utah—good news both for Mother Nature and all oil and gas investors.
MCW Energy Group’s CEO, former Exxon President of the Arabian Gulf region, Dr. R. Gerald Bailey, tells Oilprice.com in an exclusive interview that his hunt for an innovative technology that simultaneously makes money and cleans up the environment is over. The race to capitalize on Utah’s vast oil sands resources is on, and only the ‘clean’—both financially and environmentally—will survive.
Coming hot off of the successful launch of clean oil sands operations in Utah, while other oil sands projects are under fire from protesters, Dr. Bailey discusses:
• The difference between Utah and Alberta when it comes to oil sands resources.
• How new technology can—and is—extracting oil sands without harming the environment.
• Why the new technology is as much about remediation as it is about extraction
• How to create new revenue streams and use the resulting clean sand for other purposes.
• Why it’s finally possible to make money extracting oil from oil sands cleanly—despite the current world’s depressed oil prices.
• What Alberta’s tailings ponds look like now, and what could be done to clean them up—eventually.
Interview by James Stafford of Oilprice.com:
James Stafford: After many years of oil companies attempting to develop Utah’s vast oil sands deposits without harming the environment, where are we now?
Gerald Bailey: Right now, we’re experiencing an exciting moment in the history of oil sands technology. For the first time, we can finally extract oil from Utah’s oil sands without any environmental damage. And significantly, we can do it at a cost that makes sense, even in this depressed oil price environment. It’s taken decades for someone to come up with this technology and actually make it commercially viable; and it was these elements that attracted me to MCW Energy. I wanted to get involved in this project while it was still new and largely off investor radar—now it’s poised to explode as an additional source for independent American oil production.
James Stafford: So, oil sands don’t necessarily have to be dirty?
Gerald Bailey: No, oil sands in themselves are not dirty. It is quite simply sand that contains oil, just like sand underground in an oilfield contains oil. They are dark with oil. The word ‘dirty’ has been derived from the fact that most current extraction processes use hot water or steam, which results in an oily water stream that leaves behind toxic tailings ponds.
James Stafford: How is this new proprietary extraction technology developed by MCW Energy different? How does it work?
Gerald Bailey: It’s really quite simple. The technology works in the same way as soap takes grease off plates: The grease adheres to the soap and pulls it away and off the plate. Our technology—which focuses on proprietary solvents—works in the same way. It adheres to the oil and pulls it away from the sand.
James Stafford: What happens with the sand after this process?
Gerald Bailey: Well, that depends on what other local market uses there are. Generally speaking, we wash the sand with our solvents and then return it to the earth 99.9% clean. You can grow plants on it and it is no longer contaminated with oil.
James Stafford: And are there any other uses for this sand? Is there any kind of a market for this once it’s been cleaned up?
Gerald Bailey: As I mentioned, for now the sand is usually returned to the earth—clean and safe. But there are other potential applications that we are exploring. One possibility is to sell the cleaned sand as frack sands, which is a spin-off business that’s growing as fracking activities in America increase. Frack sands require certain quantities of silicon and not all sands are equal in this respect. Much of the desired frack sand comes from the Midwest—from Wisconsin and Michigan, for instance. For years Utah oil sands containing bitumen/asphalt have been used in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado to build roads and highways.
James Stafford: So the immediate term goal is to focus on ramping up production in Utah and then licensing the technology for global application?
Gerald Bailey: Yes. MCW has achieved commercial viability already through a fully operational oil sands plant in Asphalt Ridge, in the heart of the Utah oil reserves both in sands and in conventional reservoirs, near the town of Vernal. It’s termed “America’s first environmentally-friendly oil sands extraction project.” Since the beginning of this year, we have been cleaning Utah’s oil sands and selling the oil to the market.
James Stafford: Why Utah?
Gerald Bailey: Asphalt Ridge is one of Utah’s 8 major oil sand deposits. Asphalt Ridge alone is believed to hold some 1 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Utah has some 55% (Department of Energy Estimate: 32 billion barrels) of the United States oil sands deposits.
James Stafford: How much is the project producing now and what are the forecasts?
Gerald Bailey: The project is producing 250 barrels a day right now at a very reasonable production cost of $30 per barrel, with plans to build a 5,000/bpd plant, which could bring costs down to $20 per barrel. Even in this current world market, those numbers mean profit. While Alberta’s oil sands are expensive to produce oil using their existing technologies, and are very troubled right now, MCW can make a profit on Utah’s oil sands even with oil at $40 per barrel. And that’s what today’s market is all about—innovations that spell profit even in times of crisis. Finding a company that has no debt—such as MCW—in this atmosphere was a huge selling point for me.
James Stafford: How do you convince the public of the prospects of clean oil sands for Utah given the international outcry about Canada’s dirty oil sands?
Gerald Bailey: That is the challenge. Certainly, Canada has given oil sands a bad name and that is unfortunate, but the process and situation in Utah is entirely different and the two cannot be compared.
Utah oil sands are found in a different position---much of Utah’s oil sands deposits lie from surface to just 400 feet. You can just scoop up the oil sands with a front loader and then process it with MCW’s proprietary solvents. The oil comes out and you sell the oil and put the sand back in the environment.
In comparison, Canada’s oil sands have to be mined because they are several hundred feet deep and the oil needs to be extracted with steam. The resultant polluted water returns to surface with residual oil that cannot be separated. This dirty water and sludge is stored in huge tailings ponds, so large I understand they can be seen from space. Utah’s sands are oil wet, rather than water wet, eliminating the need for tailings ponds.
James Stafford: What does this really mean for the environment?
Gerald Bailey: We are here to clean up the oil sands business—for now, starting in Utah. And any savvy investor knows that technology that is environmentally friendly and commercially viable rules the day. This is already a proven, cost-effective technology. Our main technology process advantage is that we require no water to extract hydrocarbons from the oil sands. Almost all other technologies require up to 3 barrels of water for every barrel of oil produced.
Utah being largely a desert state, usage of water for resource development is an extremely touchy issue. Our system features a closed-loop technology….nothing leaves the system except the cleaned sands and oil. And after tweaking our process, we’ve managed to dramatically reduce our labor costs, decrease the costs of the petroleum products we use in extraction and, increase our process efficiencies ---all which result in the lowest production costs in the industry. Our next step is to share this technology with the rest of the world. For now, that means anywhere that has oil sands deposits similar to Utah’s.
James Stafford: Are you talking about a technology that extracts oil sands in an environmentally- friendly manner, or does it have broader environmental applications?
Gerald Bailey: Oh, the environmental applications are much broader. Our process may also be viewed as a remediation technology. This is not just an opportunity to get in on another source for oil, but also an opportunity to clean up the land after disasters or the resulting polluted tailings ponds resulting from other less efficient extraction processes
James Stafford: Are you suggesting such a technology could have played a role in cleaning up the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, for example?
Gerald Bailey: I am. We could have applied our technology there and cleaned up significant areas of the contaminated beach. If you go there right now, you can still find a lot of polluted sand behind the beach dunes and in the adjoining swamps. This technology will certainly add value for its wider remediation applications.
James Stafford: For now, though, MCW’s technology seems to be flying under the radar—where many will not have heard of it.
Gerald Bailey: You know, I recognized this when I joined the company that MCW had a technology that nobody else had. I also recognized that it could make a huge splash on the world oil scene. Now it’s ready to reach out to the public. This comes at a time when oil sands extraction is a tense issue in Utah, with protesters attempting to block an oil sands project owned by another company, which is using a water-based technology. Educating the public on the different processes of extracting oil sands will be key to pushing an environmentally friendly agenda forward.
There has been no protest to our Asphalt Ridge project in Utah to date because we emit nothing to the air or soil and there is no water to discard. MCW has worked very closely with the Energy Development Department in Utah, meeting or exceeding all environmental requirements. We’re working under the guidelines of their Responsible Resource Development Program, which is proof that resources may be safely developed with placing the environment at risk. Nonetheless, the general public still needs to be made aware of both the environmental and economic possibilities here for the future.
James Stafford: What is the long-term goal here? Building plants around the world, or licensing the technology?
Gerald Bailey: MCW is prepared to go several routes. We can build a plant for others, or we can build and operate these extraction plants as a joint venture. However, licensing is definitely an excellent way to deploy our technology worldwide. This unique MCW technology has major global applications. You can create an attractive revenue stream for everybody who implements it. Russia, China, Afghanistan, Dominican Republic, Namibia, Jordan and Trinidad—these are all great potential license purchasers with considerable oils sands deposits.
Eventually, we could even potentially clean up Alberta’s tailings ponds by de-watering the abandoned sludge and applying our new solvents to squeeze the rest of the oil out.
It is actually surprising that nobody discovered this before… it is like the Wright Brothers, they found a way and they proved the process. Someone always comes along to solve the problem. MCW has accomplished this...Our technology works; there is no pollution; nothing toxic goes back into the ground or into the air. We will be driving a lot of cars on the refined gasoline that comes from these huge reserves. This is a national and historical first—one I am willing to bet my 50-year reputation on.
----------------- James Stafford is Editor, OilPrice.com contributed this article to the ARRA News Service. OilPrice.com, the leading online energy news site. Tags:OilPrice.com, James Stafford, interview, Dr. Gerald Baily, MCW Energy Group, world's first, Clean Oil Sands Project, oil sands, Utah oil sands, UtahTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
What’s Next for the Marriage Debate After Supreme Court Ruling
by Kate Scanlon: Far from settling the marriage debate, the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges raised more questions, according to four participants in a panel discussion Tuesday at The Heritage Foundation.
Regardless of their views on same-sex marriage, the panelists said that the majority’s opinion in the Obergefell ruling is unclear, and fails to provide accommodation for individuals who object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds.
The panelists weighed in on the future of the marriage debate.
“The truth hasn’t changed, regardless of what five justices have said,” Anderson said.
Anderson said that the pro-life movement never accepted that Roe v. Wade settled the abortion debate. Pro-lifers condemned the ruling as judicial activism and legislating from the bench.
They immediately sought protection “to live in accordance with the truth,” Anderson said, such as preventing the taxpayer funding of abortion.
Next, they worked to overturn the ruling.
Anderson said that “recapturing the truth of marriage,” should be reflected in both law and culture.
“People can disagree on this contentious issue without being disagreeable,” Anderson said.
Robert George, the McCormick professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University, said the ruling was a redefinition of the institution of marriage, not an expansion of it.
The ruling also paves the way for legal recognition for the “’throuple,’ or three person couple,” he said.
Mollie Hemingway, the senior editor of The Federalist, said the Obergefell ruling was “poorly reasoned,” and “removed the debate from the public square.”
She said that mainstream media figures also treated the abortion debate as if it were “settled” by Roe, and that simply isn’t true.
Hemingway argued that the ruling has exposed “tension” between “religious freedom and the new regime.”
Ilya Shapiro, the senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and the editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review, said it is possible to be “for” same-sex marriage, but also “for” the rights of “the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker.”
Shapiro said that Justice Kennedy “muddied these waters with his incomprehensible ruling.”
------------- Kate Scanlon (@scanlon_kate) is a news reporter for The Daily Signal and graduate of The Heritage Foundation's Young Leaders Program. Tags:What’s Next, Marriage Debate, Supreme Court RulingTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
American Jews' Blind Support of The Democratic Party Is Reason For Iran Deal Passing
by Jeff Dunetz, Editor, The Lid: Now that Obama has his 34 Senators and a veto the anti-Iran bill cannot be overturned the postmortems have started. Some like an IBD Editorial said, "Senate Democrats Favoring Iran Deal Have Blood On Their Hands." My friend Joel Pollack at Breitbart argued that this proved the Antisemitic meme that the Jews control foreign policy wasn't true, "Iran Deal: The ‘Israel Lobby’ is Dead– and Obama Killed It." I would argue that they are both partially correct but are omitting possibly the biggest enabler. It was Jewicide, years of blind loyalty to the American Jewish community created an environment where the Democrats knew they could support a lousy deal without electoral retribution from the key Jewish voting block.
Allow me to put it a different way, over thirty years ago Secretary of State James Baker said "F**k the Jews they won't vote for us anyway." Truth is Bush #41 was lousy on Jewish issues. But since then Because most American Jews have a blind loyalty to the Democratic Party no matter the policy, today the Democrats act as if their stance is "F**k the Jews they will vote for us whatever we do!"
In 2008 despite all the warnings, despite the fact that Barack Obama sat in a church hearing anti-Semitic sermons for two decades, despite the fact that he was close friends with Palestinian Liberation Organization spokesman Rashid Khalidi. Even before the election the Jewish community knew that at a 2003 event honoring Khalidi, Obama had made a toast that was so anti-Israel that the liberal L.A. Times hid the tape. Before the 2008 election Obama had already surrounded himself with anti-Semitic and anti-Israel advisers. Ignoring all that, the Jewish community gave Obama 78% of the Jewish vote. The vote was led by the leadership of certain major Jewish organizations who despite their phony claims of bi-partisanship, have a blind allegiance to the Democratic Party. That allegiance was so strong that when the Democratic Party demanded that V.P. Candidate Sarah Palin's invitation to speak at an anti-Iran rally be rescinded these major Jewish organizations complied.
During his first term President Obama proved to be the most anti-Israel president since the modern state of Israel was created in 1948. But it shouldn't have been as surprise.
At the very beginning of his administration he told Jewish leadership that one of his goals was to drive a wedge between the US and Israel. “When there is no daylight,” the president told American Jewish leaders in 2009, “Israel just sits on the sidelines and that erodes our credibility with the Arabs.” The explanation ignored Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza and its two previous offers of Palestinian statehood in Gaza, almost the entire West Bank and half of Jerusalem—both offers rejected by the Palestinians.
Actually, wasn't exactly Jewish leadership, Obama decided to include the leader of the anti-Israel organization J Street in his meeting promoting them to leadership. J Street is a group that had no legitimacy in the Jewish community. At the same time Obama pushed Jewish members of Congress to endorse J Street by lending their name to the organizations first national conference. That first meeting also sent a a different signal to those Jewish leaders Obama also left Mort Klein of the Zionist Organization of America who was usually included in these type of meetings off his list, because unlike the rest of the leadership Mort didn't have blind allegiance to the Democratic Party.
Despite all this, despite telling leaders he was going to drive a wedge, despite the fact he was picking his own version of Jewish leadership, not one of the people who attended the meeting publicly objected, warned the Jewish community.
Obama even foreshadowed the Iran deal during his first months in office. During his 2009 speech in Cairo he said, “No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons,” which foreshadowed his future negotiations with the rogue Iranian regime.
During the first term Obama continued to surround himself with anti-Israel and anti-Semitic advisers even including Al Sharpton who led two anti-Jewish riots in NYC, without a peep from the supposed Jewish leadership.
During his first term when Obama constantly announced anti-Israel policies, not one of these Jewish leaders opened their mouth. Not one of them called on the silent Democratic Party "supporters of Israel" in congress to criticize this president. Because of that not one of those congressional Democrats complained which enabled even more bad behavior
Despite an anti-Israel first term as the 2012 election neared, The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the American Jewish Committee in a joint statement asked their fellow Jews to pledge not to criticize Obama's anti-Israel policy. They said it was to keep the issue bi-partisan but it was because their leadership was very partisan---supporting progressive issues and the Democratic Party candidate. Another of those supposedly "bi-partisan" leaders Jack Rosen of the American Jewish Congress actually had fundraisers for the president in his home.
On Obama's insistence, the Democrats removed four pro-Israel planks from their party platform in 2012, when they tried to add one (Jerusalem as capital of Israel) back, the convention voted no but the leadership lied and said it was passed. The planks about not returning to the 1949 armistice lines, not negotiating with Hamas, and Palestinian refugees will return to Palestinian territory as opposed to Israel were never put back.
When the Jewish DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz kept praising Obama as having a wonderful pro-Israel policy, not ONE of the supposed Jewish leaders said, hey we understand you gotta support the guy but don't lie about his Israel policy.
Famous Jewish supporters of Israel like Alan Dershowitz and former NYC Mayor Ed Koch who criticized Obama as being anti-Israel during his first term, all of a sudden forgave him as Election Day neared. When I pointed out the hypocrisy to the former Mayor, in true Ed Koch style he told me to "go to hell!" If you knew Ed Koch that was a badge of honor.
With all the help from the Jewish leadership, this anti-Semitic, anti-Israel president received 69% of the Jewish vote.
So now Obama has done what he promised back in 2009 when he met with the "supposed" Jewish leadership, driving a wedge between the U.S. and Israel, he's done what he said he would do in Cairo, he created a deal which will allow Iran to get a bomb. He has surrounded himself with anti-Semites and anti-Israel advisers just as he did during his campaign...and nothing...silence from the Jewish leadership.
In fact last week when they interviewed the president during a teleconference for the Jewish community, the head of he Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations and the head of the Jewish Federation didn't challenge him about the deal. I am not saying that they should have been rude, but instead of asking specific questions about the side deals, or about the fact that the U.S. is obligated to protect Iran's nuclear plants, or the paragraph which allows Iran to take the money and then leave the deal, or any of the other specific questions about the deal, these two supposed leaders attached their lips firmly on the arse of the POTUS and asked softballs like, "Can the U.S. Israel relationship be repaired?" Or when the president lied during his opening statement, they didn't question him about it. Perhaps they didn't read the agreement, perhaps they were trying to protect the president, but it was just another way the Jewish community enabled the Democratic party to ignore the Jewish voters.
And now everyone is surprised how so many Democrats chose loyalty to their party over rejecting an obviously lousy Iran deal. Most of them began their notes of support by listing the reasons the deal stinks, but then went ahead by saying here was no better choice. That's the political version of everyone gets a participation trophy, and ignores the foreign policy people in France and Great Britain who have said if Congress kills the deal a better one can be negotiated.
People shouldn't be surprised. By voting Democratic despite the anti-Israel policies, by our supposed leaders supporting the Democratic Party despite their anti-Israel policies (and their vows of bi-partisanship) we taught the Democrats that they could do anything they want to the Jews, or on Jewish issues and we will support them in the next election, we will give them our campaign donations and we will give them our votes.
Here's a little secret, the issues their voters care about influence candidates positions. Progressives are not pro-Israel and the Jews don't care so why should the Democrats support Israel? On the Republicans side the reason many GOP candidates are pro-Israel is the evangelical vote that is a major part of their base. But if the very pro-Israel evangelicals ever lose their influence in the party, only then will Jewish issue be truly bi-partisan.... both parties wont care about them.
Obama didn't defeat the "Jewish Lobby," any influence they ever had was defeated by a blind Democratic Party vote. And the only way we will ever get it back is first, to start voting for the other party--not blindly, but look at Republican candidates with an open mind. The other thing the Jewish community has to do is stop financially supporting groups whose leadership blindly supports progressive politics and parties.
There are plenty of Jewish charities to give money to...I strongly urge my fellow Jews to donate to those groups instead of the blatantly political ones like the ADL, The Jewish Federation, The American Jewish Congress, The American Jewish Committee and any organization that support the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations. Only by shifting the Jewish vote and moving our money away from Democratic organizations masquerading as Jewish ones will we be able to make BOTH parties fight for our support by backing those issues important to the Jewish community. Tags:Jeff Dunetz, The Lid, American Jews, blind support, democrat Party, reason for Iran Deal, passingTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Ending Birthright Citizenship Does Not Require A Constitutional Amendment
Obama and the Department of Homeland Security are working feverishly to allow millions of illegal aliens to enter the U.S. as part of a plan to change the demographics of America and to create a huge voting bloc for Democrats in the future.
One element of this plan to change the electorate forever is to permit “anchor babies” to claim U.S. citizenship. In this article, Congressman Steve King of Iowa debunks this notion. Illegal aliens pose a serious threat to future elections and the democratic two-party system.
If Obama and his minions are successful in opening our nation’s borders to millions of illegals, America will end up with a one-party system ruled by so-called “progressives” – socialists in disguise. Democracy will die if Obama wins this battle.
The plain meaning of the 14th Amendment means that one must BOTH be born in United States AND be subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Since there are two explicit requirements, they both cannot be met by simply being born on U.S. soil.
The history of the drafting of the 14th Amendment makes clear that the language “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant a citizen could not owe allegiance to any other foreign power. This excludes illegal immigrants who are in defiance of U.S. jurisdiction and are citizens of a foreign power.
The Supreme Court has never held that the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States are automatically citizens.
Because the Supreme Court has not interpreted the Constitution to mandate automatic birthright citizenship, the Congress can pass a law to correct the current misguided and incorrect policy of automatically granting citizenship to children of illegal immigrants.
Plain Meaning of the Language of the 14th Amendment:
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state where they reside.”
By its own terms, the language in the amendment precludes the notion of universal automatic birthright citizenship. It would have been quite simple for the language to exclude “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to accomplish the goal of bestowing citizenship on any child born in the United States no matter the status of their parents. The 14th Amendment’s addition of a jurisdictional requirement to the territorial requirement, however, denies any interpretation that birth alone grants citizenship.Counter to this logic, proponents of universal automatic birthright citizenship claim that those born in the United States necessarily are subject to the jurisdiction of the country. However, this renders the language “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” superfluous. Why would the drafters of the 14th Amendment include this qualifier at all if it was met simply by virtue of being born in the United States? The legislative history outlined below will make clear that the addition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was designed specifically to make sure the people granted citizenship did not have divided political loyalties.Legislative History of the 14th Amendment:
During Congressional debate of the Citizenship Clause it was made clear that the drafters did not intend automatic birthright citizenship for all persons born in the U.S. Senator Jacob Howard, a drafter of the 14th Amendment, in floor debate said of the Clause: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
Senator Howard also made clear that simply being born in the U.S. was not enough to be a citizen when he opposed an amendment to specifically exclude Native Americans from the Citizenship Clause. He said, “Indians born within the limits of the United States and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
Notice the reasoning deployed, Native Americans maintain their tribal relations so they are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Senator Edgar Cowan said, “It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power.”
Senator Lyman Trumbull said: “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. That means, “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” (emphasis added)
He further elaborated, “What do we mean by subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
There was still more discussion of the language by Senator Reverdy Johnson. He said: “Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”
Supreme Court on Birthright Citizenship for illegal immigrants:
While some have discussed birthright citizenship as if it is settled law that any person born in the U.S. is a citizen, the Supreme Court has never ruled as such. In the famous 2004 Supreme Court case, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Taliban fighter Yaser Esam Hamdi was discovered to have been born in the United States to parents that were subjects of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Even though he was born in the United States, the Court never called him a citizen and the Court made no declaration in that case that anyone born on American soil was automatically a citizen.
In the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873, the Supreme Court said, “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
Next, in 1884, the Supreme Court addressed a claim of citizenship in Elk v. Wilkins. The Court held that John Elk did not meet the jurisdiction requirement of the 14th Amendment because he was a member of an Indian tribe at birth. The Court said that even though Elk was born in the U.S. he did not meet the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requirement because that required that he “not merely be subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction.”
Proponents of birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants point to the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case. However, that case dealt with a man that was born to parents that were legally and permanently domiciled in the United States at the time of his birth. In that case, there was more expansive language used on birthright citizenship, but it was neither the holding of the case nor does it operate as binding precedent on the Court or as the law of the land.
Congressional power to change the policy:
Under the Constitution and reiterated by the Supreme Court, Congress has plenary power over immigration and naturalization. We see this in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution and Section 5 of the 14th Amendment explicitly grants Congress the power to enforce the Citizenship Clause.
So not only does Congress have the power of naturalization in Article I, but the 14th Amendment provides Congress the power to enforce the Citizenship Clause. Together, these two provisions make it clear there is no need to amend the Constitution to change the current faulty birthright citizenship policy.
Congress has the power and duty to say who can be a citizen of the United States. The legislative branch has a responsibility to uphold the Constitution, and on the issue of birthright citizenship it is clear the plain meaning of the Citizenship Clause as originally understood is being violated. The Congress can and should make the legislative fix necessary to correct this problem.
It is undisputed that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause requires that one is both born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Further, no fair reading of the legislative history of the drafting of that Clause leads to any conclusion other than it required those granted citizenship have complete allegiance to the United States.
Logic dictates that illegal immigrants in defiance of the jurisdiction of the United States and citizens of foreign powers are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as required by the 14th Amendment. And the Supreme Court has never held the opposite to be true. Congress, therefore, with its plenary power over immigration and empowerment to enforce the Citizenship Clause can restore the correct birthright citizenship policy through legislation. And indeed, if we are to have a rational immigration policy controlled by government as opposed to one controlled by every person who illegally enters, Congress must return to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment.
I authored H.R. 140, The Birthright Citizenship Act in the House for many years in order to restore the 14th Amendment and the Rule of Law.
---------------- H/T Government Is Not God PAC, a social conservative PAC founded by Chairman William J. Murray. Murray also heads the Religious Freedom Coalition in Washington, DC, an advocacy organization dedicated to preserving the rights of Christians in the United States through legislative action, and ARRA News Service contributing author. Tags:birthright citizenship, constitution, undocumented democratsTo 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.