News for social, fiscal & national security conservatives who believe in God, family & the USA. Upholding the rights granted by God & guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, traditional family values, "republican" principles / ideals, transparent & limited "smaller" government, free markets, lower taxes, due process of law, liberty & individual freedom. All content approval rests with the ARRA News Service Editor. Opinions are those of the authors. While varied positions are reported, beliefs & principles remain fixed. No revenue is generated for or by this site - no paid ads accepted - no payments for articles.Fair Use doctrine is posted & used. Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru & 2010 AFP National Blogger of the Year] Follow @arra Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home Page
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato
Friday, September 11, 2015
The Lessons of 9/11 and the Madness of the Iranian Agreement
by Newt Gingrich: There is something amazingly symbolic about the Congress considering the Obama-Khamenei agreement on the 14th anniversary of the 9/11 attack.
Virtually every lesson Americans learned painfully that day has been forgotten in the rush to sign an agreement with the world’s leading state sponsor of terror.
Fourteen years ago, the World Trade Center collapsed, the Pentagon was hit and a fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania. The nation was horrified and enraged.
We learned that we could be surprised.
We learned that our enemies hated us and wanted to kill us.
We learned that our enemies were good at long term planning and at deception.
We learned once again that the military and intelligence communities play a vital role in keeping us safe.
Now, 14 years later, the President and his allies are ignoring every one of these lessons.
They are pushing for an agreement that assumes we can trust our mortal enemies and that assumes paper treaties and international bureaucrats can keep us safe.
They are pressuring their elected allies to side with them in this surrender to the Ayatollah Khomeini even when those allies know it is a terrible and dangerous idea.
Forget the harsh language of the opponents. Listen to what the supporters of the deal are saying.
First, our “partner” in this agreement, the Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei, on Wednesday reminded us that he views America as “the Great Satan” and vowed that Israel will be eliminated within 25 years. He said: [Ayatollah] Khomeini called America ‘the Great Satan.’ That is a very wise saying… Satan only deceives man, but the U.S. deceives, murders, and imposes sanctions…After the nuclear talks were over, I heard that the Zionists in occupied Palestine had said: ‘In the meantime, thanks to the results of the talks, we will have 25 years of quiet regarding the problem of Iran. After 25 years, we will think of something.’ I respond to them by saying: ‘First of all, in 25 years you will not be alive.’…God willing, in 25 years there will be no such thing as the Zionist regime in the region, and secondly, during this period, the fighting Islamic spirit will not give the Zionists even a single day of serenity…”When the leader you are trying to trust tells you before the agreement is ratified that he will destroy Israel and he will continue to preach “Death to America,” you have to wonder what he will say after it is approved.
Our enemies’ assessment of the deal is alarming enough. But some of the best arguments against it come from its supporters here in the United States.
Senator Cory Booker explained his vote in favor of the agreement this way: “We have now passed a point of no return that we should have never reached, leaving our nation to choose between two imperfect, dangerous and uncertain options…Left with these two choices, I nonetheless believe it is better to support a deeply flawed deal, for the alternative is worse.”
Senator Richard Blumenthal set a low bar when he argued that “while this is not the agreement I would have accepted at the negotiating table, it is better than no deal at all.”
Senator Claire McCaskill said, “This deal isn’t perfect and no one trusts Iran.”
Representative Scott Peters of California conceded that “the JCPOA is not perfect. It doesn’t end Iran’s support of terrorism or permanently end Iran’s civilian nuclear energy program. It does extend the international weapons ban for five years and ballistic missile ban for eight years, but does not make the bans permanent.”
Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York said he was “concerned that many of the key elements expire in the 10–15 year timeframe…”
Senator Amy Klobuchar said “the agreement is by no means perfect” and went on to indicate how much we have to prop up our allies when we are signing an agreement which frightens them: “I will also push for increased security assistance to Israel and enhanced defense cooperation with our Arab allies to combat terrorism throughout the region.” Of course, the terrorism she wants to combat is supported in large part by the Iran which is about to get billions from the deal.
You can read a long list of what Democrats have said about the deal here. The statements are universally timid, conditional, and understated.
The weak support might be because Democrats in Congress realize the Obama-Khamenei agreement is doubly dangerous. First, and most important, it is risking the security and safety of the United States and its allies on an unenforceable paper agreement with religious fanatics who keep chanting “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” This agreement will turn tens of billions of dollars over to the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world. It will dramatically strengthen and legitimize the Iranian dictatorship. It could become a national security nightmare.
Second, and politically fascinating, President Obama and his allies are now gambling the future of the Democratic Party on the trustworthiness and good will of the Ayatollah Khameini.
At any time over the next 14 months, the Iranians could behave so aggressively that the Democratic Party would lose all credibility on national security.
The Iranian dictatorship set out 36 years ago to destroy the Carter Presidency. They did everything they could to humiliate him. It was symbolically important that they released the American hostages as Reagan was being sworn in.
The truth is that neither President Obama nor Secretary of State John Kerry have any idea what the Ayatollah and his dictatorship will do.
The Wall Street Journal captured this extraordinary vulnerability in an editorial entitled “Khameini the Democrat.” As the editorial noted “by putting up a blocking minority in Congress, the Democrats now own what will follow from the nuclear deal. That’s another way of saying that, on this issue at least, the Ayatollah now owns them. Whatever Iranian ‘democracy’ decides next month on the deal, its Democratic supporters in the U.S. had better steel themselves for a rough ride.”
Never in American history has a great political party tied its identity to a foreign dictator that publicly asserts it wants “Death to America”.
On this 14th anniversary of the 9/11 attack we should all remember just how dangerous this can become.
---------------------- 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, lessons, 9/11, Madness, Iranian AgreementTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Dr, Bill Smith, Editor: I am attending Eagle Council XLIV in St Louis, Missouri as press. Presidential candidate Gov. Rick Perry spoke at 4 PM today to over 1000 attendees. He detailed the success that Texas had under his administration and what he hoped for America under a conservative President. He mentioned that "Life is good. I am a blessed man." He then detailed his traditional stump speech about the success of Texas under his seven years as governor.
He stressed the need that the next president be a strong supporter of Constitution and "stop Washington D.C. from trampling on the 10th Amendment" and the states. In his speech he mentioned that "we are already at war with radical Islam because they are already at war with America."
He also said that "conservatism is inherently optimistic" and "we can be the country that in our minds we know we can be." He did take a few indirect pokes at Donald Trump without using his name.
As we approached the question and answer period, he concluded his speech and surprised all by announcing that he was "suspending his campaign for president of the United States."
While the media in attendance rushed to get photographs, most of the attendees were momentarily stunned especially those who supported him.
However, his stepping down as a candidate is not surprising based his polling numbers, the large field of Republican contenders, and the fact that a fellow Texan, Sen Ted Cruz, is raising a lot of money, rising in the polls and is popular with conservatives. Tags:Rick Perry, suspends campaign for President, Eagle Council XLIV, St. Louis, MissouriTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
The House reconvened at 9 AM today.
The following bill failed today prior to the article. H.R. 3461 (162-269-1) — "To approve the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, signed at Vienna on July 14, 2015, relating to the nuclear program of Iran" with 25 Democrats joined 244 Republicans to defeat this bill.
The following bill was passed today prior to this article. H.R. 3460 (247-186) — "To suspend until January 21, 2017, the authority of the President to waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of sanctions pursuant to an agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran."
No further bills are expected today for consideration. On adjournment, the House will reconvene again at 3:00 PM on Tuesday, Sept. 15, 2015. No bills were passed yesterday.
Today, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Commented on the anniversary of the attacks of 9/11 and the response of the American people: "Americans again bow their heads in solemn commemoration of tragic loss, resolving never to forget the thousands of innocent lives taken 14 years ago. Americans again raise their hearts in remembrance of uncommon heroism, resolving never to forget fearless bravery high above white clouds or selfless compassion deep within dark tempests of paper and glass.
“Americans saw the worst of humanity in the attacks of 9/11, but they also saw the best of their country in its aftermath. We should never cease to remember both -- just as we should never fail to honor the men and women, many in uniform, who endeavor so selflessly to bring justice to those who would do us harm."The Senate reconvened at 9:30 AM today for a pro forma session and will convene again on Tuesday at 1 PM.
At 6 PM on Tuesday, the Senate will vote again on cloture on the McConnell substitute amendment to H.J. Res. 61, which is the resolution of disapproval of the Iran deal. Democrats will have the opportunity to drop their partisan protection of the president and let the Senate have an up-or-down vote on the resolution of disapproval.
Yesterday, 42 Democrats locked arms and blocked a final up-or-down vote on a resolution disapproving of the president’s agreement with Iran. A cloture vote on the McConnell substitute amendment to H.J. Res. 61 fell two votes short of succeeding by a vote of 58-42.
The Senate Democrats in reality decided that protecting President Obama from using his veto pen was more important than giving the American people an up-or-down vote on a resolution disapproving of the president’s unpopular deal with Iran.
Even though some Democrats like Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware said, “As a caucus that was opposed to games with filibusters over the last four years, I would think it would be really regrettable if we didn't ultimately go to the floor and cast our votes for or against this deal,” all but four voted to filibuster the resolution of disapproval.
The Wall Street Journal editors excoriated Democrats for their obstruction. The write, “The Senate held its first showdown vote on the Iranian nuclear deal Thursday, with 58 Senators having declared their opposition, including four Democrats . . . . The American public is also overwhelmingly opposed, with a Pew poll this week finding 21% approval for the agreement versus 49% disapproval.
“So it says something about President Obama’s contempt for Congress that he browbeat and threatened 42 Democrats to filibuster the vote so he can duck having to veto a resolution of disapproval. The President may think he can spin 42 Senate votes into political vindication, and we’re sure he’ll get media support for that view. But Americans should read a filibuster as a tacit Democratic admission of no confidence in an agreement they fear voting on.”
In his column today, Charles Krauthammer admonishes the president for how he handled this deal. “As a matter of constitutional decency, the president should have submitted the deal to Congress first. And submitted it as a treaty. Which it obviously is. No international agreement in a generation matches this one in strategic significance and geopolitical gravity. Obama did not submit it as a treaty because he knew he could never get the constitutionally required votes for ratification. He’s not close to getting two-thirds of the Senate. He’s not close to getting a simple majority. No wonder: In the latest Pew Research Center poll, the American people oppose the deal by a staggering 28-point margin.”
The Journal editors pile on: “[T]he Administration’s bad faith here is a fresh reminder of why nobody in Washington trusts Mr. Obama, who is again proving his disdain for the rules of constitutional government. He is also setting a dangerous precedent. . . . These columns have always favored wide latitude for Presidents of both parties on foreign policy. But a strong executive does not mean a lawless one. Nor is it a recommendation for future Presidents to treat a bipartisan majority in Congress with the disdain shown by this one. Mr. Obama may have the votes he needs to block a vote of overwhelming disapproval, but foreign policy legacies are flimsy when they’re built on parliamentary tricks.” Tags:democrats, filibuster, opposing, #BadIranDeal, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Editor's Note: Voting no in the House were 19 Republicans and 6 Democrats with 2 Republicans and 5 Democrats not voting. In the Senate, Arkansas U.S. Senator Tom Cotton was the only person to vote no and Democrat Senator Barbra Boxer did not vote but she is supporting the Iran Deal. Note that this bill began as the Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act and was later amended and re-titled the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015.
Tags:Representative, Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, Sept. 9, rally against the Iran nuclear, Washington, D.C.To 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, Remembering 911, #BadIranDeal, sell out, U.S. security, Israel, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
The letter warned, “[w]e will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
It staked out an incredibly strong position. Without Congress’ approval, the Iran nuclear deal would not be worth the paper it was printed on. The next president could just say, thanks, but no thanks, and abolish it.
So, what did Congress do?
It authorized the Iran deal, which critics say will spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and risk war, via H.R. 1191 — before anyone had even read it. Don’t believe it?
The law provides that “any measure of statutory sanctions relief by the United States pursuant to an agreement [with Iran]… may be taken, consistent with existing statutory requirements for such action, if, following the period for review provided… there is not enacted any such joint resolution” by Congress disapproving of the deal.
The period of review was 60 days. That means, come Sept. 17, the Iran nuclear deal will be sanctified by law and the next president will more or less be stuck with it.
That is, unless the process it was approved under happened to be unconstitutional, and the Iran nuclear deal was actually a treaty requiring a two-thirds affirmative majority of senators present in order to be ratified.
Because, with the Sept. 17 deadline looming, that means there may now only be one way to stop the Iran nuclear deal.
Now that the deal has been brought to the floor under the procedure provided for in H.R. 1191, a senator could attempt to raise a constitutional point of order that the Iran nuclear deal is being brought up in violation of Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which requires that treaties only be ratified by a two-thirds majority of senators present.
It would take a simple majority to sustain the point of order. The Senate could then vote to consider the nuke deal as a treaty, in which case, under Senate rules, it would be referred to the Foreign Relations Committee. The treaty could then be sent to the Senate floor and defeated under the proper procedure. This part is important. Even if Senate Democrats were to filibuster the motion to proceed to the treaty, that would in effect defeat the treaty.
The problem is a similar amendment was attempted by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) to H.R. 1191 but failed with only 39 senators voting yea . That would have in no uncertain terms made the Iran deal a treaty: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any agreement reached by the President with Iran relating to the nuclear program of Iran is deemed to be a treaty that is subject to the requirements of article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States requiring that the treaty is subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, with two-thirds of Senators concurring.”
12 Senate Republicans voted against that amendment that would have stopped the Iran deal: Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Dan Coats (R-Ind.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), and David Perdue (R-Ga.).
These senators are the reason why it is now impossible to block the Iran deal and who besides Obama bear the most responsibility for its enactment. If these members just leave things the way they are right now, the Iran deal is a done deal. And they know it.
Actually, the Senate, not Obama, voted not to consider it as a treaty. McCain had his chance.
So, now is a time for choosing. If the Senate has had a change of heart and now truly believes that the Iran nuclear deal is bad, endangers national security, increases the risk of war, and is in fact a treaty there is only one way left to stop it.
There are 39 Senate Republicans who believe the Iran deal is a treaty, including Sen. Johnson, who offered the original amendment, and Sen. Cotton, the only one who voted no in the end. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) voted in favor of the Johnson amendment. The flawed, unconstitutional process under the Corker bill has already failed to even allow an up or down vote disapproving of the deal, and it must be overturned. There is still time to consider the deal for what it is, a treaty, and attempt to defeat it.
If these senators really want to stop the deal, one of them has to raise the constitutional point of order or attempt a similar maneuver to overturn the current procedure and consider the Iran deal as a treaty — before it is still too late.
---------------- Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of Americans for Limited Government. His article was first shared on the ALG's NetRight Daily blog. Tags:Tom Cotton. Robert Romano, Iran Nuke Deal, treaty, not a treatyTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Tags:Hillary Clinton, apology, tour, poll numbers, drop, AF Branco, editorial cartoonTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
International Commitments Violated, Terrorism Support Continues, U.S. Still Called ‘Great Satan’
‘The Iranian Regime Continues To View The U.S. As The “Great Satan”’
AYATOLLAH KHAMENEI, Iranian Dictator: ‘Reiterated that America remains the “Great Satan.”’ “Speaking to a group of people in Tehran, Khamenei reiterated that America remains the ‘Great Satan.’ ‘The Iranian nation ousted the Satan. We should not let it back through the window to penetrate’ Iran, he said.” (“Iran's Supreme Leader: No US Negotiations Outside Nuke Deal,” AP, 9/9/15)
“Iran unveiled a short-range solid fuel ballistic missile Saturday, an upgraded version that the government says can more accurately pinpoint targets. The surface-to-surface Fateh-313, or Conqueror, was unveiled at a ceremony marking Defense Industry Day and attended by President Hassan Rouhani, who said military might was necessary to achieve peace in the volatile Middle East.” (“Iran Unveils New Longer-Range Solid Fuel Missile,” Associated Press, 8/22/15)
“The head of Iran's elite military Quds Force, who is subject to a United Nations travel ban, has met senior Russian officials in Moscow, an Iranian official said on Friday. Qassem Soleimani, chief of the force which is an overseas arm of the Revolutionary Guards, has been subject to an international travel ban and asset freeze by the U.N. Security Council since 2007. But the Iranian official, who declined to be identified, said Soleimani had made the trip in the second half of July, where he had held talks covering regional and bilateral issues and the delivery to Iran of S-300 surface-to-air missiles and other weapons.” (“Iran Quds Chief Visited Russia despite U.N. Travel Ban: Iran Official,” Reuters, 8/7/15)
The Iranian Regime: ‘We Shall Not Refrain From Supporting’ Terrorist Groups
AYATOLLAH KHAMENEI, Iranian Dictator: “The Americans say that they expect the Iranian government to act differently. Differently from what? Differently from Iran’s past? No. Such a thing will never happen, [because] it means violating Islamic rules and relinquishing loyalty to Islamic values. This is what they mean by ‘differently’. That will never happen.” (MEMRI, “Special Dispatch No.6151,” 9/4/15)
HOSSEIN DEHGHAN, Iranian Defense Minister: ‘Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, and Hizbullah … we shall not refrain from supporting them’ “Today, Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, and Hizbullah have the capability of producing their own resources and weapons themselves. Nevertheless, we shall not refrain from supporting them.” (MEMRI, “Special Dispatch No.6152,” 9/7/15)
DEHGHAN: “They received the technology from us and from others, and today, they produce them themselves. I officially declare that under no circumstances will we refrain from providing material and moral support to Hizbullah, or to any group of the resistance to the U.S. and Israel. We say this loud and clear. We have declared this officially, and we intend to continue on this path.”(MEMRI, “Special Dispatch No.6152,” 9/7/15)
Tags:Iran, Iranian record, Post agreement, news, U.S., Great Satan, International Commitments Violated, Terrorism Support Continues To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
A Cattle Rancher, Trampled by EPA’s Regulatory Stampede
Note: This is the first in a three part series addressing the Long Arm of the EPA's Overreach and how it affects the day-to-day operations of American businesses. Whether it’s EPA’s water rule, tougher ozone standards, or carbon regulations, real businesses explain in their own words how they will be hurt by EPA’s overbearing regulations.
by J.D. Harrison: Jack Field's world has long revolved around cattle. His parents were cattle ranchers, and Field and his wife bought some of their herd several years ago and have kept the family business going. Today, they run a herd of about 120 cows in Yakima County, Washington.
"We have too many to be a hobby and not quite enough to make a living," Field joked in an interview. "We're a small operation, but we're trying to grow it into a something bigger."
That will soon be much more challenging due to overregulation from (the other) Washington.
The Fields' livelihood and those dreams depend on their cattle, so they depend on having land on which those cattle can graze. In the past, they have always leased nearby pastures from local landowners. However, due to a new rule that expands the definition of federally protected water and gives federal regulators unprecedented authority over local land use, Field isn't sure he'll be able to return to those fields in the years ahead.
Under the rule, which was finalized earlier this year by the Environmental Protection Agency, the agency can claim jurisdiction over any "waters" that are deemed to be adjacent to streams, wetlands and creeks, essentially stripping away broad regulatory power from states and local jurisdictions. In the process, the EPA has opened landowners and ranchers up to a host of new permitting requirements, as well as potentially devastating fines and lawsuits.
"For the price of a postage stamp, someone who disagrees with eating red meat could now throw me into court, where I will have to spend time and money proving that I am not violating the Clean Water Act," Field told the House Small Business Committee at a hearing last year. "I don't think this is what anyone had in mind when Congress passed the Clean Water Act."
With the added liability, it's not surprising that landowners who have leased Field their property in the past have expressed concerns about his operations moving forward.
"It may very well end up that landlords decide that my cattle grazing activity now has too high a risk profile under this new rule, and they may no longer want to rent the land to me," Field said in an interview. "If that's the case, and I can't find somewhere to run my cattle, I'll have to get rid of them - that's just the way it works. I'm not sure what we would do then."
He later added: "It turns off landowners, farmers and livestock producers, because it just feels like a massive power grab. Frankly, it should scare everybody to death."
It's not merely scary, he said. It's also counterproductive.
"Having this top-down directive coming from 3,000 miles away saying we in Washington, D.C., know what's better for you in Washington state, or in Arizona or North Dakota or Idaho, that doesn't sit well with folks, and as a result, it's extremely ineffective, because the stakeholders didn't have a say," Fields added. "Does the EPA secretary really know what's going on in my watershed here in Yakima, Washington? I doubt the secretary has ever even been here."
His industry isn't alone, either.
"The WOTUS rule will choke and stymie a wide range of small businesses, not just livestock and agriculture," he said, noting that construction companies, timber producers and a host of other sectors have come out against the rule. "It's basically any small business that relies on the land that could be impacted by this, and that's why you're seeing so many people in so many industries stand up with a unified voice and oppose the rule."
Not surprisingly, the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, which stands up for the interests of small businesses in the nation's capital, has urged regulators to redo the rule, which federal estimates show will cost firms millions of dollars in permitting and mitigation costs.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has called on the EPA to throw it out, too. William Kovacs, the Chamber's senior vice president for Environment, Technology and Regulatory Affairs, testified before the House Science Committee, saying that "the rule will have a chilling effect on project development and force property owners to hire consultants, specialists, and lawyers."
Ultimately, he said, it will have "significantly adverse impacts on the country's economy, the ability to create jobs in the U.S., and the ability of states to implement these new standards."
So far, the EPA has ignored those warnings.
But then, that's not all that surprising, either.
The WOTUS expansion is part of a broader regulatory overreach by the EPA in recent years, as environmental rulemakers in the nation's capital continue to strip away powers once reserved for states and reach deeper into the day-to-day operations of private businesses around the country. In addition to WOTUS, EPA has recently proposed and finalized new rules that, for example, impose onerous new ozone standards and choke power suppliers with red tape.
The EPA's increasingly long-armed approach to regulation not only threatens business owners like Field, it undermines otherwise effective environmental protection solutions that many states have crafted and adopted with the help of the private sector.
In Washington state, for instance, the Department of Ecology has over the past couple years moved away from what Field described as a once "litigious, heavy handed regulatory approach, not unlike what we're seeing from the EPA." Under the department's new director, Maia Bellon, who took office in 2013, the state's environmental regulators formed what became known as the agriculture and water quality advisory committee - comprised of business owners, trade groups, farmers, government officials, environmental groups and academics - to examine critical threats to water quality and other environmental issues and try to craft solutions.
"Trust me, at the beginning of the process, nobody was excited about sitting down to talk through water quality issues," Field said of his peers in the livestock industry who showed up to the first meetings. "On the other hand, it was something that needed to be done, and at the end of the day, we knew we were getting a say and would have ownership in the outcome."
And that's exactly what happened. Over the course of about a year, as Field described it, the public and private sector "came together, identified the existing and potential problems, put our heads together, and came up with workable solutions." Last month, with the help of researchers at Washington State University, the committee issued a guidance document for landowners and agricultural business owners to help them understand the risks to water quality, the protective measures that were needed, and how the industry arrived at those recommendations.
"Now, I can go out and talk with other livestock owners, explain the problems and how we came up with this plan, and they can easily understand what's at stake and what's needed," Field said. "In my opinion, that's the kind of collaborative solution we need to work toward, rather than the EPA's heavy-handed 'here's our solution to all your problems' directives."
Instead, it appears the directives from the other Washington are going to keep on coming, drowning Field's and many other small businesses in unnecessary and unproductive red tape.
"They need to take the rule, wad it up and throw it in the garbage, then let's go back and do this correctly," Field said of WOTUS. "Let's have local discussions and listening sessions, identify the problems, have an educated discussion and come up with solutions in each state."
Because those are the solutions that work.
"I'm not opposed to clean water; I want to drink the same water you do," Field said. "I just think the best way to ensure that we have clean water is from a locally led effort, where we all have a say and we all have buy in from the beginning."
----------------- Article 2 in this series:A Steel Manufacturer, Hammered by New Ozone Rules Article 3 in this series:A Power Plant, Zapped by EPA Overreach
----------------- J.D. Harrison is senior editor for digital content at the at U.S Chamber of Commerce. He twitters at @jd_harrison. This article was contributed to the ARRA News Service by contributing author Sean Hackbarth, a policy advocate and Senior Editor at U.S Chamber of Commerce. Tags:Chamber of Commerce, Cattle Rancher, Jack Field, Yakima County, Washington, trampled by EPA, Regulatory Stamped, EPA, Long Arm of the EPA, J.D, Harrison, U.S Chamber of Commerce, 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 Phyllis Schlafly: When the Supreme Court ruled by the narrowest possible margin that Kentucky’s definition of marriage is unconstitutional, the Court’s decision was qualified by its assurance that religious freedom would not be jeopardized. “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection,” the Court solemnly intoned on June 26.
In the Appalachian hills of eastern Kentucky, one brave woman is testing whether Justice Anthony Kennedy really meant it when he wrote those words. But the local federal judge for eastern Kentucky, David Bunning, has wrongly sent Kim Davis to jail for her beliefs, without respecting or accommodating her sincere Christian beliefs.
Local officials are required to support the laws of the United States, but no federal law requires every county official to issue marriage licenses, which are available in many other offices throughout Kentucky. Even Judge Bunning admitted that “plaintiffs have one feasible avenue for obtaining their marriage licenses” by traveling to another county, so the Supreme Court’s marriage ruling was not violated by the clerk’s decision to suspend all licenses while she seeks accommodation under the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Judge David Bunning previously came to national attention when he required the students and staff of the public schools in neighboring Boyd County to attend mandatory diversity training, “a significant portion of which would be devoted to issues of sexual orientation and gender harassment.” Bunning, who also ruled against a law banning partial-birth abortion, was nominated for his lifetime job at the age of only 34, and was confirmed because his father was a Senator, despite having inadequate legal experience and an “unqualified” rating from the American Bar Association.
As an elected public official, Kim Davis should not have been sent to jail by an unelected federal judge who can cite no federal law that she ever violated. Her imprisonment is the result of a judicial supremacy unrestrained by the checks and balances that apply to all other branches of government.
Described by Alexander Hamilton in 1788 as the “least dangerous” branch, federal courts are so out-of-control today that he would barely recognize them. A federal court has imprisoned a county official to force her to change the way she does her job, without any federal statute to justify such an order.
It is not “rule of law” to imprison someone based on judge-made law; it is “rule by judges.” Kim Davis is not committing civil disobedience, because she has not violated any law. She was arrested, humiliated with a mug shot and imprisoned, merely for abiding by state law and the Bible.
As an elected Democratic official, Kim Davis should be defended by her own party leaders, but the Democratic candidate for governor of Kentucky, Jack Conway, declines to defend her. As Attorney General, Conway refused to defend his own state’s constitution when it was challenged in the Supreme Court.
Republicans should look for guidance to the roots of our Party about 160 years ago, when it rose from obscurity by criticizing the judicial activism of the Dred Scott decision. Abraham Lincoln was a political loser until he started hammering the more popular Stephen Douglas about that ruling which extended a pro-slavery view nationwide.
Douglas, himself a skilled attorney and orator, tried to seek a middle ground between the pro-slavery federal court system and a populace that was increasingly fed up with the judicial supremacy. Douglas finally lost his credibility when he could not give coherent answers to questions posed by Lincoln in Freeport, Illinois, about what the full impact of the Dred Scott decision would be.
When one branch of government oversteps its power, the remedy under our Constitution is for the other branches of government to push back or refuse to comply, as multiple presidents and Congresses have done throughout American history. In his first inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln repudiated the Dred Scott decision as wrong and declared that it was not binding on the other branches of government or on anyone who was not a party to the case.
The Republican Party platform of 1860 flatly objected to how Democrats were imposing their agenda through use of “the Federal Courts [in matters] of a purely local interest.” By standing up against the abuse of power by federal courts, Republicans quickly became the majority party.
When the Supreme Court ruled that all 50 states must license same-sex unions on the same terms as marriage, the court was implicitly declaring that Christianity and the Bible are wrong. If San Francisco can be a sanctuary city, let’s allow Rowan County, Kentucky to be a “sanctuary county” where the Biblical view of marriage continues to be honored and respected.
-------------------- Phyllis Schlafly has been a national leader of the conservative movement since 1964. She founded and is president of Eagle Forum. She has testified before more than 50 Congressional and State Legislative committees on constitutional, national defense, and family issues. Tags:Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum, Religious freedom, Christian beliefs, Kim Davis 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 John C. Velisek, Contributing Author: Year 2015 is the year of the migrant. Over 100,000 migrants requested asylum in Germany in August for a total of over 400,000 for the year. Projections are that over 800,000 will be allowed into Germany this year which is only about 40% of all refugees. The vast majority of these refugees are men, ages 18 to 35, with the number of minors rising at an alarming rate.
It is clear from the riots on the Austria-Italy border that most of the migrants want to go to Germany. Why? The benefits in Germany for the unemployed are better than anywhere else in Europe.
The refugee crisis has been covered by the mainstream media as something that compassionate people should be concerned about. However, the mostly male amnesty program has no safeguards, like background checks, to prevent terrorists from entering Europe.
There is a concept in Islam called “Hijrah.” It is Jihad by immigration. Historically, the birth of Islam occurred after Mohammed’s Hijrah from Mecca to Medina. His “revelation” that Islam must do violence to non-believers and become a worldwide caliphate is considered the start of Islam. It is written in the Quran that “emigrating for the cause of Allah will find many locations and abundance.”
How much will this Hijrah of Islam change Europe? It was only a few years ago that a British Muslim group who called itself “the Emigrants” was celebrating the anniversary of 9/11. The Islamic State has been prepared to use Libya as a gateway to Europe. Their plan is to flood Europe with over 500,000 refugees quickly and in so many places that no safeguards will stop the jihadists from entering.
This migration will continue to push the welfare states of Europe beyond their ability to cope and will make a marked difference in the cultural landscape in Europe. For example, there are already no-go zones for police in France and England where police are not allowed. These zones are ruled by Sharia law.
Hollywood celebrities and the mainstream media declare those unconcerned about this Hijrah uncaring. They spout nonsense about the influx of Islam into Europe, blind to the fact that Sharia law will follow, and destruction of European culture will occur. Europe will be turned into a Middle East clone, and its native citizens will eventually wonder what happened.
It is interesting to note that the oil-rich Islamic countries will not allow these refuges into their countries. They know that it is a clear invitation for terrorist to enter their countries.
A Syrian ISIS operative claimed that over 4,000 Islamic jihadists have already made it to Europe with more to come. They will wait until a time of their choosing and strike in retaliation for US led air strikes. In the meantime, they will live well on the generosity of the European welfare program.
The future is grim. Europe and its welfare programs will accept more and more refugees. With no limits and no checks, it will lead to more looting; there will be rape gangs as there are in England and Sweden.
The compassionate that are caring for those less fortunate are being lead to a future. Deluded by their own compassion, Europeans believe that if they give these emigrants everything they need, there will be harmony. They do not understand that this is actually a religious war, and one side is determined to win.
And, we are not even considering those who will be coming to the Americas.
---------------------- John C. Velisek, retired Navy is a California conservative activist writing articles for various publication and is a contributing author to the ARRA News Service. You can follow John's work on @sjspecialist on Twitter and One Patriots Opinion on Facebook. Tags:John C. Velisek, Europe, Muslim immigration, Hijrah, Jihad by immigration, ISIS,To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Senate Cloture Vote On #BadIranDeal Disapproval Set For This Afternoon
Today in Washington, D.C. - Sept. 10, 2015: The House reconvened at 10 AM today. This afternoon the House is expected to decide whether to take up: H. Res. 411 - Finding that the President has not complied with section 2 of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015; H.R. 3461 - To approve the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, signed at Vienna on July 14, 2015, relating to the nuclear program of Iran; H.R. 3460) To suspend until January 21, 2017, the authority of the President to waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of sanctions pursuant to an agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran."
No bills were passed yesterday by the House.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said today, “Republicans continue to do all that we can do to stop the president’s nuclear agreement with Iran. By putting party first, Democrats are ignoring the will of the American people and avoiding the judgment of history. But this debate is far from over, and frankly, it’s just beginning. This is a bad deal with decades-long consequences for the security of the American people and our allies. And we’ll use every tool at our disposal to stop, slow, and delay this agreement from being fully implemented.”
The Senate reconvened at 9:30 AM today and resumed consideration of H. J. Res. 61, the vehicle for the Resolution of Disapproval of the president’s agreement with Iran.
At 3:45 PM, after another day of debate, the Senate will vote on cloture on the McConnell substitute amendment to H.J. Res. 61, which is the resolution of disapproval of the Iran deal. If cloture is invoked, there will be another 30 hours of debate before a vote on final passage of the resolution of disapproval.
This afternoon, after days of debate, the Senate will have its first opportunity to vote on a resolution disapproving of President Obama’s deal with Iran.
Democrats have been working for weeks to shore up enough tepid, partisan support in an attempt to filibuster the resolution of disapproval, thus blocking a straight up-or-down vote on the bill.
At 3:45 PM today, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has scheduled a cloture vote to move towards a final vote on the resolution. If all the Democrats saying they support the deal vote against cloture, they’ll have succeeded in blocking an up-or-down vote.
Politico notes, “Some rank-and-file Democrats have been wary of filibustering the measure for fear of being labeled obstructionists. Seeking to soothe those worries, Democrats devoted their first party lunch after the long August recess to assessing how the 42 members who back the nuclear deal’s substance would vote on a procedural step to take up the bill.”
If Democrats are concerned, they have an easy solution: vote for cloture and then vote their conscience on final passage.
William Galston, a supporter of the Iran deal, writes in a Wall Street Journal column, “With 41 Senate Democrats now lined up in favor of the nuclear deal, it is almost certain to go into effect. The remaining question concerns the process by which Congress and the president will arrive at that outcome.
“Until recently the answer seemed clear: Strong majorities in both houses would send a resolution of disapproval to Mr. Obama, who would return it to them with his veto, which would be sustained. But since then . . . the Senate Democratic leadership and the White House have opted for a new strategy: preventing a resolution of disapproval from ever reaching the president’s desk.”
Galston continues, “[L]et me pose a hopelessly old-fashioned question: Even if Democrats could get away with this ploy, would it be the right thing to do?
“I think not. The proposed deal with Iran represents one of the most significant U.S. foreign-policy shifts in many years. Its supporters, of whom I am one, should stand up and be counted—all the more so if they have been elected and sent to Washington to make such judgments. This is especially true for Mr. Obama, who has worked relentlessly to bring about a nuclear rapprochement with the Iranians, an outcome to which he has subordinated many other issues and relationships. Leadership—and above all presidential leadership—means taking responsibility for one’s decisions.
“The White House shouldn’t use procedural maneuvers to avoid a presidential veto. If it becomes necessary, Mr. Obama should issue that veto unapologetically, with a message explaining his reasons in detail and—I would suggest—a national address from the Oval Office.”
Also writing in The Journal today, former Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Democrat from Connecticut who opposes the deal, urges Democrats no to filibuster the resolution of disapproval. “Much of the debate has focused on how Democrats will vote; nearly all Republicans have declared opposition. Yet even those who support the deal should agree: It deserves a straight up or down vote.
“As someone who has opposed the agreement, convinced that it will only further endanger America’s security, I acknowledge with regret that the deal will not be stopped by Congress. Of course, there could be some late-breaking change: Who knows what Iran’s leaders will say next, whether denouncing America or sympathizing with terrorists. More so-called side agreements could leak out. But for now there are enough votes to adopt a resolution rejecting the agreement—and not enough votes to override the veto President Obama has promised.
“Yet apparently the White House and some Senate Democratic leaders aren’t satisfied. Minority Leader Harry Reid and others are reportedly planning to filibuster the motion of disapproval and are pressuring Democrats to vote for the filibuster. The endgame is to avoid a real vote on what is arguably the most important diplomatic agreement since the end of the Cold War. . . .
“The Obama administration might have put the agreement with Iran into place without any congressional approval. But both chambers almost unanimously adopted legislation earlier this year introduced by Sens. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) and Ben Cardin (D., Md.) that requires the administration to win a majority—51 votes in the Senate—to approve the agreement.
“Now, flying in the face of both this constitutional history and recent legislative action, some Democrats want to block a vote. . . . It is unfair and unwise for the administration to use a procedural tactic to stop a vote on an agreement that, according to recent public opinion polls, is opposed by about 60% of the American people. Filibustering will further convince U.S. citizens that even important national-security questions have now descended into partisan conflicts.
“It’s simple: The deal should be brought to a vote.”
Speaking on the Senate floor this morning, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urged, “Just a few short months ago, Senators of both parties came together to pass a bipartisan bill based on an important principle: that the American people, through the Congress they elect, deserve a say on one of the most important issues of our time.”
“We rallied around that principle, voting 98-1 to ensure the American people would have a real say on any deal with Iran. What a tragedy it would be then if, at the very last moment, some of those same Senators decided to filibuster to prevent the American people from having a real say on this incredibly important issue.
“I know some of our colleagues are currently under immense pressure to shut down the voice of the people. But I ask colleagues to reflect on the gravely serious nature of the issue before us.”
Leader McConnell emphasized, “The American people will remember where we stand today. Let’s stand on their side.”
And according to the latest Pew Research Center poll, more Americans than ever oppose the president’s deal with Iran. Pew writes, “As Congress prepares to vote on the Iran nuclear agreement, public support for the deal has declined. Currently, just 21% approve of the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program reached between the United States, Iran and other nations. Nearly half (49%) disapprove of the agreement . . . . In mid-July, a week after President Obama announced the deal, 33% of the public approved of the agreement, while 45% disapproved . . . .”
Pew notes, “While the partisan divide over the nuclear agreement remains substantial, support for the deal has slipped across the board since July. Currently, 42% of Democrats approve of the agreement, while 29% disapprove and an identical percentage has no opinion. In July, 50% of Democrats approved, 27% disapproved and 22% had no opinion.
“Republican support for the agreement, already low, has dropped even further (from 13% to 6%). Independents’ support for the agreement also has fallen (from 31% to 20%), although – as with Democrats – the share disapproving has held steady since July, at 47%.”
Further, “When opinion about the Iran nuclear agreement is based only on those who have heard a lot or a little about the agreement, opposition to the agreement exceeds support by more than a two-to-one margin (57% to 27%). Among those aware of the Iran deal, the share approving of the agreement has declined 11 percentage points since July, while the percentage disapproving has risen nine points.”
In addition, Pew writes, “The public continues to express little confidence that Iran’s leaders will live up to their side of the nuclear agreement. Just 2% have a great deal of confidence that Iran’s leaders will abide by the agreement, while another 18% say they have a fair amount of confidence. About seven-in-ten (70%) say they are not too confident (28%) or not confident at all (42%) in Iran’s leaders. These views are largely unchanged since July, though the share expressing no confidence at all in Iran’s leaders to abide by the agreement has risen slightly (from 37% to 42%).”
Yesterday, Leader McConnelll said, “The President famously suggested that if countries like Iran were willing to unclench their fist, they’d find an extended hand.
“From that hand the Iranians took concession after concession. On enrichment, on U.N. Security Council resolutions, on centrifuges, on missiles, on the conventional arms embargo, and on sanctions.
“Under the President’s deal with Iran, nearly every aspect of Iran’s national power will be strengthened: economic power, diplomatic power, espionage power, conventional-warfare power, and the power Iran derives from supporting proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, and the Assad regime.”
He concluded, “Just this morning, we saw reports that Iran’s Supreme Leader had ruled out any real rapprochement with the U.S. after this nuclear deal. We saw the Supreme Leader state his desire to see Israel cease to exist in the coming years.
“And against that backdrop, we now have the President’s deal with Iran before us. Any objective net assessment of this deal must conclude that it will strengthen the Supreme Leader’s regime.
“Any objective assessment must also conclude that America and her allies will be made less safe by the President’s deal with Iran.
“This is the conclusion I’ve reached as well. This is the conclusion many Democrats have reached. This seems to be the conclusion the American people are reaching too. . . .
“I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the resolution of disproval.” Tags:Iran Deal, The House, The SenateTo 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 Responds to Obama's Remarks at Macomb Community College
Arlington, VA -: President Obama spoke on higher education today after touring the Michigan Technical Education Center in Warren, Michigan. He focused on expanding apprenticeships and doubled down on his “free” community college plan.
In response to the President’s remarks, Generation Opportunity National Spokeswoman Patrice Lee issued the following statement:“President Obama has the right idea of what ‘good’ looks like in higher education, but the wrong roadmap of how to get us there. Expanding apprenticeships and driving down tuition prices are great, but it shouldn’t come on the backs of hardworking young taxpayers. Our policy leaders should be looking for ways to get the government out of the higher education system. Let’s stop pumping in more federal dollars—driving up costs and holding down innovation in learning. Expanding choice will drive competition and make college more affordable.”------------- Generation Opportunity is a national, nonpartisan organization advocating for economic opportunity for young people through less government and more freedom. Tags:Generation Opportunity, President Obama, Michigan Technical Education Center, Warren michigan, apprenticeships, tuition pricesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Paul Jacob, Contributing Author: Queen Elizabeth II, the not-quite-just-a-figurehead monarch of Great Britain, has just become her country’s longest reigning potentate.
“She passes Queen Victoria, her great-great-grandmother,” the AP reports, “who was on the throne for 63 years and 7 months.”
This should mean almost nothing to Americans. A curiosity at best, alongside other eccentric British institutions, like cricket and pub cuisine. Americans fought and won against King George III, and we don’t have kings any longer. Or queens.
Britain’s prime minister dutifully predicted that “millions” of Britons would celebrate the “historic moment.” One of the most irreverent (and unpopular) things I ever wrote pertained to Her Alleged Majesty, and the weird, atavistic yearnings still focusing on celebrity sovereigns.
We have enough problems with non-sovereign celebrities in America — as well as with way-too-long-serving politicians.
I’m for term limits. I approve of them on our presidents (thank you, 22nd Amendment), work to place them on our legislators, state and congressional, and have suggested placing term limits on U.S. Supreme Court justices, too.
If we still had an old-fashioned monarch — as Alexander Hamilton wanted — then I would be for term limits on monarchs as well. I wouldn’t know how to implement them — it’s not exactly a live issue for me — but perhaps L. Sprague de Camp’s imagined five-year reign, leading to a beheading, could be considered.
Meanwhile, back in American reality, we have a lot of work to do. At least we aren’t saddled with a musty old . . . monarch-y.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
------------------ Paul Jacobs is author of Common Sense which provides daily commentary about the issues impacting America and about the citizens who are doing something about them. He is also President of the Liberty Initiative Fund (LIFe) as well as Citizens in Charge Foundation. Jacobs is a contributing author on the ARRA News Service. Tags:Paul Jacob, Common Sense, Term LimitsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Newt Gingrich,: The desperation of the elites to avoid the reality of the current voter revolt is amazing.
Almost all of our political elites are speaking as though politics follows physical laws that will combine to deflate the anti-establishment wave before election day.
“Trump has to be a bubble,” they say. “He’s a summer phenomenon and will disappear as people get serious. Traditional candidates will certainly reemerge.”
The surprising thing about all of this is not the contempt the establishment has for Trump.
After all, he has contempt for the establishment and so their rejection of him is psychologically understandable. When someone calls you stupid and a failure, you aren’t likely to embrace and applaud them.
Indeed, while Trump is the largest personality, he isn’t the biggest surprise of 2015.
The real surprise is the collective rejection of traditional elected officials by a majority of the American people.
If Trump were to falter this week, the person in second place is Dr. Ben Carson. In personality and background, Dr. Carson is an even bigger break from traditional politics than Trump.
Rapidly rising into contention is former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina. Her first debate performance has driven her into a solid competitive position comparable to most of the traditional candidates.
Finally, Senator Ted Cruz is the only elected outsider in the race. Whether from personality, instinct or strategy, Cruz has managed to remain an outsider throughout his term in the Senate.
Analysts owe the American people respect for their choices.
In some polls, the four outsiders now get 60 percent of the vote.
What does this judgement tell us about the American people and their interpretation of where we are?
What does a vote of this size against traditional candidates tell us about the level of dissatisfaction everyday citizens are feeling about their elites?
And what if the citizens are right and the elites are wrong? This is a point William F. Buckley used to make when he said he would rather be governed by the first 100 names in the Boston phonebook than by the Harvard faculty. Elites tend to have a lot of sophisticated ideas – many of which prove to be stunningly foolish over time.
One of the great virtues of a free society is that the people get to educate the elites by the power of their voice and their vote.
Instead of a conversation about Donald Trump’s next supposedly outrageous statement, let’s talk about the state of the electorate and why Washington either doesn’t hear its message or doesn’t care.
---------------------- 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, vote, the electorate, respect the American people,To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Obama Issues Executive Order Requiring Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors
President Barack Obama - file photo. (Credit: Whitehouse.gov)
by Natalie Johnson: President Barack Obama took Labor Day to sign an executive order that will require federal contractors to provide employees with up to seven days of paid sick leave, condemning Republicans for a “constant attack on working Americans.”
The White House estimated that the order will impact more than 300,000 workers who currently do not receive such benefits.
“We’ve seen that many companies, including small businesses, support these policies, because they understand it’s helpful with recruitment and retention,” Obama said Monday during a union rally in Boston. “It helps you keep good employees.”
The Labor Department said the costs to companies would be offset by reduced attrition rates and greater worker loyalty, but the Associated Press noted that the administration has not provided evidence to support this.
Salim Furth, a research fellow in macroeconomics at The Heritage Foundation, called the administration’s reasoning “wishful thinking” and said the change would reduce take-home pay.
“The president is changing the way that federal contractors are compensated,” he said. “Clearly, people who have health problems will benefit. However, the rule change hurts healthy, younger workers on net.”
Furth said that because the directive impacts only federal contractors, the compensation shift could attract older, sicker workers while encouraging younger, healthier workers to leave—though he noted that the change is small enough to have only a minor impact on employees’ job decisions.
The order will go into effect as Obama leaves office in 2017.
The move comes among a series of executive actions the president has directed toward federal workers over the past year, including an order to raise the minimum wage for employees under federal contracts to $10.10.
The president also pressed Congress to pass legislation extending paid family and medical leave to private-sector workers. The White House estimates that about 40 percent of such workers do not have access to paid sick leave.
“Unfortunately, only Congress has the power to give this security to all Americans,” Obama said. “But where I can act, I will.”
------------------------ Natalie Johnson (@nataliejohnsonn) is a news reporter for The Daily Signal and graduate of The Heritage Foundation's Young Leaders Program. Tags:President Obama, executive order, paid sick leave, Federal contractors, Natalie JohnsonTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
“But this deal has clear flaws and substantial risks even beyond the obvious and disturbing short duration of its term. With this deal, we are legitimizing a vast and expanding nuclear program in Iran. We are in effect rewarding years of their deception, deceit, and wanton disregard for international law by allowing them to potentially have a domestic nuclear enrichment program at levels beyond what is necessary for a peaceful civil nuclear program.” (“Supporting The Iran Agreement Is The Better Of Two Flawed Options,” Medium, 9/3/15)
SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE):“This agreement – at best – freezes Iran’s nuclear enrichment program - it does not dismantle or destroy it as I hoped it would.”(Sen. Coons, Remarks, 9/1/15)
“I have a number of serious concerns based on Iran’s past behavior of cheating on nuclear agreements and our experiences trying to block other countries from developing nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic of Iran has long threatened the United States and Israel in both fiery speeches and terrorist acts, and it continues to support terrorist groups across the region.” (Sen. Coons, Remarks, 9/1/15)
“I have deep concern about the scope and implications of Iran’s permitted centrifuge development program after ten years and its nuclear enrichment capacity after fifteen years.”(Sen. Coons, Remarks, 9/1/15)
SEN. GARY PETERS (D-MI):“My core concern with this agreement lies with the basic issue that has always been before us - the enrichment of uranium by Iran. This deal allows Iran, under the same leadership that refers to the United States as the Great Satan and calls for the destruction of Israel, to enrich uranium on its own soil. This core concession is in many ways a stark departure from our country’s past non-proliferation policies, and it concerns me that this agreement could set a dangerous precedent as developing nations around the world look to nuclear power to meet their growing domestic demands for energy and electricity.” (Sen. Peters, Press Release, 9/8/15)
“The release of these assets is of even greater concern because in the weeks since the JCPOA was signed, the Iranian regime has restated its commitment to the destruction of the State of Israel.” (Sen. Peters, Press Release, 9/8/15)
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT):“Most importantly, this agreement cannot be based on hope or trust. History belies both in our experience with Iran. This deal is not the agreement I have long sought.”(Sen. Blumenthal, Press Release, 9/8/15)
“Critics are right that this agreement requires Iran’s leaders to freeze many activities rather than completely destroy or dismantle their nuclear infrastructure, as I and others had called for. When key restraints begin to expire in 10 to 15 years — a blink of an eye to a country that measures its history in millennia — our country will still have to deal with an Iranian leadership that wants to build an industrial-scale nuclear enrichment program. That’s a big problem.”(“My Statement On The Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action,” Medium, 9/8/15)
“Critics of this agreement have raised a number of important, serious, and reasonable questions. First, with respect to sanctions relief, Iran is the largest supporter of state-sponsored terrorism in the world. It is very disturbing that in all probability, a large portion of the funds derived from sanctions relief will flow to Hezbollah and other groups working to destabilize the region.”
“None of us knows what lies 10 or 15 years on the horizon. I have deep concerns about what the shape of Iran’s nuclear program could look like beyond this horizon.” (Sen. Bennet, Press Release, 9/4/15)
SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D-NY): “There are legitimate and serious concerns about this deal. For example, I would have liked to see a period shorter than 24 days to resolve disputes over access for inspectors. The U.N. embargoes on the sales of arms and ballistic weapons to Iran should have remained in place permanently, instead of lapsing after five and eight years. Hostages remain in Iranian custody. We will have to work hard to fight Iran’s malign efforts to wreak havoc in the region.” (“Why I’m Supporting An Imperfect Iran Deal,” Medium, 8/6/15)
“It does not block Iran’s importation of conventional arms, allowing Iran to acquire conventional arms after 5 years and ballistic missile technology after 8 years. It does not dictate how Iran can spend the dollars it reclaims from cash assets that are currently frozen. It does not permanently maintain bright lines on Iran’s nuclear research or nuclear energy program, lifting the 300 kg and 3.67% enrichment limits after 15 years.” (Sen. Merkley, Press Release, 8/30/15)
SEN. JOE DONNELLY (D-IN): “That is why, despite having questions about Iran’s intentions, I am willing to give this agreement the opportunity to succeed. While I share the concerns expressed by the agreement’s critics about what may happen 10, 15, or 20 years from now.”(Sen. Donnelly, Press Release, 8/19/15) Tags: Democrat, U.S., Senators, sell, Iran Deal, America, Opposition rallyTo 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.