NFRA Blog

New NFRA Blog

2009-08-15T08:33:00.000-05:00

The NFRA has a incorporated the NFRA Blog into their new website. CLICK FOR NEW NFRA BLOG

Illegals Will be Counted in the U.S. Census

2009-08-14T22:34:00.002-05:00

by Dave Eberhart: California could get nine House seats it doesn’t constitutionally rate because illegal aliens will be counted in 2010, concluded an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal. The forthcoming census, which determines the apportionment of House members and Electoral College votes for each state, will be counting all persons physically present in the country -- without regard to the legality of their status.

Set for big gains thanks to illegal populations is not only California but Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New York and Texas, according to the Census Bureau’s 2007 American Community Survey data. California has 5,622,422 noncitizens in its population of 36,264,467. Based on a round-number projection by the WSJ authors of a decade-end population in the Golden State of 37,000,000 (including 5,750,000 noncitizens), California would have 57 members in the newly-reapportioned U.S. House of Representatives.

“However, with noncitizens not included for purposes of reapportionment, California would have 48 House seats (based on an estimated 308 million total population in 2010 with 283 million citizens, or 650,000 citizens per House seat),” noted the report authors. . . .

“The Census Bureau can of course collect whatever data Congress authorizes. But Congress must not permit the bureau to unconstitutionally redefine who are ‘We the People of the United States,’” the authors argued. Dr. Elizabeth Grieco, chief of the Census Bureau’s Immigration Statistics Staff, told the WSJ that the 2010 census short form does not ask about citizenship because “Congress [The Democrat majority] has not asked us to do that.”

For sure , there has been a significant evolution from the kind of census envisioned by the founding fathers, noted the authors. In 1790, the first Census Act provided for the counting of “inhabitants.” “’Inhabitant’ was at that time a term with a well-defined meaning, maintained the authors. As the Oxford English Dictionary expressed it, an “inhabitant” was one who “is a bona fide member of a State, subject to all the requisitions of its laws, and entitled to all the privileges which they confer.” [Full Story] Reprinted from ARRA News Service

Nancy Pelosi the Queen of Torture

2009-04-27T23:33:00.001-05:00

By Bill Smith / Ozark Guru: Nancy Pelosi knows what torture is because she has been practicing it for years. You might be saying, wait a minute, isn't she the the "Speaker" against torture at least with respect to what allegedly was used against the enemy combatants who brutally attacked and killed Americans and sought to destroy our American way of life. Don't be distracted by her pathological ability to adjust the truth to something that it is not or to shield the truth from shinning forth.

Let's define of the word torture using the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Noun: 1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3: distortion or over refinement of a meaning or an argument: straining

For this discussion, let's forget the extreme view that would tear down the fabric of America while claiming self-righteous indignation in seeking the truth about a physical torture of people that had planned, aided or assisted in either potential attacks or the 9-11 attack our country which and killed almost 3000 people. Have we forgotten the deaths would have been far more if the planes had hit the World Trade towers an hour later, or if the planes had hit the center of the Pentagon or had hit another locations in D.C.? Also, let's forget the extreme fringe that believes that their own government is behind everything bad in our country and blew up the World Trade Towers instead of terrorists flying the airplanes that many of us observed hitting the buildings.

Let's focus on Nancy Pelosi. First, note her recent episode of pathological adjustment of truth, wherein she attempts to divert attention from herself by boldly claiming she knew nothing about the use of enhanced interrogation techniques and then buffets her claim by stating that she could not recall being told that the the enhanced interrogation techniques were or would be used. Well, most of us know this is not the truth.

Consider the following article by The Women On the Web which addresses this situation and the reaction of at least one person who was present with Nancy Pelosi in 2002 during briefings by the CIA :

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appears to be on the defensive over what exactly she knew — and when she knew it — about the Bush administration’s "enhanced interrogation" techniques. The California Democrat befuddled some reporters, Republicans and others last week when she gave what Politico says were some "convoluted answers" to reporters about the interrogations. Now Republicans have jumped at the chance to pummel Pelosi’s insistence that she didn’t know what was going on. CIA Chief Porter Goss said she must be suffering from "amnesia" — since he was with her in 2002 when they were briefed by the CIA on the techniques.

Goss wrote over the weekend: "I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as ‘waterboarding’ were never mentioned. It must be hard for most Americans of common sense to imagine how a member of Congress can forget being told about the interrogations of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. In that case, though, perhaps it is not amnesia but political expedience." . . .

Now back to Nancy Pelosi and her use of torture. Note the definition of the word "torture" included "anguish of body or mind: agony" and "distortion or over refinement of a meaning or an argument: straining." While Pelosi may not as yet be pulling out fingernails in the basement of Congress, she has become a master in the use of these other two definitions of the word torture. Her extreme actions, her ridiculous self-proclamations, her bullying of the members of her own party, her tyrannical exclusion of the elected members of the minority party, and her constant declarations of lies as truth and distortion of truth. All of these bring anguish to the mind and hearts of Americans and definitely distorts and "over refines" the meaning of any argument. Pelosi has been wielding the whip of torture via her tongue and via the authority of her position as Speaker of the House. A gracious women she is NOT. She is not even a voice of propaganda for the liberal cause because even liberals know she cannot be trusted. In deeds, words, and actions, Nancy Pelosi is the Queen of Torture.

While it may not matter what Republicans think of Pelosi, it does matter that American voters do not trust her. One month ago, Rasmussen Reports that "60% of U.S. voters now have an unfavorable opinion of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, including 42% Very Unfavorable and that a growing number of her doubters seem to be fellow Democrats." Abuse and torture yield these kind of results from free-thinking people. And these results are presently polar opposite of the ratings for President Obama.

There is a growing dissent with Pelosi not only among Democrats in general but more importantly among House Democrats who have been forced to endure Pelosi's torturous ways. Bowing and scrapping by once joyous party members to the Queen Speaker does not bode well for future favorable support of the Obama administration. She has outworn her welcome as Speaker of the House by her lack of graciousness and her torturous ways. For the good of the country, it is time for a favorably nod to a more "enlightened" and sanguine" person to be the Speaker. It is time for Nancy Pelosi, the Queen of Torture, to be removed as Speaker of the people's House.

The Significance of 33 Minutes

2009-02-09T22:47:00.000-06:00

ARRA News Service - A ballistic missile from a foreign enemy would take 33 minutes to reach the United States. With each passing day, this becomes a growing danger to America, yet our government has failed to build the missile defense systems capable of defending us against such attacks. Our enemies are attempting to stockpile arsenals that threaten our freedom and prosperity. North Korea and Iran are the most prominent, but this also includes Russia, China and other nations that have missiles capable of killing Americans in very large numbers and threatening our allies.

The time has come to revive the strategic missile defense system that America uniquely can develop, maintain, and employ for its own defense and the peace-loving world's security.This documentary aims to do just that by highlighting the disastrous consequences of a nuclear explosion on American soil - one that could happen in just 33 minutes. Film coming winter 2009. Below is a trailer for the film:

Open Letter to Congress Regarding the Stimulus Bill

2009-02-09T00:06:00.000-06:00

ARRA News Service: Have you had enough of the stimulus scam. Below is a satirical open letter written by Laura Singleton. We wanted to help make sure her letter arrived. You can also help by sending Monopoly Money to DC, so that our "esteemed leaders" can fool around with it instead of OUR hard-earned money. She has asked if you'd send some too.

Here's what to do: send your elected officials monopoly money. How? Anyway possible: Email or Fax the image I've posted in my pics on this site. Put the image on your blogs. Mail Monopoly money overnight. Drop some off at their offices in your state or in DC. Blog about the waste, the pork, the delay & reference the Monopoly Money. Send out press releases, whatever. Flood their offices with the stuff. Maybe, just maybe, they'll get it then. Remember, the final vote is likely to happen Monday or Tuesday, so we don't have a lot of time. One voice is a dissenter. One million is a democracy.

Dear Esteemed Politicians,

I know many of you are new, and that the experience in our nation's capital can be both heady and confusing. Therefore, I'm writing to remind you that the Monopoly Money is the stuff that is pastel. Apparently, some (a "pared-down" $780,000,000,000.00 at last count) of the citizens' real money has slipped into your wild game. Normally I wouldn't be so rude to point out this slight and obviously unintentional mistake. However (dear me, I'm blushing), it seems that our children and grandchildren will be responsible for this debt so you can buy:

$99,600 worth of doorbells in Laurel, MS (net jobs produced: 2)
$6M to convert hybrids to electric cars in Boulder (net jobs produced: 0)
$650M more for Digital TV coupons (net jobs produced: 0)
$70M in smoking cessation programs (net jobs produced: ?)
$500K for a dog park in Chula Vista, CA (net jobs produced: 0)
$600M for the Heritage Trail in Natchez, MS (net jobs produced: 65)
$1.5M for a Prostitute Shelter in Dayton (net jobs produced: 0)
$500M for Solar Water Heaters in Puerto Rico ((net jobs produced: 14)
and--(this one deserves an award for "stupid positions have consequences" posterchild)--$400M for testing and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.

Now, I know that you know best, and I'm certain that this is all a misunderstanding. How could you know that the water company turned off service to somebody in our upper middle-class subdivision a couple of days ago? Or that there's a foreclosure sign a few houses away? My 70-year old parents came out of retirement to do substitute teaching after their life savings tanked. My brother's business deal fell through because of the economy & he's going to lose everything. But obviously no one told you that businesses here are going belly up and people are losing jobs. However, if it wouldn't interrupt your game too long, perhaps you could talk to any of these people--or me, for that matter--and find we'd actually rather have the money to get back on his feet than to pay to test someone who didn't abstain for an STD.

I know that Washington, DC is far, far away from here, but I would be more than willing to bring you additional Monopoly Money for you to play with in exchange for the real money, which real people could use for real needs.

Sincerely,
Laura Singleton

Who Should Confront the Iranian Time Bomb - Obama or McCain

2008-10-25T22:49:00.001-05:00

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: With the presidential election upon us, many people are also focused on the economy. However, we know from history that we will be able to correct our economic problem even if it takes longer than our American tendency to want instant solutions for everything. However, because of the economic crisis, many voters are ignoring the most significant issue that our next president is directly responsible to address. That issue is the very real global threat to America's very survival. Since confronting this threat every day is not part of our personal daily routine and responsibilities (until it is too late), we tend to be myopic and look at the "me things."

If inexperienced or burdened down with domestic and economic cares, voters may not comprehend or may even forget the bigger picture -- surviving the very "real" foreign enemies that literally hate our culture, democracy, traditions, freedoms, religions, materialism, and way of living. In fact, they hate us (i.e., you). In our daily bickering over small things, we tend to ignore the big dangers because we can we do nothing about them individually.

To put "just one" of the threats into perspective, consider an article in the October issue of Imprimis published by Hillsdale College that addresses Iran. The article was adapted from a speech by Michael Ledeen. Michael Ledeen is the Freedom Scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a contributing editor at National Review Online. Previously, he served in the White House as a national security advisor and in the Departments of Defense and State. He is author of more than 20 books, including The Iranian Time Bomb. His articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the American Spectator, International Economy, Commentary, and the Washington Times.

The article is too long to quote here so I encourage you to visit and the read the article online. However, below are Lendeen's closing words which highlight just one of the many countries whose government leaders hate America and who wish our demise as the principle leader of the 'free world":

"The bottom line is that Iran is our principal enemy in the Middle East, and perhaps in the entire world. It is also a terribly vulnerable regime, and it knows that—which is why it makes up stories about airplanes and missiles that it doesn’t have. As for the question of nuclear weapons, it seems hard to imagine that Iran does not already have them. Iranians are not stupid, and they have been at this for a minimum of 20 years in a world where almost every major component needed for a nuclear weapon—not to mention old nuclear weapons—are for sale. A lot of these components are for sale nearby in Pakistan. And if the Iranians do have a weapon, it is impossible to imagine that, at a moment of crisis, they will not use it. The point is, we have an implacable enemy which has no intention of negotiating a settlement with us. They want us dead or dominated, just as our enemies did in the 1930s and ’40s. You can’t make deals with a regime like that.

Our choices with regard to Iran are to challenge them directly and win this war now, to do so only after they kill a lot more of us in some kind of attack, or to surrender. There is no painless way out, and the longer we wait, the greater the pain is going to be."

So, who is best to challenge Iran and other enemies of our Nation - Obama or McCain? The most critical and therefore, important issue is not "change" but survival -- how will America continue to physically exist as a country and a democracy with guaranteed individual freedoms and rights. Who will be the best president to protect us from our foreign enemies (even while we continue our internal domestic bickering over almost everything)?

Do we pick Obama - a younger inexperienced (i.e., non-experienced) smooth talking candidate who is an anti-traditional family values advocate and unfortunately already has a past full of bad choices and savory associations? Following the mantra of "Change" is not the answer because the issue is then "change from what and to what" and importantly, the consequences of the "change." Change can mean a lot of things. We have recently experienced a lot of negative economic change which can be directly associated with Obama's associates in and out of Congress. And how can a person who voted "present" verses "yes or no" on a majority of his votes in the Illinois and US Senates be prepared to address the most important issues of our time? Voting present is not good enough when dealing with threats to America. Obama promises talk and compromise and appears willing to concede ground to our enemies (i.e., using an appeasement approach).

Or, do we pick McCain -- an older but scarred and proven warrior who is the straight talking man who is called a maverick for taking consistent stands and speaking the truth even within his own party? An experienced candidate who understands the threats to our country from outside our borders. A man who served his country in war and understands the pain and suffering. A man who while addressing the enemy understands compassion and forgiveness towards those who even tortured him. McCain is willing and able to clearly detail to our enemies (those who wish us harm and / or even destroy us) the limits of our tolerance and a clear understanding of the consequences for pursuing further aggressive acts, actions that threaten America.

The American people have voiced poll after poll their continued negative opinion of the present Congress lead by Democrats and have given the Democrat leadership the lowest ratings in history. It is from this pool of Democrats that a junior inexperienced member has come forth to be their candidate for president. Not a person who stood on principles against his own failing political party leadership but instead pandered for items he wished and voted absent or present on the other issues. If Obama were to become president, he will be again supporting these same failing "tax and spend" liberal leaders: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. And then who will save us from our enemies?

Catholic Bishops vs. Barack Obama - Will Life Win?

2008-10-24T20:32:00.001-05:00

ARRA Editor's Note: It is interesting that if all the people voted according to the doctrines and postitions of their stated Christian churches, the exteme holocost of aborted babies would have ceased long ago. Unfortunately, the gap between what one subscribes to at Church verses what one practices in one's life and actions has created a vast chasm of hypocricy on the part of Christian voters. We have posted numerous Protestant pro-life sources over the past month and have been remiss in not reporting enough from Catholic pro-life sources. Following is a summary of news sources prepared by Barabara Sowell that sets forth the "official" Catholic position regarding voting and the pro-life issue. We have taken the liberty of sharing her entire summary because "life deserves your serious consideration."

by Barbara Sowell: Abortion was on the back burner during this election cycle but U.S. Catholic Bishops are a gathering force determined to pit Catholic faithful against Barack Obama. Obama’s extreme pro-choice stance is forcing many Catholics to take a second look.

The U.K’s Sunday Herald discussed “The Battle for the Catholic vote.” The article noted that Catholics make up a third of the electorate in the key states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Missouri. According to the Sunday Herald,

"Obama, aghast at his party's abandonment of religious voters in a country where 92% of the population believe in God, has reinforced existing efforts to redress this, stressing his Christian beliefs at every opportunity . . ."
Sunday the Star-Ledger News reported that last week Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson N.J denounced Barack Obama for his stance on abortion. Serratelli said that Obama’s “first presidential act would be to sign the "Freedom of Choice Act." A law that would forbid interference with women's access to abortion. Serratelli wrote this about Obama in his weekly column last week:

"If this politician fulfills his promise, not only will many of our freedoms as Americans be taken from us, but the innocent and vulnerable will spill their blood . . .”
Star-Ledger News also noted that the bishop of Scranton, Pa, and the bishop of Wilmington, Del, as well as two other prominent bishops, have criticized Biden for his stance on abortion and have questioned whether Biden should be eligible to receive Communion.

Additionally, several prominent bishops have released a statement saying that Speaker of the House, U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, has misrepresented the Catholic church’s stance on abortion. Pelsoi said that the Church’s teachings on abortion had changed but the Bishops contend that the church has always condemned abortion.

Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput accused Catholics for Obama of “using his words in a misleading way.” The group had quoted Chaput saying, "Catholics can vote for pro-choice candidates, if they vote for them despite -- not because of -- their pro-choice views." Chaput complained the group omitted his next sentence saying those Catholics "also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it."

The Dallas Morning News reported Tuesday that Bishop Kevin Farrell of the Diocese of Dallas and Bishop Kevin Vann of the Diocese of Fort Worth had written a letter to parishioners that says that voting for a candidate who supports “the intrinsic evil of abortion” is morally impermissible. According to a spokesperson for the Bishops, the letter was not an endorsement of any political candidate. The letter sought to clarify Catholic teachings, “particularly a document issued by U.S. bishops called "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship." Part of the letter calls on Catholics to remember.
"As Catholics, we must treat our political choices with appropriate moral gravity and in doing so, realize our continuing and unavoidable obligation to be a voice for the voiceless unborn, whose destruction by legal abortion is the pre-eminent intrinsic evil of our day. . ."
According to the Catholic News Agency, Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput spoke as a private citizen to a group dedicated to promoting the “genius of women.” He emphasized that he was not speaking on behalf of “the Holy See, or the American bishops, or any other bishop, or even officially for the Archdiocese of Denver.” Chaput said, “I believe that Senator Obama, whatever his other talents, is the most committed ‘abortion-rights’ presidential candidate of either major party since the Roe v. Wade abortion decision in 1973.” He went on to say,
“ . . .the party platform Senator Obama runs on this year is not only aggressively ‘pro-choice;’ it has also removed any suggestion that killing an unborn child might be a regrettable thing. On the question of homicide against the unborn child – and let’s remember that the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer explicitly called abortion ‘murder’ – the Democratic platform that emerged from Denver in August 2008 is clearly anti-life.”
Archbishop Chaput suggested that his audience read Prof. Robert George’s essay “Obama’s Abortion Extremism,” published earlier this week at The Witherspoon Institute. Princeton University Professor Dr. George offers an explanation of a candidate for President of the United States abortion positions which he believes must be exposed and understood “at this crucial time.” Father John Corapi, SOLT has issued a call for a Rosary Novena between Oct. 27th and Election Day, Nov. 4th in hopes that Catholics will vote for candidates who will defend human life against the “holocaust” of abortion.

House Democrats Aim to Remove 401k Tax Breaks

2008-10-23T20:44:00.001-05:00

ARRA News Service: Do you invest in 401K plans through your employer? If so, be sure to read the following!
By Duane Lester, All American Blogger: In Grover Norquist's new book, "Leave Us Alone: Getting the Government's Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives," he writes:

When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, less than 20 percent of American households owned stock directly. Today, 50 percent of households own stock and two-thirds of all voters in the past elections were shareholders.

The reason for the increase is the creation of the 401(k) plan. As people understood the plan and with the expansion of the mutual fund industry, more and more people are taking advantage of this. For those who don't know, here's what it is in a nutshell:

Employee 401k contribution are automatically deducted from their paycheck each pay period. This money is taken out before the employees paycheck is taxed. The contributions are invested at the employees direction into one or more funds provided in the plan. Employers often "match" employee contributions, but are not required to do so. While the investments grow in the employees 401k account, they do not pay any taxes on it.

The individual is using his or her property to ensure a prosperous future before the government has a chance to seize it. It is a great plan. I take advantage of it at work, as do many of my co-workers. You should see how attentive some of these folks are to the stock market.

The key part of the plan is found in the last sentence of the above quote. House Democrats are considering abolishing those tax breaks:

Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation's $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.

A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller's Education and Labor Committee on her
proposal.

At that hearing, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, testified that some $2 trillion in retirement savings has been lost over the past 15 months.

Under Ghilarducci's plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5% of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3% a year, adjusted for inflation.

The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.

So, instead of getting around 15% on my 401k investments, I'll get a government bond at 3%. Why don't they just kick me straight in the groin while they are at it? Seriously, this is what passes for a reform to Democrats?

John Belluardo, president of Stewardship Financial Services Inc. said it best when he said, "From where I sit that's just crazy...If the tax deferral goes away, the employers have no reason to do the matches, which primarily help people in the lower income brackets."

But the problem with the 401k plan is it's seated in individual and personal responsibility. And another big factor is the billions of dollars the Democrats don't get to tax. Both of those run counter to the Democrats philosophy of having government be the nanny of the masses.

The Democrats simply cannot get enough of your property and they won't hesitate to create new ways to take more of it. Here is a plan, the 401k plan, that is far more credible than Social Security, and they want to take money from it, essentially taking money out of the economy, and give it to government bureaucrats for their failed inter-generational Ponzi scheme.

This is not the change America needs. [Cross posted from All American Blogger]

Don't Tax Me Bro"

2008-10-22T20:09:00.001-05:00

Bill Smith, Editor: Like most Americans, I identify with Joe the Plumber who wants to work, invest, own and seek the American dream of being successful. But, we are faced with a government that wants to tax our success for working hard to support others who have settled for less - government handouts - and thus live off the labors of "us." I'm not talking about those who can't work or are temporarily down on their luck through no fault of their own. But I am tired of government people, like Sen. Barack Obama, who want to to take my money and then redistribute (give) my money to those who can work to provide for themselves and those under their care. I especially don't like their giving my money to those who made past mistakes, made poor decisions or are just plain are lazy and now want to avoid the consequences of their actions, laziness, mistakes or poor decisions. Also, have you noted that while taxing "us" for working, the government keeps their "operational cut" which tends to grow over time. I join Joe the Plumber is saying Don't tax me for working hard or for having worked hard to save for my family's future!

No Disrespect Meant - But Think About It

2008-10-20T15:49:00.002-05:00

Bill Smith, Editor, ARRA News: I received these first words from a reader and wondered how I could use them. Well this weekend's news provided the opportunity.

"Something to think about. Just a few points to ponder. Anyone who's gone through the Security Clearance procedures in the Military" (even Gen. Colin Powell), FBI, CIA, Secret Service or other agency requiring securing, processing and handing of classified information and documents "can verify that this is a valid point to ponder: If Barack Obama would apply for a job with the FBI or with the Secret Service, he would be disqualified because of his past association with William Ayers, a known terrorist. If he is elected President he would not qualify to be his own body guard!"

Kind of makes you wonder where General / Former Sec. of State Colin Powell's head was at when he endorsed Obama. Powell didn't resign his commission and therefore he is still responsible to his oath of office. Upon what valid basis did he support a person for Commander-in-Chief who may well have been disqualified for military service, etc. A man who used hard drugs which would not be waived for a commission as an officer. A man who has been associated in his past and present life with a former anarchist, shady Chicago back room deals, a black supremacist pastor, a communist mentor, and close family (blood) relatives and foreign leaders in an African country with ties to radicals and terrorists. It is beyond reasonable belief that one of our former popular Generals who served as a Republican leader and was sought by his party to consider running for president would now endorse Obama.

Obama's stated beliefs and principles are so diametrically different from those previously espoused by Powell. Also, Obama's actions and associations would not have been "becoming for a junior officer" under Powell's command. As a retired officer, I am still reeling from the above thoughts. Surely race could not have been a factor in Powell's decision. And yet, Powell related in his public endorsement that 'the prospect of Obama becoming the first African American president would 'electrify the world.'" More disturbing is the fact that Powell "expressed disappointment" of McCain's selection of a woman - Gov. Sarah Palin - to be his vice presidential running mate. In 2000, Powell campaigned for John McCain for President and may very well feel betrayed for not being selected for the VP nomination. One wonders at this late endorsement about Powell's feelings on a woman being selected over either Powell or another a person Powell would have approved of as VP. Powell calls Biden a good choice, when Biden and Powell were seldom on the same page on core issues or values.

Powell became a 4-star General, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, national Security advisor and Secretary of State under Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W, Bush. Now this singular decision made by Powell to publicly influence voters for Obama over McCain, a fellow military man who "really served" his country, is almost too much to take-in. And the alleged reason for Powell's endorsement - McCain selected a woman for VP and Obama as a black president may electrify the world. Powell's decision left many feeling like the people must have felt when their "Knight" lost their "shining armour."

Yes, Powell has the right to vote and support whoever he wishes but now he joins the ranks of people like Wesley Clark, as empty suits seeking another moment of fame. My suggestion to all is "THINK, Before YOU VOTE!" The choice: Obama the young smooth talking inexperienced socialist who is also an anti-traditional family values advocate or McCain the older but scarred proven warrior who is the straight talking man who is a maverick by speaking the truth even within his own party. A maverick who chose a person - yes a woman - outside of Washington politics to help him stand firm for the American people against the onslaught of a Democrat controlled Senate and House led by an inept Harry Reid and the "beyond the pale" Nancy Pelosi. Again, "THINK -- THINK, Before YOU VOTE!"

What's Missing at Barack Obama's Political Campaign Rallies?

2008-10-16T14:43:00.003-05:00

ARRA News Service - H/T the excellent insight by Martin Diano at Dianospher: What's Missing at Barack Obama's Political Campaign Rallies?

There is something missing at all the Barack Obama campaign rallies which was even more conspicuous by its absence at the Democratic convention. Something you never hear and will not likely hear through election day. But it is always heard at McCain campaign rallies and was certainly in evidence at the GOP convention.

Before I say what is missing, let me be unmistakeably and abundantly clear: I believe in overwhelming numbers that Democrats—even the hard core ones who consider themselves Bush haters—at their very core are patriotic, loyal Americans. Having said that, let me tell you what you never hear at an Obama rally: The chant "USA-USA-USA-USA-USA".

What I conclude from this is not that Democrats are unpatriotic or disloyal. Not at all. The conclusion I draw is that Barack Obama, in what he says and how he says it, makes people feel that America's best days have long since past. He does not make us feel good about ourselves. If people believe his rhetoric, the United States of America is on the precipice of total and utter collapse. Americans, Mr. Obama will have us and the world believe, are unable to cope with difficult issues and only he can lift us up from mediocrity to once again give the United States of America standing in the world community.

Barack Obama, in particular, fails to inspire men and women who served in the military or who currently are on active duty. From the aging WW ll veteran to Vietnam veterans to those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan to those currently on active duty, Barack Obama does not make you want to snap to attention and salute the flag. He just does not have "the right stuff" to be our Commander-in-Chief.

Go to a McCain campaign rally, however, agree with his issues or not, and at very least he makes you proud that you are an American. He leaves you feeling that America's best days are ahead of us. That we will leave Iraq with our heads held high. That serving in the military is honorable. That our economy will survive.

What I want in a president is not a Preacher-in-Chief but a Commander-in-Chief.
So I close by chanting: USA-USA-USA-USA-USA

Flashback: Obama's Abortion Bombshell: Unrestricted Abortion

2008-10-16T14:38:00.002-05:00

ARRA News Service - Also read: Commentary: Obama's Abortion Extremism -- Follows is a flashback to a post by Peter J. Smith, LifeSiteNews.com, which addressed Barack Obama position on abortion and Freedom of Choice Act!

Barack Obama, the . . pro-abortion nominee of the Democratic Party, has plans to reward the allies that helped him . . . by making total unrestricted abortion in the United States his number one priority as president. "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," Obama said in his July speech to abortion advocates worried about the increase of pro-life legislation at the state level.

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation Obama has co-sponsored along with 18 other senators that would annihilate every single state law limiting or regulating abortion, including the federal ban on partial birth abortion. The 2007 version of FOCA proposed: "It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman."

Obama made his remarks in a question-and-answer session after delivering a speech crystallizing for abortion advocates his deep-seated abortion philosophy and his belief that federal legislation will break pro-life resistance and end the national debate on abortion. (see transcript) "I am absolutely convinced that culture wars are so nineties; their days are growing dark, it is time to turn the page," Obama said in July. "We want a new day here in America. We're tired about arguing about the same ole' stuff. And I am convinced we can win that argument."

Besides making abortion on demand a "fundamental right" throughout the United States, FOCA would effectively nullify informed consent laws, waiting periods, health safety regulations for abortion clinics, etc. Furthermore, medical professionals and institutions that refused abortions also would lose legal protections. FOCA would expose individuals, organizations, and governments - including federal, state, and local government agencies - to costly civil actions for purported violations of the act. . . . Obama has won the crucial endorsement of abortion activist Frances Kissling, . . . saying Obama . . . would better use the bully pulpit of the presidency to accomplish their aims and end the culture wars over abortion.
See related links:
Sen. Barack Obama's July 17, 2007 Speech to Planned Parenthood (transcript)
Senate version of FOCA
House version of FOCA
Editorial: The Hope of a Sophist: The Rhetoric of Barack Obama
Obama says Sermon on the Mount Supports Same-Sex Unions

RICO Lawsuit Filed Against ACORN

2008-10-16T14:08:00.002-05:00

ARRA News Service - Dan Spencer reports that in Ohio, a state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuit was against the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). The lawsuit alleges ACORN has engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity that amounts to organized crime. It seeks ACORN's dissolution as a legal entity, the revocation of any licenses in Ohio, and an injunction against fraudulent voter registration and other illegal activities.

According to the press release, Plaintiffs Jennifer Miller of Mason, Ohio and Kimberly Grant of Loveland, allege that ACORN's actions deprive them of the right to participate in an honest and effective elections process:

They allege fraudulent voter registrations submitted by ACORN dilute the votes of legally registered voters.

"The right to cast a vote that is not diluted by fraudulent votes is a fundamental individual right," Buckeye Institute President David Hansen said.

"ACORN appears to be recklessly disregarding Ohio laws and adding thousands of fraudulent voters to the state's roles in the process," Maurice Thompson, Director of the Buckeye Institute's 1851 Center for Constitutional Law said. "Such voter fraud erodes the value of legally cast votes," he added.

In the complaint, Thompson cites an accumulation of evidence showing numerous instances of admitted fraud by ACORN employees, as well as individuals solicited by ACORN.

"In light of its hiring, training and compensation practices, ACORN should have known its conduct would cause fraud," Thompson said. "It also should know that its conduct will cause fraud in the future."

In addition, the complaint cites conduct by ACORN in Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

TBlumer reports Obama’s name comes up at least three times in the complaint:

(Page 3) 18. Defendant is engaged in massive voter registration drives and political canvassing throughout the state of Ohio and the United States of America; some of this work is performed on behalf of current United States of America presidential candidate Barack Obama.
(Page 3) 19. ACORN’s political wing has endorsed Barack Obama for president, and during the primary season, the Obama camp paid Citizen Service Inc., $832,598 for various political services according to Federal Elections Commission filings. Citizen Services, Inc. and ACORN share the same board of directors.
(Page 9) 69. In Texas, where ACORN’s affiliate, Citizens Services Inc., has provided contract work on behalf of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, the Houston Chronicle reported on August 17, 2008 that “About 40 percent of the 27,000 registration cards gathered by ACORN from January through July have been rejected or placed in limbo pending the gathering of more information, according to the county” while “about 6,600 were filled out by people already registered, and many others contained insufficient information.”
A full copy of the complaint is available here.

Liberal News Media & Obama Supporters Promoting Racism

2008-10-14T01:16:00.002-05:00

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Why are the liberal media and Obama supporters promoting racism? If I said whites are voting only white, I would be using race to influence the election and could well be called a racist. The liberal news media and supporters of Obama’s campaign have repeatedly reported that black Americans will be voting for Barack Obama. They continue to say this because Barack Obama is black. This is classic racism!

In the United States, we have a problem of labeling of our fellow citizens. The government has aggravated this problem by creating reporting classifications. It is understandable that a person may seek out their genetic cultural ancestry / heritage. Barack Obama may have more right under our present classification system to call himself African American since his father was actually from Africa. But if born in the Unites States, what does this have to do with running for office? Calling someone African American is somewhat confusing in that a native born American descendant of someone from Morocco or South Africa could rightly be called African American even if white or black.

Years ago while stationed in Belgium, I attended an international church which had members from 22 countries (nations), 11 of which were African countries. One of my American military co-workers was a fellow member in the church. He said that several church members from the African countries had told him to stop calling himself an African American. They told him that he was not African and should feel blessed to be an American. What an eye opener and an opportunity for us to discuss at length the complex labeling system that we have in the United States. What was even more interesting is that these African brothers said if we were going to hyphenate our heritage, we should call ourselves US-Americans. None of the members from African countries called themselves African. Yes, they obviously knew that their countries were on the continent of Africa. Each of them identified themselves with their specific country and often with their local tribal or people group. Regardless of our countries of origin, we found a solid foundation upon which to build friendships and relationships.

Back to the subject of the biased liberal news media which appears to constantly promote racial bias for or against a candidate. Obviously, the media could “not” get away with saying all Iowans are voting for a specific candidate. However, they have no problem stating that almost all blacks are voting for Barack Obama. What they really are presumptuously saying is that blacks will be voting for Obama because he is black! Hogwash!

Some of the most ardent conservatives I know are black. I can assure you they will not be voting or supporting Barack Obama. Does the media believe that Thomas Sowell, Dr. Walter E. Williams, Ken Blackwell, Erik Rush, Larry Elder, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Michael Steele, Gen. Colin Powell, Star Parker, Alveda King, Michael L. Williams, Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, Alan Keyes, the black members of conservative think-tanks and conservative political groups, the elected black Republicans, and a multitude of black evangelical pastors and all the people they reach and influence regardless of skin pigmentation will be voting for Obama? To the liberal media, only their biases matter and they believe blacks should vote for a black. It makes me wonder where the liberal media acquired its Southern plantation mentality. By their actions and statements, the liberal elites appear to be people that would be fine measuring the shapes of people’s heads and claiming that only their criteria results in an acceptable outcome. I believe the world has seen this failed approach before.

The biased liberal media hopes that the voting public doesn’t notice that it should be character, past performance, beliefs and ideals that should be considered. The liberal media uses its position to "bully" people to vote the way that they the liberals wishes for them to vote. The liberal media is not reporting but is actively endorsing and promoting a candidate for the president of the Unites States. Why? Good Question! The programs of socialism being pushed include the redistribution of wealth, limiting free speech, controlling banking, business, employment, housing, medical, retirement, etc. All of these lead to a socialist “womb to tomb” control with no one having the individual right to be oneself and to control one’s own destiny. We all become enslaved to those controlling the socialist structure. Man’s free choice dies and with it the real hope of mankind.

Below are interesting posts written by fellow conservatives and recommended by a fellow conservative Frances Rice, Chair, National Black Republican Association:
Lewis, A Lazy Media, And Their Race Cards by Bob Parks
WSJ - Whitewash - The racist history the Democratic Party wants you to forget by Bruce Bartlett
WSJ - The Democrats' Missing History By Jeffery Lord
Democrats refuse to apologize to blacks By Frances Rice
Will Republicans Wimp Out On Race? By Clarence V. McKee

Legitimacy - America Threatened by Obama Acorn Relationship - #Acorn

2008-10-14T01:08:00.002-05:00

America is about to be ruled by an illegitimate government founded on fraud and outright criminality. Bill Wilson, Americans for Limited Government: All governments rise or fall on the degree to which the people find them legitimate. When the people no longer believe a government has gained power by legitimate means or that a government operates in an honest and legitimate manner, only force and intimidation maintains it. And as history has shown repeatedly, no amount of force or state-terror against the populous is ever enough to prevail. True, brute thuggish tactics can hold off the will of the people for a long time. It worked for over 70 years in Russia, but only 12 in Nazi Germany. It has been effective in Cuba for nearly 50 years, but fell quickly in Cambodia.

One of the true strengths of the United States has been the accepted process for the peaceful transfer of power from one group of people to another. This process, elections held at regular intervals, has conferred that most precious of all commodities on the United States Government: legitimacy. But in 2008, in a desperate drive for power, that most valuable of gifts from our Founding Fathers is being abused and discarded. Simply put, it is becoming more and more evident every day that the elections this year may not be legitimate, that the “winners” will not be able to claim they assumed office in a fair and open manner. In short, we could be about to be ruled by an illegitimate government founded on fraud and outright criminality. All across America reports are coming in of obvious voter fraud. . . . [ARRA News -- Full Story on Legitimacy]

Dinesh D'Souza - 2008 Defending the American Dream Summit - Video

2008-10-14T01:01:00.002-05:00

ARRA News Service - Dinesh D'Souza spoke at AFP 2008 Defending the American Dream Summit. An author and political science expert, D'Souza at age 26 was the senior policy advisor to President Reagan. The video has several vignettes. One of D'Souza's best is his attempt to explain to his mother, in India, about the American political system. He said, "there are two parties: the stupid party and the evil party. He is a proud member of the stupid party, but occasionally, (like with the bailout), we do things that are both stupid and evil - and we call that bipartisanship."

Click to play

Is The Death of Posse Comitatus at Hand?

2008-10-02T11:39:00.000-05:00

The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878 and has been an important law. Read an educated review by a military career veteran, Dr. Bill Smith, who addresses the recent official assignment of a U.S Army brigade to "the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or man made emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks." He covers several historical points and the potentials. His conclusion as to why "the year 2008 may become identified in history as the year that the doctrine of Posse Comitatus ceased to have authority" may surprise you. [Is doctrine of Posse Comitatus coming to an end? ]
---------------
William (Bill) Smith, Ph.D. is editor of the ARRA News Service and National Political Director of Let's Get This Right. He is a conservative political activists working for limited government, traditional family values, individual freedom and responsibility. He is a retired Air Force officer who served as Director of the $2 billion European F-16 co-production program. In his career, he also taught military political science and spent a 3 year tour with the U.S. Army. After retiring, he was a graduate professor and held varied administrative and faculty positions. He has authored professional journal articles on varied topics. He also blogs as Ozark Guru.

Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?

2008-10-02T09:12:00.001-05:00

ARRA News Service - H/T the Mouth Piece: This video is an informative look at the factors that are causing our current financial and economic crisis. It discusses policy changes 13 years ago that unleashed the sub-prime mortgage-backed securities market, which accelerated prices erratically, inviting speculation and loose lending practices which were both condoned and encouraged by existing regulation and carried out by risk-blind executives and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Obama - ACORN Root Causes of Mortgage Crisis?

2008-09-30T00:24:00.003-05:00

ARRA News Service - by Alan Gottlieb, AmeriPac: FBI Investigates U.S. Financial Crisis - Where Did $1 Trillion Go? - The high-risk subprime mortgage social engineering community service experiment by left-wing ACORN and Obama has created the largest financial crisis since The Great Depression. The full reach of the corruption and scandal may never be known but those who created it must not be rewarded. The architects, primarily left-wing Democrats, created laws, took donations, looked the other way and instead were too busy overse eing donations to their own presidential campaigns and robbing main street blind. Now these same left-wing Democrats blame everyone else and get up on their high horses and say, “we are here to save you” from the crises they created.

Yes, Mr. Obama knows a great deal about the mess. He is a central figure in the left-wing ACORN exploitation of financial institutions and pressuring them to make high risk loans. The very same left-wing ACORN was guilty of voter fraud in the last presidential election. Now these same Democrats want to do another high risk “community service,” social engineering experiment. They want to elect a high-risk, low experience, socialist one of the same community organizers that created the mess to be our next president. We cannot experiment with the office of president and learn as we go. Barack Obama is not qualified and has no history of success as a leader in government or business.

The FBI investigation - An FBI investigation is under way at Lehman Brothers and three other contributors to America’s financial crisis to determine whether they put pressure on ratings agencies to award top ratings to securities they issued. Concerns that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG or Lehman may have sought to encourage agencies to inflate their ratings — by offering higher fees or the promise of more work — form part of a broad inquiry by the bureau.

The agencies are widely regarded as having failed debt holders by attributing the top ratings to many securities that turned out to be extremely risky and have lost investors hundreds of billions of dollars. The FBI, which is also investigating whether any of the four institutions deliberately misled investors about the true health of their assets, is expected to demand that they “hold all papers and e-mails under lock and key” as it sifts through the evidence, a source said.

How did we get here? - FOLLOW THE MONEY AND CORRUPTION! A Lending Policy created by democrats for democrats run by democrats monitored by democrats enforced by community organizer democrats and profited from by democrats. Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster. ONE key pioneer of ACORN's subprime-loan shakedown racket was Madeline Talbott - an activist with extensive ties to Barack Obama. She was also in on the ground floor of the disastrous turn in Fannie Mae's mortgage policies.

Obama Trains ACORN Staff in Shakedown Tactics - It would be tough to find an "on the ground" community organizer more closely tied to the subprime-mortgage fiasco than Madeline Talbott. And no one has been more supportive of Madeline Talbott than Barack Obama. When Obama was just a budding community organizer in Chicago, Talbott was so impressed that she asked him to train her personal staff. He returned to Chicago in the early '90s, just as Talbott was starting her pressure campaign on local banks. In those years, he also conducted leadership-training seminars for ACORN's up-and-coming organizers. That is, Obama was training the army of ACORN organizers who participated in Madeline Talbott's drive against Chicago's banks.

Obama Funds ACORN - More than that, Obama was funding them. As he rose to a leadership role at Chicago's Woods Fund, he became the most powerful voice on the foundation's board for supporting ACORN and other community organizers. In 1995, the Woods Fund substantially expanded its funding of community organizers - and Obama chaired the committee that urged and managed the shift.

That committee's report on strategies for funding groups like ACORN features all the key names in Obama's organizer network. The report quotes Talbott more than any other figure; Sandra Maxwell, Talbott's ACORN ally in the bank battle, was also among the organizers consulted. More, the Obama-supervised Woods Fund report acknowledges the problem of getting donors and foundations to contribute to radical groups like ACORN - whose confrontational tactics often scare off even liberal donors and foundations.

Indeed, the report brags about pulling the wool over the public's eye. The Woods Fund's claim to be "nonideological," it says, has "enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and government 'establishments' without undue risk of being criticized for partisanship."

Obama Aware of Intimidation Tactics - The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN's Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding for her efforts.

And, as the leader of another charity, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama channeled more funding Talbott's way - ostensibly for education projects but surely supportive of ACORN's overall efforts. In return, Talbott proudly announced her support of Obama's first campaign for state Senate, saying, "We accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer." In short, to understand the roots of the subprime mortgage crisis, look to ACORN's Madeline Talbott. And to see how Talbott was able to work her mischief, look to Barack Obama.

Major "Earmark" in Democrat Bailout Agreement

2008-09-26T01:57:00.003-05:00

Update (9:58AM, Sept. 26th): While Sens. Harry Reid and Chris Dodd stand before the news this morning pontificating and mocking Republicans, especially Sen McCain, for the perceived delay in reaching agreement, they also continues to prevaricate. Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi initially asserted that they needed McCain to clinch a deal for Democrats and now they are like a pack rabid dogs blaming John McCain for the deal falling apart. In fact, the deal fell apart before McCain arrived.

A republican senate source has confirmed that the questioned provision reported in this post is being opposed by Senate Republicans which has upset Democrats. Republicans are not opposing the obvious issues identified by Reid. They are working to get rid of the questioned provision "if they can." Also, they have already gotten the Democrats to back down from providing "most" of the money ("future profits") to the groups mentioned in the article "to a much smaller percentage." Negotiations are likely to continue throughout the day. Obviously no one is happy - especially the majority of the American public.

Breaking News - Bill Smith, ARRA Editor. I received a copy of "Agreement in Principle" relative to the $700 billion "bailout" being proposed and supported by Senate Democrats. The one page agreement from the U.S. Senate Banking Committee details guidelines to be put in place relative to taxpayer protection, oversight and transparency, home ownership preservation and Funding Authority.

While on the surface the agreement looks generic and positive, However, the "devil is in the detail." There is one detail that Democrats are concerned that Republicans will not agree to in the bailout agreement. That is if the Republicans even see the item. It seems that this issue may be one reason that many Democrats have hounded Sen. John McCain and pushed for his speedy approval. Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-NV) has already identified that it is Sen. John McCain's approval, not Barack Obama approval, that is needed to secure the agreement of Senate Republicans. In fact, the questioned provision indirectly focus on some prior concern regarding Sen. Barack Obama involvement with various organizations. Maybe that is why Obama would prefer being at a debate in Mississippi than being in Washington D.C.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) cohorts are also hounding Sen. McCain to agree. They know that neither the House Republicans nor the House Blue Dog Democrats are going to sign on easily to an agreement extending $700 billion "bailout" if Sen. McCain disagrees. Pelosi does not have control of the fiscally conservative Blue Dogs who are not happy with committing $700 billion to the "bailout" effort.

In the "agreement in principle," there is the effect of a major "earmark" which commits money from future "profits" to be given to nonprofits organizations like ACORN, National Council of La Raza and potentially the National Urban League. This agreement clearly evidences that the Government expects to benefit in the future from the bailout when the values of property rises and mortgages or properties are then sold by the Federal government. The agreement --

"Directs a certain percentage of future profits to the Affordable Housing Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund to meet America's housing needs."

In the proposed bailout agreement, Sen. Christopher Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee and other Democrats desire to pre-direct that future funds (profits) not be returned to the taxpayers via the treasury but that they be used to underwrite potential questionable (maybe even illegal activities) of certain nonprofits which have had a hand in promoting and expanding access to "no money down" loans for minorities, illegal voter registrations and extensive lobbying activities.

Let’s examine the connection of the Affordable Housing Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund with the various nonprofit groups mentioned above. In July, 2008, a Wall Street Journal article addressed the previous housing bill signed into law:

Provide[d] a stream of billions of dollars for distressed homeowners and communities and the nonprofit groups that serve them. One of the biggest likely beneficiaries, despite Republican objections is Acorn, a housing advocacy group that also helps lead ambitious voter-registration efforts benefiting Democrats. Acorn -- made up of several legally distinct groups under that name -- has become an important player in the Democrats' effort to win the White House. Its voter mobilization arm is co-managing a $15.9 million campaign with the group Project Vote to register 1.2 million low-income Hispanics and African-Americans, who are among those most likely to vote Democratic. Technically nonpartisan, the effort is one of the largest such voter-registration drives on record.
The organization's main advocacy group lobbied hard for passage of the housing bill, which provides nearly $5 billion for affordable housing, financial counseling and mortgage restructuring for people and neighborhoods affected by the housing meltdown. A third Acorn arm, its housing corporation, does a large share of that work on the ground. Acorn's multiple roles show how two fronts of activism -- housing for the poor and voter mobilization -- have converged closely in this election year. The fortunes of both parties will hinge in part on their plans for addressing the fall of the nation's housing market and the painful economic slowdown. . . .
Partly because of the role of Acorn and other housing advocacy groups, the White House and its allies in Congress resisted Democrats' plans to include money for a new affordable-housing trust fund and $4 billion in grants to restore housing in devastated neighborhoods. In the end, the money stayed in the bill; the White House saw little choice. What most riles Republicans about the bill is the symbiotic relationship between the Democratic Party and the housing advocacy groups, of which Acorn is among the biggest. Groups such as the National Council of La Raza and the National Urban League also lobby to secure government-funded services for their members and seek to move them to the voting booth. Acorn has been singled out for criticism because of its reach, its endorsements of Democrats, and past flaws in its bookkeeping and voter-registration efforts that its detractors in Congress have seized upon. . . .
Sen. Obama is especially reliant on registration drives, such as Acorn's with Project Vote, to help him win the White House. The Illinois Democrat draws his strongest support from blacks, Hispanics and young people, groups that are among the least likely to be registered. After law school, Sen. Obama was the director of Project Vote in Chicago. . . .
Democrats on Capitol Hill have helped to steer millions of dollars in housing and other grants from the federal government toward Acorn and groups like it. The groups must qualify and compete for the money, which is typically doled out from the federal government to states and municipalities. The housing package includes a new, permanent source of affordable-housing money that congressional Democrats and grassroots groups have sought for years. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund will be funded by a tax on mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage titans.

That tax eventually will channel upwards of $600 million annually in grants for developing and restoring housing, mostly as low-income rentals, available to Acorn and other groups. Democrats on Capitol Hill and housing groups say the housing-assistance money is vital to helping Americans hit hardest by what some call the largest drop in home values since the Great Depression. But they acknowledge the perception of political conflict in giving federal funds to an organization that does political work. "We are guarding against it," said Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank in an interview. He secured the Affordable Housing Trust from his seat as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. . . .

Acorn describes itself as the nation's largest grassroots community organization, with more than 400,000 families organized into 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities. Over four decades, Acorn has turned its broad membership into a powerful lobbying tool. Its representatives are well-known in the marble halls of the Capitol, and press local, state and federal governments . . .

ACORN is the agency where Sen. Barack Obama worked as a trainer for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform (ACORN), whose affiliate, Project Vote, is known for voter fraud. It is this same organization from which a large part of the mortgage mess has grown. After Harvard Law School, Obama provided legal representation for ACORN. Obama sat on the boards of the philanthropic Woods Foundation and the Joyce Foundation which both funneled millions of dollars to ACORN.

In 2006, the Wall Street Journal addressed Acorn Indictments. In a recent article, additional complaints, indictments and arrests and conviction of ACORN members for voter fraud have been detailed for Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington State, and Wisconsin. Democrats on Capitol Hill have steered billions of the taxpayer monies to risky ventures and to nonprofits organizations like ACORN, National Council of La Raza through the government’s Affordable Housing Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund. As a result groups like ACORN have developed powerful lobby groups to secure tax money for their organizations. Now the proposed "agreement in principle" for the $700 Billion "bailout" seeks to continue the protection of this process. In another article by James H. Walsh, a former federal prosecutor, it was noted that:

ACORN Housing Corporation (AHC) was instrumental in its passage of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which has plagued the mortgage markets since 1977. The U.S. Congress through the CRA compelled banks and lending institutions to make loans to “communities of color” disregarding sound economic and risk guidelines. CRA encouraged the relaxing of “outdated” risk-management protocols and underwriting obligations by lending institutions. In the name of ending discrimination, no longer were “communities of color” required to provide verification of income, employment, credit history, ability to pay homeowner bills, or down payment. In response, many banks and mortgage groups bundled trillions of dollars of “subprime” loans and sold them to investors here and abroad. It is these bundled Community Reinvestment Act mortgages, doomed to fail, that are today causing financial strain in U.S. and global financial markets.

In short, a Democrat Congress and President demanded that banks change the rules of good banking and open the Pandora’s Box of mortgage defaults and foreclosures now coming to a head. This home-parity concept of the radical left was mobilized by ACORN resulting in a purchase of a property without any credit, income, employment, and a zero down payment.

In 2003, Fannie Mae home-parity funding in Chicago reached $600 billion. When Franklin Raines, former chair and CEO of Fannie Mae, stepped down in 2004 but managed to take with him a multimillion-dollar parachute and a monthly pension of $114, 393 for life, and should he die, for his wife’s lifetime. Until recently, Raines was an advisor to Obama.

Open Secrets reveals the investment made by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in Democrats and details the Top 25 Democrat Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributions in 1989-2008. The top three in order were Senators Christopher Dodd, John Kerry and Barack Obama.

When government tries to fix social issues through the use of the taxpayers’ money, there are consequences. Now the American taxpayers are being called upon again to underwrite the problems exacerbated by the prior actions of former and the current Congress and past administrations. It is hoped that Senators and Representatives will avoid this massive "earmark." All "future profits" from the resolution and disposition of the alleged current bad mortgages ("bad paper"), should accrue to the American taxpayers as a whole and be returned to the Treasury. Any determination as to the use of "future profits" should be determined by those elected and representing the people at that future point in time. No agreements should include an obligation on the potential "future profits." No agreements should support questionable programs that support organizations that contributed to the failures of mortgages or to the bad lending practices promoted by prior Congresses and administrations.

Hillary Clinton Democrat Fundraiser Endorses John McCain

2008-09-20T12:57:00.001-05:00

ARRA News Service: Former Clinton supporter Lynn Forester de Rothschild explains her switch to McCain and why she calls Obama "elitist." Rothschild a D.N.C. Member and Hillary Clinton top fundraiser has endorsed and supports John McCain and Sarah Palin for President and Vice-President, and NOT Barack Obama, she speaks with CNN and Fox News Greta Van Susteren about John McCain and Sarah Palin being Mavericks and holds that Obama and the Democratic Party has gone too far to the left, she also spoke of the Dangers of a Barack Obama presidency with Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker of the house failing even now to do her job and the checks and balances in our Government.

CNN Reports:

Fox News Reports:

John McCain Speaks to America

2008-09-04T23:55:00.000-05:00

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor, Reporting at the RNC 2008: Tonight, John McCain accepted then nomination of the Republican Party the presidency of the United States. McCain reintroduced himself to his fellow Americans. Long known as the courageous POW who refused early release, a maverick in the Senate, and a devoted reformer, tonight Americans saw John McCain in yet another new light: as our nominee for president. He shared his story of courage, his plans to fix Washington, and his desire to strengthen our security. It is this record, this vision, this experience and ability that will compel millions of Americans to support John McCain and Sarah Palin this November. Tomorrow, John McCain and Sarah Palin will begin their journey together, meeting with voters and talking about their plans to make our nation more prosperous and more secure.

The Full Text of the Remarks by U.S. Senator John McCain: (Thursday, September 4, 2008 is available at the ARRA News Service - Click Now.

Sarah Palin - She Can Handle It!

2008-09-04T19:53:00.000-05:00

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor, Reporting at the RNC 2008: All the republicans at the Republican national Convention were ecstatic after Sarah Palin's speech. However, I wanted to get a feel for opinions of others. Kathy Morrison, an Independent from New Hampshire, agreed to answer my questions:

Q: Kathy, tell me a little about yourself.
A: I am a female, 32, single and live in New Hampshire. I am an Independent. I am employed as a techy and webmaster for a company.
Q: Kathy, you have press credentials, what brought you to this convention?
A: I have a brother who moved to the St. Paul area and I wanted to visit him, my sister-in-law and their children. I am also a blogger and applied for press credentials as an Independent. And the RNC granted them. So, I took vacation and paid my way here. I have meet bloggers of all types: republicans, libertarians, democrats, independents and some from other countries.
Q: Kathy, what was your general impression of tonight?
A: The test for Governor Palin was to see if she could perform on the big stage. Could she handle the pressure? Could she handle the criticism? Oh yeah! She can handle it. She just crushed her critics, and showed the media for what they are, glorified gossip hounds. While the media sulks, lets look at what was so amazing about this speech. She talked details, no sweeping generalities, but hard facts on current issues. She gave her background and explained how her experience as Governor and as mayor has prepared her for being VP. She addressed her family, and laid to rest the swirl of nasty remarks made over the weekend. She championed small town America, and echoed the theme of service and country. Finally, she destroyed the opposition. From nailing Harry Reed, to shooting down the Obama campaign's message of hope and change as an empty rhetoric that lacked action, to deflating the Obama campaign's attacks on her experience by flipping those remarks onto Obama himself. This speech had it all and Governor Palin knocked it out of the park.
Q: Kathy, being an independent, can you vote for the Republican ticket?
A: Sen. john McCain made several trips to New Hampshire during the primary and I attended many of his town hall meetings. I was impressed with what I heard. Tonight, after hearing Sarah Palin, I will be voting for the McCain - Palin ticket. In fact, I a guess I am now "in the tank" and will work for their election.

Sarah Palin - A Pit Bull with Lipstick

2008-09-04T10:15:00.000-05:00

Check this out!

Democrats Hidding Behind Bush

2008-08-26T00:47:00.002-05:00

Bill Smith, Editor: Congressional Democrat leaders attending the DNC 2008 in Denver are attempting to transfer their failures to President Bush in an effort to distract voters by claiming their candidate is running against the Bush/McCain or McCain/Bush ticket. America is not stupid. Bush is retiring to Texas. And, Sen. John McCain as a maverick has never been part of the Bush team. It is true that Bush and McCain have conservative principles on which they agree. However, McCain as a maverick never placed party line first and often reached across the Senate isle to work with Democrats on critical issues. McCain has a leading democrat backing him and even the current identified Democratic vice president said positive things about McCain's qualifications to be president. Allegiances are shifting everywhere but with the Democratic leadership in Congress

While the candidates carry out their campaigns as they determine best, the Congressional Democrat leadership hides their failures behind George Bush. They are pursing a "con" job on the voters. They are working hard to sell their head-in-the-sand approach to energy policy to the American people. This may prove to be difficult with the divisions in their party who are deciding whether to continue following the inept Democrat leadership's refusal to produce more American energy. Some are tired of their leaders' ineptness and are considering joining with Republicans and sensible Democrats in support for policies like opening more areas to offshore drilling. ABC News reports that Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) is concerned that Democrats’ lack of action on a comprehensive energy solution could cost them politically. Abercrombie has joined with his GOP colleague Rep. John Peterson of Pennsylvania to urge a vote on an offshore drilling proposal.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is paying attention. Pelosi has not been bothered by these situations and has even advocated for Democrats with competitive races to lie and side with the Republicans because she can still stall and control things back in Congress. Though she’s been saying that drilling could be part of an energy package, she refuses to commit to a specific vote. Reuters reports, “She criticized President George W. Bush and other Republicans for presenting offshore drilling as an answer to the recent rise in U.S. gasoline prices, saying expanded drilling would not affect prices for a decade and then only by a small degree. ‘I don’t think that's a good alternative. But if they can prove that it is, and they want to pay royalties to the taxpayer ... then we have something to talk about’. . .”

Non-leader Pelosi would rather deal in distractions than grasp the laws of supply and demand. She says that drilling is not in her DNA. She would do well to read today’s New York Times, which discusses the recent rapid increase in American natural gas production. The Times writes, “Domestic natural gas prices have already plunged 42 percent since early July, an even faster drop in price than oil or most other commodities, in part because the rapid supply growth has begun to influence the market. Price spikes remain possible, of course, but throughout the industry the shale discoveries are causing a shift in thinking about the long-term outlook.”

Although doubtful, Democrats who understand how supply and demand work will be able to use their time in Denver to convince Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to that a “find more and use less” approach to energy is the best way to lower gas prices and provide more energy to America. Republicans have put forward a number of serious plans to do just that. It begs the question, when will the wiser more reasoned Democrats stop being lead by people who are disgracing their positions and hurting the American people? Also, noticeable is that five Democrat senators put themselves forward as qualified to be President of the United States and yet, not one of them would lead the effort to replace an inept Harry Reid. Pelosi and Reid, democrat agents of "no" change!

It’s “above my pay grade"

2008-08-21T00:21:00.002-05:00

ARRA News Service: An interesting read appeared in the Boston Herald by Michael Graham:

"Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade.” - Sen. Barack Obama, on “When does a baby get human rights?”

In 1948, they had Harry Truman and “The buck stops here!” In 2008, they’ve got Barack Obama and it’s “above my pay grade.” This is definitely not your grandfather’s Democratic Party. Certainly not mine . . . .

Watching Obama with the Rev. Rick Warren this past weekend, answering questions - or, more accurately, not answering - about his most basic beliefs was simply embarrassing. Obama supports partial-birth abortion and voted against the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act.” When he got the invitation to an evangelical forum hosted by a pro-life pastor, he had to know that issues regarding life and the law were going to come up. And his prepared answer to the most fundamental question about public policy and abortion (“is the fetus a human being?”) is that it’s “above my pay grade?”

There are certain sentences that should never appear on the lips of the Leader of the Free World. “That Vladimir Putin, what a great guy!” is one of them. “I did not have sex with that woman” is another. But on the very top of the list of statements about our nation’s laws that should never be spoken by a guy whose job it is to sit next to the Big, Red Button is “That’s above my pay grade.” . . .

Leaders don’t pass tough questions to the next “pay grade.” They don’t need five minutes to answer yes-or-no questions about the surge or Russia’s invasion of a democratic neighbor.

Politicians flip-flop on taxes and FISA and the Second Amendment to meet the political needs of the moment. They try to explain away the votes they’ve already cast, like Obama’s extreme pro-abortion voting record. Or they courageously cast 130 non-votes of “present” in the Illinois legislature and pass the buck that way.

That’s not leadership, that’s politics. And Barack Obama is 100 percent pure politician. He is certainly no Harry Truman. . . . [‘Pay grade’ unartful dodge]

John McCain Gains Strength in Polls

2008-08-21T00:15:00.002-05:00

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: A Zogby poll released today depicts John McCain leading Barack Obama among likely voters by 46 to 41% which removes the prior month's seven-point advantage for Obama. Also, a Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll that gave Mr Obama a 12-point lead in June found that the McCain and Obama were statistically tied. RealClearPolitics average of polls has McCain trailing by less than 2% and in today's electoral college match up with no toss-up states has McCain winning the electoral votes for the first time (see image)

American voters will soon be focusing on the DNC 2008 in Denver and Obama's selection of his vice presidential running mate. McCain is expected to select his vice presidential running mate immediately after the DNC and American voters will then shift their focus to the RNC 2008 in St Paul. Therefore, we can expect the polls to flex a lot in the coming days. However, the current polling results may evidence that Americans have taken notice of Obama's significance lack of experience which calls into question his ability to address national and global issues. They may be admitting that novelty is not necessarily a better choice over proven experience.

Voters have noted McCain's ability to address critical issues and to take clear positions while having a willingness to adapt over time to changes in positions due to changing national or global needs. Most likely voters are sharing with pollsters that McCain would be the better choice for president of the United States for the next four years. Obviously, the candidates' choices of their vice presidential running mates will be critically evaluated by voters. But, vice presidents are NOT presidents but presidents in waiting. And, America has proven in the past its willingness to select someone other that a former vice president or even former president to be their next president of the United States.

Many Americans, both Democrats and Republicans, did not like former president "give 'em hell" Harry Truman. However, they knew that Truman understood that he was responsible for the leadership of America and for making difficult decisions unthinkable to them. As Truman said, the "Buck Stops Here." He understood his leadership responsibility. Whereas, the recent words by Sen. Obama that some issues are "above his pay grade" evidences that he is not ready to lead with competence and convictions and may be easily swayed by politics and others when America needs a man of conviction. Hopefully, American is awakening from a period of game show electioneering picking the next "American Idol" to electing the best person to lead and protect America as the President of the Unites States.

Seven Positive Signs for McCain

2008-08-14T23:02:00.002-05:00

What's really going on in the presidential election . . .Dr. Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Glenn Thrush at the Politico has an interesting read about "7 Worrisome Signs for Obama." Since these are making the rounds today in the media, Below is very brief summary with additional notes by Stephen Maloney and myself:

" . . . His [Obama's] supporters are now suffering a pre-Denver panic attack, watching as John McCain draws incrementally closer in state and national polls -- with Rasmussen's most recent daily tracker showing a statistical dead heat."

The seven worrisome signs for Obama:
1. The role Obama's race will play in voters' decisions; "How much does his race factor into tightening contests in Missouri, Wisconsin, Florida, Minnesota and Ohio? Nobody knows — and that’s the problem." (Note: In the 2006 Senate race, Republican George Allen, who waged a terrible campaign, lost by only 9,000 vote to a "moderate" Democrat with a military background. Race is not an issue for a qualified candidate. But Obama's own words of allegiances to his African family, questionable issues concerning his prior Muslim education, and anti-white racist comments by Obama's associates and pastors may affect him with many voters. The issue isn't race but the "cling-ons" of numerous negative factors. America is ready for president of any race and for female president. However, America may not be ready for a person of color forced upon them when that person is definitely not qualified except for his age. Americans, Democrats and Republicans, are still suffering from after-shock that a female with more qualifications was defeated by Obama primarily because of her last name.)

2. "Obama’s strength in Virginia may be over hyped"; Obama staffers look at the state as a 50-50 proposition, and his odds of winning may be less than that. [If Obama doesn't do very well in the DC suburbs, he will lose VA.)

3. "Michigan's in play for McCain"; the Democrats probably can't win without Michigan. There, "McCain has quietly crept up over the past month and could vault ahead if he anoints ex-Gov. Mitt Romney as his running mate." (Note: Michiganders would have much preferred Hillary Clinton as the candidate.)

4. Difficult times can engender fear among voters, and that could benefit McCain, who is more of a known quantity than Obama. (Note: Economics may not be McCain's strongest suit, but he has proven that he has an understanding of the concept. He knows high gas prices hurt the American people and our economy. But it also doesn't look like an Obama strength.)

5. McCain doesn't have to face the "Ross Perot factor" that helped Bill Clinton greatly in bringing down George H. W. Bush in 1992; Former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, staging an indie bid from McCain’s right, has little cash and doesn’t seem to be a factor in competitive states. (Note: However, the maverick conservative or libertarian who places his or her own interest above those of the country, may indeed sacrifice their vote in an effort to punish the other conservatives and Republicans for not agreeing 100% with their positions. They may be be a spoiler that advances socialism under Obama. These folks will not win in the long run and unlike Ross Perot helping to elect Bill Clinton with A Republican congress, those supporting Barr are willing to send Obama to the White House with a the Democrats in full control of Congress. Even a major libertarian Republican like Rep. Ron Paul has recognized this danger and has tried to rechannel the efforts of his followers to more reasonable avenues of influence for the future.)

6. Obama is NOT a white Southerner with border-state strength, the only kind of a Democrat who has won the White House in the last 65 years (LBJ, Carter, and Clinton);

7. "Americans may WANT divided government"; as one Democratic strategist puts it, ". . . nobody wants a pair of Pelosis [Nancy and Barack] running things." (Note: not to leave out Reid as part of the socialist liberal trio: Reid, Pelosi & Obama. In addition with "No Will To Drill" America will faced with higher prices for not only gas but for the very basics: food, home/rent, utilities, etc. Transportation costs are going no where but up if this 'trio is in office" together.)

Former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey puts it this way: People "want change, but I'm not sure that the Democratic agenda has the support of a majority of Americans." (Note: Many, including democrats, know that youth has never proven to be a prediction of success and McCain, a maverick in his own party, has reached across party lines his experienced career when doing so benefited the American people. Having served America most of his life, McCain not Obama should be the run away candidate. But, left leaning biased media continues to promote a younger glamor candidate with no almost no experience candidate over the candidate who is better prepared and qualified to confront the global military and economic dangers already on the horizon for the United States.) . . . [ 7 Worrisome Signs for Obama]

Illegal Aliens Are Voting in American

2008-08-12T23:45:00.002-05:00

ARRA News Service: Hans A. von Spakovsky: In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3% of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens. While that may not seem like many, just 3% of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presidential vote margin in Florida in 2000. Indeed, the Census Bureau estimates that there are over a million illegal aliens in Florida, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has prosecuted more non-citizen voting cases in Florida than in any other state.

Florida is not unique. Thousands of non-citizens are registered to vote in some states, and tens if not hundreds of thousands in total may be present on the voter rolls nationwide. These numbers are significant: Local elections are often decided by only a handful of votes, and even national elections have likely been within the margin of the number of non-citizens illegally registered to vote. Yet there is no reliable method to determine the number of non-citizens registered or actually voting because most laws to ensure that only citizens vote are ignored, are inadequate, or are systematically undermined by government officials. Those who ignore the implications of non-citizen registration and voting either are willfully blind to the problem or may actually favor this form of illegal voting.

Americans may disagree on many areas of immigration policy, but not on the basic principle that only citizens—and not non-citizens, whether legally present or not—should be able to vote in elections. . . . [Full Report: Illegal Immigrants Are Voting in American Elections]
Hans A. von Spakovsky served as a member of the Federal Election Commission for two years. Before that, he was Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he specialized in voting and election issues. . . . This report was produced for The Heritage Foundation.

Fight or Die Republicans

2008-08-12T23:33:00.002-05:00

Michael Reagan, Human Events: Republicans have their backs against the wall, facing a bloodbath on Election Day that will leave the party in shambles and the nation in the hands of the worst conglomeration of demagogues, scoundrels and loony leftists ever put together in our nation's history.

When you're fighting for your life, you have two choices: whimper about your plight while the other side cuts you to pieces, or fight as if your life depends on it, which of course it does . . . Republicans can unite to fight and win. Or they can do what they seem to do best these days, cringe and surrender. ...[Fight or Die Republicans]
Also all Republicans should visit and join Let's Get this Right (LGTR)!

GOP Senators Join Gang & Fail the Team & U.S.

2008-08-12T23:28:00.002-05:00

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: The following editorial comments are in reaction to the actions this week by the five Republicans in the “Gang of 10.” Most of us have been to varied team sporting events: e.g., Soccer, Football, Basketball, Baseball and Hockey. For the team to win, the members of the team must all remain focused on the goal of winning. During the game, they don't get sidetracked patting opponents on the back and running out on the field with a couple of their team buddies to meet members of the other team, or declaring that they represent their whole and have negotiated the end of game results - so the game is over. We would rightly call these players a "gang; thugs." Obviously, they would at a least be benched or at best, kicked off the team. Razorback fans (other readers substitute your favorite team) go to see their Hogs play - win or lose. They keep coming to see their team play in hopes of defeating the other team. They want to win and they wouldn't like it if a few team members sold out the rest of the team. They understand that the Hogs may lose but they sure don't want the game played with without a full team.

Consider then our form of government; we are a Republic. We, the people, elect our Senators to represent our State and elect our Congressional Representative to represent our individual Congressional District. We expect these men and women to go to Washington D.C. to represent us and not to try to compromise and represent the people of other States or districts. Retuning to the sports analogy, across the country we have in effect elected our all star players to go to Washington to compete both for us - their constituents - and to part of their political "All Star" team. For example, in Arkansas, we know that our Senators, both Democrats, are also playing for the Democrat "All Star" team under the incompetent team coach -- Harry Reid. Others, like Lieberman , an "independent democrat,” play for the Democrat team. Others like Sens. Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson are supposed to be playing for the Republican "All Star" team. Unfortunately, while on the Republican Team, they have decided to break out on their own and negotiate with members of Reid’s team.

Most of us dislike small groups of people who meet privately to make agreements, and decisions that affect us. We call such groups "clicks" when being nice and other names when not feeling so nice. The press has rightly labeled these breakaway elected officials as “gangs.” We do not deny them their right to associate, to talk, to caucus, or to debate. We may not like their continued personally associations but heck we have no say if the go to church, go fishing, visit their local D.C. "watering hole,” or even foot tap" together. But we do mind when they are on the playing field and then they opt out of their teams and join together in a "Gang of 10" to speak for the rest of the elected officials and the members or your political party. This arrogance is intolerable as they are trampling on our Republic and over calling or silencing the voices of our other elected official.

And for those five Senators who are Republicans, how dare you compromise an important bargaining position on which we are supported by a majority of the American people. While the five democrats on the “Gang of 10” are clearly representing their party’s agenda and getting republicans to compromise and to “shut –up,” such is not the situation for the five republicans. The five republicans have “fumbled the ball” without even having their full team present. They have ignored one of the “most exciting and motivating” issues of the day on which Republicans are taking a stand. They have abandoned their team, ignored the coach and compromised a fundamental issue on which Republicans are taking a stand. How can they expect their team members to trust or work with them in the future? American voters do not forget and “Elephant” voters have long memories and have been know to turn out RINOs. Losing to the other team in a hard fought game is understood. Having a few players throw the game is unconscionable. While winning covers a multitude of issues, failure to support the team is unforgivable. Ask any die hard Razorback fan. We love our team and despise anyone who sellouts the team or tramples on the Razorback name. The same is true for voters be they democrat or republican. And currently, the actions referenced in the Wall Street Journal editorial are unacceptable to Republicans.

Kimberley Strassel, Wall Street Journal: It's taken time, but Sen. McCain and his party have finally found -- in energy -- an issue that's working for them. Riding voter discontent over high gas prices, the GOP has made antidrilling Democrats this summer's headlines. Their enthusiasm has given conservative candidates a boost in tough races. And Mr. McCain has pressured Barack Obama into an energy debate, where the Democrat has struggled to explain shifting and confused policy proposals.

Still, it was probably too much to assume every Republican would work out that their side was winning this issue. And so, last Friday, in stumbled Sens. Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson -- alongside five Senate Democrats. This "Gang of 10" announced a "sweeping" and "bipartisan" energy plan to break Washington's energy "stalemate." What they did was throw every vulnerable Democrat, and Mr. Obama, a life preserver.

That's because the plan is a Democratic giveaway. New production on offshore federal lands is left to state legislatures, and then in only four coastal states. The regulatory hurdles are huge. And the bill bars drilling within 50 miles of the coast -- putting off limits some of the most productive areas. Alaska's oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is still a no-go.

The highlight is instead $84 billion in tax credits, subsidies and federal handouts for alternative fuels and renewables. The Gang of 10 intends to pay for all this in part by raising taxes on . . . oil companies! The Sierra Club couldn't have penned it better. And so the Republican Five has potentially given antidrilling Democrats the political cover they need to neutralize energy through November.

Sen. Obama was thrilled. . . . Equally gleeful was Louisiana's Mary Landrieu, the Senate's most vulnerable Democrat. She had been sweating the energy debate, especially after her vote against more oil-shale production -- a position her Republican opponent, John Kennedy, had used against her to great effect. Yet there she was, chummily standing with the Gang of 10 and boasting that she is working with "five Republicans" to "lower prices at the pump by increasing offshore drilling here at home."

Mr. McCain, who had been commanding the energy debate, was left to explain why he, of all people, wasn't more enthusiastic about a "bipartisan" effort on energy, especially one that includes "drilling." His camp was forced to take refuge in taxes, explaining that their boss couldn't sign up for a bill that included more. If this is what Mr. McCain's good friend Lindsey Graham considers "helping," somebody might want to ask him to stop.

And pity poor Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has been working overtime to stanch GOP losses this fall and head off a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate. His dogged efforts to highlight Democratic opposition to drilling has kept energy in the news and laid the groundwork for GOP candidates to use the issue to their advantage.

In the Colorado Senate race, Democrats had christened former GOP Rep. Bob Schaffer "Big Oil Bob" -- hoping to smear his oil industry career. "Big Oil Bob" has instead embraced his pro-drilling positions and is pummeling opponent Mark Udall for his antidrilling stance. In recent weeks, Mr. Schaffer has erased Mr. Udall's lead. Polls show Republican Sens. Norm Coleman (Minnesota) and John Sununu (New Hampshire) both climbing in the polls on the back of strong energy arguments. . . .

The "bipartisan" Republican senators have undercut these efforts, and boosted Ms. Landrieu. They've even put a smile on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's face. He'd been struggling to tamp down the energy debate through November, where he hopes to increase his majority and permanently shelve drilling. He's now counting on the Gang to fruitlessly continue "negotiations" straight through the Senate's short September session and solve his problem for him. Not one of the five Republicans in the Gang is facing a tough election this year. That's the sort of security that leads to bad decisions. And theirs is the sort of thinking that could leave Republicans in a permanent minority.

230,000 Reasons Lieberman Is Not Acceptable to the GOP as VP

2008-08-09T01:51:00.001-05:00

While Sen. Lieberman (D disguised as ID) prides himself as a maverick and is supporting Sen. John McCain (R) for President, Lieberman not only caucuses with the Democrats, he also gives them money. He recently made a second donation to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) in what some see as a effort to assure of keeping his position as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee intact, regardless of the outcome in November. In addition, Lieberman has been giving money through his Responsibility/Opportunity/Community PAC to various re-election campaigns for Democrat Senators.

Glenn Thrush at The Crypt reports:

After forking over $100,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee last year, the Connecticut Democrat-turned-Independent has written a second $100,000 check to DSCC chairman Chuck Schumer in recent days, according to a people familiar with the situation. “Basically, he doesn’t want everybody to hate him,” one Lieberman-friendly Democrat said. “Plus he wants to keep his committee.”

Lieberman caucuses – awkwardly — with Democrats at their weekly meetings but is on the outs with many in his longtime party . . . More than a few have talked about stripping him of his committee post after November.

Thus Lieberman’s schmear campaign. Lieberman’s Responsibility / Opportunity / Community PAC, has given the DSCC $30,000 since last year – in addition to doling out smaller donations to the New Mexico Democratic party and the re-election campaigns of Democratic centrists Max Baucus, Mary Landrieu and Mark Pryor.

Did you see the 230,000 Reasons? Money Talks: Lieberman in two years gave the DSCC $100,000 + $100,000 + $30,000 to elect or keep Democrats in power.

Republicans Still Rock the House - Washington D. C. - Aug 8, 2008

2008-08-09T01:03:00.002-05:00

ARRA News Service - In the House, the Republican protest over Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s refusal to allow a vote on drilling enters its second week today. The message is clearly having an impact, as Politico reports that “MoveOn.org announced Thursday it was launching radio ads targeting Republicans for organizing the protest.” MoveOn is apparently desperate to blunt the momentum for more drilling; a new Rasmussen poll that shows 57% of Democrats and 61% of independent voters see finding new energy sources as a priority. Rasmussen Reports also notes: “With energy issues taking center stage in the presidential campaign, 81% of Americans see development of new energy sources as an urgent priority. Only 9% disagree.”

Call Congress Back Into Session

2008-08-05T16:48:00.001-05:00

Read --> Call Congress Back -- Join US!

Obama Rejects Townhall Lincoln-Douglas Debates

2008-08-04T00:31:00.001-05:00

ARRA News Service - Barack Obama continues to show that he want to be not only the "one" but the "only one." He feels more comfortable with staged debates than rubbing shoulders with voters in a series of Lincoln-Douglas townhall debates with John McCain. On Saturday, Barack Obama backed away from rival John McCain's challenge for a series of Lincoln-Douglas townhall debates. While Obama said he would welcome a series of townhall meetings with McCain, now that he, and not Mrs. Clinton, is the Democrat's presumptive candidate, he has flip-flopped his way out of his previous statement.

Obama had time to fly to Europe and to the Middle East to create false media image of his competency in meeting with heads of states. Did the first term Senator consider if his intrusion was proper protocol? He imposed himself on the leaders of other countries. Obviously, European or Middle East leaders were not willing to refuse meeting with a person who "might" be the next president of the United States. He does as he wishes in the hopes of impressing voters back in the U.S. Then he speaks at a rally in Germany to an alleged 200,000 Germans after two rock groups had played. He announces his presumptive status to be president of the World and skips visiting with wounded U.S. military in Germany.

Obama could do campaign stunts with leaders of the other countries who didn't even wish to see him, he could take time extolling a one world utopia at a German rally, and then does what no other U.S. Senator would do - he skips visiting with wounded troops. Fortunately, Europeans don't vote for America's president. Americans vote and it appears that the last persons Obama want to confront are the American voters in town hall meetings. Instead, Obama prefers the controlled debate formats before cameras that are structured to afford him the protection of a biased media.

Obama agreed to only participate in the standard three debates in the fall proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates. In a letter to the commission, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said the short period between the last political convention and the first proposed debate made it likely that the commission-sponsored debates would be the only ones in the fall. "We've committed to the three debates on the table," campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in an interview. "It's likely they will be the three appearances by the candidates this fall." The first debate is set for Sept. 26 in Oxford, Miss., three weeks after the Republican National Convention concludes on Sept. 4. The other presidential debates are set for Oct. 7 and Oct. 15 and the vice presidential debate for Oct. 2.

Executive Summary - Presidential Candidates

2008-08-04T00:23:00.002-05:00

ARRA News Service - I know that some of you don't like to read long, drawn-out missives...
so here's the Executive Summary:

Candidate	Congress	Military
John McCain	26 Years	22 Years
Barack Obama	143 Days	-0- Years

Do You Know Obama's & McCain's Positions on Abortion?

2008-08-04T00:12:00.002-05:00

National Right to Life PAC: Polls show that only 10% of Americans know or believe that Barack Obama supports abortion for any reason, essentially at any time during pregnancy. With Supreme Court Justices and a potential "Freedom of Choice Act," which would make partial birth abortion legal again and require taxpayer funding of abortion on demand, at stake this fall, it is crucial that America knows the truth about the candidates’ positions on abortion.

To help America know its candidates, the National Right to Life PAC has launched two new websites for this fall's election. StopObamaInfo.org and ProlifeMcCain.org provide clear statements on the candidates’ records on life issues. They provide voting records, analysis of the candidates’ positions and statements, and access to all of the NRL PAC's resources. Available on the site are candidate comparisons and factsheets to download and distribute, video montages of the candidates to view, and information on this fall's grassroots movement. You can also sign a petition to Barack Obama entitled, "America Does Not Agree with You, Senator Obama," use interactive forms to share info with your friends and family, and post information to your facebook page.

Please visit StopObamaInfo.org and ProlifeMcCain.org to arm yourself for this fall. Join the StopObamaInfo and ProlifeMcCain facebook group and promote the sites and information as much as you can. It is crucial that America learns the positions of its presidential candidates. Help the unborn by learning the facts, sharing them with your family and friends, and joining the grassroots movement for life.

The Philosophy Behind the Democracy

2008-08-04T00:02:00.001-05:00

Dr. Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: I have obviously missed the boat in sharing certain ideals and beliefs with our readers. Although my final degree is in philosophy, I have not taken time to set forth in simple clear vignettes the philosophical beliefs or thoughts of great minds upon which our government was founded. Today, I begin to make amends but not in my words but in a summary of concepts by former great philosophers which have been set forth clearly by another - Publius. At Write Idea. Publius details The Philosophy Behind the Democracy we Know Today:

The American tradition is rich and vibrant. This is a short examination of the beliefs of some of the more popular philosophers.

Aristotle’s Three Forms of Government
The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC) stated that "The true forms of government…are those in which the one, or the few, or the many govern, with a view to the common interest:

A Monarchy. That is, a government a government run by one person.
An Aristocracy. Government by the few.
A Polity. We now call this a Constitutional Democracy.

However, to these three forms of good government, three forms of bad government correspond:

A Tyranny. That is, a monarchy ruled by an antagonistic monarch.
An Oligarchy. That is, a rule by a few corrupt men.
A Democracy. That is, rule by the masses.

Of the three deviations, tyranny is the worst, and mob rule is the least evil.

Plato’s Condemnation of Democracy
Plato (428-327 BC) argued against democracy. His primary reasons are summarized as follows:

Democracy leads inevitably to “mob rule.” Those in power pander to “pleasure-seekers” whose chief goals are the fulfillment of their immediate desires.
Democracy leads to rule by the stupid, who while they may have fine rhetorical (speaking) skills; they have no true knowledge itself.
Democracy leads to disagreement and conflict, which leads to the weakening of governments and should usually be avoided.

What about America
America is a Polity, or a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, as so many people believe. This is why in the pledge allegiance we pledge allegiance to the "republic."

Why Democracy?
Vox populi, vox Dei, “The voice of the people, is the voice of God.” As illustrated in the words of the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, all men intrinsically have a conscience. He proclaimed, “Conscience, conscience! Divine instinct, immortal and celestial voice.” Similarly, Seneca wrote, “God is near of you, with you, in you. A sacred spirit has its seat in us. It is the observer and keeper of our good deeds and our wrongdoings.” This is the idea of conscience: it is divine.

In Western governments, law arises from the will of “the people.” The people know what to do because they listen to their conscience. Thus, the law is based, or should be based, on the conscience of the people. To put it simply:

Men have consciences
Men elect people who represent their conscience
Elected officials rule according to their conscience

Conclusion
This is simply the tip of the iceberg. Read Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, and Hobbs. Government is an important institution. It can be used for good...or for evil.... [If you liked this summary, drop by Write Idea and leave Publius a comment.]

Technorati Tags: America, Aristotle, Arsenal of Democracy, Constitutional Republic, Oligarchy, philosopher, philosophy, Plato, Polity, Seneca, tyranny

McCain Adopts Stance for Families & Is Sticking By It

2008-07-30T17:46:00.001-05:00

ARRA News Service - Tony Perkins, FRC Action: In an interview on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) stuck to his guns on the issue of same-sex adoption. Despite pressure to soften his stance and hints that the McCain campaign was back-peddling on his earlier statements, McCain said plainly, "I'm running for president of the United States because I want to help with family values. And I think that family values are important. . . . I am for the values that two-parent families, the traditional family, represents," Sen. McCain said. We applaud the Arizona Senator for his support of traditional families, which study upon study affirms as the best environment for raising children. I hope this is only the beginning of a longer, more pointed dialogue about pro-family policies by the GOP's presidential nominee.

The Change He Promised

2008-07-30T17:33:00.003-05:00

by Haydee Florez: Obama promises change. Consider man from history who promised change. Fifty five years ago (July 26th) a young "charismatic" lawyer along with 200 idealistic people, attacked by surprise a military barracks in the most eastern province of the island of Cuba. His objective (he said) to change the political situation and restore democracy and the Constitution of 1940.

Today there is a different constitution "the communist constitution" which has suppressed the individual rights of: freedom of speech, religion and movement, among others. That young lawyer has been in power since 1959. Still from his hospital bed, he is governing his people and the final result of that "promised change" to one of the most prosperous Latin American country in 1958, is that of a third world country whose citizens want to escape from the misery and oppression in which that charismatic "leader" has submerged the country.

The press felt in love with that man and avoid asking the important questions such as who his real friends were; he said whatever people wanted to hear but not the truth. Haven't we learned the lesson? Everybody knows the name of that charismatic young lawyer: Fidel Castro! Remember not all change is good -- Empty or false promises lead to lost freedoms -- Get the facts!

Obama Finally Speaks Some Truth

2008-07-28T23:47:00.002-05:00

Bill Smith, Editor: Obama made a revealing statement to the press in London as they addressed the declining potential authority (and eventual power) of Prime Minister Gordon Brown. An opinion poll showing the Conservatives enjoying a 24-point lead among voters in key marginal constituencies. Support for Labour has slumped to 17%, putting the party in third place behind the Liberal Democrats, who are on 18%. As things are headed, Brown is facing either a fight and potentially resigning as prime minister.

Patrick Hennessy, Political Editor, The Telegraph reporting on Brown's struggles said,

The crisis enveloping the Prime Minister overshadowed talks he held yesterday with Barack Obama, the Democratic challenger for the US presidency.

At a news conference, Senator Obama said sympathetically: "You're always more popular before you're actually in charge of things."

From the other side of the world and when the news question focused on someone other than himself, Obama finally speaks truth. It is doubtful that Obama would have admitted that he is popular among large groups of people because he has never "actually" been "in charge" of anything. Even as Senator, Obama avoided issues and sided with his liberal base on almost all situations or skipped or voted present on issues. The Presidency is not the place for Obama to be trained in making tough decisions and to gain experience.

Kumbaya Falls Flat In Berlin

2008-07-28T23:41:00.002-05:00

ARRA News Service - Star Parker, article for GOPUSA: The headline on the website of German magazine Der Spiegel about Barack Obama's speech in Berlin: "Huge Crowds Left with Mixed Feelings." . . . CNN's Candy Crowley reported an "absence of euphoria" at the event. As Senator Obama went global with "Yes, we can" and "Change we can believe in" he left at least some of the horde in Berlin scratching their heads. . . .

Obama spoke not just as a "proud citizen of the United States but a fellow citizen of the world." His message: "The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down." At least some of the Germans listening to Obama surely sensed there was something problematic with what he was saying. His analogy . . . was obviously fractured. . . .

Unlike in the United States, where you drive coast to coast and hear one language, where national culture is at least as influential and pervasive as regional differences, Europe consists of different countries. When you get to national borders, languages and cultures change. For Obama, differences seem to be what cause the world's problems. We endlessly hear the story of his mixed-race background and his translation of his personal history into a message of the meaninglessness of difference.

It may come as a surprise to Obama, but for Christians, for Muslims, and for Jews, their differences do not amount to barriers to a better world but sources of meaning that define themselves and the world. They want to be Christians, Muslims, and Jews. They just want protection. They want to be able to be who they are and live peacefully and securely. Those disturbing this security are the problem. Not the differences.

Which gets to Obama's very problematic idea about freedom. He does not seem to grasp that the beauty of freedom is its respect for differences and creation of conditions, legal and political, which allow them to exist, flourish, and provide benefits to all. In fact, politicians with agendas to "unify," who think they know who and what everyone should be, are invariably those who threaten freedom. . . .

What every American should demand from Obama is clarification of what, if anything, he sees unique about the America that he claims to loves so much. For a man whose ideal seems to be the global village, with no barriers or differences, is there anything special about the United States that makes it distinct from other nations -- that defines it as uniquely great? What is the distinction between the "proud citizen of the United States" and the "fellow citizen of the world." Those in Berlin heard none and many went home legitimately confused. [Star Parkers full article]

Obama Rejects English Language Assimilation

2008-07-25T11:34:00.001-05:00

by Phyllis Schlafly, July 23, 2008
One would think that a presidential candidate who has no military service, who survived a public controversy about attending a church for 20 years where the pastor preached "hate America," plus a flap about his refusal to wear an American Flag pin, would bend over backwards to showcase his patriotism. But Barack Obama has just given his critics another reason to question his support of American identity.

Obama said, "Understand this: Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English ... you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish." But who "needs to make sure"? parents? public schools? government nannies?

Expanding on this theme, Obama added, "You should be thinking about how can your child become bilingual... It's embarrassing ... when Europeans come over here, they all speak English ... And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say is Merci beaucoup."

Embarrassed? We surely don't want a President representing our nation in foreign travels who is embarrassed about our country. We want a President who is proud to stand up for America, our culture, our language, our laws and our customs.

Most Americans look upon the English language as the number-one factor that defines our national identity: "e pluribus unum," one nation out of many peoples. We want English to be our national, official language, spoken by all who call themselves Americans.

The Zogby Poll reports that 83 percent of Americans favor legislation to make English our official language. Thirty states have designated English as the official language of their states, and ten more states are considering such legislation.

Obama is pandering to Hispanic voters by suggesting that the rest of us have a duty to speak Spanish. Most Americans not only don't want to speak Spanish, we are annoyed by voices on the telephone telling us to "Press 1 (or sometimes 2) for English," and we are outraged at the thought that a President would try to impose a Spanish obligation on us.

Only 26 percent of Americans, according to a Rasmussen survey, believe that every American should be able to speak two languages. Even that low number would probably nosedive if confronted with the notion that the government might enforce bilingualism on us.

Why should that second language be Spanish? The United States today has immigrants who speak over 200 different languages. Should the Asian immigrants be forced to learn Spanish as well as English?

Obama's statement is not only out of sync with the big majority of Americans, but it is condescending and further evidence of the elitist attitude the Obamas displayed when Barack looked down his nose at Americans whom he said rely on religion and guns because they are "bitter," and when Michelle said that Barack's campaign was "the first time" she was "really proud of my country."

Americans are not backward hicks because we don't learn a second language. We consider it a waste of time because English is fast becoming the worldwide language and because the ability to speak English is the litmus test of whether or not immigrants are assimilating into the American culture.

Obama conceded that immigrants should learn English but, unfortunately, many do not. The Pew Hispanic Center reported that only 52 percent of Hispanic naturalized citizens speak English well or pretty well, and that 28 percent of Latino immigrants speak only Spanish on the job.
Obama voted against making English our official language on four Senate roll-call votes. In 2006 and 2007 he voted twice against Senator James Inhofe's (R-OK) amendment to repeal Bill Clinton's Executive Order 13166, and voted twice in favor of Senator Ken Salazar's (D-CO) amendment to make Executive Order 13166 stronger than it already is.

Executive Order 13166 discourages assimilation by committing all executive-branch agencies to provide all federal benefits and services in foreign languages (even though the Supreme Court held in Alexander v. Sandoval that immigrants have no right to demand this).

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission discourages assimilation by suing over 200 employers for requiring English to be spoken by employees on the job (even though a Rasmussen survey found that 77 percent of Americans believe that employers should be allowed to do this).

Providing foreign language ballots discourages assimilation (even though only citizens are supposed to vote and to become a naturalized U.S. citizen, the immigrant must demonstrate "the ability to read, write and speak ordinary English").

Bilingual education (known as language apartheid) discourages assimilation by keeping children with Hispanic-sounding names for years in Spanish-language public school classes (even though bilingual ed has been rejected by the voters in referenda from California to Massachusetts).
It's no surprise that the Rasmussen survey reports that 59 percent of Americans believe government actually encourages immigrants to retain their home-country culture instead of assimilating into America. Senator and Mrs. Obama should tell immigrants to assimilate and get the facts from the new Bradley Foundation report called "E Pluribus Unum: America's National Identity."

3rd Circuit Court Tosses Child Online Protection Act

2008-07-24T00:33:00.002-05:00

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Yesterday, "We Don't Need No Stinkin Judges" addressed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) nerve on the Senate floor declaring no one cares about judicial confirmations. "I'm telling you, . . . I can't ever remember going home and somebody saying, 'Could you guys [confirm] some more judges? ...Frankly, judge[s] [aren't] a big issue." The following post addresses a Federal Circuit Court yesterday ruling that a law to protect children from sexual material on the Internet is unconstitutional.

Today's news potential highlights "why" Sen. Reid doesn't consider confirming "conservative" judges is a "big issue" With Reid's 51% unfavorable voter approval rating in Nevada in October, few of his constituents are talking to Reid - maybe shouting but not talking. Who does talks to Reid? Maybe Pelosi and the other liberals, Planned Parenthood, the NEA, and lobbyists for gambling, pornography, or maybe those seeking the reduction in the "age of consent." No wonder Reid doesn't want any more of Bush's conservative judicial nominees confirmed to the circuit courts.

CitizenLink: The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals sided with a lower court Tuesday, ruling that a law to protect children from sexual material on the Internet is unconstitutional. A day earlier, the same court threw out a $550,000 indecency fine levied against CBS for the infamous 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.

The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was passed by Congress in 1998 but was never enforced due to a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union. The law makes it illegal to post material that is harmful to children on the Internet for commercial purposes. The 3rd Circuit called the law “overbroad and vague,” saying Internet filters are a less restrictive way to protect children. The 3rd Circuit has once again come to the aid of online pornographers,” he said. “In effect, the court said we can't protect our children from online filth if the law might make some adult seeking his porn 'fix' uncomfortable.”

Russia Nuclear Bombers in Cuba

2008-07-24T00:28:00.002-05:00

ARRA News Service - Who do You Want As the Next Commnder-in-Chief in the Oval Office handling the Russian threat? Brietbart reporting on the confirmation hearing of General Norton Schwartz, nominated to be the air force's chief of staff quoted General Schwartz response to the question, "what he would recommend if Russia were to base nuclear capable bombers in Cuba." The question was based on the a news report by Iszvestia on Monday which quoted "an unnamed senior Russian air force official in Moscow as saying that Russia may start regular flights by long-range bombers to Cuba in response to US plans to install a missile defense system in eastern Europe." General Schwartz said that Russia would cross "a red line for the United States of America" if it were to base nuclear capable bombers in Cuba." [Read - US general warns Russia on nuclear bombers in Cuba] For those too young to remember, Google "The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis" and learn about the event that brought the United States and the Soviet Union to the brink of war.

Obama Love

2008-07-22T23:56:00.002-05:00

ARRA News Service - It's pretty obvious that the media has a bizarre fascination with Barack Obama. Some may even say it's a love affair. The following video arrangement of comments by the news commnetators has been arranged with music to help you throught being ill over their comments.

"We Don't Need No Stinkin Judges"

2008-07-22T23:47:00.002-05:00

ARRA News Service - Tony Perkins, FRC Washington Update: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had the nerve to stand on the Senate floor and declare that no one cares about judicial confirmations. "I'm telling you, Madam President, I can't ever remember going home and somebody saying, 'Could you guys [confirm] some more judges? ...Frankly, judge[s] [aren't] a big issue."

This runs counter to what Senator Reid said after the Supreme Court upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. The majority leader was quick to comment, "I would only say that this isn't the only decision that a lot of us wish that Alito weren't there and O'Connor were there." His counterpart on the House side, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), had an even higher opinion of judges in 2005 after the Supreme Court Kelo ruling on land rights. Her reply to the controversial decision was that when judges handed down a ruling it "was almost as if God has spoken." Of any issue we face today, judges are the ones who are literally making policy-often by overruling a complacent legislature. If Senator Reid doesn't think judges matter, then perhaps he can explain why he's been so insistent on holding so many of President Bush's nominees hostage. Last week marked the one-year anniversary of Robert Conrad's nomination. Meanwhile, Mr. Peter Keisler has been waiting for more than 750 days to be treated fairly by the Democrats in Congress. A president's lasting legacy is marked by the judicial nominations he makes, and Senator Reid is making his own legacy one of obstruction.

Why Jesse Jackson Hates Obama

2008-07-22T23:43:00.002-05:00

The National Black Republican Association called our attention today to the article in the Wall Street Journal by Shelby Steele addressing "Why Jesse Jackson Hates Obama." The below excerpts will hopefully encourage you to read the whole article:

. . . not looking old so much as a bit lost within the new Obama aura -- it is clear that Jesse Jackson has come to a kind of dénouement. Some force that once buoyed him up now seems spent. Mr. Jackson was always a challenger. He confronted American institutions (especially wealthy corporations) with the shame of America's racist past and demanded redress. He could have taken up the mantle of the early Martin Luther King (he famously smeared himself with the great man's blood after King was shot), and argued for equality out of a faith in the imagination and drive of his own people. Instead -- and tragically -- he and the entire civil rights establishment pursued equality through the manipulation of white guilt. . . .

Mr. Obama's great political ingenuity was very simple: to trade moral leverage for gratitude. Give up moral leverage over whites, refuse to shame them with America's racist past, and the gratitude they show you will constitute a new form of black power. They will love you for the faith you show in them.

So it is not hard to see why Mr. Jackson might have experienced Mr. Obama's emergence as something of a stiletto in the heart. Mr. Obama is a white "race card" -- moral leverage that whites can use against the moral leverage black leaders have wielded against them for decades. He is the nullification of Jesse Jackson -- the anti-Jackson.

And Mr. Obama is so successful at winning gratitude from whites precisely because Mr. Jackson was so successful at inflaming and exploiting white guilt. Mr. Jackson must now see his own oblivion in the very features of Mr. Obama's face. Thus the on-camera threat of castration, followed by the little jab of his fist as if to deliver a stiletto of his own. . . . [Why Jesse Jackson Hates Obama]

Obama Latest Gaffe - A Red Flag!

2008-07-22T00:30:00.002-05:00

Bill Smith, Editor: Remember Dan Quayle and the alleged gaffe over misspelling the word potato which later proved to be an alternative correct spelling of the word. The news media hounded Quayle to the ground. Over the years the only conclusion I could find for the intensity of the main stream media is that Quayle was not a liberal. After suffering through the election losses of liberals Al Gore and John Kerry, the "main media" networks (the ones existeing before Fox) have identified their problem. They reported too much truth about their former liberal boys. This year they seem to be wearing 'duck tape" over their months and to have locked down their "keyboards" when it comes to reporting truth about stupid comments, errors or flop-flops made by Barack Obama. They are following the new liberal craze of speaking no ill of the Obamassiah.

Obama has continually tripped over his tongue in expressing facts and ideas and perfroming flip-flops on issues. Now, consider the latest Obama gaffe that will not be "jumped on" by the main stream media. They are not going to ridicule and insult Obama as they did Quayle. Even though the spelling potato had nothing to do with being president, it was reported and reported and reported. However, Obama's latest gaffe has everything to do with understanding the constitution and the presidency -- consider the gaffe!

H/T The Pink Flamingo for the following comments:

. . . well, it's just another day and another dumb to dumber remark.
"...Today on CBS's Face the Nation, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in Afghanistan, told the paparazzi-pursued correspondent Lara Logan that "the objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years..."
Yes, you read this correctly. Barack Obama is planning on being in office for at least eight to ten years. Jack Tapper's blog picked up this latest Obamassiah gaffe. I would like to remind Pink Flamingo readers that Barack Obama was allegedly the editor of the Harvard Law Review. As such, he should be even remotely familiar with a little ditty called the Constitution of the United States of America.

Let's get this, he is an attorney, former head of the Harvard Law Review and is a sitting senator. He Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years and was a lecturer for four years for 12 years. We can conclude that the news media should have grasped that Obama should have known the fundamental fact that a President of the United States serves no more than eight (8) years. But after noting many of his other statements and proposal, one should ask if he plans to be around as "leader" more than eight (8) years.

To name just two proposals, Obama advocates the creation of a government funded and controlled Civilian National Security Forces equalling the US Military. Obama's Global Poverty Tax Bill has passed the House and Senate Committees and waiting for a vote in the Senate . The bill would subject the United States to UN provisions including banning “small arms and light weapons.” Obama has said he would disarm America with respect to our nuclear defense missiles and would stop actions for a protective missile defense shield. All these actions and many more should be flags to a "free press." Why aren't they red flags? As stated before, the liberal news media wants to elect a liberal president. The value of a "free press" like all of our other personal freedoms is does not appear to be their concern.

The Gathering Threat

2008-07-19T00:04:00.002-05:00

by Ken Blackwell: House Speaker Pelosi is hinting at reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, and many of her liberal colleagues in Congress are doing the same in both chambers. Alleging the press isn't "balanced," they say government should be making sure that all viewpoints — meaning the left's — are "fairly" represented. I agree the press isn't balanced, but Mrs. Pelosi has it backward; liberalism dominates the press, including the three major networks and most major newspapers.

Though originally the Fairness Doctrine did not require that opposing time be equal, it came to be the standard. The concern at the time was the prevention of a single viewpoint from dominating the news and biasing the people. By the 1980s, there were many radio and TV stations available. And many believed the Fairness Doctrine was unconstitutional in any event. So in 1987, Ronald Reagan's Federal Communications Commission repealed the Fairness Doctrine, opening every press outlet to freely decide what content to carry. The Democrat-controlled Congress at the time passed legislation to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, but President Reagan vetoed the bill.

This led to the birth of talk radio. The doctrine's reinstatement would kill conservative talk radio. Radio stations that carry Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck would have to create liberal shows of equal length. And when those shows fail to make money and the station takes a loss, their only option in cancelling those shows would be to cancel the conservative shows as well.

Free speech would lose. Americans would lose. . . . [Read remainder of The Gathering Threat] [H/T ARRA News Service]

Freedom From Taxes Day Has Arrived

2008-07-18T00:44:00.002-05:00

ARRA News Service: As we face the shock of this day which used to come earlier in the year, let's review the facts related to the day in a post by Warner Todd Huston, Publius Forum: Yesterday was finally the end of the days this year when you were working to pay the government its exorbitant fees. That’s right, July 16 was Cost of Government Day for the average American. Grover Norquist . . . has once again crunched the numbers and determined how long it takes most of us to finally pay off our own personal bloated government debt and begin, at last, to make money for ourselves.

This year Americans have worked until today, July 16, to pay for the total costs of federal, state and local government. This is 197 days of the year consuming 53.9 percent of national income. Over the past 22 years, in only four years (1982, 1983, 1991 and 1992) did Cost of Government Day fall later in the year.

Its simply outrageous that it takes 197 days of a year to finally pay off our government obligations and utterly criminal that more than half our income is consumed by bloated, needless bureaucracy.

Federal spending will consume 83.7 days. State and local spending will consume 50.5 days effort. Federal regulations cost 4l.7 days and State regulations cost 20.9 days. The spending data is precise, the regulatory burdens are understated.

. . . Reagan was right. Lower taxes means pro-growth. Let’s hope the next president does not torpedo the relatively good economic times we’ve had these last 15 years in favor of higher, economy killing taxes. The burden on the taxpayer is far too much and regulation is stifling to us all. [More about Tax Freedom Day]

Oil & Technology that Environmentalists Don't Want You to Know About

2008-07-18T00:37:00.002-05:00

It is time to dust off a relevant March 6, 1997 editorial: "World has more oil than far left environmentalists admit." Did the environmentalist and liberal democrats in Congress think that we would not remember or note that the technology exists to exact more oil from former U.S. wells? No wonder they would also like to control the flow of information on the Internet, talk radio and between elected representatives and their constituents.

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Far-left environmentalists claim that the World Oil reserves are running out. However, reported new discoveries, advanced technology and untapped oil reserves (save the caribou program) prove they are again expressing fiction. In a left leaning biased New York Times article the truth "gushes out. the article, Oil Innovations Pump New Life Into Old Wells , revealed that "engineers here started injecting high-pressured steam to pump out more oil. The field, whose production had slumped to 10,000 barrels a day in the 1960s, now has a daily output of 85,000 barrels. In Indonesia, Chevron has applied the same technology to the giant Duri oil field, discovered in 1941, boosting production there to more than 200,000 barrels a day, up from 65,000 barrels in the mid-1980s. ... Within the last decade, technology advances have made it possible to unlock more oil from old fields, and, at the same time, higher oil prices have made it economical for companies to go after reserves that are harder to reach. With plenty of oil still left in familiar locations, forecasts that the world’s reserves are drying out have given way to predictions that more oil can be found than ever before." And this technology can be applied to American oil fileds when the extraction of oil slows down in the Arab oil fields (figure at right).

A BusineesWeek article in 2005 (Is There Plenty Of Oil?) reported:

"The four giant oil fields ... located under thousands of feet of water off the coast of Louisiana, are just beginning to pump their first barrels. At their peak rates later in the decade, they'll produce some 500,000 bbl. per day, an amount akin to floating a small Middle Eastern country such as Syria or Yemen into the Gulf of Mexico. "Add them together, and it's a massive step change," says David Eyton, BP's vice-president for deepwater in the Gulf. "The investment we're making will more than offset declines we're seeing in Alaska and the Continental Shelf."

And we have not even detailed the oil fields where the left-wing don't want us to drill. Well excuse us and get out of the way!

New Life for Old Oil Fields

Lessons of the Gun Decision

2008-07-15T22:09:00.001-05:00

By: Phyllis Schlafly
The liberals are trying to spin the Supreme Court's dramatic decision in the gun case as creating a "new" constitutional right. They couldn't be more wrong; the Supreme Court simply restated the individual right that the Founding Fathers wrote in the Second Amendment which has been part of the Constitution since December 15, 1791.

The decision in District of Columbia v. Heller was a victory for the view (often expressed by Justice Antonin Scalia) that the Constitution means what it says. The liberals, who believe that the Supreme Court can invent new rights, seem to think that a right stated in the Constitution doesn't exist until the Supreme Court ratifies it.

The Heller decision was a victory for our written Constitution over the blathering by activist judges who pretend that the Constitution is a "living" document which they can reinterpret according to their personal biases about "evolving standards." It was also a victory for the active advocacy of private citizens who understand the Constitution and can effectively refute judicial heresies.

For the first century and a half of our country's existence, the right of individuals to own firearms was generally accepted. The militia referred to in the Second Amendment consisted of all able-bodied men, and they were expected to possess and use their own firearms.

James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, No. 46: Americans have "the advantage of being armed" — unlike the citizens of other countries where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." During Virginia's Convention to ratify the Constitution, Patrick Henry said: "The great objective is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun."
In the middle of the 20th century, when the liberals began to restrict our liberties and propagate the notion that government knows better than individuals how to run our lives and spend our money, proposals for gun control became politically correct. From about 1950 to about 1990, law professors and judges who wanted to be P.C. adopted the erroneous view that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with an individual's right to own a gun and that the "militia" refers only to government-appointed law enforcement groups.

One academic's prize-winning book claimed that guns were not widely owned by individuals at the time of the American Revolution, but his book was exposed as a fake. By 2001, the United Nations tried to demonize the private ownership of guns and get governments to confiscate all privately owned guns.

Fortunately, the United States not only enjoys widespread gun ownership, we also have large numbers of citizens who understand the Constitution and are willing to speak out for their rights.
Gun rights advocates, working entirely outside the legal profession, actively promoted the common-sense truth about the plain meaning and historical context of the Second Amendment by publishing articles in gun magazines, law reviews and other journals. At first, the legal community scoffed at these people as ignorant "gun nuts," but eventually, the weight of their logic and historical evidence became overwhelming.

Then came a couple of breakthroughs. On May 17, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a statement that read in part, "Let me state unequivocally my view that the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms.... This view of the text comports with the all but unanimous understanding of the Founding Fathers."

Ashcroft cited many writings by the Founding Fathers as well as Supreme Court decisions from the early years. He concluded, "In light of this vast body of evidence, I believe it is clear that the Constitution protects the private ownership of firearms for lawful purposes."

On October 16, 2001, the Fifth Circuit ruled in U.S. v. Emerson that "It appears clear that 'the people,' as used in the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, refers to individual Americans." Yes, it is clear; but the liberals had been pretending otherwise.

The Democrats then had a great awakening about why Al Gore lost the presidency to George W. Bush in November 2000. Gore lost three traditionally Democratic states, Tennessee (Gore's own state), Arkansas and West Virginia primarily because Gore was a gun-control advocate and those states have lots of voters whom Barack Obama has insulted by saying they "cling" to their guns because they are supposedly "bitter."

Obama is now backpedaling all over the place to try to defuse the gun issue. He hopes people will forget that he originally defended the DC gun control law that the Supreme Court knocked out in the Heller case.

The Supreme Court is still a major problem because four liberal justices are diehard supremacists who believe they have the right to repeal the Second Amendment. The biggest issue in the upcoming election is whether the newly elected President will fill court vacancies with supremacist or constitutional justices.

Gramm Slammed, Michelle Latests Rants Ignored

2008-07-15T00:31:00.001-05:00

Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families: When former Texas Senator Phil Gramm said last week that we have become “a nation of whiners,” the media and the Obama campaign pounced. Jesse Jackson’s offensive comments about Barack Obama were quickly shoved off the front pages so that liberal reporters could slam Phil Gramm and by extension John McCain. But lost in media’s McCain-bashing frenzy was another “gem” by Michelle Obama.

Speaking to an audience in Pontiac, Michigan, last week Michelle Obama mocked the government’s recent stimulus payments, saying, “You’re getting $600 - what can you do with that? …The short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good, and it may even feel good that first month when you get that check, and then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings.” Excuse me? Maybe that’s what Michelle Obama would have done with her stimulus check if she had gotten one, but I’m sure many hardworking families were grateful for those funds and did not spend them on a $600 pair of earrings. But, predictably, the liberal media gave Michelle a pass, even though her arrogant elitism was, once again, fully on display.

Earlier this year, speaking in Zanesville, Ohio, Michelle was giving one of her rants about how bad things are in America today. Trying hard to relate to the struggles of middle-class families, Michelle complained about the fact that she and Barack were spending as much as $10,000 a year on extra-curricular activities like dance and piano lessons for their two daughters. Now, the median household income in Zanesville, Ohio, is just over $37,000 a year. I suspect few in that audience could relate to spending a third of their income on extra-curricular activities for their kids, which may explain why Barack lost Zanesville and the surrounding area to Hillary Clinton by 36-points.

Technorati Tags: elitism, Gary Bauer, liberal, Michelle Obama

The Secret History of the Republican Party

2008-07-14T01:05:00.002-05:00

ARRA News Service - Mike LaRoche, South Texian shares some amazing history of the Republican Party. I have extracted a few points but to get the full gist of his article drop by and read the completed post:

To understand the long-standing Republican commitment to civil rights, it is best to begin with the post-Civil War Reconstruction era. In April 1866, Congressional Republicans (against the strong opposition of President Andrew Johnson, a Unionist Democrat), introduced the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This amendment entailed the following:
All native-born or naturalized persons in America were officially made American citizens, and states were prohibited from depriving citizens of their life, liberty, or property without the due process of law.

States were compelled to extend voting rights to blacks, for the amendment stipulated that state representation in Congress could be reduced if some citizens were unjustly barred from voting.
Congress passed the Fourteenth Amendment in June 1866, and it was forwarded to the states for ratification. Johnson fought hard against the ratification of this amendment throughout the summer and fall of 1866, but his efforts were futile as state after state outside the South approved it (all of the Southern states, except Tennessee, voted it down).

In February 1869, the Republican Congress passed the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was subsequently ratified by the requisite number of states. This Amendment guaranteed voting rights to all citizens regardless of their race, color, or former slave status.

During Ulysses S. Grant's presidency, more measures were taken by Congress to protect blacks against harassment. One significant piece of legislation, the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, made it a felony to interfere with voting rights and authorized the use of the army for the law's enforcement. A similarly strong law passed was the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which broadly outlawed public racial discrimination. . . .

It should also be remembered that the Republican Party's commitment to civil rights was alive and well during the twentieth century, for it was President Dwight D. Eisenhower who used federal troops to force the state of Arkansas to admit black students to Little Rock's Central High School. . . . Sen. Everett Dirksen (R-IL) was instrumental in pushing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress.

Regarding women's rights, Republican support for female suffrage was evident as early as the 1860s, when the very Republican territory of Wyoming became the first to allow women to vote . . . The first woman elected to Congress was also a Republican: Rep. Jeanette Rankin (R-MT) of Missoula, . . . Also, it was a Republican Congress that in 1919 passed the 19th Amendment, granting women nationwide the right to vote. This was done over the loud objections of then-President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat. . . .

LaRoche completes his post with this insightful comment: "Although I titled this entry "The Secret History of the Republican Party," there really is nothing secret about what I have discussed. The facts are easily available but have been consistently ignored (if not distorted) for years by many so-called professional educators across the country – due to either ideological bias or just plain ignorance. Oftentimes in the pursuit of historical truth, the most critical step is to unlearn what you have previously learned." . . . [Read More]

Speaker Pelosi Clueless! Arkansas Rep. Mike Ross Gets it!

2008-07-14T00:59:00.003-05:00

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: When it comes to addressing our national energy crisis, drilling for oil and protecting America and American interests, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representative is clueless. Even the liberal New York Times has taken notice.

On Friday, Carl Hulse in an NYT article title "Democrats Dig In as G.O.P. Presses for Oil Exploration in Protected Areas" depicts the logger-headiness of Pelosi. The article is long but worth reading. Some limited excerpts will reveal Pelosi's failure to comprehend our internal National crisis and her inept understanding of the role of the National Strategic Petroleum Reserves in a time of global crisis with existing threats against America and American interests:

House Democratic leaders took a hard line Thursday against opening up restricted areas to oil production as Republicans threatened to try to keep Congress in session this summer unless they got a vote on new drilling opportunities.
As the political and policy fight over gasoline prices escalated, the White House rejected a call by Democrats to release oil from the nation’s strategic reserves in an effort to lower prices by increasing supply. Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said, “We’d like to see members think a little bit more long term and take advantage of the opportunity that we have to do drilling from our domestic sources.”

Even as some Democratic lawmakers called on Congress to open up restricted areas to drilling, . . . “This call for drilling in areas that are protected is a hoax,” Ms. Pelosi said. “It’s an absolute hoax on the part of the Republicans and this Bush administration.” . . . But with public anxiety growing over gasoline prices, some Democrats say their party has to move beyond encouraging exploration on tracts already owned by oil companies and open new, potentially productive areas to exploration. Leaders of a coalition of moderate and conservative

Democrats known as the Blue Dogs have stepped up their push for drilling both in the Arctic refuge and offshore, saying the oil royalties produced could pay for research into new energy technologies. “I propose that we drill in ANWR,” said Representative Mike Ross, Democrat of Arkansas, referring to the refuge. “We’ve already got a pipeline going to Alaska, the ANWR, that can handle two million barrels a day. We’re only putting one million in it. Let’s fill it up.”

But Ms. Pelosi, who considers energy legislation a personal priority, does not appear ready to shift her view, based on discussions in a private meeting with members of the leadership on Thursday. According to accounts from those present, Ms. Pelosi said that if Democrats relented on drilling, “then we might as well pack it up and go home.”

Ms. Pelosi instead forged ahead with the effort to encourage the White House to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, even listing the White House telephone number and e-mail address on a poster at a news conference to encourage consumers to join the appeal. She said the release of less than 10 percent of the 700 million barrels of oil in the reserve would influence the price at the pump “now, within 10 days, not within 10 years.” . . .

Pelosi continues to prove time and again that she is a masochistic politician who is heartless in her un-willingness to do anything and everything to help the American people while at the same time she insists on placing our National Security at risk. She welds her dictatorial control over house democrats and refuses to allow anything that might in any way give partisan credit also to the Republicans. She has helped lead the U.S Congress to its lowest approval rating ever.

Let's clarify the risk that Speaker Pelosi is willing to take even though it is not a solution to our petroleum resource needs. Lee S. Gliddon, Jr in Desert Conservative hits the nail on the head regarding Pelosi approach of releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve:

If you really think about Nancy Pelosi’s demands that we use our nation’s Emergency Reserve Oil Supply as a, ‘fix,’ you will see that she has no thoughts of the real ‘why’ this Emergency Reserve exits in the first place! Should Iran actually close the Straits of Hormus after were used the Emergency Reserves, then what? Nothing to be used and what would our military do? Nancy Pelosi has ideas but her ideas are going to destroy America!

Pelosis is clueless as Speaker of the House. And that is being nice. Because if she were not clueless, then she would be a traitor based on her past actions and comments while Speaker of the House. It is time for Speaker Pelosi to step down. If unwilling to step down, we can only hope there exists enough uncompromised Democrats like Rep. Mike Ross to lead in establishing a coalition of House Democrats to replace Pelosi. The United States needs a new Speaker who is a statesperson; a person more dedicated to the people than to liberal party pandering. America deserves and needs a better person speaking for the House to the public!

Obama World: No Hablo Ingles is okay

2008-07-11T00:40:00.002-05:00

ARRA News Service - After making its way through the conservative websites, Fox News reported today on Barrack Obama chastisement of the majority of Americans who want English to be the sole official language used by government agencies in the United States. These Americans do not object to others learning of a second non-English language as long as it is not mandated by the state. Americans are tired of "Press 1 for English." English is the language of international business, commerce, science, and technology. Other nations learn English, because English is the "universal" language in which things get done. As Bobby Eberle said, "Only in America (an English-speaking country) would left-wing Barack Obama tell Americans that their kids should learn Spanish."

William Gheen, ALIPAC: Obama comments are opposed by approximately 4 out of 5 Americans according to Rasmussen Report polling from last month, which shows 83% place a higher priority on encouraging immigrants to speak English as their primary language. Just 13% take the opposite view and say it is more important for Americans to learn other languages.

Americans are sick and tired of pressing 1 for English and being forced to pay for this liberal corporate social engineering experiment. Immigrants should ingratiate themselves and speak English because English is the language of the United States. The English language and the fact all Americans have shared a native tongue is an essential part of the equation that has made America such a successful nation. Obama is completely out of touch on immigration issues.

Bobby Eberle, GOPUSA: What an absolutely ridiculous speech. We need to make sure our kids can speak Spanish? Why? That is the question. Oh, and I have the answer. It's because the liberals are quite happy seeing millions of illegal aliens pour across our border and do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about it. Rather than solve the problem of illegal immigration by enforcing laws and securing our border (after all, if we did that, liberals would call us racists), the far left would rather Americans simply learn Spanish. That is their solution to the problem.

And it is definitely becoming more and more of a problem. Example... during these very nice summer months, my kids love to go . . . get sandwiches at Subway. Getting the sandwiches, however, has become more and more of an ordeal. In fact, the last time we went, it took forever simply because I couldn't understand the attendant, and the attendant couldn't understand me. I'll have a six-inch ham sandwich on wheat with lettuce and tomato... All I got was a blank stare. I repeated the order, with my daughter looking on. The lady finally grabbed the wheat bread and then selected turkey. No... I said ham. Now, this being a Subway restaurant in AMERICA, one would think that I could place my order in English. Wrong. This must be a Barack Obama Subway restaurant, and the only way to place an order is to do it in Spanish. Hmmm... I guess I should thank Obama for his speech. What he was trying to get across was the idea that we should teach our kids Spanish just so we can order a sandwich at an American restaurant. Thanks Obama for looking out for me!

Obama's Mile High Fantasy Flight

2008-07-10T00:55:00.001-05:00

Dr. Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: My Opinion! Barack Obama's move to Mile High is an exercise in stagecraft and a smoke and mirror job for the American people.

First, it is an affront to the Hillary Clinton delegates who would have comprised half the room if Obama were to appear at the Pepsi Center.

It is a calculated move to force networks into the very real choice of only covering his speech on the final day - denying the American people a true look at what the Democrat's platform and policies are all about, and denying the American people a true look into the divided nature of the convention.

If Obama's choice results in the networks only covering one day, would they then feel obligated to curtail coverage of the GOP convention? If so, Obama's calculated move then denies the American people a fair look at John McCain.

This begs the question of the true nature of Obama's calculated decision. Is it because he wishes to keep voters in the dark over real issues and only provide them spectacle? Is it because he is afraid Hillary's supporters might not provide applause (or even boo) a speech in a room that wasn't guaranteed to be stacked with his zealous followers?

What do you think? Leave a Comment!

Free Speech of U.S. Representatives & Senators at Risk

2008-07-10T00:40:00.002-05:00

Bill Smith, Editor: U.S. Senate sources identified today that the Democrat leadership is seeking and developing actions to restrict the free speech of U.S. Representatives and Senators with both the public and their constituents. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised the most “open and honest Congress” when Democrats took over Congress at the beginning of last year. However, a majority Democrats have continually demonstrated that they don’t intend to live up to that pledge. In addition, online sources, Soren Dayton and Ed Morrissey are reporting that Democrat-controlled rule-making bodies in the House and Senate are trying to restrict and regulate the use of members’ communications on the Internet.

Ed Morrissey reports on the schemes in both chambers, asking “Why do Congressional Democrats fear free speech?” In the Senate, Rules Committee Chair Diane Feinstein (D-CA) is proposing a rule that would require her panel to essentially become the Internet speech police for the Senate. It would be up to the Rules Committee to “sanction” which websites and forms of communication they deem appropriate for senators to use, and would then require their regulations to apply to any domain not ending in “senate.gov.”

Even worse, the committee is seeking to be able to regulate content since the rule would give it the authority to require the removal of any content it considers in violation of Senate rules.The upshot of this proposal is that senators’ ability to use websites such as YouTube, Facebook, and others to communicate with their constituents and the American public could be jeopardized and the content of those communications subject to approval. On top of that, the rules are vague enough to raise concerns over how they might apply to basic things like guest postings on blogs like RedState and Townhall. No such restrictions exist on any other form of communication like TV and radio interviews or op-eds in newspapers. What is it about free speech online that Democrats find so threatening?

Dr Bill Smith Special Press Credentials Covering the 2008 Republican National Convention

2008-07-09T00:59:00.003-05:00

Dr. Bill Smith (Ozark Guru), Editor, ARRA News Service, National Political Director of Let's Get This Right and contributor to National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) , The NextRight, and many other blogs has been issued Special Press Credentials covering the 2008 Republican National Convention (Sept 1-4, 2008)

Please keep an eye out for him at the Convention, and pass this along! If you are able, stop by and meet Dr. Bill at the convention . . . otherwise keep an eye out for live coverage online!

Obama's Tax Plan Does Not Compute

2008-07-08T23:55:00.002-05:00

The Morning Bell, The Heritage Foundation: According to the non-partisan Annenberg Political Fact Check , Sen. Barack Obama’s tax plan would increase gross tax receipts by $103.3 billion in 2011 alone. That number by itself would make it the largest single-year tax increase in American history since World War II, and measured as a percentage of gross national product, it would be the fifth-largest tax increase since 1943. Even with these record-breaking levels of taxing, Obama still would not be able to cover all of his promised increases in domestic spending. Commenting on Obama’s tax and spending plans, Clinton-era Office of Management and Budget official Idabel Sawhill tells the Los Angeles Times: “I don’t think it all adds up.”

The Obama campaign claims its economic plan calls for only an additional $130 billion a year in increased domestic spending. But according to Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Co.), who sponsored an amendment to this year’s budget resolution that included all 111 Obama campaign promises for new domestic spending, the price tag is closer to $300 billion per year and $1.4 trillion over five years. (Obama ended up voting against his own platform.) . . .

Obama claims that by ending the Iraq war he will save $90 billion a year. But that was before his recent evolution on the issue. Despite whatever promises he makes to his supporters on his campaign website, he recently told America’s Servicemen and Women in Military Times that he would “draw down in a deliberate fashion in consultation with the Iraqi government, at a pace that is determined in consultation with General Petraeus.” . . . Heritage scholar Stuart Butler adds: “You cannot justify a longer-term commitment to a program based on a one-time saving on the war in Iraq.”

Obama also claims he will save $80 billion a year by closing tax loopholes. But the non-partisan Tax Policy Center says it could not confirm the projected savings. What we do know is that Obama has promised not to lower our corporate tax rate, which is the second highest in the world. Instead of simplifying the tax code, Obama wants to further complicate it by creating a “Patriot Employer Act,” which would lead to new loopholes for companies with businesses overseas to exploit.

Even if Obama does manage to pay for his spending, there is little reason to believe it will help the economy. For example, he has also promised to spend $60 billion on infrastructure that he claims will create 2 million new jobs. But studies show that infrastructure spending creates very few jobs, and that those jobs it does create are offset by losses elsewhere in the economy due to decreased private consumption and investment . Instead, what our economy needs is increased energy production, reduced barriers to trade and a less punitive simpler tax code. . . . [Read More] [H/T ARAA News Service]

Voters Approval of Congress falls to 9%! Lowest Ever Rating!

2008-07-08T23:48:00.002-05:00

ARRA News Service - Rasmussen Reports survey issued this morning shows voters giving the Democrat lead Congress with the lowest approval rating of any Congress in history.

Rasmussen Reports: The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category. . . . Congress has not received higher than a 15% approval rating since the beginning of 2008. . . . [Read More on Survey]

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid have achieved the most dismal record ever with their liberal agenda and failure to address critical National issues like rising gas prices, homeland security, and the mortgage scandles. Their efforts to prohibit American owned businesses from Drilling for Oil in our own country and their actions restricting electric power companies to the use higher cost natural gas verses using cheap available coal is driving energy costs and gas prices beyond acceptable levels for the American people. It has not gone unnoticed by the public that these leaders have supported trial lawyers over loyal Americans who obeyed the requests of the Federal government to protect America. The public notices the effort of the congressional leaders to promote the bailout of banks and mortgage companies who promoted bad lending practices while ignoring the homeowners who are losing their homes to these same institutions. If democrat senators and reprentatives are concerned about America and regaining the voters' confidence, they should immediately replace Reid and Pelosi as their leaders.

In Obama's World, the Government Controls Churches

2008-07-05T23:00:00.000-05:00

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Barack Obama told the African Methodist Episcopal Church today in St. Louis that he wants to cure the woes of this impoverished nation, and the government can do this! But as we are starting to learn about Obama, the more he speaks the more he reveals his true intent. An AP release by Jennifer Loven stated the following:

But Obama's main message was the government's duty to address what he said are "moral problems" — such as war, poverty, joblessness, homelessness, violent streets and crumbling schools — and to employ religious institutions to do it.

While we have seen President Bush reach out to empower (verse to employ) churches to help meet the needs of fellow Americans, Obama comfortably crosses the line and reveals that it is the Governments duty to "employ" religious institutions to "do it." "Employ" means to use. And to use means some form of government control. What did Obama want the Church to address under government control? What was the "it"? Obama defined "it" to be "war, poverty, joblessness, homelessness, violent streets and crumbling schools."

Hum - wonder how he sees the government employing the church? I don't know Obama's heart or even his vision outside of the constant empty repetition of his mantra of hope and change. But I do know that people reveal their intents when they are on common ground or with friends with whom they are comfortable. The reporter also revealed her perspective of the Obama event:

It was also his most enthusiastic delivery of late, employing preacher's cadences that were interrupted frequently by "Amens" and "yes." Obama repeatedly referenced his religious faith in terms that would be familiar to white evangelicals as well as his black audience.

Obama has taken positions diametrically opposed to Christians in regard to abortion, gay rights, sanctity of marriage, and other issues. However, he is comfortable entering churches and identifying his willingness for the government to use churches to advance his objectives. This contract alone should send up red flags. History is replete with examples of charismatic tyrants using the church. We do not know that Obama would be a tyrant.

However, we should grasp that when a government's employs churches to control the masses by promising solutions for mankind's ills, the end result is control of the church and what it teaches. The government then becomes the tyrant and freedoms of churches are reduced. In the excitement of the moment, some Christians seem to ignore the warning by Christ, "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." As my father said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Christians beware! Churches of all religions beware!

Electing a President

2008-07-04T06:17:00.009-05:00

Charles Gordon, The Vanguard: Nobody who cares about America wants to see a bad president in the White House. So for those who may be voting for the first time but don’t know a heck of a lot about politics, what follows is a handy guide of do’s and don’ts for the coming election in November:

(1) Don’t vote for the person who simply smiles better or cuts a more dashing appearance. Do vote for the person who appears more “real.” Remember that boring old adage your elders told you, “Don’t judge a book by its cover?” Well, guess what? It’s true. Demeanor and looks won’t produce policies that will prevent terrorist attacks so you and your friends (or somebody else and their friends) don’t get incinerated — you know, like those poor people in far-away lands you see on TV every so often, or, for that matter, 3,000 of your fellow Americans on……now when was that day?….oh, yes, September 11….of course…..

(2) Don’t vote for the better talker. Do vote for the one who knows what they’re talking about. The purpose of hearing a speech is not to get your ears tickled. It’s to glean what the speaker will do if elected. Once you find that out, you can make an informed choice on whether the candidate deserves your vote.

(3) Don’t vote for the one who “inspires” you more. Do vote for the one whose ideas are better for the country and for the people you care about — including you. If you want to hear a pep talk, hire a life coach.

(4) Don’t vote for the candidate who wields a tax club (or any other kind of club) to divide the rich against the poor or everybody else. Do vote for the one whose policies work for the whole nation. This is not the Middle Ages; it’s the modern interdependent world. The shin bone’s connected to the ankle bone, so no matter who gets their taxes raised, others will get hurt, too. No pity parties for the rich, but we don’t want to be biting our noses to spite our faces. Friends don’t let friends vote for high taxes on anybody. If the government’s devouring more than what’s coming in, raising the tax burden isn’t the answer. What it needs is to go on a diet.

(5) Don’t vote for a candidate who blames the messenger when the news is bad. Do vote for a candidate who heeds the message, precisely when it is bad. High gas prices are the messenger. So what’s the message? Not enough oil and too many people wanting to buy oil. And the answer? For the consumer — buy less of it. (Do we really have a choice?)For the folks who produce it — In the short run, let them drill for more oil — unless you enjoy emptying your wallet with every trip to the pump. And in the long run, well, you know the rest — alternative energy.

This is a good start. Privileged person that you are, you are among the few human beings in history who actually will have a say in choosing who the most powerful person in the world will be starting next January. So consider these things between now and Election Day.

American Innovation Supremacy at Risk

2008-07-04T06:17:00.008-05:00

Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: The high-priced corporate lobbyists walking Capitol Hill corridors have a new mantra: innovation. They demand that Congress bring in more guest workers, especially from Asia, in order to maintain American innovation supremacy.

The lobbyists' backup buzzword is "the best and the brightest." They argue that U.S. workers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics are in short supply and we must now import foreign engineers and scientists, i.e., allow the multinationals to bring in an increased or even unlimited number of H-1B visas. Their argument lacks evidence: Economics 101 teaches that shortages in labor or goods produce higher wages or higher prices. In fact, we have no shortage of engineers or computer techies, so their wages are stagnant and are certainly not going up.

In 2005, we graduated 271,000 students with bachelors or master's degrees in science and engineering who were citizens or legal residents. The dean of Duke University Engineering School says that 40 percent of his graduates do not get engineering jobs. Bill Gates and other multinationals simply prefer to hire Asians, particularly from India, who work for low wages and can be trained on the job.

Professor Norman Matloff examined the H-1B record and discovered that H-1B visa recipients are mostly employees of ordinary talent doing ordinary work. Most of them work at Levels I and II, described by the Department of Labor in terms akin to apprenticeship, while very few H-1B workers are at Level IV, the level of expertise whose description is associated with innovation.

"Aliens of extraordinary ability" and outstanding professors and researchers can come into our country in another category, EB-1, and we welcome them. Another argument used by the lobbyists is that international comparisons of math and science K-12 test scores show that Americans are weak. That cannot be used as evidence because India and China refuse to participate in those tests. Professor Matloff dispels the myth that our tech industry owes its success to math geniuses coming from Asia. The evidence does not support this "Asian mystique."

The Department of Homeland Security is doing its part to help the multinationals hire foreign graduates of U.S. universities instead of Americans by increasing the time foreign students can join the U.S. labor pool without an H-1B visa from 12 months to 29 months. On a Friday afternoon, DHS quietly announced a new regulation that figuratively staples an H-1B visa to the diploma of all foreign graduates in science, technology, engineering or math. This bureaucratic edict really increases the H-1B cap by 23,000, which is the number of foreign students getting degrees in science, math and engineering this year. Foreigners can remain in the United States for up to six years on an H-1B visa. That's plenty of time to have an anchor baby and stay forever, and there is no accounting of those who leave when their visa time is up.

The H-1B program was originally set up to help U.S. companies by allowing them to bring in specially qualified foreigners to fill jobs for which no American can be found. But six of the top 10 H-1B visa recipients in 2007 are based in India, and two others headquartered in the U.S. have most of their operations in India.

This year's keynote session of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, & Petroleum Engineers revealed how U.S. supremacy in technology is under attack in even more devious ways. A panel of speakers described the future role of U.S. engineers in the 21st century.

One speaker proclaimed that "pure engineering tasks" will all be outsourced, that our engineers must realize they are "citizens of the world," and that we must abandon "the engineer of the past, with a slide rule hanging from his belt," and change into a "personable manager with an engineering background" who will create personal relations with "external" clients.
A second speaker predicted that "engineering jobs will develop overseas and stay th
ere since the technical resources will be there and the infrastructure will follow." A third speaker said that an engineer must "be prepared to jump from one place to another" because it's "risky for engineers to be focused on a very narrow aspect of any specific job."

A fourth speaker said that our challenge is "not so much the technical engineering but the socio-political engineering." A fifth speaker said, "the quality and quantity of R&D going overseas is increasing faster than it is here in the United States." We wonder if there is any longer a purpose in American students taking the scholarly road of engineering school. To paraphrase a once-popular TV ad, "where's the innovation?"

Obama Flips and Flops

2008-07-04T06:17:00.007-05:00

Charles Krauthammer, Townhall: You'll notice Barack Obama is now wearing a flag pin. Again. During the primary campaign, he refused to, explaining that he'd worn one after 9/11 but then stopped because it "became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism."

So why is he back to sporting pseudo-patriotism on his chest? Need you ask? The primaries are over. While seducing the hard-core MoveOn Democrats that delivered him the caucuses -- hence, the Democratic nomination -- Obama not only disdained the pin. He disparaged it. Now that he's running in a general election against John McCain, and in dire need of the gun-and-God-clinging working-class votes he could not win against Hillary Clinton, the pin is back. His country 'tis of thee.

In last week's column, I thought I had thoroughly chronicled Obama's brazen reversals of position and abandonment of principles -- on public financing of campaigns, on NAFTA, on telecom immunity for post-9/11 wiretaps, on unconditional talks with Ahmadinejad -- as he moved to the center for the general election campaign. I misjudged him. He was just getting started.

Last week, when the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, Obama immediately declared that he agreed with the decision. This is after his campaign explicitly told the Chicago Tribune last November that he believes the D.C. gun ban is constitutional.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton explains the inexplicable by calling the November -- i.e., the primary season -- statement "inartful." Which suggests a first entry in the Obamaworld dictionary -- "Inartful: clear and straightforward, lacking the artistry that allows subsequent self-refutation and denial." Obama's seasonally adjusted principles are beginning to pile up: NAFTA, campaign finance reform, warrantless wiretaps, flag pins, gun control. What's left?

Iraq. The reversal is coming, and soon. Two weeks ago, I predicted that by Election Day Obama will have erased all meaningful differences with McCain on withdrawal from Iraq. I underestimated Obama's cynicism. He will make the move much sooner. He will use his upcoming Iraq trip to acknowledge the remarkable improvements on the ground and to abandon his primary season commitment to a fixed 16-month timetable for removal of all combat troops.

The shift has already begun. Thursday, he said that his "original position" on withdrawal has always been that "we've got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable." And that "when I go to Iraq ... I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies." The flip is almost complete. All that's left to say is that the 16-month time frame remains his goal but he will, of course, take into account the situation on the ground and the recommendation of his generals in determining the ultimate pace of the withdrawal. Done. And with that, the Obama of the primaries, the Obama with last year's most liberal voting record in the Senate, will have disappeared into the collective memory hole.

Obama's strategy is obvious. The country is in a deep malaise and eager for change. He and his party already have the advantage on economic and domestic issues. Obama, therefore, aims to clear the deck by moving rapidly to the center in those areas where he and his party are weakest, namely national security and the broader cultural issues. With these -- and most importantly his war-losing Iraq policy -- out of the way, the election will be decided on charisma and persona. In this corner: the young sleek cool hip elegant challenger. In the other corner: the old guy. No contest.

After all, that's how he beat Hillary. She originally ran as a centrist, expecting her nomination to be a mere coronation. At the first sign of serious opposition, however, she panicked and veered left. It was a fatal error. It eliminated all significant ideological and policy differences with Obama -- her desperate attempts to magnify their minuscule disagreement on health care universality became almost comical -- making the contest entirely one of personality. No contest.

As Obama assiduously obliterates all differences with McCain on national security and social issues, he remains rightly confident that Bush fatigue, the lousy economy and his own charisma -- he is easily the most dazzling political personality since John Kennedy -- will carry him to the White House.

Of course, once he gets there he will have to figure out what he really believes. The conventional liberal/populist stuff he campaigned on during the primaries? Or the reversals he is so artfully offering up now? I have no idea. Do you? Does he?

NFRA Calls for Republican Assemblies to Rally to McCain

2008-07-03T00:44:00.002-05:00

Dr. Pat Briney, President, Arkansas Republican Assembly: Below is a letter from NFRA president, Rod Martin. We need a strong Republican Assembly in Arkansas to represent the conservative values of our party and state. It is imperative that we gather disheartened conservatives in the party and those who have left it in order to succeed in stopping the liberal agenda. Rod’s letter reminded me that the socialistic, liberal mindset is to control and dominate the political arena by eliminating their political opponents and by preventing their competition in a democratic process. A socialistic state is not a free state, a fair state, or a democratic state. It is a single party controlled state. That is the direction the Democrats are taking us and what this election season is all about.

Rod D. Martin, NFRA President: The fact that John McCain was very likely no Republican Assembly member’s first choice is no excuse to sit back and let the radical left win this election. . . . We are in a fight for our lives this year, and only partly because of Barack Obama. I think few – if any – of our people fully realize the degree to which the Bush veto shelters us from the worst instincts of the leftists now in power. But Obama plus a filibuster-proof Senate – and every poll shows this to be possible – means all the restraints will be gone.

They will ban talk radio: Pelosi promised it last week. They will pass net neutrality and use it to stifle conservative Internet-based media. They will pass hate crimes laws expressly designed to go after our churches. They will pass 50-state gay marriage and force churches to perform it. They will pass the ERA, which they now claim is still alive and needs only three more states to ratify it, and they will use this to enact the entire gay agenda from the bench (and go after churches who even so much as speak against woman and gay pastors or preach from Romans 1). They will reshape First Amendment jurisprudence to match Europe and Canada, by rushing through hundreds of 35 year old federal judges, MoveOn accolytes all, who'll be there till they die (you don't think the backlog in judicial confirmations is accidental, do you?).

And this will be their warm-up before nationalization of 40% of the US economy (health care, and all the ultimate power that will give them over our individual lives; plus their just-announced plan to nationalize the oil industry like Hugo Chavez), before they make D.C. and Puerto Rico states (4 new permanently Dem Senators and 9 new permanently Dem Congressmen, plus 10 new permanently Dem electoral votes, plus an irrevocably bi-lingual country at the official level with all that implies), before they make most of Hawaii a semi-autonomous region based on race, before they open the borders wider than we've even imagined while changing the voting laws even further in favor of those illegals and undermining or abolishing the Electoral College so the "blue states" dominate from now on; but not before they surrender to al Qaeda and every foreign enemy and/or international body in sight. Our soldiers will stand before the International Criminal Court, and before we're done, our pastors may too, in the name of "human rights" and every other high sounding thing.

These are the Democrats’ words. . . We need to take them at their word. They mean not just to win the game, but to take us out of play. Complaining about things we should have settled in the primary just leaves us divided, not fighting the real enemy, and presuming upon God for a miracle when we need to stand and fight. And fight we must.

The NFRA is about grassroots. This election can be won at the grassroots. And this election is about a lot of things. It’s about passing an abortion ban in South Dakota that has a decent chance of overturning Roe without a single new Supreme Court justice. It’s about preserving traditional marriage in California, Arizona and Florida. It’s about whether we drill for oil or burn our corn crops as fuel while starving children around the world. It’s about holding the line in the Senate, whoever wins the Presidency. It’s about whether our pastors will have freedom of speech and religion, and whether you will have freedom to choose your doctor, and about whether the Rush Limbaughs of the world will be driven off the air.

If NFRA stands in the gap, on the ground, organizing precincts, knocking on doors, turning out good conservative people, we can make a big difference in all those fights, and a decisive difference in some. In the process, where we’re small, we can grow large, by identifying many like-minded people who can join our Assemblies. . . . There is no victory without a lot of shoe leather spent. . . . Let’s quit talking about what conservatives ought to have in the Republican Party, and let’s go earn it. This is, or should be, who we are.

Character matters in a president & in a commander-in-chief

2008-07-01T07:00:00.000-05:00

ARRA News Service - There was an outstanding column about Senator John McCain’s character by Abraham Katsman in the Jerusalem Post. I encourage you to read this column and to share it with friends and family members. Below are excerpts from the Katsman's article:

"How aware is the public that McCain has raised seven children? Or that he adopted his two oldest sons as small boys (children from his wife's prior marriage)? Or that he has raised a Bangladeshi girl with severe health problems adopted from Mother Theresa's orphanage? Or that his own sons have served in the military, including in Iraq? . . . McCain never brought up his own son's service in some of the roughest areas of Iraq. His principled refusal of political advantage from his son's Iraq service extends to refusal even to be interviewed on the subject, or to introduce his son to campaign audiences. . . .

The contrast with other politicians couldn't be more stark. How many candidates have we heard try to score political points as they crow in the public limelight about their own brief military stints, or their wife's cancer, son's car accident, or sister's death from smoking? The contrast is consistent with McCain's internalizing the codes of honor and military conduct since his youth: the veneration of courage and resilience; the expectation of fidelity to principles of honor; the homage paid to Americans who sacrificed for their country; the nobility of service and sacrifice; the expectation that one would prove worthy of the country's trust; and the humility that comes from recognizing that there are causes and people greater than oneself. It is, in short, a contrast in character.

Character matters. In a president-and particularly in a commander-in-chief, that kind of character arguably counts more than any particular political orientation or policy. From character flows leadership, as it is character which dictates morally grounded direction and engenders public trust. Character is critical to determining how a leader will respond to crisis. Will he reach deep within himself and in the traditions that shaped him and find the courage and grace to inspire strength and greatness? Will soldiers trust the wisdom and integrity of his decision when he orders them to war? Will he truly understand the terrible toll of war, as well as the price of appeasement? Will he make decisions based on considerations greater than cheap political expediency? Now, ask yourself: which candidate has repeatedly demonstrated that kind of character?" . . . [Read More]

Sen. Chris Dodd Porker of the Month

2008-06-30T23:02:00.000-05:00

ARRA News Service - Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today named Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-CN) its June Porker of the Month for accepting a preferential mortgage deal from a company which stands to benefit from a mortgage bailout bill he is pushing through Congress.

Sen. Dodd acknowledged receiving a “VIP” loan from Countrywide Financial Corporation, but denied that he knew the designation meant he would be receiving special privileges because of his position as the chairman of the Banking Committee. Sen. Dodd is one of several current and former high-ranking officials, including Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson, who was on a special “Friends of Angelo” list, named after Countrywide Financial Corporation Chairman and CEO Angelo Mozilo. According to published reports, Chairman Dodd’s special mortgage rate reduces his costs by $75,000 over the 30-year life of the mortgage. . . .

The unsettling revelations about Sen. Dodd’s sweetheart mortgage deal comes as the Senate Banking Committee is pushing a broad housing bill that features provisions that accrue to the benefit of large mortgage lenders while placing taxpayers at great financial risk. The Senate version of the bill would offer lenders an opportunity to off load up to $300 billion of their riskiest loans onto the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), creating new loans that place 100 percent of the loan liability on the taxpayers. The Congressional Budget Office projects that one-third of those refinanced mortgages will ultimately default. FHA Commissioner Brian Montgomery said on June 9, “We are not designed to become the federal lender of last resort, a mega-agency to subsidize bad loans.” . . .

For accepting special financial discounts from a mortgage company whose actions contributed directly to the current housing mess and then drafting a monstrous mortgage bailout bill that will dump billions of dollars worth of risky mortgages onto the backs of taxpayers while lending a helping hand to his corporate benefactor, CAGW names Sen. Christopher Dodd its June 2008 Porker of the Month . . . [Read More]

The Most Important Election Issue

2008-06-30T22:16:00.001-05:00

ARRA News Service - "Senator Obama should not get even one vote from anyone who cares about the sanctity of life and who believes marriage should remain between one man and one woman!" - Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families
-------------
Guest Editorial by Gene McCoy: What constitutes the most important issue is debated during every election cycle. Among those most commonly suggested are the economy, immigration and the war on terror.

Albert Schweitzer said, “If a man loses reverence for any part of life, he will lose his reverence for all life.” A candidate’s position on the sanctity of human life measures integrity, principle, trustworthiness, character, and godliness more than any other issue. If you want to know the candidate’s soul and the validity of his / her claim to know and love God, probe the strength of his / her stance regarding the sanctity of human life. This will also reveal the sincerity of any claim to be compassionate toward the poor and needy and the motive underlying their position. Is it really out of genuine concern for the individual and the country? Or is their true motive to simply gain power and influence? Is it principle or politics?

Most candidates claim to be Christians and will make reference to the Bible and affirm their reverence for God. The Bible says God created all that is (Gen. 1:1) and that man is distinctly superior to all other creatures (Gen. 2:7). God recognizes viability and personhood before birth (Ps. 139:13-16). God not only knows each person before birth (Jer. 1:5), but He has a purpose for each (Is. 49:1, 5; Gal. 1:15-16).

Taking human life is a capital offense (Gen. 9:6; Ex. 21:12; Lev. 24:17). The only exception ordained by God, other than self-defense, is the execution of evildoers (e.g., murderers), and that only by government (Rom. 13:4). God requires us to defend the innocent and protect the defenseless (Ps. 82:3-4; Prov. 12:6; 31:8-9). We must not give consent of power to candidates who favor legislation that violates these Biblical values and principles.

The likelihood that two pieces of such legislation will be enacted depends upon the person who next occupies the White House. One is the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) , which would nullify the ban of partial-birth abortion and reverse virtually all laws that protect the unborn. Another related issue is the Equal Rights Amendment. This would have sweeping implications on abortion laws, resulting in the continued slaughter of the innocents.

The Declaration of Independence states that we have not only the right, but the duty to remove or prevent a government that does not promote and protect the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To fail in this is not only to jeopardize our liberty and to become subject to godless despots, but also to forfeit the blessing of Almighty God. The Declaration of Independence states the fact that government derives power from the consent of the governed. The Christian citizen must recognize and reject any candidate who does not honor the government’s role as it pertains to preserving our unalienable right to life.

Any candidate who favors the taking of innocent life (e.g., the unborn, the sick and infirm, etc.) and the preservation of a capital offender’s life is not only self-contradictory but also rebelling against God. We cannot honor God by giving government the power to destroy human life! Your consent is given at the ballot box. Voting for a presidential or congressional candidate who can justify the taking of any human life apart from capital punishment and self-defense is consenting to government sanctioned murder.
--------------
Gene McCoy is an active advocate for life. He is the past-president of the Baxter County Right to Life and is a preacher at Memorial Christian Church in Mtn Home, Arkansas. See also: An online comparison of the presidential candidates’ positions on life issues.

Can Our Nation Afford Mesmerizing Promises of Hope and Change?

2008-06-28T23:46:00.000-05:00

ARRA News Service is pleased to present the following guest editorial by a Bradley County, Arkansas conservative Renee Taylor. She is a freelance writer, photographer, home schooling mom and publicist for Joey Holiday. She is a Contributing Editor for Family Security Matters editor/webmistress of American Truckers at War.
by Renee Taylor: "I pledge allegiance to the United Nations, the rulers of the world, one nation under socialism..." Is this really a stretch? How could our once great nation have spiraled into current state of affairs? As we face the upcoming presidential election, we have a charismatic, mesmerizing candidate who has promised "hope" and "change" to a bloc of voters so numbed by years of socialist indoctrination in our school system that they cannot see the disaster that is bearing down at a lightening fast pace.

Our once great nation is careening into a cesspool of immorality and despair brought upon us by a public education system that more and more often does not turn out the best and the brightest, but the dazed and confused.Without the slightest understanding of basic economics and government, they remain glued to the stage, weeping, as their "savior" promises empty words - "hope and change."

It was my nine-year-old son, Lee, who inadvertently described what could be the answer to our nation's decline, as he quoted Newton's Law - "For every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction."

We are now paying up to $4 per gallon for gasoline, even more in some areas. What is Washington's "action?" To continue it's refusal to allow offshore drilling and access to ANWR and other oil-rich resources. In their nearly perverse submission to members of the ecological movement (whose apparent goal is to keep us dependent upon foreign oil), refineries have not been built, other nations are now allowed either to lease or drill off our coast, and the average American can ill afford to drive to work, school and the grocery store. Now that we have reached a critical point with our economy, it is the oil companies - not the long standing ban on domestic drilling and stifling restrictions on building new refineries imposed by Washington - that get the blame. Presidential candidate Barack Obama and others refuse to support domestic drilling - something that will not only decrease our dependency on foreign oil, but will create badly needed jobs for American workers. Jobs not "created" by government, but by the private sector. This is contrary to the goal of the "nanny state," which seeks to control every aspect of your lives, from what pay and benefits you receive on your job to what kind of light bulb you use in your home. A generation of voters indoctrinated by "Captain Planet" and photos of seagulls with plastic rings around their necks will ensure that, while the snail darter is safe, America could very well be rationing gasoline.

While America slept, jobs were outsourced and basic goods were no longer manufactured in the United States. In our quest for materialism, we demanded cheap, readily available Chinese made products. Consumers purchased with reckless abandon clothing, electronics and food imported from China, Mexico and every nation in between. While American workers demanded pay and benefits their employers could not afford, Chinese sweatshops were busily sewing designer jeans and assembling substandard plastic toys and household goods. Our customer service jobs were outsourced to the Philippines and Asia as our government funded education system turns out graduates without basic knowledge of math and English.

Immoral behavior is rewarded richly with government benefits at the cost of the American worker via increased taxation. Potential voters cheer at every promise of government-sponsored health care without thought to how the government actually receives its income (the American worker). And why not? Children are not taught consequences for their actions.Recently, in Gloucester, Massachusetts, 17 high school students may have struck a deal with one another to become pregnant. Regardless of the excuse of the girls, one of whom became impregnated by a 24-year-old homeless man, there will likely be no consequence to them.With tax dollars building day care centers in public schools, readily available "free" medical care, food stamps and government assisted housing, we now have 17 single mothers potentially dependent upon the government. Schools, without parental intervention, teach our children not the consequences of sexual activity, but how to do it "safely. "The effect has been undereducated single parents dependent upon a "nanny state" funded by a working middle class already struggling to support their own families.

We have become an empty nation with no moral compass, no national pride, no faith in God and our government. The traditional family - dad, mom and children - has given way to "applicant A and applicant B" as California forces same sex marriages upon voters, boldly disregarding the will of the majority. We are inundated by claims that certain groups are "offended" by our Pledge of Allegiance because of the words "Under God." However, the American people are finally awakening and realizing we are not the great nation of go-getters we once were, but devolving into a country whose citizens are looking to government for help with home heating bills, solutions to the oil crisis our own elected officials created and the burden of supporting broken homes and illegal aliens.

Here in Warren, Arkansas, and across the state, a petition is circulating asking Little Rock to refuse public assistance to illegal aliens. Many families are returning to growing and canning their own fruits and vegetables, tired of contaminated foods from other countries poisoning our citizens. Over one million people have signed a petition at AmericanSolutions.com demanding Washington allow domestic drilling. We are tired of sweating to support our families while children bear children dependent upon government assistance, using funds forcibly taken out of our paychecks via taxation.

Proverbs 12:11 states: "He that tilleth his land shall be satisfied with bread: but he that followeth vain persons is void of understanding." Will be till our own land - use our vast energy resources, grow food to feed our families and take pride in our hard work and efforts? Or will we blindly follow vain, narcissistic politicians with mesmerizing, empty promises of "hope" and "change"?

Gas Price Reduction Act of 2008

2008-06-27T00:35:00.002-05:00

ARRA News Service - Senate Republicans unveiled a new energy plan, the Gas Price Reduction Act of 2008, which will open up the outer continental shelf for oil exploration and remove the moratorium on Western oil shale exploration imposed by Democrats last year.

The new bill, cosponsored by 42 Republican senators, is designed to give Democrats another chance to support more American energy and more American jobs. While Republicans in the Senate continue to strongly support environmentally responsible oil exploration in ANWR, the new bill is designed to remove that as an excuse for Democrats to hide behind. If Senate Democrats will not support these sensible ways to increase American access to oil and natural gas, and thus alleviate some of the pressure pushing gas prices higher, they will have to go home next week and explain to their constituents why.

In contrast, Senate Democrats have offered nothing except taxation, regulation and litigation in response to the problem of high energy costs. House Democrats’ continue to fumble on energy legislation, as the continue to put forth proposals that will do nothing to lower gas prices.

Summary of Provisions
TITLE I – DEEP SEA EXPLORATION (OCS)
14 Billion Barrels On Atlantic and Pacific OCS – More Than All US Imports From Persian Gulf Countries Over The Last 15 Years

State Option Nationwide (except Gulf of Mexico)
Governor petitions to allow exploration, with concurrence of state legislature
Exploration must be at least 50 miles from coast
50% of revenues to Federal Treasury, 37.5% to States, 12.5% to Land & Water Conservation Fund

TITLE II: WESTERN STATE OIL SHALE EXPLORATION
More Than 3 Times The Oil Reserves Of Saudi Arabia

800 billion - 2 trillion potentially recoverable barrels in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming
Democrat Congress put moratorium on final regulations for development of this resource
Republican proposal would repeal the moratorium and allow exploration to move forward

TITLE III: PLUG-IN ELECTRIC CARS AND TRUCKS

We need better batteries to maximize electricity range & use less gas
Increased R&D for advanced batteries
Direct Loans for advanced battery manufacturing facilities
Sense of Senate that the Federal Government should increase its purchases of these vehicles

TITLE IV: STRENGTHENING U.S. FUTURES MARKETS

Authorizes increased funding/staff for Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
Directs the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets to study the international regulation of commodities markets
Codifies CFTC action on position limits and transparency for foreign boards of trade
Requires the CFTC to gather information on index traders and swap dealers

More Voters Trust McCain to be Commander-in-Chief

2008-06-27T00:30:00.002-05:00

ARRA News Service: A Gallup Poll shows more American believes McCain to be a better Commander in Chief. Gallup reports:

McCain's life experience has earned him a solid national reputation as someone who can serve as the nation's commander in chief, with 80% saying he can handle the responsibilities of this important role. Barack Obama lags well behind on the same measure, but does pass the 50% public confidence threshold. . . [Read More]

Freedom - narrated by Fred Thompson (Video)

2008-06-26T11:46:00.001-05:00

"Freedom" -- featuring Ronald Reagan's wisdom, Fred Thompson's narration and John McCain's vision for our future -- lays out the stakes on Election Day and was the feature video for the 2008 President's Dinner.

H/T ARRA News Service

Postmortem - Why Hillary Clinton Lost

2008-06-25T23:44:00.002-05:00

ARRA News Service - Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: The post-mortems are rolling in to explain the long-drawn-out and spectacular failure of Hillary Clinton's once-so-promising presidential campaign. She and her supporters are sure they know how and why she was rejected: she was the victim of sexism. Feminist ideology teaches that American women are victims of an oppressive patriarchal society. No matter how rich or prominent or smart or advantaged a woman may be, success and happiness are still beyond her grasp because institutional sexism holds her down.

. . . The feminists are living in an unhappy world of their own making. In truth, 92 percent of Americans say they would vote in a presidential election for a qualified female candidate from their own party, and 55 percent say Yes when asked if America is ready for a woman president. Hillary lost because (a) she simply is not likeable, and (b) the voters (especially Democrats) suffer from Clinton fatigue. The Clintons' offer of two-for-the-price-of-one didn't play particularly well in 1992, and it was even less attractive in 2008. . . .

Another reason Hillary lost was that people resented her sense of entitlement. She believed that the presidency was hers, and that all the people whom the Clintons had appointed or helped, like New Mexico's Governor Bill Richardson, should fall in line. Hillary kept repeating that she was the candidate most ready (on day one) to be America's CEO and commander-in-chief. That's hard to believe when she couldn't run her own campaign staff. . . .

Hillary's allies blame the national news media for unfairly terminating her campaign because they are "suffering from sexism" and "Obama mania." Ellen Malcolm of Emily's List and Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood emoted for an hour on C-SPAN about how sexism spoiled Hillary's chances. Contrary to the image Hillary has carefully cultivated, she is not a self-made woman like Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice or Margaret Thatcher. Hillary got her career the old-fashioned way; she married it. . . . [Read More]

Holding the Left Accoubtable on Energy Prices

2008-06-24T00:30:00.002-05:00

ARRA News Service - Conn Carroll, The Foundry, Morning Bell: The most important thing to remember as the debate over energy prices becomes a major issue in 2008 is that liberals want Americans to pay higher energy prices. That is why they sue to stop natural gas drilling in Wyoming, new refineries in South Dakota and coal power plants nationwide . The whole purpose of the Lieberman-Warner carbon capping bill was to increase the cost of energy to force Americans to use less of it. But now Americans are beginning to catch on to the left’s game, and they are not happy.

According to Rasmussen Reports, 67% of voters believe that offshore drilling should be allowed, and 64% believe lifting the ban on offshore drilling will lead to lower gas prices. A new Reuters poll found that 60% of Americans favor more domestic drilling and refinery construction to cool record prices. Facing an American public increasingly hostile to their energy policy, liberals in Congress are scrambling to find new arguments and policy proposals that can provide them with a patina of political cover. They include:

Lifting bans on domestic oil production will not lower energy prices. This liberal argument comes in two forms: 1) developing X oil well will not lower the price of gas and 2) it will take 10 years for the increased supply to lower prices. These arguments are especially pernicious because applied to each oil project today, they are technically true. However, if the test for developing any single oil field was whether it alone would lower the price of gas, then no oil field would ever be developed. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will not lower gas substantially by itself, but there is so much more oil currently banned from production. Also, as the Washington Post’s Steven Pearlstein points out: “In energy, as with all commodity markets, prices are set at the margin — based on the last transaction — and short-run demand doesn’t change much in response to price fluctuations. In such markets, even small changes in supply can have a big impact on price.” Finally, liberal complaints that lifting domestic drilling bans today would take years to increase supply are completely unpersuasive since liberals have been making the same argument in support of oil production bans for decades now.

Oil companies leave billions of acres of already leased land idle. This incredibly deceptive argument is new to the left’s anti-energy arsenal. It is true that, as the left claims, oil companies already have 33 billion acres of offshore leases they are not currently drilling on. But these lands are far from idle. Oil production takes time and requires years of exploration and permitting. Oil companies are already paying billions of dollars every year for land they are exploring, and under current law, if they do not begin drilling by the time their lease is up, they lose their right to drill. This does not mean there are not billions of barrels of more profitable oil in banned areas. The Department of the Interior estimates that their are 19.1 billion barrels of oil and 83.9 trillion cubic feet of gas in the banned areas Outer Continental Shelf alone.

Speculators are to blame for the high price of gas. When all else fails, blame the moneychangers. This argument predates not only the environmental movement, but the country itself. As American Enterprise Institute scholar Kevin Hassett points out, Milton Friedman dealt with this specious claim in 1953: “If speculators know that the price of something is going to go up a month from now, they buy today. If they are correct, they make money, and the price change is smoothed by the higher demand today. … If speculators are, as is popularly believed, brilliant tacticians who are making a killing, then their activities are stabilizing. Speculation is good.”

Already there are cracks in left’s unity on the drilling issue. Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) has co-sponsored a bill with Sen. John Warner (R-VA) to lift the ban on natural gas production off the coast of Virginia. More importantly though, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is refusing to even allow the House to vote on lifting the offshore drilling ban. She must know many from her own party would vote for the measure. After all, they would only be responding to the fact that their constituents are eager to hold them accountable on the issue. [Source]

Kennedy & Reagan Agree - It's the Economy Stupid!

2008-06-24T00:20:00.002-05:00

Dr. Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: The following insightful words of two former revered Presidents shows clearly the track to National economic success which has developed the most vibrant economic system in the world:

It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.” — John F. Kennedy

“First, if I may, I’d like to establish the scope of the topic under discussion. For when we speak about the economy, we’re dealing with more than mere numbers, more than statistics about productivity and employment. We’re dealing instead with one of the most basic aspects of human existence: We’re dealing with the way the great majority of men and women spend most of their hours, most days, throughout the most productive years of their lives...I believe it’s important to remind ourselves that in dealing with the economy we’re dealing with human creativity. This insight has represented the underpinning of our economic expansion. We cut tax rates, reduced government regulation, and restrained Federal spending; and we unleashed the creativity of individuals and businesses. We gave them freedom to create; to keep the rewards of their own risk-taking and hard work; and to reach for new, bold ideas.” — Ronald Reagan

Two years ago, Congressional Republicans paid the price for following the wide path of their Democrat colleagues and pursuing the "congressional pork gravy train." Wastefully and increased spending by the Government has eventually slowed our economic growth. If it were not for the Reagan-Kennedy type Bush tax cuts, the economy would have slowed to a stop.

The present liberal Democrat leadership of Congress appears hell-bent on destroying our economy by pursuing increased taxes, spending via redistribution of wealth schemes and restrictions on business. The liberals hatred of President Bush exceeds their ability to do right by and for American citizens. Although Bush will be gone in less than seven months, these liberal, progressive democrats are focusing on the killing America's golden goose - our economy.

Our economy is the envy of the world and has raised the American standard of living to an all time high. To save our economy, our leaders need to listen to the words of Presidents Kennedy and Reagan: cut taxes, retrain government spending, reduce government regulation, and unleash the creativity of individuals and businesses.

"Speaking Democrat:" A Primer

2008-06-22T16:44:00.001-05:00

H/T ARRA News Service: Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), House Republican Policy Chairman, recently took to the House floor to translate Democrat speech for the rest of America - “Speaking Democrat: A Primer.”

In the interest of legislative process, we hear many speeches on the floor, many members talk to their constituents; I'm going to try to bring a bit of enlightenment to this process . . . We're going to learn how to speak Democrat:

“Speaking Democrat:” A Primer
Speaking “Local Democrat”

“PROGRESSIVE” = “REGRESSIVE”
Statement: “Democrats are progressive.”
Translation: “Democrats are regressive.”

“CHANGE” = “THE 1970s”
Statement: “Democrats will bring you change.”
Translation: “Democrats will bring you the 1970s.”

“GOVERNMENT” = “SOCIALISM”
Statement: “Democrats support proactive government.”
Translation: “Democrats support proactive socialism.”

“ENHANCE REVENUES” = “RAISE TAXES”
Statement: “Democrats will enhance revenues.”
Translation: “Democrats will raise taxes.”

“THE RICH” = “YOU”
Statement: “Democrats will only tax the rich.”
Translation: “Democrats will only tax you.”

“INVEST” = “WASTE”
Statement: “Democrats will invest your money.”
Translation: “Democrats will waste your money.”

“ENERGY” = “LETHARGY”
Statement: “Democrats have an energy policy.”
Translation: “Democrats have a lethargy policy.”

“GREEN COLLAR JOBS” = “UNEMPLOYMENT”
Statement: “Democrats will replace your blue collar jobs with green collar jobs.”
Translation: “Democrats will replace your blue collar jobs with unemployment.”

Speaking “Global Democrat”

“DIPLOMACY” = “MAGIC”
Statement: “Democrats will protect America from Iranian nukes through tough, principled diplomacy.”
Translation: “Democrats will protect America from Iranian nukes through tough, principled magic.”

“ENGAGE” = “APPEASE”
Statement: “Democrats will engage America’ enemies.”
Translation: “Democrats will appease America’s enemies.”

“END” = “LOSE”
Statement: “Democrats will end the Iraq War.”
Translation: “Democrats will lose the Iraq War.”

Contextually Construing “Electoral Democrat”
(i.e. Walking the Party Plank)

Statement: “As a progressive party, Democrats will bring you change by using government to enhance revenues from the rich to invest in the production of energy and green collar jobs; and by using diplomacy to engage America’s enemies and end the Iraq War.”

Translation: “As a regressive party, Democrats will bring you the 1970s by using socialism to raise taxes from you to waste in the production of lethargy and unemployment; and by using magic to appease America’s enemies and lose the Iraq War.”

NBC's Tim Russert

2008-06-13T22:58:00.003-05:00

Post Updated 6/23: by Wes Vernon: The media have been criticized for their wall-to-wall coverage of the death of NBC's Tim Russert. But in truth, the Meet the Press anchorman genuinely was one of a kind. Deep down, they know he had connectivity to the public that most others can only envy. And they respected him for that. That, I believe, is the reason for their intense coverage of his totally unexpected death at the peak of his career. The son of a garbage man in Buffalo, N.Y., his whole approach reeked of a hometown boy's love of country, his Catholic faith, his spirit of good will that coexisted well with the necessary toughness for his job, and his humble roots, never forgetting his beloved Buffalo Bills . . . [Read More]

Big Mac: The Taxpayer-Friendly Candidate

2008-06-11T22:39:00.003-05:00

Lawrence Kudlow Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Sen. John McCain moved decisively to the supply-side Tuesday in a strong speech to the National Small Business Summit in Washington, D.C. For investors, small-business owner-operators, and the vast majority of middle-class Americans who go to work every day and are concerned about Sen. McCain’s tax vision, this speech is good news. Big Mac is the taxpayer-friendly candidate.

The Republican candidate for president embraced low-tax-rate incentives to grow the economy, promising a combination of pro-growth tax reform and simplification along with significant spending restraint. He has called himself a foot soldier in the Reagan revolution. This tax speech clinches it.

McCain pledged to keep taxes low for families and employers, putting himself squarely in Ronald Reagan’s camp and offering to extend the long prosperity wave started by the Gipper over twenty-five years ago. In contrast, McCain charged Obama -- who gave his economic speech on Monday -- with proposing the single-biggest tax hike in the entire post-WWII period.

McCain asserted that “no matter which of us wins in November, there will be change in Washington. The question is what kind of change?” Obama says a McCain victory will hand Bush a third term. McCain says an Obama victory gives Jimmy Carter a second term.
I think McCain gets it right.

Getting down to specifics, McCain said he will maintain the low income and investment tax rates put in place by President Bush. He singled out the need to keep the capital-gains tax rate at a low 15 percent, so that businesses will have the investment necessary to expand jobs, productivity, and real wages.

Completely unlike Obama, McCain is saying you can’t have capitalism without capital. And he recognizes that investors must have high after-tax returns in order to take risks and fuel entrepreneurial activity. On this point, think high-risk energy technologies for clean coal, natural gas, oil shale, and nuclear and cellulosic power.

McCain repeated his plan to reduce the corporate tax rate to 25 percent from 35 percent. This could be his single-most-important tax reform. Not only will it enhance America’s global competitiveness, since we have the second highest corporate tax among large countries. But a number of studies show that roughly 70 percent of the benefits from a lower corporate tax will flow to the workforce in the form of higher real wages and more jobs.

McCain also pledged to keep the estate tax low to reward family businesses. Overall, he would seek a flatter and simpler tax system, probably modeled on Rep. Paul Ryan’s idea of two rates of 25 and 15 percent. McCain also discussed several middle-class tax cuts, such as doubling the child tax exemption and phasing out the alternative minimum tax. For businesses, McCain added a first-year cash-expensing provision for the write-off of new equipment and technology.

McCain coupled all this with a pledge to veto earmarks and pork-barrel spending. He held out as an example the outrageous $300 billion farm bill that drew Obama’s vote. McCain would go after corporate welfare and freeze discretionary spending outside of the military. And he made an especially strong case for the free-trade policies that have been so important to U.S. economic growth.

The McCain-Obama contrast couldn’t be more stark. Obama wants to use the tax system to redistribute income and wealth, not to grow the economy. He constantly talks about rewarding work over wealth. This is pure class warfare.

Obama doesn’t seem to understand that our nation was founded on the principle of equality of opportunity, and that private enterprise, not government, is the main economic driver. Obama intensely dislikes businesses. He would repeal all the Bush tax cuts and raise the corporate tax.
Obama talks about the need for bottom-up economic growth. But this is a canard. He’s pure top-down when it comes to big-spending government programs.

Obama singled out the ownership society, calling it a “worn dogma.” In fact he misjudges modern America, which is dominated today by 100 million investors, 25 million small-business owners, nearly 70 million homeowners, and roughly 140 million people who go to work everyday in the corporate world.

Obama opposes free trade. And though he has tried to hedge his bet on this point, it will never sell in this YouTube election.

Earlier in the campaign, he became the candidate of 1970’s scarcity and limits when he asserted that “we can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees Fahrenheit at all times, and then just expect that every other country is going to say okay.”

Ironically, it’s Sen. McCain who is saying “Yes we can.” We can grow. We can prosper. We can be confident about the future. He’s saying that with the right economic policies, America’s outlook will know no bounds.

House Subcommittee Rejects Plan to Open US Waters to More Oil Exploration

2008-06-11T22:39:00.001-05:00

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

WASHINGTON — A House subcommittee on Wednesday rejected a Republican-led effort to open up more U.S. coastal waters to oil exploration.

Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., spearheaded the effort. His proposal would open up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles off shore for drilling. The first 50 miles off shore would be left alone.

But the plan failed Wednesday on a 9-6, party-line vote in a House appropriations subcommittee, which was considering the proposal as part of an Interior Department spending package.

With record oil prices and gas prices projected to hover around the $4 mark for the rest of the summer, Republicans have ratcheted up their efforts to open up oil exploration along U.S. coastline. But the long-sought change has so far been unsuccessful.

Most offshore oil production and exploration has been banned since a federal law passed in 1981.
"We are kidding ourselves if we think we can drill our way out of these problems," House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., said during the bill mark-up session.

For his part, Peterson said: "There is no valid reason for Congress to keep the country from energy resources it needs."

"I'm disappointed. I did not expect a partisan vote today. I felt we had a chance of winning this. A lot of Democrats have been talking favorably about my amendment. They know we have to do something. But today was an absolute show of Pelosi power, it was dealt from the top down," Peterson said later, speaking with FOX News, adding he was open to other energy solutions, including wind and solar power.

According to Peterson's office, the U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf, the area affected by the ban.

Peterson is not alone in his desire to open up the shelf. An effort to unlock the resources has been underway in Congress in recent years, and several interest groups are backing the effort, too.

"Tapping America's huge reserve of deep ocean energy helps us fight terrorism and increases our domestic energy supply, which will help put downward pressure on gasoline prices," Greg Schnacke, President of Americans for American Energy, said in a news release, adding: "With Americans suffering at the gas pump and with higher energy bills, it's a no-brainer that the OCS should be developed."

But the proposal has faced staunch opposition from environmental groups from states where the shorelines are under consideration for drilling, like Florida.

Sierra Club lands program director Athan Manuel told a House committee Wednesday that drilling has been unsuccessful in driving costs down.

"The disappointing part about some of the energy policies being promoted (is) that it calls for more drilling when drilling really is the problem. And all we've got to show for pretty aggressive (domestic) drilling for the last 35 years is, again, $4 for a gallon of gas," Manuel said, adding "since the first Arab oil shock in the 1970s, the U.S. has produced almost 90 billion barrels of oil since then, so we've tried drilling our way out of the problem and it just hasn't worked."

Environment Florida spokeswoman Holly Binns told the Media General news group that offshore drilling has no immediate impact on prices.

"It would take anywhere from seven to 10 years to bring those resources to shore — to have any measurable impact on supply,” Binns said, advocating renewable energy sources.

Democrats held their own series of events on Capitol Hill Wednesday to focus attention on global warming and energy independence, but drilling is not on the agenda. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Tuesday ongoing calls for more drilling "is the Johnny One-Note of the Republican Party."

Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., dismissed the need for oil explanation, speaking with FOX News Wednesday.

"There are 68 million acres right now that is available for exploration right now that the oil companies have — an area the size of Illinois and Georgia. We ought to be focusing on doing that," Blumenauer said, adding that a legal gap he referred to as the "Enron loophole" exempts energy trading from oversight of the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission.

And not surprisingly, the issue has spilled into the ream of presidential politics as well.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., criticized Democrats, including fellow Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., over recent comments Obama made regarding gas prices.

The comments that McConnell referred to were given during an interview with CNBC.

Discussing rising gasoline prices, Obama said: "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing.

Obama also said that "if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly U.S. automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out of this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now.

McConnell, honing in on Obama's referral to "gradual" price increases, said Obama's remarks are evidence that Obama believes "rising gas prices aren't the problem. The problem, he suggested, is that they've gone up too fast. He said he would prefer a gradual adjustment."

He continued: "Whether it's shutting down domestic exploration in large areas both onshore and offshore, instituting a moratorium on oil shale development, increasing the gas tax, or refusing to pursue coal to liquids, Democrats long ago implemented a 'gradual adjustment' on gas prices that's reflected today in the $4.05 Americans are paying for a gallon of gas."

FoxNews.com