News for social, fiscal & national security conservatives who believe in God, family & the USA. Upholding the rights granted by God & guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, traditional family values, "republican" principles / ideals, transparent & limited "smaller" government, free markets, lower taxes, due process of law, liberty & individual freedom. All content approval rests with the ARRA News Service Editor. Opinions are those of the authors. While varied positions are reported, beliefs & principles remain fixed. No revenue is generated for this site - no paid ads accepted - no payments for articles. Fair Use doctrine is posted & used. Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru & 2010 AFP National Blogger of the Year] Follow @arra Contact: email@example.com (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home Page
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
Clinton On Islam & Women While Sanders Targets Israel
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the left claim to be pro-women and insist that Republicans are anti-women. I don't see how progressives can claim to be pro-women when they are trying to force your 12 year-old daughter to shower next to a boy who claims to be a girl. But let's put that aside for now.
The left, led by Obama and Hillary, wants to bring more Muslims from developing countries into the United States. As we have seen in Europe, many Muslim men bring with them barbaric attitudes toward women.
Infamously on New Year's Eve, there were molestations and rapes by Muslim men in major German cities, the most notable being Cologne.
What was the reaction of the political left in Europe and the European media? They tried to cover up the attacks because they feared it might undermine their pro-immigration, open borders agenda. In the U.S., Obama, Clinton and Sanders were basically silent.
In many Muslim countries, Muslim women are second-class citizens, and subjected to absurdities like wearing the full burka and not being allowed to drive a car. It gets worse.
Many imams teach that what few restrictions apply to the treatment of Muslim women do not apply to infidel women. So the Muslim man who rapes a woman or attempts to molest a young girl has committed no sin in the eyes of Allah as long as the victim is an infidel or a non-Muslim.
For years we have been saying that American progressivism is full of contradictions. For example, the left says it is in favor of the working man, but then it attacks the energy industry that employs many working families.
Most of these contradictions are rarely exploited by candidates like Romney and McCain. At least Trump is showing every indication that he is willing to expose the left's glaring contradictions, which should make for one heck of a campaign!
Bernie Sanders Targets Israel
Hillary Clinton, desperate to satisfy Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders and his legions of supporters, is evidently prepared to sacrifice Israel in the process.
The Washington Post reports that Sanders "was given unprecedented say over the Democratic Party platform Monday." Hillary Clinton is naming six members to the platform committee and Sanders is being allowed to name five members.
The Post notes, "Sanders immediately used his new power to name a well-known advocate for Palestinian rights to help draft Democratic policy."
In addition to radical, anti-Israel activist Cornel West and Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), Sanders also named James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, to the platform committee. Zogby recently lashed out at Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, accusing him of "shameful behavior" and "malevolent rule." This could get really interesting. Don't forget that delegates to the Democrats' national convention in 2012 erupted in achorus of booswhen the party attempted to put God and Jerusalem back in the platform after they had been stripped out in committee.
------------- Gary Bauer is a conservative family values advocate and serves as president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families Tags:Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families, Hillary Clinton, Islam, Women, Bernie Sanders, targets Israel, Donald Trump, tweet, editorial cartoon, AF BrancoTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Dr. Thomas Sowell: This is the season of college Commencement speeches — an art form that has seldom been memorable, but has increasingly become toxic in recent times.
Two themes seem to dominate Commencement speeches. One is shameless self-advertising by people in government, or in related organizations supported by the taxpayers or donors, saying how nobler it is to be in "public service" than working in business or other "selfish" activities.
In other words, the message is that it is morally superior to be in organizations consuming output produced by others than to be in organizations which produce that output. Moreover, being morally one-up is where it's at.
The second theme of many Commencement speakers, besides flattering themselves that they are in morally superior careers, is to flatter the graduates that they are now equipped to go out into the world as "leaders" who can prescribe how other people should live.
In other words, young people, who in most cases have never had either the sobering responsibility and experience of being self-supporting adults, are to tell other people — who have had that responsibility and that experience for years — how they should live their lives.
In so far as the graduates go into "public service" in government, whether as bureaucrats or as aides to politicians or judges, they are to help order other people around.
It might never occur to many Commencement speakers, or to their audiences, that what the speakers are suggesting is that inexperienced young graduates are to prescribe, or help to dictate, to vast numbers of other people who have the real world experience that the graduates themselves lack.
To the extent that such graduates remain in government — "public service" — they can progress from aides to becoming career politicians, bureaucrats and judges, never acquiring the experience of being on the receiving end of their prescriptions or dictates. That can mean a lifetime of people with ignorance presuming to prescribe to people with personal knowledge.
However well-educated the students might be in particular narrow fields — and, in too many cases, they have not gotten even that — what the graduates might have, at best, is a foundation for acquiring the real world experience necessary to complete their education and fulfill the ancient admonition, "With all your getting, get understanding."
Presumption is not understanding. It is the antithesis of understanding.
It was my personal good fortune never to have been present at a college or university Commencement speech until I was 46 years old. In my earlier years, my college and postgraduate degrees had been mailed to a forwarding address that I left behind when I took leave of the campus at the earliest opportunity.
At age 46, I was a Commencement speaker, and had to be told and shown how to wear the regalia. By the time I actually heard someone else give a Commencement speech, I was in my 50s — and knew enough by that time to be appalled, rather than inspired.
It was also my good fortune not to have gone to college until I was several years older than most people. At an age when too many young people have been told too often how brilliant and exceptional they are — presumably to promote "self-esteem" — I was working at unskilled labor jobs and struggling to buy food and pay my room rent.
Having to start work at the bottom was a blessing in disguise — and extremely well disguised at the time.
I learned the hard way that the good grades I had earned before dropping out of school were of no use to me in my low-level jobs. No one told me how brilliant I was. They were too busy correcting my mistakes. It was painfully obvious that adults around me understood much more about their work — and about life. This taught me inescapable lessons and respect for people who had no academic pretensions but a lot of common sense.
It would take a lot more than lofty Commencement speeches to undo those lessons. We all have windfall gains and windfall losses. But, all in all, I feel lucky compared to those graduates who are so vulnerable to slick Commencement speakers.
-------------- Thomas Sowell is an American economist, social commentator, and author of dozens of books. He has a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Chicago and degrees from Columbia University and Harvard University. He is a retired professor of Economic and presently is a Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Visit his website: tsowell.com and view a list of other articles. Tags:Thomas Sowell, commentary, Commencement Season, slick Commencement speakers, inexperienced young graduates, congrats, graduates To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Obama Administration Has Driven Americans To National Bankruptcy . . .
. . . 20,642 New Regulations ... More than $22 billion per year in new regulatory costs imposed on Americans last year by the Obama Presidency! There are more than 2,000 proposed or final rules in the pipeline — including 144 that are expected to cost $100 million a year or more.
If you aren't screaming yet - why Not? Read below article:
James Gattuso & Diane Katz report: The tide of red tape that threatens to drown U.S. consumers and businesses surged yet again in 2015, according to a Heritage Foundation study we released on Monday.
More than $22 billion per year in new regulatory costs were imposed on Americans last year, pushing the total burden for the Obama years to exceed $100 billion annually.
That’s a dollar for every star in the galaxy, or one for every second in 32 years.
The consequences of this rampant rulemaking are widespread:
Restricted access to credit under the hundreds of rules unleashed by the Dodd–Frank financial regulation statute
Fewer health care choices and higher medical costs from the Affordable Care Act
Reduced Internet investment and innovation under the network neutrality rules dictated by the Federal Communications Commission
These are just a few of the 2,353 regulations of 2015—and there have been 20,642 since Obama took office in 2009.
The worst of last year’s wave—in terms of cost, at least—was the Environmental Protection Agency’s “Clean Power Plan.”
The rule represents the first direct regulation of so-called greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, at a cost of $7.2 billion a year (and far more according to critics). Despite the huge costs, the plan will do nothing to mitigate global warming.
America’s problem with excessive regulation did not start with the Obama administration, of course.
His predecessor George W. Bush was hardly a paragon of deregulation. Although Bush showed restraint during his first term, the number of regulations soared during his final years in office. Under the two administrations combined, their new rules added $176 billion in annual regulatory costs on Americans.
And there is much more to come. Obama’s final year in the White House could be his busiest. Historically, rulemaking increases as presidents scramble to fulfill their regulatory agenda before leaving office.
There are already more than 2,000 proposed or final rules in the pipeline—including 144 that are expected to cost $100 million a year or more. These include yet more energy-efficiency mandates for home and commercial appliances, additional food-labeling requirements, stricter fuel economy standards for vehicles, and more stringent limits on consumer access to credit.
In a post-Obama era, the need for reform of the regulatory regime will be greater than ever before. Immediate reforms should include requiring legislation to undergo an impact analysis before a floor vote in Congress, as well as requiring that every major regulation obtain congressional approval before taking effect.
Sunset deadlines should also be imposed for all major rules, and independent agencies should be subject to the same White House regulatory review as executive branch agencies.
The unparalleled increase in regulatory burdens spells a decline in economic freedom and individual liberty, with a concomitant increase in political gamesmanship and cronyism—all of which inhibits innovation, investment and job creation, increases prices, and curtails consumer choice.
Congress needs to take immediate action to control the continued expansion of the administrative state, prevent further harm to the economy, and stem the erosion of individual liberty.
----------------- James Gattuso (@Jamesgattuso) handles regulatory and telecommunications issues for The Heritage Foundation as a Senior Research Fellow in its Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies. Diane Katz (@Dianeskatz) , who has analyzed and written on public policy issues for more than two decades, is a research fellow in regulatory policy at The Heritage Foundation. Tags:Obama Administration, Driven Americans, National Bankruptcy, James Gattuso, Diane Katz, Heritage3 FoundationTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Adam Walsh Act Reauthorization Will Help Keep Our Children Safe
Republican-Led Senate Has ‘Passed Many Different Measures To Help Victims’
SEN. MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): “The Republican-led Senate believes in the importance of combating sexual assault and providing key protections for the victims of these heinous crimes. ...the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act, will bolster efforts to prevent future sexual assault crimes and help victims receive justice.” (Sen. McConnell, Congressional Record, S.3039, 3/23/16)
SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): “Too many kids are falling prey to sexual predators. ... And too many people have had to cope with the physical and emotional trauma of a sexual assault. I introduced this legislation to help prevent future tragedies and ensure that victims have a good shot at justice. Today’s vote in the Senate reaffirms our commitment to protecting the rights of those who have experienced a sexual assault while helping communities across America work together to guard against future atrocities.” ((Sen. Grassley, Press Release, 5/23/16))
Adam Walsh Act Reauthorization Part Of ‘A Strong And Clear Message’ About ‘Congress’ Steadfast Commitment To Keeping Our Children Safe’
“The U.S. Senate voted to reauthorize the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act by an 89-0 vote Monday. It was initially passed in 2006, twenty-five years after the child was kidnapped and murdered.” (“Senate Passes Reauthorization Unanimously,” WTOK, 5/23/16)
S.2613 — Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2016: “This bill amends the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act to reauthorize through FY2018 the Sex Offender Management Assistance program and the Jessica Lunsford Address Verification Grant program. Additionally, it reauthorizes appropriations through FY2018 for the U.S. Marshals Service to locate and apprehend sex offenders who violate sex offender registration requirements.”
“Reauthorization means programs from the original bill will continue, like helping states meet national standards for sex offender registries. But there’s also something new. ‘We also, for the first time, added a Survivor’s Bill of Rights, to codify additional rights for victims of sexual assault,’ explained the bill’s author, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA).” (“Senate Passes Reauthorization Unanimously,” WTOK, 5/23/16)
A Previous Attempt To Reauthorize The Adam Walsh Act In 2012 Languished
H.R.3796 - Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2012 – passed the House on 8/1/2012, received in the Senate the next day, referred to Committee on Judiciary, no further action.
‘Legislation Is Vital’
NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING & EXPLOITED CHILDREN: “On behalf of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) and the families and children we serve, I am writing to express our support for your legislation, the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2016 (S.2613). … We believe the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2016 will allow law enforcement to continue their tireless efforts of monitoring and tracking sex offenders, and improve information sharing among state and local law enforcement.” (National Center For Missing & Exploited Children, Letter To Senators, 3/9/16) SHARED HOPE INTERNATIONAL: ‘This legislation is vital’ “This bill reauthorizes critically important provisions of the original Adam Walsh Act regarding the sex offender registry and the activities of the U.S. Marshall’s Service and seeks to improve both as tools to protect the public from sex offenders. Shared Hope has been working since 1998 to prevent sex trafficking of women and children, and to restore and bring justice to the victims. ... We believe the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2016 is essential to the fight against child sex trafficking by allowing law enforcement to continue tracking and monitoring registered sex offenders and improving information sharing. This legislation is vital.” (Shared Hope International, Letter To Senators, 5/20/16)
The Republican Senate Has ‘Passed Many Different Measures To Help Victims And To Help Stop These Crimes’
SEN. MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): “In less than 18 months, we have already passed many different measures to help victims and to help stop these crimes. We passed the Amy and Vicky act, which will help the victims of child pornography to get restitution from those who profit from their pain. … We passed an important measure championed by Senator Toomey, who worked with Senator Alexander to include in the K-12 education reform bill a requirement that States put laws and policies in place to help ensure schools are no longer able to ship child predators to other school districts. We passed a measure from Senator Portman, who worked with Senator McCaskill to hold an infamous child sex-trafficking company in contempt and force it to turn over critical information—information that is needed for their bipartisan human trafficking investigation to continue. And, of course, we passed the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. The victims of modern slavery deserve justice, and they deserve a voice, which is why—after years of previous inaction—the new Republican-led Senate made it a priority to pass this important anti-slavery bill. Of course, it is now law.” (Sen. McConnell, Congressional Record, S.3039, 3/23/16) Tags:Adam Walsh Act Reauthorization, Will Help Keep Our Children Safe, US Senate, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Patrick Buchanan: If China begins to reclaim and militarize Scarborough Shoal, says Philippines President Benigno S. Aquino III, America must fight.
Should we back down, says Aquino, the United States will lose “its moral ascendancy, and also the confidence of one of its allies.”
And what is Scarborough Shoal?
A cluster of rocks and reefs, 123 miles west of Subic Bay, that sits astride the passageway out of the South China Sea into the Pacific, and is well within Manila’s 200-mile exclusive economic zone.
Beijing and Manila both claim Scarborough Shoal. But, in June 2013, Chinese ships swarmed and chased off a fleet of Filipino fishing boats and naval vessels. The Filipinos never came back.
And now that China has converted Fiery Cross Reef and Mischief Reef into artificial islands with docks and air bases, Beijing seems about to do the same with Scarborough Shoal.
“Scarborough is a red line,” says Gregory Poling of the Center for Strategic and International studies. To allow China to occupy and militarize the reef “would clearly change the balance of power.”
Really? But before concluding that we must fight to keep China from turning Scarborough Shoal into an island base, there are other considerations.
High among them is that the incoming president of the Philippines, starting June 30, is Rodrigo Duterte, no admirer of America, and a populist authoritarian thug who, as Mayor of Davao, presided over the extrajudicial killing of some 1,000 criminals during the 1990s.
Duterte, who has charged Aquino with treason for abandoning Scarborough Shoal, once offered to set aside his country’s claim in exchange for a Chinese-built railroad, then said he might take a jet ski to the reef to assert Manila’s rights, plant a flag and let himself be executed to become a national hero.
In a clash with China, this character would be our ally.
Indeed, the rise of Duterte is yet another argument that, when Manila booted us out of Subic Bay at the Cold War’s end, we should have dissolved our mutual security pact.
This June, an international arbitration tribunal in The Hague will rule on Manila’s claims and China’s transgressions on reefs that may not belong to her. Beijing has indicated she will not accept any such decision.
So, the fat is in the fire. And as the Chinese are adamant about their claims to the Spratly and Paracel Islands and virtually all the atolls, rocks and reefs in the South China Sea, and are reinforcing their claims by creating artificial islands and bases, the U.S. and China are headed for a collision.
U.S. warships and reconnaissance planes passing near these islets have been repeatedly harassed by Chinese warplanes.
Vietnam, too, has a quarrel with China over the Paracels, which is why President Obama is being feted in Hanoi and why he lifted the ban on arms sales. There is now talk of the Navy’s return to Cam Ranh Bay.
But before we agree to support the claims of Manila and Hanoi against China’s claims, and agree to use U.S. air and naval power if needed, we need to ask some hard questions.
What vital interest of ours is imperiled by who owns, or occupies, or militarizes Scarborough Shoal? If U.S. rights of passage in the South China Sea are not impeded by Chinese planes or ships, why make Hanoi’s quarrels and Manila’s quarrels with China our quarrels?
Vietnam and the Philippines are inviting us back to our old Cold War bases for a simple reason. If the Chinese use force to back up their claims, Hanoi and Manila want us to fight China for them.
But, other than a major war, what would be in it for us?
And if, after such a war, we have driven the Chinese off these islets and destroyed those bases, how long would we be required to defend them for Hanoi and Manila?
Have we not enough war guarantees outstanding?
We are moving NATO and U.S. troops into Eastern Europe and anti-missile missiles into Poland and Romania, antagonizing Russia. We are fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen, and, if the neocons get their way, we will soon be confronting Iran again.
Meanwhile, North Korea is testing nuclear warheads for long-range missiles that can reach the American homeland.
And no vital U.S. interest of ours is imperiled in the South China Sea.
Should Beijing insanely decide to disrupt commercial traffic in that sea, the response is not to send a U.S. carrier strike group to blast their artificial islands off the map.
Better that we impose a 10 percent tariff on Chinese-made goods, and threaten an embargo of all Chinese goods if they do not stand down. And call on our “allies” to join us in sanctions against China, rather than sit and hold our coat while we fight their wars.
This economic action would send China’s economy into a tailspin, and the cost to Americans would not be reckoned in the lives of our best and bravest.
----------- Patrick Buchanan is currently a conservative columnist, political analyst, chairman of The American Cause foundation and an editor of The American Conservative. He has been a senior advisor to three Presidents, a two-time candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and was the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000. He blogs at the Patrick J. Buchanan. Tags:Patrick Buchanan, conservative, commentary, China, Scarborough Shoal, do not send carrier fleet, impose 10% tariff, Chinese goods, threaten embago, allies, sanctions on China, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Donald Trump, China, Trade - and Intellectual Property Theft
Perhaps a Little More
Umph is Required
by Seton Motley, Contributing Author: We are in the midst of a presidential race that is fundamentally changing how many view – and thought they knew – politics. Donald Trump especially is radically altering that map. What many thought were permanent lines – turned out to be drawn on an Etch-a-Sketch. That the presumptive Republican nominee has spent the last year shaking into oblivion.
Much of what Trump has altered – desperately needed to be altered. Change can be a very good thing – especially when terrible ideas and actions have been ensconced and accepted as “the norm” and “that’s how it’s always been done.
That’s certainly the case in many instances with intellectual property (IP). Intellectual property has come to be seen as somehow less than physical property – and thus less worthy of protection from theft. In an ever increasingly digital economy – that’s even less good.
One of the first major purveyors of IP theft was Napster. Launched on June 1, 1999, Napster was a website designed to allow its users to steal digital copies of music. Millions of people downloaded songs – for which they did not pay. These same people – who would never have walked into a brick-and-mortar Tower Records store and stolen the same music on CDs – had no compunction doing the exact same thing digitally. In this way did Napster help begin to artificially, dangerously lessen the perceived value of IP.
But just because you aren’t stealing anything tangible – doesn’t mean you aren’t stealing. By illegally replicating a song (or movie, or book, or….) – you are lessening the value of the legal copies thereof. It is the exact same reason you aren’t allowed to print fake money – because it devalues real money. (Someone please tell the United States Treasury.)
Flash forward nearly two decades – and we have China. Which is Napster on uber-steroids – ensconced as government policy. On May 15 on Fox News Sunday, in defense of Trump’s call for a reanalysis of how we cut trade deals, Republican former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said “When you hear, for example, that the Chinese last year probably stole $360 billion in intellectual property from the United States, I think being tough about that’s a good thing. I think conservatives can be for very tough-minded trade.”
$360 billion is a LOT of heisted coin. Is that a correct count? Uber-Left PolitiFact actually said “It could actually be higher.” Equally uber-Left PundiFact said “The first thing we should note, however, is that the $360 billion figure is only for losses from cyber-hacking — a limitation that Gingrich didn’t specify. Of course, adding in non-cyber losses would only increase that figure beyond $360 billion.”
So Gingrich’s $360 billion of Chinese per annum intellectual property theft is a…conservative estimate. It’s likely much worse. And guess who picks up that massive tab? You do – in the form of higher prices for the music, movies and other things they’re stealing.
Keep that in mind when next you hear how much a “trade war” will cost you. If the “war” is negotiating anti-theft mandates – the benefits will far outweigh the costs. And will restore some sanity to intellectual property perception.
All of this raises another question. Why would our Congress work to undermine any aspect of intellectual property protection? Why would they make it harder for our creators to protect their creations? And thereby easier for the likes of China to continue – and even increase – their thievery?
Sadly, that’s what Republicans are leading the charge to do to patents. Behold the woefully misnamed “Innovation Act”:
‘Innovation Act’ Will Stifle Innovation: “For investors in technology start-ups, things are about to get much more complex and dangerous….(T)his bill actually will kill investment and innovation … The American patent, so indispensable to technology start-ups, is about to be rendered useless when faced with an infringer of disproportionate size … “
Meanwhile, China and its ilk are licking their chops – hoping this terrible legislation becomes law.
We have decades of bad intellectual property precedent to undo. The Innovation Act isn’t helping.
---------------- Seton Motley is the President of Less Government and he contributes to ARRA News Service. Please feel free to follow him him on Twitter / Facebook. Tags:Donald Trump, China, Trade, Intellectual Property Theft, Seton Motley, Less GovernmentTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
The first principle is: The purpose of free enterprise is human flourishing, not materialism. In this statement he sets forth the moral case for free enterprise. He argues in one chapter that people flourish when they earn their own success. It’s not money per se that is a measure. Instead, it is what Arthur Brooks calls “earned success.”
A second principle is that America stands for equality of opportunity, not equality of income. Arthur Brooks has found that non-Americans will tell you that Americans are the most egalitarian people in the world. Most of us believe that we should have similar opportunities but also believe that we might end up in different places.
A third principle is that we seek to stimulate true prosperity, not treat poverty. Arthur Brooks says nearly every study of impoverished communities around the world shows that prosperity, not poverty, is the right focus if we want to lift people out of poverty.
A fourth principle is that America can and should be a gift to the world. Here is where we see a split in values. While some Americans see America as exploitative, most Americans believe that our country does more good than harm. And they believe the nation has been a force for good in the world.
And a final principle is that what truly matters is principle, not political power. Americans reject the pursuit of political power at the expense of principle. Confidence in politicians in America is now as low as it was during the era of Watergate.
Arthur Brooks in his book explains how we can make the case for the free enterprise system. These are key principles we need to promote.
----------- Kerby Anderson is a radio talk show host heard on numerous stations via the Point of View Network endorsed by Dr. Bill Smith, Editor, ARRA News Service Tags:Kerby Anderson, Viewpoints, Point of View, Free Enterprise, Arthur Brooks, The BattleTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Tags:editorial cartoon, AF Branco, economic media bias, economic growth, 2% growth, Barack Obama, 2% growth, GW BushTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
“One of the justifications for giving away U.S. oversight of the Internet’s naming conventions is to prevent a supposed fragmentation of the Internet. However, even the Obama administration admits that China is already fragmenting the Internet with its own root zone no matter what the U.S. and ICANN choose to do. Given that Internet fragmentation is a fact, proceeding with Obama’s reckless Internet transition is a solution in search of a problem and should be rejected due to its negative impacts on the free and open Internet.
“Moreover, nowhere in the multistakeholder proposal does it actually address the obvious antitrust concerns that arise with ICANN being the world’s only resolver of IP addresses and domain names, even though such lawsuits were anticipated in the 1998 Clinton Administration statement of policy that helped to establish ICANN. Either the lawsuits that begin after U.S. oversight and ICANN’s antitrust exemption go away will result in a fragmented Internet, or worse, one where ICANN and whoever controls it wielding absolute control over the Internet’s naming conventions.”
by Herman Cain: However much you may not like the choices, silencing your own voice is by far the worst thing you can do.
As disgruntled Republican voters and disappointed Democrat voters languish over a choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, some of them are saying it’s voting for the lesser of two evils, or, they're not voting at all.
And that’s a problem. For those determined to avoid evils, they’re missing something huge.
Not voting at all is the third evil.
That's how Rev. Dr. C.M. Alexander stated it at my church last Sunday, which caused my head to go boom! I and many others have been saying this for months, but never in such a simple and compelling way.
Independent and libertarian voters have been voting for the lesser of two evils for years, in their minds, in order to make their vote count. It does count and it does matter.
Both Trump and Hillary have high unfavorables in some polls. And if someone wants to find one reason to not vote for either of them, then they always can find something. Focusing on the unfavorables will cause you to not want to vote.
So, focus on the favorables and the drastic differences between the two presumptive presidential nominees. Who has the best experience as a leader, a fighter and a winner? I didn't ask who has the best worldwide flight schedule, or the highest political name ID.
Donald Trump is most likely to do things differently in Washington, D.C., which is badly needed, whereas, Hillary Clinton wants to continue the legacy of Barack Obama. That legacy contains a long list of failures and negatives, but you will not hear it from the liberal media or the Democrat voters who are still waiting for "hope and change".
We don't hear about as many staunch ideological liberals proclaiming that they will not vote for Hillary, as we hear from staunch ideological conservatives that they will not vote for Trump – although thankfully the #NeverTrump crowd has started to subside.
It's one thing to vote for a candidate "flaws and all" if that's how you see it. It’s another thing entirely to vote for a candidate who is all flaws.
But even worse is not voting at all. That's the worst of three evils.
----------------- Herman Cain is a conservative radio host of CainTV, a 2012 GOP presidential primary candidate with over 40 years of experience in the private sector as an analyst for Coca-Cola, an executive at Pillsbury, a regional Vice President for Burger King, and CEO of Godfather's Pizza. Cain served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and a supervisory mathematician for the Dept. of the Navy. Tags:Herman Cain, conservative, radio host, CainTV, Third Evil, Not VotingTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
But yesterday unquestionably changed the equation, no matter how many outstanding conservatives like Erick Erickson and Steve Deace may dismiss it. And while I understand their arguments all too well, I also realize they are so invested in their positions at this point that they may have trouble seeing data that doesn’t fit their model. We simply have to look at this with clear eyes and honesty about what it means and how it fits in the bigger picture, not discounting that they may be right, but open to the very real possibility that they might be wrong, or at least, wrong in crucial part.
So here’s the deal. Trump just did something no Presidential candidate has ever done: he gave us a specific list, from which he has promised his Supreme Court picks will come. And they are absolutely stellar. And he had Heritage and the Federalist Society help him pick them. And we’ve never seen such a list, not just in our lifetimes, but ever. George Washington himself did not choose better.
For reference, here is his March 21 statement at Mar-a-Lago:“Some of the people that are against me say, we don’t know if he’s going to pick the right judges, supposing he picks a liberal judge or a pro-choice judge, or whatever…. I will get a list of anywhere between 5 and 10 judges, and those are going to be the judges that I am going to put in, it will be one of those judges, and I will guarantee it personally –like we do in the business world- but I guarantee that they will be up for nomination if I win.”And here is the brilliant (and anti-Trump) legal scholar John Yoo, writing for National Review:“These names are a Federalist Society all-star list of conservative jurisprudence. Everyone on the list is an outstanding legal conservative. All are young, smart, and committed. Several of the possibilities, such as Tom Lee of Utah, Allison Eid of Colorado, and David Stras of Minnesota, are former law clerks of Justice Clarence Thomas, while others, such as Steve Colloton of Iowa and Joan Larsen of Michigan, clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia. They are joined by other well-known judicial conservatives, such as Diane Sykes, Don Willet, Ray Kethledge, and Bill Pryor.”Now Yoo proceeds to point out that he doesn’t trust Trump. And it is certainly true that in Trump’s March statement he “guaranteed” his picks would come from this list, whereas in yesterday’s statement he left himself a little more room. I get that. And also, as you may have noticed, I’ve been a die-hard Cruz supporter and I don’t especially trust Trump myself.
Still, we need to give this some real consideration, for several reasons.
First, we can’t have it both ways. Assuming Trump is insincere in his conservatism, he is either a massive ideological liberal who lives day and night to turn America socialist, or he’s more-or-less lacking deep convictions and just adopting whatever positions make sense for the greater glory of Trump. Can anyone really, objectively, assert the former? Not without going full-on conspiracist. (And by the way, there is at least some possibility that if it is the latter, he has actually lived long enough to be “mugged by reality” and genuinely become more conservative on at least some things over time; but I am noting that, not assuming it).
If this is true, Trump has absolutely no reason to betray his constituency, and he obviously believes these judges help him with them. In many ways, he will need their help after the election more than before it. So a bait-and-switch, while possible, doesn’t really add up.
Second, when George Bush nominated Harriet Miers in 2006, a much weaker Senate leadership killed her nomination as the conservative movement rose in revolt. She was not even all that objectionable (though I have the entirely forgotten distinction of being the very first conservative leader to oppose her): we all just knew that we needed awesome and Bush was giving us pablum. So Bush was forced to withdraw his close friend’s nomination and replace her with the perfectly wonderful Sam Alito.
This shows that a Trump betrayal can and almost certainly will have immediately consequences. Trump absolutely knows this.
Third, let’s be honest: we all sucked it up and helped Dole, McCain and Romney (and to a lesser degree both Bushes) on far, far less. Our knock on all of them was that we couldn’t trust them on judges, and not one of them sought to reassure us with more than “trust me.” We didn’t, but we supported them anyway, because we knew what Clinton, Kerry and Obama would do without question.
Trump just promised us — with specificity — exactly what we most need. And most of the other things he could actually do pale in significance beside this. Which brings me to my final point:
Fourth, unless Trump really is an ideologically-driven radical (which seems highly unlikely), it costs him nothing to give us what we most want. HE DOESN’T CARE. He wants to go after China and build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. Assuming the worst likely (as opposed to the worst possible) scenario, giving us our judges is the cheapest thing in the world to him.
But those judges would overturn Obergefell, Roe, Wickard, everything.
Hillary’s judges will put your pastor in prison. Not might. Will.
This is not an endorsement: these are just my preliminary thoughts. But I’ve said from the beginning that this is the singular issue in 2016: everything hangs on this, as it never has in any election before. Is Donald Trump terrible or merely populist? I don’t know, but God sovereignly chose to put us in this situation despite our very best efforts to avoid it, and Romans 8:28 still applies. Most of us have always said that we could live with just about anything if we could fix this one thing. Maybe God’s giving us that; maybe He’s even giving us someone who will see it through at all costs — as a matter of personal pride and machismo if nothing else — which even Reagan would not do for Bork.
Trump may be here for eight years, or four, or even just four weeks like William Henry Harrison. But Scalia’s replacement — and the potentially four other justices the next President might appoint — are likely to serve for the rest of our lives.
No matter how strongly one might dislike The Donald, I don’t think we can just blithely discount this development. We have just been handed the main thing we want and which America must have, by a proven fighter who has little to lose by delivering and quite a lot to lose by lying, at least about this specific thing. Miers helped push the Bush presidency off the cliff: it never recovered. And of all the charges against Donald Trump, “committed ideologue” is by far the least compelling.
Maybe it’s a head fake. But it deserves much, much more than our simple dismissal.
------------------ Rod D. Martin, writes at RodMartn.org, and is founder and CEO of The Martin Organization, a technology entrepreneur, venture capitalist, author and conservative activist. He is a member of the Board of Governors of the Council for National Policy, a Past President of the National Federation Republican Assemblies. and a contributing author to the ARRA News Service. Tags:Rod Martin, RodMartin.org, Donald Trump, Judges, Why They MatterTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: Importing Disease - Since the Obama Administration announced plans to bring in 10,000 Syrian refugees, who cannot be thoroughly vetted according to top security officials, more than a dozen of the nation's governors have attempted to withdraw from the refugee resettlement program.
Indiana Governor Mike Pence was among those who courageously fought the administration. As usual, Obama ignored their concerns, and now we're seeing some of the fallout.
Radical Islam aside, it used to be national policy to prevent the importation of infectious diseases. But the federal government is clearly failing in its obligations to medically screen refugees. Four refugees with active, infectious tuberculosis (TB) were resettled last year in Indiana. In addition, there are reports that 20% of refugees resettled in Minnesota have tested positive for TB.
The medical expenses associated with treating TB are a serious strain on local budgets. According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, "The cost of treating an active TB case that is susceptible or responsive to drugs averages $17,000, according to the CDC. Care of patients with drug-resistant TB . . . costs many times more: $134,000 for a multidrug-resistant patient and $430,000 for an extensively drug-resistant one."
Medical experts in and out of government are sounding the alarm about the breakdown of our screening procedures. "Admitting people who might cause an epidemic makes no sense whatsoever from a public health standpoint," Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, said. "Officials who place politics above the health of Americans need to be held accountable and removed from positions of authority."
Thankfully sanitariums are a thing of the past. But the ideologically-driven carelessness of the Obama Administration may have us headed there again.
Protecting Our Children - Opposition to Obama's radical agenda of allowing children to choose which bathrooms and locker rooms they want to use is growing. Here's the latest:
Nearly 100 Pennsylvania state legislators sent a letter to the White House telling the president that his order was an "unconstitutional intrusion" that "sacrifices the fundamental privacy rights . . . [of] millions of school students."
The nation's Catholic bishops condemned the order as "deeply disturbing."
State senators in Tennessee are urging Governor Bill Haslam to sue the Obama Administration.
A resolution has been filed in the Oklahoma legislature calling for Obama's impeachment.
Twenty-five senators -- all Republicans -- told the administration that its policy was "inappropriate" and that states and school districts were free to set their own bathroom policies.
Rep. Steve King is calling for civil disobedience if necessary.
Meanwhile, we are doing our part to keep the pressure on. This morning, we issued a press release alerting the national media to our letter to Speaker Ryan and Senate Majority Leader McConnell demanding action from Congress on this critical issue.
I am pleased to report that legislation has been introduced in the House by Rep. Luke Messer (R-IN), who has been endorsed by CWF. Messer's bill would preserve the authority of local schools to set their own bathroom and locker room policies. We are still waiting for similar legislation to be introduced in the Senate.
We will keep you posted.
------------- Gary Bauer is a conservative family values advocate and serves as president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families Tags:Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families, Importing Disease, Syrian refugees, TB, Protecting Our Children, bathrooms, locker roomsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Tom Balek, Contributing Author: Constitution lists many of the rights we citizens enjoy: the right to assemble, to speak freely, to bear arms. The most important right of all is overlooked by most Americans. You never see it mentioned on a protest sign, or by a political candidate. It doesn’t have its own enumerated amendment in the Bill of Rights. It is the right of individuals to own property and use it for their benefit.
While the word “property” is only mentioned once in the Constitution, the right of citizens to own and control it is woven throughout the document. The Constitution even restricts the federal government from owning land that should be available to the citizens. The framers knew that private ownership of property is the cornerstone of a free and productive society, and history has proved them right again and again. Nations that defend the rights of property owners enjoy advanced economies and quality of life, while authoritarian governments who possess and control property doom their people to a life of suffering and subsistence.
Venezuela is on the verge of collapse and bloody revolution as the socialist government nationalizes more and more private industry and property. Cuban and North Korean citizens have been mired in poverty for generations. China and Vietnam, while still communist, have seen the economic light and have begun “sharing” ownership of property with individuals – a measured step in the right direction.
Perhaps the starkest example of the tragic battle for control of private land is the recent history of Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe was colonized by the British in the 1880’s, and named Rhodesia after Cecil Rhodes, the founder of the chartering British South Africa Company. The colony was made up of Northern Rhodesia (which became Zambia), Southern Rhodesia (today’s Zimbabwe), and Malawi. White colonists claimed and developed most of the fertile and mineral-rich land, built a thriving agricultural industry, and brought employment and security to Rhodesia’s indigenous people. At its peak, Zimbabwe led the world in production per acre for as many as seven different crops.
In the 1960’s the colony was split up. In 1970 Zimbabwe’s white-minority government declared independence from Great Britain, although it was not recognized. A decade of civil war and violence followed, mostly driven by nationalist Robert Mugabe. In 1980, Great Britain finally granted independence to Zimbabwe, celebrating its new constitution and democratic government. But in the following decades, Mugabe set out to confiscate all white-owned property, and the constitution and courts were hollowed out. “Resettlement” laws were passed and the farmers, who were promised (but never received) compensation, lost their land to Mugabe’s cronies, who were unprepared and disinterested in operating the farms. Most of the white farmers and countless thousands of their employees were tortured and killed as Mugabe’s plan to eliminate Zimbabwe’s food production was carried out. Agricultural output evaporated, plunging the entire nation into dependence on the government for rationed handouts, mostly provided by other nations.
One of these farmers, Ben Freeth, documented the destruction of Zimbabwe in his book, “Mugabe and the White African”, and points out that the seizure of land and private property is a tyrant’s most effective weapon:
“Land reform is about controlling the land in order to control the people on it. People need to eat, and in hard times they rely on the land to be able to grow food so that they can survive. Dictators – like Stalin in Russia and Mao in China, Pol Pot in Cambodia and Mengistu in Ethiopia – all knew that once they controlled the land they could control the food supply and nothing could then stand in their way. They could stamp out all opposition by using food to control people, just as Pavlov used food in his experiments with dogs and got them to do whatever he wanted. It has happened in country after country in Africa. Property rights have been usurped in the name of land reform and tyranny reigns unchecked.”Zimbabwe’s troubles continue even today as Zimbabwe’s sham government still pretends that it will pay restitution to the displaced farmers.
The history of Zimbabwe offers a lesson for Americans. When a news item hits the wire revealing another land grab by the federal government, we had better pay attention. Under President Obama the federal government has nationalized over 265 million acres. That’s about three times the size of Zimbabwe.
--------------- Tom Balek is a fellow conservative activist, blogger, musician and contributes to the ARRA News Service. Tom resides in North Carolina and seeks to educate those too busy with their work and families to notice how close to the precipice our economy has come. He blogs at Rockin' On the Right Side Tags:Tom Balek, Rockin' On The Right Sid, Lesson, Zimbabwe, farming, land grab, U.S government, PResident Obama, Federal Government, nationalized, 265 million acres, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
NRA Endorses Donald Trump for President of the United States
Donald Trump speaks to NRA-ILA
NRA-ILA: The chairman of the National Rifle Association's Political Victory Fund, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement on Friday:
"The stakes in this year's presidential election could not be higher for gun owners. If Hillary Clinton gets the opportunity to replace Antonin Scalia with an anti-gun Supreme Court justice, we will lose the individual right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense. Mrs. Clinton has said that the Supreme Court got it wrong on the Second Amendment. So the choice for gun owners in this election is clear. And that choice is Donald Trump. That's why the National Rifle Association of America is announcing our endorsement of Donald J. Trump for President of the United States."
------------ Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. More than five million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Tags:NRA, NRA Political Victory Fund, Endorses, Donald Trump, for President, United States, Election 2016,To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Presidential campaigns are a genre of nonfiction. Here is how Donald Trump beat Ted Cruz in Indiana and became the GOP nominee. To appropriate the words of editorial titan Sean Coyne, it was a Big Idea. Trump’s Big Idea: Make America Great Again! Doubling down, Trump declared in his recent first major foreign policy speech: Our goal is peace and prosperity, not war and destruction.
In contrast, Ted Cruz focused on what Coyne calls building blocks. He commandeered delegates, announced a VP appointment, criticized a Trump endorser, attempted to paint Trump as a member of the elite, and so forth.
I’ve often praised Cruz for offering the best equitable prosperity platform among the candidates. I’ve chided him for turning that winning hand into a footnote. Since prosperity (along with peace) is the key issue in presidential politics submerging it was a mistake.
Going to the homepage of the Cruz campaign website, we are invited to “join the movement of courageous conservatives.” To get to “Jobs and Opportunity,” one of seven issues featured by Cruz, one must click on “Issues” and scroll through to the second-to-last item of a drop down menu.
Trump’s campaign website delivers us directly to a home page proclaiming Make AMERICA Great Again! Trump’s positions are collected under “Positions,” a more assertive category than Cruz’s “Issues.” Three of Trump’s seven positions are economic. They include repeal of Obamacare, which is missing from Cruz’s.
Big Ideas trump building blocks.
One hopes that Donald Trump will adopt Cruz’s economic policy agenda wholesale. Cruz’s ideas – from a flat tax to the gold standard — are fully consistent with Trump’s own leanings. Even better, in fact.
And note to the Democrats. Not at all dissimilar policies, such as cutting the capital gains tax rate and the Fed’s “Great Moderation,” under President Bill Clinton, led to sizzling economic growth, job creation, upward mobility, and federal budget surpluses. One hopes Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, will adopt President Clinton’s economic policies, or at least philosophy, wholesale.
Both candidates so doing (Trump adopts Cruz and Clinton adopts Clinton) would offer America a presidential competition driven by who can grow the economy fastest and fairest of-them-all. That is a competition that American working families deserve.
How to win? The two most important technical elements of any presidential campaign are its governing narrative and its projection of that narrative to the voters.
Trump formulated, and relentlessly projected, Make America Great Again!
As my colleague Maggie Gallagher wrote some weeks ago in National Review:But Cruz needs to do more to bring voters to his side than presenting himself as the race’s anti-Trump. He needs a message focused on what his election will do for America, not conservatives: trusted to create jobs, trusted to restrain government, trusted to tame the Federal Reserve that is ruining your family’s paycheck and opportunities.Cruz did not see fit to listen to Maggie’s advice. Pity.
The greatest Master Wizard of narrative at work today might be cultural critic Shawn Coyne. I referenced Coyne before in a column in which I called the Trump campaign “politics noir.”
In a recent edition of Coyne’s indispensable blog, Story Grid, Coyne continues his explication of narrative. Coyne reverse engineers how Malcolm Gladwell constructed The Tipping Point into an improbably massive best seller. Coyne’s shrewd guidance equally is applicable to war … And to a presidential campaign:Just before the Israeli military’s blitzkrieg offensive against the allied Arab nations massed at its borders in 1967, the word repeated over and over again on Air Force bases and on the sands of the Sinai was “Kavanah.”
Kavanah means grand intention. The Sabras were instructed to remember just one thing when the chaos of combat overwhelmed them. Remember the Kavanah.
For the pilots their global mission was to wipe out Arab airstrips while defending Israeli airspace. If they took care of the airstrips, defending the air space would be a hell of a lot easier….
. . . Kavanahs are not Matarahs, which are building block objectives.
. . . Kavanahs are the global intention.
. . . So as we stand in Malcolm Gladwell’s shoes trying to deconstruct how he could have put his book together, we first need to remind ourselves…as often as necessary but at least at the beginning of each work session…[of] his Kavanah.
What’s that Big Idea again?Napoleon Bonaparte once made a similar riveting point:What a thing is imagination! Here are men who don’t know me, who have never seen me, but who only knew of me, and they are moved by my presence, they would do anything for me! And this same incident arises in all centuries and in all countries! Such is fanaticism! Yes, imagination rules the world. The defect of our modern institutions is that they do not speak to the imagination. By that alone can man be governed; without it he is but a brute.How did Trump win Indiana, and with it, the GOP nomination? Trump shrewdly deployed the most powerful force in politics, narrative, an appeal to the popular imagination. As I wrote here:Trump offers a great story. Cruz offers a great argument. Arguments win arguments. Narratives win votes. Trump throws the ultimate political curve ball: a compelling Narrative.
Conservatives love to win arguments. Lawyers live by winning arguments. Ted Cruz is a rock-ribbed conservative. And he’s a lawyer. Double whammy.Ted Cruz is a man of great tactical brilliance. If he could master the power of narrative he would have a bright political future. Cruz’s considerable gifts propelled him from obscurity to second place in the biggest political contest of them all, in near record time. Not shabby.
Donald Trump would be shrewd to tap Cruz for his running mate. The same heuristic that makes #1 the presidential candidate makes #2 the vice presidential candidate. Picking Cruz would reassure most of the conservative GOP base that #NeverTrump is misguided. This would unite the GOP. Trump, if he wins, would have a maverick former US Senator down the hall, one well suited to help make America great again.
Accepting the vice presidential nomination would give Cruz a chance to understudy with someone who understands Napoleon’s insight that imagination rules the world. Game on?
A presidential campaign is a genre of nonfiction. Will Donald Trump’s proficiency in weaving so compelling a narrative be powerful enough to prevail over the far more experienced but prosaic Hillary Clinton?
----------------- Ralph Benko is senior advisor, economics, to American Principles in Action's Gold Standard 2012 Initiative, and a contributor to the ARRA News Service. Founder of The Prosperity Caucus, he was a member of the Jack Kemp supply-side team, served in an unrelated area as a deputy general counsel in the Reagan White House. The article which first appeared in Forbes. Tags:Ralph Benko, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, GOP, Presidential nomination To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Tags:Third Term, for Obama. Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, President Obama, editorial cartoon, AF BrancoTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Kerby Anderson, Contributing Author: The United States developed a culture of free enterprise early on, and most Americans want it to continue. That is one of the conclusions from The Battle by Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute.
The founders promoted a free market. Thomas Jefferson said this in his first inaugural address. “A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
People from other countries began to realize how exceptional America’s culture of free enterprise was. French nobleman Alexis de Tocqueville called Americans ‘”the freest people in the world.” During his time in America he was struck by the fact that Americans pursued their interests under the supervision of limited government and banded together in voluntary associations.
Arthur Brooks contends that we live in a 70-30 nation. A Pew Research Center poll asked a broad range of Americans this question: “Generally, do you think people are better off in a free market economy, even though there may be severe ups and downs from time to time, or don’t you think so?” Almost 70 percent of respondents agree that they are better off in a free market economy.
The good news is that 70 percent of Americans believe in free enterprise. The bad news is that the other 30 percent are in control of important arenas in our society such as the academy, media, and government. And that leads to the subtitle of the book by Arthur Brooks that says, “How the fight between free enterprise and big government will shape America’s future.” This is our challenge for the future.
----------- Kerby Anderson is a radio talk show host heard on numerous stations via the Point of View Network endorsed by Dr. Bill Smith, Editor, ARRA News Service Tags:Kerby Anderson, Viewpoints, Point of View, Culture of Free EnterpriseTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
The comic elements are clear enough — the further you remove yourself from the poverty, chaos, and collapse. We can wallow in a bit of Schadenfreude, taking glee as some American leftists squirm to explain why the socialist paradise they ballyhooed a mere three years ago now tail-spins to the grave.
The collapse of this socialist experiment offers an enormous level of tragedy. It’s not pretty.
The country’s leader, venezuelaStore, makes his predictable desperation play. Rather than confront his own errors, and the futility of making socialism work in anything like a rigorous form, he boasts. “Venezuela Leader Says US ‘Dreams’ Of Dividing Loyal Military,” reads yesterday’s Reuters report. While no doubt true, this is one of those cases where whatever we dream to the north, our dreams are better than their current reality.
Of course the Venezuelan military should turn on Maduro, Hugo Chavez’s inheritor, protecting the right of recall, which Maduro is denying. By painting the U. S. as the bad guy, Maduro hopes to unite his people — especially his armed forces — around him. That’s what a desperate demagogic dynast does. Citizens and subjects traditionally abandon skepticism about their leaders when they feel threatened from the outside.
Which is one reason it would be a mistake for the U. S. to intervene.
Reuters poetically reports that the military is still united behind the socialist government, and resists the recall referendum, singing “Fatherland, Socialism, or Death!”
Wrong conjunction. Not “or” but “and” . . . if you insist on socialism.
The government, military pressure or no, should allow the recall vote, and soon.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
------------------ Paul Jacobs is author of Common Sense which provides daily commentary about the issues impacting America and about the citizens who are doing something about them. He is also President of the Liberty Initiative Fund (LIFe) as well as Citizens in Charge Foundation. Jacobs is a contributing author on the ARRA News Service. Tags:Paul Jacob, Common Sense, Fatherland, Socialism, Death, Venezuela, President Nicolas Maduro, socialism,To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Personal Tweets by the editor: Dr. Bill - OzarkGuru
Married 48yr #Conservative #Constitution #NRALife #GunRights #USAF 22yr #military #veteran #Christian #CCOT #ProLife #TEAParty #GOP #TCOT #SGP #schoolchoice
Comments by contributing authors or other sources do not necessarily reflect the position the editor, other contributing authors, sources, readers, or commenters. No contributors, or editors are paid for articles, images, cartoons, etc. While having reported on and promoting the beliefs associated with the ARRA, this blog/site is not controlled by nor funded by the ARRA. This site/blog does not advertise for money or services nor does it solicit funding for its support.
Fair Use: This site/blog may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as provided for in section Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Per said section, the material on this site/blog is distributed without profit to readers to view for the expressed purpose of viewing the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. Any person/entity seeking to use copyrighted material shared on this site/blog for purposes that go beyond "fair use," must obtain permission from the copyright owner.