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: firstname.lastname@example.org (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home Page
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato
Thursday, September 03, 2015
The Golden Calf . . .
. . . Obama Climate Change cause has grown into a world cult that ignores facts and is motivated by faith in faulty research.
Tags:The Golden Calf, President Obama, Climate Change, 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 Robert R. Reilly: Why does the Islamic State (ISIS) behave in the strange ways it does? What inspires it to rampage through the libraries and museums of Mosul, Iraq, destroying priceless manuscripts and artifacts? Why does it take jackhammers to priceless archaeological relics from the Assyrian Empire? Why does it line up Coptic Christians on a beach in Libya, face them north across the Mediterranean, and then slit their throats? Why is it so keen on reestablishing the caliphate? Why, in short, does it behave so unreasonably?
Of course, one can answer these questions by simply quoting ISIS spokesmen and repeating their justifications, which are laced with quotations from the Qur’an and the hadith (the canonical accounts of the sayings and doings of Muhammad). But that is not a great help, because other Muslims have lived under the same injunctions without wreaking the havoc that ISIS does. There must be a deeper reason.
And there is.
ISIS and its al-Qaeda predecessor are incomprehensible to most Westerners because they are unaware of a pivotal theological struggle waged within Islam more than a millennium ago. It was a battle over the nature of God and the role of reason—and the side of irrationality won. The resolution of that conflict has had profound consequences for much of Sunni Islam—and the rest of the world—ever since.
The Battle over Reason
Two theological schools emerged within Sunni Islam in the ninth century. The first, the Mu’tazalites, said that God is reason and justice. The Mu’tazalites held that man’s first duty is to reason because the existence of God is not self-evident. Once man arrives at the existence of God through his reason, he examines the claims of revelation that God has spoken. If anything in revelation appears to go against his reason, he must either bring the revelation into accord with reason or discard it. Through reason, too, man comes to know the difference between what is right and what is wrong, and he must choose what is right through his free will. God is just insofar as He will reward those who do what is right and punish those who do what is wrong.
The second theological school, the Ash’arite school, opposed all of this. God is not reason and justice, the Ash’arites said. Rather, He is pure will and power—unbound by anything, including His own word. Man must abandon reason and submit to the text of revelation, no matter what it says or how unreasonable it may appear. Man’s reason is incapable of knowing the difference between right and wrong. Nothing is right or wrong in and of itself; it is right or wrong only according to what God says.
Does God forbid murder because it is wrong? Or is it wrong because He forbids it? The Mu’tazilite answer was that God forbids it because it is wrong. The Ash’arite answer was that it is wrong only because God forbids it, and God could change his mind and require ritual murder, if He so chose. Also, according to the Ash’arites, God is not required to reward those who obey Him and punish those who disobey. He may reward those who disobey Him and punish those who obey, and no one can gainsay Him. Whatever God does is just—because right is the rule of the stronger, and God is the strongest.
The Mu’tazalites and the Ash’arites also fought over the nature of the Qur’an. The Mu’tazalites said that the Qur’an was created in history and therefore needs to be understood in terms of the linguistic and cultural circumstances in which it was revealed. The Ash’arites claimed that the Qur’an was not created but has existed coeternally with God in heaven. Therefore, the Qur’an is not contingent on the circumstances in which it was revealed, and Arabic is the language of God (which is why all Muslims have Arabic names and must pray in Arabic, though the majority of Muslims in the world do not understand this language). Obviously, the Mu’tazilite understanding of the Qur’an allows for greater breadth of interpretation, while the Ash’arite understanding tends toward literalism (which finds its harshest expression today in Saudi Wahhabism).
The Mu’tazalites had a conception of natural law that allowed man to come to know the difference between right and wrong through his reason’s apprehension of the essences of things. Since the Ash’arites asserted that man could not obtain moral knowledge through his reason, they constructed a bizarre atomistic metaphysics to defend their position and to destroy the possibility of natural law. Basically, man cannot know the nature or essence of things because they have no natures or essences. Everything is constituted by time-space atoms that momentarily come into existence directly through the will of God. Whatever exists is an agglomeration of these atoms specifically configured for a brief moment by an act of God. These same atoms are then annihilated almost simultaneously by another direct act of God’s will. God then reconstitutes reality with an entirely new set of atoms that may be similar to the previous ones or completely different—that depends only upon Him.
Therefore, a Mu’tazilite could know that a horse would remain a horse because it has the nature of the horse. But the Ash’arite could possess no such knowledge, because God might wish to turn the horse into a giraffe, and there is no reason why He could not. In fact, to say that the horse must remain a horse because it has the nature of the horse would be an act of blasphemy for an Ash’arite. It would place a limit on God’s omnipotence.
The atomistic metaphysics of the Ash’arites created a fatal breach between cause and effect in the natural world. Fire does not burn cotton; God does. Gravity does not make the rock fall; God does. To say that a rock falls because of gravity is an act of shirk, blasphemy—assigning a cause to something other than God. In other words, there is no continuous narrative of cause and effect tying these moments together in a comprehensible way. Each thing stands separately as an individual act of God, unrelated to what preceded it or to what follows it.
Anything can come of anything, and nothing necessarily follows. Reality becomes unintelligible.
The Consequences Today
The Mu’tazilite rational theological school was suppressed by force in the second half of the ninth century, and the Ash’arite school became the majority in Sunni Islam. To this day, everything that happens is assigned to the first and only cause, Allah; secondary causes simply do not exist.
Understanding that this teaching became entrenched in the Sunni Muslim world is the key to unlocking such puzzles as why scientific inquiry is nearly dead there; why the Arab world stands near the bottom of every measure of human development; why Spain translates more books in a single year than the entire Arab world has in the past thousand years; why some people in Saudi Arabia still refuse to believe man has been to the moon.
Whether it is an Asian tsunami or American hurricane, Ash’arite Muslims will explain it in terms of God’s punishing sinners for their disobedience. Therefore, Allah punished the United States with Hurricane Katrina for its interference in the Muslim world. Also, Allah placed the oil under the sands of the Arabian Peninsula as a reward to Saudi Arabia for following strict sharia law.
Most Westerners find all of this ludicrously improbable, but it is the daily gist of the Arab Muslim press (as anyone can see by going to the website of the Middle East Media Research Institute and reading the translations).
The denial of causality manifests itself in practical ways. Speak with any American soldiers who have served with Iraqi troops, and you will find that the Iraqis resist things as simple as wearing seatbelts or Kevlar vests. The thinking goes something like this: if my time has come as decreed by Allah, the seatbelt or the Kevlar vest is not going to save me. If my assigned time has not come, why do I need to use a seatbelt or wear a Kevlar vest?
In 2009 the founder of the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram, Mohammed Yusuf, said: “There are prominent Islamic preachers who have seen and understood that the present Western-style education is mixed with issues that run contrary to our beliefs in Islam. Like rain. We believe it is a creation of God rather than an evaporation caused by the sun that condenses and becomes rain. Like saying the world is a sphere. If it runs contrary to the teachings of Allah, we reject it.”
Similarly, in the mid-1980s the Pakistani media suspended weather forecasts after Muslim clerics objected to them as blasphemous. After all, if God causes rain, how could man presume to predict it?
No Time, No History
Let us return to the question of why members of the Islamic State are destroying priceless relics from the Assyrian Empire. They explain that it is their religious duty to destroy idols. But the human-headed winged lions they are smashing are no longer idols, because they are no longer idolized. No one has believed in the gods of Assyria for several thousand years. The same is true of the Egyptian pyramids, which Islamists occasionally suggest need to be destroyed for the same reasons. But no one has been embalmed and buried in the pyramids for thousands of years. While destroying parts of the ancient city of Nimrud, one ISIS militant declared, “God has honored us in the state of Islam by removing and destroying everything that was held to be equal to him and worshipped without him.” He may be a couple of millennia too late, but that does not matter to the adherents of an ahistorical religion.
Islamists do not live in what we might call historical time. Recall that for them the Qur’an is an ahistorical document. It exists in eternity. Also keep in mind that Ash’arite metaphysics guts historical time of its narrative meaning: time is a succession of unrelated events. ISIS adherents live in sacred time, which is static. In sacred time, everything is present all at once. This is why Islamists refer to Westerners in their literature as “Romans,” which is what seventh-century Muslim warriors called their Byzantine opponents. They are not being quaint. The past is present to them; that is why they must smash it if it does not conform to their beliefs. Ahistory fights history. This is why the Coptic Christians were faced north across the Mediterranean toward Rome when their throats were cut, as a warning that ISIS would next conquer Rome as Muslims once took Constantinople. This is all part of the resuscitation of the caliphate, the necessity of which exists in their minds now much as it did in the seventh century.
A Theological Prison
The Ash’arite school remains the majority in Sunni Islam to this day. It is Ash’arite theology that continues to be taught at Al-Azhar University, the most prestigious teaching institution in the Arab world. It is therefore appropriate that Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi addressed his warning about the extremism tearing apart Islam to the religious scholars and clerics at Al-Azhar in a speech on December 28, 2014.
The speech is worth quoting at length, particularly for anyone who thinks I may be exaggerating the extremity of the situation. Al-Sisi said:
It is inconceivable that the ideology we sanctify should make our entire nation a source of concern, danger, killing, and destruction all over the world. . . . It has reached the point that [this ideology] is hostile to the entire world. Is it conceivable that 1.6 billion [Muslims] would kill the world’s population of 7 billion, so that they could live [on their own]? This is inconceivable. I say these things here, at Al-Azhar, before religious clerics and scholars. May Allah bear witness on Judgment Day to the truth of your intentions, regarding what I say to you today. You cannot see things clearly when you are locked [in this ideology]. You must emerge from it and look from outside, in order to get closer to a truly enlightened ideology. You must oppose it with resolve. Let me say it again: We need to revolutionize our religion. Honorable Imam [the Grand Sheik of Al-Azhar], you bear responsibility before Allah. The world in its entirety awaits your words, because the Islamic nation is being torn apart, destroyed, and is heading to perdition. We ourselves are bringing it to perdition.
A Muslim intellectual reformer recently told me that he felt he had been living in “a theological prison.” With the help of the French language to get a “look from outside,” he broke out of it and found a way to reconcile faith with reason. I have tried to sketch out the contours of the theological prison. Given al-Sisi’s heartfelt cry, one can only hope for a major jailbreak.
------------------------ Robert R. Reilly is the author of The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis (ISI Books). He is director of the Westminster Institute. H/T Intercollegiate Review (IR) who shared this article with the editor. IR is published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) and is dedicated to advancing the principles that make America free, virtuous, and prosperous. Tags:Robert Reilly, ISIS, ISIS the Irrational, Intercollegiate Review, Intercollegiate Studies InstituteTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Khamenei Says No Nuclear Deal Unless Sanctions Lifted Completely
Wall Street Journal reports, "Iran’s Khamenei Urges Iranian Lawmakers to Vote on Nuclear Deal" ... "Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has threatened to torpedo the nuclear deal with the U.S. and other powers if economic sanctions against the country aren’t lifted entirely.
ARRA News Service: Are we willing to listen at least to what the Iranians are saying. It is obvious that President Obama and John Kerry are selling a flawed Iran Nuke Deal. Today's news reports reflect the die situations of the deal which not only threaten Israel but the civilized world including the USA.
In his speech yesterday,Secretary of State John Kerry said again that sanctions can be quickly returned to Iran if the regime cheats under the deal the Obama administration struck. “[I]f we have even a shadow of doubt that illegal activities are going on, either the IAEA will be given the access required to uncover the truth or Iran will be in violation and the nuclear-related sanctions can snap back into place,” Kerry said. He also asserted, “The arrangement that we worked out with Tehran is based exclusively on verification and proof. . . . [T]hat’s why sanctions relief is tied strictly to performance . . . .”
However, the Iranians seem to have a different conception of this deal than does the Obama administration. According tothe AP, “Iran's supreme leader said Thursday ‘there will be no deal’ if world powers insist on suspending rather than lifting sanctions as part of a landmark nuclear agreement, and said it is up to Iran's parliament, and not him, to approve or reject it. . . .
“Khamenei said some U.S. officials have spoken of the ‘suspension’ of sanctions, which he said is unacceptable.
Reutersadds, “Khamenei said that without a cancellation of sanctions that have hobbled Iran's economy, the deal would be jeopardized.
“‘Should the sanctions be suspended, then there would be no deal either. So this issue must be resolved. If they only suspend the sanctions, then we will only suspend our nuclear activities,’ he said. Iran and the Western powers have appeared to differ since the accord was struck on precisely how and when sanctions are to be dismantled. ‘Then we could go on and triple the number of centrifuges to 60,000, keep a 20 percent level of uranium enrichment and also accelerate our Research and Development (R & D) activities,’ the Supreme Leader added.”
And, for good measure,Reuters notes, “Khamenei also criticized the United States' Middle East policy, suggesting that antagonism prevailing between Iran and Washington since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Tehran will not abate because of the nuclear deal. ‘Our officials have been banned from holding talks with Americans except on the nuclear issue. This is because our policies differ with America,’ he said.
“‘One of America's regional policies is to fully destroy the forces of resistance and wants to retake full control of Iraq and Syria ... America expects Iran to be part of this framework,’ Khamenei told a session of the Assembly of Experts which has the power both to dismiss a Supreme Leader and to choose one. ‘But this will never happen.’
“By ‘forces of resistance’, Khamenei was alluding to Islamist militant groups such as Hezbollah, a close ally -- like Iran -- of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in his war with rebels trying to overthrow him.”
This is the regime Senate Democrats are lining up to endorse a deal with. But not only are a number endorsing it, apparently Democrat leaders now want to prevent an up-or-down vote on a resolution of disapproval of the deal.
Politico writes“[T]he Obama administration and key allies in the Senate — such as Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Senate Democrat — are pushing to secure every last ‘yes’ vote they can. Their goal is 41 votes, which would stop the resolution of disapproval from ever reaching the White House.”
In an editorial, the Omaha World-Herald takes Durbin, Minority Leader Harry Reid, and other Democrats to task for this attempt to block debate. “Washington produces more than its share of ill-considered actions, but recent days have brought one of the more exasperating. News reports say Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the rules-savvy former Senate majority leader who’s now minority leader, is working to prevent the Senate from holding a debate on the Iran nuclear agreement.
“Reid and his allies are working, with the encouragement of the White House, to erect roadblocks that could keep the Senate from having its say on one of the most far-reaching security agreements ever negotiated by our country.
“That debate specifically would be on a resolution of disapproval against the Iran agreement. The latest vote count shows that the Iran agreement — touted by the administration as its signature foreign policy achievement — is opposed by a majority of senators. Reid and the White House want to keep the Senate from expressing that ‘no’ . . . .”
The World-Herald explains, “Some things — such as allowing debate over major security agreements — are far more important than any political embarrassment the administration might suffer if the Senate were to say ‘no.’ . . . Push aside the politics, and it’s clear that if there is anything that’s needed on the Iran nuclear issue, it’s vigorous, informed debate by Congress.”
In contrast, Reuters reports, “Iran's Supreme Leader said on Thursday he favored a parliamentary vote on its nuclear deal reached with world powers and called for sanctions against Tehran to be lifted completely rather than suspended, state television reported. . . .
“‘Parliament should not be sidelined on the nuclear deal issue ... I am not saying lawmakers should ratify or reject the deal. It is up to them to decide,’ said Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say on all state policy in Iran. ‘I have told the president that it is not in our interest to not let our lawmakers review the deal,’ the top Shi'ite Muslim cleric said in remarks broadcast live on state TV.” Tags:Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Lift sanctions completely, threatens. Nuclear dealTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
“We're also troubled by the fact the IAEA and Iran have reached a side agreement — whose official text hasn't been released — that spells out conditions for inspections aimed at establishing whether Iran engaged in forbidden nuclear activities at a military installation at Parchin. News reports that the agreement allows Iran itself, rather than the IAEA, to collect evidence at the site are disturbing. As of now, the facts remain sketchy, but even the lack of transparency about the arrangements is unacceptable. The U.S. should press Iran and the IAEA to divulge the details of that agreement and another that deals with possible military dimensions of past nuclear research.” (“Editorial Weighing The Iran Nuclear Deal: Far From Perfect, But The Alternatives Are Worse,” Los Angeles Times, 8/30/15)
“Obama is selling his deal as both foolproof and as a tool for punishing Iran, including militarily, for violations. In fact, the agreement includes no standards for measuring whether breaches are major or minor and what the responses should be.”(“Schumer’s Bravery,” New York Daily News, 8/22/15)
WALL STREET JOURNAL: “In other words, the country that lied for years about its nuclear weapons program will now be trusted to come clean about those lies. And trusted to such a degree that it can limit its self-inspections so they don’t raise ‘military concerns’ in Iran.”(“Iran’s Secret Self-Inspections,” Wall Street Journal, 8/19/15)
“The news raises further doubts about a nuclear pact that is already leaking credibility. Unfettered access to Parchin is crucial to understanding Iran’s past nuclear work, which is essential to understanding how close Iran has come to getting the bomb. Without that knowledge it’s impossible to know if Iran really is a year or more away from having the bomb, which is the time period that Mr. Kerry says is built into the accord and makes it so worth doing.” (“Iran’s Secret Self-Inspections,” Wall Street Journal, 8/19/15)
ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL: “The Iran nuclear deal was already of questionable value because it unlocked billions of dollars the rogue nation could use to further its terroristic ambitions and allowed such a huge window of time for inspections of suspicious sites that any checks and balances were rendered near meaningless. What happened to inspections ‘anytime, anywhere’? What happened to independent oversight? But the recently revealed side agreement between Iran and the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency that allows Iran to conduct its own inspections of its own Parchin nuclear site, long suspected of being used to develop nuclear arms, makes a strong case that the deal is unacceptable.”(“Editorial: Secret deal Makes Iran Nuclear Pact Less Appealing,” Albuquerque Journal, 8/22/15)
“So, no sanctions. Iran can inspect itself. And a boatload of money is coming Iran’s way that could help finance terrorism and anti-U.S. activities. And this is a good thing for the U.S. and its allies? The pact was already of doubtful value. In light of the new revelations, supporters in Congress, especially Udall and Heinrich, should reconsider their support for this President Obama vanity project and gin up the courage to vote against this faulty agreement and call for both sides to go back to the table.” (“Editorial: Secret deal Makes Iran Nuclear Pact Less Appealing,” Albuquerque Journal, 8/22/15)
“Obama has presented Congress with a false choice, suggesting that the only option to this deal is war. How about resuming negotiations and hammering out a better deal? Of particular concern are the limits on international inspectors’ access, and the fact that Iran could retain a ‘breakout’ period of one year to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. That’s not good enough.” (“Editorial: Make The Iran Nuclear Deal Better, But Don’t Scrap It,” Dallas Morning News, 8/29/15)
NEW YORK POST:“What does Syrian despot Bashar al-Assad know that President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry don’t — or that they won’t admit? Simply this: Their nuclear deal will leave Iran in a much stronger position. In an interview Tuesday with the Hezbollah terrorists’ Al-Manar TV network, Assad — who last month hailed the deal as ‘a great victory for Iran’ — said it would strengthen Tehran internationally, and so help him.(“Everyone But Team Obama Knows The Big Winner From The Iran Deal,” New York Post, 8/26/15)
PROVIDENCE JOURNAL: “President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, even in the outline initially revealed to the American people, seemed to substitute appeasement for firmness against an enemy that supports terrorism while vowing to annihilate Israel and attack the United States. It is not surprising that polls show a majority of Americans oppose the deal. But a frightening report by the Associated Press last week cannot help but further erode the public's trust in the president’s position. The AP discovered a secret side deal with a U.N. agency that will permit Iran, rather than the watchdog agency, to conduct inspections of a site where it was said to be developing nuclear weapons. In essence, the side deal may permit the fox to guard the hen house at one site.”(“Editorial: Trusting Iran?,” Providence Journal, 8/23/15)
[CALIFORNIA] PRESS-ENTERPRISE: “We’d like to know if Mr. Obama knew about the secret agreement between the IAEA and Iran. If he didn’t, it makes us wonder what other side agreements he didn’t know about before bestowing his presidential blessing upon the deal. And if he did, we think withholding such pertinent information from Congress should be a deal-breaker for Republicans and Democrats alike.”(“Editorial: Did U.S. Know About Iran Side Deal?,” Press-Enterprise, 8/28/15) Tags:Iran Deal, dangerous farce,Obama administration, press reports, #BadIranDealTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by John C. Velisek, Contributing Author: The Iran Nuke Deal is a bad deal for the United States and for Israel. What is even more disturbing is Obama demonizing the opponents of the deal, and his presenting the choice between the deal and all out war. At a speech at the VFW, Obama made it clear that those opposed were a bunch of warmongers, opposed not to the deal but to peace.
This is not the first time that our President has taken opposition to his policies to the extremes. Obama abandons the principles of the country, even his own principles and then blames the other side. It is not in his demeanor to listen to others, or to admit that he was wrong.
In the lead up to the Iran Nuclear negotiations, the American people were told that Iran would not be allowed to enrich uranium which was abandoned in the negotiations. We were told “anytime, anywhere” inspections would be a foundation for the talks, and they were done away with for the sake of his legacy. Even Democrats, those loyal to the Obama doctrine, are balking at the lies told to the American people. Unlike Obama care, this deal could mean life and death for Israel and perhaps for the United States.
The sanctions forced on Obama by the Congress were thrown away in the negotiations when Obama allowed Iran to continue enriching Uranium in 2013, contrary to his statements in the presidential debates with Mitt Romney in 2012. Every little bit of leverage we would have had over the Iranians was pushed aside for the sake of Obama's legacy. Allowing Iran to continue enriching uranium with centrifuges, which Obama claimed he would never allow, has only pushed the problem down the road.
It is a farce to think the Iranians will abide by this agreement or follow the protections in it. Iran will get the bomb under this agreement as written within the next two years. There are no safeguards, inasmuch as the IAEA will depend on Iran for inspections and testing. Having a 24 days notice for any inspections, and none for military nuclear sites are not valid inspection protocol, and they are hardly better than nothing at all.
It is disappointing that rather than negotiating from a position of strength, Obama has allowed the Iranians everything they want. The appeasement of the mullahs and the Obama legacy will only spread the nuclear problem. Other countries in the area will also ramp up nuclear programs of their own. Obama unwillingness to accept any discussion or opposition to a policies that will not work, only make matters worse.
Democrats have turned on Israel at Obama's urging. Looking at the numbers from a Luntz survey are disconcerting at best. Only 48% of Democrats think Israel wants peace; 18 percent of Democrats were likely to vote for a politician that stood with Israel; and only 51% of Democrats supported Israel over Palestine. It is Democrats who are pushing the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS)policy on college campuses, and who, in 2012, tried to remove support of Israel from their campaign platform. The Democrats are not an ally of Israel. This should not come as a surprise; they have turned against most of our allies worldwide.
The Democrats, as is the routine for this administration, blame Israel and its opposition to The Obama administration's policies as being about the color of Obama's skin, rather than a discourse of the survival of a sovereign country. The Democrats have turned Israel into a partisan issue to the detriment of both our countries. And it likely, President Obama and the international community will continue to attempt to force Israel to live under provisions that would risk Israel's survival.
----------------------- John C. Velisek, retired Navy, is a California conservative activist writing articles for various publication and is a contributing author to the ARRA News Service. You can follow John's work on @sjspecialist on Twitter and One Patriots Opinion on Facebook. Tags:John C. Velisek, Israel, Iran Nuclear Deal, 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 Dr. Thomas Sowell: Even those of us who are not supporters of either Donald Trump or Jeb Bush can learn something by comparing how each of these men handled people who tried to disrupt their question-and-answer period after a speech.
After Bush's speech, hecklers from a group called "Black Lives Matter" caused Bush to simply leave the scene. When Trump opened his question-and-answer period by pointing to someone in the audience who had a question, a Hispanic immigration activist who had not been called on simply stood up and started haranguing.
Trump told the activist to sit down because someone else had been called on. But the harangue continued, until a security guard escorted the disrupter out of the room. And Jeb Bush later criticized Trump for having the disrupter removed!
What kind of president would someone make who caves in to those who act as if what they want automatically overrides other people's rights — that the rules don't apply to them?
Trump later allowed the disrupter back in, and answered his questions. Whether Trump's answers were good, bad or indifferent is irrelevant to the larger issue of rules that apply to everyone. That was not enough to make "The Donald" a good candidate to become President of the United States. He is not. But these revealing incidents raise painful questions about electing Jeb Bush to be leader of the free world. The Republican establishment needs to understand why someone with all Trump's faults could attract so many people who are sick of the approach that Jeb Bush represents.
No small part of the internal degeneration of American society has been a result of supposedly responsible officials caving in to whatever group is currently in vogue, and allowing them to trample on everyone else's rights.
Some officials allow "the homeless" to urinate and defecate in public, right on the streets, or let organized hooligans who claim to represent "the 99 percent against the one percent" block traffic and keep neighborhoods awake with their noise through the night. Politicians who exempt from the law certain groups who have been chosen as mascots undermine the basis for a decent society — which everybody, from every group, deserves.
Even those who happen to be in vogue for the moment can lose big time when the vogue changes, as vogues do.
Back in the 1920s, when there was international outrage on the political left over the trial of anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote to British leftist Harold Laski, pointing out that the trials of black defendants were far worse, but nobody seemed to care about that.
"I cannot but ask myself why this so much greater interest in red than black," he said.
The vogue has changed since then — and it can change again, when some other group comes along that catches the fancy of the trend-setters, and sways politicians who go along to get along.
The goal of "the rule of law and not of men" has increasingly been abandoned in favor of government picking winners and losers. Too many in the media and in academia do the same.
Time and again, we have seen false charges of rape set off instant lynch mob reactions in the media and academia, regardless of how many previous false charges of rape have later been exposed as hoaxes.
The problem is not with the particular choices made as to whose interests are to override other people's interests, but that picking winners and losers, in defiance of facts, is choosing a path that demoralizes a society, and leads to either a war of each against all or to a backlash of repression and revenge.
The recent televised murder of two media people by a black man who said that he wanted a "race war" was one sign of the madness of our times. Nobody who knows anything about the history of race wars, anywhere in the world, can expect anything good to come out of it. Unspeakable horrors have been the norm.
It is a long way from a couple of disruptive incidents on the political campaign trail to a race war. But these small incidents are just symptoms of larger and worse things that have already happened in America, when the rules have been routinely waived for some.
We do not need to risk still worse consequences if we get yet another President of the United States who acts as if it is just a question of whose ox is gored.
-------------- 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, a revealing clue, internal degeneration, American society, officials caving in, whatever group is currently in vogue, trample on everyone else's rights, picking winners and losers, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Jorge Ramos says being temporarily ejected from a press conference is worse than the Cuban dictatorship.
Hillary Clinton suggests Trump’s immigration plan resembles Nazi Germany. (Marc Thiessen’s rebuttal is worth reading.)
Two columnists write about the coming death of the Republican Party. This is a party with its largest state legislative base in history, a majority of the governorships, control of the House and Senate, and more candidates for president than it can get on one stage–yet there are reasons enough for some columnists to believe it is on the verge of dying.
The establishment is beginning to panic and it is going to get worse–a lot worse.
The new Quinnipiac Poll creates a framework for understanding the anxieties of the Washington bipartisan establishment (and it is the bipartisan insiders collectively who are worried).
First, just two percent said they were very satisfied with the way things are going in America. I would like to meet them.
By contrast, 41 percent said they were very dissatisfied with the way things are going. That is a 20-to-1 ratio of very unhappy to very happy.
The overall numbers were 71 percent dissatisfied to 28 percent satisfied. But the really interesting figures were the two “verys”, and there the pressure is overwhelmingly toward dissatisfied.
One out of every four Americans (27 percent) said they were angry with the federal government. Another 49 percent were merely dissatisfied for a total opposition of 76 percent.
Only 2 percent said they trusted their government all the time. This may be the same 2 percent who said they were very satisfied with the way things are going in America.
Neither party’s leadership in Washington can be comfortable with this poll. Republicans had only 12 percent approval while 81 percent disapproved. This may help explain why the traditional Republican candidates are having a difficult time breaking through.
When ISIS is seen as winning the war against our civilization;
when police are being killed for serving in uniform;
when radicals chant about “pigs”;
when the Chinese and Russians hack into millions of federal records;
when the Veterans Administration continues to fail veterans;
when the border remains uncontrolled;
when taxpayer-funded professors impose politically correct language that strikes most Americans as weird;
and on and on, American’s severe disaffection with the status quo begins to show up in polls like these.
In the last two Iowa polls, Donald Trump was at 23 percent. In the first poll, Ben Carson, a doctor, was at 18 percent and in the second he tied Trump. Carly Fiorina jumped from 5 to 10 percent.
Thus in the first poll, 46 percent chose a candidate that has never held elected office. In the second poll, that number jumped to 56 percent.
The most popular office-holder was at 8 percent in the first poll and 9 percent in the second.
Now, it’s possible this is all just summer amusement. But it’s perhaps more likely that this is a country so fed up with failed bureaucracies, leaders who don’t seem to listen, and the left-wing effort to browbeat it through political correctness that it is now moving toward a genuine earthquake.
This may be a historic rather than a political election.
If the voters continue to move toward authentic outsiders, you should expect to have the news media, the Washington lobbyist-policy class, and liberal politicians become more and more hysterical.
Having started with terrorists, dictatorship, and Nazis in August, it will be fascinating to see how over-the-top, vicious, and scurrilous the left becomes as the collapse of their world looms closer.
---------------------- Newt Gingrich is a former Georgia Congressman and Speaker of the U.S. House. He co-authored and was the chief architect of the "Contract with America" and a major leader in the Republican victory in the 1994 congressional elections. He is noted speaker and writer. The above commentary was shared via Gingrich Productions. Tags:Newt Gingrich, Hillary Clinton, liberal hysteria, growing, populous rebellion To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Accountability Needed For DNC’s Lawless Hiring of Illegal Alien
DNC hires illegal. Get ready for
the Hillary Clinton response:
"What Difference Does It Make."
Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch: The brazen lawlessness by this administration and its allies on illegal immigration knows no bounds. I was shocked to read that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) hired an illegal alien to help with its campaigns. The media played it as a “Dreamer” moment.
Judicial Watch is having none of that lawless approach to the rule of law on immigration.
On August 25, 2015, Judicial Watch filed filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission requesting that it investigate the DNC for having “knowingly hired” an illegal alien, Cindy Nava, to help craft the committee’s 2016 political message and communications.
On June 8, 2015, The Washington Post reported that the DNC hired Nava with full knowledge of what DNC chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) termed Nava’s “undocumented status.” The news report details that “Despite not yet attaining legal status, Nava is working for the Democratic National Committee as one of a crop of fellows from around the country helping the party organize ahead of a presidential election that President Obama predicted would feature immigration as a major issue.” The Spanish language newspaper El Nuevo Herald reports that Nava would help coordinate DNC outreach to “women, youth, and Hispanics.”
Federal law prohibits foreign nationals from participating “directly or indirectly in the decision-making process” of federal, state, or local election-related activities.
The Judicial Watch FEC complaint charges: The Democratic National Committee knowingly hired a Foreign National to assist, directly or indirectly, in setting the Committee’s Public Policy Agenda for its Candidates, the National Committee, and its Associated Organizations.
The United States has prohibited non-citizen participation in election related activities for over fifty years. The United States Supreme Court has held that such prohibitions are legally permissible under the U.S. Constitution… In 2002, Congress expanded the prohibitions on foreign nationals… to include “anything of value” that “directly or indirectly” contributes to a political campaign… The Commission has stated “foreign nationals [cannot] direct, control, or otherwise participate directly or indirectly in the decision-making process of [a] PAC.
On its face, the DNC’s decision to hire Ms. Nava is in direct violation of this provision. The FEC should investigate this matter further to determine the full extent of Ms. Nava’s responsibilities, her relationship to the policy making team, and her effect on the 2016 DNC election strategy.
The Democratic National Committee is Willfully and Knowingly violating Federal Law and Contradicting Federal Policy by Permitting a Foreign National to Contribute to the Conventions Campaigns, Election Strategy, and Fundraising Efforts
The United States Congress created a federal offense to knowingly hire an illegal alien. It is against Federal law “to hire, or to recruit…, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien… There are two elements to this crime: (1) knowledge of the alien’s status, and (2) an employment offer…
Thus, the DNC is violating federal law by hiring Cindy Nava. Her fellowship constitutes expenditures under the FEC regulation, and therefore these illegal expenditures are within the scope of FEC regulations… They have actively employed Ms. Nava knowing that she lacked proper authorization to work in the United States.Our request for a “full, formal investigation” concludes, “These actions are particularly egregious because the DNC flagrantly promotes their illegal activities, lawlessness, and disrespect for the rule of law.”
Is it any wonder this nation has a border and illegal alien crisis?
No wonder this nation has a border and an illegal alien crisis. Not only do we have a major political party knowingly employing an illegal alien, but also openly boasting about it to the nation’s press. The DNC should be held accountable by the FEC for hiring an illegal alien in violation of both federal immigration and election laws. Frankly, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security should also take appropriate law enforcement action.
----------------- Tom Fitton is President of Judicial Watch. Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Tags:DNC, Democrat National Committee, hires, illegal alien, Cinfy Nava, Federal Election Commission, FEC, Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch, Judicial WatchTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
What LAW Authorized Homosexual Couples To Receive A Marriage License?
"I stand with Kim Davis and every American of faith under attack by Washington elites who have nothing but disdain for us, our faith and the Constitution." - Former Gov. Mike Huckabee
Little Rock, AR - Former Arkansas Governor and 2016 GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee today visited by phone with Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, a Democrat, who is under fire from the left for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses in Kentucky. After their call, Gov. Huckabee issued the following statement:"I spoke with Kim Davis this morning to offer my prayers and support. I let her know how proud I am of her for not abandoning her religious convictions and standing strong for religious liberty. She is showing more courage and humility than just about any federal office holder in Washington.
"Kim is asking the perfect question: 'Under what law am I authorized to issue homosexual couples a marriage license?' That simple question is giving many in Congress a civics lesson that they never got in grade school.
"The Supreme Court cannot and did not make a law. They only made a ruling on a law. Congress makes the laws. Because Congress has made no law allowing for same sex marriage, Kim does not have the Constitutional authority to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples.
"Kim is a person of great conviction. When people of conviction fight for what's right they often pay a price, but if they don't and we surrender, we will pay a far greater price for bowing to the false God of judicial supremacy. Government is not God. No man - and certainly no unelected lawyer - has the right to redefine the laws of nature or of nature's God. Five unelected lawyers have abused their power by ruling in favor of a national right to same-sex marriage with no legal precedent and with nothing in our Constitution to back it up. They have violated American's most fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution - religious liberty.
"I stand with Kim Davis and every American of faith under attack by Washington elites who have nothing but disdain for us, our faith and the Constitution." Tags:What Law, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, a Democrat Marriage License, Homsexuals, Mike HuckabeeTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Phyllis Schlafly: A federal case moving to trial in Texas could provide a means to stop the practice of extending automatic U.S. citizenship to children born to illegal aliens. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump recently called for legislation to end that unpopular practice, which polls show Americans oppose by more than 2 to 1, and even Jeb Bush admitted that it’s perfectly legitimate to call those children “anchor babies.”
The Pew Research Center estimated that 340,000 children are born annually to citizens of Mexico and other foreign countries who are living illegally in the United States, and that doesn’t include children born to “birth tourists,” primarily from Asian countries, which the Center for Immigration Studies estimates could be as high as 36,000. These children are called “anchor babies” because their presumed citizenship enables their parents to access a variety of benefit programs intended for U.S. citizens, and makes it so much easier for the entire family to continue living here illegally.
The Texas case is still in its pretrial stage, but an explosive document filed there last week by the government of Mexico adds fuel to the national debate that Trump touched off. The legal brief, which includes a sworn affidavit by Mexico’s consul general for Texas, Carlos Gonzalez Gutierrez, openly admits that Mexico’s official policy is to encourage its poor people to migrate here illegally in order to access our generous welfare system.
The brief begins by declaring that “Mexico is responsible to protect its nationals wherever they may be residing,” and a footnote clarifies that under the Mexican Constitution, “Mexican nationality is granted to children born abroad of a Mexican born parent.” In other words, anchor babies born in this country retain their parents’ nationality, which means their citizenship belongs there, not here.
Liberals claim that our own Constitution guarantees automatic U.S. citizenship to all children born on American soil, and it’s true that the Fourteenth Amendment begins with the words “All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States.” But behind those three little dots is an important qualification: “AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
What that forgotten phrase means is that when someone born here is “subject to the jurisdiction” of another nation, that child does not become a U.S. citizen unless the laws passed by Congress so provide (and they don’t). By filing its legal brief and submitting sworn testimony in the Texas case, Mexico is officially declaring that children born to its citizens living illegally in the United States remain “subject to the jurisdiction” of Mexico.
The Mexican consul, in his sworn testimony, says that “My responsibilities in this position include protecting the rights and promoting the interests of my fellow Mexican nationals” and “The main responsibility of consulates is to provide services, assistance, and protection to nationals abroad.” Mexico’s assertion of continuing jurisdiction over its “nationals abroad” is inconsistent with any claim to automatic U.S. citizenship merely by reason of birth on U.S. soil.
The Texas case was filed on behalf of about two dozen mothers who admit they are citizens of Mexico living illegally in Texas. The women complain that without proper ID they cannot get birth certificates for their Texas-born children, and that without birth certificates they can’t enroll in Medicaid, food stamps, Section 8 housing, and other U.S. taxpayer-provided benefits.
Like other states, Texas issues a birth certificate to a close relative only upon presentation of a valid ID issued by a U.S. federal or state agency. These restrictions were adopted to combat the growing epidemic of identity theft, whose main cause is the widespread use of forged or fake documents by illegal aliens.
In order to assist its citizens living here illegally who cannot get the required ID, Mexican consulates issue an official-looking document called the matricula consular which includes a laminated photo. Of course, Texas rightly refuses to accept such foreign identity documents which it has no way to verify.
The basic allegation of the lawsuit is that by refusing to accept the matricula consular as proper ID for obtaining a birth certificate, Texas is somehow violating the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving anchor babies of U.S. citizenship. On the contrary, their reliance on a foreign identity document proves they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of a foreign power and thus not eligible for automatic U.S. citizenship.
The Texas lawsuit was concocted by a group called the South Texas Civil Rights Project, which was founded in 1972 as a spin-off of the ACLU. It was assisted by another leftwing legal outfit, Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, whose largest supporter, the Legal Services Corporation, collected $375 million of U.S. taxpayer funds in the current fiscal year.
-------------------- Phyllis Schlafly has been a national leader of the conservative movement since 1964. She founded and is president of Eagle Forum. She has testified before more than 50 Congressional and State Legislative committees on constitutional, national defense, and family issues. Tags:Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum, 14th Amendment, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, anchor babies, illegal aliensTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
“Exxon had its Valdez, BP had its Deepwater Horizon and how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has its Animas River disaster with which to contend.”
That’s how Watchdog energy reporter Rob Nikolewski summed up the aftermath of the disastrous EPA-caused spill in Colorado’s abandoned Gold King Mine, which last month released 3 million gallons of toxic waste into the Animas River. The accident occurred when an EPA backhoe punched a hole into a waste pit during a clean-up effort, turning the Animas bright orange and threatening water sources as far as New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona as the waste dispersed downriver.
Charges of hypocrisy soon began flowing in.
“Nobody is going to take the attention away from EPA’s incompetence on this,” said Colorado Senator Cory Gardner. “If this was a private company, all hell would be breaking loose.”
“In their case, it seems that ‘we’re sorry’ is all that we the people are going to get,” wrote Lindsay Boyd for Watchdog Opinion. “What else can we do? The EPA is an unelected body of bureaucrats. But we all know what happens to private industry when they make mistakes… that lead to environmental disasters and contamination.”
If past spills by private companies are anything to judge by, Gardner and Boyd are right. Nikolewski compared the government’s reaction to the Animas spill to the huge fines issued by the Department of Jusice to Exxon and BP in the aftermath of their disasters. Unlike those companies, the EPA is protected from fines thanks to the common law rule of “sovereign immunity.”
EPA administrator Gina McCarthy said the agency “takes full responsibility” for the accident, but when Nikolewski reached out to EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C. asking for a response to charges that the agency uses a double standard for private companies and for itself, he did not receive a reply.
Signs of trouble
As Watchdog reporter Tori Richards found in a series of bombshell investigations, the story actually goes back ten years. She spoke with the mine owner, Todd Hennis, who said the EPA has a record of releasing toxic runoff from mines that dates back to 2005.
“I have been battling the EPA for 10 years and they have done nothing but create pollution,” he said, suggesting that the activity was intentional so that the agency could declare the area a Superfund site.
In 2010, the EPA asked Hennis for access to his Gold King Mine so they could investigate hazardous runoff from other mines in the area. He refused, fearing that the EPA would create additional pollution, but Hennis said the agency countered with a threat – give us access within four days, or we will fine you $35,000 a day – so he “waved the white flag.”
The story garnered national attention on FoxNews.com and a number of other prominent media outlets, but it was not the only troubling testimony Richards uncovered. Just five months before the Animas River disaster, leaders from the nearby mining town of Silverton reportedly begged EPA officials not to perform tests that would declare the area a Superfund site. Even though no problems were found when the town was tested five years earlier, the EPA pressed back in.
Five days before the breach, another warning was sounded in the Silverton Standard, which published a letter to the editor from a man who identified himself as a professional geologist with 47 years of experience. It warned of a scenario where “the water will find a way out and exfiltrate uncontrollably through connected abandoned shafts, drifts, raises, fractures… contamination may actually increase due to the disturbance and flushing action within the workings.”
He wasn’t too far off.
With such warnings and suspicious activity prior to the spill, and a PR debacle in its wake, is it any wonder that the EPA withheld mine spill documents from Congress? As Richards reported several weeks after the spill, the agency failed to meet its deadline set by the House Science Committee, which requested documents pertaining to the Gold King Mine spill as part of an ongoing investigation into the incident.
The delay came on the heels of weeks of foot-dragging by the EPA, which took several days to notify Utah, New Mexico, and the Navajo Nation that the spill was coming their way via the San Juan River. It took McCarthy a week to visit Colorado. The EPA did not give out the name of the contractor working on the project, along with other details generally considered public knowledge. And the Navajo Nation, which uses the San Juan for drinking water and farming, was given an emergency supply of water in oil-contaminated containers.
A voice on the ground
Watchdog Arena writer Marjorie Haun, a Colorado resident, meticulously covered the spill and ensuing debacle. She was one of the first to seize on the agency’s hypocrisy, noting that according to the EPA’s own “Waters of the United States” rule, the disaster warrants millions of dollars in fines.
After criticizing the agency for its tight-lipped response and low-information answers to questions from the press and local residents, Haun raised the deeper question that has begun to dog the agency: is the EPA even relevant anymore?
“From spill to clean up to compensation the EPA has bumbled its way through its responsibilities, beginning into question its own ability,” she wrote, citing a laundry list of mistakes. Navajo Nation President Russel Begaye for example, claimed the EPA “endangered our people” and called for the removal of all contaminated sediment from the San Juan River. Elsewhere, Haun noted, the EPA has proven little help in assessing the impact of its actions or funding cleanup efforts, while Colorado and New Mexico acted quickly to divert millions in state funds to help cleanup efforts in affected areas. And it was information provided by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment that led Sheriff Sean Smith to declare the Animas River safe for recreational use after the waste was washed downstream.
The contrast between the state and federal responses has given traction to proposals that would bring environmental regulation under state control. In his coverage of the story, Nikolewski quoted Nicolas Loris, an economist who covers energy, environmental and regulatory issues for the Heritage Foundation. Loris questioned the 45-year-old agency’s reason for existing:
“That’s really what’s at the heart of the matter – transitioning away from the federal government and devolving most of those decisions down to the states,” Loris said. “The states have shown they do care about their own backyards. People don’t want to pollute their own property. States don’t want to do so either.”
----------------- Andrew Collins (@ACwords) when not writing an article, spearheads Franklin Center’s social media campaigns, promoting journalism through Franklin Center, Watchdog.org, and Watchdog Wire-branded accounts on various social media platforms. Previously, Andrew worked in campaign communications and television news. Tags:Andrew Collins, Franklin Center, EPA, hypocrisy, sovereign immunity, created disaster, Colorado, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
The House returns on Tuesday, September 8th with votes postponed until 6:30 PM.
The Senate will reconvene for legislative business on Tuesday, September 8th at 2 PM when it will take up H. J. Res. 61, the Resolution of Disapproval of the Iran Agreement.
Today, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) announced she will support President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. He announcement ensures that the majority votes against the bill will be vetoes by the president and his veto will will survive an "attack in the Senate.”
Roll Call notes, “Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski announced Wednesday she’s supporting the international agreement with Iran regarding its nuclear capabilities. In doing so, the Maryland Democrat gives the Obama administration a veto override-proof list of 34 Senate supporters, all from the Democratic caucus.”
Responding to this development, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “Next week the Senate will hold a serious and consequential debate on whether or not to approve of this deal. The fact that the administration has sought to reduce this important national security matter to a partisan contest raises even more serious questions about its durability and merits. While the President may be able to sustain a veto with the tepid, restricted and partisan support of one third of one House of Congress over Americans’ bipartisan opposition, it will require a bipartisan Congress to strengthen our defenses in the Persian Gulf and to stand up to the inevitable Iranian violations of the agreement that will need to be addressed after he has left office. And because this is not a treaty, it can and should be revisited by our new president.
“The administration's single minded intent to reach an agreement with the government of Iran has resulted in an accord which will leave Iran with a threshold nuclear capability recognized as legitimate by the P5+1, thousands of centrifuges, an advanced research and development program and access to billions of dollars to support terrorism, further ballistic missile research and strengthen Iran's economy. By any measure Iran will emerge stronger from this deal and better positioned to expand its sphere of influence. While the President will be out of office in 18 months, the rest of the country and the world will have to deal with the many predictable consequences of his deal with Iran.”
The Washington Post adds, “Since the deal was struck in July, critics have complained that it doesn’t do enough to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and, at best, only delays its pathway to becoming an armed nuclear state. Even those on the fence have openly worried that Iran might funnel some of the money that gets pumped back into its economy after sanctions are lifted into nefarious activities, including funding groups that pose a direct threat to Israel.
“But Obama and his proxies have argued that the deal is the best agreement they could have secured, that there is no alternative to the agreement but war with Iran and that those angling to rip-up the current deal and call Iran back to the negotiating table do not have a viable alternative.
“So far, Obama’s argument has only swayed Democrats – no Republicans have come out to support the deal. And politically, the splits forming around the agreement in Congress appear to be reflected throughout the country. While polls show that a majority of Americans oppose the deal, a strong majority of Democrats support it and a strong majority of Republicans oppose the deal.”
On Monday a Quinnipiac poll found, “Voters oppose 55 - 25 percent the proposed nuclear agreement with Iran.” Majorities of independents, men and women oppose the deal. In every age group surveyed, 18-34, 35-49, 50-64, and 65+, opposition far outweighs support for the deal.
In the poll, voters also say by 56% to 28% that they think the nuclear deal with Iran would make the world less safe.
Another recent Quinnipiac poll of 3 swing states found that “[v]oters [in Florida] oppose the nuclear pact with Iran 61 - 25 percent and say 61 - 27 percent the deal would make the world less safe rather than safer,” “[v]oters [in Ohio] oppose the nuclear pact with Iran 58 - 24 percent and say 56 - 26 percent the deal would make the world less safe rather than safer,” and “[v]oters [in Pennsylvania] oppose the nuclear pact with Iran 61 - 26 percent and say 60 - 27 percent the deal would make the world less safe rather than safer.”
Unlike the Obama administration, news stories about Iran’s continued threatening rhetoric still seem to concern most Americans.The AP reports, “The head of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard said Tuesday the United States is still the ‘Great Satan,’ regardless of the nuclear deal struck with the Americans and other world powers over the Islamic Republic’s contested nuclear program.
“The comments by Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, reported by the official Guard website, said enmity against Iran by the U.S. hasn’t lessened. ‘We should not be deceived by the U.S.,’ Mr. Jafari reportedly said. ‘It wants to infiltrate into Iran, resorting to new instruments and method.’ .
“Earlier Tuesday, Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi, the head of Iran’s powerful Experts Assembly, which oversees the nation’s Supreme Leader and institutions under his supervision, also said the nuclear deal won’t alter Iran’s foreign policy toward the U.S.
‘The Islamic Republic of Iran considers the U.S. its No. 1 enemy,’ Yazdi said. ‘If you try to discover the root of the sedition that is happening around us today, you will identify U.S. as its main supporter.’ His remarks echo those earlier made by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.”
This is the regime the Obama administration is expecting to abide by its commitments, despite years of Tehran ignoring, cheating on, or rejecting them.
ARRA News Service Editor's Opinion: What Lunacy? President Obama has pursued agendas which have weakened America in the eyes of both Americans and our enemies. Under his administration, America has become divided on broad range of issues. "Legal" American citizens cannot reasonable say they are better off or safer today than they were before Mr. Obama became president. In history, if America survives the results of his administration, I hope Americans will never again face anything worse than this President's Pejorative Agenda. Tags:Washington, D.C., President Obama, Pejorative Agenda, Senate Democrats, Iran, Nuke Deal, editorial cartoon, Lisa Benson, 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 Katie Tubb: President Obama gave a doom and gloom speech yesterday at the Global Leadership in the Arctic (GLACIER) conference in Alaska to build momentum for the U.N. climate deal in Paris this December.
According to Obama, “Climate change is happening faster than we’re acting” and the world is facing a future of more fires, more melting, more warming, more suffering.
But there are at least two major problems with his focus on global warming as he’s presented it in Alaska.
1. Ignoring Evidence On Climate Change
Obama continues to ignore science that doesn’t fit his narrative and has ignored sound evidence from people who disagree with him. Many of the environmental trends Obama has warned of do not appear to fit current realities.
In his speech he warned that,“If [current] trend lines continue the way they are, there’s not going to be a nation on this earth that’s not going to be impacted negatively…More drought, more floods, rising sea levels, greater migration, more refugees, more scarcity, more conflict.”However, Judith Curry, professor at Georgia Institute for Technology and participant in the International Panel on Climate Change and National Academy of Sciences, writes that when politicians talk about an undeniable climate “consensus” they are brushing over “very substantial disagreement about climate change that arises from:
Insufficient observational evidence
Disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence (e.g. models)
Disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence
Assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance
Belief polarization as a result of politicization of the science
All this leaves multiple ways to interpret and reason about the available evidence.”
Curry, and others with evidence countering the president’s narrative of an accelerating and catastrophic warming, are labeled by Obama as “critics,” “cynics,” “deniers,” and on “their own shrinking island.”
Yet data of observed reality collected from the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. National Climate Data Center does not show increasing frequency of extreme weather across the globe, whether you look at hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, or floods.
With so much yet unknown or unclear, one has to wonder if we are entirely misdiagnosing the problem.
2. What Will New Measures Do?
Obama hasn’t given Americans, or the world, an answer to perhaps the most important question: what kind of impact will global warming measures accomplish?
For starters, Federal subsidies and tax credits for wind and solar have cost billions of dollars while only increasing wind and solar contribution to the American energy by only 5 percent. In addition, it has tied both industries to government dependence with only minor success.
Energy efficiency mandates have reduced choices for Americans through the back door of regulation.
That has meant more expensive kitchen appliances or car models that must prioritize carbon dioxide emissions over other preferences like size, safety, or performance, not to mention an insult to the ability of Americans to make good energy efficiency choices for themselves.
And the Clean Power Plan, should it survive the serious legal problems with the regulations, promises to create a $2.5 trillion loss in GDP, hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, and a total income loss of $7,000 per person by 2030.
Those hardest hit will be people in manufacturing and with lower incomes.
Rich with irony, Obama warned that if we don’t act on climate change there would be “entire industries of people who can’t practice their livelihood.”
Tell that to those in the coal industry facing the gauntlet of the Clean Power Plan and a slew of other federal regulations, or miners and oil companies in Alaska in the crosshairs of the Obama administration’s zero carbon economy.
As it turns out, these mandates and subsidies also prove to be barriers to the progress and innovation the Obama administration wants.
Where does it get us on the path to addressing global warming?
Jim Hansen, far from Obama’s global warming “deniers,” called the Clean Power Plan “practically worthless,” even though it is the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s climate agenda.
The administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, responsible for the Clean Power Plan, has testified before Congress that the Clean Power Plan isn’t about reducing global temperatures but “an investment opportunity” and “the tone and tenor” of international climate discussions.
In the process they thwart the opportunity, mobility, and wealth that can empower people to deal with environmental challenges.
---------------- Katie Tubb is a research assistant for the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Tags:President Obama, Global Glacier Summit, Alaska, UN Climate Deal, Ignoring Science, Climate Change, EPA, global warming, Katie Tubb, Heritage Fountation,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 contributors or sources do not necessarily reflect the position of ARRA, its Officers, memberships or the Editors.
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.