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, June 28, 2016
The Bill of Rights Ensures the Government Can’t Do Whatever It Wants
Sen, Mike Lee, Op-Ed: Since the horrific terrorist attack in Orlando, Florida, nearly two weeks ago—the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001—Congress has been engrossed in a debate about what can be done to prevent something like this from happening again.
In their grief for the victims, and in their concern about the safety of our communities, many Americans have come to the same conclusion: “something must be done.”
Unfortunately, many of members of Congress believe that those four words—“something must be done”—give the federal government permission to do whatever it wants.
But the government can’t do whatever it wants, not even at a time of great anxiety and insecurity. In fact, there are several things that the government is expressly prohibited from doing under any circumstances.
The government may not infringe on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” It may not violate the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Nor may it deprive any person “of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
These are just a few of the explicit limitations on government action—a few of Americans’ core civil liberties—listed in the Bill of Rights. They are not negotiable. Yet many of the legislative proposals that have emerged in recent days run roughshod over these basic constitutional rights.
One such measure would give law enforcement agencies power to access Americans’ internet browsing history and email metadata—which can be analyzed to reveal intimate details about a person’s life—without a warrant, probable cause, or judicial review by a federal court.
Another measure, the Terrorist Firearms and Prevention Act, would prohibit individuals on the government’s secret no fly list or selectee list from purchasing firearms.
Everyone agrees that terrorists should be prevented from purchasing guns, but this proposal would deny Americans their Second Amendment rights based on a mere suspicion from the FBI that they are engaged in terrorist activity. The denial of a constitutional right should require more proof than a reasonable suspicion—a standard so low that it doesn’t even justify an arrest.
In defending these measures, some proponents have lamented the difficulty of working around the core civil liberties listed in the Bill of Rights. But this is a feature, not a bug, of our constitutional system.
Americans’ constitutional rights are not nuisances that the government must accommodate. Protecting these rights is the reason that government exists. As we continue consideration of these measures next week, we must work to ensure that Congress fulfills this purpose.
-------------------- Mike Lee (R-UT) (@SenMikeLee)is a member of the U. S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Tags:U.S., Senator, Mike Lee, Republican, Utah, Judicial Committee, The Constitution, Bill of Rights, Government Can't Do Whatever It WantsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Stephen Moore: "People are working harder and longer just to keep their heads above water. And to deal with the costs, the everyday costs, the costs of basics like childcare and prescription drugs that are too high. College is getting more expensive every day. And wages are still too low and inequality is too great. Good jobs in this country are still too hard to come by."
This was the very curious case that Hillary laid out last week as to why voters should elect her president and continue with the policies of Barack Obama. Flat wages, jobs hard to come by, kitchen table bills getting higher and higher each month and the middle class getting clobbered. Doesn't it just want to make you break out and chant: "four more years?"
But Hillary's speech was about playing the fear card. Yes, the economy stinks, but it's not as bad as it will be if the scurrilous Donald Trump becomes president. You can't get much more inspirational than that.
So just what is it that is so diabolical about Mr. Trump? First, she warned, Mr. Trump will blow up the debt.
There was something almost comical about Hillary's pontificating about the dangers of government borrowing and the need for fiscal responsibility. Wait. Wasn't she part of the Obama administration which also promised all these things? And haven't those policies given us the weakest recovery ever since the Great Depression, and a near doubling of the national debt to $19 trillion. The chart shows just how towering the debt has become under PresidentObama.
One of her more ironic claims was that here "in America we pay our bills," in reference to Mr. Trump's sensible idea of refinancing out debt to lock in low in today's historical low interest rates. Ringing up some $8 trillion of debt is hardly "paying the bills." It's passing them on to the next generation.
Hillary slammed Mr. Trump for not understanding the new economy and job creation, which is also a bold claim since Donald Trump is a highly successful businessman who actually has created thousands of jobs, while Hillary has gotten rich off of ... politics.
Hillary's attacks on Mr. Trump were a subterfuge to deflect attention from the most remarkable part of her rant. What was billed as a "major economic speech" was entirely bereft of new ideas. The left's idea cupboard is entirely empty so Hillary had to serve yesterday's cold soup.
Her policy solutions to helping the middle class were raise the minimum wage, tax the rich, and spend more on infrastructure. She's also going to lower college costs. Gee, where have we seen this before? Oh yes, this is Obamanomics Part Deaux. When I debated one of her top economists on Fox News the next day, he even trotted out the mantra that every dollar of government spending leads to a "multiplier effect" of $1.60 in economic benefits. Do they really believe voters are so dimwitted they will fall for that again?
The class warfare theme ran throughout the speech, and yet this presents Hillary with another inconvenient problem. Mr. Obama has raised the minimum wage, he already did spent $840 billion on infrastructure stimulus spending, and he has taxed the bejesus out of the rich. And the result wasn't more equality and a resurgent middle class, but an angry and worried worker class that hasn't seen a pay raise in 15 years and with household incomes in the last seven years that have fallen behind inflation. Some 95 million Americans aren't working and the poverty rate is still hellishly high.
On trade she trashed Mr. Trump for closing our markets and threatening a trade war and then she recommended trade policies that seem almost the same as Mr. Trump's. Get tougher in trade deals. Punish China for cheating. Renegotiate the Asia trade pact. Mr. Trump should sue for plagiarism. Hillary made the claim that Mr. Trump hates working women, but the Obama/Clinton policies have been anything but beneficial to women. Single women have seen some of the biggest income declines under Obama. Women pay the family bills and see the strain on household budgets. They are going to wonder just who hates women.
Hillary also says how much she cares about black and Latino voters - and you might even say she "feels their pain." But these two groups have also suffered the steepest declines in income under Obama policies. Sorry, Hillary, voters want results, not lip service.
For his part, Donald Trump does have a pro-growth agenda. He would cut tax rates as Ronald Reagan and JFK did to bring jobs back to America. He would simplify the tax code and cut tax rates to their lowest level since Mr. Reagan left office.
He has a pro-America energy policy to make the United States the fossil fuel powerhouse of the world. He would roll back Obamacare and balance the budget with spending reforms and economic growth while rolling back the Obama regulatory assault on business.
If Hillary pulls off this election it will be one of the greatest sales jobs in political history. She is selling the American voters sand in the desert: stay the course economic bromides at a time when two out of three voters say that the United States is on the wrong, not the right track. Even her own husband, the former president doesn't agree with her. A few months ago Bill Clinton honestly called the last seven years "awful." Voters share that sentiment.
This is why a strong majority think Mr. Trump is better for the economy than Mrs. Clinton. Voters want change.
------------- Stephen Moore (@StephenMoore) formerly wrote on the economy and public policy for the The Wall Street Journal is a distinguished visiting fellow for the Project for Economic Growth at The Heritage Foundation, an economic consultant with Freedom Works, and a Donald Trump economic adviser. He also served as president of the Club for Growth from 1999 to 2004. Moore encouraged the ARRA News Service editor at SamSphere Chicago 2008 to blog his articles. This article was shared at Financial Freedom's Back. Tags:Stephen Moore, Hillary Clinton, the economy, Donald Trump, 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 Daniel Greenfield: After the Orlando attack, Obama ranted that it did not matter what we called Islamic terrorism. “What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIS less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.”
The “Islamic terrorists by any other name would smell as sweet” argument is the last resort of the losing side. It dismisses the whole issue as a matter of semantics with no bearing on the real world.
And that’s a neat rhetorical trick for the political side that relentlessly refuses to acknowledge reality.
One of the more shocking moments in Jeffrey Goldberg’s extended Atlantic write-up of Obama’s foreign policy came with his conversation with the Prime Minister of Australia. Obama, who has refused to recognize any connection between Islamic theology and violence, and made the hijab into a civil rights issue, told the Australian leader how he had seen Indonesia turn to “fundamentalist” Islam and noted, unfavorably, the large numbers of women now wearing hijabs as a sign of that fundamentalism.
Obama blamed the Saudis for pushing Wahhabism through imams and madrassas into Indonesia.
It wasn’t an original critique, but also not one that you hear much in Obama’s circles. When Obama reportedly tells world leaders that there will be “no comprehensive solution to Islamist terrorism until Islam reconciles itself to modernity” and undergoes reforms the way that Christianity did, it’s like suddenly having Khrushchev explain why Communism can’t work and will end up falling apart.
It’s shocking and revealing.
In moments like these we see that Obama knows that he’s lying. And Obama makes the awkward semantics argument because he knows that the existence of Islamic terrorism can’t be debated. When you are reduced to arguing that names don’t matter, it’s because you know that the name is right.
Plenty of leftists lie to themselves about Islamic terrorism. Obama is not lying to himself. He’s lying to us. He is willing to say things about Islamic terror to foreign leaders that he refuses to say to Americans.
He can tell them that Islamic terrorism is real and that the only way to stop it is to reform Islam.
And here is where we come back to his question of why naming Islamic terrorism matters. It’s a question that Obama has already answered. You can’t solve a problem until you define it. It may not matter what you call a rose, as long as you know that it’s a plant. If you don’t know that a rose is a flowering plant that grows out of the ground, then you’ll never figure out how to plant one. If you don’t know that Islamic terrorism is a theological implementation of its core religious identity, you won’t even know what it is you are supposed to be fighting. And you won’t win except through brute force.
We have never defined the problem of Islamic terrorism because that would just be too dangerous.
Why is Obama willing to talk about Saudi support for terrorism to the Prime Minister of Australia, but not to Americans? Why does he only suggest reforming Islam to foreign leaders in private?
The official story is that it would “empower” Islamic terrorists, but that’s a nonsensical claim. ISIS doesn’t derive its legitimacy from whether we call it ISIS, ISIL or Daesh. Nor are Muslims going to determine the theological legitimacy of a Jihadist group based on whether we refer to it as Islamic.
Telling the truth would no doubt “offend” Muslims. And the threat of offending Muslims continues to occupy far more branches of our government than fighting Muslim terrorism.
But Obama isn’t really afraid of offending Muslims. If he were, he wouldn’t have provided this little peek into his private meetings at all. Obama isn’t afraid of Muslims, terrorists or otherwise, he’s afraid of Americans.
Tell the truth and Americans might suddenly get the naughty idea that instead of waiting for Islam to “reform”, they ought to just deal with the problem at its source with a travel ban. They might decide that extra scrutiny for mosques really is warranted and that airport profiling would save everyone grief.
And, worst of all, they might realize that they have no reason to feel guilty about our foreign policy. If Islamic terrorism exists and is caused by Islam, then America isn’t and was never the problem.
That kind of thinking frightens Obama and the left far more than a hundred Orlando terror attacks.
Name the enemy and Americans might suddenly start feeling good about themselves. That outraged confidence which we associate with Pearl Harbor, but that made a brief return after September 11, might come back to stay. Americans would embrace patriotism and pride without doubt or guilt.
That is why Islamic terrorism can’t and won’t be named.
Whatever dislike Obama may harbor for the Islamization of Indonesia, he appears to be far less concerned by it than by the Americanization of America. He may indeed recognize Islamic terrorism to be a threat of some degree, but he views American patriotism as a much bigger threat.
He can give enlightened Atlantic readers a small peek behind the scenes to show them that he recognizes the obvious problem, but he isn’t about to extend that confidence nationwide.
And it’s not just Obama.
The real reason that our leaders won’t name the enemy is that they don’t like us and they don’t trust us. Running through their heads are nightmare scenarios like Brexit and Trump. They see their job as shepherding us away from our “worst impulses” toward a proper role within the global community.
They are quite capable of recognizing Islamic terrorism for what it is. They may not be terribly bright, but people in their positions have more than enough access to information for the conclusions to be inescapable. But they are determined not to allow Islamic terrorism to disrupt their larger plans for us.
It isn’t another 9/11 or 7/7 that worries them, but a resurgence of nationalism in response to it. That is why they will lie, mislead and even criminalize any dissent. Their response to every Islamic terrorist attack is to make us feel responsible, ashamed and helpless by transforming Muslims into the victims.
For these same reasons they will push mass Muslim migration no matter what the terror risks are. They will champion the hijab, even though they know it harms Muslim women. Why? Because these policies undermine our values and transform our countries. And that is their overriding agenda above all else.
That is what we are up against.
They know that they are lying about Islamic terrorism. It’s why Obama dismisses the subject as mere semantics. But it’s only one of many things that they are lying to us about. Obama lies to us about Islamic terrorism for the same reason that he lies to us about being able to keep your doctor.
He knows the truth, but the truth would interfere with the left’s larger plans to transform America.
-------------- Daniel Greenfield is Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. David Horowitz is a Contributing Author of the ARRA News Service Tags:Daniel Greenfield, FrontPage Mag, Leaders Won't Name The Enemy, Denial, Islam, JihadTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Twin Falls Cover-Up, Political Prosecution Overturned, & Benghazi Report Released
by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: Twin Falls Cover-Up - In the aftermath of the Orlando terrorist attack and major Supreme Court decisions, a developing story in Twin Falls, Idaho, may have escaped your notice. The story hasn't made it to the national news, but it should.
Like many small, rural communities around the country, the Obama Administration has chosen this town, located near the Nevada/Utah border, to receive hundreds of refugees from Muslim nations. No one asked the citizens of Twin Falls if they approved of this.
Residents of Twin Falls have voiced their frustrations to local officials. Some have been threatened, others have been spat on by the new arrivals. Then a truly horrible assault occurred. Three young refugees reportedly raped a mentally challenged five year-old girl.
Initially, local officials would not admit that anything happened. They stonewalled questions from citizens. Finally, law enforcement and prosecutors admitted that something really bad did happen. Two of the boys involved in the attack are from Sudan and one is from Iraq. Because of their ages -- 14, 10 and 7 -- they are being treated as juveniles and the case is sealed.
This situation is bad enough. It is a smaller example of what we saw take place on a much larger scale in Cologne, Germany, on New Year's Eve. Government officials at all levels covered up horrible crimes committed by Muslim refugees against German women.
But the Twin Falls story took a turn that should make national news. Friday, U.S. Attorney Wendy J. Olson, the Obama-appointed federal prosecutor for Idaho, issued a chilling statement. After expressing her sympathy for the victim and her confidence in local prosecutors, Ms. Olson then issued a threat to the citizens of Twin Falls: "The spread of false information or inflammatory or threatening statements about the perpetrators or the crime itself . . . may violate federal law."
While clearly high on the left's wish list, there is no federal law under which someone can be prosecuted for "inflammatory statements." As one law professor explained in the Washington Post, Olson's statement "looks like an attempt to chill constitutionally protected speech through the threat of federal prosecution."
Whatever her motivation, Olson is, unfortunately, reflecting the views of her bosses at the Department of Justice and the White House. Remember when Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in the wake of the San Bernardino shootings, threatened to prosecute anti-Muslim hate speech?
Let me close with this political point. There is not enough space here to name all the Republican officials who have attacked Donald Trump over his call for a moratorium on immigration from predominately Muslim nations while we are at war with radical Islamic supremacists. Often they use the same over-the-top rhetoric as Barack Obama.
Where are those GOP leaders now? Is Wendy Olson's threat against the citizens of Twin Falls a reflection of our values? Is squelching free speech part of who we are? When did it become a reflection of our values to make those attacking us a protected class?
To all those Washington insiders who just don't get where all the "anger" is coming from: Get out of town and go talk to the people of Twin Falls.
Political Prosecution Overturned - While we're on the topic of politically motivated prosecutions, the Supreme Court yesterday did get one thing right -- it overturned the conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.
McDonnell was a rising star in the Republican Party. He was on Mitt Romney's vice presidential short list in 2012. Many saw him as a future senator.
Political hacks at the Department of Justice decided to neutralize McDonnell. Relying on a wildly broad interpretation of "official acts," he was indicted on federal corruption charges shortly after leaving office.
The case against McDonnell stunned even many Democrats. In fact, more than 40 former state attorneys general filed a brief supporting McDonnell and opposing his prosecution. They argued that the charges against him represented a "drastic, legislatively unsanctioned expansion of the federal police power."
Yesterday, the Supreme Court agreed. In a unanimous 8-to-0 ruling, the justices blasted the Obama Administration's "boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute."
Benghazi Report Released - The House select committee investigating the September 2012 attacks on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, released its final report today. There are certainly some new details that offer a fuller picture of what took place on the ground there and the reaction here in Washington. Some details are quite compelling and should be topics of national debate.
For example, in an addendum to the committee's report, Representatives Jim Jordan and Mike Pompeo tell us that the State Department needlessly delayed the deployment of a Marine response team. Why? The reason will shock you. According to Jordan and Pompeo:"What has also emerged is a picture of the State Department eating up valuable time by insisting that certain elements of the U.S. military respond to Libya in civilian clothes and that it not use vehicles with United States markings. . . We will never know exactly how long these conditions delayed the military response but that they were even a part of the discussion is troubling."One commander told congressional investigators that "during the course of three hours, he and his Marines changed in and out of their uniforms four times."
To paraphrase former Secretary of State Clinton, what difference does it make what clothes they are wearing?! If armed thugs are trying to break into your house, do you care if the police show up in uniforms or plain clothes?
Another portion of the report reveals that career officials within the State Department were deeply concerned that then-United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice went so far "off the reservation" in her public comments about the cause of the attacks.
As you may recall, Rice went on five Sunday talk shows -- several days after the attacks -- and repeated the myth that it was all a protest in response to a YouTube video. Like everyone else, these officials knew the truth and were stunned that top representatives of the Obama Administration were spinning such obvious lies to the American people.
Other officials expressed an unwillingness to go "on the record" with the CIA's terrible talking points. One expressed his frustration with the Obama White House, which was "very worried about the politics."
------------- 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, Twin Falls Cover-Up, Political Prosecution Overturned, Benghazi ReportTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
‘Reprehensible For Senate Democrats To Block Funding That Is Needed To Help Keep Americans Safe’
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): “So here we are in an utterly absurd position, playing political games, as this public health crisis mounts here in our country. Pregnant women all across America are looking at this with dismay, utter dismay. As we sit here in a partisan gridlock manufactured by the other side over issues that’s pretty hard for the general public to understand, refusing to pass the funds needed to address this public health concern.” (Sen. McConnell, Floor Remarks, 6/28/16)
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): “Over the past few weeks, our Democratic friends have repeatedly stressed the urgency of this matter... For the President and some of our colleagues who have been insistent that we act on this now to say well, we're going to filibuster it or that the President will actually veto it is really pretty hard to get your head around. Unless, of course, you conclude that it's completely disingenuous and irresponsible.” (Sen. Cornyn, Press Release, 6/27/2016)
SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD): “Again and again, Democrats suggested that they were fiercely committed to fighting Zika ... [H]ere's what I see today. I see Republicans ready to pass a Zika bill and send it to the president this minute, right now. And I see Democrats who are more interested in pacifying a Democrat special interest group than they are than actually doing anything about Zika.” (Sen. Thune, Floor Remarks, 6/28/2016)
SEN. ROY BLUNT (R-MO): “The Zika virus poses a serious public health threat, and it would be reprehensible for Senate Democrats to block funding that is needed to help keep Americans safe, particularly pregnant mothers and their babies.” (Sen. Blunt, Press Release, 6/28/2016)
‘820 Confirmed Zika Cases In The Continental U.S.’
SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): “…the mosquitoes carrying this deadly virus are on the march.”(Sen. Durbin, Congressional Record, S.4433, 6/22/2016)
DURBIN:“The mosquitoes are not going to be on recess next week, they are going to be working, and sadly they are going to be infecting people across the South and across the United States while congressional leaders dither.” (Sen. Durbin, Congressional Record, S.2428, 4/26/2016)
Senate Zika Bill Previously Earned ‘Sweeping Support From Democrats’
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV):“...the threat from Zika continues to grow larger every day.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.4432, 6/22/16) Where was Harry Reid's Leadership this time? Tags:Zika Virus, Senate, Democrats, block Zika fundingTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
A Government Agency Making Farmers’ Lives Miserable - Besides the EPA, We Mean
The Green is, As Always, for Money
by Seton Motley, Contributing Author: Government has two roles. Pretend to make the lives of Americans better - while actually making them worse. The first is a necessary facade - to allow them to execute the second.
Is this crass and cynical? Yes, it is. But it is also accurate. Here’s some more crass accuracy.
Government is like any other organism. Its primary priorities are self-preservation - and expansion. So it constantly shouts about the (highly dubious) necessity of its existence - and its growth. All of which comes at the expense of the private sector.
God bless the private sector. It managed for a century-plus to continue to make our lives better - despite ever-increasing government. For the last three to four decades, freedom and government have fought to a virtual standoff. Which is largely why wages have stagnated - and economic growth has slowed to a crawl.
The Barack Obama Administration has ramped-up-on-steroids the federal government’s war on the private sector. And government is winning. President Obama has added $10 trillion in government debt - and hundreds of thousands of pages of new government regulations.
The USDA has done what all things government have done - continually grown into an ever-increasing pain in the keister.Since its inception more than a century and a half ago, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has experienced enormous growth in both size and complexity….Today the USDA is among the largest federal employers and its 2014 budget exceeded $160 billion.Get that? The farm sector has spent the last century-plus dramatically reducing its number of participants (thank you very much, private sector advancements). In 1900, 40% of Americans worked on farms. Today, a mere 1% do.
But the agency overseeing the sector? It “experienced enormous growth in both size and complexity” - and today “is among the largest federal employers and its 2014 budget exceeded $160 billion.”
In the private sector - that makes zero sense. In government - that’s how things work.
One reason the USDA has grown so huge and complex? Another government hallmark - mission creep:Its spectrum of activities span from the protection of rural farm interests to urban food assistance.Again, less crass than I would be. I’m not sure how many farm interests feel “protected.” And I have zero idea why a department of agriculture is providing “urban food assistance” (food stamps and the like). Not a lot of agriculture going on in our nation’s inner-cities.Consequently, the department is the target of a wide range of interest groups besides farmers, including food assistance advocates and advocacy groups interested in issues such as obesity, animal welfare, food safety, the environment, and more.How very government. With this mission creep comes myriad additional special interests looking to thrust their snouts into USDA’s $160 billion trough. Far too often, farmers get short shrift from the agency that regulates the daylight out of them.
Speaking of mission creep:
When the USDA was established in 1862, its stated mission was to collect foreign seeds and distribute them to farmers.
In 1906, Congress passed laws requiring the inspection of meat, poultry, and eggs, and the USDA was tasked with enforcing food safety.
So far, ok (though the states should have handled the latter). But then…:
During the Great Depression, the USDA mandated price floors and bought surplus crops. This unintentionally encouraged overproduction, lowering food prices, and the USDA quickly exhausted its $500 million budget.
As part of the New Deal, farmers were given subsidies for not planting crops.
We’ve been straddled with our ridiculous Farm Bill ever since.
And this ridiculous mission creep has made all things USDA ridiculously difficult.The disparate agendas of these groups make it difficult for Congress to assemble a unified policy package each time USDA’s programs are due for reauthorization. The latest reauthorization, the Agricultural Act of 2014, was signed into law two years late in February 2015.And makes killing the Farm Bill ridiculously difficult. As evidenced by the fact that we conservatives have spent the last eighty or so years trying to do so - with absolutely zero success.
So perhaps we should try something else?Under the “Zero-for-Zero” plan, U.S. sugar policy would also be rolled back in exchange for the elimination of foreign programs, which (Florida Republican Congressman Ted) Yoho says are distorting world prices and inhibiting a free market.
Congressman Yoho is, of course, absolutely correct. We’ve been “distorting world prices and inhibiting a free market” for decades – and on oh-so-much-more than merely sugar.In other words, we free-trade-away our stupid policies - in exchange for other nations free-trading-away theirs.
And when it next comes time to renew the awful Farm Bill - there will be far less Farm Bill to renew.
That’s progress. Finally. Crass, accurate progress.
Then maybe we can start rolling back the USDA. And the EPA. And numerous other Federal agencies.
---------------- 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:Seton Motley, Less Government, Government Agency, Making Farmers’ Lives MiserableTo 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: Some of us have long predicted the breakup of the European Union. The Cousins appear to have just delivered the coup de grace.
While Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU, England voted for independence. These people, with their unique history, language and culture, want to write their own laws and rule themselves.
The English wish to remain who they are, and they do not want their country to become, in Theodore Roosevelt’s phrase, “a polyglot boarding house” for the world.
From patriots of all nations, congratulations are in order.
It will all begin to unravel now, over there, and soon over here.
Across Europe, tribalism, of all strains, is resurgent. Not only does the EU appear to be breaking up, countries appear about to break up.
Scotland will seek a second referendum to leave the U.K. The French National Front of Marine Le Pen and the Dutch Party for Freedom both want out of the EU. As Scots seek to secede from the U.K., Catalonia seeks to secede from Spain, Veneto from Italy, and Flemish nationalists from Belgium.
Ethnonationalism seems everywhere ascendant. Yet, looking back in history, is this not the way the world has been going for some centuries now?
The disintegration of the EU into its component nations would follow, as Vladimir Putin helpfully points out, the dissolution of the USSR into 15 nations, and the breakup of Yugoslavia into seven.
Czechoslovakia lately split in two. The Donbass seeks to secede from Ukraine. Is that so different from Transnistria splitting off from Romania, Abkhazia and South Ossetia seceding from Georgia, and Chechnya seeking separation from Russia?
After World War II came the disintegration of the French and British empires and birth of dozens of new nations in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. America returned the Philippine islands to their people.
The previous century saw the collapse of the Spanish Empire and birth of a score of new nations in our own hemisphere.
In Xi Jinping’s China and Putin’s Russia, nationalism is rising, even as China seeks to repress Uighur and Tibetan separatists.
People want to rule themselves, and be themselves, separate from all others. Palestinians want their own nation. Israelis want “a Jewish state.”
On Cyprus, Turks and Greeks seem happier apart.
Kurds are fighting to secede from Turkey and Iraq, and perhaps soon from Syria and Iran. Afghanistan appears to be splintering into regions dominated by Pashtuns, Hazaras, Uzbeks and Tajiks.
Eritrea has left Ethiopia. South Sudan has seceded from Khartoum.
Nor is America immune to the populist sentiments surging in Europe.
In Bernie Sanders’ fulminations against corporate and financial elites one hears echoes of the radical leftist rhetoric in Greece and Italy against EU banking elites.
And as “Brexit” swept the native-born English outside of multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural, multilingual London, populist-nationalist Donald Trump and antiestablishment Ted Cruz swept the native-born white working and middle classes in the primaries.
In Britain, all the mainstream parties — Labor, Tory, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National — supported “Remain.” All lost.
Nigel Farage’s UK Independence Party alone won.
In the past six months, millions of Democrats voted for a 74-year-old socialist against the establishment choice, Hillary Clinton, as Bush-Romney-Ryan Republicanism was massively repudiated in the Republican primaries.
As Trump said last week, “We got here because we switched from a policy of Americanism — focusing on what’s good for America’s middle class — to a policy of globalism, focusing on how to make money for large corporations who can move their wealth and workers to foreign countries all to the detriment of the American worker and the American economy.”
Yesterday, news arrived that in May alone, the U.S. had run a trade deficit in goods of $60 billion. This translates into an annual deficit of $720 billion in goods, or near 4 percent of our GDP wiped out by purchases of foreign-made rather than U.S.-made goods. In 40 years, we have not run a trade surplus. The most self-sufficient republic in all of history now relies for its necessities upon other nations.
What might a Trumpian policy of Americanism over globalism entail?
A 10 to 20 percent tariff on manufactured goods to wipe out the trade deficit in goods, with the hundreds of billions in revenue used to slash or eliminate corporate taxes in the USA.
Every U.S. business would benefit. Every global company would have an incentive not only to move production here, but its headquarters here.
An “America first” immigration policy would secure the border, cut legal immigration to tighten U.S. labor markets, strictly enforce U.S. laws against those breaking into our country, and get tough with businesses that make a practice of hiring people here illegally.
In Europe and America, corporate, financial and political elites are increasingly disrespected and transnationalism is receding. An anti-establishment, nationalist, populist wave is surging across Europe and the USA.
It is an anti-insider, anti-Clinton wave, and Trump could ride it to victory.
-------------------- 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, after Brexit, Brexit, Donald Trump, path to victoryTo 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: Last week the Supreme Court of the United States voted that President Obama exceeded his authority when he granted exemptions from the immigration laws passed by Congress.
But the Supreme Court also exceeded its own authority by granting the University of Texas an exemption from the Constitution's requirement of "equal protection of the laws," by voting that racial preferences for student admissions were legal.
Supreme Court decisions in affirmative action cases are the longest running fraud since the 1896 decision upholding racial segregation laws in the Jim Crow South, on grounds that "separate but equal" facilities were consistent with the Constitution. Everybody knew that those facilities were separate but by no means equal. Nevertheless, this charade lasted until 1954.
The Supreme Court's affirmative action cases have now lasted since 1974 when, in the case of "DeFunis v. Odegaard," the Court voted 5 to 4 that this particular case was moot, which spared the justices from having to vote on its merits.
While the 1896 "separate but equal" decision lasted 58 years, the Supreme Court's affirmative action cases have now had 42 years of evasion, sophistry and fraud, with no end in sight.
One sign of the erosion of principles over the years is that even one of the Court's most liberal judicial activists, Justice William O. Douglas, could not stomach affirmative action in 1974, and voted to condemn it, rather than declare the issue moot.
But now, in 2016, the supposedly conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to uphold the University of Texas' racial preferences. Perhaps the atmosphere inside the Washington Beltway wears down opposition to affirmative action, much as water can eventually wear down rock and create the Grand Canyon.
We have heard much this year about the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of the great Justice Antonin Scalia — and rightly so. But there are two vacancies on the Supreme Court. The other vacancy is Anthony Kennedy.
The human tragedy, amid all the legal evasions and frauds is that, while many laws and policies sacrifice some people for the sake of other people, affirmative action manages to harm blacks, whites, Asians and others, even if in different ways.
Students who are kept out of a college because other students are admitted instead, under racial quotas, obviously lose opportunities they would otherwise have had.
But minority students admitted to institutions whose academic standards they do not meet are all too often needlessly turned into failures, even when they have the prerequisites for success in some other institution whose normal standards they do meet.
When black students who scored at the 90th percentile in math were admitted to M.I.T., where the other students scored at the 99th percentile, a significant number of black students failed to graduate there, even though they could have graduated with honors at most other academic institutions.
We do not have so many students with that kind of ability that we can afford to sacrifice them on the altar to political correctness.
Such negative consequences of mismatching minority students with institutions, for the sake of racial body count, have been documented in a number of studies, most notably "Mismatch," a book by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr., whose sub-title is: "How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It."
When racial preferences in student admissions in the University of California system were banned, the number of black and Hispanic students in the system declined slightly, but the number actually graduating rose substantially. So did the number graduating with degrees in tough subjects like math, science and engineering.
But hard facts carry no such weight among politicians as magic words like "diversity" — a word repeated endlessly, without one speck of evidence to back up its sweeping claims of benefits. It too is part of the Supreme Court fraud, going back to a 1978 decision that seemingly banned racial quotas — unless the word "diversity" was used instead of "quotas."
Seeming to ban racial preferences, while letting them continue under another name, was clever politically. But the last thing we need in Washington are nine more politicians, wearing judicial robes.
-------------- 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, fraud, goes on, diversity, quotas, Supreme Court Fraud, 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:Brexit, Making Great Britain Great Again, 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: In a recent column, Mollie Hemingway documents that “religious illiteracy among journalists is reaching crisis levels.” She mentions a column from a number of years ago by Terry Mattingly with the title, Reporters, crow’s ears, and Karma Light nuns that provides some humorous examples of reporters who obviously know nothing about Christianity in general or Catholics in particular. She also reminds us of reporters who thought Jesus was buried in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and that Easter marks the time when Jesus was resurrected into heaven.
We may merely shake our heads at such illiteracy, but we should be concerned with the latest claim made in the pages of the New York Times. Jeremy Peters wrote about the political divide on gay rights because of the shooting in Orlando. He then goes on to talk about a member of Congress who supposedly read a Bible verse from the book of Romans “that calls for the execution of gays.”
Even someone with just a Sunday school understanding of the Bible knows that is not what the Apostle Paul is calling for in the book of Romans. In order to back up such an outrageous claim, Peters links to a story from Roll Call that makes the same claim. The Congressman mentioned in the article actually read from Romans 1 and a few verses from the Book of Revelation. These verses do not call for the execution of gays.
By the way, if you are looking for any religious works that do call for the execution of homosexuals, you might look at another religion. Andrew McCarthy recently wrote a piece with the title: Killing Homosexuals Is Not ISIS Law, It Is Muslim Law. He takes the time to quote from the classic sharia manual (Reliance of the Traveller) to show that killing homosexuals or adulterers is commanded. He then quotes extensively from one of Sunni Islam’s most influential sharia jurists.
Apparently journalists who want to find a religious text that justifies killing gays have been looking in the wrong place.
----------- 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, religiously illiterate, journalists, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
“There is indeed a 51 percent to 39 percent advantage for Clinton over Trump in newly released Washington Post/ABC News poll, conducted from June 20-23,” Welch concedes. “But that same survey also asked the same pool of voters to react to a far more representative ballot, i.e., one that includes Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson . . . and the Green Party’s Jill Stein. . . .”
The point is, leaving out Hillary’s and the Donald’s actual competition from poll results — or from poll questions, for that matter — is tantamount to misreporting. It is, in other words, “bad science” and “journalistic malpractice.”
“Clinton has yet to reach 50 percent when her proper competition is included,” Welch explains, “and Trump hasn’t even cracked 40.”
In the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, Mrs. Clinton was reported to enjoy a seven-point lead, but when voters were offered all likely ballot options, including Johnson, the Libertarian, and Stein, the Green, Hillary bettered Donald by only one point: 39-38 percent.
But why would journalists and editors systematically rig the reporting of politics?
Laziness? Covering four candidates is twice as much work as covering two.
Partisan reasons? The Washington press corps has been embedded with R&D operatives for decades.
Whatever the reason, they’ve missed a huge story: the impact of these minor party candidates is major news.
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, Why, Journalists, Why?, polls, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, third party candidatesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Ken Blackwell, Contributing Author: Many leaders of big business support Hillary Clinton. Last week she announced a list of 56 corporate backers. No wonder Bernie Sanders is still running against her.
Hillary Clinton always has attracted well-connected business supporters. Even before she ran for office. Remember the lucrative cattle trades when she was Arkansas first lady? That came from a local businessman who knew how important it was to have friends in the governor’s mansion.
Bill Clinton had plenty of business support when he ran for president. As New York senator she was quite friendly with Wall Street — a relationship that continued, with her being paid queenly sums for talks which probably did not emphasize how she was fighting for the common man and woman. While secretary of state corporate behemoths were generous with donations to her family foundation.
Now big business is coming out for her in the presidential race. Admittedly, not all are traditional firms. Magic Johnson, the former basketball player, made the list as Chairman and CEO, Magic Johnson Enterprises. So did Erroll Davis, retired chancellor of the University System of Georgia. State colleges are more politics than business.
What stands out among the companies are the names of those whose business depends on government regulation or largess. It’s impossible to know what Donald Trump would do in such cases. But we do know what Hillary Clinton would do: Keep the corporate welfare flowing.
For instance, there’s Dan Akerson, former chairman and CEO of Government Motors, er, I mean General Motors. Richard Anderson, Executive Chairman of Delta Airlines, which is at the mercy of government policy at almost every point in its operations. James Bell, former corporate president and CFO of Boeing. Indeed, in the recent battle over the Export-Import Bank, long known as Boeing’s Bank, Hillary Clinton, in contrast to most of the GOP presidential contenders, stood fast for corporate profit at taxpayer expense.
There’s Robert Burt, former chairman of the Business Roundtable, which has been a steadfast supporter of corporate welfare. And Margot Dorfman, President and CEO of the U.S. Women’s Chamber of Commerce. Her group wants lots of government programs.
Another name on the list is James J. Murren, Chairman and CEO of MGM Resorts International. It’s hard to get more political than the gambling industry. Can you say support for stadium subsidies and antitrust exemption? Gary Rodkin, the retired CEO of ConAgra Foods. There are farm subsidies aplenty.
Of course, all of these executives may be backing Hillary Clinton because they believe she is most likely to bring peace to the Middle East, deter Chinese expansion, and contend with Brexit. Still, surely they, like Sen. Sanders, are aware that Clinton always has been a soft touch when it comes to well-heeled businessmen and women.
Earlier this year Michael Bloomberg bluntly declared: “The Republican Party is no longer the party of business.” He complained that the GOP was appealing to … union members. For instance, while business leaders supported federalizing education through the Common Core, Republicans opposed it: “Some crazy right wing people claimed it was a federal program.”
I guess we can argue whether it’s more regulation or “program,” as if that matters. It certainly is control. Which is why conservatives oppose it.
We see much the same phenomenon with religious liberty. Corporate behemoths are lining up with government, ready to crush small enterprises underfoot if they do not genuflect before the idol of social liberalism.
Big business long ago made its peace with the regulatory Leviathan. Indeed, regulation is a competitive advantage for large firms. The losers are small enterprises: the proverbial “little guy,” like the wedding photographer, baker, and event site. The big companies don’t much care who gets run over by history so long as they are friends of the driver—in this case Hillary Clinton.
Of course Republican candidates should seek support from corporate executives just like anyone else. Many do believe in limited government and individual liberty. And the GOP should be pro free market, with regulation focused on ensuring a fair process. The objective should not be pro- business per se.
Similarly, the party should be in favor of free bargaining between labor and management over wages and working conditions. And ensuring that the rules are fair to all. That means being friends of working people, not Big Unions.
Alas, economic privilege, not fairness, always has been Hillary Clinton’s agenda. Which is why some corporate executives are joining her campaign.
------------------ Ken Blackwell is a former ambassador to the U.N., Ohio Secretary of State and mayor of Cincinnati. He is a contributing author to the ARRA News Service. Tags:Ken Blackwell,, Corporate ClintonTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
If you can add 200,000 people every day to the global population and account for a significant loss of farmland at the same time, you can begin to understand the dire food situation facing the planet. This is why potash is so important: It’s the fundamental element that everyone takes for granted, despite the fact that a projected 7.7 billion lives will depend upon it by 2020.
No commodity is more fundamental than potash—and there is a lot of pressure riding on an element that many people aren’t even familiar with. Of the key commodities taken for granted, potash is on the top of the list.
The challenge for farmers—and for the world—is to increase crop yields on less land, which is being lost to climate change and increasing urbanization. This means not only steady demand for the three main elements of fertilizer—potash, phosphate and nitrogen—but significantly higher demand.
"A growing population needing to be fed from a limited amount of arable land makes fertilizer and particularly potash a robust commodity," Potash Ridge President and CEO Guy Bentinck told Oilprice.com. "Additionally, as the middle class grows, the demand for higher-end food increases, and with that the demand for potash and related fertilizers increases."
For such a critical element, it’s hard to believe that potash remains so elusive. It took a high-profile US$40-billion hostile takeover attempt of Saskatchewan’s Potash Corp., which failed, by major miner BHP Billiton in 2010 for even the Wall Street Journal to decide to figure out what all the fuss was about.
Potash, and various potassium-containing compounds are used to fertilize crops as a necessary resource for the growth of plants. In many regions of the world, there are large potash-bearing deposits from ancient sea beds that dried up millions of years ago. Most potash comes from these sources and is separated from the salt and other minerals and then graded into a form that can be used to make fertilizer.
So even if you haven’t heard of it, Potash is so big that it eludes radar—until the giant miners start aggressively positioning themselves for bigger pieces of this pie.
If you’re still not sold on potash, consider this: As far as commodities go, though it’s been a tough couple of years, Potash outperformed gold, silver, copper and oil and gas in 2015, and this year, as its cycle comes full circle, it’s back by popular demand.
The Potash Playing Field
This is a huge playing field with some of the biggest miners in the world—all vying for market share.
Russia, Belarus, China, Germany, the U.S., Israel, Jordan and China are all major potash miners, with Canada currently holding the top position for the commodity--producing 11 million tons last year and the year before, compared to Number 2 producer Russia’s 7.4 million tons.
Canada is also home to the world’s largest fertilizer company by capacity—Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, or Potash Corp.—the target of BHP Billiton’s long-running covetousness.
The U.S. came in at 770,000 tons of potash production in 2015, mostly from New Mexico and Utah, which have a total of seven potash mines. Most of the U.S. potash goes to the fertilizer industry, while small amounts are diverted to the chemical industry. The four mines in New Mexico are controlled by two companies—Intrepid Potash (NYSE:IPI) and Mosaic (NYSE:MOS). In Utah, it’s Intrepid again, Compass Minerals (NYSE:CMP), and Canadian explorer Potash Ridge (TSX:PRK) with its Blawn Mountain project. Potash Ridge’s Valleyfield project in Quebec is projected to produce 40,000 tons of SOP (sulfate of potash) annually, with construction slated to begin later this summer.
The movements among the big potash players make huge market ripples. In 2015, a US$500-million loan deal from the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and China Construction Bank with Russian potash major Uralkali, effectively gave China greater control over global potash production. Uralkali accounts for about 20 percent of the world’s potash production.
China—a major demand center for potash—now has immense influence in the potash market, and is both a major producer and a major importer because demand is far greater than domestic supply. The Chinese potash contracts that are typically made in February every year—but delayed this year—are a critical annual point for producers.
Not all Potash is Equal: Some Potash is Posh
As Mr Bentinck has noted above, the middle class is growing, and they want higher-quality, healthier food, which means cash crops. This demographic change is leading to a health food revolution for which potash is the primary element. But not all fertilizers are equal in this game.
The two most common forms of fertilizer are MOP (muriate of potash) and SOP (sulfate of potash). Right now, MOP is the most common; but while it’s good for some crops, it’s not good for others, and it can create environments that are detrimental to some crops, primarily due to high levels of chloride.
SOP, on the other hand, is the premium end of potash. It’s the posh potash. It improves both the quality and yield of a crop, while at the same time making them more drought, frost, insect and disease-resistant. It’s been said that SOP also improves the taste of the food by improving its ability to absorb nutrients.
The other problem with MOP today is that the market is temporarily over-supplied and prices have dropped, which has prompted some more junior miners—such as Potash Ridge in Quebec and Utah--to swoop in to take advantage of the opportunity for the less common SOP. Potash Ridge, which is one of the fastest-growing juniors on the posh potash scene, says SOP "continues to be one of the best performing commodities across all sectors, which realized prices in North America exceeding US$880 per ton in the fourth quarter of 2015."
Riding the Cycles: The Potash Catalysts Are Already Visible
Fertilizer demand is set to increase over the long-term. While globally we consumed 35.5 million tons of potash in 2015, the next four years should see this rise to 39.5 million tons.
The catalysts for potash are already clear and present. The grain cycles that affect fertilizer are coming back around now; the long overdue, but now occurring monsoon season in India should relieve several quarters of slumping demand in this major demand venue; a health food boom is increasing demand for the SOP form of potash; long-term global population figures stand starkly against plummeting farmland figures; and major potash production is coming offline in the near-term, making even more room for the juniors to break in.
Remember—grain crops are cyclical, so buying when they are down is when the big investors make all their money. Just because corn and other key crops that rely on potash have been down, adversely affecting fertilizer revenues—doesn’t mean they’re out. Corn has many booms and busts; buy on the bust, right before the next cycle boom.
One of the biggest immediate-term catalysts will be the planned moves by giant Potash Corp., it’s Canadian competitor Agrium (NYSE:AGU) and Mosaic to take potash production offline in order to rebalance the supply side of the market—something everyone’s been trying to get OPEC to do with oil to no avail. This means that in the next few months we should see potash prices recover, so the window to get in on the downside here is only open a crack.
The last great cycle for potash was 2004-2008, but prices for MOP have dropped 60 percent since then, while prices for SOP have doubled since then.
While MOP is experiencing a glut right now that could soon be rebalanced, supply for SOP is tight, making the margins for SOP increasingly attractive, and the juniors breaking into a high-reward versus risk bargain.
"The global SOP market appears to be under-supplied, with current tightness of the market demonstrating demand for additional global capacity outside China," according to Neil Fleishman, Director of Research for Green Markets.
-------------- James Stafford is Editor, OilPrice.com the leading online energy news site and a contributing author to the ARRA News Service Tags:James Stafford, Oilprice.com, Potash, price surge, Higher Food CostsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Daniel Greenfield: The Pew survey shows a split in EU favorability, but that doesn't tell the entire story. EU approval is still fairly high in parts of Eastern Europe where it's seen as a bulwark against Russia. On the other hand its popularity is underwater in Spain, Greece and the UK (no surprise considering Brexit) and it hits disapproval highs in France of 61 percent. Frexit would be a terrible portmanteau but it is on the radar.
And without the UK or France, the EU would consist of Germany bossing a bunch of smaller countries around. Not that Germans are all that high on the EU either. It's got a 50 to 48 favorable.
What's interesting about the numbers coming out of France is just how unpopular, across the board, the EU is with the left, the right and the center. And even among the youth, where approval tends to be highest, support taps out at 56 percent.
These are not promising numbers, though they don't necessarily translate into a leave vote. Not just yet. But making the argument for an institution that people don't like is just harder.
But in France, the question isn't one of national autonomy. There's a lot of support for returning powers to the national government, but less so than in many pro-EU nations.
-------------- Daniel Greenfield is Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. David Horowitz is a Contributing Author of the ARRA News Service Tags:FREXIT, 61% of French, Unfavorable View, EU, Daniel Greenfield, FrontPage MagTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Support For Illegal Internet Giveaway Collapses In Congress
Fairfax, Va. — Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement praising Senate and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) for a letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) calling it "troubling that NTIA appears to have taken these actions in violation of this prohibition" of Section 539 of the Omnibus spending bill that forbids the NTIA from relinquishing control over the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions to any group including ICANN:
"Sen. Grassley and Rep. Goodlatte's leadership in protecting the Internet is one of the reasons that the transition has not already occurred, and now their letter to NTIA shows that powerful Senate and House leaders are lining up to defend the power of the purse from the Obama administration's illegal Internet giveaway. NTIA is little more than a rogue agency, illegally preparing to violate a federal statute by proceeding with the transition in spite of a clear prohibition. Now is the time to hold NTIA accountable and renew the prohibition for at least another year, forcing the current contract with ICANN to be renewed.
"[D]espite the Fiscal Year 2016 Omnibus spending bill's prohibition on NTIA using any funds in furtherance of the transition, NTIA has been working to transfer the IANA functions by devoting staff time and commissioning outsides studies on the subject. Specifically Section 539 of the FY2016 Omnibus states that funds provided in the Act may not be used to relinquish NTIA's responsibility for the Internet domain name system functions, including responsibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and the IANA functions. However, in NTIA's recent 'IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Assessment Report,' NTIA states that, among other actions it 'utilized a number of resources and tools' to review and assess the IANA stewardship proposal. Further NTIA states that it utilized the DNS Interagency Working Group, comprised of 15 government agencies, to 'engage U.S. federal government agencies on matters related to the IANA Stewardship Transition, including proposal review and assessment.' As we are sure you are aware, it is a violation of federal law for an officers or employee of the United States Government 'to make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation.' It is troubling that NTIA appears to have taken these actions in violation of this prohibition." Tags:Support , collapses, NITA, Internet Giveaway, Americans for Limited Government, Rick ManningTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Sad Day At Supreme Court, Polling As Propaganda, Brexit Fallout Continues
by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: A Sad Day At The Supreme Court - Today is a sad day for the pro-life movement. In a 5-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down laws passed by the state of Texas regulating the health and safety standards of abortion clinics. After Texas passed these regulations, more than half of the abortion clinics in the state shut down. Many states adopted similar laws in recent years.
Incredibly, the court's majority opinion, written by Justice Stephen Breyer and joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, claimed that the safety regulations failed "to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes."
For those who recall the 1992 Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision, today's ruling is eerily similar. In that case, Justice Kennedy joined the liberal majority in striking down certain commonsense restrictions on abortion as "undue burdens" on a woman's access to abortion.
It is ironic that the abortion industry is the one business that the left adamantly refuses to regulate. The left wants to regulate guns out of existence, effectively repealing the Second Amendment. It wants to regulate/redefine privacy in public bathrooms. It wants to dictate what kind of lightbulbs you can buy. It wants to regulate whole sectors of the energy industry into bankruptcy.
But when it comes to destroying innocent unborn life in the womb, the left wants no limits at all. Abortion until the moment of birth, paid for by the taxpayers -- that is Hillary Clinton's extreme position.
It is worth remembering that these state laws were a reaction to Kermit Gosnell and his barbaric abortion practices.
Today's decision further highlights the stakes this November. Not only will the next president fill Justice Scalia's vacancy, but he or she could likely make several appointments.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83 years old. Justice Anthony Kennedy will turn 80 next month. Justice Stephen Breyer turns 78 in August.
As disappointing as today's decision is, I know the pro-life movement will not give up. Our Founders declared that life was an inalienable right endowed to each man and woman by our Creator.
The Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade is built upon the same injustice as Dred Scott -- that some people (black men and women or unborn babies) can be treated like property and disposed of on a whim. This nation is better than that.
The pro-life cause -- just like the fight against slavery -- is a noble cause. I am confident that one day, we will restore the sanctity of life in America. One day, all of our children will be protected by the law and welcomed into the world.
Polling As Propaganda - There's no doubt that Donald Trump has been hurt in recent weeks since he locked up the Republican presidential nomination. But no candidate, including the people he defeated, would have fared any better given the over-the-top attempts by the left and the liberal media to make conservative values virtually unspeakable.
According to the left, if you favor border security, you are a racist. If you believe in traditional marriage, you're a bigot. And if you think it is a bad idea to bring in more Muslims when we can't adequately vet them, you're an Islamophobe.
So the idea that there is another candidate -- Bush, Cruz, Huckabee, anybody -- who would be convincingly leading Hillary Clinton right now is absurd. Big media, crony capitalists and big labor have amassed incredible power and all three are gunning for the likely GOP nominee.
So, yes, Trump has been hurt. But how badly?
A month ago, Trump and Clinton were tied. Now two weekend polls show Trump is losing. One poll shows a close race, while the other suggests a Clinton landslide is in the making. The question is: Which one is correct?
If you work in the tech world, you've likely heard the old saying "Garbage in, garbage out." Well, it's the same with polls.
The ABC News/Washington Post poll found Clinton leading Trump 51% to 39%. But it oversampled Democrats by ten points. One recent Reuters poll that found Hillary Clinton leading Trump by a wide margin oversampled Democrats by 17 points!
Moreover, most pollsters are still surveying adults or registered voters, many of whom will not vote. The most accurate polls are surveys of likely voters.
In contrast to the ABC/Washington Post poll, this weekend's NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found Clinton leading Trump by just five points. And when you factor in the Libertarian and Green party candidates, Clinton and Trump were tied.
Fallout Continues - The fallout from last week's Brexit vote continues. There are growing demands in as many as eight European nations for their own votes on the E.U.
Not surprisingly, the financial turmoil also continued today. It must be noted that globalists like George Soros have a financial interest in continuing the turmoil in order to discourage other nations from following England's example.
But as the socialist left gains more and more control, the one thing it produces in surplus is stupidity. For example, one of things most frequently said in the last few days is that we are now in "uncharted territory."
No, it's the exact opposite. The European experiment in a continental, transnational union was the uncharted territory we had been in for the past 23 years.
England has been an independent, sovereign nation for centuries. The European Union did not come into formal existence until the Treaty of Maastricht was signed in 1993. Now that Britons have decided they want out of these uncharted waters, their "masters" are in full-blown panic mode.
And speaking of panicking, just consider some of these Brexit-induced headlines:"How Old People Have Screwed Over The Younger Generation" -- The Independent
"EU Referendum Results: Young 'Screwed By Older Generations'" -- Huffington Post
"We Should Ban Old People From Voting" -- GQ MagazineWhile the headlines contain a little satire, the sentiment behind them is serious. The increasingly intolerant left is all about "victimization," identity politics and pitting this group against that one. Older voters are now out of favor with the left.
But now the left has found the one group that it doesn't want to vote -- senior citizens who still believe in nation-states, secure borders, patriotism and love of God and Country.
------------- 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, Sad Day At Supreme Court, Polling As Propaganda, Brexit Fallout ContinuesTo 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.