News Blog 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. Content approval rests with the ARRA News Service Editor. Opinions are those of the authors. While varied positions are reported, beliefs & principles remain fixed. No revenue is generated for or by this "Blog" - no paid ads - no payments for articles.Fair Use Doctrine is posted & used. Blogger/Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru & 2010 AFP National Blogger of the Year] Contact: editor@arranewsservice.com (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home PageFollow @arra
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato
(429-347 BC)
Saturday, September 19, 2015
Marco Rubio at the Heritage Action Presidential Forum
ARRA News Service: The format for presidential candidates is an intro video by the candidate, then the candidate makes his campaign remarks to the people attending the Heritage Action for America 2016 Presidential Forum in Greenville, South Carolina.
Finally, the candidate answers questions from Heritage Action For America panel, CEO Mike Needham, and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley.
Tags:Heritage Action For America, 2016 Presidential Forum, Greenville, South Carolina, Mike Needham, Governor Nikki Haley, U.S. Senator, Marco Rubio, FloridaTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Rand Paul at the Heritage Action Presidential Forum
ARRA News Service: The format for presidential candidates is an intro video by the candidate, then the candidate makes his campaign remarks to the people attending the Heritage Action for America 2016 Presidential Forum in Greenville, South Carolina.
Finally, the candidate answers questions from Heritage Action For America panel, CEO Mike Needham, and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley.
Tags:Heritage Action For America, 2016 Presidential Forum, Greenville, South Carolina, Mike Needham, Governor Nikki Haley, U.S. Senator, Doctor, Rand Paul, KentuckyTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Chris Christie at the Heritage Action Presidential Forum
ARRA News Service: The format for presidential candidates is an intro video by the candidate, then the candidate makes his campaign remarks to the people attending the Heritage Action for America 2016 Presidential Forum in Greenville, South Carolina.
Finally, the candidate answers questions from Heritage Action For America panel, CEO Mike Needham, and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley.
Tags:Heritage Action For America, 2016 Presidential Forum, Greenville, South Carolina, Mike Needham, Governor Nikki Haley, Governor, Chris Cristie, New JerseyTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Scott Walker at the Heritage Action Presidential Forum
ARRA News Service: The format for presidential candidates is an intro video by the candidate, then the candidate makes his campaign remarks to the people attending the Heritage Action for America 2016 Presidential Forum in Greenville, South Carolina.
Finally, the candidate answers questions from Heritage Action For America panel, CEO Mike Needham, and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley.
Tags:Heritage Action For America, 2016 Presidential Forum, Greenville, South Carolina, Mike Needham, Governor Nikki Haley, Gov. Scott Walker, WisconsinTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Ben Carson at the Heritage Action Presidential Forum
ARRA News Service: The format for presidential candidates is an intro video by the candidate, then the candidate makes his campaign remarks to the people attending the Heritage Action for America 2016 Presidential Forum in Greenville, South Carolina.
Finally, the candidate answers questions from Heritage Action For America panel, CEO Mike Needham, and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley.
Tags:Heritage Action For America, 2016 Presidential Forum, Greenville, South Carolina, Mike Needham, Governor Nikki Haley, Dr. Ben Carson, MichiganTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Carly Fiorina at the Heritage Action Presidential Forum
ARRA News Service: The format for presidential candidates is an intro video by the candidate, then the candidate makes his campaign remarks to the people attending the Heritage Action for America 2016 Presidential Forum in Greenville, South Carolina.
Finally, the candidate answers questions from Heritage Action For America panel, CEO Mike Needham, and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley.
Tags:Heritage Action For America, 2016 Presidential Forum, Greenville, South Carolina, Mike Needham, Governor Nikki Haley, Carla Fiorina, VirginiaTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Bobby Jindal at the Heritage Action Presidential Forum
ARRA News Service: The format for presidential candidates is an intro video by the candidate, then the candidate makes his campaign remarks to the people attending the Heritage Action for America 2016 Presidential Forum in Greenville, South Carolina.
Finally, the candidate answers questions from Heritage Action For America panel, CEO Mike Needham, and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley.
Tags:Heritage Action For America, 2016 Presidential Forum, Greenville, South Carolina, Mike Needham, Governor Nikki Haley, Governor, Bobby Jindal, LouisianaTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Rick Santorum at the Heritage Action Presidential Forum
ARRA News Service: The format for presidential candidates is an intro video by the candidate, then the candidate makes his campaign remarks to the people attending the Heritage Action for America 2016 Presidential Forum in Greenville, South Carolina.
Finally, the candidate answers questions from Heritage Action For America panel, CEO Mike Needham, and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley.
Tags:Heritage Action For America, 2016 Presidential Forum, Greenville, South Carolina, Mike Needham, Governor Nikki Haley, U.S. Senator, Rick Santorum, PennsylvaniaTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Ted Cruz at the Heritage Action 2016 Presidential Forum
ARRA News Service: The format for presidential candidates is an intro video by the candidate, then the candidate makes his campaign remarks to the people attending the Heritage Action for America 2016 Presidential Forum in Greenville, South Carolina.
Finally, the candidate answers questions from Heritage Action For America panel, CEO Mike Needham, and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley.
Tags:Heritage Action For America, 2016 Presidential Forum, Greeville, South Carolina, Mike Needham, Governor Nikki Haley, U.S. Senator, Ted Cruz, TexasTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Tags: AF Branco, editorial cartoon, Syrian refugees, sleeper sheep, potential terrorists, ISIS, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
House Republicans Urge Senators: 'Go Nuclear' & Stop #BadIranDeal
ARRA News Service: The following letter was sent by 57 House Republicans to the Senate Leadership asking the leadership to require only a majority of votes to reject President Barack Obama's deal with Iran on nuclear weapons:
The letter reads:
As Members of the House of Representatives, we respectfully urge the Senate to modify its rules to a majority threshold of 51 senators to approve some legislation. Some pieces of legislation, like the Iran nuclear deal, are simple so consequential that they demand revision to the Senate's procedures.
The American people sent us to Congress to represent their interests and to take actions that benefit our great nation. Yet, time and again we hear from our constituents that Congress either isn't listening or incapable of performing its basic responsibilities as a legislature.
Our request to eliminate the filibuster for some votes simply underscores that in a democracy the majority should decide. The super-majority now required to advance legislation is 60 votes, which is not serving our country well.
We are under no illusion that the elimination of the Senate filibuster for some votes will guarantee the passage of legislation much less its enactment into law. However, a move by the Senate to a majority vote that can approve some legislation would make it much easier for Congress to advance meaningful solutions to challenges our country faces.
Thank you for your consideration of our request. We stand ready to work with you and your Senate colleagues to improve our legislative process.
Signed by:
Lamar Smith (R-Texas)
Blake Farenthold (TX-27)
Randy Neugebauer (TX-19)
Brian Babin (TX-36)
Pete Sessions (TX-32)
Morgan Griffith (VA-9)
Roger Williams (TX-25)
Bruce Westerman (AR-4)
Randy Weber (TX-14)
Bill Flores (TX-17)
John Carter (TX-31)
Mo Brooks (AL-5)
Michael Burgess (TX-26)
Matt Salmon (AZ-5)
Leonard Lance (NJ-7)
Mick Mulvaney (SC-5)
Vicki Hartzler (MO-4)
John Culberson (TX-7)
Louie Gohmert (TX-1)
Doug Collins (GA-9)
Jeff Duncan (SC-3)
Tom Reed (NY-23)
Mike McCaul (TX-10)
Steve Pearce (NM-2)
Daniel Webster (FL-10)
Bill Shuster (PA-9)
Chris Stewart (UT-2)
Trent Franks (AZ-8)
John Ratcliffe (TX-4)
Raul Labrador (ID-1)
Paul Gosar (AZ-4)
Kevin Cramer (ND-At Large)
Joe Wilson (SC-2)
Mark Amodei (NV-2)
Steven Palazzo (MS-4)
Ralph Abraham (LA-5)
Luke Messer (IN-6)
Doug Lamborn (CO-5)
Bob Goodlatte (VA-6)
Kevin Brady (TX-8)
Sam Johnson (TX-3)
Ted Poe (TX-2)
Mike Bishop (MI-8)
Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-5)
Steve Chabot (OH-1)
Tom Marino (PA-10)
Barry Loudermilk (GA-11)
Kenny Marchant (TX-24)
Steve King (IA-4)
Jeb Hensarling (TX-5)
Robert Aderholt (AL-4)
Jeff Fortenberry (NE-1)
Robert Pittenger (NC-9)
Andy Harris (MD-1)
Marlin Stutzman (IN-3)
Frank LoBiondo (NJ-2)
Cynthia Lummis (WY-At Large)
Earlier yesterday, Democrats voted to filibuster an amendment offered by Leader McConnell that would have prohibited sanctions relief for Iran until the country released American prisoners and recognized Israel. The amendment failed to get the 60 votes necessary by a vote of 53-45.
Following that vote, 42 Senate Democrats then voted for a third time to filibuster the resolution of disapproval of the Iran deal, again preventing an up-or-down vote on the deal.
And for those who have forgotten, the Democrats under the control of former Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) changed the vote to 50 votes on votes.
Sen. McConnell (R-KY) has repeatedly said that he would not change the vote threshold since becoming the Majority Leaders.
Last Friday the U.S. House passed H.R. 3460 (245-186) — "To suspend until January 21, 2017, the authority of the President to waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of sanctions pursuant to an agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran."
-------------- H/T Todd Beamon at NewsMax who lead with an article yesterday on this issue. Tags:House Republicans, letter, urge, Senate leadership, nuclear option, stop, Iran 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!
Note: This is the third in a three part series addressing the Long Arm of the EPA's Overreach and how it affects the day-to-day operations of American businesses. Whether it’s EPA’s water rule, tougher ozone standards, or carbon regulations, real businesses explain in their own words how they will be hurt by EPA’s overbearing regulations.
by J.D. Harrison: John Cooper, a former mechanic in the Marine Corps, has spent the past fifteen years working for Ameren, an energy utility company in the Midwest. He started out as a laborer at the firm's Meramec power plant in 2000, and in the years since has worked his way up to shift supervisor at that same facility in St. Louis. He now supervises the operation of all plant systems.
Soon, there won't be any systems -- or employees -- left to supervise.
Last year, Ameren announced plans to close the Meramec site, the smallest of the company's remaining coal-powered plants, by 2022. While the company has cited a number of factors that played into the decision, executives acknowledged that the Environmental Protection Agency's new, much more strict carbon emission limits for power plants -- which had been proposed one month before Ameren's announcement -- made it "clearer" the facility would have to close. In fact, the site may be shuttered even sooner depending on how the rules are implemented.
Cooper took notice.
"I have a real concern about the speed at which the changes being implemented by the Clean Power Plan will affect my work location and my life," Cooper wrote in a comment submitted to the EPA after the agency first proposed the standards last year. "I understand environmental change is coming and I wholeheartedly accept that it is our generation's responsibility to turn the corner on our lasting effects on the environment. However, you also need to understand that not only is our environment at stake but also the livelihoods of thousands of utility workers and the tax revenues these facilities provide."
His lone request to the EPA? "For myself and my family, I only ask that you be patient and understanding of our plight and please try to work with my company and the many others like us to help make this transition as painless possible," Cooper wrote.
Instead, the agency has done precisely the opposite. Officials moved with reckless abandon to implement the new emissions standards, recently issuing a final rule without even taking into account sufficient input from the small business community, as is required by federal law.
"EPA has not provided ... information on the potential impacts of this rule and has not provided Small Entity Representatives with the necessary information upon which to discuss alternatives and provide recommendations to EPA, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act," Claudia R. Rogers, acting chief counsel for the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, wrote in a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in May. Without that necessary information, Rogers pointed out, small business representatives are "unlikely to succeed at identifying reasonable regulatory alternatives for small businesses."
Nineteen members of Congress later followed up with the agency to demand a response to Rogers' concerns. One month later, still without an answer, several senators wrote yet another letter to McCarthy, saying: "We strongly urge the agency to work cooperatively with the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy and the small entity representatives. The integrity of this process - and the confidence that small entities have in it - requires no less."
Like Cooper, they were ignored. The EPA, without ever answering for the steps it skipped in the rulemaking process, issued its final Clean Power Plan carbon emission rules in early August.
It's not the first time in recent months the agency has been caught skirting its rulemaking responsibilities. In June, the Supreme Court halted the implementation of a similar rule limiting mercury emissions after discovering that the EPA failed to conduct a thorough economic cost-benefit analysis (also required by law) before starting to implement the rule.
Nor is this the only occurrence of the federal agency extending its reach into rulemaking that has historically been left up to states. Criticism has been pouring in over the agency's recent expansion of the definition of federal waters and its newly proposed ozone standards.
In short, the agency has started asserting unprecedented power over the private sector while turning a blind eye to both the federal rule-making process and its directives from Congress.
The result is rules like the Clean Power Plan's carbon emission standards, which did not take into account input from the business community and which will consequently put a drain on the American economy. In the case of Ameren, the firm recently released a study suggesting that compliance with the new rules -- in particular, the rule's incremental emission reduction checkpoints over the next 15 years -- would cost consumers around $4 billion.
Others have issued similar warnings. One recent study found that the Clean Power Plan would cost U.S. consumers and businesses a staggering $41 billion per year. So far, more than a dozen states' attorney generals have already taken legal action pushing back against the regulations.
Back at Ameren, Cooper isn't the only one with a job in jeopardy. The Meramec plant currently employs about 200 people, and the company is still considering its available transfer options.
"That is a scary thing to hear when you have dedicated 15 years of your sweat, blood and tears faithfully providing safe and reliable power to our energy grid here in Missouri," Cooper said of closing announcement last year. "I cannot tell you how many times I have given up time with friends, holidays with my family and hours of sleep to help ensure my facilities success."
He added, "I write to you with a real concern for myself and my colleague's futures."
Brutal Imperialism: The Deeper Political Meaning Of 9/11 & ISIS
"9/11 was the modern Pearl Harbor in the fight between Empire and the “Empire of Liberty.” The sooner we get clear on the superior legitimacy of our worldview over that of our rival the sooner ISIS will be extinguished."~ Ralph Benko
In an unprecedented show of terrorist horror, the 110 story
towers collapsed in to rubble and dust after 2 hijacked
airliners with passengers slammed into the towers.
by Ralph Benko, Contributing Author: Upon the anniversary of the infamous 9/11 it is instructive to put that and current events into an overarching context. 9/11 was an act of terrorism and a very effective one. That said, it was more than that. By understanding the “more” we are better equipped to confront the war that underlies this war.
9/11 was the modern Pearl Harbor in the fight between Empire and the “Empire of Liberty.” The sooner we get clear on the superior legitimacy of our worldview over that of our rival the sooner ISIS will be extinguished.
As Clausewitz famously once stated, “War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means.” What are the politics?
Osama Bin Laden, the architect of 9/11, was very explicit about his politics. And although Bin Laden is dead the politics live on. As Prof. Juan Cole wrote in 2004 at the George Mason History News Network:In order to evaluate the aftermath of September 11, we first must understand that event. What did al-Qaeda intend to achieve? Only if we understand that can we gauge their success or failure.
From the point of view of al-Qaeda, the Muslim world can and should be united into a single country. They believe that it once had this political unity, under the early caliphs.
... From al-Qaeda’s point of view, the political unity of the Muslim world was deliberately destroyed by a one-two punch. First, Western colonial powers invaded Muslim lands and detached them from the Ottoman Empire or other Muslim states. … Second, they formed these colonies into Western-style nation-states, often small and weak ones, so that the divisive effects of the colonial conquests have lasted.
... For al-Qaeda to succeed, it must overthrow the individual nation-states in the Middle East, most of them colonial creations, and unite them into a single, pan-Islamic state. ...
Al-Zawahiri then hit upon the idea of attacking the “far enemy” first. That is, since the United States was propping up the governments of Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc., all of which al-Qaeda wanted to overthrow so as to meld them into a single, Islamic super-state, then it would hit the United States first.
... If the Muslim world can find a way to combine the sophisticated intellectuals and engineers of Damascus and Cairo with the oil wealth of the Persian Gulf, it could well emerge as a 21st century superpower.
Bin Laden’s dream of a united Muslim state under a revived caliphate may well be impossible to accomplish. But with the secular Baath gone, it could be one step closer to reality.The emergence of a successor to al-Qaeda, the brutal ISIS, a self-proclaimed Caliphate, is an internally logical, by terms of the internal narrative, development. This has implications.
First, the turmoil in the Middle East is a power struggle among rival claimants to power, and, even, hegemony. It is an existential struggle.
Second, the tragic refugee crisis now besetting Europe can be seen, at least in part, as a brutal vector being sent out by the would-be Caliphate to help destabilize Europe and undermine allies that help sustain the extant nation-states that are the main obstacle to the creation of an Arab super-state.
Third, the efforts to restore the Caliphate dramatically run against the prevailing historical trend. As last year I wrote on the anniversary of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, heir-apparent to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire:At the moment that Princip fired his pistol 80% of humanity lived under an Imperial world order. Five Imperial dynasties reigned: Austria-Hungary; Russia; China; the Ottoman Empire; and Great Britain. Four of these toppled within a decade. The British Empire, the least autocratic of these, went into irrevocable decline. Thousands of years of reigning monarchy and Imperial rule ended in shockingly brief compass.
Rather than “making the world safe for democracy,” however, tyrannies arose. It took a second world war to eradicate the dictatorships of the West and Japan — Nazism, Fascism, and Japanese military imperialists — and to implant liberal republican governance in Western Europe and Japan. It then took a third world war, the Cold War, to dislodge Stalinist-type tyranny in Eastern Europe and implant liberal republican governance principles, however imperfectly, there and in Latin America. (Too many nations remain tainted by oligarchy antithetical to free market capitalism and liberal republicanism. Yet it is a clear step up from dictatorship.)
After the Cold War we were hit by 9/11. Reading the fine print, as pointed out by University of Michigan’s Prof. Juan Cole, among others, Al Qaeda’s (and now ISIS’s) stated goal was a revanchist effort to expel America from the Middle East in order to restore an imperial world order, the Caliphate: the Ottoman Empire.
Restore the Caliphate?
It is far more likely, as Jeffrey Goldberg observed and observes in The Atlantic Monthly, that the end result will be to rearrange the Mideast into smaller states. This will entail the peoples of the Middle East redrawing the artificial national boundaries put in place by the Western colonial powers after World War I into more organic nation-states. This bloody reorganization, however, is most unlikely to restore an atavistic Imperial order, whatever the grandiose pretensions.The efforts of al-Baghdadi and other revanchists to establish a theocratic imperial world order are a throwback to an Old World Order. That order was liquidated almost a century ago.
The Rebel Alliance to ISIS?
The Kurds have been heroically effective.
Egypt, with a strong army (and its own aspirations for regional influence) calls for an Arab coalition against ISIS.
Saudi Arabia unites with Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE join in a potent, and affluent, alliance. (The Gulf States find themselves, in their internal struggle with Iran, implicitly aligned with Israel.)
Iran, a non-Arab power, itself the seat of the former Persian Empire, is a leader in the fight against ISIS with aspirations of its own for regional hegemony. Turkey, another ambitious non-Arab state and seat of the Ottoman Empire, finally has gone to war with ISIS.
Now al Qaeda’s leader al-Zawahiri attacks al-Baghdadi as illegitimate. It’s an internecine power struggle between two reactionary forces, of course. Yet notable and potentially potent.
What has gone mostly missing is a compelling narrative to help make sense of the action through the fog of war. 9/11 was the “Pearl Harbor Attack” in an effort to restore, in one part of the world, the ancien regime, the old imperial world order. The Caliphate.
What ensued, and continues, best can be interpreted as a fight by the nation states. It is led by the most liberal republican of these, the United States, joined by the comparatively liberal Europe, together with illiberal but non-imperialistic nations of the Middle East.
This is a fight for what America’s founders called (check the back of any dollar bill) the “Novus Ordo Seclorum” — the “ New order of the ages” — against the restoration of the Old World Order.
Such an interpretation would provide an organic coherence to the apparent anarchy in the Middle East. It is not, quite, anarchy. This war is a struggle between worldviews and also a political struggle. It is, above all, a struggle for legitimacy: Empire vs. liberal republicanism. ISIS represents the manifestation of a very old enemy: the brutal imperial world order.
Most of the world has just concluded a “Hundred Year War” beginning with bringing down the imperial world order, roughly contemporaneous with WWI. This was succeeded, through WWII and the Cold War, by progress to or toward liberal republicanism.
Liberal republicanism has served the world much better than did Empire both in human dignity and prosperity. The sooner we see 9/11 for what it was — the opening gun in a revanchist effort to restore an imperial world order — the sooner we become immensely more powerful. The revanchists, deprived of all pretense of legitimacy, will move into final collapse.
The world continues the long fight to replace Empire with what Thomas Jefferson called the “empire of liberty.” Let us recognize the war that 9/11 ignited as a war by the Empire of Liberty against Empire. Upon that recognition, to paraphrase Cato the Elder, ISIS delenda est.
ISIS will be destroyed.
Liberty will lead to justice for all.
----------------- Ralph Benko is senior advisor, economics, to American Principles in Action’s Gold Standard 2012 Initiative, and a contributor to the ARRA News Service. Founder of The Prosperity Caucus, he was a member of the Jack Kemp supply-side team, served in an unrelated area as a deputy general counsel in the Reagan White House. The article which first appeared in Forbes was submitted for reprint by the author. Tags:Ralph Benko, Brutal Imperialism, deeper political meaning, 9/11, ISIS, libertyTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
House Passes Defund Planned Parenthood Bill | Obaman's Syria Policy Assailed From All Sides As "An Abysmal Failure"
Today in Washington, D.C. - Sept. 18, 2015: The House reconvened at 9 AM today.
Today the House passed the following bills addressing the horrific reported acts by Planned parenthood: H.R. 3134 (241-187) — "To provide for a moratorium on Federal funding to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc." H.R. 3504 (248-177) — "To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion."
Yesterday the House passed H.R. 758 (241-185) — "To amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to improve attorney accountability, and for other purposes."
Regarding the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015 (H.R. 3134) and the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 3504), yesterday House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said, "Over the past three months, Americans have watched with shock as the grisly practices embraced by the abortion business have been exposed. When an organization dismembers and monetizes babies, we must all act. ... to defund this organization as our committees continue their work to get the whole truth, and make crystal clear that if you kill an infant born alive, you will be prosecuted.
“While the House prepares to take much-needed action, President Obama continues to hope this crisis will go away. He still has not watched these horrific videos, and his administration flatly dismisses any need for investigation. Such blind support for the abortion business is totally indefensible.
“. . . No organization that illegally harvests baby parts should receive taxpayer funds. And babies that survive abortions should get the same care provided to those born prematurely. This is about basic decency, and respect for all life.”
The Senate is not in session today and will reconvene on Monday at 2 PM when it will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell filed cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 36.
On Tuesday, the Senate is expected to vote on the cloture motion on the motion to proceed (i.e. whether to take up and debate the bill).
Earlier yesterday, Democrats voted to filibuster an amendment offered by Leader McConnell that would have prohibited sanctions relief for Iran until the country released American prisoners and recognized Israel. The amendment failed to get the 60 votes necessary by a vote of 53-45.
Following that vote, 42 Democrats then voted for a third time to filibuster the resolution of disapproval of the Iran deal, again preventing an up-or-down vote on the deal.
The Washington Post reported yesterday, “The Obama administration is moving toward major changes in its military train-and-equip program for the Syrian opposition after the acknowledged failure of efforts to create a new force of rebel fighters to combat the Islamic State there.
“In comments that appeared to shock even many of those involved in Syria policy elsewhere in the government, Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, the head of the U.S. Central Command, told Congress on Wednesday that only ‘four or five’ trainees from the program, a $500 million plan officially launched in December to prepare as many as 5,400 fighters this year, have ended up ‘in the fight’ inside Syria.
“The course correction would mark the first significant alteration in the Obama administration’s year-old strategy of defeating the militants with air power, along with training and supplies for indigenous forces fighting them on the ground. It comes as critics have drawn a direct line between Obama’s long-standing reluctance to more directly intervene in the fight and the growing flood of Syrian refugees fleeing to the West. . . .
“Lawmakers responded to Austin’s description of overall progress against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq with near-universal skepticism, and they described the administration’s strategy of defeating the militants with air power, along with training and supplies for indigenous forces on the ground, as a failure. Sens. Timothy M. Kaine (D-Va.) and Angus King (I-Maine) declared themselves converts to the need to establish a U.S.-protected safe zone for refugees and opposition fighters inside Syria, a proposal the administration has repeatedly rejected.
“‘I hate it when the chairman’s right, but he’s been talking about this for two years, and I — in retrospect, I think he was right,’ King said of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has long pushed for direct U.S. intervention in Syria against the forces of President Bashar al-Assad as well as the Islamic State.
‘We’ve allowed this atrocity to go on too long, and it’s impacting us; it’s impacting the rest of Europe,’ King said of the tens of thousands of Syrian and other Middle East refugees pouring into Europe. ‘I really think there should be a rethinking of the non-intervention strategy.’
“McCain called the administration’s strategy an ‘abject failure’ and said ‘the refugees are a result of it.’”
Today, The Wall Street Journal adds, “The Obama administration is considering scrapping its effort to create a large-scale Syrian force to fight Islamic State as it searches for alternatives to prevent the American-led effort from collapsing, officials said. . . .
“Defense officials said there is widespread agreement on the need to overhaul the program, but no consensus yet on how far-reaching the changes should be.
“The changes are being propelled by in part by the burgeoning refugee crisis which is fueled by an exodus from Syria and by upcoming meetings among international leaders when the U.N. General Assembly convenes this month.
“The administration is under pressure over disclosures by top commanders this week that the training program has produced only a handful of fighters on the battlefield.”
In an analysis for The New York Times today, Peter Baker unloads on the Obama administration’s failures in Syria. “By any measure, President Obama’s effort to train a Syrian opposition army to fight the Islamic State on the ground has been an abysmal failure,” Baker writes. “The military acknowledged this week that just four or five American-trained fighters are actually fighting.”
“But the White House says it is not to blame. The finger, it says, should be pointed not at Mr. Obama but at those who pressed him to attempt training Syrian rebels in the first place — a group that, in addition to congressional Republicans, happened to include former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
“At briefings this week after the disclosure of the paltry results, Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, repeatedly noted that Mr. Obama always had been a skeptic of training Syrian rebels. . . . In effect, Mr. Obama is arguing that he reluctantly went along with those who said it was the way to combat the Islamic State, but that he never wanted to do it and has now has been vindicated in his original judgment. The I-told-you-so argument, of course, assumes that the idea of training rebels itself was flawed and not that it was started too late and executed ineffectively, as critics maintain.”
Baker continues, “Appearing at a Senate hearing on Wednesday, Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, head of the United States Central Command, conceded that only four or five trained rebels were actually fighting now.
“‘We have to acknowledge that this is a total failure,’ Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, said in response. ‘It’s just a failure. I wish it weren’t so, but that’s the fact. It’s time to — way past time to react to that failure.’ . . .
“The White House all but washed its hands of the training program after General Austin’s testimony. ‘It is true that we have found this to be a difficult challenge,’ Mr. Earnest said. ‘But it is also true that many of our critics had proposed this specific option as essentially the cure-all for all of the policy challenges that we’re facing in Syria right now. That is not something that this administration ever believed, but it is something that our critics will have to answer for.’
“Some of those critics said the program failed because it was delayed and limited. ‘The White House plan is two-plus years late and fundamentally flawed because it restricts volunteers from fighting against Assad, which is their priority objective,’ said Gen. Jack Keane, a retired Army vice chief of staff.
“Some Syrian rebels who asked for American arms in 2011 and 2012 eventually gave up and allied themselves with more radical groups, analysts said, leaving fewer fighters who were friendly to the United States. ‘The reason it failed is because we got the politics wrong,’ said Andrew J. Tabler, a Syria specialist at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
“Ryan C. Crocker, a retired career diplomat who was an ambassador to Afghanistan under Mr. Obama, said the president was right to think a train-and-arm program would not work. But the president, Mr. Crocker added, should have either continued to resist it or at least taken ownership of it rather than blame others for its failure.
“‘How un-presidential that sounds — “We didn’t want to do it, we thought it was unsound but you made us do it,” ‘ said Mr. Crocker, now dean of the George Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University. ‘It’s just indicative of their whole approach to Syria, which is not to have a policy. This is the worst thing they could say.’” Tags:House bill, defunds, Planned parenthood, Obama's Syrian PolicyTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
GOP Voters Up Carson’s, Fiorina’s Chances for the Nomination
2016 GOP Primary 'Moderated Debate' on CNN
Rasmussen Reports: in its Friday Morning Report has Ben Carson in a virtual tie with front-runner Donald Trump. Carly Fiorina dramatically improves.Jeb Bush is treading water, but Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina appear to have dramatically improved their chances for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. Carson is now in a virtual tie with recent front-runner Donald Trump.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% of Likely Republican Voters now think Carson, a retired neurosurgeon, is likely to win the Republican nomination, with 16% who say it’s Very Likely. Just 25% thought Carson was likely to end up as the nominee when he formally announced for the race in early May.
Our latest Trump Change survey showsthat 58% of GOP voters think Trump is likely to be the party’s nominee, but that includes 23% who say it’s Very Likely. ...
These surveys were taken on the night of the latest Republican debate and the night after.
Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO who turned in a strong performance at Wednesday night’s debate, is now seen as the likely nominee by 41% of Republican voters, up from 16% in early May when she joined the race. But the new numbers include just nine percent (9%) who say Fiorina is Very Likely to capture the nomination.
Forty percent (40%) of Republicans think Bush is likely to end up as the GOP nominee, but only six percent (6%) say it’s Very Likely. This overall finding is little changed from last week just before the debate but down from 56% in June when the former Florida governor officially announced his candidacy. . . . Rassmussen Reports comments:There were two major storylines going into this week’s debate at the Reagan Presidential Library in California: Bush’s showdown with Trump in hopes of reclaiming the lead and Fiorina’s ascension to the A-debate stage. Bush seems to have come up short, while Fiorina clearly benefited.
Fifty-four percent (54%) of Republicans say Bush is not likely to be the party’s presidential candidate in 2016. Just as many (53%) believe Fiorina will not go all the way. However, only 35% think Carson is unlikely to win the nomination, comparable to attitudes about Trump.
Among all likely voters, 45% think Carson is likely to be the Republican nominee next year, while 42% feel that way about Bush. Thirty-two percent (32%) see Fiorina as the likely nominee. The number who consider that Very Likely is in single digits for all three candidates.
Forty-seven percent (47%) of all voters say Trump is still likely to win the nomination, with 19% who say it is Very Likely.
While men think Trump has a better shot at the nomination that women do, male and female voters are in general agreement about the chances of Bush, Carson and Fiorina.
Voters not affiliated with either major party still like Trump’s chances for the nomination better than those of the other three GOP hopefuls.
The outsider candidates – the ones who haven’t held office before – appear to be the beneficiaries of the growing dissatisfaction Republican voters have with the establishment GOP. . . .---------------- Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information. For the detailed statistical analysis visit their site. Tags:Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, 2016 Primary, polling, surveys, Rasmussen Reports 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 Paul Jacob, Contributing Author: Could government be a suck-hole for intelligence? Could one's proximity to government reduce one's IQ?
America's public (read: government) schools too often serve as Wisdom-Free Zones.
The Ahmed Mohamed story shocked a lot of people. A kid with a clock was mistaken for a terrorist with a bomb and the school and local police threw reason and procedure and everything else out the window. But no one should be shocked. Every week, maybe every day, news creeps out of America's "common schools" to prove, once again, that its administrators and teachers seem to be deficient in common sense.
When I wrote about Ahmed's timepiece yesterday, I mentioned several examples of public school hysteria over fictitious, symbolic, or non-existent weapons. Such stories are Old Faithfuls here at Common Sense. But one case I haven't written about* is the six-month-old tale of the Bedford County, Virginia, lad who was expelled from school for possession of a marijuana leaf.
The police dropped the drug case upon testing the leaf in evidence. It was not Cannabis sativa but Acer palmatum, the Japanese maple leaf, a harmless shrub.
Still, the school stuck to the year-long suspension, wouldn't let up. Zero tolerance.
Now, the 11-year-old boy had supposedly boasted about having marijuana. And schools do have rules against "look-alike" drugs. I just wonder why the student received zero due process and how we expect youngsters to grow up in a world without even a tidbit of tolerance.
This dysfunction is not racism or fear or Islamophobia, as some claim in the Ahmed case.
It's just the inflexible witlessness of those with too much unchecked authority.
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, Government Playbook, schools, no tolerance, unchecked authorityTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
On Veterans Day we honor veterans by offering our gratitude for their service and sacrifice. On Thanksgiving we offer our appreciation, as Washington explains in the first Thanksgiving Day Proclamation, to God and nation.
On Constitution Day (September 17), we offer our gratitude to the framers of the Constitution while honoring the document they produced.
The Founders
Having such a holiday makes America unique: rather than elevating our founders to the status of saints or trusting in hearsay reports about their deeds, we look upon them as statesmen of remarkable genius.
While other nations often embellish their mythical origins, our records are open, and our founders require no mythology to demonstrate their superiority.
Comparing what occupied Founders’ minds and ours is helpful.
At stake was founding a great nation—the first of its kind—that protected natural rights, established commerce and scientific innovation, all of which would lead to unprecedented prosperity. In carrying this out, much of the world has followed in their footsteps, with varying degrees of success.
On the 228th anniversary of the Constitution’s birthday, we might remember our great fortune to have had a group of geniuses at the helm of our state, while asking ourselves if anyone would be capable of writing the Constitution anew.
The Constitution
Jefferson called the work of our Founders “unquestionably the wisest Constitution ever yet presented to men.”
Its ingenuity and depth is sometimes difficult to fully appreciate because we are so thoroughly engrossed and formed by the order it created. Many Americans tend to believe that the key elements that define our nation are spontaneous and natural, but they were established by the Constitution.
For example, the Constitution established the conditions for our nation’s many miraculous works—not the least comes from technological innovation and the progress of science.
In Article 1 Section 8, the Constitution secures intellectual property rights which enkindles both the ambition for innovation and delivers on the promise of wealth to individual innovators and inventors. By creating these conditions, the Constitution spreads the entrepreneurial spirit. A telling example of this was seen in the 1990s, when the inventor of the M-16, Eugene Stone, met the inventor of the AK-47, Mikhail Kalashnikov. The former flew in on his own plane; the latter could barely afford a plane ticket to Moscow.
Another example is free markets, which work only with the establishment of respect and protection for property rights by sufficient governmental force, combined with sufficient limits on that force.
But these are only two among many possible examples of how to rediscover the specific means by which it has secured “the blessings of liberty” that we enjoy today.
James Madison did not think that all citizens would clearly understand every theoretical aspect of the Constitution. In fact, the workings of the “wisest and freest governments,” Madison writes in Federalist 49, do not require perfect understanding of all citizens, but the government’s “stability” depends on reverence for it.
What happens when this reverence is lost?
In our time, preserving reverence is still an issue, but too much stability has become the direct obstacle. As Tocqueville predicted, it will not be revolutions that threaten our constitutional order, but the centralization of an administrative state which will silently take more and more freedom away from citizens while subverting the Constitution in the process.
The modern administrative state’s disregard for the Constitution’s separation of powers and careful system of checks and balances not only subverts our Constitution but perhaps more importantly diminishes its respectability.
Oddly enough, in such circumstances, only public outcry originating in reverence for the Constitution could remedy these trends.
By celebrating the past, national holidays aim to unify a people’s sentiments. But, as Lincoln observes, the further we stray from the events we honor, “like everything else, they must fade upon the memory of the world, and grow more and more dim by the lapse of time.”
How do we do this with our Constitution? Perhaps by recalling that the Constitution does not operate of its own accord; that it does not rule providentially over us.
Its operation requires understanding and reverence. This can come only from knowledge of the benefits it has bestowed upon the American people, which we attempt to safeguard by celebrating it nationally, at least once a year.
---------------- Arthur Milikh is assistant director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics at The Heritage Foundation. Tags:Americans, U.S. Constitution, Arthur Milkh, The Heritage FoundationTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Three hours is a long debate. I can remember being exhausted after standing for debates that lasted two hours. And that doesn't even take into account the post-interviews, getting up in the morning to do TV appearances and so forth.
But 11 candidates endured it last night, and they all deserve credit for that.
Now here is my snap analysis: I think that of those on stage, there were 10 winners in the sense that they either helped themselves or held serve. There was one loser, and I'll start with him. The one loser on stage was Rand Paul.
His whole strategy was, is and continues to be to try to label Donald Trump as not a conservative. Jeb Bush did it a little in the run-up to the debate, but he backed off during the debate. Rand Paul's numbers barely register 2 percent, and the first reason for that is that trying to label Donald Trump is not working. Yet it's all he keeps trying to do. If that's his entire approach to defining himself, it's not going to work.
The second reason I believe his numbers will not go up is that he does not come across as very strong in his thinking and how he deals with the issues. Rand Paul still carries the image around of "audit the fed, audit the fed," just like his dad. I know he's a "constitutionalist" (at least according to him), but Main Street America wants to know what he's going to do about jobs, taxes, etc. He is not taking bold stands on those issues. That's why he's the loser.
The best performers were:
Carly Fiorina, clearly. She was forceful, articulate and knowledgeable every time she spoke. She was also confident and assertive. She had done her homework on everything from Russia to Planned Parenthood, and her comment on the latter cut so effectively to the heart of the matter, you had to stand and cheer even as you realized your frustration that people like Mitch McConnell won't do the same.
Marco Rubio, who was consistently strong and effective in his answers and really projected a vision for what the country needs and how he would lead.
Chris Christie, who consistently diverted the conversation back to things the voters care about - things that are relevant to the real needs of real people.
All the candidates did a good job of pivoting to relevant matters as CNN tried its best to pit them against each other. The constant attempts to create one-on-one conflict were an obvious ratings play - nothing beats the viral video that's everywhere on social media with the CNN logo in the corner - but the candidates for the most part didn't take the bait.
I also thought, in general terms, last night was a good night for the Republican Party because it showed the depth of the GOP bench. Almost everyone on that stage had real strengths that could be brought to the presidency. In fact, one important imperative for whoever wins the nomination would be to put plenty of the others on that stage last night in their administration. It would be a terrible waste to staff an administration with a bunch of the usual political cronies when there is so much talent right there in front of you.
Finally, I thought the public won last night because it got to see a lot of strong talent making serious points about the challenge we face, and the solutions we need. With the exception of Rand Paul, we all need more nights like this.
------------ Herman Cain is a conservative radio host of CainTV, a 2012 GOP presidential primary candidate with over 40 years of experience in the private sector as an analyst for Coca-Cola, an executive at Pillsbury, a regional Vice President for Burger King, and CEO of Godfather's Pizza. Cain served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and a supervisory mathematician for the Dept. of the Navy. Tags:Herman Cain, conservative commentator, CainTV, CNN, GOP Debate, 2016 Primary, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina, Marco Rubio, Chris ChristieTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Most Important Political Facts of the Week: Sept. 17, 2015
by Ron Martin, Contributing Author: Most important political fact of the week: Trump won. “Huge.” Which is more than a little disconcerting, since he also showed a complete lack of the knowledge required to conduct American foreign policy.
Nevertheless, win he did. In the (admittedly unscientific) Drudge poll, at the time of this writing Trump has 52.47% — and more importantly, a whopping 325,847 votes – to his nearest rival (Carly Fiorina’s) 21.48% (and 133,392). To properly appreciate those numbers, “inevitable front-runner” Jeb Bush has 1.23%, for a total vote count of 7,637.
Someone will inevitably email me to say that Trump has rigged the poll, ala Ron Paul. Well maybe. But if he has, why can’t Jeb Bush find more than 7,637 people to do the same? (For the answer to that, read my column from July 25).
While answering that question, it might be worth noting that the “Paulbots” have abandoned Rand Paul (4.3%, 26,772). But more noteworthy still is the rise of a very particular outsider, Carly Fiorina. Anyone who watched her last night knows that she was as shockingly specific – on every topic under Heaven – as The Donald was vague. She got the best of her exchange with Trump over her time at HP, and was dominant while ladylike much of the night. She will be a real threat to Ben Carson’s number two status going forward.
Without belaboring points you can read elsewhere, it is important to state that Ted Cruz had an excellent night: he was by far the most statesmanlike of the group, the most conservative on all points, and no less in command of detail than Fiorina. Chris Christie had a great night too: if we had more of these debates he might rise over time (as did Newt). Mike Huckabee was stellar on abortion and religious liberty, but just couldn’t ever break through. Those who’ve written off Walker are likely right. Those who’ve written off Rubio got a surprise last night. And those who’ve pumped Kasich got exactly what Kasich has been delivering for 25 years: the reincarnation of Bob Dole and John McCain.
So how did Donald Trump win? Well, blame it on the Republican Establishment, who are getting a “heaping helping” of irony, to wit, our second most important political fact of the week: more debates are better.
The conventional wisdom says the opposite, but as is so often the case, the conventional wisdom is wrong. Detractors say 2011’s Republican debates became a reality show, but they miss the point that such truth as there is in that complaint is actually good: we got to know the candidates, we got to know their styles and their positions, we got to see how they work with and against one another over time.
If your only aim is to cynically package an inauthentic, contrived product, more scrutiny may well be “a disaster.” But if you want the public to make an intelligent choice about who should lead them, if you want to see if whether a “known quantity” – such as Rick Perry last time – is really as known as we think, more debates matter. And anyway, today authentic trumps packaged every time.
The unspoken but actual complaint of the Republican Establishment is that the process just described kept Mitt Romney – their chosen one – on his toes for a whole year. He had to actually say things that weren’t soundbites, and he had to face real rivals who otherwise could have been dismissed because they had no money. Newt Gingrich ultimately became the choice of the people – scandalous! – and only lost when Romney was able to outspend him 5-1 in Florida. Without the debates, he’d have gotten three votes.
More debates meant less Establishment control. So they took over the process and rigged it for Jeb Bush.
I-rony. None of their calculations included a Donald Trump. Trump cannot be outspent, and the only way to beat him is to get him to show himself unqualified. He flirted with it briefly last night, with his unprovoked swipe at Rand Paul at the outset, and with the juvenile back-and-forth that followed. But he recovered, and that’s that, because most likely, there won’t be enough additional debates between now and January to trip him up.
The establishment can never conceive of its own defeat (other than its pretty consistent defeat come November), and so it cannot imagine primary debates as a meaningful vetting process. But the rest of us can. Frontrunners rose and fell last time because they tended not to handle their status well. This time, in a process designed to ensure Jeb Bush could coast to victory on a sea of money, a fine mind and decent presence, he is now faced with harsh realities: vastly less money than the frontrunner, twice as many opponents as he imagined possible, and no way to stand out from the crowd.
The only beneficiary of this is the man who needs to be made to stand and deliver once a week from now until Iowa. As our British cousins would say, the Establishment was too clever by half. And that’s why Donald Trump, having survived a foreign policy debate he should have lost, is very likely to be the next President of the United States.
But what about the Democrats, you ask? And that brings us to our third most important political fact of the week: a Washington Post-ABC poll finds that Hillary is down 29 points among women.
Yes, you heard that correctly. In eight weeks, the inevitable first female President is down from 71% to 42% among Democrat women, in a poll conducted by two liberal news organs.
It’s not quite time to put a fork in her. But it’s hard to see how she rights herself. And with Sanders now ahead in both Iowa and New Hampshire and Biden waiting in the wings, this year could get a lot more interesting yet.
The left is increasingly open in its hatred for that document and its framers. But the left’s intelligentsia opposes it because it makes the sort of radical nationalizations Clement Atlee imposed virtually impossible; and the left’s rank and file opposes it because they’ve been told to, without benefit of meaningful civics teaching that could help them form an independent opinion. No one explains, for instance, how the Founders were supposed to craft a document that the states would ratify that abolished slavery; likewise, no one explains how drafting a document no one would ratify would have helped anything or anyone.
What is certain is that the U.S. Constitution created an order in which liberty could prevail, in which self-governance could exist without threat of the tyranny of the majority, in which states and localities could govern themselves without the stultifying one-size-fits-all authoritarianism of empire. It also gave us an orderly manner of amendment, so that changing times could be accommodated: when, for instance, the view of the majority of the Founders prevailed, slavery was indeed abolished. And to be quite honest, most of the amendments enacted this past century have done more to harm than to help: the Founders got most things right not just for their time but for all time, at least so far.
It is to the Founders that we may attribute much of what has been called American Exceptionalism. They created a system that properly took account of man’s corruption, and at every point balanced men and institutions against one another so that they would have to cooperate, could never dominate. The result has been more liberty, innovation and human flourishing than anywhere or at any time in the history of the world.
God willing, we are only just beginning.
---------------- Rod D. Martin, writes at RodMartn.org, and is founder and CEO of The Martin Organization, a technology entrepreneur, venture capitalist, author and conservative activist from Destin, Florida. He serves and has been an advisor to numerous organizations and is Past President of the National Federation Republican Assemblies. Tags:Rod Martin, political facts, CNN GOP Debate, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, United States Constitution 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 - @arra
#Christian Conservative; Retired USAF & Grad Professor. Constitution NRA ProLife schoolchoice fairtax - Editor ARRA NEWS SERVICE. THANKS FOR FOLLOWING!
To Exchange Links - Email: editor@arranewsservice.com!
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 principles & beleifs beliefs of other organizations, this blog/site is soley controlled and supported by the editor. 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.
Tags: Heritage Action For America, 2016 Presidential Forum, Greenville, South Carolina, Mike Needham, Governor Nikki Haley, U.S. Senator, Marco Rubio, Florida To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
