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 or by this site - no paid ads accepted - no payments for articles.Fair Use doctrine is posted & used. Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru & 2010 AFP National Blogger of the Year] Follow @arra Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home Page
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato
Friday, January 01, 2016
Happy New Years 2016
Being grateful for the limited successes of 2015 and setting aside the grave disappointments of 2015 while not ignoring the continual hardships levied on the American people by oppressive and burdensome government, the ARRA News Service editor and writers wish our readers and friends a very Happy New Year for 2016! In the year of 2016, may we see the election of a committed conservative to be our next president ! May conservatives garner the wit, wisdom and tenacity to persevere in the battle of ideals to gain enough elected offices at all levels so as to facilitate the return to both moral and fiscal responsibility! May we again see our God given liberty and individual freedoms blossom! May God grant the United States mercy and protection from our enemies who wish to see America tarnished, damaged and destroyed!
Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people. ~ Prov. 14:34
New Obama Vacation Costs Uncovered: Now Exceed $70 million
The happy travelers. (Investor's Business Daily via Olivier Douliery/Newscom)
by Andrew Malcolm: As Barack, Michelle, Malia and Sasha Obama, family, friends, pets and staff enjoy their half-month-long Hawaiian vacation, the Secret Service finally complied with a court order to release some Obama vacation expenses from two years ago.
That's how eager the Obama administration is about being transparent when it comes to spending large sums of taxpayers' money on itself.
As with the slow-motion releases of Hillary Clinton's emails, the idea of bureaucratic stalling, of course, is that the details become "old" news more likely to be ignored by media. Fortunately, we're not on vacation this week, so we can help the president out. Here goes:
The new expense reports, heavily-redacted allegedly for security reasons, push the total known costs for vacations during Obama's reign to nearly $71 million -- with another full year to go. That's about $10.1 million per year in known expenses.
The totals come from Judicial Watch, the dogged watchdog group that pursues such information through repeated Freedom of Information Act requests.
Earlier this year Judicial Watch obtained transportation costs for a pair of the Democrat's cross-country golf weekends just in 2015. They totaled nearly $2 million, or $20,000 per hole, the Washington Examiner calculated.
In February, for instance, Obama spent President's Weekend golfing with male friends in Palm Springs. At $206,000 per flight hour, that trip set taxpayers back $1.03 million. That does not include other costs such as security and transportation.
Of course, even with Camp David available for free in Maryland every president goes on vacation, though none have gone so far so often as the Obamas, sometimes in separate planes.
Their family trips to Hawaii, for example, require at least 18 hours of Air Force One flight time at $206,000 per flight hour. Or $3.7 million minimum.
Complaints of over-spending on personal travel have dogged this first couple starting with Michelle Obama's luxury vacation with friends to Spain at the peak of the recession and subsequent family excursions during the nation's weakest economic recovery since World War II.
As we reported earlier this year: The Obamas have "traveled more than any other first family, often with Mrs. Obama's mother and her friends. By the summer of 2014 the Obamas had taken 31 international trips lasting 119 days. At the same point in his presidency, Ronald Reagan had taken 14 such trips over 73 days.
"When the family visited Ireland in 2013, taxpayers were hit for just under $8 million, including a quarter-million dollars for a two-day side-trip to Dublin for the Obama women. They chose a $3,500-per-night hotel suite in addition to 29 other rooms for their traveling party at the five-star hotel.
"Last year when Mrs. Obama, her mother and two daughters toured China, they stayed in a Beijing hotel suite costing $8,400 per night."
The latest expense revelations extracted from the Secret Service by Judicial Watch seem almost a bargain by comparison. They show, among other things, $92,000 for rental cars and $225,000 for lodging paid to Paradise Luxury Rentals and Cabana Girl LLC for agents during the Obamas' 2013 Hawaii holiday.
"It is easy to see why the Secret Service, reeling from its own scandals, covered up these outrageous expense numbers for just one of Obama’s luxury Christmas vacations,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The $317,000 in Secret Service expenses are only the tip of the iceberg for the true cost of Obama’s 2013 vacation in Hawaii, which has now skyrocketed to $8,098,060."
The organization has another lawsuit pending against the Department of Homeland Security for ignoring an additional 19 Freedom of Information
----------------- Andrew H. Malcolm is a veteran national and foreign correspondent, editor, editorial writer and blogger, who’s spent nearly four decades on three major U.S. newspapers and another eight years in government and politics. He is a columnist at Investor’s Business Daily where this article was first published. Tags:Obama Vacations Costs, Uncovered, Judicial Watch, Exceed $70 million, Andrew Malcomb, Investor's Business DailyTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Bob Owens: President Barack Obama has long been frustrated by the Constitution of the United States blocking his attempt to undermine the gun rights of American citizens, and has repeatedly blustered that he would take “executive actions” to effect change.
Despite all of his threats and scolding, all he has to back up his boasts are a pair of trivial proposals.
According to gun industry insiders and others familiar with the proposals, the changes include requiring an expanded number of small-scale gun sellers to be licensed — and therefore conduct background checks — whenever selling a weapon. This wouldn’t close the so-called gun show loophole, though it has the potential to narrow it.
The administration is also expected to impose tighter rules for reporting guns that get lost or stolen on their way to a buyer.
Neither comes close to the stronger gun control measures Obama sought in the wake of the 2012 mass shooting of schoolchildren in Sandy Hook and that he has said he still wants. But with Congress unlikely to approve any new gun curbs before the 2016 election, the measures are in line with what gun-control advocates were hoping would be adopted before Obama leaves office.The myth of the “gun show loophole” still won’t die, I see.
Gun dealers are required to run FBI NICS background checks whenever and wherever they sell firearms. Private citizens are not required to get government permission to sell their personal possessions. Obama’s executive action won’t change either reality in the slightest. What this action will do is affect a very small group of people—perhaps a few thousand people in a nation of 322 million—who dabble in recreational sales and trading, forcing them to either become an FFL, or give up their hobby.
The executive order on reporting lost or stolen guns is purely an act of spite that the Administration hopes touse to screw over a few gun dealers a year with for paperwork violations. It’s an act of meanness from a petty and failing Executive Branch, and certain to be challenged.
If Obama acts alone to tighten the nation’s gun laws, it would set up a major confrontation with Republicans and gun rights groups during an election year.
The background check measure would surely prompt a legal challenge from Republicans and groups such as the National Rifle Association, which argues Obama does not have the legal authority to take such a broad step on his own.Obama’s final year in office appears to be ending with a whimper, and with a label he’ll certainly hate, that of the greatest gun salesman of all time, with 100+ million firearms sold during his Presidency so far.
------------- Bob Owens is the Editor of BearingArms.com. A long-time shooting enthusiast, he began blogging as a North Carolina native in New York. His personal blog is bob-owens.com, and he can be found on Twitter at @bob_owens. Tags: Bob Owens, Barack Obama, Executive Orders, Gun ControlTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Tags:Editorial Cartoon, AF Branco, President Barack Obama, Party Pooper, 2016 Agenda, subverting, The ConstituionTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
The New York Times’ Featured Syrian Refugee of the Week
Ann Coulter signs "Adios America!"
for ARRA News Service editor.
by Ann Coulter: On Christmas Day — three weeks after the son of a Pakistani immigrant and his Pakistani immigrant bride murdered 14 people in San Bernardino, California — The New York Times told the heartwarming story of “Kamal,” a Syrian refugee who resettled into Houston, Texas, earlier this year and immediately started shopping at Walmart.
The Times considers it tacky when actual Americans go to Walmart, but Muslim immigrants seem to live there, buying nothing but American flags and Christmas trees.
Thus, we’re told Kamal has an outdoor Christmas tree from Walmart, and we find him carrying two trays of cupcakes from Kroger’s for his children’s elementary school holiday party.
Kamal — like the Times — was “angered” by Texans’ reluctance to accept more Syrian refugees. He says of Americans: “Why did you bring me here and why then you let the people hate us?”
We brought you here, Kamal, because the Democrats need voters and the rich need cheap servants.
As for letting “the people” hate refugees, they don’t, but if they did they’d have a right to do so. It goes back to that whole thing with John Locke, John Milton and the English Bill of Rights in 1689. (Of course, in Syria, it’s always the year 400, so this is merely pedagogical.)
The reasons Americans might hate Muslims — although, again, they don’t — include: the San Bernardino killings, the Boston Marathon bombings, the massacres at Fort Hood and the Chattanooga military recruiting center, the 9/11 and 1993 World Trade Center attacks, and on and on and on.
The Times article itself provides additional clues as to why Texans might not want more Syrian refugees.
According to the Times:
— Kamal refused to let the Times use his last name “because he feared for the safety of his relatives in Syria.”
— In 2011, Kamal was arrested and imprisoned by the Syrian military for protesting against the government. Over the next 14 months, he says, he was tortured with electric shocks and beatings — and the removal of his kidney “as a punishment.”
— He says he didn’t want to relocate to another part of Syria because the Syrians there would “slaughter” him and his family because he drinks alcohol and his wife doesn’t always wear a hijab.
But he’s baffled that Texans are not yelping with joy at the prospect of bringing another 100,000 Syrians here. Why would any country not jump at the chance to admit masses of people who administer electric shocks and remove organs as punishment for protesting the government? We must be crazy!
If anyone hates Syrians, it’s Kamal. He left his home to get 7,000 miles away from Syrians — whom he now wants to bring to the U.S.
By contrast, these are the horrors Kamal has suffered at the hands of Texans, which he shared with the Times: The Texas agriculture commissioner posted pictures of refugees and rattlesnakes on Facebook with the caption: “Can you tell me which of these rattlers won’t bite you?”
Well, can you? Kamal can’t. He voted with his feet by getting the hell out of his entire country, which — again — he now wants to import to Texas, at least according to the Times.
I’m going to give Kamal the benefit of the doubt. (The guy does have a Christmas tree.) Maybe it’s the Ramadan spirit, but I don’t think he does want any more Syrian refugees. Maybe Kamal is only worried about Texans suspecting him, in which case, he ought to be “angered” by the Muslim immigrants who do things that create suspicion, and the U.S. government that insists on bringing in hundreds of thousands more like them.
Only in fiscal years 2009 to 2013, the Obama administration has imported 680,000 immigrants from Muslim-majority countries. In that same time period, the government accepted approximately 12 immigrants from the British Isles.
The media’s persistent attempts to paint sympathetic portraits of the Third-Worlders pouring into America are always exercises in self-contradiction.
On one hand, the Times loves to provide lavishly detailed accounts of the atrocities committed on a daily basis in backward countries in order to pull at readers’ heartstrings. But then they’re shocked when readers don’t respond to descriptions of these medieval cultures by saying, “What this country needs is more electric shock torture and organ harvesting of prisoners. How about we bring in some more Syrians?”
The day after the Times’ story about Kamal and his trays of cupcakes and rafts of grievances, the paper ran a front-page story about the “flawed justice” — that was in the title — involving a homicidal mob in Afghanistan.
First, the good news: No police officers shot any unarmed black teens. Now, the bad news: A 27-year-old woman, Farkhunda Malikzada, was beaten to death by an enraged mob in Kabul after being falsely accused of burning a Koran.
The Times reports:
“In the videos, Farkhunda seems at first to be screaming in pain from the kicks, but then her body convulses under the blows, and soon she stops moving at all. Even when the mob pulls her into the street and gets a car to run over her, and she is dragged 300 feet, the police stand by.
“By then, she was little more than a clothed mass of blood and bones. Yet still more people came to beat her. One of the most fervent was a young man, Mohammad Yaqoub, who worked at an eyeglasses shop. He heard the crowd as Farkhunda was dragged behind the car and rushed out, eager to join.”
Let’s get Yaqoub here. He can work at LensCrafters!
But the Times is scratching its head, incredulous that Americans aren’t leaping with ecstasy at the government’s plan to continue dumping these sick, sadistic cultures on us.
----------------- Ann Coulter is a conservative author of ten New York Times bestsellers, writes numerous columns and is a frequent guest on numerous radio and TV shows. Her web site is AnnCoulter.com. She is the author of Adios America which she signed and gave to the ARRA News Service editor at the 2015 Eagle Council. Photo above. Tags:Ann Coulter, illegals, refugees, The New York Times, features, Syrian Refugee of the Week, 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: Presidential candidate John McAfee is an adventurer. Best known for founding the first successful anti-computer virus company, he has also been shot at in tropical jungles, by men trained by U. S. forces, with American-bought guns. This range of experience makes him the most interesting presidential hopeful, bar none.
His big issue is cyber-security. He thinks Americans have placed themselves in a too-precarious position. As he sees it, the war on terror has served as a grand distraction from the real threat, a prime example of doing foreign policy and national security completely upside-down wrong.
He has a point.
But he’s neither a Democrat nor a Republican, and not long ago he realized that his own Cyber Party didn’t have the oomph to get him on the ballot in enough states.
Why? He’s obviously not a libertarian in any strict capital-L sense. But the septuagenarian insists that he has been a libertarian at heart since before the word entered common use.
This is what the Libertarians get for their most obvious success: obtaining and keeping ballot status in more states for more election cycles than any other “minor party.”
Think of the Libertarian Party as the host, and one-time Republicans like former Congressman Bob Barr and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson — and now McAfee — as viruses, aiming to commandeer the host’s operating system.
Of course, one might also view the LP as a virus attempting to do the same to the federal government.
Shall we root for the viruses, for once?
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, Virus, Host, McTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
"It is particularly alarming that Congress and the President chose to believe the illusion of lowering deficits by moving forward with a budget cap busting omnibus spending bill that will only exacerbate the problem.
"With the upcoming presidential election bringing a sharp focus on the $18.8 trillion debt, Congress should make this a one-time mistake and restore fiscal discipline next year, rather than forcing a future president to take draconian measures to rein in their irresponsibility." Tags:United States, Debt, Jumps, $677 Billion, 2015NSERT TAGSTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
The following article details political intrigue (maybe even madness) within some of the GOP campaigns in Iowa. In truth it makes me wonder why some of the so called political campaign operatives referenced have not been fired. Putting reality in perspective, checkout the above most current polling on the Iowa Caucus (referenced above.) Trump and Cruz have 62 % of the Republican caucus votes and Rubio, Huckabee and Santorium combined have 13%. It is amazing to believe that social conservatives supporting Huckabee 4% and Santorium 0% would to support Rubio over Cruz, Carson, maybe Fiorina, or even Trump.~ Dr. Bill Smith, Editor, ARRA News Service by Tim Alberta and Eliana Johnson: To a concerned and angry bunch of Iowa Republicans, their mission heading into next month’s caucuses is as simple as ABC: Anybody But Cruz.
As the Texas senator solidifies his front-runner status with just over a month to go before the February 1 caucuses, a loose network of social-conservative activists has undertaken a quiet effort to defeat him by any means necessary — even if that means rallying together behind a more electable rival to their own preferred candidates.
Many supporters of Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, the last two winners of Iowa’s Republican presidential contests, are grappling with a pair of grim realities as the 2016 caucuses approach. Not only have their candidates been stuck in the low single digits for months in Iowa, but they also view Cruz, the new front-runner, as a phony opportunist who has pandered to Evangelicals for political gain, particularly in Iowa. And they fear that if Cruz notches a win in the Hawkeye State — especially if he does so by a wide margin, which many Republicans now view as a distinct possibility — he will emerge as the overwhelming favorite to capture the nomination.
These assumptions have led to a pair of common conclusions: First, that preventing Cruz from winning Iowa is more important than promoting their own preferred candidates. And second, that if the only way to accomplish that is by throwing their support to another candidate, it should be Marco Rubio.
“This is real. There exists this feeling that Senator Cruz is only the most recent Christian conservative presidential candidate, and that the two individuals who preceded him in the 2008 and 2012 caucuses have not been given the respect that they deserve as voices in the Christian conservative movement,” says Jamie Johnson, a former member of the Iowa GOP state central committee who supported Santorum in 2012 and has not thrown his weight behind a candidate after supporting former Texas governor Rick Perry earlier this cycle.
“It is absolutely clear to me that many Huckabee and Santorum supporters are going to swing toward Marco Rubio, because he is a Christian conservative who they feel embodies more of the character traits that Huckabee and Santorum embody,” Johnson says. “That’s what I’m hearing from both camps.”
Why the antagonism toward Cruz from those who largely agree with his message? Some of it can be chalked up to sour grapes; backers of Huckabee and Santorum are angry and disappointed that their candidates have been unable to rekindle the magic of elections past. Yet sudden talk of an anti-Cruz effort has echoed in many recent conversations with Iowa Republicans, some of whom are supporting different candidates and others who are unaffiliated.
For now, there are only murmurs about moves being made behind the scenes to damage Cruz. Several Republican sources point to Nick Ryan, a prominent Iowa strategist who leads the pro-Huckabee super PAC Pursuing America’s Greatness, as a key player in the anti-Cruz efforts. Ryan is known to have longstanding ties with operatives in Rubio’s orbit, most notably Sean Noble, whose group American Encore has been running ads pummeling Cruz on national security. Sources believe that Ryan has signaled to those allies a willingness to boost Rubio by weakening Cruz.
Meanwhile, an operative with one conservative campaign says he reached out to Rubio’s team to discuss forging an alliance against Cruz. On the ground at an event in Iowa, the operative says he approached Rubio press secretary Brooke Sammon and told her, “We have a common enemy, and I’m a firm believer that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” The Rubio campaign declined to comment on the exchange.
At the heart of these amorphous efforts is an agreement among supporters of both Huckabee and Santorum that if their candidate can’t win Iowa, they should at least work toward stopping Cruz from running away with a victory.
Ryan declined to comment on the potential for collaboration with other campaigns against Cruz, saying only that he’s focused on electing Huckabee. Yet he acknowledged that his super PAC — as well as the Iowa Progress Project, another group he founded — is currently running a six-figure media campaign attacking Cruz for alleged hypocrisies on ethanol and same-sex marriage.
The anti-Cruz effort may not be limited to ad campaigns. Sources familiar with the discussions say there are proposals to pool resources that can be used for voter outreach and education as well. A primary target of such a campaign would be Iowa’s churches, where Cruz’s opponents believe parishioners have been misled about the Texas senator’s record on the issue of same-sex marriage.
After assuring voters that opposing gay marriage would be “front and center” in his campaign, Cruz told attendees at a Manhattan fundraiser earlier this month that it would not be a “top-three priority,” according to a recording leaked to Politico.
Cruz, says Santorum’s senior adviser Matt Beynon in response to the recording, “makes Mitt Romney and John Kerry look consistent.”
Huckabee’s campaign also pounced on the recording, blasting out a statement from the candidate that read: “Conservatives are being asked to ‘coalesce’ around yet another corporately funded candidate that says something very different at a big donor fundraiser in Manhattan than at a church in Marshalltown.”
While Cruz’s remarks do not represent an overt contradiction, his view — that each state should make its own marriage laws — is atypical for a candidate who, like Cruz, has worked tirelessly (and rather successfully) to win the endorsements of Evangelical leaders across the country.
“Ted Cruz is not your classic social conservative,” says Craig Robinson, the former executive director of the Iowa Republican party. “Ted Cruz is fine with 50 different marriage laws. Ted Cruz is fine with 50 different laws defining when life can begin. Ted Cruz has been extremely fortunate that a guy like Rick Santorum hasn’t been on the debate stage with him, because Santorum would flesh out those differences.”
There’s also the matter of experience, which has likely exacerbated frustrations. Cruz is brand-new to the national stage, having served just three years in the Senate with no legislative accomplishments to his name. Santorum and Huckabee are both prior winners of the Iowa caucuses and runners-up for the Republican nomination. During his House and Senate tenure, Santorum fought for the passage of legislation banning partial-birth abortion and worked to draft a major welfare-reform bill. Huckabee, a celebrated figure in social-conservative circles for two decades, is a past chairman of the National [Republican] Governors Association and remains the longest-serving [Republican] governor of Arkansas.
Rubio has ties to Huckabee’s political apparatus: He endorsed Huckabee for president in 2008 and served as his Florida co-chair, a decision he attributed at the time to Huckabee’s standing on social issues. “I want the Republican party to be the party of life and family, and Mike Huckabee is the best candidate on those issues,” Rubio told the (u>Tampa Bay Times in 2008.
The Florida senator lacks any such connection to Santorum, but that has not kept some Santorum supporters from privately voicing their admiration for Rubio. In public, Santorum has sided with Rubio in recent spats with Cruz over immigration and foreign policy, two issues on which Cruz has faced nagging questions about his consistency and authenticity. “There isn’t a substantive policy difference between Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz,” Beynon says of the immigration dispute. “The difference is, Marco Rubio is honest about his position. So while Senator Santorum disagrees with both of them, at least Senator Rubio is being honest with the American people about what his position is.”
If they’re serious about it, time is running short for Cruz’s opponents to orchestrate an effort to stop him. Neither Huckabee nor Santorum is expected to make the main debate stage in South Carolina on January 14 or in Iowa on January 28, robbing two of Cruz’s chief antagonists of high-profile platforms from which to attack him directly.
The most obvious way for Huckabee and Santorum to swing the race against Cruz would be to drop out and throw their support behind Rubio. But according to sources familiar with the candidates’ thinking, it’s highly unlikely that either would do so before Caucus Day.
“They’re both fighters. I think they’re in it through Iowa,” Johnson says. “If they drop out after Iowa, will Mike and Rick endorse? I don’t see either of them endorsing Ted Cruz. I see them both endorsing Marco Rubio.”
But by then, Cruz detractors fear, he will have won Iowa and gained a head of steam moving into New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, and the red states that dominate Super Tuesday, on which he has staked much of his campaign. And if Cruz’s strategy succeeds, it will be too late to stop him.
------------- Tim Alberta is chief political correspondent and Eliana Johnson is Washington editor of National Review where this article was first shared. It is shared here for educational purposes under the Fair Use Doctrine. Tags:Intrigue, Iowa, Whispers, Anti-Cruz, Pro-Rubio alliance, National ReviewTo 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: Watergate? That was small time. This is an administration abusing a tool meant for national security purposes to win a domestic political campaign to help Iran go nuclear. Compared to this Nixon was the most ethical man in government. b>President Obama announced two years ago he would curtail eavesdropping on friendly heads of state after the world learned the reach of long-secret U.S. surveillance programs.
But behind the scenes, the White House decided to keep certain allies under close watch, current and former U.S. officials said. Topping the list was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.No real surprise here. About the only people who believe Obama gets along with Israel are Jewish Democrats.The National Security Agency’s targeting of Israeli leaders and officials also swept up the contents of some of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers and American-Jewish groups. That raised fears—an “Oh-s— moment,” one senior U.S. official said—that the executive branch would be accused of spying on Congress.
White House officials believed the intercepted information could be valuable to counter Netanyahu’s campaign. They also recognized that asking for it was politically risky. So, wary of a paper trail stemming from a request, the White House let the NSA decide what to share and what to withhold, officials said. “We didn’t say, ‘Do it,’ ” a senior U.S. official said. “We didn’t say, ‘Don’t do it.’ ”So Obama let the NSA take the fall while still spying on Congress and Jewish groups in the United States.
Again, this was not spying to stop a terror attack. Or even espionage. It was surveillance whose purpose was to help Obama win Iran deal approval. The NSA was spying on the future Israeli ambassador, members of Congress and Jewish leaders because they were opposed to the Iran deal.
It's that simple.
The fig leaf here is that they were talking to Israelis, but it's a small step from here to just spying on them. And who is to say that didn't happen? Who is to say that Obama didn't use the NSA to protect ObamaCare? Privately, Obama maintained the monitoring of Netanyahu on the grounds that it served a “compelling national security purpose,” according to current and former U.S. officials.The compelling purpose though wasn't national security, it was domestic politics. But for Obama, the two are one and the same. Yet this isn't about Netanyahu. There's a fundamental difference between spying on Netanyahu and spying on members of Congress and other Americans opposed to an Obama political agenda.
And that's what this was.
Obama has made national security interchangeable with his own political agenda and personal influence. This is beyond Nixon. It's Caesar.
------------- 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, President Obama, Spied, on Congress, on Jewish Leaders, The Iran Deal, Editorial Cartoon, Daryl CagleTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Trump, the “Kid from Queens,” confronts “Texas Ted” Cruz.
Cruz and Trump have so far maintained a nonaggression pact. Cruz and Trump, both winners by nature, are all in to win. Political mortal combat cannot be far behind. Here’s what that looks like right now.
Trump is sounding rattled. Understandable. Cruz quickly has rocketed up to what Newser calls a “dizzying” 10 point lead in Iowa. Trump has plateaued there.
Trump has to react and soon. May already be too late. Reaction is perilous. None of Trump’s other genteel rivals, except for Carly Fiorina, were hard counterpunchers. Cruz, a tough guy, doesn’t flinch. He knows how to land a punch. Just ask the GOP Establishment.
And Trump’s initial test-feints have been very weak. They suggest that Trump either is confused or anxious.
Part of Trump’s narrative is that he’s “The Inevitable Winner.” Losing in Iowa would make him a Loser. Trump just hates losing. And he hates Losers. So, presumably, do Trump’s fair-weather-supporters who only are with him as long as they can say they are “with the Champ.”
Add to Cruz’s strong conservative base Iowans who are looking to climb on the Winner’s bandwagon. Trump, by hammering home the case people should support him because he was the frontrunner, unwittingly turned himself into Cruz’s de facto PR agent. At least in Iowa.
More than that fracturing of Trump’s narrative, losing is likely to shake Trump in a way that nothing else does.
Let’s peek behind the bluster.
As the Washington Post’s Francis Stead Sellers astutely reported in What Trump Learned On The Apprentice:From the time they spent with Trump on and off the set, contestants recall a talented performer — and one who was deeply concerned with how he was perceived by others. Just as Trump today speaks frequently of his poll numbers, so, too, was he consumed by ratings.
... On a morning after “The Apprentice” lost to a rival Fox show, “American Idol,” Solovey visited Trump to introduce him to his fiancee — and found the usually ebullient businessman slumped at his desk.
“It was the only time I saw him totally downcast and dejected,” said Solovey….
Elizabeth Jarosz … remembered that she happened to be standing close to Trump after he finished a press interview. He turned to her. “How did I do?” he said. “Was that okay?”
“I remember thinking, ‘Wow,’ ” Jarosz said. “He was very insecure. And that’s not how he seems now. Now he seems not to care. But I think he really does care.”Cruz may be getting inside of what is known in military parlance as Trump’s OODA Loop.
In civilian terms, he’s getting under Trump’s skin.
Trump showed his first, uncharacteristic, failure of nerve – and made his first unforced error – just before Halloween when, then lagging in the Iowa polls behind Dr. Ben Carson, as reported by The New York Times:Donald J. Trump pledged to redouble his efforts in Iowa on Tuesday, sounding stunned and chastened that he had lost the lead in the state. “What the hell are you people doing to me?”The Christian Science Monitor’s Peter Grier gets the metaphor of this fight exactly right in his recent column How Donald Trump might jiu-jitsu Ted Cruz. But from where I sit Cruz, not Trump, looks like the judo master. Grier:Donald Trump may be getting ready to slam Ted Cruz.
Why? Mr. Cruz is threatening Mr. Trump’s lead in the crucial early caucus state of Iowa. And the Texas senator reportedly told a gathering of donors earlier this week that he doubts Trump has the “judgment” to be commander-in-chief.
All this appears to have convinced Trump to punch Cruz’s coordinates into his insult artillery, despite the fact that the two of them have maintained cordial relations to this point.
“Looks like @tedcruz is getting ready to attack. I am leading by so much he must. I hope so, he will fall like all others. Will be easy!” Trump tweeted on Friday morning.
... “@tedcruz should not make statements behind closed doors to his bosses, he should bring them out into the open – more fun that way!” Trump tweeted Friday.Grier deeply underestimates Cruz here. So perhaps does Trump.
Cruz semi-privately raised the matter of Trump’s judgment recently. Cruz hardly could have intended this comment to remain behind closed doors. Looks like Cruz intended to bait Trump into throwing the first punch.
Trump of course is right in that “it will be more fun” to litigate Donald Trump’s judgment in public.
Does Trump understand that Cruz is a master litigator?
Trump is dead wrong in his assessment that it “Will be easy” to get Cruz to fall as have others.
As reported by CBS, Cruz shrewdly refused Trump’s bait:Cruz responded (to Trump’s tweets) not with a knockout but with a nuzzle. “The Establishment’s only hope: Trump & me in a cage match. Sorry to disappoint–@realdonaldtrump is terrific. #DealWithItJiu-jitsu? Ted Cruz now has Donald Trump in a squeeze play. If Trump balks he looks weak. If Trump goes after Cruz, Trump will be playing right into Cruz’s hands by presenting himself as an Establishment stooge. One misstep by Trump could prove politically fatal to the Trump campaign.
All of the insults available to Trump to throw at Cruz are likely to blow up in Trump’s face. Trump’s recent calling Cruz a “maniac” caused Rush Limbaugh to present a “stinging critique” casting doubt on Trump’s conservative credentials, and Mark Levin, another powerful influence on the conservative base, to rain fire from the talk-show heavens on Trump. This will cost Trump in the polls. Trump: hoist with his own petard.
Maybe not. But his underpinnings have been rattled.
What’s up with that? Here’s what.
Donald Trump is a kid from Queens.
So too, from Queens, were the fictional, beloved, Archie Bunker, Doug Heffernan, Carrie, and her wacko father, Arthur. Beloved, yes. But presidential timber? Forget it Jake; it’s Jamaica Estates, Queens.
I, too, am a kid from Queens. (Started life in Jackson Heights.) And I'm a galoot to boot. I get Donald Trump. I don’t support Donald Trump. Not even close. He’s no conservative.
But I find him fundamentally lovable. What’s not to love about the big galoot?
It’s a Queens thing. #DealWithIt.
Columnist Megan McCardle summed up Trump’s appeal most astutely:Trump’s economic policy isn’t really a policy; it consists of claiming magical abilities to reclaim the jobs that foreigners have stolen from us, and a ritual genuflection toward lower taxes. … Trump’s argument is pretty much entirely “strangers stole your stuff, and I’m going to make them give it back, or at least keep them from stealing any more.“Texas Ted” Cruz, in addition to himself being, like Trump, elemental has the added strength of offering real clear, shrewd, conservative, supply-side prescriptions such as an almost deficit-neutral flat tax and the gold standard. Cruz, unlike Trump, is not relying exclusively on galoot charm and “magical abilities.”
Not all voters are as prone to believing in magical abilities as do us kids from Queens. Advantage: Cruz.
Trump is rattled. Will he lose his nerve and show that he lacks the judgment that Ted Cruz so shrewdly called into question? Will Trump demonstrate the lack of presidential disposition that most Republican voters feel is his biggest weakness? If that happens tonight it will be on to the finals: Cruz vs. Rubio.
----------------- Ralph Benko is senior advisor, economics, to American Principles in Action’s Gold Standard 2012 Initiative, and a contributor to the ARRA News Service. Founder of The Prosperity Caucus, he was a member of the Jack Kemp supply-side team, served in an unrelated area as a deputy general counsel in the Reagan White House. The article which first appeared in Forbes. Tags:Ralph Benko, Donald Trump, kid from Queens, meets, Ted Cruz, Vegas 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:Editorial Cartoon, AF Branco, Operation Get-Away, Obama ISIS Vacation, Obama says, right where he needs to be, ISIS StrategyTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Rick Manning: The government depends upon mass, voluntary compliance with the law for it to be able to enforce the rules on society as a whole.
Simple things like a general agreement that if the speed limit says 55 miles per hour, that we will travel somewhere in the general proximity of that posting, with the outliers risking a ticket.
The understanding that we drive on the right hand side of the road and that slower vehicles stay to the far right on multi-lane highways make the free flow of traffic possible.
But events over the weekend make a reasonable person wonder whether the constant fraying of the social contract has finally created a tear that is rapidly becoming irreparable.
In malls across the country, thousands of people congregated, not for the purposes of shopping, going to a movie or simply enjoying each other’s company, but instead with the goal of disrupting people from using the already hard pressed brick and mortar stores for their intended purpose.
At Minneapolis’ Mall of America, the radical Black Lives Matter group even went so far as to feint a protest so there would be a heavy police presence, allowing them to shut down part of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport during the height of the Christmas travel season. Beyond the obvious problem that their actions caused hundreds of people to miss their flights home, they deliberately placed thousands at an additional risk of a terrorist attack due to distracted security.
Even our assumed driving rules are under attack. On the Washington, D.C. Beltway, a group of approximately fifty motorcyclists caused a delay as they uniformly slowed down across all the lanes bringing traffic to a standstill. As they got moving again, they aggressively cut cars off from passing, and even went so far as to drive north bound up the south bound lanes. There did not appear to be any political or other message in the motorcycle foolishness, but instead the mass act of civil disobedience seems to have been done just because they could. However, it reveals the fragility of our common understanding about the need to follow the rules.
While it is usually dangerous to draw broad societal assumptions based upon flash mobs at malls, roadways or even political protests blocking bridges, it is safe to note that these occurrences are becoming significantly more frequent.
And it is fair to tie this civil disobedience to President Obama’s continued attack on the law as a whole. When the President doesn’t enforce the nation’s immigration laws, people naturally believe that if the law isn’t going to be enforced then it is null and void, and the fabric of our nation’s social contract is torn.
When Obama nullifies sentencing decisions for thousands of drug dealers and others, releasing them back into their former neighborhoods it sends a message that the system was wrong and the fabric tears a little more.
When Democrats in Congress urge Obama to use his pen and phone to circumvent Congress, they send a powerful message to their constituents that the rule of law doesn’t matter, and the tear grows.
And when the left and some on the right make those who seek to enforce the laws, targets for attack and murder, creating a schism of fear between the protector and the protected, the fabric itself becomes unrecognizable.
The social fabric that binds America together as one has always been fragile, and to complete the fundamental transformation that Obama strives to achieve, it must be torn asunder from top to bottom in a wholesale surrender of the current rule of law to another set of laws composed not through consent, compromise and agreement, but instead through forced acquiescence.
America should not worry about getting on a slippery slope away from rule by the consent of the governed, because we are already half-way down the slide and few have noticed.
As more and more people read the news and wonder what is happening to their country thinking that the craziness that seems to ooze from our government is an anomaly rather than the forced new normal under Obama, a ballot box response erupts if there is a trusted alternative.
by Paul Jacob, Contributing Author: "The Department of Justice announced [last] week that it's suspending a controversial program that allows local police departments to keep a large portion of assets seized from citizens under federal law and funnel it into their own coffers," reports the Washington Post.
The Feds call the paused program "equitable sharing"; as I explained last month, I call it "equitable stealing."
Even when state and local laws prohibit it, local police have been using this federal program to continue taking people's money and property without ever convicting them of a crime.
The loophole? They split the loot with the Feds.
Now that has ended. According to the Post, this is the result of "budget cuts" in the recently passed omnibus spending bill; the Wall Street Journal calls it a "reallocation of funds."
Either way, Happy Holidays!
Yet, sadly, the return to freedom, justice and the American Way may be short-lived.
"The Department does not take this step lightly," wrote M. Kendall Day, the chief of DOJ's Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section. "We explored every conceivable option that would have enabled us to preserve some form of meaningful equitable sharing. . . ."
In his letter, he proclaiming a commitment to the principle of guilty-until-proven-innocent and to grabbing people's stuff, telling state and local and tribal police departments, "We will take all appropriate and necessary measures to minimize the impact of the rescission and reinstate sharing distributions as soon as practical and financially feasible."
Of course, Congress will likely need a mighty nudge from us.
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:Department of Justice, stops, police departments, asset, forfeiting, Paul Jacob, Common Sense, 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 Melissa Quinn: In nine courts around the country, trial lawyers and judges work together in extracting large sums of money from people who may not deserve it, according to a new report.
By taking advantage of tort laws, the ease with which civil justice cases are tried in these “judicial hellholes” can lead to higher costs of medical services and health care, and goods and services, and have a negative impact on innovation, the American Tort Reform Association found.
The group examined courts across the nation and determined which civil courts, or “judicial hellholes,” were the most egregious in applying “laws and court procedures in an unfair and unbalanced manner.”
Many of the civil courts singled out by the organization lean heavily in favor of the plaintiff, according to the report, and demonstrate what the American Tort Reform Association views as a bias against defendants in civil cases.
“When we’re talking about free markets and economic prosperity, one of the biggest drags in terms of cronyism is where you’ve got lawyers and judges in various towns across the country that are in collusion to use their legal authority to unfairly extract money from people who don’t deserve it using the tort law,” Andrew Kloster, a legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “That raises costs across the board for everybody.”
The American Tort Reform Association advocates for reforming the civil justice system and warns that abusing tort laws can lead to increases costs in a variety of industries.
“Tort reform is an attempt to return the tort system to its economically efficient foundations of helping to keep private wrongs out of the criminal system, to cheaply and quickly adjudicate private wrong to allow business growth,” Kloster said. “When you have a place without tort reform, you have have a drag on that growth. It’s a hidden tax.”
Specifically in the realm of health care, Kloster pointed to the effects that medical malpractice lawsuits can have on the price of insurance and medical services. Doctors must have insurance to protect from lawsuits involving patients who may not be able to prove that their harm was related to the one doctor’s procedure.
The ease with which patients can bring lawsuits against their former doctors—specifically in “judicial hellholes”—ultimately affects consumers.
“To account for the fact that there are these ‘judicial hellholes’ across the country, insurance companies raise the rates for covering doctors, and that’s passed along to customers,” Kloster said.
In part through its list, the American Tort Reform Association also seeks to push back on the influence trial lawyers have on state legislatures.
“[O]ur ‘Judicial Hellholes’ program since 2002 has been documenting troubling developments in jurisdictions where civil court judges systematically apply laws and court procedures in an unfair and unbalanced manner, generally to the disadvantage of defendants,” Tiger Joyce, president of the American Tort Reform Association, said in a statement.
Here are the “judicial hellholes” identified by the American Tort Reform Association.
According to the report, California trial lawyers frequently file suits against food and beverage companies and bring asbestos-related suits to the state’s courts.
2. New York City Asbestos Litigation
Like Newport News and Hidalgo Counties, the New York City asbestos court is “unfair.”
In the Sunshine State, the Florida Supreme Court strikes down civil justice reforms passed by the state legislature, according to the American Tort Reform Association.
According to the American Tort Reform Association’s report, Missouri courts allow “junk science” in trials. Additionally, the plaintiff’s bar, which strikes down civil justice reforms, is very powerful.
5. Madison County, Ill.
Like Newport News, many asbestos cases are tried in Madison County.
The 2015 “Judicial Hellholes” report criticized Louisiana for giving lots of power to judges, who are elected officials. Furthermore, the group said the state allows plaintiff’s lawyers to try cases in the court of their choosing.
7. Hidalgo County, Texas
In this county, the American Tort Reform Association found that trial lawyers have filed more than 10,000 lawsuits against insurance companies in the state. The lawsuits came after hailstorms that occurred in 2012 and 2013.
8. Newport News, Va.
The circuit court in Newport News sees many asbestos claims, and according to the “Judicial Hellholes” report, lawyers representing the plaintiffs have the highest win rate in the nation.
9. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
According to the American Tort Reform Association, the federal court leads the country in patent litigation.
----------- Melissa Quinn (@MelissaQuinn97 ) is a news reporter for The Daily Signal. Tags:9 ‘Most Unfair’ Courts, Civil Lawsuits, Melissa Quinn, The Daily SignalTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Trump's juggernaut campaign remains a total mystery to the Washington Insiders, especially the Republicans. Michael Medved, one of many pretend conservatives on talk radio, pees his pants every time he hears Trump's name. Wonder where Trump's campaign funds come from? He takes Medved's lunch money every day - and Bill Bennett's, and George Will's, and Karl Rove's and a whole bunch of other wimps.
Here's the latest CNN national poll results and my unfiltered opinion of each.Pataki (withdrew)- 0%: Ptooey.
Santorum - 0%: Nice guy, desperately means well, but Rick, it ain't ever gonna happen.
Graham (withdrew) - 1%: His (my) own conservative state can't stand him - it took Democrat votes via our open primary system to keep him in DC. He wants strong military and open borders. Huh?
Huckabee - 2%: Bright. Maybe devious. For some reason I wouldn't want to buy a used car from this guy.
Kasich - 2%: Why can't we all just be friends and play nice together?
Fiorina - 2%: She is so smart and so strong-willed. Oh wait, that scares the hell out of most people.
Paul - 4%: He really understands the Constitution. Sadly, nobody cares.
Bush - 3%: Sigh.
Christie - 5%: He says his greatest attribute is his desire to make deals with the liberals. Next.
Carson - 10%: Brilliant, and conservative. But people who visited his house said every square inch of wall space is covered with pictures of Ben and awards presented to Ben. He may have a bigger ego than Obama.
Rubio - 10%: Gang of Eight. Next.
Cruz - 18%: If I am ever caught in a dark alley with a menacing gang of debaters from Harvard, I want Ted on my side. He will shred any opponent, including Hillary. He's smart, tenacious, ambitious, conservative. A few weeks ago he chaired a Senate committee meeting, and not a single Republican senator attended, leaving Cruz to face a roomful of Democrats alone. His fellow Senators absolutely HATE him. That's good enough for me.
Trump - 39%: At first I was really put off by his personal insecurity ("I'm really smart! Really I am!) And I was convinced he had no depth of thought on any issue. I still sometimes think he might be a few fries short of a happy meal. But I'm starting to get it.I listened to a complete hour-long Trump speech tonight, for the first time. And I found that he actually does address important issues, albeit in his own odd way. He talks off the cuff, and his stories wobble and wander all over the place. His over-use of adjectives and hyperbole is almost criminal. He spends too much time talking about himself and his lead in the polls, which he defends, saying, "But I am leading the polls! Jeb Bush sure doesn't want to talk about the polls." I guess maybe saying "we're number one" is not a bad marketing pitch.
If you get down to the nitty-gritty, you find that his message is usually right, and sometimes even illuminating. Tonight Trump talked about a friend who had always bought Caterpillar tractors but just bought a new Komatsu instead. "It's the devaluation of their currency, Caterpillar can't compete, " Trump explained. That lead to talk about international trade, and the exodus of American manufacturing companies overseas, and the billions of dollars of offshore profits held by American companies due to our outdated and unfair corporate tax structure. "It's called 'corporate inversion'", Trump said. "I doubt the other candidates have heard that term."
I have mixed feelings about his admission to "paying off politicians" for business favors. I don't get the feeling he could be bought, though. And I know damn well the vast majority of our elected officials are, shall we say, influenced by big contributors.
Most of his positions and proclamations are just populist common sense, but they shine brightly in a world that has gone PC. I think his strong stand against unfettered immigration and refugees is the biggest bullet in his pro-second amendment clip.
"He can't beat Hillary," they whimper. It seems to me he is probably the only Republican candidate who will smack Hillary between the eyes with her blatant lies, her stinks-to-high-heaven "charitable" foundation, and her coverups for her violently lecherous husband. Yep, he can beat Hillary. And the recent revelations that he has strong followings among minority groups doesn't hurt.
Am I in the Trump camp? Not yet. But I'm like the caller on Little Mikey Medved's show the other day. Medved challenged him, "If it came down to Trump or Hillary, would you vote for Trump?" The caller responded, "No question. I'd crawl over broken glass to beat Hillary."
--------------- Tom Balek is a fellow conservative activist, blogger, musician and contributes to the ARRA News Service. Tom resides in South Carolina and seeks to educate those too busy with their work and families to notice how close to the precipice our economy has come. He blogs at Rockin' On the Right Side Tags:Tom Balek, Rockin' On The Right Side, Republican voters, defeat, Hillary, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Michael Medved, Karl Rove, Bill Bennett, republican presidential primary, George Will, Annie LennoxTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
House Democrats Move To Criminalize Criticism Of Islam
Lumping together violence with “hateful rhetoric” is a call to destroy the freedom of speech.
by Robert Spencer: December 17, 2015 ought henceforth to be a date which will live in infamy, as that was the day that some of the leading Democrats in the House of Representatives came out in favor of the destruction of the First Amendment. Sponsored by among others, Muslim Congressmen Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, as well as Eleanor Holmes Norton, Loretta Sanchez, Charles Rangel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Kennedy, Al Green, Judy Chu, Debbie Dingell, Niki Tsongas, John Conyers, José Serrano, Hank Johnson, and many others, House Resolution 569 condemns “violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.” The Resolution has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
That’s right: “violence, bigotry and hateful rhetoric.” The implications of those five words will fly by most people who read them, and the mainstream media, of course, will do nothing to elucidate them. But what H. Res. 569 does is conflate violence -- attacks on innocent civilians, which have no justification under any circumstances – with “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric,” which are identified on the basis of subjective judgments. The inclusion of condemnations of “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric” in this Resolution, while appearing to be high-minded, take on an ominous character when one recalls the fact that for years, Ellison, Carson, and his allies (including groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR) have been smearing any and all honest examination of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to incite hatred and violence as “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric.” This Resolution is using the specter of violence against Muslims to try to quash legitimate research into the motives and goals of those who have vowed to destroy us, which will have the effect of allowing the jihad to advance unimpeded and unopposed.
That’s not what this H. Res. 569 would do, you say? It’s just about condemning “hate speech,” not free speech? That kind of sloppy reasoning may pass for thought on most campuses today, but there is really no excuse for it. Take, for example, the wife of Paris jihad murderer Samy Amimour – please. It was recently revealed that she happily boasted about his role in the murder of 130 Paris infidels: “I encouraged my husband to leave in order to terrorize the people of France who have so much blood on their hands […] I’m so proud of my husband and to boast about his virtue, ah la la, I am so happy.” Proud wifey added: “As long as you continue to offend Islam and Muslims, you will be potential targets, and not just cops and Jews but everyone.”
Now Samy Amimour’s wife sounds as if she would be very happy with H. Res. 569, and its sponsors would no doubt gladly avow that we should stop offending Islam and Muslims – that is, cut out the “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric.” If we are going to be “potential targets” even if we’re not “cops” or “Jews,” as long as we “continue to offend Islam and Muslims,” then the obvious solution, according to the Western intelligentsia, is to stop doing anything that might offend Islam and Muslims – oh, and stop being cops and Jews. Barack “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” says it. Hillary “We’re going to have that filmmaker arrested” Clinton says it. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, certain that anyone who speaks honestly about Islam and jihad is a continuing danger to the Church, says it.
And it should be easy. What offends Islam and Muslims? It ought to be a simple matter to cross those things off our list, right? Making a few sacrifices for the sake of our future of glorious diversity should be a no-brainer for every millennial, and everyone of every age who is concerned about “hate,” right? So let’s see. Drawing Muhammad – that’s right out. And of course, Christmas celebrations, officially banned this year in three Muslim countries and frowned upon (at best) in many others, will have to go as well. Alcohol and pork? Not in public, at least. Conversion from Islam to Christianity? No more of that. Building churches? Come on, you’ve got to be more multicultural!
Everyone agrees. The leaders of free societies are eagerly lining up to relinquish those freedoms. The glorious diversity of our multicultural future demands it. And that future will be grand indeed, a gorgeous mosaic, as everyone assures us, once those horrible “Islamophobes” are forcibly silenced. Everyone will applaud that. Most won’t even remember, once the jihad agenda becomes clear and undeniable to everyone in the U.S. on a daily basis and no one is able to say a single thing about it, that there used to be some people around who tried to warn them.
------------- Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS. This article was shared on FrontPageMag. Tags:Robert Spencer, criticism, house democrats, criminalize critism, IslamTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: Four Stars For Honesty - Actor Samuel L. Jackson is no shrinking violet when it comes to sharing his thoughts about current events. He had a lot to say recently about the 2016 campaign, which was exactly what you might expect from a Hollywood liberal.
But his remarks about the San Bernardino shootings were also very revealing. Here's what Jackson said during a recent interview:
"I can't even tell you how much that day the thing that happened in San Bernardino -- I was in Hawaii -- how much I really wanted that to just be another, you know, crazy white dude, and not really some Muslims, because it's like: 'Oh. . . It's here. And it's here in another kind of way.'
"Now, okay, it happened on an Army base and it happened somewhere else. But now? It's like they have a legitimate reason now to look at your Muslim neighbor, friend, whatever in another way. And they become the new young black men." Well, I have to give him four stars for honesty.
But his candor raises this disturbing question: How many other leftists in the country -- from the White House to the mainstream media -- share Jackson's hope that terrorist attacks are carried out by white men instead of Muslims?
In a world where people are being routinely blown up by Islamists, crucified by the Islamic State, where jihadists turn children into bombs, where radical Muslims gun down U.S. soldiers not on foreign battlefields but in Texas and Tennessee, why do people hope that "crazy white dudes" are responsible for these atrocities?
This delusional racism is blinding the left from facing reality and doing what is necessary to protect our country. And they have the audacity to accuse conservatives of being racists!
Jackson will be even more upset when he learns that the imam of the mosque attended by the San Bernardino killers is under investigation by the FBI.
A Victory In Utah - In the wake of undercover videos exposing Planned Parenthood's trafficking in baby body parts, a number of states moved to cut off taxpayer funding to the nation's largest abortion business. Planned Parenthood sued at least half a dozen states and, unbelievably, it has prevailed in federal court in virtually every case. Until last week.
Federal Judge Clark Waddoups initially blocked Governor Gary Herbert's order terminating Planned Parenthood's contracts with the state of Utah. But after hearing the state's case, Judge Waddoup removed his injunction and ruled against Planned Parenthood, declaring "These are the types of decisions that should be left to elected officials and not managed by the courts."
Finally, common sense prevails!
Of course, Planned Parenthood is appealing the decision. But why does this group -- or any other for that matter -- think it has a right to taxpayer dollars? Obviously, elected officials should be able to change state contracts.
The left is determined to use the courts to force its agenda on the country. Whether it is restricting religious liberty, redefining marriage or demanding taxpayer funding of abortion, the left is abusing our legal system to rig the political process and achieve its fundamental transformation of America.
This is one reason why it is so important for men and women of faith to be involved in the political process. While the judiciary is an independent branch of government, it is composed of individuals nominated and confirmed by our elected officials.
Your vote for president and your two U.S. senators determine the judges who sit on our federal courts, including the Supreme Court. And with four Supreme Court justices currently 77 years old or older, the next president could easily change the ideological balance of the high court.
------------- 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, Four Stars For Honesty, Samuel L. Jackson, San Bernardino, shootings, terrorism, USA, Fort Hood, Texas, Chattanooga, Tennessee, Victory In Utah, defund, Planned ParenthoodTo 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
#Conservative #Constitution #NRA #GunRights #military 22 yr #veteran #professor #Christian #ProLife #TCOT #SGP #CCOT #schoolchoice #fairtax Married-50+yrs #MAGA
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.