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, March 11, 2016
UK Furious After Obama Trashes Closest Ally
by Daniel Greenfield: Remember when we were supposed to elect Obama to "repair" our relationship with Europe?
Obama decided to rant about Europe to Jeffrey Goldberg for an Atlantic piece in which he blames his Libyan War on the UK and France and reveals that the only European leader he likes is Merkel (surprise). He reveals that he threatened the "special relationship" between the US and the UK in a talk with the British prime minister, whom he also insults in the piece. Britain's 'special relationship' with the United States came under threat today as a former Cabinet minister hit back at Barack Obama after he savaged David Cameron for leaving Libya a 's*** show' after intervening to oust Colonel Gadaffi in 2011.This latest tantrum is not going over well in the UK.Britain’s Social Care (and former foreign office) minister Alistair Burt tweeted in response to Obama’s Atlantic interview: “Interesting from Obama on Libya. When I’ve been in the MENA region it’s not the UKs retreat that’s commented upon, Mr President.”
Not only British Conservative MPs but British Labour Party MPs are also criticizing Obama.
Among them, senior Labour MP Barry Sheerman tweeted: “Truth is that Obama has been a huge disappointment as a President & leader of free world.”
French MP Herve Mariton, responding to Obama’s criticism of Britain and France, told the BBC: “I would offer Obama a mirror.”Lots of anger in the British press too. So now Obama Inc. is trying to undo the damage.U.S. officials have tried to squelch the controversy by telling British media that the United States places a high priority on Britain's support.
"Prime Minister Cameron has been as close a partner as the president has had, and we deeply value the UK's contributions on our shared national security and foreign policy objectives which reflect our special and essential relationship," spokesman Edward Price told ITV News.The special relationship that Obama took pains to trash to Jeffrey Goldberg.In its email to the BBC later, the White House said: "Prime Minister Cameron has been as close a partner as the president has had, and we deeply value the UK's contributions on our shared national security and foreign policy objectives which reflect our special and essential relationship."Pay no attention to what Obama said. Here's a nice press release.Former Conservative foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind said criticism for the UK was "pretty rich" because the Americans "did far less" than France or the UK in the aftermath of the intervention.True enough.
Obama tries to blame everyone else for his disastrous illegal Libya War. He complains that the Europeans did so little, then brags how he did even less.
So the question is, who are the Americans supposed to elect to repair relations with Europe after Obama?
------------- Daniel Greenfield is Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. David Horowitz is a Contributing Author of the ARRA News Service Tags:Daniel Greenfield, FrontPage Mag, UK, United Kingdom, furios, Obsma Trashes allyTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Tags:Hillary Clinton, shoes, scandals, Richard Nixon, editorial cartoon, AF BrancoTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Particularly, GOP voters more than any other segment are opposed to vast trade deals that shift production and jobs overseas, with 59 percent of Republicans agreeing that "Over last two decades, free trade agreements signed by the U.S. were more of a benefit to other countries."
But that's only in hindsight. When it comes to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, voters are barely aware of what's happening in Washington, D.C. Before providing any information about the trade agreement, 51 percent in the poll said they didn't know enough about it to form an opinion.
Once given arguments for and against it, Republican voters overwhelmingly oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership, 66 percent to 15 percent. That opposition does cut across party lines. Democrats oppose it 44 percent to 30 percent, too, and Independents oppose it 52 percent to 19 percent.
This represents the shattering of the global trade agenda consensus that has shaped U.S. trade policy since NAFTA in the 1990s and permanent normal trade relations with China in 2000. The only that has kept it going has been political, bipartisan acquiescence and surrender to foreign powers to facilitate that agenda, all the while broad swaths of the American electorate have been left behind and who plainly lack real representation on this vital issue.
"This poll shows what I've intuitively felt and that is that the American people are getting more and more engaged," said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) who participated in the press conference.
"The trade issue is becoming a voting issue," Sessions added.
Indeed, and the Caddell poll may forever alter how Washington, D.C. views the international trade issue, which is now ripe for the picking for candidates such as Donald Trump, or Bernie Sanders, who have made it front and center in their presidential campaigns. Both just won the Michigan primaries.
But far and away, Republican voters hate these bad trade deals the most that outsource production and jobs overseas. The Caddell poll may go a long way to explaining why Trump in particular is doing so well.
"That is a stunning change," Caddell remarked, blown away by the results.
So much for being the party of so-called "free trade." The GOP, whose elected representatives in Congress traditionally vote overwhelmingly in favor of these trade agreements, may be a political party without any real representation on this issue. And that cannot continue, Caddell warned.
"You cannot ignore American opinion this way," he said, warning later in the press briefing, "1992 is like an oasis compared to the storm that is building now," referring to Ross Perot's presidential candidacy of 1992.
Then, Perot garnered 19.7 million votes in the general election around the trade issue and against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning, who hosted the press briefing, agreed, saying, "If you're a Republican candidate in this country… you have to be against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, at the very least, against it in the lame duck session [of Congress after the election]."
Manning mentioned the lame duck session of Congress because, more than likely, President Barack Obama will only sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership — with its mandatory 60 days to be voted on by Congress thanks to fast track trade authority — at a time so that it can only come up after the elections have already happened, when lawmakers will no longer be held accountable by voters.
Caddell said if that happened, it could be over for Republican leaders such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), citing how the Republican-controlled Congress had already alienated base voters by cutting deals with the Obama administration after the 2014 elections on the budget and immigration, and again in 2015 on granting trade promotion authority and authorizing the Iran nuclear deal.
If it comes to a lame duck trade deal only voted on in relative secrecy after the election, against the American people's express wishes, that could the straw that breaks the camel's back. That could be what destroys the GOP. Not Donald Trump. Not Ted Cruz.
As Caddell ominously concluded, "What these results are saying to the leadership is, you are going to be leading no one, if you keep this up."
---------------- Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of Americans for Limited Government. His article was first shared on the ALG's NetRight Daily blog. Tags:Robert Romano, Americans For Limited Government, Poll, Republicans, free trade, benefit other countriesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Eagle Forum: Take Action - Tell Senators To Vote NO On John King for Education Secretary
Eagle Forum: On Monday, March 14th, the U.S. Senate will vote on the nomination of John B. King, Jr., to be Secretary of Education. Eagle Forum urges senators to reject this nomination.
King came to the Education Department after a stint as Commissioner of Education in New York State. His tenure is widely regarded as a disaster, characterized by his strong support for Common Core and disrespect for opponents. Conservatives and liberals alike greeted King's departure from New York with relief.
Now President Obama wants King to lead the Education Department. During this administration, the department has constantly ignored limits on its authority. Despite legal prohibitions against national standards, the department pushed Common Core on the states. It continues to exceed its legal limits, bullying local districts over everything from bathrooms for transgender students to detention rates for racial and ethnic groups. The Education Department is lawless, and King would only promote this behavior.
Despite King's baggage from his time in New York, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee voted to advance his nomination by a 16-6 vote. The full Senate must not make the same mistake. All senators should vote NO on John King's nomination.
Ann Coulter signs "Adios America!"
for ARRA News Service editor.
Editor's note: Great Snark by Ann Coulter. Unfortunately the "Washington political class" is showing it's "butt in public" which literally smells. They have opened themselves to Coulter's cutting satire.
by Ann Coulter: If you’re into self-dramatization, Donald Trump’s candidacy is perfect for you.
Half of the Washington political class is vowing to vote for Hillary — even Stalin! — over Trump; psychologists (and massage therapists) report they are treating patients for “Trump anxiety”; lengthy thought-pieces on Trump have no room to mention his signature issue, immigration, but get prolix on George Wallace, Mussolini and Hitler. (Never Mao, Stalin or Lenin, curiously.)
You’re going to have to act quickly if you hope to be among the first 200 princesses to feel the pea under 15 layers of mattresses.
To save you time, I will provide the prototype. Do not be surprised if the following turns up, word for word, under the byline of David Brooks, Stephen Hayes, Cokie Roberts, every single writer for Salon, Gawker, National Review, Commentary and The Huffington Post. And then, of course, Fareed Zakaria will steal it.
** ** **
“J’accuse Donald Trump”
Watching the candidacy of Donald Trump, I am continually struck by his resemblance to a man who came to power in a far-off land nearly 85 years ago, a historical epic that I had naively hoped was well buried in the past.
Consider the following:
— Adolf Hitler held gigantic rallies, where he inspired millions with rousing speeches. Donald Trump holds gigantic rallies, where he inspires millions with rousing speeches.
— Adolf Hitler talked about making his country great again. Donald Trump talks about making his country great again.
— Adolf Hitler promised military victories. Donald Trump promises military victories.
— Adolf Hitler had a loyal and overweight henchman, Hermann Goering. Donald Trump has a loyal and overweight henchman, Chris Christie.
— Adolf Hitler blamed a specific group of immigrants for all the nation’s problems (Ed: Jews weren’t immigrants — Close enough!). Donald Trump blames a specific group of immigrants for all the nation’s problems.
— Adolf Hitler vowed to build a wall (Ed: Wait a minute — when did Hitler talk about a wall? Shhhh! Nevermind!) Donald Trump vows to build a wall.
— Adolf Hitler was a teetotaler. Donald Trump is a teetotaler.
— Adolf Hitler had a hobby that he enjoyed very much (painting). Donald Trump has a hobby that he enjoys very much (golf).
— Adolf Hitler had an opulent home in the city as well as a country home, “The Berghof” in Berchtesgaden. Donald Trump has an opulent home in the city as well as a country home, “Mar-a-Lago” in Palm Beach.
— Adolf Hitler was involved with a woman from Central Europe, Eva Braun. Donald Trump is married to a woman from Central Europe, Melania Knauss.
— Adolf Hitler had a pact with the Soviet Union from 1939 to 1941; Donald Trump said nice things about Russian president Vladimir Putin.
— Adolf Hitler required all non-Jewish, German civilians to greet one another with a rigid right-arm salute, while exclaiming “Heil!” or “Heil Hitler!” Donald Trump has asked audiences to promise to vote for him by raising their hands, which is the PRECISELY same thing.
— Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian; Donald Trump has never smoked.
— Adolf Hitler forcibly annexed Czechoslovakia. Donald Trump tried to merge two casinos in Atlantic City.
— Adolf Hitler invested hundreds of millions of dollars on German aviation to upgrade the Luftwaffe. Donald Trump has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in private jets.
— Adolf Hitler never had any children, but if he had, they would probably have been blond. Both of Donald Trump’s daughters are blond.
— Adolf Hitler’s favorite food was liver dumplings, a dish very similar to meatloaf. (Ed.: They’re not remotely similar. No one knows that.) Donald Trump’s favorite food is meatloaf.
— Adolf Hitler had light hair and a moustache. Donald Trump has light hair and a moustache. (This has not been definitively established, but some who knew Trump in the 1970s recall that he had a moustache, albeit a fuller, longer one.)
— One of Adolf Hitler’s idols was World War I fighter pilot Manfred von Richthofen, also known as “the Red Baron.” Donald Trump’s son is named Barron. (It’s spelled differently, but sounds the same.)
— Adolf Hitler liked Eva Braun because she was very attractive; Donald Trump’s wife, Melania, is very attractive.
— Adolf Hitler vowed to exterminate entire races; Donald Trump has vowed to exterminate ALL Mexicans and Central Americans. (Mr. Trump has yet to call for this, but if he had, it would be an amazing parallel and speak very ill of his character.)
— One of Adolf Hitler’s favorite desserts, not his No. 1 favorite, but one he enjoyed several times a year, was chocolate ice cream. Donald Trump has talked about formerly liking Oreos. (Recently, he vowed never to eat Oreos again because Nabisco moved its factories to Mexico. This does not negate his previous position on the cookie.)
— Adolf Hitler was known for erecting concentration camps – surrounded by walls to keep people out, particularly Mexicans. (Ed: That’s not true.) Donald Trump wants to build a wall.
— Allowing Adolf Hitler to come to power was a horrible mistake for an entire nation; allowing Donald Trump to come to power will be a horrible mistake for an entire nation.
In conclusion, [dramatic music plays] I have covered American politics for 30 years. For the first time in my life I am afraid for my country. Very afraid. Very, very afraid. Very, very, very afraid.
----------------- 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, Springtime for Pundits, Adolph Hitler, snark, Washington, political class, attacks on Donald TrumpTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Kerby Anderson, Contributing Author: Should the U.S. military revise their current rules of engagement? Some candidates have talked about this by lamenting that lawyers rather than officers are making too many decisions about how to fight terrorists. In a recent column, Colonel Allen West proposes new Rules of Engagement for the 21st Century Battlefield.
In the past, we understood what constituted a battlefield and appropriate rules of engagement. Much of this became confused by the time of the Vietnam War. The Viet Cong “infiltrated the civilian population and used adjoining nation-states as a base of operation.”
We find ourselves today in a similar situation with terrorists. As a Battalion Commander in Iraq, Colonel West saw how the insurgent enemy used mosques and burial grounds as assembly points as well as ammunitions and equipment staging points. They did this because they knew the limitations the military places on soldiers because of the rules of engagement.
Our enemy also knows that our troops are told not to fire until fired upon. Colonel West laments that: “it has come to the point where Islamic jihadist enemies can simply drop their weapons and walk away, knowing they will not be engaged by our forces.” Sometimes they disengage from a firefight so they can reposition within civilian areas, raising the possibility of collateral damage. And a request for additional fire support must go through rules of engagement protocols back at military headquarters.
You don’t have to have much experience with military strategy and tactics to know that current system is inefficient and ineffective. Colonel West persuasively argues that we should allow leaders on the ground (rather than lawyers) to develop common sense rules of engagement tailored to the 21st century terrorist environment. Congress and the next president must make this happen.
---------------- Kerby Anderson is a radio talk show host heard on numerous stations via the Point of View Network endorsed by Dr. Bill Smith, Editor, ARRA News Service Tags:Kerby Anderson, Viewpoints, Point of View, U.S. Military, rules of engagement, Colonel Allen West, proposes, new Rules of Engagement, 21st Century BattlefieldTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Attorney General Lynch Looks Into Prosecuting 'Climate Change Deniers'
. . . Question for AG Lynch: What Happened to "Freedom of Speech" and the "1st Amendment"?
AG Loretta Lynch testifies before the Senate Judiciary Comm.
hearing on oversight of the Justice Department / March 9th.
(Photo: Shawn Thew/EPA/Newscom via The Daily Signal)
by Hans von Spakovsky: In news that should shock and anger Americans, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that not only has she discussed internally the possibility of pursuing civil actions against so-called “climate change deniers,” but she has “referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action.”
Lynch was responding to a question from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., who urged Lynch to prosecute those who “pretend that the science of carbon emissions’ dangers is unsettled,” particularly those in the “fossil fuel industry” who supposedly have constructed a “climate denial apparatus.”
Lynch is apparently following in the footsteps of California Attorney General Kamala Harris and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, both of whom have opened up investigations of ExxonMobil for allegedly lying to the public and their shareholders about climate change.
None of the public officials involved in this abuse of the prosecutorial power of the government recognizes the outrageousness of what they are doing or are urging the FBI and the Justice Department to do. They want to investigate and prosecute corporations and individuals for their opinions on an unproven scientific theory, for which there is not a consensus, despite inaccurate claims to the contrary.
Not only does this represent a serious blow against the free flow of ideas and the vigorous debate over scientific issues that is a hallmark of an advanced, technological society like ours, but it is a fundamental violation of the First Amendment. Will the FBI’s possible investigation include going after dissenting scientists who publish articles or give speeches questioning the global climate change hypothesis?
Will legislators who engage in blasphemy by refusing to recognize a scientific theory as fact and pass legislation to reduce carbon emissions be investigated, too?
The absurdity of this would be laughable if it were not so serious and so dangerous. The very idea that the FBI, the most powerful law enforcement agency in the United States, has had a referral from the attorney general of the United State to investigate whether those who disagree with the climate change theory meet the legal “criteria for which” the Justice Department “could take action” is evocative of Franz Kafka’s chilling novel, “The Trial.”
As I have noted before, this is also reminiscent of the old Soviet Union, where Joseph Stalin persecuted those whom he thought had the “wrong” scientific views on everything from linguistics to physics. Both Lynch and Whitehouse might want to read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s book, “In the First Circle,” in which he outlined the Soviet government’s suppression of dissenting scientists and engineers.
Or perhaps General Lynch should review the Inquisition’s persecution of Galileo Galilei for disagreeing with the consensus of his time and advocating the Copernican theory of the universe.
Level-headed, objective prosecutors should not be interested in investigating or prosecuting anyone over a scientific theory that is the subject of great debate. What Lynch should have said to Whitehouse is that the duty of the U.S. Justice Department (and the FBI) is to fairly enforce the laws of the United States in a dispassionate, non-ideological manner based on the facts, not to investigate those who hold disfavored views regarding scientific controversies.
The fact that she did not do that, but instead has actually referred this issue to the FBI, should concern everyone who believes in the rule of law and fears the unbridled power of the government.
------------- Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. More ARRA News Service articles by or about Hans con Spakovsky Tags:Attorney General Lynch, cosiders, prosecuting, Climate Change deniers, Hans von Spakovsky, The Heritage Foundation, 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!
Tony Perkins, Washington Update: The White House may be interviewing possible Supreme Court nominees -- but Republicans have no plans of following suit! Despite an almost daily tongue-lashing on the floor of the U.S. Senate, GOP leaders are sticking to their guns to postpone Justice Antonin Scalia's replacement until after the election -- to the delight, it turns out, of most Americans. Apparently, Democrats are the only ones who don't want to follow their own advice and hold off on confirmation hearings.
Unlike the Left, which seems intent on ramming a nominee through the process in the twilight of Obama's term, most people would prefer to take their time on the seat and entrust the decision to the next president. Based on internal polling, they found that their position isn't just principled but popular. "The survey found almost unanimous awareness of the death of Justice Scalia, strong support for Originalist intent interpreting the Constitution and concern over President Obama appointing a liberal justice who would tip the ideological balance of the court. Amazingly, 54 percent of people surveyed "were more concerned about a liberal justice being chosen to replace Scalia, compared to the nearly 41 percent of respondents who were more worried about the seat being open for a year or more."
That's a big gap -- big enough to give Republicans the confidence they need to hold their ground. Obviously, the American people share their concerns that Obama's only interest in filling the seat is finding a lifetime surrogate on the Court.
"It's absolutely clear to me that Senate Republicans stand firmly behind the idea that the people should have a say in this critical issue... when they vote in November," Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) told his Democratic colleagues, "because [a lot of things] are at stake here." And the future of our country is one of them.
-------------- Tony Perkins' Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers. Tags:Supreme Court, nominee, GOP, SCOTUS, Justice Scalia, Tony Perkins, Washington Update, Republicans, DemocratsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Huckabee To GOP Elitists: We’re Having An Election, Not A Selection
Government Is Not God PAC: Former GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee was on with Fox Business News commentator Lou Dobbs last night discussing Mitt Romney’s sudden reemergence from his cave to attack front runner Donald Trump for President of the United States. Romney and his elitist friends are working feverishly to stop Trump from getting the nomination.
Romney, as you will recall, has failed twice to win the presidency. The last time was in 2012 when he failed to defeat Obama and we ended up with another four years of the worst president in American history.
Huckabee reminded Dobbs’ viewers that the American people are supposed to be electing a candidate, not being selected by Mitt or other elites like Karl Rove who think GOP voters are too stupid to understand the electoral process. They obviously think they are superior to the rank and file and must impose a candidate on the GOP voter.
Huckabee also was on Fox Business with Stuart Varney, Huckabee again noted that the "Establishment still doesn't understand they are the problem"
Tags:Mike Huckabee, GOP Elitists, are the problem, an election, not a selection, video, Fox Business News, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Open Borders, Palestinian Terrorist Kills U.S. Veteran, Reagan & Blue Collar Workers
by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: Democrats Demand Open Borders
When Republicans say they are going to deport all illegal immigrants, the response from the media, the left, and, sadly, even some quarters of the right is, "That's ridiculous. You're not going to deport 11 million people." (You may hear that in tonight's GOP debate.)
Well, based on their statements at last night's debate, the Democrat position now is open borders and no deportations. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders promised to go farther than Barack Obama in protecting illegal immigrants. In fact, Clinton's comments seemed to take amnesty advocate Jorge Ramos of Univision by surprise. Consider this exchange:RAMOS: "So you are telling us tonight that if you become president you won't deport children who are already here?"
CLINTON: "I will not."
RAMOS: "And that you won't deport immigrants who don't have a criminal record?"
CLINTON: "That's what I'm telling you. . . the undocumented people living in our country, I do not want to see them deported. I want to see them on a path to citizenship. [So they can vote Democrat!] That is exactly what I will do."Whatever happened to the rule of law, national sovereignty and the importance of borders?
Our response in this debate should be to ask whether we can all agree to deport one illegal immigrant. If we can agree to that, can we agree to deport 1,000? How about 50,000 out of the 11 to 15 million estimated illegal immigrants in the country?
Why shouldn't a nation that intends to remain a nation attempt to deport the maximum number of people who should not be in that nation? A nation that can't or refuses to control its borders is no longer a nation, but just a workforce masquerading as a country.
If Hillary and Bernie don't want to deport anyone, the obvious question is this: "Is there any limit at all to how many people you would allow to enter the country?" I refuse to believe successful Hispanics want their success undercut by a never-ending supply of desperate people willing to work for less.
The radical position Clinton and Sanders took last night should result in either one of them losing by large margins -- if the GOP could just end its circular firing squad.
Palestinian Terrorist Kills U.S. Veteran
Taylor Force, a 28 year-old West Point graduate and veteran of Iran and Afghanistan, was murdered Tuesday by a Palestinian terrorist. Force was in Israel on a trip sponsored by Vanderbilt University, where he was earning his MBA degree, to explore the country's thriving economic startup industry.
While strolling along a Tel Aviv boardwalk, Force was attacked by Bashar Masalha, a West Bank Palestinian. Masalha also attacked at least eleven other people before he was shot by police.
As Israelis and Americans mourn the loss of Force, the Palestinian Authority praised the murderer. Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, offered his condolences, but refused to condemn the attack. The official Fatah Facebook page posted the following statement of praise to the "martyrs":"O the pride of all of the young Palestinians, may your blood remain a source of true honor for the homeland for which you sacrificed all -- even your precious lives. We promise you that your blood will continue to be a torch that illuminates our path. . ."Moreover, official PA TV stated that, "Twelve settlers were hurt, among them an American tourist who was killed." Notice the word "settlers."
Jaffa-Tel Aviv, where Taylor was killed, is not a disputed territory. It is nowhere near the West Bank or Gaza. Claiming the Tel Aviv victims to be "settlers" reveals the radical Islamic supremacist mindset that dominates Palestinian culture, which sees all of Israel as "occupied territory" to be liberated.
This is the same Palestinian Authority that American taxpayers are subsidizing each and every year with hundreds of millions of our hard-earned tax dollars.
Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah Party are described in the media and by many politicians as "moderates."
The Obama Administration is demanding that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu make additional concessions to Abbas and the Palestinians.
This Palestinian Authority that praised the murder of an American veteran is supposed to be Israel's "peace partner." The Palestinians are not interested in peace with Israel or even a piece of Israel -- they want it all!
Reagan & Blue Collar Workers
There's a lot of commentary suggesting that the campaigns of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are being fueled in part by an uprising of blue collar workers. There certainly appears to be significant evidence to support that. Sadly, some pundits also claim that this uprising is destroying Reagan conservatism. That is absurd.
Ronald Reagan was the candidate who drew blue collar voters, along with evangelicals, to the Republican Party and transformed the governing coalition of America for decades. He didn't do it with just rhetoric; he did it with real policies.
We hear a lot about how Reagan's reduction of marginal tax rates spurred economic growth. What you don't hear much about is that Reagan doubled the personal exemption, increased the standard deduction, and tripled the earned income tax credit -- policies he hoped would greatly benefit working class families with children. The Wall Street Journal hated the proposal.
Yes, Reagan believed in free markets, but he did not hesitate to use tariffs to protect iconic American industries, like Harley-Davidson. Reagan understood that it was more than just a motorcycle company, it was a big part of the culture of blue collar America. He was endorsed by the Teamsters, which sent shockwaves through the left.
Countless blue collar workers in America had known Ronald Reagan for years as a spokesman for General Electric. He toured the country speaking at GE factories and eating with the workers. When Reagan's populist message was heard back in the corporate suites, it contributed to Reagan and GE parting ways.
Ronald Reagan was just as comfortable campaigning in a hardhat as he was in a cowboy hat. Blue collar populism isn't distorting Reagan conservatism; it was always a huge part of it.
------------- 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, democrats, Open Borders, illegals, Palestinian Terrorist, Kills U.S. Veteran, Reagan & Blue Collar WorkersTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Tom Balek, Contributing Author: America has a big problem that gets almost no attention in the media, despite the fact that it costs consumers untold billions of dollars every year, inhibits innovation and progress, and enriches lawyers who take advantage of real victims.
The USA is the only nation on earth that does not have a “loser-pay” provision built into its legal system. As a result, the production of class-action lawsuits is one of our most lucrative, if rancid, industries.
A class-action lawsuit is born when an attorney claims that a deep-pockets business or institution has harmed a large number of innocent victims by some action or failure to act, real or imagined. The plaintiff attorney has no risk; if the judge or jury decides the suit is without merit, his only cost is the loss of his time. If he wins, the financial windfall can be gargantuan. Meanwhile the defendant faces one of two miserable fates: at worst, a punishing, if not crippling, financial settlement; at best, a huge legal defense bill.
Many class-action suits are flat-out frivolous, and rely on a corporation’s (or its insurer’s) desire to quickly settle out of court rather than face a lengthy, expensive trial that may damage it’s reputation if not its financial viability. Other class-action suits are built on a genuine grievance. Unfortunately, the primary benefactors of the process are the attorneys for both sides, as their compensation comes off the top of the proceeds, leaving a pittance to be shared by a large number of victims.
It only happens here. All other nations have some variation of a “loser pays” provision, whereby the initiator of a lawsuit must pay all the costs of litigation if his claim is found baseless. It makes a litigant think twice before filing a suit that is less than genuine.
Unfortunately, we all bear the cost of this legal lemon in higher product costs, jacked-up medical bills, higher taxes, and a slowed-down economy with producers and developers unwilling to take risks. A trip to McDonald’s illustrates the absurdity, from the coffee cup labeled “Warning! Contents may be hot!” to the small blow-up Happy Meal toy marked “Warning! Do Not Use as a Flotation Device! Do not ingest!”
Our federal government agencies, seeing the success of private attorneys in this extortion racket, have developed their own version of the game. They single out a deep-pockets company and threaten it with unsurvivable fines, which can only be avoided by accepting a “consent decree” that requires some kind of behavior modification desired by the government.
Our political leaders seem fixated on a lot of small-ticket issues. If you know a congressman looking for a pretty easy policy change that promises real, immediate financial benefit for every American, here’s two words to whisper in his ear: “Loser Pays!”
--------------- 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, loser pays, what a concept, legal system, fraudulent law suits, class-action suits 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, Donald Trump, Mitt Romney, the establishment, Trump vanTo 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: Edward Snowden, the infamous American whistleblower now exiled in Russia, says the FBI's claim that it cannot decode the infamous San Bernardino terrorist's iPhone is, and I quote, "Bernie Sanders."
He used another word-set, also sporting the initials B. S.
I got confused because, though the press has been fretting endlessly about the B.S. coming from Donald Trump, the real corkers of late have come from Bernie Sanders, who seems to think that white people cannot be poor or oppressed* and that the successes of free markets elsewhere serve perfectly as excuses for Big Government interference here in America.**
Mr. Snowden, who knows a lot more about encryption and decryption than I do, has given more weight to my suspicion that the whole FBI case against Apple -- demanding that Apple create software to decrypt the company's customers' iPhones, and supply (on an allegedly case-by-case basis) the decrypted private information to the government -- is a sham.
Snowden insists that there are multiple ways to do the job.
"Other technologists have explained how the FBI could have easily accessed the phone's latest iCloud backup," a report on Snowden's judgment elaborated, "if agents working with San Bernardino County had not reset the iCloud password."
Once again, a government failure leads to another push by government to correct for its failure, burdening citizens.
In this case: folks at Apple.
Interestingly, Apple's legal defense appears to rest heavily on the First Amendment's free speech guarantees, arguing that the demanded software is value-laden speech, is literally made up of such.
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, Edward Snowden, structurally opinionated, Apple, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Republicans Deal a Blow to the IRS & Advance Agenda for a #ConfidentAmerica
by House Speaker Paul Ryan: Millions of Americans are filing their taxes this month—and getting a good reminder of why they despise the IRS. But thanks to the Republican majority in Congress, the IRS is being forced to start cleaning up its act.
When the IRS scandal broke, Congress demanded answers from the agency’s top officials. Were they targeting groups for their religious and political beliefs?
No, they said, it was just a few rogue employees in Ohio—if anything at all. Well, what happened to Lois Lerner’s emails? Oh, they were lost in a tragic hard drive crash. Shouldn’t we update our laws to prevent future abuses? Don’t worry, the IRS responded with a cavalier attitude, we’ve got it covered.
By shining sunlight on the IRS, we demonstrated that conservative groups were being targeted for abuse based on their political beliefs. Many important—and perhaps, incriminating—emails were destroyed. And no safeguards were installed to stop any of it from happening again.
It’s not as if President Barack Obama was going to demand change at the IRS. His first reaction was to blame all this on “some boneheaded decisions.”
So we took action. We didn’t just prolong the investigation. We put into place reforms to shift the balance of power back to the taxpayer.
For example, in 2011, we learned that the IRS was threatening to impose the gift tax on donors to conservative non-profits, which would have forced many of these groups to close their doors. So Congress passed a law to make it clear that these donations are exempt.
As a result of our legislation, if the IRS compromises an organization’s confidential information, it can learn exactly what happened and who is responsible. And finally, political targeting is now a firing offense.
This is the difference a Republican majority has made, but we still have much more to do.
Just weeks ago, we learned that a cyber-attack may have breached the accounts of more than 700,000 taxpayers. That’s more than double the agency’s original estimate. All Americans deserve to have confidence that they will be treated fairly by the IRS—and our work won’t stop until this is a reality.
The single best thing we can do to rein in the IRS is to fix our tax code. Instead of a tax code all of us can live by, we have a code that none of us can understand. We need to simplify the code so that it helps create jobs and raise wages. And that’s why tax reform is at the top of our agenda to restore a #ConfidentAmerica. Tags: Paul Ryan, Republicans, deal blow, IRS, advances agenda, #ConfidentAmericaTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
President Bill Clinton: Abortions should be "safe, legal and rare."
by Star Parker: The Supreme Court heard arguments last week in the Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt case, where the constitutionality of HB 2, the Texas omnibus abortion law that Gov. Rick Perry signed in 2013, is being challenged.
At issue are the new regulations that the law placed on abortion providers in Texas.
One: Facilities performing abortions must meet all standards of an "ambulatory surgical center." Two: Any physician performing an abortion must have "admitting privileges" at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic.
The motivation of the Texas legislature in passing this law, and Gov. Perry in signing it, was to improve the conditions in which abortions are performed and to better ensure the safety of women undergoing this procedure.
The renewed concern and focus on prevailing conditions under which abortions are performed followed the horrors discovered in the 2010 case of Kermit Gosnell. For years, virtually unsupervised, Gosnell operated a facility in Philadelphia that was more infanticide factory than abortion clinic.
Although Gosnell was formally convicted for the murder of three infants and for manslaughter associated with the death of one woman who was a client, testimonies from employees indicate the number of live infants murdered was in the hundreds. Formal charges could not be made for most, because of the destruction and loss of records.
One of the recommendations in the grand jury report issued on Gosnell is exactly what the Texas law enacted: "The Pennsylvania Department of Health should license abortion clinics as ambulatory surgical facilities."
Of course, sadly, it is not the Gosnell nightmare alone that has driven this latest wave of concern regarding the regulation of abortion facilities.
There is the case, for example, of Tonya Reaves, who died in 2012 as result of a botched abortion at a Planned Parenthood facility in Chicago.
According to the autopsy, Reaves bled to death. Her surviving son was awarded a $2 million settlement from Planned Parenthood, Northwestern Memorial Hospital and Northwestern Medical Faculty Foundation.
Those challenging the Texas law claim the new regulations pose an "undue burden" in providing abortions. This criterion stems from the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey case in which more latitude was given to states in regulating abortions, with proviso that an "undue burden" not be established, creating unreasonable difficulties in delivering abortions.
And indeed the questioning from the liberals on the court — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer — was aggressive in this direction. Doesn't closure of half the abortion clinics in the state following enactment of the law show that they cannot operate in the environment prescribed by the new regulations? Aren't there medical procedures, such as colonoscopies, that are more risky that are done in less regulated, and apparently less safe, circumstances?
We might recall here President Bill Clinton's stated view on abortion — that it should be "safe, legal and rare."This well describes the abortion regime now in Texas under HB 2. To repeat, the ambulatory surgical facility standard the law established is exactly what the Gosnell grand jury prescribed.
We should also keep in mind, when some start comparing colonoscopies and liposuction to abortion, that in all circumstances with abortion, we are dealing with certain death. In the best of circumstances, the mother comes out healthy, but the child winds up dead. Certainly, while abortion is legal, it should also be safe and rare.
We mislead ourselves that there is objectivity to legal language such as "undue burden." This will be understood and interpreted differently by a judge who views abortion like liposuction and a judge who views abortion as a matter of life and death.
All the more reason to support Senate Republicans' efforts to block President Obama, the most pro-abortion president in our nation's history, from appointing a court replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia and to wait until the next president takes office.
------------ Editor Recommended related article:Texas Shows The Way On Abortion
------------ Star Parker is an author and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education. CURE is a non-profit think tank that addresses issues of race and poverty through principles of faith, freedom and personal responsibility. Tags:Star Parker, Center for Urban Renewal and Education, CURE, Texas, Abortion Law, HB 2, meets, Bill Clinton's Standard, sale, legal and rareTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
The text of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) clocks in at just over 2,000 pages. It includes thirty chapters, many loaded with the same corporate handouts and regulatory overreaches that littered NAFTA's 2,000-plus pages.
America's economy cannot afford another "rigged trade" deal. Since 2000, when permanent normal trade relations with China was granted, our nation's annual gross domestic product hasn't eclipsed four percent. Since 2005, it hasn't grown by more than three percent. The U.S. market share of manufacturing exports worldwide as a percent of worldwide exported manufactures peaked in 1999 at 13.48 percent, and has been declining ever since, according to data compiled by the World Bank. By 2014, it was down to 7.45 percent.
You know what to do. Let's head over to stopbadtradedeals.org and act now by telling Congress an emphatic "No!" to any lame duck TPP! There is simply too much at stake.
It would be a slap in the face of voters if the Republican-controlled Congress were to ship millions of more jobs overseas by adopting TPP in a lame duck session of Congress after the election.
---------------- Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of Americans for Limited Government. His article was first shared on the ALG's NetRight Daily blog. Tags:Robert Romano, Americans For Limited Government, Tell Congressw, no, lame duck, trade agreement, Trans Pacific Partnership, TPPTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Hospitals & Charity Care: The Medicaid Solution That Wasn’t
by Andrew Collins: Nonprofit hospitals have made much ado about the costs of charity care provided to the poor. So when President Obama’s 2010 health law went into effect, offering states an opportunity to expand Medicaid and bring in billions of dollars in federal welfare spending, these hospitals jumped at the opportunity. They argued that adding working-age people without children or disabilities to the Medicaid rolls could curb their charity care and bad debt expenses and put them on better financial footing.
Is there reason to doubt these hospitals’ claims that Medicaid expansion is in the best interest of health care costs? Watchdog reporter Jason Hart has spent the past year and a half covering the true costs of Medicaid expansion in the states under Obamacare, and his reports on the issue show that these hospitals’ concerns are overblown. Here’s what his investigations have uncovered:
In 2013, the year when Ohio was considering expanding Medicaid, nonprofit hospitals profited to the tune of $2.8 billion. Some of the larger institutions posted nonprofit profits of hundreds of millions of dollars. Charity care costs represented just 2.4 percent of their expenses – meaning that most nonprofit hospitals would have ended up in the black with millions of dollars to spare even if they had no funding for their charity care. Despite the manageable costs, however, they still lobbied for Medicaid expansion.
A Watchdog review of Kentucky’s nonprofit hospitals, which provide health care whether or not a patient has the ability to pay, found that just as in Ohio, charity care costs represent a very small portion of total expenses. The 2012-13 financials of of 37 nonprofit members of the Kentucky Hospital Association show that just 3.3 percent of their costs go to charity care. That figure was even smaller than other areas of uncompensated care such as unreimbursed Medicaid and bad debt from when patients don’t pay their bills. Those costs amounted to 3.5 percent and 7.3 percent, respectively, of hospitals’ total expenses.
Kentucky has since expanded Medicaid through Obamacare, but it is having some unexpected results. “While charity care has declined due to people gaining Medicaid coverage, uncompensated are is far more than just charity care,” wrote the KHA in a report last April. That report found that expanding Medicaid has actually increased nonprofit hospitals’ costs for unreimbursed Medicaid, because the program underpays for services.
Rhetoric over Medicaid expansion has clashed with reality in the Hoosier state, especially when it comes to nonprofit hospitals’ fuss about charity care expenses. A Watchdog analysis of 31 nonprofit members of the Indiana Hospital Association (similar to the analyses cited earlier in this piece) found that charity care costs amounted to just 3.2 percent for the year when IHA was advocating for Medicaid expansion through Obamacare. Just as in Kentucky, this was the smallest portion of uncompensated care costs for IHA members. Unreimbursed Medicaid averaged 4.9 percent of total revenue, and bad debt expenses averaged 5 percent.
Indiana’s Republican Gov. Mike Pence has embraced Obamacare’s expansion plan, but talking points from the Expand Indiana Coverage Campaign neglect to mention that unreimbursed Medicaid, which will surely grow with an expansion of the program, is actually a bigger part of the problem than charity care costs.
The fourth installment of Hart’s investigations into the costs of uncompensated care focuses on Wyoming, where hospitals (again!) want the state to expand Medicaid under Obamacare. A study last year by the Wyoming Legislative Service Office (LSO) found that charity care costs only amounted to a mere 7 percent of uncompensated care costs, versus a whopping 33 percent for bad debt and 14 percent for Medicaid underpayments. Expanding Medicaid would almost certainly push those percentages even higher as an estimated 17,600 more adults would join the program.
Charity care and other uncompensated costs haven’t stopped nonprofit hospitals in the Old Dominion from staying in the black. Watchdog’s review of a 2012-23 financials report found that 88 percent of the 25 nonprofit members of Virginia Hospital & Healthcare Association turned in the nonprofit version of a profit, averaging $30 million more in revenue than expenses. Charity care costs at these hospitals averaged only 4.7 percent – less than the combined expenses of unreimbursed Medicaid (2.7 percent) and bad debt (4.1 percent). Like the other states menionted here, the hospitals want Virginia to opt in to Medicaid expansion through Obamacare.
Without the expansion, however, it appears they are doing just fine. As Mike Thompson, president of Virginia’s free-market Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, told Watchdog.org, “These guys cry wolf just a little too often. Overall the hospital industry is making good profit.”
Michigan has come under national scrutiny for a number of big problems, but charity care costs are not one of them. According to a Watchdog survey of 66 nonprofit members of the Michigan Health & Hospital Association, charity costs averaged just 1.4 percent of nonprofit total expenses. Unreimbursed Medicaid and and bad debt costs were both much higher, at 3.4 and 5.5 percent respectively. Altogether, these hospitals averaged $7.8 million more in revenue than in expenses.
by Michelle Malkin: Brace yourselves, parents: Hillary Clinton's Fed Ed jackboot squad is from the government and is here to "help."
Clinton wants a cadre of new government educrats to undo the decades-old damage of old government educrats in America's worst public schools. She pitched her creepy proposal at the Democratic presidential debate in Michigan on Sunday for an "education SWAT team" to swarm down and rescue students from failing districts in decrepit cities such as Detroit (run by whom? Oh, yeah. Democrats!).
"I want to set-up inside the Department of Education, for want of a better term, kind of an education SWAT team, if you will," Clinton explained in a bizarre, semi-blaccent, "where we've got qualified people, teachers, principals, maybe folks who are retired, maybe folks who are active, but all of whom are willing to come and help."
Clinton's SWAT team solution, you should know, is like all her other authoritarian plans: a moldy, recycled oldie. In fact, the U.S. Department of Education already has a real military-like enforcement division housed in its Office of the Inspector General -- and armed with its own arsenal of Remington pump-action shotguns and Glock pistols.
As usual, Big Sis's brilliant idea to fix the schools boils down to throwing yet more money down the sinkhole. According to the latest data, America spent more than $600 billion to fund K-12 education in 2011, mostly from state and local taxes. Last year, the feds allocated an estimated $154 billion on education, with a large chunk going to Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act State Grants, and the Pell Grant program for college students.
Washington already spends more per student (nearly $13,000 per pupil) in both primary and secondary education than any other of the 34 wealthiest countries in the world except for Austria, Luxembourg, Norway and Switzerland, according to analysis of data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Under the Bush administration, the No Child Left Behind behemoth authorized $23 billion a year on intrusive and ineffective federal testing and accountability mandates.
Under the Obama administration, the feds threw $4 billion into the "Race to the Top" racket, $10 billion into an Education Jobs Fund for teachers unions, and $100 billion in pork-stuffed stimulus funding for school programs and initiatives administered by the U.S. Department of Education.
Detroit Public Schools, plagued by massive deficits, financial mismanagement and graft, collected a whopping $530 million of that stimulus slush fund -- nearly $50 million of which went to a technology boondoggle that provided 40,000 Asus laptops to students and teachers despite little evidence nationwide that such programs do anything to raise student achievement.
States are spending upwards of $10 billion to implement the bipartisan Common Core racket of testing, textbooks and technology. That's on top of the pre-existing $700 million spent by schools nationwide on other standardized tests and assessments and the $24 billion in annual spending required by the NCLB successor, the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act.
Mo' money has only produced mo' problems. American test scores are still abysmal. One in 10 high schools remains a dropout factory. Highly touted improvements in graduation rates, such as those in Alabama, were achieved by abandoning requirements that students pass a high school exit exam.
Detroit's schools, swimming in $3.5 billion of accumulated debt, face bankruptcy in April. The district is now under FBI investigation for a vendor kickback scheme involving the very kind of "experts" -- entrenched teachers, self-serving principals, and profligate school officials -- whom Clinton would enlist to rescue the schools they are guilty of plundering.
It's government SWAT team business as usual: Destroying the village to "save" it.
------------------ Michelle Malkin is mother, wife, blogger, conservative syndicated columnist, and author. She shares many of her articles and thoughts at MichelleMalkin.com. She previously shared this on TownHall.com Tags:Michelle Malkin, Hillary Clinton, Federal education, jackbood, government educratsTo 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: The Results: Democrats
Bernie Sanders stunned the pundits and proved the pollsters wrong yesterday. The last poll before the Michigan primary gave Hillary Clinton a whopping 27-point lead. But Sanders' voters ignored the polls and gave him a 50% to 48% victory over Hillary. One commentator said the Michigan polling was "among the greatest polling errors in primary history."
But Mrs. Clinton had some good news, too. She won the Mississippi primary by a lopsided margin of 83% to 17%.
The Results: Republicans
Donald Trump carried three of four states last night -- Hawaii, Michigan and Mississippi. Sen. Ted Cruz won Idaho and finished second in the other contests.
Clearly, Mr. Trump is still in the driver's seat, and Cruz is still the only viable alternative to the front-runner. That is the bottom line from a purely objective political analysis. In fact, Michigan voters were asked in one exit poll how they would have voted if their only choices were Trump and Cruz. The results: 46% Cruz, 37% Trump.
Of course, the bigger story is the revolt of Blue Collar America. Not only is the Republican Party feeling the sting, but Hillary Clinton got whacked, too.
There is increasing speculation about whether Donald Trump's appeal to blue collar voters could alter the political landscape. For example, if Democrats carry Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin this year, as they have in recent elections, they will own the White House for another four years.
If Republicans carry just Ohio there is a chance they could eke out a narrow victory, as George W. Bush did, and regain the White House. But if the Republican nominee carries Ohio as well as Michigan or Pennsylvania or Wisconsin, the GOP would most likely win the White House in an earthshattering political realignment.
If a good friend or family member cheats you or sells you out to an enemy, that betrayal generates powerful raw emotions and anger. When your friend turns his back on you, it stings and you want to do something about it. I mention this psychological point because, once again, there is exit poll data that should shake the governing and donor class of the Republican Party to its very core.
According to CNN 58% of Republican primary voters in Michigan said they felt "betrayed" by the Republican Party. That's astonishing! And the result has been high in every state where the question has been asked.
Everyone is celebrating the higher turnout in the primaries this year. Voting in Michigan broke a 40-year record. Some precincts ran out of ballots. But is the high turnout evidence of excitement in the GOP? Or is it evidence of the grassroots trying to teach the establishment a lesson?
The results speak volumes: Donald Trump is first and Ted Cruz is second. Just look at their combined totals from last night. Together, Trump and Cruz took:
62% of the vote in Michigan, 73% of the vote in Idaho, 75% of the vote in Hawaii and 83% of the vote in Mississippi.
The voters who feel betrayed include a significant percentage of evangelicals, who don't think the party seriously fought to defend their values, from life to marriage and now religious liberty.
There are Tea Party movement advocates too, who thought the party was serious about limiting the size and scope of government.
And, most notably, blue collar families whose angst and discontent rest on two pillars -- one is culture and the other economic.
Angst & Discontent
If you live in the elegant neighborhoods of our nation's capital, have a penthouse in Manhattan or shop along Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, life is good. You may have eaten recently at a Moroccan restaurant and you're struggling to decide whether to take in Indian or Thai Friday night.
But if you're living in the downscale precincts of many Rust Belt states, going out to eat on Friday night means pulling into a Wendy's drive-thru.
When these folks hear politicians talking about immigrant success stories, it is like rubbing salt in an open wound. They are worried about whether their native-born sons and daughters will be able even to go to college.
For years, lots of these people voted for conventional Republicans because on issues of national security, patriotism and respect for traditional values, they were no longer at home in a left-wing, UN-loving Democrat party.
But their personal fortunes have sunk lower and lower. And while they are reading headlines about the current economic recovery, they are nowhere close to being back to where they were in 2008.
The Democrats offer them socialism and class warfare. By and large these are decent men and women and they don't like either. But they search in vain for a Republican economic agenda that can give them hope for the future.
The great majority of them are not going to be entrepreneurs. They are going to work for someone else. And the GOP all too often sounds like the party of their bosses, not their co-workers.
Whatever happens this year, the Republican Party has to rethink its kneejerk support for whatever trade deal comes down the pike. Republican candidates could add more stops at factories instead of just the local Chamber of Commerce.
Speaker Ryan could help a lot by including an item or two on his economic agenda that might have some resonance with voters Republicans might get, instead of ones they likely cannot.
------------- 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, Results, Democrats, Republicans, Betrayed, Republican Party, Angst, DiscontentTo 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.