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: email@example.com (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home Page
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato
Friday, May 13, 2016
Thirty-Eight: The Number That Should Define Hillary
by Newt Gingrich: Last fall, Hillary Clinton took a question from a young girl at one of her rallies, who just happened to be sitting in a reserved seat in the front row. Spontaneously, the girl asked Hillary about one of her signature issues. “Do you think when you are president,” she asked, “you’ll be paid as much as if you were male?”
Clinton’s beaming response, captured from multiple camera angles, later became a television ad in which she promised to “do everything [she] can do make sure every woman in every job gets paid the same as the men.”
The display reflected how central Clinton has made the issue of pay equity to her campaign, in which she is attempting to portray Republicans as somehow opposed to equality for women.
In fact, demanding “equal pay” laws (which are supposedly intended to ban discrimination that is already illegal) is a longtime theme for Clinton. In 2014, she tweeted “20 years ago, women made 72 cents on the dollar to men. Today it’s still just 77 cents. More work to do. #EqualPay #NoCeilings”.
During her time in the Senate, Clinton spoke about the issue frequently, even though, by the standards of measurement she wants to apply to others, she paid women just 72 cents on the dollar compared to men. That is to say, if you add up every dollar her office paid to women and every dollar paid to men, without regard to career experience, job responsibility, or life circumstances, she paid women only 72 percent of what she paid her male staffers on average.
This week, the Daily Caller revealed that Clinton’s own habit of perpetuating pay injustice wasn’t limited to her Senate office. It extended to the highest levels of the mammoth foundation under her family’s control, the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
The Daily Caller analysis found that out of 11 senior executives at the Clinton Foundation–eight men compared to just three women–all of the men made more than $200,000, while only one woman earned that amount.
The Foundation’s executive director, Stephanie Streett, made $169,000, while the two other female executives made $183,000 and $201,000.
Compare that to the male executives, such as Frederic Poust, Director of Sponsors and Marketing, who made $484,000, or Chairman Bruce Lindsey, who made $394,000.
In all the women senior executives at the Clinton Foundation made just 38 percent on average of what the Clintons paid male senior executives.
That number, 38 percent, should stick with Clinton throughout the campaign. Every voter should be reminded of it every time Hillary accuses Republicans of defending “discrimination”. If she wants to make pay equity a central issue of her campaign, she owes Americans an explanation of why there was such a disparity in the pay of senior executives at her own foundation.
After all, how can Hillary promise to “do everything she can” to impose her crude standards of equal pay on American businesses on when she doesn’t even apply them to women she personally employs?
If the past is any guide, she’ll do it the same way she runs against the influence of Wall Street billionaires while aggressively soliciting their money, the same way she touts her national security expertise after exposing our secrets to foreign governments through her private server, and the same way she advocates for stricter gun control while she personally has been protected by armed guards since 1983.
With stunning hypocrisy.
---------------------- Newt Gingrich is a former Georgia Congressman and Speaker of the U.S. House. He co-authored and was the chief architect of the "Contract with America" and a major leader in the Republican victory in the 1994 congressional elections. He is noted speaker and writer. The above commentary was shared via Gingrich Productions. Tags:Newt Gingrich, Hillary Clinton, The Number 38%, women, wage discrimination, The Clinton FoundationTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Every Rape Victim Deserves To Be Heard -- Except By Hillary Clinton
by Ann Coulter: In a campaign built on lies, it should not be a surprise that the central theme of Hillary's campaign is the biggest lie of all.
Someday, it will be the subject for a graduate thesis whether reporters who were in diapers when Bill Clinton was president simply don't know the truth or, in their zeal to see Hillary elected, are obscuring the truth.
The media portray Bill Clinton as a lovable scamp, a good ol' Southern boy who just liked to have sex in the back of his pickup. In fact, according to numerous independent accounts, he was a sexual abuser and, the overwhelming evidence shows, a violent rapist.
While we would normally extend our sympathy to his wife, Hillary has forfeited those claims by actively conspiring with him to cover up his sexual assaults and smear the victims, showing absolutely no compunction about destroying women whose stories she knew to be true.
Because Donald Trump is reminding people about Hillary's brutal rise to power, liberals denounce him for using the "sex scandals of the 1990s" against her. But recall that it was Hillary who used the "sex scandals of the 1990s" to launch her entire political career.
A few weeks ago, Trump stirred up feminists by questioning whether Clinton is the most qualified woman who's ever walked the planet, by saying, "Frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don't think she'd get 5 percent of the vote."
Of course this is true. Trump wasn't talking about Sen. Dianne Feinstein. He wasn't talking about Sens. Claire McCaskill or Elizabeth Warren. Those women climbed the political ladder on their own. Can you even name any of their husbands?
By contrast, Hillary got her positions by virtue of being married to the president, who cheated on her. She played the victim, and suddenly the rest of the world owed her.
Being married to the president did not make for an auspicious beginning to Hillary's career in politics. She was a grumpy, unpopular first lady, was given control of a health care task force, did a terrible job, and was going absolutely nowhere, when her husband -- the president -- got caught fooling around with a White House intern, and then committed felony obstruction of justice to cover it up.
Hillary parlayed being the wronged wife into a Senate seat from New York, which was basically an appointed position (she ran against a little-known Republican congressman in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-to-1); and secretary of state, an actual appointed position.
This isn't about private affairs, the internal dynamic of the Clintons' marriage or a wronged wife. No one cares about the Clintons' marriage, least of all the Clintons. In addition to being vastly too byzantine to unravel, Bill's philandering might affect what we think of him as a husband and father, but it doesn't reflect one iota on Hillary Clinton.
But to say Hillary is an innocent victim would be incorrect. The overwhelming evidence is that her husband committed repeated predatory sexual acts, in some cases violently, Hillary knew that, and she helped him by muddying up his accusers.
The media worked hand-in-glove with the Clintons' enablers, Betsy Wright and (future objective journalist) George Stephanopoulos, to conceal Bill's "bimbo eruptions" -- as the campaign called them -- as long as they could. But when Paula Jones sued President Clinton for sexual harassment under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, his treatment of other women became relevant evidence in her case.
That's when the floodgates opened.
Jones alleged that, when she was an employee of the state of Arkansas, Governor Clinton had state troopers bring her to his hotel room, where he proceeded to drop his pants and tell her to "kiss it" -- then warned her that he knew her boss.
Either voluntarily or by legal compulsion, a slew of women attested to sexual encounters with Bill Clinton -- Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers, Dolly Kyle Browning, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Sally Perdue, Monica Lewinsky, and several dozen cocktail waitresses along the interstate corridor between Little Rock and Washington. Many more told their stories, but said they were afraid to use their names.
Highly credible women who don't know one another have given convincing accounts of Clinton's unwanted sexual attentions, from groping, to flashing to violent rape. Juanita Broaddrick's rape allegation convinced NBC News. It also convinced congressmen, who read her testimony, that they should reverse their positions and vote to impeach Clinton.
Hillary knew what her husband was doing and yet, over and over again, she helped him cover it up and destroy the women, portraying them as stalkers, blackmailers and loons. As one of Bill's mistresses, former Miss Arkansas Sally Perdue, told the Daily Mail (U.K.), Hillary has a "vengeful, spiteful ugliness ... And she's championing women's causes?"
This patron saint of victims made it her business to inflict more harm on Bill's marks, specific examples of which will be covered in a future column.
Until then, know that when journalists talk about Bill Clinton's "sexual peccadilloes" and refer to Hillary as a "victim," that's not remotely what it was. He was a sexual predator and she was his willing co-conspirator.
----------------- 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. Tags:Ann Coulter, Clinton, sex scandals, Hillary Clinton, Bill ClintonTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Obama's Culture War, Civil Rights Charade, Holding Kids Hostage, What Congress Could Do
by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: Obama's Culture War - The economy is stagnant. ISIS continues its genocide. But the Obama Administration has the time to launch another blitz in its ongoing war against our Judeo-Christian culture.
Having successfully redefined marriage, the left is now trying to force its radical agenda into the schools and on our children. When conservatives warned that would happen, we were mocked. Well, here we are.
It started last year in the Washington, D.C., suburbs of northern Virginia, where a left-leaning school board willingly complied.
Then Obama's bureaucrats moved closer to the American heartland. There was resistance in Illinois, but there was virtually no resistance from leaders in Congress.
Then the radicals went after the entire state of North Carolina. In the face of this federal assault, many congressional Republicans oddly retreated to the fallback position of saying it was "a state matter." Don't they get that Obama is refusing to allow it to be a state matter?
So after witnessing one retreat after another, the Obama Administration today issued a "guidance" letter to every single school district in the entire country, telling them that they must accommodate boys who want to use girls' bathrooms and locker rooms and vice versa. War on women and girls, anyone?
According to the New York Times, the letter "does not have the force of law, but it contains an implicit threat: Schools that do not abide by the Obama administration's interpretation of the law could face lawsuits or a loss of federal aid."
What you are witnessing is what happens when one side essentially declares a unilateral surrender in the culture war, while the other side behaves like a juggernaut determined to make America into something utterly unrecognizable.
Civil Rights Charade - It was sickening to see an African American attorney general standing before reporters at a press conference comparing this cultural jihad to the civil rights movement. According to Attorney General Lynch, the desire of parents to make sure that boys stay out of their daughters' bathrooms is equivalent to the disgusting discrimination that forced blacks to use separate bathrooms.
Surely there are elected officials willing to point out the difference.
Segregating bathrooms based on race is bigotry because it is completely irrational. The color of the person's skin in the stall next to you has absolutely nothing to do with the function of the bathroom or your sense of modesty or propriety.
But having someone else in the bathroom with you of the opposite sex is a very different matter. That is the whole purpose of men's restrooms and women's restrooms -- so we have privacy.
The attorney general said she will not allow someone's discomfort to prevent people from enjoying their full civil rights. But the entire transgender argument is based on the claim that transgendered individuals are uncomfortable using a bathroom that matches their birth gender.
So in order to accommodate their discomfort, the federal government is now forcing the other 99.999% of the population to be uncomfortable.
It is heartbreaking to see the civil rights movement reduced to such a charade.
A movement that began with the noble purpose of ensuring that children got an equal education, that a black woman could sit at the front of the bus, has been pulled into a crusade that insists boys should be allowed to shower with girls if the boys claim they are girls.
When it comes to crime, the progressive left sides with criminals over victims. When it comes to schools, it sides with incompetent teachers over children. The Reverend Martin Luther King's noble cause has been turned into left-wing social engineering.
Holding Kids Hostage - My friends, I have to reiterate that when the Obama Administration threatens to withhold federal funds from public schools, it is threatening poor and minority students. Most federal education programs are heavily weighted toward students at risk and in need.
So let's be absolutely clear about this: Obama is holding poor and minority children hostage to satisfy the demands of urban homosexuals and their transgender allies!
And we can't win this fight? Are we even going to try?
Some people have said to me, "Gary, I agree with you, but what are we supposed to do? Check birth certificates at the bathroom door?" This completely misses the point.
In the left's wacky world, gender is a state of mind, not your genetic or physical characteristics. When a 14 year-old boy walks into the girls' locker room, all he has to say is, "I feel like a girl," and he will have the full weight of the federal government standing with him against your daughter. There is no way to prove the boy is not transgendered.
What Congress Could Do - Yesterday, I praised Speaker Paul Ryan for how he handled his meeting with Donald Trump over his concerns about conservative principles. Could the GOP leadership now apply those conservative principles to stop Barack Obama?
If they are not happy with the results of the primaries, they should blame themselves. In my opinion, much of what led to Trump's victory comes down to one thing: Many conservatives have seen no results from electing Republicans, so they opted for something different.
Will the Republican leadership in Congress do ANYTHING about this latest Obama outrage?
I'm not suggesting they shut down the federal government. But here's just one idea: Speaker Ryan and Senate Majority Leader McConnell could send a letter to every school district in America, just as the Obama Administration has done. Here's how it might read:"Dear Principals and Superintendents:
Congressional leaders are outraged that federal bureaucrats are trying to mandate local bathroom policies. The threat to withhold critical taxpayer dollars from at-risk students is unconscionable. Moreover, we believe it exceeds the federal government's authority.
We urge you to resist these unreasonable demands that defy common sense. Should the government press its case, we will go into the courts with you to defend you.
In the meantime, we will be holding hearings to draw public attention to this issue. We are also drafting legislation to reduce the budgets and the authority of the rogue agencies involved.
Lastly, we assure you that if we control the White House and Congress in 2017, this policy will be immediately reversed."Really, would that be so hard?
------------- 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, Obama's Culture War, Civil Rights Charade, School Bathrooms, Holding Kids Hostage, What Congress Could DoTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
'The First Time The Senate Has Approved A Stand-Alone Bill To Fund Energy And Water Programs Since 2009'
SEN. MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): “The Energy and Water Appropriations bill is important for American energy, for American waterways and ports, and for American commerce and safety… This is a good bill for Kentuckians and for our country. By returning to regular order, we’ve opened up the process and empowered all Senators to have more of a say in the appropriations process. The progress we’ve seen already is encouraging. It shows what’s possible when the Senate under a new majority gets back to a productive legislative process.” (Sen. McConnell, Press Release, 5/12/16)
‘The Earliest The Senate Has Passed An Appropriations Bill In The Last 40 Years’
SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER (R-TN): “This bill… invests in our waterways. It repairs our locks. It deepens our harbors. It puts us one step closer to doubling basic energy research. It helps to resolve the nuclear waste stalemate that our country has been in for 25 years, finding appropriate places to put used nuclear fuel so we can continue to have a strong nuclear power program—which produces 60 percent of all the carbon-free electricity we have in this country—and it cleans up hazardous materials at Cold War sites. … We have processed 21 amendments and have adopted 14. Almost any Senator who had a contribution to make that they wanted to make to this bill has had a chance to do that. There is a great deal included in here that every Senator can be proud of.” (Sen. Alexander, Congressional Record, S.2729, 5/12/16)
SEN. DIANE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): “I think we have accomplished a task which hopefully sets an example for other bills that will be shortly forthcoming. But, more importantly than anything, it is really the integrity, sincerity, and earnestness with which you go about this job of chairing this subcommittee. I am very pleased to be Tonto to your Lone Ranger.” (Sen. Feinstein, Congressional Record, S.2730, 5/12/16)
ALEXANDER: ‘This is … the earliest the Senate has passed an appropriations bill in the last 40 years.’ “According to the Congressional Research Service, this is the earliest date the Senate has begun debating an appropriations bill in the last 40 years. When we finish today, this will be the earliest the Senate has passed an appropriations bill in the last 40 years.” (Sen. Alexander, Congressional Record, S.2729, 5/12/16)
“Supporters said the measure would strengthen U.S. nuclear deterrence, promote energy security and improve flood-control projects nationwide. The legislation includes a pilot program to allow storage of nuclear waste at private facilities, such as one proposed in western Texas.” (“Senate Approves $37.5B Measure To Fund Energy, Water,” AP, 5/12/16)
‘Senate Quickly Kicked Off Its Second Round Of Appropriations With A Dual Transportation-HUD And Military Construction-VA Package’
SEN. MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY):“We will [next] turn to transportation, which is chaired by the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, and military construction, chaired by Senator Kirk. We are going to bind those two together and move them across the floor.” (Sen. McConnell, Congressional Record, S.2731, 5/12/16)
SEN. MARK KIRK (R-IL): “[W]e are bringing up the MILCON-VA appropriations bill today, and I urge its adoption. This year the MILCON-VA bill was the first appropriations bill... We are so proud that we have crafted this bill in an open and collegial way... This bipartisan bill was adopted unanimously by a vote of 30 to 0 in the full Appropriations Committee.” (Sen. Kirk, Congressional Record, S. 2736, 5/12/2016) Tags:U.S. Senate, stand alone bill, funds, Energy & Water Programs, important first step,To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Dinesh D'souza: Confronting The Left's Cultural Monopoly
Conservative filmmaker discusses his new movie, "Hillary's America."
by David Horowitz, Contributing Author: Below are the video and transcript to Dinesh D'Souza's lecture at the David Horowitz Freedom Center's 2016 West Coast Retreat. The event was held April 8-10 at the Terranea Resort in Palos Verdes, CA.
Dinesh D'Souza: This has been a quite eventful year for me. I just got married a couple of weeks ago, by the way. Thank you. And my wife, Debbie, is here. I had actually asked her – she's a singer -- and I'd asked her if she'd sing before I spoke, but she said, "No, I've actually got a better offer. I'm going to be singing tonight at dinner." So she's obviously getting a bit too big for her boots, but she'll be performing tonight, and you'll have a chance to hear her and I hope meet her.
It's been eventful for me in other ways. As some of you know, I completed eight months of overnight penance in a confinement center for my sins against the campaign finance laws. Now, I don't want to go into all that, but I just want to say it's taught me a couple of things I want to begin with. The first thing I realized is that it got me to think hard about the issue of justice because if we think about it, modern liberalism and particularly the Democratic Party, builds its whole argument on the basis of justice. Very often we, as Republicans or as conservatives or as libertarians, we appeal to a rival principle. And that principle is freedom. And so we get into this political struggle, and we play the king, freedom, but then they play the ace, justice, and then they win the hand. Why? Because justice is actually the primary virtue of any society. Freedom does not trump it.
In fact, in some sense, freedom is subordinate to justice. Why? Because freedom is a principle that has a good and a bad side. In other words, we can always think of reasonable deprivations of freedom. People are deprived of freedom all the time, not just kids but adults. But there is no such thing as good injustice. Injustice is always bad. And also, injustice makes the blood boil in a way that deprivations of freedom don't.
So the reason I say this is because it seems to me that conceding the issue of justice to the Democrats, to the left, is a very dangerous political strategy. I, of course, got my own taste of this in the peculiar field of criminal justice. And of course, did I exceed the campaign finance law? Yes, I did. But right at the same time my case was migrating through the courts, another guy, another Asian Indian guy named Chuck Wall – we Asian Indians appear to specialize in the campaign finance violation area. Well, in any event, this dude gave $180,000.00 in straw donations to Hillary Clinton and a whole slew of Democrats – by the way, I gave $20,000.00 over the limit. I got eight months of confinement in this center that's under the bureau of prisons of the Obama Administration. Chuck Wall got nothing. He got a fine and some community service. No prison, no confinement. So obviously, justice isn't just a matter of "you break the law," but was the penalty proportioned to the crime? Did other guys who did the same thing get roughly the same penalty?
In any event, I find myself in this remarkable confinement center, which, by the way, is not kind of a white collar prison. It's, in some ways, worse because in white collar prison, it's basically mayors and dentists and doctors who defrauded Medicare, and I'm told they have an activities director. But a confinement center is a transition point for all criminals to go back to society. And so, if you did attempted murder and served 15 years or you were a drug smuggler or a coyote, you go to the confinement center before you go back to the street. So I had the whole gamut of hoodlums for about eight months. And initially, it was, I have to admit, a little bit of a terrifying experience because it was primarily Hispanic; it's on the Mexican border. A lot of these guys are in groups and gangs, and the gang structure is kind of byzantine because even among the Mexicans, who are the majority, there are the U.S. Mexicans, who are called south-siders; there are the Mexicans from Mexico. So I thought to myself, I can't talk to this guy; that guy's going to want to kill me. So I kept to myself. I considered, but rejected, the idea of starting my own gang, the Asian Indian gang.
But after a couple of months, I thought to myself, look, I can't do this. I need a different approach because I'm a conservative in a place where conservatives rarely go. I mean, I'm not going to walk down the confinement center and run into George Will or Charles Krauthammer. It's kind of a unique spot. I'm an anthropologist in a strange land. So let me investigate, and so I began to talk to people. And eight months later, I must say, I've learned a lot about what I'm going to call the ideology of the criminal underclass. The ideology of the criminal underclass I previously was kind of unfamiliar with. I mainly got my ideas on the subject from the Shawshank Redemption. So I expected most of these guys to vehemently insist on their own innocence. But I discovered, in getting to know them, that most of these guys have a different view, a rather more nuanced and somewhat more interesting view. And that view is that we did it. We're guilty. But we are the small fry. We are actually the stupid criminals because that's why we're here; we got caught. The big fry never get caught. The big fry are at large and the system doesn't go after them because, as it turns out, they run the system.
Now, this got me scratching my head because one thing I realized is that this ideology, if you call it – by the way, by no means unique to the criminal class. It's also the ideology of the philosopher Machiavelli. Writing about the ancients, Machiavelli says that their mistake is that they focus on imagined powers and principalities, which have never in truth been known to exist. In other words, what Machiavelli's saying is we focus on the world as it ought to be. And this is also a political debate: things ought to be this way, they ought to be that way. But Machiavelli's point is, let's look at the world as it actually is. Let's look at the world in the face straight on. And that's a perspective that I had not fully comprehended before, and here's what I mean by that.
I have tended, as most conservatives, most of us who are in the conservative intellectual class, we look at American politics as a debate. It's a debate between two sides, and these two sides have rival ideologies, and they stand for one thing, and we stand for another thing. And we believe in freedom and they believe in social justice. And we believe in equality of rights and they believe in equality of outcomes and blah, blah, blah. Now, the ideology of the criminals is that this whole way of looking at the world is nonsense. People aren't motivated in reality by debates. People are actually motivated by things like avarice and lust and hatred and revenge and fear, and that those are the real motives of human existence, and those are the real motives of politics. And so politics must be understood that way. And so I began to think about Obama and about Hillary and about what's going on in American politics.
And again, we're always trying to educate the other side. We have all kinds of conferences. This is all part of what can be called the ongoing Obama education project. We're trying to show Obama the way the world really is. "Hey, Obama, we want to remind you that Vladimir Putin used to be a KGB officer." "Hey, Obama, if the Iranian mullahs say they want to build a bomb, they probably do." "Hey, Obama, confiscatory tax rates are not good for economic growth." Well, this elaborate educational project has now been going on for eight years with what can only be described as hopeless results. Obama is an unbelievably slow learner. Why? Not because he's a dummy, no; because he's about something else. Something else is going on. And I want to try to put my finger on what that is. In a sense what I wanted to argue is that the progressives – one reason we look at foreign policy -- they don't understand this, they don't understand that. Well, why not? Why don't they understand this? Why wouldn't Hillary take the Benghazi phone calls? Why did she set up a private server? How do we explain the underlying rationale for why intelligent people would do these things?
I want to argue or suggest – and I argue the case more fully in my book – that the progressives are about a very serious business, and that is the business of stealing America. Stealing America. Now what does that mean? Does that mean take over the federal government, the $3 trillion of the U.S. economy? No. Does it mean taking over the entire economy? $17 or $19 trillion of wealth? No. Think about what is the most valuable thing that the world has ever produced. Is it the telegraph? Is it the automobile? Is it the airplane? The computer? No. The most valuable thing – I'm not talking about an idea. I'm talking about an actual thing – that the world has ever produced is the United States of America. The entire wealth of the whole country, all the land and all the stuff and all the money in all your bank accounts and all in your savings accounts and all the furniture in your home and your TV, add it all up. It's about $75 trillion. That is the biggest stash of dough ever accumulated in world history. And naturally, thieves are extremely interested.
Now, in my view, what's going on in America today is there is a vicious battle between two groups of people for control of that wealth. By the way, the progressives aren't about – they aren't socialists. If you really think about it, they're way too lazy to be socialists because a socialist is about the government controlling the means of production. It's about the government going and drilling for oil in Midland, Texas. You think Bernie Sanders wants to drill for oil in Midland, Texas? No! He wants the people in Midland to drill the oil, and then put it into barrels and then label it, and then he wants to step in and control what happens to it. So what's going on is that we have wealth created in America and we have a sly, clever, powerful group of people -- not all of them in politics, some of them in the media, some of them in academia -- and they want to get their hands on that wealth. They want to control it. They want your wealth. They don't just want to raise your tax rate from 39 percent to 42. They want to take your stuff. All of it.
Now, I want to pivot because I want to talk a little bit about our situation. We often in conferences talk about what's the problem, but we don't focus on what actually can be done. What can I do? What can you do to frontally attack this problem? And I want to say a little word about that. We're obviously in an election year, and a great deal hinges on the election. But I remember two years ago, a great deal hinged on the midterm election and lots of people would say to me, "Well, what do you think? The Republicans are going to take the Senate." Well, the Republicans took the Senate, control both the House and the Senate, and not a whole lot changed. Well, why not? Well because Boehner's a wimp and McConnell's a wimp. But why are they wimps? Do they want Obama to succeed? In my view, no. They're wimps because they're terrified of the media. They know that the media can destroy them. And I don't just mean expose them. I mean, comedians will ridicule them, and they will become laughing stocks, and then they won't even be invited by David Horowitz to speak at his conference. Our own side will bury them. They know that. Another way of saying it is, I'm saying that while we have -- and David is by no means guilty of this; he's been part of the solution here -- but most conservatives focus on the election in a huddle in one corner of the battlefield. And the left has taken over the powerful, I won't just say "institutions" of our culture. They've taken over all the big megaphones. So Hollywood is a huge megaphone. Broadway is a pretty big megaphone. The left controls the whole structure of American comedy. They've got Bill Maher, they've got Colbert, they've got Jon Stewart. Who do we have? Pretty much nobody, nobody and nobody. We've seeded this ground. They control the universities. The more elite the university, the stronger is their hold on it. So we've allowed this ground to slip away. And so, long term, I don't think we can beat them if we let this go on.
As you know I've been a writer most of my career and a speaker, think-tank guy from AEI and Hoover. I've pivoted in my career and now moved into trying to tackle these areas where the left is so strong. I want to say a word about movies. We're making a film. It's called "Hillary's America." My plan is to release it in July about the week of the Democratic convention. That way, they have their narrative and we have a counter-narrative. And this film is not – well, my earlier film four years ago was just about Obama, kind of the secret history about Obama. This film is a secret history not just of Hillary, but of the Democratic Party. And here, there is a huge argument that to my knowledge has never been publicly hashed out, which is, which is actually the party of emancipation and human rights and civil rights and equality of rights; which historically and now is the party that stands for these things? Well, the Democratic Party says, "We are. That's our MO. That's what we do." And what we show in this film is not just the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, but the Democratic Party was also the party of segregation and Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klan and lynching. It was also the party of Japanese internment and forced sterilization and sympathy for fascism in the 1930s. This is their history.
To which the Democrats come back and say, "Oh, gee, yeah, well, yes, that's all kind of true. But we switched. We became enlightened, and all the racists who were in the south all became Republicans." This is the theory of the "big switch" and this argument has never been frontally attacked by our side. We've kind of conceded it's true and yet the whole argument hinges on about three examples, mostly focusing on one man, Strom Thurmond. The truth of it is there are about 1,200 racist Democrats who were elected to the Senate, the House, governors, all kinds of top officers in the Democratic Party for most of the 20th century. About eight of them became Republicans. Most of the dixiecrats remained Democrats all their life.
Now, it's one thing to say this. It's something completely different to show it. This is the great power of film because film is an emotional medium, and if you put things that are true on film, you can settle the argument emotionally in a way that you can't do just through intellectual argument because intellectual argument at the end of the day ends up as "you think this and I think that." So we're releasing the film in July. It exposes Hillary as part of a longstanding Democratic tradition of exploitation, subjugation and theft. If you think about it, slavery was theft, theft of another guy's labor, making another guy work for you for free. Lincoln called it "you work, I eat." That's the essence of slavery. Similarly today, when the Democrats have built their whole ideology on taking from one guy and giving it to another – now this giving to another is very suspicious.
I'll just say one word about Hillary here because the Democrats don't really give a whole lot. Hillary has this big education proposal. Free education, a $350 billion program. Now let's think about that. Who is Hilary giving free education to? Young people. Where is she going to get the money to do it? The government is $19 trillion in debt, so you have to borrow. But who is the national debt going to be handed off to? Young people. So what Hillary is really doing is she's not actually transferring money, she's reaching into the young guy's back pocket, lifting his wallet, taking money out of his own future earnings, giving some of it back to him now and acting like she's doing something wonderful for this person. She's not even robbing Peter to pay Paul. She's robbing Paul to pay Paul and counting on Paul to be too dumb to see that he is actually paying for his own education. So who benefits from all this? The one who benefits the most is Hillary because she granted all these people a free education without it costing her a penny from the hundreds of millions of dollars that she's personally accumulated or touching the $2 billion in the Clinton Foundation. She doesn't have to spend a cent of it. She gets to be a philanthropist on the public purse.
Now, the movie, as I said, opens in July. Some of you will know this already, but it is a secret of movies that the success of a film is dependent upon opening weekend. Well, the movie will open pretty big, probably 1,500 theaters. We'll have all kinds of momentum that we didn't have in 2012. But if the movie does well in opening weekend, we'll go from 1,200 theaters to 2,000 theaters the next week. If we do poorly, we'll go to 800 theaters the next week. And so the point being that it's very important for us to make this movie work. People say I want to get the movie to independent voters. The way to do that is to actually help to put some fuel in our rocket opening weekend and trying to see it if you can or organize a bunch of friends to go see it opening weekend.
So I was talking the other day at a women's Republican group in Texas, and the women there were saying, "Well, gee, Dinesh, we don't really know what we can do in this election because Texas is going to fall in the Republican camp. This is red America. What can we do?" And what I said was, "Listen, the names and addresses of all the independent voters in the swing states in this country are known. That number is not that large; let's say a million people in Florida and Colorado and North Carolina and Ohio, and our team actually has their names and addresses. So you're in Texas, true, but there's nothing to stop you as a group from buying a bunch of DVDs. If you find this messaging to be powerful, if you believe it's messaging that the Republican National Committee or the campaigns officially won't do or can't do, you can drop a DVD of this film at a kind of infinitesimal cost right in the mailbox of every independent voter who will decide this election. That's something that you can do, not for millions or even tens of thousands of dollars. Each DVD will probably cost you two or three bucks. And so this is a way to make yourself a lethal force in American politics, essentially harnessing your own power and the power of all the people around you to actually drop a grenade into the other camp."
Long-term, I think we have to do more, and what I mean by that is we have to think of ways to combat the left's monopoly in education, in media and in Hollywood. Long-term we have to do that. But short-term, we are all today much more powerful than we realize, and if we harness that power effectively, creatively, I think that we can discover that right in this room, there is bottled up, most unfortunately, an influence in our life, most of it's unused, but I think we should find a way this year when your country needs you to uncork the influence that you have and use it effectively for the betterment of your country. Thank you very much.
Moderator: Thank you. We have time for two questions.
Audience Member: What weekend in July will it open? And how will we know?
Dinesh D'Souza: The movie will open – well, the Republican convention is in Cleveland and it goes first for a week and the Democratic convention is next. Our plan is to do our premier in Cleveland. We'll do a premier in LA as well the week – we're going to do a premier in Cleveland the week of the Republican convention and then open wide the week of the Democratic convention. And how will you know? You'll know because it will be out there in a big way.
Audience Member: Thanks for coming, Dinesh. I'm a mom of two boys and very frustrated with what's going on in this country and trying to raise my boys knowing what they're being taught at school is not reality. I like that you touched upon talking to us about what we can do because one of my frustrations is that I feel like I know all this information, but I don't know what to do with it to make a difference. I'm excited about your movie. I've told my friends about it. How do we go about getting copies of it to disseminate it to people?
Dinesh D'Souza: So the peculiarity of movies is that they open by contract. You have to stay in the theater for three months. So the movie will open in the middle of July. It will be in the theater through the middle of September. So there will be just a window of a month and a half or so when the movie pivots to DVD. But again, it will, at that point be everywhere. It'll be in Redbox. It'll be on Netflix. It'll be everywhere, and there will be easy ways at that point to get DVDs and, obviously, if you want to do this in bulk, you should contact me and I'll give you an email and a place to stay in touch with us. The other thing is if you wanted to buy out a theater opening weekend, hugely helpful to us. Again, don't put up the money for the whole theater. Organize a bunch of your friends and go just make an evening of it. Hugely helpful to us. We'd like to work with you in doing that and I'll be trying to organize that on a national scale. So those are two thoughts about ways to help.
Moderator: We'll take one last question in the back. Okay.
Audience Member: What is the name of the movie going to be?
Dinesh D'Souza: The movie is called "Hillary's America" and the subtitle is "The secret history of the Democratic Party."
Moderator: Dinesh, thank you so much.
Dinesh D'Souza: Thank you.
-------------- David Horowitz is founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center (formerly the Center for the Study of Popular Culture) and author of many books and pamphlets published over the last twenty years. Horowitz was a left-minded radical who transitioned over his life into a conservative. Yet despite the effort of the left "to deprecate and diminish him, Horowitz has succeeded in his main task of exposing the left's agenda and decoding the way it seeks to control American culture and politics." (The Life and Work of David Horowitz) He is a Contributing Author of the ARRA News Service. Tags:David Horowitz, Freedom Center, 2016 Presidential Election, Dinesh D'Souza, Film, Hillary, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
On May 14, 1948, the members of the People's Council proclaimed the establishment of the state. The proclamation may be divided into four sections: the section that describes the history of the Jewish people, its struggle to renew its political life and the international recognition of this right; the operative section, that proclaims the establishment of the state; the section that declares the principles which will guide the State of Israel; and the appeal to the U.N., the Arab inhabitants of the state, the Arab states and world Jewry.
Even though the proclamation is neither a law nor an ordinary legal document, it has legal validity, and its first and third sections were made use of by the Supreme Court for the purpose of normative interpretation.
The second section is the primary source of authority in the Israeli legal system. Some were inclined to view the Proclamation of Independence, and especially its declaratory section, as a constitution, but the Supreme Court stated, in a series of decisions, that the proclamation does not have constitutional validity, and that it is not a supreme law which may be used to invalidate laws and regulations that contradict it.Below is the declaration issued on that day by David Ben-Gurion below:
The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel
The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.
After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.
Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent decades they returned in their masses. Pioneers, defiant returnees, and defenders, they made deserts bloom, revived the Hebrew language, built villages and towns, and created a thriving community controlling its own economy and culture, loving peace but knowing how to defend itself, bringing the blessings of progress to all the country's inhabitants, and aspiring towards independent nationhood.
In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country.
This right was recognized in the Balfour Declaration of the 2nd November, 1917, and re-affirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Eretz-Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home.
The catastrophe which recently befell the Jewish people - the massacre of millions of Jews in Europe - was another clear demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of its homelessness by re-establishing in Eretz-Israel the Jewish State, which would open the gates of the homeland wide to every Jew and confer upon the Jewish people the status of a fully privileged member of the community of nations.
Survivors of the Nazi holocaust in Europe, as well as Jews from other parts of the world, continued to migrate to Eretz-Israel, undaunted by difficulties, restrictions and dangers, and never ceased to assert their right to a life of dignity, freedom and honest toil in their national homeland.
In the Second World War, the Jewish community of this country contributed its full share to the struggle of the freedom- and peace-loving nations against the forces of Nazi wickedness and, by the blood of its soldiers and its war effort, gained the right to be reckoned among the peoples who founded the United Nations.
On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.
This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.
Accordingly we, members of the People's Council, representatives of the Jewish Community of Eretz-Israel and of the Zionist Movement, are here assembled on the day of the termination of the British Mandate over Eretz-Israel and, by virtue of our natural and historic right and on the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.
We declare that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the People's Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People's Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called "Israel."
The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
The State of Israel is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.
We appeal to the United Nations to assist the Jewish people in the building-up of its State and to receive the State of Israel into the community of nations.
We appeal - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.
We extend our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.
We appeal to the Jewish people throughout the Diaspora to rally round the Jews of Eretz-Israel in the tasks of immigration and upbuilding and to stand by them in the great struggle for the realization of the age-old dream - the redemption of Israel.
Placing our trust in the Almighty, we affix our signatures to this proclamation at this session of the provisional Council of State, on the soil of the Homeland, in the city of Tel-Aviv, on this Sabbath eve, the 5th day of Iyar, 5708 (14th May, 1948).
Daniel Auster Mordekhai Bentov Yitzchak Ben Zvi Eliyahu Berligne Fritz Bernstein Rabbi Wolf Gold Meir Grabovsky Yitzchak Gruenbaum Dr. Abraham Granovsky Eliyahu Dobkin Meir Wilner-Kovner Zerach Wahrhaftig Herzl Vardi Rachel Cohen Rabbi Kalman Kahana Saadia Kobashi Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Levin Meir David Loewenstein Zvi Luria Golda Myerson Nachum Nir Zvi Segal Rabbi Yehuda Leib Hacohen Fishman David Zvi Pinkas Aharon Zisling Moshe Kolodny Eliezer Kaplan Abraham Katznelson Felix Rosenblueth David Remez Berl Repetur Mordekhai Shattner Ben Zion Sternberg Bekhor Shitreet Moshe Shapira Moshe Shertok Tags:Israel, 69 yrs old, Declaration of the Establishment of the State of IsraelTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Obama Orders Public Schools to Open Restrooms to Transgender Students
ARRA Editor: The below addressed "order" is one of the "crappiest" (pun intended) decisions by President Obama and his AG, Loretta Lynch. Permitting anatomically boys in girls bathrooms and anatomically girls in boys bathrooms in schools evidences an extreme decline in morality in the Obama Executive Branch and will place student of the opposite sex at risk physically, emotionally and subject to potential false allegations or charges.
Having acted, it is clear that both the President and Attorney General are more interested in personal petty agendas and to the extent that they are willing to interfere in ALL communities across the United States. Also, their actions go beyond the confines of the Constitution.
Amendment 10 to the U.S. Constitution states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Education belongs to the states and not the Federal Government. No anatomically male or females are denied access to bathrooms designated for their anatomical gender by any of the states. There is no mention in the Constitution of granting the US Government including the President the right to determine that boys and men must be allowed to use the girls /ladies bathrooms or that girls and women must be allowed to use the boys/mens bathrooms in public schools operated by the States.
by Todd Beamon. Newsmax: The Obama administration on Friday ordered every public school district in the United States to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms that match the gender identity they have chosen.
"We must ensure that our young people know that whoever they are or wherever they come from, they have the opportunity to get a great education in an environment free from discrimination, harassment and violence."
"There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex," Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a statement accompanying the directive.
The order, signed by the Education and Justice departments, describes what school districts should do to ensure that no students are discriminated against.
It will not have the force of law, but carries an implicit threat: Schools not abiding by the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law could face lawsuits or a loss of federal aid,.
The decree comes amid the administration's battle with North Carolina over transgender rights and is most likely to renew attacks by Republicans that the White House is involving itself in state issues.
The Justice Department and North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory sued each other over the transgender bathroom law he signed in March.
The law requires transgender people to use the public restroom matching the sex on their birth certificate. The ordinance only applies to schools, universities, government buildings and highway rest stops.
"We didn't think there was a problem at all until the Democrats brought this up in Charlotte, North Carolina," McCrory, 59, a first-term Republican, told Jake Tapper Wednesday on CNN. "We didn't need a bathroom law. We never have asked for a bathroom law."
President Barack Obama condemned the law last month — and Lynch on Monday said it violated the U.S. Civil Rights Act. . . . Read Rest of Article Tags:President Obama, AG Loretta Lynch, order, public schools, bathrooms, transgender StudentsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Using $20 Harriet Tubmans To Pay Slavers And Human Labor Traffickers In 12-Nation Pacific Trade Pact?
by Robert Romano: Someone might want to tell President Barack Obama that you cannot put Harriet Tubman — a staunch 19th century abolitionist — onto the $20 bill and then tell the American people to use that money to buy goods made with de facto slave labor in Malaysia, Vietnam and elsewhere in the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact.
It is a slap in the face to Tubman’s memory — and that of the entire abolitionist movement.
The American people were faced with a very similar choice in the 1800s. The Constitution had included provision for Congress to regulate interstate commerce — a mechanism to eliminate tariffs and to create a free trade zone between the former colonies.
Only, because half of the states still used slave labor, this created perverse economic incentives not to abolish slavery — even in the free states of the North. Why?
In the 19th century, New England textile mills were big buyers of southern cotton, <as noted by authors Anne Farrow, Joel Lang and Jennifer Frank in their book, “Complicity.” New York City merchants were largely responsible for moving the cotton produced in the South — it was the nation’s number one export — and profited from the lower prices that could be acquired when you don’t actually pay people for producing a commodity.
As noted by W. Chad Furrell in the “The American Economy: Essays and primary source documents,” after 1792 “[t]he widespread adoption of the cotton gin and expansionist land policies combined to stimulate both the cotton and slave trades. By 1820, cotton had eclipsed tobacco as the nation’s top export commodity. Exports rose dramatically from approximately 20 million pounds in 1800 to 128 million pounds in 1820, peaking at 1.8 billion pounds in 1860.”
As a result, cotton became a source of enormous wealth for the U.S.: “cotton comprised 42 percent of all American exports in 1820, rising to 67 percent of total exports in 1840. After 1840, manufactured products from the Northeast began to comprise a large share of total exports. Nonetheless, cotton remained he dominant export commodity until 1880.”
In 1861, the New York City Mayor Fernando Wood even proposed that the city secede with the Confederacy. Which, it turns out, was not surprising, write Farrow, Land and Frank: “Although many in the city’s intelligentsia rolled their eyes, and the mayor was slammed in much of the New York press, Wood’s proposal made a certain kind of sense.” Indeed, New York was profiting from the institution of slavery, so why abolish it?
But the point is clear enough to see for those who will admit it. The cheap labor pool in the South via slavery enhanced the profitability of the cotton trade and fueled U.S. exports worldwide — just as the cheap labor pool in Asia Pacific region today fuels the export economies over there. The only economic illiterates are those who avoid or ignore this obvious history — who to make their argument must turn a blind eye to one of history’s greatest evils.
Those are by no means the only advantages foreign economies share. Others include artificially cheaper currencies, lower taxation and weaker regulatory regimes. But, whether we choose to admit it or not, cheap labor still plays an important role today. It leads to certain economic advantages for those who employ it.
Yes, it would, argued Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning in a statement in response to the NRF, but “while it’s great that American retailers think that cheap goods built with slave wages are good for their business model, it is morally reprehensible.” After all, in the 1800s, Northern textile makers profited, and so too did consumers who got cheap clothes in return. It was no less evil then.
Just as reprehensible, then, would be the Obama administration, which proposes continuing these exploitive policies via the TPP while wrapping themselves in the history of Harriet Tubman, proposing to put her on the $20 bill — so we can pay the slavers in Malaysia for all their cheap goods. The irony would be laughable if it was not so disturbing to behold, whether we care to admit it or not. It’s a sick world we live in.
---------------- 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,$20 Harriet Tubmans, slavers, human traffickers, 12 Nation Pact, 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!
Virginia Attorney General Joins in Scam Threatening Free Speech
by Dr. David Schnare: The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act is a federal law enacted in the early 1970’s that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The law was targeted at “Racketeering” activity, which includes things like murder, extortion, robbery, drug dealing or trafficking, money laundering, embezzlement, and bribery. Its purpose is to ensure that both the murderer and the boss that ordered the murder are both punished. All that is required is a “predicate crime” such as murder, and a conspiracy to conduct the crime.
The Climate Change debate has entered a new battlefield, the world of criminal RICO investigations. On March 29th, 20 state Attorneys General (19 democrats and one independent, including the Virginia AG) held a press conference announcing that they were opening RICO investigations on a petroleum company, Exxon/Mobil, and its “conspirators.” These conspirators included the Competitiveness Enterprise Institute, a Washington D.C., libertarian think tank. The AG’s have designated their efforts as the “Exxon/Fossil Fuel Company Investigations.” This effort is legally ugly, it’s politically stupid and its purpose has nothing to do with punishing criminal acts.
What in the world does RICO have to do with climate change? Well, one “predicate crime” is fraud. If a company, say Exxon/Mobil, fails to inform its shareholders that its products are one of the causes of climate change and thus the company is potentially liable for harm to people as a result of climate change, then Exxon/Mobil will have defrauded its stockholders who have been uninformed as to the true financial risks facing the company.
The chances of success in such a RICO suit are infinitesimally small. But this is not about a law suit. It’s about something else altogether – greed. Here’s the inside story.
Attorneys are looking for a big score – a law suit that will enrich them beyond their wildest dreams. Attorneys General are looking to make a big political splash. States are looking for a new pot of money. And, there are businessmen and women who are looking to harm their economic competitors. These are the players in the new RICO drama. Here’s how the scam plays out.
Foundations, including the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF), have trustees or directors who directly benefit from the activities the foundations fund. For example, Wendy Gordon, an RBF trustee is a consultant for the Natural Resources Defense Council. RBF gave her organization $1.5 million over the past five years. Jennifer Nolan, another RBF trustee, is a “passionate environmentalist” who earns a living as an environmental activist. Justin Rockefeller, a third RBF trustee, is a venture partner at Richmond Global, LLC, a company making investments in alternative energy compatible technologies. The RBF funded the effort to bring together the lawyers and states that oppose traditional energy and are the critical partners in a RICO action.
One lawyer, Matt Pawa, is an environmental attorney who works with the Climate Accountability Institute and the Global Warming Legal Action Project of the Civil Society Institute. He has failed repeatedly in his civil climate change tort claims against hydrocarbon companies and is still looking for a way to hit it big in a legal settlement. He is a pay-for-play lawyer who wants to replicate the Tobacco Settlement litigation. He participated in a panel discussion hosted by the extreme liberal American Constitution Society at which Sharon Eubanks spoke.
Ms. Eubanks headed up the Tobacco litigation and has profited significantly therefrom. Eubanks claimed that RICO could be applied to hydrocarbon companies and anyone who received grant support from them and anyone who agreed with them on the issues and anyone who denied anthropogenic climate change or anthropogenic global warming (“ACC” or “AGW”). She also admitted the facts necessary to bring a claim were not in hand and that the Department of Justice was unlikely to undertake a RICO investigation, something RICO authorizes DOJ to do before filing a complaint. This is why the State AGs were necessary. They could undertake the investigations. Pawa gets no traction for his legal efforts unless he can get a government to conduct an investigation that would hopefully find the facts needed to litigate.
Another law firm, working for the Virgin Island AG, is Cohen Milstein, a group Exxon claims is probably working on a contingency fee that only pays off if there is a big settlement. Exxon has pointed out that Cohen Milstein’s contingency fee contracts in other related cases include a startling pattern of alleged misconduct and misrepresentation by the firm and its co-counsel in fabricating plaintiffs and claims, bribing witnesses, and making false statements to the court and others. This suggests that Cohen Milstein cannot be the neutral, disinterested prosecutor required by due process under both state and federal constitutions. They are the tool the AGs have decided to use.
But, there is no plan to seriously litigate. As Professor G. Robert Blakey, a RICO consultant to the U.S. Department of Justice on the tobacco lawsuit, explained, these extortionate law suits are “made to settle,” they are not made to win.
This political and financial greed of the “green 20” and their investigations have ramifications. As Peggy Little with the Federalist Society explains, this is an attack on “core constitutional commands of free speech, limited and constitutional government and the rule of law. This latest incarnation of regulation by litigation which seeks to punish climate change wrongthink has crossed a line that lies at the core of the First Amendment—a government imposing its orthodoxy upon its citizens. Some 29 state Attorneys General agree with her and have castigated their 20 brethren for the RICO investigative effort.
Ms. Little also reminds us of the U.S. Supreme Court’s position on such action: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.”
The self-serving nature of this RICO nonsense is also another attempt to shift attention away from the need for open scientific discussions on climate science. Alarmists refuse to participate in these necessary discussions. Some alarmist scientists even refuse to appear on the same stage with their peers for such a discussion and others are demanding that the news media refuse to report on scientific work that documents the scientific weakness of climate alarmism.
The Virginia legislature has a role in this latest RICO scam. They need to hold hearings and have the Virginia Attorney General justify his participation in a group that is attacking the foundations of free speech and sound science.
---------------------- Dr. David Schnare, Esq., Ph.D., writes for the The Jefferson Policy Journal and is an attorney and scientist with 40 years of federal and private sector experience consulting on and litigating local, state, federal and international environmental legislative, regulatory, risk management and free-market environmentalism issues. Tags:David Schnare, Jefferson Policy Journal, Civil Liberties, Environment, Latest, Law and Justice, free speech, Virginia Attorney General, attacking free speech, sound science, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, RICO, Actclimate changeTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
“The American middle class is losing ground in metropolitan areas across the country, affecting communities from Boston to Seattle and from Dallas to Milwaukee. From 2000 to 2014 the share of adults living in middle-income households fell in 203 of the 229 U.S. metropolitan areas examined in a new Pew Research Center analysis of government data. The decrease in the middle-class share was often substantial, measuring 6 percentage points or more in 53 metropolitan areas…” (“America’s Shrinking Middle Class,” Pew Research Center, 5/11/16)
“…middle-income Americans have fallen further behind financially in the new century. In 2014, the median income of these households was 4% less than in 2000. Moreover, because of the housing market crisis and the Great Recession of 2007-09, their median wealth (assets minus debts) fell by 28% from 2001 to 2013.” (“The American Middle Class Is Losing Ground,” Pew Research Center, 12/9/15)
RHETORIC:‘President Obama Says He's All About The Middle Class’
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.