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, June 17, 2016
Congress and Orlando Terrorism
by Newt Gingrich: The Congress has to quit passively allowing the American left to set the focus for responding to the Orlando attack.
The left, in both its news media and Democratic Party wings, is desperately trying to avoid the central challenge of Islamic supremacist terrorism. Since the left is too frightened to deal with the scale of the Islamic supremacist challenge, they are working overtime to turn Orlando into a gun control problem.
A brief look beyond Orlando will illustrate how false the left’s analysis is.
In the last few days, an Islamic supremacist killed 49 Americans and wounded 53 in Orlando. He targeted a gay nightclub in reflection of the Sharia law injunction to kill gays. He called 911 to declare his allegiance to ISIS. As he murdered, he yelled “Allahu Akbar”.
The American attack was paralleled by two Islamic supremacist attacks overseas.
In France an Islamic supremacist shouted “Allahu Akbar” as he knifed a policeman to death then tortured his wife to death while live streaming her torture on Facebook. (She worked in the local police station.) Then he wondered aloud on the live stream whether or not he should kill the couple’s three-year-old baby. French commandos killed him and saved the baby.
In the Philippines, the head of a Canadian businessman was found. He was the second Canadian killed in the last few months by the same Islamic supremacist group. Presumably a knife or machete was used to cut off his head.
Given three attacks by Islamic supremacists involving three different kinds of weapons, one might more logically conclude the focus of concern should not be the type of weapon but the common ideology of Islamic supremacism.
That analysis was reinforced on Thursday by CIA Director John Brennan, who told the Senate Intelligence Committee that ISIS remains “a formidable, resilient and largely cohesive enemy.”
According to the Washington Post, Brennan went on to say ISIS that has “a large cadre of Western fighters who could potentially serve as operatives for attacks in the West.” He said that ISIS could enter the U.S. through “refugee flows, smuggling routes and legitimate means of travel.”
The Congress should shift from focusing on the weapon to focusing on the terrorists.
Congress should start immediate hearings on three zones of the Long War.
First, we have to develop a global strategy and system to defeat Islamic supremacists wherever they exist.
Second, we have to develop a strategy and system to deal with non-Americans who try to come here to wage war against us.
Third, we have to develop new laws for American citizens who want to wage war against America. For example:
Americans who pledge loyalty to ISIS and other Islamic supremacist movements are engaging in treason and should lose their citizenship.
Americans who learn about potential terrorist attacks should be charged as accomplices if they fail to turn in the plotter.
Supporting Islamic supremacist groups overseas (as the Orlando killer’s father does) should lead to being put on a watch list and other restrictions, subject to judicial review.
Islamic supremacist propaganda should be outlawed and its possession should be a criminal offense. Limits on the First Amendment in wartime are unavoidable, and we are at war. I first made this point in 2006, and it is still true today.
As a former Congressional leader, I find it infuriating to watch the Republican majorities in the House and Senate passively accept the left’s definition of Orlando.
We need hearings, legislation and actions that focus on the Islamic Supremacist threat.
Director Brennan’s testimony about ISIS seeking to infiltrate the U.S. through refugee flows should be enough new evidence to justify a bill suspending Syrian refugees until the system of vetting is thoroughly overhauled.
Most Americans will focus on terrorists rather than the weapons they use if we make the argument.
Now is the time to act.
---------------------- 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, commentary, Congress, Orlando TerrorismTo 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: What exactly is Homeland Security doing when it isn't busy labeling conservatives terror threats or dishing out sex change drugs to illegals? Not its job, according to a stunning new report. Days removed from the worst radical Islamic attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, officials have been stunned to learn that DHS may be unintentionally laying the groundwork for another.
In what could be the worst crisis no one knows about, hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals who came to the United States for a limited time have grossly overstayed their visas, Congress is learning. On Tuesday, a House subcommittee was blown away to learn that 527,127 visitors who were supposed to leave in 2015 didn't. These "visa overstays," as they're called, are defined as any "nonimmigrant who was lawfully admitted to the United States for an authorized period but stayed in the United States beyond his or her lawful admission period." Now, the problem is so out of control, CNSNews reports, that as many as 60 percent of the people who are in America illegally are "overstayers."
Making matters worse, the Obama administration doesn't seem to care. Last year, a measly 2,456 were deported -- the lowest number ever under President Obama. "That sounds to me like an extension of the administration's amnesty program," Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) argued. "The message they are sending wide and far is: just get into the country. If you're not convicted of a serious crime, you're going to be allowed to stay. You're going to pass go. You're going to get the money. And that is the wrong message to send because it increases more illegal immigration."
And conservatives weren't the only ones concerned about the DHS report. Smith's Texas colleague, Democrat Rep. Filemon Vela, pointed out that this could be an even bigger problem than her home state's border control. "While Congress has in recent years paid a great deal of attention to securing our southern border (and rightfully so), less attention has been focused on successfully addressing visa overstays. The approximately 527,000 individuals who overstayed in fiscal year 2015 is a far greater number than the 331,000 individuals who were apprehended along the U.S.-Mexico border that year, illustrating the scope of the overstay problem."
Obviously, very few immigrants are a threat to American security. But, as too many families can attest, the administration's lax attitude toward immigration law is another way for our enemies to exploit us. Considering our recent history, it should confound everyone that this isn't a greater priority for DHS. But despite presiding over some of the worst mass shootings in American history, the president continues to show the greatest hospitality to terrorist wannabes and foreigners with zero respect for U.S. law. Meanwhile, Christians -- who are being slaughtered, persecuted, and chased from their Middle East homelands -- are turned away at the gates.
In the midst of it all, there seems to be a growing chorus of believers who justify these open-door policies on immigration with the Bible's command to "love the stranger." And I agree: we should love the stranger, but that doesn't mean we have to do so at the expense of our own laws or security. There are plenty of charitable solutions for refugees that don't involve bringing them to America and letting them take advantage of our hospitality. Our nation can be caring and benevolent without unnecessarily endangering our own people. What many forget is that loving the stranger is just one component of Scripture's teaching. God also commands these foreigners to assimilate and keep the laws of the land. As Exodus 12:49 makes clear: "There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you." The United States' goal should be a safe haven for everyone. And that means protecting America's welcoming reputation without sacrificing our systems and safety.
-------------- Tony Perkins is President of the Family Research Council . This article was on Tony Perkin's Washington Update an written with the aid of FRC senior writers. Tags: Tony Perkins, Family Research Center, FRC, Family Research Council, DHS, Expired VisasTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Patrick Buchanan: If the cliches hold — nothing succeeds like success, the past is prologue — this generation will not likely see an end to the jihadist terror that was on display at Pulse in Orlando on Sunday.
For terrorism has proven to be among the most cost-effective and successful strategies of war that the world has ever seen.
Consider. The 9/11 attacks involved 19 hijackers willing to crash airliners into four buildings: the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and the Capitol.
So doing, those 19 altered the foreign policy of the United States.
They drew the world’s last superpower into wars that have bled and almost bankrupted us, broken a president, and left us mired in half a dozen civil and sectarian conflicts with no exit or end in sight.
As a political terrorist, Osama bin Laden rivals Gavrilo Princip, whose assassination of the Austrian archduke set in train the events that led to the Great War that brought on the downfall of the West.
Consider the success of Islamist terror since 9/11.
As Gerry Seib of The Wall Street Journal notes, in the 15 years since then, just 95 Americans have died in jihadist attacks in the U.S.
Yet, one atrocity in Orlando, where 49 were slaughtered, polarized the nation, brought the presidential candidates to savaging one another, and held a national TV audience spellbound for a week.
The whole world is talking about Orlando.
And what did this victory cost the Islamic State?
Zero. What Omar Mateen did suicide bombers do every day in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, kill dozens of innocent people while shouting “Allahu Akbar!”
Yet compare the returns from this act of Islamist terror in Orlando, to those from similar attacks in Kabul, Baghdad or Damascus.
Any wonder ISIS would implore its followers to strike where they are, inside the U.S., inside Europe, and not come to Syria to die anonymously?
Under siege in Raqqa, Mosul and Fallujah, being bombed and bled as it surrenders the conquered lands of its caliphate, ISIS’ shift in strategy and targeting makes perfect sense.
Consider, now, the triumphs of Islamist terrorism in Europe.
The 2004 Madrid train bombings led to the defeat of a centrist government and rise of a socialist regime that pulled Spanish troops out of Iraq.
The Paris attacks on Charlie Hebdo and the Bataclan theater strengthened the National Front of Marine Le Pen.
The Beslan massacre of school children in North Ossetia in 2004 led to a consolidation of power by Russian strongman Vladimir Putin.
Across Europe, the political impact of Islamist terrorism, though the numbers of dead and wounded have been, measured against the casualties of conventional war, relatively few, has been extraordinary.
Islamist terrorism has helped spawn anti-immigrant parties and “illiberal” regimes. The association of Islamic terror with Muslim immigration and refugees from Syria’s war has helped to drive “Brexit,” the British campaign to secede from the EU.
Islamist attacks have helped propel anti-EU movements and to incite nationalist demands for a recapture of state control of borders and security policy from Brussels.
Obama explains his reluctance to use the term “radical Islamic terror” on his not wishing to validate ISIS’ claim to be the spear point, the fighting arm of the world’s largest religion in fulfilling the mission given to it by Allah — to make the whole world Islamic.
And this is exactly what ISIS has in mind.
By the frequency and ferocity of its attacks, it seeks to displace al-Qaida and other Islamic resistance movements in the eyes of the 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide, and to be seen by the young as the great liberator of the Islamic world and future conqueror of the West.
The crushing of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of victory in this war, for ISIS is not just an organization but a cause, a movement, an idea.
ISIS believes that by repeatedly wounding and provoking the West, it can reignite a war of civilizations. And though the West is vastly superior in nuclear weapons and conventional arms, economic power and technology, ISIS believes it can gradually drive the West out of the Middle East, as it has already helped to drive the Christians out.
Then, ISIS believes, through mass Muslim migration into a West whose native-born are dying out, Muslims can reoccupy these lands they had almost wholly conquered, until stopped by Charles Martel 14 centuries ago.
For some few Muslims, as we saw at Fort Hood, San Bernardino and Orlando, ISIS offers a dream worth dying for. And as they kill and die for ISIS, they will push America where they are pushing Europe — to the right.
-------------------- Patrick Buchanan is currently a conservative columnist, political analyst, chairman of The American Cause foundation and an editor of The American Conservative. He has been a senior advisor to three Presidents, a two-time candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and was the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000. He blogs at the Patrick J. Buchanan. Tags:Patrick Buchanan, conservative, commentary, ISIS, Muslims, Islamic Terror, AmericaTo 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 Foreign Policy In Disarray, Understanding Orlando, Kudos To Cruz, Closing Thoughts
by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: Obama's Foreign Policy In Disarray
In the wake of the worst terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11, President Obama had the audacity to tell the nation on Tuesday that his efforts against ISIS were making "significant progress."
Forty-eight hours later, CIA Director John Brennan told Congress something quite different. Testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday, Director Brennan warned, ". . .our efforts have not reduced the group's terrorism capability and global reach," adding that in the days and weeks ahead ISIS "will intensify its global terror campaign."
And, as I noted in yesterday's report, Brennan was also clear that ISIS was attempting to smuggle terrorists into western countries disguised as refugees.
Obama says we're winning. His CIA director says not so much. Given that the first of 49 funerals took place yesterday in Orlando, I think the evidence is clearly on Brennan's side. Perhaps someone could schedule a CIA briefing for the president.
Here's another point that deserves mentioning: If George W. Bush's CIA director had so publicly and directly contradicted him, that would have been THE headline on the evening news. NBC News did mention Brennan's testimony, but it was the fifth of eight stories last night, while Disney's potential liability for the alligators lurking on its property was third.
But that's not the only foreign policy headache the administration has. It appears there is an open rebellion taking place within the ranks at the State Department. More than 50 State Department officials and career diplomats signed a formal "dissent channel cable" expressing their embarrassment and frustration with Obama's failure to aggressively confront the Assad regime in Syria.
You may recall that President Obama erased his own "red line" on Assad's use of chemical weapons. After Obama retreated, Russia and Iran stepped in and took over.
I read a disturbing Gallup poll that asked Americans how they understood the Orlando attacks. According to Gallup, just 48% of Americans described the atrocity at the Pulse nightclub as "Islamic terrorism," while 41% thought it was "domestic gun violence."
Perhaps as much as any other issue, this shows the tremendous battle raging for the heart and soul of America, and it shows the power of the left-wing media to drive a narrative.
On the other hand, maybe it is not as bad as it looks. The Gallup poll was conducted among adults, meaning we're not even talking about "low information voters." Many may be low information non-voters. Their opinions reflect the prevailing narrative of the media, which is the president's narrative, which is that Orlando was the result of gun violence -- as if guns just go off all by themselves.
That is why Democrats are so fixated on gun control as the solution and refuse to do anything to address radical Islam or immigration. As one commentator put it, the Democrats' solution to the Orlando Islamic terrorist attack is "More Muslims and less guns."
But it also highlights another problem we are facing. The left is united and our side is divided. What did the left do in response to Orlando? It went on the attack!
Obama, incredibly, declared he was winning. Senate Democrats launched a filibuster to hijack the Senate and force votes on their agenda. Meanwhile, too many of our leaders are afraid to attack the left or even fight back. And when someone on our side comes along who offers strong solutions and punches back, party leaders trash him.
Kudos To Cruz
I do want to commend Senator Ted Cruz for having the courage to fight back. Sen. Cruz went to the Senate floor yesterday and blasted the left's lunacy.
Cruz stated the obvious: Our country is at war against radical Islamic terrorism but Obama and the Democrats are in denial, and they are exploiting the attack to attack the rights of law abiding citizens, making us less safe.
That is what every Republican leader should be saying right now!
As we are coming to the end of this horrible week, let me just summarize some salient points here for your use if you happen to run into someone among the 41% of the country who is confused about what happened in Orlando.
Mateen told us he was waging jihad in fulfillment of his Islamic beliefs before the attack and he repeatedly phoned it in and texted it during the attack.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton don't want to call him a radical Islamist. Days later, the left-wing media continued to say that it wasn't clear who he was. Yet, as several observers have noted, if a man says he is a woman, the president and the left immediately accept this and call him "her." But when a jihadist says he is a jihadist, the left's response is "Let's not jump to any conclusions."
Just so you know, he was a registered Democrat. If he had been a registered Republican, you would already know that.
------------- 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 Foreign Policy In Disarray, Understanding Orlando, Kudos To Cruz, Closing ThoughtsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Let’s Take Another Look at Military Draft of Young Women
Photo by S. Olson, courtesy LA Times via Tom Balek
by Tom Balek, Contributing Author: I became draft-eligible in 1973. It was during the last, ugly days of the Vietnam War. The war was winding down, the fighting was still intense, combat casualties were high, and Americans, including many guys my age who were serving “in country”, wondered what the hell we were doing there. We clearly weren’t fighting to win.
At that time the military draft operated on a lottery of birth dates. As the draft date approached, I resigned myself to the possibility that I might soon be headed for ‘Nam. But then Selective Service ended actual conscription just before my age group became eligible.
It was a big relief. I was a patriotic young guy, but nobody wanted to be drafted during the waning years of the Vietnam War. According to street legend, the “FNGs” (f’***ing new guys) were immediately sent to the front line and were the most likely soldiers to come home in a bag. Nobody wanted to be the last one to die in the jungle.
So as it turned out I never served in the military. But I have always had a fascination with all things military. I can’t resist combat air museums, decommissioned ships, and war documentaries on the History Channel. Friends my age take on a wistful look and a wry smile reminiscing about their military days. I have a hole in my soul where military service might have been.
This week our Senate passed the 2016 NDAA (National Defense Appropriations Act), a bill which funds military operations. It included a rider that would make women eligible for Selective Service. The House had earlier passed their version of the appropriations bill which did not include a provision for drafting women. Now the two legislative bodies will meet in conference to hash out the differences in their bills.
I sincerely hope the House wisdom will prevail, and we will not submit our young women to Selective Service.
I know that our young women are as patriotic and generally, if not physically, as capable as our young men. But I also know that the draft will only be reinstated if there is a real calamity – a serious conflict that involves deadly, boots-on-the-ground, man-to-man combat.
Yes, I said it. “Man-to-man” combat. In a winner-take-all battle, our enemies will not be sending 18-year old women to the front lines. Our soldiers in combat will face the enemy’s most hostile, physical, violent young men: jacked-up warriors who don’t give a rip about gender equality.
Female former marine Jude Eden said, “Combat is not an equal opportunity for women because they don’t have an equal opportunity to survive.” And study after study has proved that combat units which include women consistently underperform. By drafting women, we risk sending them to the front lines. And by sending them to the front lines, we risk endangering not only our brave but overmatched women; we are handicapping our brave men.
Our patriotic American women will always play a vital role in our military, and they are free and welcome to join the service branch of their choice voluntarily. But our congressmen should know that setting young women up to be the next conscripted “FNGs” headed for the front line in desperate times is something we just can’t live with.
--------------- 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, Another Look, at Military Draft, Young Women, 2016 NDAA, female soldiers, National Defense Appropriations Act, selective service, women in combat, women in military. To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Hermain Cain Slays Lies As He Introduces Trump At Atlanta Rally
by Herman Cain: Let me 'splain racism to you, because I'm not sure some people know what it is.
Yesterday was a good day for me, and for a lot of other people in Atlanta who had the opportunity to attend a rally for Donald Trump here at our Fox Theater. It was especially good for me, because I was asked to introduce the candidate - and it was my pleasure to do so.
As I've often said, anyone who can hear beyond the political noise can see why the choice is clear between Trump and Hillary. He wants to replace the tax code. She thinks it's fine except that the rates should be higher and the IRS should be more vindictive. He wants to unleash domestic energy production. She wants to quash it. He wants to destroy ISIS. She wants to blame guns and the NRA for what radical Islamists do. He wants to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with a market-based system that favors patient choice. She wants to keep us moving toward socialized medicine.
Folks, this is not a hard choice.
But before you can ever get to any of that, you have to work through the noise that claims Trump is some sort of racist and all kinds of other horrible things. I know that's not true for two important reasons. I know Donald Trump. And unlike most of the people yelping about racism, I know what that is too because I've actually had to deal with it in my life. So I dealt with all this yesterday:
By the way, I hear that some talk show that's on so late on CBS that it isn't even a show played a clip of me saying "Shucky Ducky." Good! Those few seconds were more fun than will ever be had at a Hillary rally. I'm glad they enjoyed it. Maybe next time they'll stay for the substance as well.
----------------- Herman Cain is a conservative radio host of CainTV, a 2012 GOP presidential primary candidate with over 40 years of experience in the private sector as an analyst for Coca-Cola, an executive at Pillsbury, a regional Vice President for Burger King, and CEO of Godfather's Pizza. Cain served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and a supervisory mathematician for the Dept. of the Navy. Tags:Herman Cain, conservative, radio host, CainTV, Slay Lies, introduces Donald Trump, Atlanta Rally, videoTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Ken Blackwell, Contributing Author: Surprise, surprise: President Barack Obama endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. He wants someone to follow him who will protect his disastrous legacy. He couldn’t have made a better choice.
“I know how hard this job can be. That’s why I know Hillary will be so good at it,” he explained. He provided plenty of joke lines for the late night shows. But he made clear that he won’t remain on the sidelines during the campaign: joint political appearances are now being planned.
None of this should surprise anyone. It won’t be the first time an incumbent attempted to help elect his successor. But never before has the conflict been so great, with the current president presiding over a criminal investigation of his party’s presumptive nominee.
It’s worth letting that sink in. Without question, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton violated law and procedure in using her home email server for classified information. We can only guess at the security hacks attempted and possibly achieved.
The FBI is in the midst of a criminal investigation. Aides and employees have been questioned; immunity reportedly has been granted to some. The Justice Department, under an attorney general selected by and accountable to the president, will have to decide whether or not to bring charges.
No doubt the president would like to forget the issue. After all, spending money is fun. So is taking care of your friends. Prosecuting political allies is not. Especially if it means you would be blamed for wrecking your party’s campaign for president. Electing President Donald Trump. And leaving yourself open to investigation of your possible misdeeds.
But blocking the prosecution of one of your former Cabinet officials would look suspect. President Obama would find his final months in office consumed with charges of favoritism and more. That would be a real downer!
Better to send a signal to everyone involved in the investigation to back off. If anyone has any doubts where the administration stands on the issue they merely need look at the president’s endorsement. Nothing else need be said.
Indeed, one doesn’t have to be a cynic to assume an implicit deal. President Obama ensures that the security violations go unprosecuted. President Clinton ensures that none of her predecessor’s activities get investigated.
No wonder President Obama declared that “I’ve seen her commitment to our values up close.”
We certainly saw “Obama-Clinton values” in action when it came to the Benghazi investigation. This was not an issue where the harms seemed only theoretical—possible security leaks from a home email server. The latter risks should have been obvious, especially to someone serving as secretary of state. But they remained risks.
In the case of Benghazi Americans died, including a U.S. ambassador. That is proof enough that something went wrong. Everyone involved should want to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again. And those who messed up should be held accountable.
But not according to “Obama-Clinton values.” The president and his former secretary of state did everything possible to avoid taking responsibility and prevent the public from even knowing what went on.
Of course, no party is exempt from such behavior. Lord Acton warned us that “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Republicans succumb to the temptations of power just like Democrats. And Republicans need to be investigated and prosecuted just like Democrats.
But the media acts like a fourth branch of government and works overtime to expose GOP officials who abuse their positions. Indeed, Republicans will find themselves under sustained fire if they simply do their jobs. And they can expect special scrutiny if they propose spending or regulating less than their Democratic opponents.
Who, however, watches the Democrats?
Donald Trump might look a bit suspect on the issue given his recent spat with the judge in the case involving Trump University. Just as Trump addressed concerns over his potential judicial picks by offering a list of possible Supreme Court nominees, he should promise to appoint a principled independent to be attorney general. Not a long-time partisan, like so many attorneys general in a succession of administrations, Democrat and Republican.
There will be abundant clean-up work to do once President Obama leaves office. It should not appear to be a partisan witch-hunt. Moreover, Republicans, too, need oversight.
There never was much doubt that between Obama the partisan activist and Obama the man of character, the former would win out. Hence the president’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton even as his administration investigates her for serious security offenses.
Which should remind us what is at stake in November. It’s not just a few minor policy disagreements. It’s the integrity of our entire political system.
------------------ Ken Blackwell is a former ambassador to the U.N., Ohio Secretary of State and mayor of Cincinnati. He is a contributing author to the ARRA News Service. Tags:Ken Blackwell, Endorsing Lawlessness, President Barack Obama, endorsed, Hillary Clinton, 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, Obama, Hillary, deflecting, blame, mass shootings, law abiding gun ownersTo 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: A year ago I wrote about how the government could be using various programs to prevent businesses that sell firearms from functioning. A recent story by Kelsey Harkness illustrates how that may be happening. She tells the story of Luke Lichterman, owner of Hunting and Defense in North Carolina.
He was denied access to a bank merely because he sells firearms. He blamed a little-known program called Operation Choke Point, which was launched a few years ago by the Department of Justice in an effort to fight fraud. It does so by choking off access to various bank services. Critics have said that the program not only hurts illegal businesses, but has also been used against legal industries (like gun sellers) that this administration doesn’t like.
Back in March, HomeTrust Bank told Lichterman that they would not allow him to open an automatic clearinghouse payment service for his online gun and tactical store. This was a surprise to him since he has personal account at HomeTrust Bank. It wasn’t until a banker discovered that he sold guns that they refused to offer him the services he needed for his business.
Lichterman was suspicious of why he was denied services and asked if the banker could provide an example of another industry that HomeTrust Bank wouldn’t do business with. The banker responded, “Pornography.” Lichterman tried to explain to the banker that he was not a pornographer but actually dealing with constitutionally protected goods.
By the way, the banker wasn’t kidding. If you look at the guidelines for Operation Choke Point, there is a list of categories of merchants that the agency considers high risk. The list includes words like “firearms” and “ammunition” and “pornography.”
Because of the publicity in this case, the bank did provide Lichterman with the services he requested. The story does illustrate why some members of Congress want to end Operation Choke Point and other similar initiatives. This story shows why the program could be a threat to the Second Amendment.
----------- 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, Operation Choke Point, threat, Second AmendmentTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, who murdered 49 people and wounded 53 others in the Pulse nightclub, worked for the globe’s largest security firm, Britain’s G4S. He passed two background checks conducted by the company, and his government credentials included “a Florida state-issued security guard license and a security guard firearms license.”
Not to mention that Omar Mateen was twice investigated by the FBI — in 2013 and again in 2014 — and cleared by the agency both times. Though on the terrorist watch list for a while, he was removed from that list after the FBI closed its investigations.
So we need more and tougher background checks? Must the FBI check every gun purchaser three times, is that the charm?
Even if the Feds blocked gun sales to those on the terrorist watch list and the “no-fly” list, it wouldn’t have affected Mateen, for he wasn’t on these lists when he purchased his Sig MCX.
Nevertheless, Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy led a 14-hour filibuster to bring attention to his gun control legislation . . . that wouldn’t have stopped the Orlando massacre . . . or the shooting in Newtown.
“I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me,” tweeted Donald Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, “about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns.”
If our government ever uses a secret list developed by security agencies to deny citizens their rights, without due legal process, without innocence until proven guilty, we will sorely need our Second Amendment rights.
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, what doesn't fly, Omar Mateen, twice investigated by the FBI, worked for globe’s largest security firm, government secret lists, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Women already sacrifice more for their country than men do, whether we are speaking of blood or of treasure.
by Valerie M. Hudson: When the combat exclusion for women was lifted in January 2013, I was very happy, as a woman and as a feminist. Women who volunteer to join the armed forces should also have the right to volunteer for infantry, armor, and artillery occupational specialties, given physical standards will remain high and bar both men and women who are not qualified for combat. In other words, if a woman has chosen this path and can meet the standards, why would we deny her the right to fight for her country? There is no reason we should take this choice from her.
How unsurprising, then, that the commandant of the Marine Corps—the service that went kicking and screaming to the bitter end about excluding women from their ranks—was the one who chose to start a debate over Selective Service Registration for women. The Senate vote on the National Defense Authorization Act—85 to 13—raised the ante. This is an old political trick, designed to undercut a consensus by splintering it.
We’ve seen quite a few splinters. Republicans are all over the place on the issue, with Sen. Ted Cruz utterly rejecting the idea, stating it was “nuts,” and “The idea that we should forcibly conscript young girls into combat to my mind makes little or no sense,” but John McCain and Jeff Sessions are all for it. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton recently came out supporting female conscription, Sen. Claire McGaskill agrees with the generals, and Sen. Bernie Sanders has remained studiously mum. The commandant must be elated to have created such a large amount of shrapnel at no cost to himself.
But the entire brouhaha panders to a false assumption the Marine Corps commandant made. Until we name and acknowledge that false equivalence, we cannot have an effective debate on the issue.
What is that false assumption? It is that women are not already drafted. Of course women are already drafted! We just refuse, as a society, to acknowledge that fact. So let me acknowledge it here, in the hopes that will promote more meaningful debate over such an important national policy issue.
Women Also Secure the Nation’s Present and Future
My thesis is simple: women already sacrifice more for their country than men do, whether we are speaking of blood or of treasure. To see how this is so, let us step back for a moment and consider the overarching task of national survival that is at the heart of all security policy. At a minimum, there are two critical tasks: the nation must secure its present and it must secure its future.
To secure its present, a nation must provide for its own protection, even physical protection in the form of armed forces whose members are willing to lay down their health and even their very lives if necessary to counter threats to the nation’s security. This is an honorable and critical task, enshrined in our Constitution as a basic responsibility of our country’s government. But securing the present is not enough for a nation to survive. A nation must also secure its future.
That first means the nation needs a next generation of citizens. Unless and until modern technology provides an alternative, the task of physically providing a next generation to secure a nation’s future rests solely in the wombs of American women. We women are drafted in this cause, because men are physically incapable of the task.
This draft has real consequences for the draftees. Women offer to lay down their health and even their very lives that their nation might have a future in the new citizens women’s sacrifices bring into the world. That we have not seen this as a patriotic service on a par with men’s service in combat says more about our society than it says about the reality of women’s valuable service to our country.
Indeed, consider that in the history of our nation, from 1776 onwards, vastly more women have died or been seriously harmed in or incident to childbirth than men have died or been wounded in battle. Approximately 1,200 American women die in childbirth every year, with almost 60,000 seriously wounded and suffering seriously physical harm, such as acute renal failure, stroke, heart failure, or aneurysms. Indeed, the maternal mortality rate in the United States is now double what it was 25 years ago (it’s now 28 per 100,000 births).
These are not gentle deaths, either. My world was shaken a decade ago by the death of a young woman who was my neighbor. After a painful delivery, she bled to death on her hospital bed, the sheets soaked with her blood. She had literally laid down her life, suffered and died, to bring forth a new American, and in the process left three children without a mother. My friend paid the ultimate sacrifice. Please don’t tell me her death was any less of a sacrifice for our nation’s future than the deaths of soldiers abroad. We don’t see these deaths for what they are simply because these are not men’s ways of dying gloriously.
Consider that combat deaths among U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq total a little over 5,000 since 2001; in that same time period, at least 18,000 U.S. women died incident to providing a future for the nation these soldiers defended. We have all seen many, many monuments to great generals and unknown soldiers in our land. But there is only one monument—hidden in the back yard of a church in Pennsylvania—to all of the American women who died in childbirth to give our nation a future. Just one! There is now a movement to erect a National Mothers’ Monument to give tribute to these women and the ultimate sacrifice they offered. We cannot honor what we will not see.
This is not even to mention the “mommy tax” of having a child on a woman’s lifetime earnings, which can amount to more than $1 million. Indeed, the greatest risk factor for being poor in old age in the United States is to be a mother (not a father). Women make not just a physical, bodily sacrifice, then, but a profound economic sacrifice as well. Here, too, we cannot honor what we will not see.
Why Would We Make Women Shoulder a Double Burden?
What we don’t see is preventing us from having an effective discussion on Selective Service registration for women. If we do see the immense and disproportionate sacrifice of blood and treasure by women in this country, why would we ask women to bear a double burden? Shouldn’t there be parity between men and women in the work of protecting our country and giving it a future? Selective Service registration for women would undo that parity by placing a double burden of sacrifice on women.
Remember, too, there’s a G.I. Bill for all the soldiers who volunteered to lay down their health and lives for their country, so soldiers are not asked to make both an economic and physical sacrifice for their country. There’s no such bill for the mothers. That’s because, I am told, women choose to have children; no one forced them to. Of course, in today’s all-volunteer army, soldiers choose to fight for their country; no one forced them to, either. But somehow a soldier’s blood and a soldier’s sacrifice just seems so much more precious than the blood and sacrifice of a mother—which to my feminist mind is just so very wrong on so many levels.
This is not to mention the fact that due to systemic inequality in power between men and women, women have not, until the 1990s, ever had a seat at the table when the decision to go to war has been made. (They also still aren’t at the table when the decision to end war is made, either; women are not at the Afghan peace talks table, nor the Syrian peace talks table.) Unless we are ready to talk about parity quotas for women in the national legislature, how could male decision-making about this matter ever be considered legitimate? As Rudyard Kipling put it in his poem, “Female of the Species”: So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer
With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her
Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
To some God of Abstract Justice — which no woman understands.We women know it may be our fate to die for our country’s future not on some foreign shore, but in labor on a hospital bed right here in the States. But most of our countrymen simply do not have the eyes to see. They insist that the only measuring stick worth using is the measuring stick men use—which does not even register what women do. For example, one commenter wrote, “Until women can be drafted and forced to die in battle just like men have for centuries, we will not have true equality between the sexes.”
I say, until men can die in childbirth just like women have for centuries, women should not be drafted and forced to die in battle also — that would mean women would be given a burden double compared to men in securing the nation’s future.This double burden would deepen the inequality between men and women, counting as valuable only what men value, and doing so in a context where women are not equally represented when these momentous decisions are made.
----------------- Valerie M. Hudson contributes to The Federalist, She is professor and George H.W. Bush chair at the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, and directs the Program on Women, Peace, and Security there. Tags:Valerie M. Hudson, The Federalist, childbirth, drafting women, feminism, gender, equality, military draft, motherhood, pregnancy, pregnant, women, Selective Service, the draft, women's issues, aimless military adventurism To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
A Victory for the American People Against the Export-Import Bank
U.S. Sen. Mike Lee: It’s not every day that the American people score a victory over the global elite, but that’s exactly what happened last week.
The victory came in the form of preventing the ascension of Mark McWatters to the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, whose nomination Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., has successfully bottled up in the Senate Banking Committee.
Created by executive order during the height of the Great Depression, the Ex-Im Bank has been used as a tool to reward politically connected elites, both in the United States and abroad, for decades.
Here’s how it works: a large corporation pays money to lobbyists and politicians so that Ex-Im will leverage the full faith and credit of American taxpayers to guarantee loans used to finance global transactions.
Because these loans are backed by you, the United States taxpayer, these politically favored global corporations are able to secure below-market interest rates. The difference between the market interest rate the global corporations would have paid to finance their transactions and the below-market interest rate made available by Ex-Im’s guarantees acts as a giant taxpayer subsidy for these global corporations.
The lobbyists and politicians supporting these global corporations will tell you that Ex-Im’s loan guarantees are cost-free programs that support American middle-class jobs.
First of all, as any economist will tell you, there is no such thing as a free lunch. As the Congressional Research Service has explained, “Subsidized export financing merely shifts production among sectors within the economy, rather than adding to the overall level of economic activity, and subsidizes foreign consumption at the expense of domestic consumption.”
Secondly, if these global corporations are so concerned about American middle-class jobs, then why do they spend millions of dollars lobbying foreign governments to create and maintain their own version of our Export-Import Bank? These corporations aren’t concerned as much about American jobs as they are about maximizing the number of foreign governments that subsidize their business.
And who exactly is on the other end of all these Ex-Im financed deals? China mostly.
China is by far the biggest beneficiary of Ex-Im guaranteed loans. And since most of that financing benefits state-owned firms, the Ex-Im Bank is one of the largest subsidizers of Chinese communist officials in the world.
For instance, in 2013, the Export-Import Bank financed a $63 million deal to help build a semiconductor manufacturing plant in China. How exactly does subsidizing Chinese semiconductor manufactures help save American jobs?
But it does help line the pockets of the governing elite both here and in China. That is what the Export-Import Bank is all about.
By blocking the nomination of McWatters to the Export-Import Bank’s board of directors, Shelby has denied Ex-Im the quorum it needs to authorize loan guarantees over $10 million. Between 2007 and 2014, 84 percent of the bank’s subsidy and loan-guarantee deals exceeded $10 million, and the vast majority were given to the wealthiest, most well-connected businesses that should have no problem acquiring financing on the open market.
The American people have not succeeded in shutting down this spigot of cash to the world’s global elite yet, but we are gaining votes in the House and Senate every year.
SAF To Jeh Johnson: 'Gun Ownership Is Part Of Homeland Security'
BELLEVUE, Wash. - Contrary to what Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said Tuesday that gun control is a "critical element" of protecting the nation against terrorists, the Second Amendment Foundation today said the right to keep and bear arms is this country's original homeland security, and he needs to remember that.
"The threat we face today from terrorism is exactly why the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment," said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. "Every American has the right to self-defense, and for Johnson to contend that infringing on that right is the way to keep the country safe is simply preposterous."
Johnson was on CBS television, at which time he stated, "We have to face the fact that meaningful gun control has to be a part of homeland security."
In response, Gottlieb observed, "What we really need to do is maximize the ability of law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to bear arms. Nothing deters terrorists as well as good people fighting back. Gun-free zone designations certainly haven't stopped the atrocities in Paris, San Bernardino and Orlando. Restrictive concealed carry laws that prevent honest citizens from having the tools they need for self-defense have turned people into victims.
"Jeh Johnson has this one completely backwards," he continued. "Nobody wants terrorists or even common street criminals to have guns. But laws that penalize honest Americans, and that ban certain types of firearms, will not prevent bad people from committing mayhem.
"The conversation should not be about firearms, but fanatics," Gottlieb stated. "But Johnson's boss, Barack Obama, can't even bring himself to acknowledge who and what the enemy is, without having a temper tantrum on live television.
"Guns, and gun owners, have protected our shores for more than two centuries," he concluded. "Barack Obama and Jeh Johnson would have us believe that eviscerating the Second Amendment will somehow discourage terrorists from attacking us. That's not just dishonest, it is delusional."
The Second Amendment Foundation (saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. Tags:Second Amendment Foundation, SAF, Alan M. Gottlieb, Gun Ownership, Second Amendment, Homeland Security, Secretary Jeh Johnson, Barack Obama, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
End of Day: Terror & Immigration, Lone Wolf vs. Directed Attacks, Ramadan Countdown
Media Traps for Nervous Nellies in the GOP
by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: Terror & Immigration - While media and political elites continue to mock those who suggest we need stricter immigration controls to combat terrorism, the headlines suggest otherwise. For example:
CIA Director John Brennan testified before Congress today. He warned that ISIS was planning new attacks and, according to the Associated Press, is likely "working to smuggle [terrorists] into countries, perhaps among refugee flows or through legitimate means of travel." (More on Brennan's remarks below.)
None of this should surprise us. ISIS has bragged about the fact that it is exploiting the refugee crisis.
Here's something else that will infuriate you: Earlier this week, Obama Administration officials told members of the House Homeland Security Committee that 480,000 people overstayed their immigration visas last year alone. Investigations were launched into 10,000 individuals, but fewer than 2,000 were arrested. That's just 0.04% of the total overstays.
Democrats pushed back, suggesting that individuals with travel visas do go through some security checks. But do they really? According to a recent Government Accountability Report, more than one-third of the countries participating in the visa waiver program are not sharing vital information on terrorist records or criminal histories.
Yet our politically correct leaders appear paralyzed in the face of these warnings, unwilling to compromise in any way their open borders ideology. How many more Paris, Brussels and Orlando-style attacks must we endure before our leaders muster the courage to enact commonsense immigration controls?
Lone Wolf vs. Directed Attacks - Conventional wisdom within the Obama Administration appears to be that we will all feel better if the government declares that a terrorist attack was committed by a lone wolf. But several security experts are pointing out that this is an old paradigm.
The new paradigm has been developed by savages in the desert who are changing their strategy faster than Obama can find one. Terrorist leaders know that virtually every form of communication can be hacked by our intelligence agencies. So now they are simply using public statements.
For example, ISIS has issued videos urging jihadi sympathizers in the West to stay and fight where they are. Rather than trying to go to Syria jihadis are being told to "resist with all means, kill them, slaughter them, burn their cars and homes. I say to my brothers, if you see a police officer -- kill him. Kill them all. Kill all infidels that you see in the streets."
That is exactly what happened in Magnanville, France, this week when a police commander was ambushed in his driveway. After murdering the police commander, the jihadist went inside and livestreamed the brutal killing of the police commander's wife.
ISIS is successfully recruiting jihadists through mass media. They carry out these attacks generally as they become more devout, one reason why attacks spike during Ramadan. And following the playbook laid out by ISIS, they proudly announce that they carried out the attack in the name of ISIS.
ISIS recruits, inspires and takes credit for each jihadi attack, believing that other jihadists will be inspired by these evil acts.
Meanwhile, there are reports that Orlando shooter Omar Mateen posted warnings on his Facebook page that more attacks were coming. "In the next few days you will see attacks from the Islamic State [ISIS] in the usa," Mateen posted. Intelligence officials believe Mateen had at least four Facebook accounts.
Ramadan Countdown - I know our elites insist that this terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. But I can't help but notice that there is no movement of people committing mass murder in the name of Pope Francis. Christians don't go on killing sprees during Easter or Christmas. Jews don't attack nightclubs or cafes during Chanukah.
This murderous phenomenon is specific to Islam.
Ramadan began on Sunday, June 5th and will end on Tuesday, July 5th.
This year during Ramadan, like virtually every year before, this holiest of holy days for Muslims when the faith of jihadis burns hottest, life for the rest of us becomes more dangerous. By one count, nearly 600 people have been killed since Ramadan 2016 began, mostly in the Middle East.
But, as Islamic supremacists have been imported into the United States, 49 Americans were killed in Orlando this week.
A police chief and his wife were murdered in France. Twenty-four hours later, a Muslim stabbed a teen-ager in a "Ramadan sacrifice." Thankfully, she survived.
Sadly, four Israelis sipping coffee in Tel Aviv did not survive a Ramadan attack on June 8th.
Buckle up. We've got 19 more days to go.
Hugh's Change Of Heart - A week ago, I reported that columnist Hugh Hewitt was calling for radical changes at this year's Republican National Convention so that delegates could be unbound on the first ballot in order to dump Donald Trump and prevent his nomination.
What a difference a week makes! Hugh has had a change of heart.
You can read more in his latest column, but Hewitt was impressed by Trump's latest speeches on religious liberty and national security.Orlando changed the dynamic of the race and, according to Hewitt, Trump "demonstrated that unlike Clinton and Obama, he understands the magnitude of the crisis."
Hewitt adds that Trump must "methodically prosecute the case that throughout her career, Clinton has consistently displayed a disqualifying lack of judgment. He needs to develop this argument, detail it and drive it home."
I agree and it won't be hard, which brings me back to CIA Director John Brennan's testimony.
Brennan also told members of Congress today that ISIS is working to coordinate its loosely affiliated network of allied groups. While ISIS is headquartered in Iraq and Syria, it has affiliates in many nations, including Afghanistan, Egypt, Nigeria and Libya.
But, according to Brennan, "The branch in Libya is likely the most advanced and most dangerous."
Why is there an ISIS branch in Libya? Because Hillary Clinton led the charge to go to war and depose Muammar Qaddafi.
I have no doubt that Donald Trump can prosecute the case against Hillary Clinton. I only hope that the nervous Nellies in the GOP can discipline themselves so they avoid falling into media traps, joining circular firing squads and instead, just stay out of his way!
Hugh Hewitt concluded his latest column with this call for party unity: "For the good of the country, Republicans have to be clear about the binary choice in front of us [and] close ranks around Trump . . . the one man who can beat [Hillary]."
------------- 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, Terror & Immigration, Lone Wolf vs. Directed Attacks, Ramadan Countdown, Hugh Hewitt backs Trump. GOP, nervous Nellies, circular firing squadsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
. . . The hate preachers and terrorists running wild in our midst.
by Michelle Malkin: The home of the "Happiest Place on Earth" has been breeding killer jihadists and Muslim zealots for years.
Omar Mateen, the cold-blooded mass murderer who gunned down 49 people at an Orlando gay nightclub and wounded 53 more before police took him out late Sunday, may have worked alone. But he operated in the larger context of a teeming, terror-coddling paradise.
Mosques: Mateen's homicidal hatred for gays didn't exist in a vacuum. Mateen's neighborhood mosque in nearby Fort Pierce, Florida, was also the house of worship of Moner Abu-Salha, an American jihad recruiter and suicide bomber who blew himself up in Syria last year. The Palm Beach Post reported this week that Abu-Salha had posted videos of an imam's death-to-gays rant on Facebook.
Marcus Dwayne Robertson (a.k.a. Abu Taubah), a former U.S. Marine turned career criminal and bodyguard to the Blind Sheik, headed another mosque, Masjid Al-Ihsaam, in Orlando. He also founded the Orlando-based Fundamental Islamic Knowledge Seminary in 2008 and railed against gays and non-Muslims. Mateen was enrolled in Taubah's course.
Just weeks before the Pulse nightclub massacre, another Orlando mosque, the Husseini Islamic Center, hosted a guest imam who had preached that "gays must die" and that Muslims should not "be embarrassed about this ... let's get rid of them now."
Also in Orlando, the al-Rahman mosque led by Imam Muhammad Musri made headlines in 2010 after holding a fundraiser for the terrorist group Hamas.
In Tampa, Sami al-Arian founded the al-Qassam mosque named after an infamous Syrian terrorist. Last fall, the mosque — owned by the North American Islamic Trust, an un-indicted terror co-conspiracy organization — invited an exiled Muslim Brotherhood instigator and Hamas cheerleader to speak.
Shukrijumah's brother still lives in Broward County near the Darul Uloom mosque and has posted social media videos condemning "moderate" Muslims, blaming 9/11 on Jews and promoting the caliphate. Darul Uloom's imam is a gay-bashing, Christian-bashing, Jew-bashing bigot who has publicly stated that at least one of the 9/11 hijackers prayed at his mosque.
Jails: Florida's prisons and penitentiaries are unfettered cesspools for jihad radicalization and recruitment. Convicted al-Qaida dirty bomb plotter Jose Padilla (a.k.a. Abdullah al Mujahir) was introduced to Islam while serving time for an armed road rage incident in Sunrise, Florida. The above-named Abu Taubah radicalized nearly 40 fellow inmates while behind bars on a weapons conviction. He was freed last summer by U.S. District Judge Gregory Presnell after time served despite prosecutors' pleas to add 10 years to his sentence based on enhanced terror charges.
Gun-grabbers and bleeding hearts, wake up and stop playing Mickey Mouse politics. The problem isn't weapons. It's the weaponized Muslim hate-mongers and jihad enablers operating openly in our midst.
------------------ Michelle Malkin is mother, wife, blogger, conservative syndicated columnist, and author. She shares many of her articles and thoughts at MichelleMalkin.com. Article was also shared by and image is from FrontPage Mag, a outreach of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Tags:Michelle Malkin, Al-Qaeda, Florida, Islam, Jihad, FrontPage, MagTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Ann Coulter: The media have lost their minds after Trump's magnificent speech on Monday. It's all hands on deck, no attack is too extreme. Their main point is: DO NOT LOOK AT THAT SPEECH. It has "words that wound." Much too dangerous even to read it.
Instead of reporting what Trump said, the media give us the "gist" of it (in the sense of an unrecognizable distortion). It was awful, Hitlerian, beneath our dignity as a nation. They lie about what he said and then attack their own lies as if they're attacking Trump.
The Washington Post's headline, which got their reporters banned from Trump's press briefings, was: "Donald Trump Seems to Connect President Obama to the Orlando Shooting."
I guess OK, You're Right, didn't sound professional, so the Post pretended not to understand Trump's speech, at all. We can't makes heads or tails of it, but he seems to be saying ...
One thing Trump is not, is unclear.
Contrary to the Post's headline suggesting that Trump had posited some crazy theory about Obama secretly meeting with Omar Mateen to plot the attack -- No, this gun is much better for a mass shooting, Omar -- Trump criticized the Obama administration policies that are not keeping us safe. (It's completely unprecedented to respond to a mass murder by criticizing the policies that allowed it to happen!)
After San Bernardino and Orlando -- also, the Boston Marathon, Fort Hood, Little Rock, Chattanooga and Times Square -- quite obviously, Trump is right.
Washington Post: We're confused. What do you mean?
How about: >Washington Post seems to Connect President Bush to Abu Ghraib.
Washington Post, May 26, 2006: "Bush has ... addressed Abu Ghraib the same way he did last night: Expressing regret without responsibility."
Or: Democrats Seem to Connect President Bush to Anti-Americanism in Muslim World.
Washington Post, May 20, 2005: "It is certainly true that the Bush administration, at Guantanamo and at Abu Ghraib, is responsible for a good deal of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world."
Or: Washington Post Seems to Connect President Bush to Missing WMDs and Katrina Deaths
Washington Post, April 5, 2006: "How much was President Bush personally responsible for taking the country to war under false pretenses, or for the botched response to Hurricane Katrina? To hear the White House tell it, it wasn't really his fault."
In his speech, Trump said:"The killer was an Afghan, of Afghan parents, who immigrated to the United States. His father published support for the Afghan Taliban, a regime which murders those who don't share its radical views. The father even said he was running for president of that country.
"The bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the first place was because we allowed his family to come here.
"That is a fact, and it's a fact we need to talk about.
"We have a dysfunctional immigration system which does not permit us to know who we let into our country, and it does not permit us to protect our citizens."Immediately after Trump's speech, MSNBC's Katie Tur "fact-checked" Trump, announcing that he had incorrectly said Omar was "born in Afghan."
What did Tur think this meant? "Afghan" isn't a country. Didn't she pause for a moment and realize that what she thought he said makes no sense? Journalists with their outsized sense of importance say, No, no, that's not what I heard. It says in my notes right here, you said, "blue carrots for Eisenhower." I stand by my notes.
Obviously, what Trump said was that Omar was "born an Afghan." Which he was.
The media began indignantly informing us that Trump was wrong because -- as The Washington Post put it: "The shooter was born in Queens to parents who emigrated from Afghanistan."
With the media, you're an "American" when you commit the worst mass shooing in U.S. history, an "Afghan" when you're applying to college. You're an "American" when you shoot up the San Bernardino community center, a "Pakistani" when you're offended by Trump's remarks. You're an "American" when you slaughter troops at Fort Hood, a "Muslim" when the Army realizes it can't fire you.
This can lead to confusion. After the Post snippily corrected Trump on Omar not being an "Afghan" on Monday, on Tuesday, the Post admitted he was. Headline: "Orlando gunman said he carried out attack to get 'Americans to stop bombing his country,' witness says."
The Atlantic's Ron Fournier, Dispenser of Conventional Liberal Opinion, wrote an article on Trump's speech titled "A Victory Lap in Blood" that would make any social justice warrior proud.
Like the rest of the media's reviews of a speech they apparently didn't read, there were no quotes from Trump's speech. Instead, Fournier ran through a string of accusations, SJW-style: "You didn't call it," "You are helping ISIS recruit terrorists," "You are dividing Americans ..."
Trump never claimed he "called it," but, if he ever does, Fournier has a fantastic takedown:
"You didn't warn that an American man named Omar Mateen, a well-educated security guard investigated by the FBI for suspected ties to terrorism, would legally purchase a weapon made for warfare and use it to slaughter 49 people at a popular gay nightclub."
Hillary Clinton is presidential because she wants to dramatically increase the number of unvetted Syrian refugees we bring in. But Trump is an embarrassment because he doesn't have superhuman powers to know that a "man named Omar Mateen" would attack an Orlando nightclub.
Fournier repeated the fake fact currently sweeping the nation about Trump thinking he deserves congratulations, writing, "Donald Trump wants a pat on the back."
But then Fournier made the fatal mistake of quoting Trump's tweet allegedly saying this: "Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don't want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!"
Fournier's "Trump wants a pat on the back" was 12 words away from Trump saying, "I don't want congrats." Even the most bored reader is probably going to make it that far.
Now you see why reporters aren't quoting Trump and have to hope you won't read the speech for yourself.
----------------- 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, Donald Trump, Trump Speech, Terrorism, National Security, the mediaTo 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.