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, June 24, 2016
Americans Reject Elites on National Security
by Newt Gingrich: In a stunning new survey, Matt Towery, Jr., head of Opinion Savvy, discovered that a majority of the American people oppose the national security policies of the elites.
The implications of this survey for the upcoming presidential election and Senate races could be extraordinary.
Towery had the courage to ask more politically incorrect questions than I have ever seen in one survey.
The results are heavily in favor of defending Americans from danger and against political correctness when dealing with Islamic supremacism and Sharia law. By margins of 5-1 or even 10-1, depending on the question, Americans repudiate the Clinton-Obama policies of weakness and political correctness.
“The results indicate that Americans’ views are somewhat at odds with the current model of national security, particularly with regard to screening visitors to the United States,” Towery said. “The survey contacted registered voters on the evenings of June 19th and 20th on their landline telephones and mobile devices. As with all of our surveys, the final data was weighted for several demographic variables to reflect the composition of the electorate.”
In all, the survey results reveal the extent of the alienation between the American people and the political elites on national security.
For example, 67 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the United States’ effort to fight terrorism, compared to just 27 percent who are satisfied. The intensity of this disapproval is reflected in the fact that 53 percent of respondents say they are very dissatisfied and less than 10 percent are very satisfied. This is a stunning 5-1 margin opposed to the status quo.
By 70 percent to 14 percent, Americans believe that visitors to the United States should be screened for supporters of Sharia law. This is another 5-1 ratio.
Among the 70 percent who believe in screening, 80 percent would block them from entering the United States and only 8.7 percent would admit them. This is more than a 9-1 margin. Thus 56 percent of all Americans oppose supporters of Sharia law entering the country.
Americans are very hard-line about U.S. citizens who swear allegiance to ISIS and other terrorist groups. By 83 percent to 8, Americans support stripping such people of their American citizenship.
While millions of Americans support the Second Amendment and their constitutional right to bear arms, they do not think that these rights apply to suspected terrorists. According to the survey, 88 percent of Americans believe suspected terrorists should not be allowed to buy weapons, compared to only 3.3 percent who disagree.
While Americans overwhelmingly believe that suspected terrorists should not have access to guns, they do not support banning guns for ordinary citizens. Even so-called “assault” weapons have very significant support, with 44 percent opposing a ban on them and 49 percent approving the proposal. Given the much greater intensity among Second Amendment supporters, it is no wonder that these measures keep failing in Congress (the Democrats’ current “sit-in” notwithstanding).
This poll begins to outline a new American consensus on defending America and decisively repudiating the elite’s weaknesses.
It is worth your reading and thinking about in detail for yourself.
---------------------- 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, Americans, Reject Elites, National Security To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
How Brexit Will Change America And The World . . .
. . . Britain is free of global government. America can be next.
by Daniel Greenfield: Yesterday the British people stood up for their freedom. Today the world is a different place.
Celebrities and politicians swarmed television studios to plead with voters to stay in the EU. Anyone who wanted to leave was a fascist. Economists warned of total collapse if Britain left the European Union. Alarmist broadcasts threatened that every family would lose thousands of pounds a year if Brexit won.
Even Obama came out to warn Brits of the economic consequences of leaving behind the EU.
Every propaganda gimmick was rolled out. Brexit was dismissed, mocked and ridiculed. It was for lunatics and madmen. Anyone who voted to leave the benevolent bosom of the European Union was an ignorant xenophobe who had no place in the modern world. And that turned out to be most of Britain.
While Londonistan, that post-British city of high financial stakes and low Muslim mobs, voted by a landslide to remain, a decisive majority of the English voted to wave goodbye to the EU. 67% of Tower Hamlets, the Islamic stronghold, voted to stay in the EU. But to no avail. The will of the people prevailed.
And the people did not want migrant rape mobs in their streets and Muslim massacres in their pubs. They were tired of Afghani migrants living in posh homes with their four wives while they worked hard and sick of seeing their daughters passed around by “Asian” cabbies from Pakistan in ways utterly indistinguishable from the ISIS slave trade while the police looked the other way so as not to appear racist. And, most of all, they were sick of the entire Eurocratic establishment that let it all happen.
British voters chose freedom. They decided to reclaim their destiny and their nation from the likes of Count Herman Von Rompuy, the former President of the European Council, selected at an “informal” meeting who has opposed direct elections for his job and insisted that, “the word of the future is union.”
When Nigel Farage of UKIP told Count Von Rompuy that “I can speak on behalf of the majority of British people in saying that we don't know you, we don't want you and the sooner you are put out to grass, the better,” he was fined for it by the Bureau of the European Parliament after refusing to apologize. But now it’s Farage and the Independence Party who have had the last laugh.
The majority of British people didn’t want Count Von Rompuy and his million-dollar pension, or Donald Tusk, Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and the rest of the monkeys squatting on Britain’s back.
Count Von Rompuy has lost his British provinces. And the British people have their nation back.
The word of the future isn’t “union.” It’s “freedom.” A process has begun that will not end in Britain. It will spread around the world liberating nations from multinational institutions.
During Obama’s first year in office, Count Von Rompuy grandly declared that “2009 is also the first year of global governance.” Like many such predictions, it proved to be dangerously wrong. And now it may just well be that 2016 will be the first year of the decline and fall of global governance.
An anti-establishment wind is blowing through the creaky house of global government. The peoples of the free world have seen how the choking mass of multilateral institutions failed them economically and politically. Global government is an expensive and totalitarian proposition that silences free speech and funnels rapists from Syria, Sudan and Afghanistan to the streets of European cities and American towns. It’s a boon for professional consultants, certain financial insiders and politicians who can hop around unelected offices and retire with vast unearned pensions while their constituents are told to work another decade. But global government is misery and malaise for everyone else.
The campaign to stay in the EU relied on fear and alarmism, on claims of bigotry and disdain for the working class voters who fought and won the right to decide their own destiny. But the campaign for independence asked Britons to believe in their own potential when unchained from the Eurocratic bureaucracy. And now Brexit will become a model for liberation campaigns across Europe.
And it will not end there.
Brexit showed that it is possible for a great nation to defy its leaders and its establishment thinkers to throw off its multinational chains. And while the European Union is one of the biggest prisons forged by global government, it is far from the only one. America and Britain are sleeping giants covered in the cold iron links of multinational organizations that limit their strength and their potential.
It is time to break those chains.
Americans who want to cut their ties with the United Nations have found Brexit inspiring. Leaving the UK was once also seen as a ridiculous idea at the margins that could never be taken seriously. Serious politicians refused to listen to it. Serious thinkers refused to discuss it. And then it gathered speed.
There is growing opposition even among Democrats to treaties like the TPP. Trump has challenged NAFTA. Americans across the political spectrum are suspicious of economic treaties and organizations. Support for Brexit came from Labour areas in the UK. Support for Trump’s challenge to multinational treaties and alliances could very well come from unexpected places, like Bernie Sanders backers.
Brexit has shown us the weakness of the multinational establishment. Its vast bureaucratic power rests on using the media to suppress political dissent. When the media’s special pleading fails to stop the democratic process, it is more helpless than any dictator when the outraged mob pours into his palace.
What was true of Britain, is also true of America. Our elites are just as impotent. The power they have illegally seized is defended zealously by a media palace guard that spends every minute of every day lecturing, hectoring and messaging Americans. But when no one listens to the media, then the men and women who run our lives, who feed off us like a colony of parasitic insects, are helpless.
Their power is purely persuasive. When we stop listening, then we are free.
That is the lesson of Brexit. It is the future.
The future is not a vast behemoth of global government that swallows up nations and individuals, that reduces democratic elections to a joke and eliminates freedom of speech, but the individual. The elites have gambled everything on big government, big media and big data. But all of those lost to Brexit.
They lost to Brexit in the UK. They can lose in the US too. And they will lose.
The power of the establishment is illusory. Like the naked emperor, it depends on no one challenging it. The harder it is challenged, the harder it will fall. Brexit was an impossible dream. Then it was reality.
Our impossible dreams, the policies that conservatives are told by the establishment are not even worth talking about, can be just as real as Brexit.
If we are willing to fight for them.
-------------- Daniel Greenfield is Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. David Horowitz is a Contributing Author of the ARRA News Service Tags:Daniel Greenfield, FrontPage Mag, Brexit, Britain, European Union, referendum, VoteTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Brexit Vote, Reaction, Implications For November & Market Reactions
by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: June 23rd: Britain's Independence Day - As you know, there is a great conflict that has the entire Western world in turmoil. On one side are powerful forces of big government, big business and big media. Unanimously, they are telling us that borders are old fashioned, that everyone in the world has a right to migrate to wherever they wish, that nation-states are antiques.
They behave as if major decisions should be entrusted to government bureaucrats who claim to know what is best for us. And in the minds of these elites, Western Civilization owes a debt to the rest of the world for its oppression.
On the other side is the common man and woman in every nation who feels the normal sense of pride people have always felt about the place of their birth. They believe they know better how to run their lives, not people in distant cities and nations whom they have never met.
They know that without borders there is no nation. They know the civilization they are part of has brought more liberty and prosperity to more people than any other in the history of mankind. They believe that their elected officials should represent them and defend their nation first, rather than some vague concept of globalism.
For months these two sides have clashed in a historic battle in Great Britain. And in spite of threats from George Soros and Barack Obama, the people once proudly led by Winston Churchill voted for liberty, not submission. Yesterday the people of the United Kingdom voted to declare their independence from Brussels and to exit the European Union.
This is just the beginning. The next battle is likely to be fought in the United States. The British people rejected the fundamental transformation of their country. Now it's our turn!
Reaction - Reacting to the vote, British Prime Minister David Cameron, who supported the campaign to remain in the E.U., announced he would resign in the weeks ahead. There have been calls for Labour leader Jeremy Corbin to step down as well.
Nigel Farage, leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party, was once dismissed as a fringe, crackpot candidate. Sounding a populist theme, he told supporters early this morning that "honesty, decency and belief in nation" had triumphed over the big banks, the multinational corporations and big government.
Former London Mayor Boris Johnson, who helped lead the Leave campaign and may become the next prime minister, said, "I believe we now have a glorious opportunity: we can pass our laws and set our taxes entirely according to the needs of the U.K. economy." What a novel concept! Sadly, that is precisely what is at stake in the new world order.
Justice Secretary Michael Gove, also among those mentioned as a possible replacement for Cameron, declared the 23rd to be "D-Day" or "Democracy Day." He compared the vote to the American Revolution, saying that Americans refused "to be ruled by someone who was distant and unaccountable. They decided to break free then and America has never looked back and the world had cause to be grateful."
Gove urged Britons to have confidence in their institutions. He reminded them that voting to leave was an "embrace of optimism," that England was not just some small rain soaked island, but a proud nation that "gave the world parliamentary democracy" and "moral leadership in the fight against slavery and the fight against fascism."
A few years ago, I had the privilege of meeting with Secretary Gove in London. For over an hour, we discussed exactly this: Can the people find the courage to throw off the yoke of their politically correct masters and defend the values and culture of Western civilization?
I am greatly encouraged by this vote.
Implications For November? - In case you are wondering why you should care, think back to the 1980 Olympics and the U.S. hockey team's upset victory over the Soviet Union. Some of us realized at the time that the tremendous reaction to a simple hockey game highlighted the swelling desire for someone to make America great again. That celebration foreshadowed Ronald Reagan's victory.
This election in England is evidence of the great yearning among common people to reject political correctness and elite condescension, and to embrace commonsense values once again.
Today in America, there is great remorse among all the right people. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, George Soros, all the left-wing websites -- this is their nightmare. Proud people are standing up to the establishment.
It is the theme that turned the GOP primary battle on its head, handing the nomination to a candidate with admitted flaws (Don't they all have flaws?), but one who understood that borders, nationalism, saving jobs from going overseas -- making America great -- were the salient issues simmering within the American people.
Yesterday, Donald Trump flew to Scotland. The cover story was that he wanted to check on his golf courses. Immediately, the Beltway consultants attacked him for leaving the country in the middle of the campaign. These are the same people who have been giving our nominees advice with a near perfect record of failure.
So when the results were announced, where was Trump? Standing before a throng of TV cameras in Scotland, delivering a press conference that was covered by every network. He connected the biggest news story in the world with what he is fighting for in this country. Brilliant!
He reminded the crowd that President Obama had threatened to punish England, sending it to the back of the line for future trade deals if Brexit passed. To the wild applause of the crowd, Trump promised that the "special relationship" with Great Britain would not be forgotten in his administration, that our friends would be at the front of the line in a new alliance between our two great nations.
Echoing the sentiments of Michael Gove, Trump said, "It will soon be time to believe in America again." Market Reactions - Needless to say, the elites around the world are panicking today. Global financial markets are in free fall. For weeks, elites have threatened that this would happen. And because they are the ones who can make it happen, they are, of course, making it happen.
The "little people" are the only ones getting hurt. Not because they made bad investment decisions, but because they aren't like George Soros who can move billions at whim.
While I'm not a financial advisor, this reaction is ridiculous in my view. For it to be rational you have to believe that the disappearance of nation-states is rational. You have to believe that the submersion of Europe by a tidal wave of refugees is good for the economic health of the West. Both are utterly absurd!
How did England and the world survive before the E.U.?
It reminds me of Margaret Thatcher, who vowed to remove government price controls if she were elected. When polls indicated she could win, the markets dropped. The elites then warned of chaos. But Thatcher coolly promised that the markets would be free to be markets again, growing and prospering unhindered by the yoke of government. And she was right.
This too shall pass.
------------- 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, Britain's Independence Day, Brexit, Brexit Vote, Brexit Reaction, Implications For November To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Tom Balek, Contributing Author: Voters in Great Britain took a courageous stand against their heavy-handed, uber-liberal, politically correct, elitist big-government overlords at EU headquarters in Brussels yesterday. They said NO to open borders. NO to uncontrolled Muslim immigration. NO to global-warming hoaxes. NO to stupid monetary policy and negative interest rates. NO to profligate gender-bending. NO to anti-Christian aggression. NO to over-regulation of businesses and micro-management of personal lives. NO to identity politics and fear of offending everybody. NO to corruption and croynyism. NO to rampant welfare programs. NO to top-down decision making by unaccountable bureaucrats.
Other European nations will likely follow Great Britain’s lead and jump ship soon. Enough is enough.
Could this be the start of a world-wide movement back to “normal” government? Mainstream America has repudiated its permanent political class, and despite the best efforts of the DC insiders (both Democrats and Republicans) to barricade the Beltway, the ascendance of common-sense outsiders to national leadership looks more likely every day. Don’t be fooled by the liberal-media polls who try their best to throw cold water on the “throw-the-bums-out” movement. European pollsters predicted right up until election day that the Brits would stay in the EU – and were embarrassingly wrong.
Government is nothing more than dollars-in, dollars-out, just like any business. And every competent business manager knows that the way to make good decisions is to push them down to the lowest possible level of the organization. Family decisions should be made at the family level. Cities, counties, and states can manage their own affairs. We shouldn’t expect or allow our federal government to handle much more than borders, national security, and foreign policy. When condescending, elitist government officials try to micromanage every aspect of human life, the result is Venezuela.
Socialism has never worked. It never will. America will be great again. And those who jump off the socialist European Union ship first will be healthy and robust again too. Those who don’t are in for some tough times. Other confused nations (Canada? Australia?) will see the stark contrast and will move back to sanity.
It’s been a long wait. But something tells me we are in for something good.
--------------- 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:big government, elitists, on the run, Brexit, European UnionTom Balek, Rockin' On The Right SideTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
. . . A generous military aid package -- with unacceptable strings attached.
by Caroline Glick: This week, MK Michael Oren stood up to his boss in the Kulanu party, Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon, to the political Left, including hundreds of retired security brass, and to the IDF General Staff. The former ambassador to Washington urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to sign the multi-year security assistance deal that US President Barack Obama demands Israel accept.
The problem isn’t the money. By all accounts, Obama’s multi-year military assistance package is generous.
The problem is that in exchange for the expanded military aid, Obama is demanding that Israel surrender its diplomatic and military independence to the White House.
For more than 40 years, every US administration – including the Obama administration – that has sought to harm Israel in any way has hit up against an unmovable obstacle. Whether the White House wanted to enable the UN Security Council to pass an anti-Israel resolution, place an embargo on military exports or bureaucratically slow them down to force Israel to stand down during wartime; whether the White House wanted block expanded trade deals, crowd out Israel’s military industries, or sell game changing weapons systems to Israel’s enemies, the US Congress has always stopped it in its tracks.
Israel-haters in the US speak endlessly about the supposedly all powerful and malign “Israel lobby,” which controls US foreign affairs. But the simple truth is that it wouldn’t matter all that much if AIPAC were to shut down tomorrow. Even without AIPAC, Israel would enjoy the support of Congress.
It would continue to enjoy that support because the vast majority of Americans support Israel and expect their representatives in Congress to support Israel.
In other words, the “Israel lobby” is none other than the American people.
As Oren warned, Obama’s military assistance package would disenfranchise the American public when it comes to US policy toward Israel. The agreement bars Israel from asking that Congress augment the assistance that Obama has offered and bars Congress from acting. So if a future administration chooses to breach the agreement, or to suspend it, or if conditions change and Israel requires other assistance, Congress would be barred from stepping into the breach.
Then there is the assistance agreement’s assault on Israel’s military independence.
Israel’s military industries are the primary guarantor of its independent capacity to fight and win wars.
Successive administrations have sought to restrict the activities of Israel’s military industries and have used the military assistance to achieve their goal.
Israeli critics of US assistance note that Israel’s military industries are the primary casualties of the aid.
Currently, the US allows Israel to use a mere 25 percent of its assistance at home. As a consequence, the main beneficiary of US military assistance to Israel are US defense contractors.
Critics of the US aid argue that if Israel stops receiving military assistance, far from harming the economy, the move would strengthen Israeli industry and expand economic growth. The thousands of jobs at US defense contractors that are created through US military assistance to Israel, will move to Israel, and go to Israelis.
Moreover, whereas Israel gives the US its technology for free as part of the security assistance package, if it stops accepting the assistance, it will be free to sell its technology to other partners such as India, which will eagerly partner with Israel in weapons development and production projects.
Strategically, canceling the US military aid package would massively expand Israel’s military independence of action.
On the other hand, the deal that Obama is now trying to coerce Netanyahu to sign will require Jerusalem to give up the 25 percent of the military assistance it is now allowed to spend at home. Oren noted that such a concession will cost thousands of Israelis their jobs.
But even worse, an Israeli agreement to spend all future US military assistance in the US would be tantamount to an Israeli agreement to concede its military independence to the White House for a fistful of dollars. Without the independent capacity to develop and produce defense systems, spare parts and munitions, Israel will be unable to take military action without White House approval.
Obama’s own record makes clear what Israel would be risking.
Two years ago during Operation Protective Edge, Obama initiated an unofficial embargo on missile transfers to Israel. In an act of economic warfare, Obama also temporarily banned US commercial flights from traveling to Ben-Gurion Airport and so threatened the economy. Obama undertook these steps as a means to coerce Israel into accepting Hamas’s cease-fire terms.
Aside from Obama’s terms themselves, the most distressing aspect of the current fight over Obama’s defense deal is that the IDF senior brass – in active duty and reserves – supports Obama.
This support goes hand in hand with a series of actions taken by current and former senior security officials in recent months and weeks. Taken together, they strengthen the unpleasant and distressing conclusion that the Obama administration has unreasonably close ties to Israel’s security establishment and is using them to undermine the elected government.
Since last month, retired IDF general officers have produced two major position papers dealing with various aspects of a future Israeli withdrawal from Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. Their most notable common feature is that they both reflect the Obama administration’s policies on the Palestinian conflict with Israel.
The first paper, “Security First,” was produced by a group called Commanders for Israel’s Security. With the signatures of more than 200 retired generals, and recently endorsed by former prime minister and defense minister Ehud Barak, the CIS paper calls for Israel to announce that it is ending its claims to sovereign rights over Judea and Samaria. It also calls for Israel to take a number of unilateral steps in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem in order to show the Palestinians that it is serious about surrendering the areas in the framework of a peace deal with the PLO.
Among other things, the generals call for Israel to administratively divide Jerusalem. The Arab neighborhoods should be administered by an Arabs-only municipal authority that will operate within Jerusalem’s city hall but be autonomous in its decisions.
The generals also call for a complete cessation of all building activities in Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria outside the separation barrier. Residents of these communities, they recommend, should be pressured to abandon their homes in exchange for government money.
The second paper was prepared by the Washington- based Center for a New American Security. CNAS is led by former senior Obama administration officials.
“A Security System for the Two-State Solution” was authored by leading members of US Gen. John Allen’s team of advisers. In 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry hired Allen to prepare a security plan that would convince the Israeli government and public to surrender the Jordan Valley in the framework of a peace deal with the Palestinians. The public, and the government rejected his recommendations.
Among the paper’s co-authors are Maj.-Gen. (res.) Gadi Shamni, the former IDF attaché to Washington, and Nimord Novik, Shimon Peres’s former chief of staff. Novik also played a central role in writing the “Security First” paper.
In 2013-2014, Shamni raised a lot of Israeli eyebrows when it was reported Allen had hired him to serve on his team. Shamni’s closest point man in his work for Allen was Kerry’s lead negotiator Martin Indyk. Indyk viewed Shamni’s presence on the team as a means to subvert public opinion. Indyk sought to recruit other retired IDF generals to work with Shamni to lobby Israelis to support Allen’s plan, which required Israel to surrender its control over the border with Jordan.
The CNAS report essentially parrots Allen’s plan.
Like Allen’s plan, the CNAS plan claims to provide security arrangements that will provide for Israel’s defense even after it withdraws from the Jordan Valley, and the rest of Judea and Samaria.
To this end, the report purports to “Build a multilayered system that addresses Israel’s security concerns and in which Israel retains the right of self-defense as well as the capacity to defend itself by itself, but ensures that this is only necessary in extremis.”
And who determines whether Israel has reached such an extreme situation? The Americans will. The basic premise of the CNAS paper is that the US military will replace the IDF as the guarantor of Israel’s survival.
US forces will patrol the Jordan Valley along with Palestinian forces, which they will train.
More important, the Americans will stand at the helm of a security committee composed of Israelis, Palestinians and Jordanians. The Americans will dictate the tempo of Israeli withdrawals from Judea and Samaria, including from the international border with Jordan. If Israel believes that the Palestinians are not able or willing to maintain security in the areas that Israel is to vacate, and the Americans disagree, Israel will be forced to withdraw despite its objections.
If it fails to do so, or if it acts militarily against US objections, it will lose US diplomatic backing.
Shamni’s paper, like Obama’s defense assistance deal, is based on one strategic assumption: That Israel can trust the administration – any administration that ever will be – so much that its best bet is to give up its diplomatic and strategic independence in exchange for American weapons and Obama’s promises. Moreover, it can commit its survival to the proposition that the US is strategically infallible.
On that point, it is worth noting that this week, terrorists whose affiliation was not reported detonated a car bomb along Jordan’s border with Iraq and Syria.
Six people were killed.
The affected area has been the site of several recent attacks by Iranian-allied forces. As J.E. Dyer has noted, Iran seeks to use its control over the Iraqi army’s campaign against ISIS in Falluja as a stepping stone in its westward expansion into Jordan.
In response to the attack, the Jordanian military declared the northern and eastern border areas closed military zones.
In the CNAS report, the threat posed to Israel from the east through Jordan is casually dismissed. While the authors allow that such a threat exists in theory, they insist that an attack from the east is “much less likely since the fall of Saddam Hussein.”
Revealing the unity of purpose between the CIS and CNAS, both were presented in New York earlier this month at an event sponsored by the far-left Israel Policy Forum. The forum is considered a major player today due to its intimate ties to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
Shamni and his colleagues admitted, “Persuading Israelis to entrust part of their security to the United States will be one of the most challenging hurdles to an agreement.”
Let us hope that it remains an insurmountable obstacle.
---------------------- Caroline Glick is the Director of the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Israel Security Project and the Senior Contributing Editor of The Jerusalem Post where this article was first published. For more information on Ms. Glick's work, visitcarolineglick.com. David Horowitz is a Contributing Author of the ARRA News Service Tags:Barack Obama, Israel, Michael Oren, Benjamin Netanyahu, Military, Caroline Glick, 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!
Tags:Editorial Cartoon by, AF , Branco, eye to eye, windows to the soual, Donald Trump, Hillary ClintonTo 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: Stripped of its excesses, Donald Trump’s Wednesday speech contains all the ingredients of a campaign that can defeat Hillary Clinton this fall.
Indeed, after the speech ended Clinton was suddenly defending the Clinton Foundation against the charge that it is a front for a racket for her family’s enrichment.
The specific charges in Trump’s indictment of Clinton: She is mendacious, corrupt, incompetent and a hypocrite.
“Hillary Clinton … is a world-class liar,” said Trump. She faked a story about being under fire at a Bosnia airport, the kind of claim for which TV anchors get fired. She has lied repeatedly about her email server.
She lied to the families of victims of the Benghazi massacre by implying the atrocity was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islamic video, not the premeditated act of Islamist terror she knew it to be.
Drop “world-class” and Trump’s case is open and shut.
His second charge: “Hillary has perfected the politics of personal profit and theft” and “may be the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency.”
Bill Clinton got $750,000 for a speech from a telecom company facing State Department sanctions for providing technology to Iran. The Clintons got the cash; the telecom company got no sanctions.
“Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while 9 investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.”
Trump added, “She ran the State Department like her own personal hedge fund — doing favors for oppressive regimes … for cash.”
Together, she and Bill have raked in $153 million since 2001 in speaking fees from “lobbyists, CEOs and foreign governments.”
These figures are almost beyond belief.
Sherman Adams had to resign as Ike’s chief of staff for accepting a vicuna coat from Bernard Goldfine, who had problems with federal regulators.
When ex-President Reagan, after brain surgery, visited Japan to receive that nation’s highest honor, The Grand Cordon of the Supreme Order of the Chrysanthemum, and got a $2 million fee from the media company that hosted his nine-day visit, our liberal editorial pages vomited out their revulsion and disgust.
Where are those media watchdogs today?
Rather than condemning the Clintons’ greed, their conflicts of interest and their egregious exploitation of their offices, the media are covering for Hillary and digging for dirt on Trump.
To substantiate his charge of incompetence, Trump notes that Clinton as Senator voted for arguably the greatest strategic blunder in U.S. history, the invasion of Iraq.
She pushed the attack that ousted Col. Gadhafi and unleashed terrorists who took over much of Libya and murdered our ambassador.
She played a leading role in launching the insurrection against Bashar Assad that has left hundreds of thousands dead, uprooted half of Syria and sent millions of refugees to seek asylum in Europe.
Primary beneficiary: ISIS, with its capital in Raqqa.
And the hypocrisy charge?
Though Hillary and Bill Clinton profess to be the fighting champions of women’s equality and gay rights, they have banked millions in speaking feels and tens of millions in contributions to the Clinton Foundation from Islamic regimes under whose rule women are treated as chattel and homosexuals are flogged, beheaded and stoned to death.
Why do major media let them get away with such hypocrisy?
Because, ideologically, politically, socially, morally and culturally, the major media are with them.
While making the case for the indictment of Hillary Clinton, Trump also outlined an agenda with appeal not only to nationalists, populists and conservatives but working-class and minority Democrats.
If Trump is elected, an economic system “rigged” to enable big corporations to leave and take factories and jobs abroad, and bring their goods back free of charge to kill companies that stay in America, will end.
“Globalism” will be replaced by “Americanism.”
Trade and tax policies will be rewritten to provide incentives for companies to bring jobs and factories here. Was this not also Bernie Sanders’ message? He stood against NAFTA in the 1990s when the Clintons colluded with Bush Republicans to impose it.
In his peroration, Trump spoke of what we Americans had done, how we had lost our way, but how we could, together, make her great again. His finale was surprisingly aspirational, hopeful, inclusive.
In the political year just ended, several unmistakable messages have been delivered.
First, the record turnout for Trump and remarkable turnout for Ted Cruz represented a repudiation of Beltway Republicanism.
Second, the amazing success of 74-year-old Socialist Bernie Sanders in keeping Clinton embattled until California, showed that the Democratic young have had enough of Clintonism.
A majority of the nation said loud and clear: We want change.
Hillary Clinton’s vulnerability is that Americans distrust her; no one believes she represents change; and she has no agenda and no vision.
Her campaign for president is all about her.
As Trump noted, even her slogan is, “I’m with her.”
Rough and raw as it was in parts, Donald Trump’s speech on Wednesday contains the elements of a campaign that can win.
-------------------- 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, Donald Trump, The FormulaTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Rick Manning: In the waiting area to see Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) or his staff, there is a banner that draws from University of Notre Dame football, saying, "Speaker like a Champion." The House Democrats' sit-in tests whether the Wisconsin Republican will live up to that motto.
In many ways, the Democrats have provided the Speaker a golden opportunity to bring his conference together and jam their priorities down the House Democrats' throats.
The first step should be to call a meeting of his Republican conference and get consensus that the House is going to expand the number of days it will meet, with five-day-a-week sessions up through the Republican convention in Cleveland, and then coming back to work as soon as it ends.
The goal would be to complete as much of the appropriations work as possible to avoid a massive continuing resolution in September, thus denying the Democrats a vehicle to hold the country hostage.
This consensus can be gained through a couple of steps.
First, the Speaker should ask GOP appropriators to find and impose a 1 percent cut in every non-defense or national security agency budget.
Second, the Speaker should ask GOP appropriators to root out Democratic-pushed spending in those bills and cut that spending from the final product. If Sen. Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) favorite cowboy museum gets zeroed out, oh well.
Third, the Rules Committee should deny any amendments offered by Democrats to the spending bills. This includes sending the Financial Services appropriations bill back to Rules for a new rule that disallows the more than 30 Democratic amendments that were allowed under the previous rule.
The Democratic temper tantrum against freedom is costing precious House floor time, and it should be the Democrats who pay the piper for this choice. No future appropriations bills should allow any Democratic amendments this session. What's more, additional GOP riders should be included that curb President Obama's abuse of power.
All of these things are within Ryan's power. If a Speaker cannot control the floor of the House, he or she has lost the ability to lead. So this is Ryan's moment of truth.
He must be somewhat stunned by these developments. He has given the minority almost unprecedented power. Time and again, he has passed legislation opposed by conservatives with heavy Democratic support, and now those same Democrats are disrespecting him worse than the University of Southern California Trojans abused Notre Dame in 1974's 55-24 drubbing.
House Democrats have been emboldened to pull this stunt because they believe they can bully Ryan into concessions. If they are right, Ryan's Speakership is effectively lost. Now it is time for Ryan to "Speaker like a Champion," exercise the power of his position and establish conservative governance of the House.
--------------- Rick Manning (@rmanning957) is President of Americans for Limited Government. This article was also shared on The Hill. Tags:Harry Reid, Paul Ryan, sit-in, Rick Manning, Americans for Limited GovernmentTo 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: “What are your kids up to this summer?” KJ Dell-Antonia begins her New York Times column with that question. Although it sounds like a casual question, it strikes at the heart of the problem many parents face when summer vacation arrives.
If there is a Mom or Dad at home, the answer to the question isn’t as tough as when either both parents work or a single parent works. Then it becomes a financial and logistical nightmare. This is especially true if finances are tight and there is no money for day care or for a summer camp. Many of the parents she talked to were living paycheck to paycheck and could not afford additional summer expenses.
Children are often left with an older child or a neighbor. Sometimes they are merely plopped in front of the television set with full run of the house. That is hardly the vision we had in the past of kids playing baseball and romping through the lawn sprinklers.
There is also an educational cost that she describes in her column. Most children lose math skills over the summer. Even greater is the fact that low-income children lose (on average) more than two months of reading skills and don’t gain them back in the fall. That puts them three years behind their peers by the end of the fifth grade.
Some educators have suggested year-round schools with longer breaks throughout the year. That would be the death of summer camps and especially Christian camps. Longer breaks might prevent learning lost but it doesn’t really solve the problem for parents who work. Their kids would still be off about the same amount of time but just at different intervals. Even in countries that have year-round schools the breaks still last about six weeks.
Summer break is an American tradition that arose out of the need for farm children to help with the harvest and to do necessary chores. It is still a great idea but it hits working parents hardest because many of them simply cannot afford summer.
----------- 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, schools, Summer break, Can’t Afford SummerTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Paul Driessen: Having already done yeoman’s work stifling economic growth and job creation, President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency is doubling down again.
The United States created a paltry 38,000 new jobs in May: one for every 8,000 Americans. Its labor force participation rate is a miserable 63% – meaning 93 million Americans are not working, while 6.4 million more are trying to feed their families on involuntary part-time positions and a fraction of their previous salaries. Manufacturing lost another 20,000 jobs in May, as the economy grew at an almost stagnant 0.8% the first quarter of 2016. Middle class family incomes and net worth continue to slide.
EPA’s war on coal has already cost thousands of jobs in mines, power plants and dependent businesses. Low oil prices amid a tepid, over-regulated, climate-fixated, crony-corporatist American, European and international economy have already killed thousands of US oil patch jobs.
On June 3 EPA issued more rules: methane emission standards for new and modified oil and natural gas drilling, fracking, pipeline and other operations. Under steady environmentalist pressure, it may be only a matter of time before the agency covers existing operations – and maybe even livestock, rice growing, landfills, sewage treatment plants and other methane-emitting activities.
The agency justifies these new job-killing rules by citing something it calls the “social cost of methane,” which is patterned after its equally arbitrary, speculative, infinitely malleable “social cost of carbon.” (Carbon, of course, actually means carbon dioxide – the miracle molecule that enables plant growth and makes all life on Earth possible.) Both the SCM and SCC are needed, EPA insists, to prevent dangerous manmade global warming and climate change, which it claims are driven by these two trace gases.
EPA’s methane claims are absurd. Methane emissions from US hydraulic fracturing operations have plummeted 79% and from the overall US natural gas sector by 11% since 2005.
Moreover, methane is a tiny 0.00017% of the atmosphere, the equivalent of $1.70 out of $1 million. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 17% of that is from energy production and use; 26% comes from agriculture, landfills and sewage; and the remaining 57% is from natural sources. (Carbon dioxide, the other climate bogeyman, is 0.04% of the atmosphere – 400 ppm.)
The United States accounts for a mere 9% of the world’s total manmade methane – and just 29% of that is from oil and gas operations that provide 63% of all the energy that powers America. That means US oil and gas account for less than 3% of global manmade methane emissions – and thus just 0.000004% of all the methane in Earth’s atmosphere. That’s equivalent to 4 cents out of $1 million!
EPA insists that this undetectable amount will cause a global climate catastrophe, and forcing the oil industry to spend billions of dollars to reduce its already minimal methane emissions will bring billions in health and environmental benefits via climate change prevention. It says methane is 23 (or 28 or 35) times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, and the USA must lead the way. What nonsense.
The atmosphere contains 235 times more carbon dioxide than methane – so this “ultra-potent” greenhouse gas will have only 10-15% of CO2’s supposed global warming power. The US petroleum industry’s contribution is utterly meaningless, especially compared to the solar, oceanic, cosmic and other powerful natural forces that have driven climate change throughout Earth and human history.
Of course, EPA’s shenanigans don’t end there.
The agency’s “social cost of methane” calculations rely on arbitrary 2.5, 3 and 5 percent “discount rates” that supposedly quantify the present value of future regulatory benefits, derived from preventing climate chaos 20, 50 or 100 years from now. The rates yield miraculous compounded benefits up to $1,700 per ton of methane emissions prevented by 2020 to $3,300 per ton by 2050. They could bring up to $550 million in alleged health benefits by 2025 – for “only” $330 million in oil industry costs.
But if EPA had used the 7% discount rate required under Office of Management and Budget guidelines, the supposed benefits would plummet to only $259 per ton by 2020. Naturally, EPA didn’t use that rate.
Even more dishonest, as it did for its “social cost of carbon,” EPA’s analysis incorporates virtually every conceivable “cost” of methane emissions and thus alleged “dangerous climate change” – to agriculture, forestry, water resources, “forced migration” of people and wildlife, human health and disease, rising sea levels, flooded coastal cities, ecosystems and wetlands harmed by too much or too little rain, et cetera.
But it completely ignores every obvious and enormous benefit of using oil and natural gas: generating reliable, affordable electricity for lights, heat, air conditioning, computers, electric vehicles and countless other applications; manufacturing fertilizers, plastics, paints and pharmaceuticals; and even reducing CO2 emissions by replacing coal in electricity generation. EPA also ignores the real, obvious and enormous health impairment from millions more people rendered unemployed, poor and unable to heat their homes.
That is the critical point. But almost as important, the alleged, exaggerated, computer-conjured and illusory benefits from these SCM regulations accrue to the world as a whole – while the very real costs are incurred solely by American companies, consumers and taxpayers. EPA doesn’t mention that.
And to top it off, the mandated reductions in US methane emissions will be imperceptible amid the world’s enormous and rapidly increasing oil, natural gas and coal production and use. In fact, 59 nations are already planning to build more than 1,200 new coal-fired power plants – on top of what they and developed nations are already building.
China, India, Russia and Europe together emit more than five times the methane that the USA does, and the world just set new oil and natural gas consumption records. In fact, the net increase in petroleum consumption was 2.6 times the overall increase in renewable energy use.
Indeed, fossil fuels now account for 79% of total global energy consumption – compared to 0.7% for wind and solar energy combined. The much-touted figure of 19% global renewable energy cleverly hides the fact that 68% of that consumption total is wood, animal dung and hydroelectric energy. Even more astounding, wood and dung account for 13 times more energy worldwide than wind and solar combined!
India has said it will not ratify the Paris treaty anytime soon, and will continue using fossil fuels to bring electricity to people and businesses and improve living standards. Meanwhile, renewable energy spending fell 46% in Germany and 21% overall in Europe in 2015 from the previous year.
EPA’s SCC and SCM scam underscores the religious dogma that drives the Obama Administration’s climate change agenda and ideological determination to end hydrocarbon use in America. Perhaps worse, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has bragged about putting still more coal miners out of work. She has also said she would ban drilling on all onshore and offshore public lands, and regulate fracking into oblivion on state and private lands. Senator Bernie Sanders will almost assuredly push her and the Democratic Party even further to the Left on energy policies.
These policies would put even more Americans out of work, landing them on welfare rolls and forcing them to depend on unsustainable government handouts that rely on taking more money from an ever-shrinking workforce. Americans would have to get used to the idea of having lights, AC and computers when increasingly expensive electricity is available – instead of when we need it. What a depressing future that would be for our children and grandchildren.
-------------- Paul Driessen is a contributing author to the Jefferson Policy Journal and is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and a veteran of anti-malaria campaigns. Tags:job killing rules, EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, increasing cost of electricity, Paul Driessen, Jefferson Policy FoundationTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Nile Gardiner: The momentous victory for the Brexit campaign signals a new era of freedom for the British people.
After more than four decades of being shackled to the European Union (previously the European Economic Community), Great Britain has declared its independence.
The vote for Brexit (52 percent of Britons cast ballots to leave the EU) is a vote for sovereignty and self-determination. Britain will no longer be subject to European legislation, with Britain’s Parliament retaking control. British judges will no longer be overruled by the European Court of Justice, and British businesses will be liberated from mountains of EU regulations, which have undermined economic liberty.
Indeed, Brexit will result in a bonfire of red tape, freeing the city of London and enterprises across the nation from European Union diktat. And at last, Britain is free again to negotiate its own free trade deals, a huge boost to the world’s fifth largest economy.
The United States should seize upon Brexit as a tremendous opportunity to sign an historic free trade agreement with the United Kingdom—a deal that would advance prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic. Brexit will also strengthen the Anglo-American special relationship, the most important bilateral partnership in the world.
Britain outside the EU will be a stronger ally for the United States, from confronting Russian aggression in Eastern Europe to defeating the Islamist terror threat.
Britain’s decision to leave the EU should be a cause for celebration here in America. Brexit embodies the very principles and ideals the American people hold dear to their hearts: self-determination, limited government, democratic accountability, and economic liberty. A truly free and powerful Great Britain is good for Europe and the United States.
As Margaret Thatcher famously declared after the liberation of the Falkland Islands by British forces in 1982: “Rejoice.” The Iron Lady believed firmly that Britain would be better off outside the European Union.
The British people can rejoice in their rediscovered freedom. It is a cause for celebration for America, too.
---------------------- Nile Gardiner (@NileGardiner), a leading authority on transatlantic relations, is director of The Heritage Foundation's Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom. Tags:Americans, should celebrate, United Kingdom, Brexit vote, Brexit, Nile Gardiner, The Heritage Foundation, Magaret Thatcher Center for FreedomTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Judicial Watch: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) files obtained by Judicial Watch reveal that the dad, maternal grandpa and father-in-law of President Obama’s trusted senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett, were hardcore Communists under investigation by the U.S. government.
Jarrett’s dad, pathologist and geneticist Dr. James Bowman, had extensive ties to Communist associations and individuals, his lengthy FBI file shows. In 1950 Bowman was in communication with a paid Soviet agent named Alfred Stern, who fled to Prague after getting charged with espionage. Bowman was also a member of a Communist-sympathizing group called the Association of Internes and Medical Students. After his discharge from the Army Medical Corps in 1955, Bowman moved to Iran to work, the FBI records show.
According to Bowman’s government file the Association of Internes and Medical Students is an organization that “has long been a faithful follower of the Communist Party line” and engages in un-American activities. Bowman was born in Washington D.C. and had deep ties to Chicago, where he often collaborated with fellow Communists. JW also obtained documents on Bowman from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) showing that the FBI was brought into investigate him for his membership in a group that “follows the communist party line.” The Jarrett family Communist ties also include a business partnership between Jarrett’s maternal grandpa, Robert Rochon Taylor, and Stern, the Soviet agent associated with her dad.
Jarrett’s father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, was also another big-time Chicago Communist, according to separate FBI files obtained by JW as part of a probe into the Jarrett family’s Communist ties. For a period of time Vernon Jarrett appeared on the FBI’s Security Index and was considered a potential Communist saboteur who was to be arrested in the event of a conflict with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). His FBI file reveals that he was assigned to write propaganda for a Communist Party front group in Chicago that would “disseminate the Communist Party line among…the middle class.”
It’s been well documented that Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago lawyer and longtime Obama confidant, is a liberal extremist who wields tremendous power in the White House. Faithful to her roots, she still has connections to many Communist and extremist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood. Jarrett and her family also had strong ties to Frank Marshal Davis, a big Obama mentor and Communist Party member with an extensive FBI file.
JW has exposed Valerie Jarrett’s many transgressions over the years, including her role in covering up a scandalous gun-running operation carried out by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Last fall JW obtained public records that show Jarrett was a key player in the effort to cover up that Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress about the Fast and Furious, a disastrous experiment in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed guns from the U.S. to be smuggled into Mexico so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels. Instead, federal law enforcement officers lost track of hundreds of weapons which have been used in an unknown number of crimes, including the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Arizona.
In 2008, JW got documents linking Valerie Jarrett, who also served as co-chairman of Obama’s presidential transition team, to a series of real estate scandals, including several housing projects operated by convicted felon and Obama fundraiser/friend Antoin “Tony” Rezko. According to the documents obtained from the Illinois Secretary of State, Valerie Jarrett served as a board member for several organizations that provided funding and support for Chicago slum projects operated by Rezko. Tags:Judicial Watch, FBI, Obama Administration, Valerie Jarrett, family members, communist ties, FBI reportsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Trump Earns Praise, Clueless Kerry, Sitting On The Second Amendment
by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: Trump Earns High Praise - Donald Trump's speech yesterday tearing into Hillary Clinton and offering his vision for the future pleased conservatives, surprised critics and terrified the left. For example, former Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, who has been highly critical of Trump, said yesterday, "Today, [Trump] made an effective and powerful case against Hillary."
"It wasn't just a rant. It wasn't just anger," Fleischer added. "There was something uplifting about his notion of what America used to be for people who want to move up."
My friend Mark Levin, who like me endorsed Senator Ted Cruz, called Trump's speech "outstanding," adding that it was "a very good speech." Yes, there were parts he did not like, but when Trump went after Hillary, Levin said he "hit it out of the park."
Even liberal reporters were "impressed." National Public Radio's political correspondent Mara Liasson said, "It's the speech Republicans have been itching to hear. . . Trump gave them exactly what they wanted."
And Michelle Goldberg of the left-wing outfit Slate wrote, "Donald Trump's Wednesday morning speech about Hillary Clinton's record is probably the most unnervingly effective one he has ever given."
Clueless Kerry - Addressing attendees at an interfaith iftar on Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry gave a speech in which he condemned the "bigoted and hateful rhetoric" of those concerned about our lax immigration and refugee policies.
"There is absolutely no evidence, my friends, zero evidence, that refugees who make it through this arduous process, pose any greater threat to our society than the members of any other group," Kerry said. "And it is important for people to know that."
I agree that it is important for the American people to know the truth. But as we saw from the IRS scandal, Hillary's deleted emails, Obama's repeated lies about Obamacare and the attorney general's attempts to whitewash transcripts earlier this week, we should not expect the truth from this administration!
So here are some facts from an analysis conducted by the Senate Judiciary's Subcommittee on Immigration:
Between September 11, 2001 and December 31, 2014, 580 individuals were convicted in the United States on terrorism charges.
Of those 580 people, 380 -- 66% -- were foreign born.
Of those 380, 33 were here illegally on expired visas.
And of those 380 foreign born terrorists, 24 were allowed into the United States as refugees.
In addition, the committee identified "at least 131 additional individuals who have been implicated in terrorism [not convicted or still awaiting trial] since early 2014. At least 54 of these individuals are foreign-born and 16 of them were initially admitted to the United States as refugees."
Keep in mind, friends, that Obama is vowing to bring in at least 10,000 Syrian refugees, and Hillary Clinton says we should bring in at least 500% more.
Democrats Sitting Down On The Job - Yesterday, Democrats staged a sit-in on the House floor. It continued all day long, effectively shutting down the House. Eventually, Republicans decided to pack-up and leave for the July Fourth recess, and adjourned around 3:00 a.m. But the Democrat disruptors stayed until 1:00 this afternoon. They did this in response to the Orlando shootings -- not to talk about terrorism or immigration, but to demand restrictions on your Second Amendment rights.
The political left in America not only wants us to follow the economic policies that have turned Venezuela into a pit of despair, but they are bringing heavy-handed Venezuelan tactics of muscle and extra-legal actions to American politics.
Remember when candidate Obama instructed leftists to get in people's faces? Remember when he said, "If they bring a knife, we bring a gun"? From Occupy Wall Street to Black Lives Matter and the fascist mob violence at Trump rallies, average, hard-working Americans have been harassed and assaulted by left-wing thugs.
And when they aren't using muscle to disrupt the process, they thumb their noses at every rule of the Republic. Don't like marriage laws? Ignore them. Don't like immigration law? Suspend it. Don't like religious liberty? Squash it. Can't shut down Gitmo? Empty it.
On some occasions Obama's actions have been so extreme, the Supreme Court has struck him down 9-to-0.
Sadly, because the GOP can't find a way to stop him, Democrats across the country are copying Obama's example. The Democrat governor of Virginia unilaterally restored voting rights to hundreds of thousands of convicted felons, including rapists and murders, for the sole reason of attempting to guarantee Hillary Clinton's election.
Kudos to Rep. Louie Gohmert, a stalwart conservative champion. Gohmert had enough of the Democrats' antics and engaged them on the House floor. There was a heated exchange and Gohmert yelled, "Radical Islam killed these people!" He's right. But Democrats refuse to face reality.
Sitting On The Second Amendment - Let's ponder the actual substance of this publicity stunt for a moment. Forty-nine Americans are dead in just the latest attack by a Muslim supremacist. This follows on the heels of other terrorist attacks like the Boston Marathon bombing and the shootings at Fort Hood, Chattanooga and San Bernardino.
Yet in response to these jihadist atrocities, left-wing congressmen immediately devised a way to distract from the facts and attack your right to defend yourself. Until now, there was nothing else so important, but when they saw the opportunity to attack the Second Amendment, they launched an unprecedented sit-in.
They did not do this when it became apparent that our veterans were being abused. There were no sit-ins demanding a serious strategy to crush ISIS.
One of the leaders of this sit-in is Rep. John Lewis of Georgia. Many of his constituents are faithful churchgoers.Yet there were no sit-ins to protest Obama's repeated attacks on religious liberty or to defend the meaning of marriage.
Black unemployment is a national scandal. How about a sit-in demanding that the teachers' unions get out of the way and let inner city schools be reformed? How about a sit-in demanding that the borders be secured so blacks and other Americans don't have to compete with illegal immigrants for jobs?
Top government officials have testified that we cannot fully vet Middle Eastern refugees. Yet these left-wing extremists have never staged a sit-in to demand that the government stop endangering the American people by reforming our immigration and refugee policies.
Every House Democrat who participated in that demonstration rails against corporate bankers and greedy CEOs. But not one has held a sit-in demanding Hillary Clinton produce the transcripts of her secret speeches to these corporate titans.
I could go on. But you get the point. The one thing the left feels so strongly about is taking away your rights.
------------- 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, Trump Earns Praise, Clueless Kerry, Sitting On The 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!
. . . And with Donald Trump's renewed focus, is the comeuppance of economically illiterate "Crooked Hillary" at hand?
by Matthew Vadum: Hillary Clinton's bizarre claim that billionaire businessman Donald Trump will cause a recession if elected to the presidency was overshadowed yesterday as Trump took deadly aim at the pathological liar's horrifying public service track record.
For her part, Clinton glibly dismissed Trump.
"As I said yesterday in Ohio, Donald Trump offers no real solutions for the economic challenges we face," Clinton said in a speech to the faithful in Raleigh, N.C. "He just continues to spout reckless ideas that will run up our debt and cause another economic crash."
Around the same time, Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, laid into "Crooked Hillary" with a vigor and focus that Americans haven't seen for a while. Trump's speech, in which he accurately described Clinton as a "world-class liar," was very well received and is making left-wing pundits nervous -- for good reason.
Unlike Trump's address, Clinton's speech was a carefully constructed alternate reality held together by a tissue of leftist lies. Clinton's oration was an economically illiterate catalog of hoary Marxist cliches, or as Dr. Bob Shillman quipped, "liar, liar, pantsuit on fire."
Clinton offered a vague outline of her disastrous socialistic economic agenda, largely a continuation of President Obama's anti-growth policies and tainted as it is by a focus on so-called social justice objectives at the expense of economic growth and individual rights.
She spoke nonsensically of "growth that’s strong, fair, and lasting ... that reduces inequality, increases upward mobility, that reaches into every corner of our country." To keep her union thugs happy, Clinton vowed to "say no to bad trade deals and unfair trade practices, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership," and no to the "assault on the right to organize and bargain collectively."
Ignoring the fact that she served front and center in a radically left-wing administration that over the last nearly seven and a half years has presided over the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression, Clinton promised "to make this economy work for everybody ... building it from the ground up, from every home and every community, all the way to Washington."
Leftists like Hillary enjoy anthropomorphizing inanimate objects and abstract concepts because they can't win policy arguments on the merits. They prefer fabricating monsters they can slay.
Guns and gas-guzzling SUVs "kill" people, they routinely claim as if machines were sentient, volitional beings. To them the U.S. Constitution is a "living document" that changes with the times. And like their cousins the Keynesians, they treat the economy like a circus animal that can be manipulated and taught tricks, instead of as the product of billions of individual decisions made every day by producers and consumers.
Clinton dredged up one of the Left's favorite and most insidious talking points, declaring "it is way past time for us to guarantee equal pay for women."
The fanciful claim that women earn less than men will probably never die because it is essential to the Left's narrative that America is inherently unfair. Of course comparing men's wages to women's wages is like comparing apples to oranges. Women pull in less money because they tend to opt for more humanities and fewer science and math majors in college. Owing to family and child-rearing obligations, women as a group also tend not to work the long hours that men work.
Critiquing President Obama's claim that women earn just 77 cents for every dollar men earn, the Manhattan Institute's Diana Furchtgott-Roth wrote in 2013 that the 77-cent figure "is bogus because it averages all full-time women, no matter what education and profession, with all full-time men."
"Unmarried childless women's salaries, however, often exceed men's," she wrote. "In a comparison of unmarried and childless men and women between the ages of 35 and 43, women earn more: 108 cents on a man's dollar."
The feminist fabulist continued spinning yarns.
"Excessive inequalities such as we have today reduces economic growth," Clinton said, pretending she likes the market economy. "Markets work best when all the stakeholders share in the benefits," she said, paying homage to candidate Obama's mantra that "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
"There are great ideas out there," Clinton said. "And we are going to be partners in a big, bold effort to increase economic growth and distribute it more fairly, to build that economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top." The "Wall Street corporations and the super rich," also known as her most ardent supporters, must be made to "pay their fair share of taxes."
She promised to "make college debt-free for all" and to "rewrite the rules so more companies share profits with their employers and few ship profits and jobs overseas."
Clinton defended the international cash-for-future-presidential-favors trading platform known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. She belittled Trump for highlighting the corruption endemic to the enterprise that is primarily devoted to enriching the Clinton family.
Trump is trying "to distract us" by "attacking a philanthropic foundation that saves and improves lives around the world," she said with a straight face. "It's no surprise he doesn't understand these things."
The Heritage Foundation's Stephen Moore dismantled what he called Clinton's "Twilight Zone" grab bag of proposals. A related speech Hillary gave the previous day "was vacant of ANY ideas at all about how to help the economy. The left's idea cupboard is entirely empty. "
Moore mocked her claim that here "in America we pay our bills," a reference to what he called "Trump's sensible idea of refinancing out debt to lock in historically low interest rates." The Obama administration in which Clinton served has generated some $8 trillion of new debt, which is hardly "paying the bills."
"It's passing them on to the next generation," Moore wrote.
Clinton's claim that Trump doesn't understand the new economy and job creation, is "a bold claim since Donald Trump is a highly successful businessman who actually has created thousands of jobs, while Hillary has gotten rich off of... politics."
Moore continued:"The class warfare theme ran throughout the speech, and yet this presents Hillary with another uncomfortable problem. Obama has raised the minimum wage, he already did spent $830 billion on infrastructure stimulus spending, and he has taxed the bejesus out of the rich. And the result wasn't more equality and a resurgent middle class, but an angry and worried worker class that hasn't seen a pay raise in 15 years and with household incomes in the last seven years that have fallen behind inflation. Some 95 million Americans aren't working and the poverty rate is still hellishly high."Clinton "is selling the American voters sand in the desert: four more years of stay the course economic bromides at a time when two out of three voters say that the U.S. is on the wrong, not the right track."
Trump fired back at Hillary yesterday, hitting her hard enough that Clinton worshippers are getting anxious.
Slate's Michelle Goldberg lamented that the tide may be turning against the Benghazi bungler Trump paints as a corrupt, money-grubbing, political hack. Crestfallen, the diehard leftist called Trump's Wednesday speech on Clinton's record dishonest and demagogic but "terrifyingly effective" and "probably the most unnervingly effective" speech the man has ever given.
"In a momentary display of discipline, he read from a teleprompter with virtually no ad-libbing, avoiding digs at Bill Clinton’s infidelity or conspiracy theories about Vince Foster’s suicide," speaking "for 40 minutes without saying anything overtly sexist." Instead, he took aim at "Clinton’s most-serious weaknesses, describing her as a venal tool of the establishment."
“Hillary Clinton gave China millions of our best jobs and effectively let China completely rebuild itself,” Trump said. “In return, Hillary Clinton got rich!” He added, “She gets rich making you poor,” and declared her possibly “the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency.”
Goldberg treated Trump's address as brilliant performance art in which he "interwove truth and falsehood into a plausible-seeming picture meant to reinforce listeners' underlying beliefs."
Pretending her readers were complete idiots ignorant of Hillary's history, Goldberg wheeled out Washington establishment yes man David Gergen to denounce what he called Trump's "slanderous speech." On CNN an animated Gergen made a fool of himself by castigating Trump for relying on the exhaustively documented allegations of graft and corruption in Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, by acclaimed best-selling author Peter Schweizer.
Regurgitating the self-serving nonsense peddled by leftist slander shop Media Matters for America, the "conservative misinformation" monitor that Hillary herself takes credit for founding, Gergen said that the "book has been basically discredited."
Not so. In fact, the New York Times, New Yorker, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Politico, Bloomberg, Reuters, ABC News, and CBS Newshave all confirmed several key details in Clinton Cash, investigative reporter Matthew Boyle points out.
Gergen added, "I'm sorry, at this level, you can't slander somebody."
Why Gergen has attained such prominence at this level in the Washington punditocracy is unclear.
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.