News Blog 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. 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 "Blog" - no paid ads - no payments for articles.Fair Use Doctrine is posted & used. Blogger/Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru & 2010 AFP National Blogger of the Year] Contact: editor@arranewsservice.com (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home PageFollow @arra
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato
(429-347 BC)
Friday, July 08, 2016
Religious Freedom Only If Big Government Does Not Disagree
by Daniel Greenfield: The issue is about the reframing of religious freedom to mean any religious practice that the government does not explicitly oppose.
And that's not religious freedom. If religious freedom means anything that the government does not oppose, then religious freedom does not exist. Just as freedom of speech does not mean speech that the government approves of, it means speech the government disapproves of, religious freedom means religious practices that the government disapproves of.
And when we forget that, this is what happens.DOES THIS LAW APPLY TO CHURCHES? Sometimes. Iowa law provides that these protections do not apply to religious institutions with respect to any religion-based qualifications when such qualifications are related to a bona fide religious purpose. Where qualifications are not related to a bona fide religious purpose, churches are still subject to the law’s provisions. (e.g. a child care facility operated at a church or a church service open to the public).The law in this case involves the contention that men are allowed to use the Ladies Room.
The interesting thing is the rather peculiar claim that church services open to the public do not serve a religious purpose. It's bad enough that public accommodation laws have been so far stretched beyond any reasonable interpretation that we are even having this conversation, but this is a horse of another color, breed and dimension.
If religious institutions that are open to the public must now be treated by that standard, then what's next? Religious institutions going underground? Censored sermons.Paul Gowder, a law professor at the University of Iowa Law School and an expert in constitutional law, said it would be "blatantly unconstitutional" for state officials to try to regulate the content of church sermons.
"The notion that the Civil Rights Commission can prohibit a church from sermonizing in whatever hateful or discriminatory way they want is absurd on its face," he said.
Drake University law professor Maura Strassberg, an expert on sexuality law, sees the matter as more clear-cut...
Strassberg said sermons that stick to human sexuality matters pertaining to theology would be constitutionally protected. But she suggested situations could arise where a preacher's remarks could cross over the line into harassment.
"There is a line: You can go from, 'This is what God believes' … to 'You are bad, so we don't want you here,'" Strassberg said.This is where we are indeed headed. It's also a reminder that the Bill of Rights exists to protect unpopular speech, not popular speech.
-------------- 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, religious freedom. Big Government Bill of Rights To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Time To Put An End To Criminal Justice Legislation
July 8, 2016, Fairfax, Va.— Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement in opposition to legislation proposed that would result in retroactive sentence reductions of federal prison, resulting in the early release of thousands of felons:
"It is repugnant to engage in the language of violence against those who are sworn to uphold the law, and in fact it is an attack on the rule of law itself. We've seen riots in Ferguson, Baltimore and elsewhere around the nation justified even as the facts supported the police. The assassination of five law enforcement officers in Dallas is the fruit of this poisoned tree.
"Incredibly some Republican Members of Congress in the face of this accelerating disintegration of the rule of law, continue to press forward with the agenda of the loudest voices attacking the thin blue line that runs between civility and chaos on our city streets through their support of so-called Criminal Justice Reform.
"Republican leadership need to put an end to all discussion of the ill-conceived legislation which would release additional hard core criminals back onto the streets at this perilous moment where respect for the law and those who enforce it has been at least partially thrown out the window. It is obscene that out of some misguided attempt to assuage the concerns of those who have engaged in the harshest rhetoric against the police, those anti-police voices should be rewarded with a major rewrite of our nation's federal criminal laws.
"The terrorists who killed five and injured seven Dallas law enforcement officers trying to protect a Black Lives Matter rally are not excused due to the historic inciting language of BLM aimed at those who died protecting them. These terrorists need to feel the full brunt of the law.
"Similarly, the agents of hate who inspired these brazen assassinations should not be rewarded by having their faulty agenda moved forward through Congress. It's time for GOP leaders to finally just say no to the empty the prisons agenda of Black Lives Matter and other agents of Blue hate."
Please contact Americans for Limited Government at 703-383-0880 ext. 106 or at media@limitgov.org to arrange an interview with ALG experts including ALG President Rick Manning. Tags:Rick Manning, Americans for Limited Government, Congress, Criminal Justice Legislation, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
23 States Sue Obama Admin Over Transgender Bathroom Mandate
Editorial Cartoon by Glenn Foden
by Ben Johnson: On Friday, an additional 10 states filed a legal brief against the Obama administration's controversial transgender guidance requiring public schools to allow members of one sex to use the showers, overnight accommodations, and restrooms of the opposite biological sex or lose federal funding.
“The recent action by these two federal agencies to require showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms be open to both sexes based solely on the student’s choice, circumvents this established law,” and ignores “the appropriate legislative process to change the law," said Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson. It also quashes “local school districts’ authority to address student issues on an individualized, professional and private basis.”
The Obama administration has said that its motion is justified by the 1972 Title IX law, which forbids discrimination against members of the opposite biological sex. The Nixon-era law says nothing about gender identity.
Although the May 13 guidance is not legally binding, it carries the implicit threat that the Obama administration may withhold all federal funds for education from states that do not comply. Such an action could cost school districts in Nebraska $312 million during the 2016-2017 academic year alone.
South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley said the executive branch's unilateral action is "another example of federal overreach."
The lawsuit, filed in Nebraska, brings the number of states suing the Education and Justice Departments to 23, nearly half the country's 50 states.
The 10 states to sue on Friday include Arkansas, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming.
by Newt Gingrich: Since FBI Director James Comey delivered a blistering indictment of Hillary Clinton’s email practices on Tuesday, and then outrageously declared that no “reasonable” prosecutor would bring charges, it seems that many in the press view the matter as closed. But there was one big thing Comey didn’t mention in his statement, and which the media seems to have forgotten also: Clinton’s email practices are potentially only the tip of the iceberg of her illegal activities.
Forgotten in the coverage are more than a year’s worth of stories about the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the family’s speech fees.
Earlier this year, Fox News reported that the FBI inquiry into Hillary Clinton had expanded into a public corruption investigation–specifically, “whether the possible ‘intersection’ of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws.”
In his remarks, Director Comey described in depth the FBI investigation into Clinton’s emails, but he was silent on the public corruption track. Appearing before Congress on Thursday, he declined to say whether the Clinton Foundation is or was being investigated.
Director Comey said in his statement on Clinton’s emails that he felt obliged to lay out the facts because “the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest.
Don’t the same unusual circumstances that justified Comey’s “transparency” on the email matter equally justify an explanation of what, if anything, the FBI has learned about the possible corruption of a Secretary of State?
What has the FBI found, for instance, about the following high profile cases?
The New York Timesreported last year that the head of a Canadian uranium company funneled more than $2 million to the Clinton Foundation, at a time when he was seeking approval to sell control of the company to the Russian atomic energy agency. Hillary Clinton’s State Department was one of the agencies required to sign off on the sale, and she did not disclose the contributions, “despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.”
The Washington Postreported that foreign governments donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State, including at least one donation “that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration.”
The Associated Press reported that at the State Department, Hillary Clinton had “75 meetings with longtime political donors, Clinton Foundation contributors and corporate and other outside interests that were not recorded [on her official calendar] or omitted the names of those she met.”
Bill Clinton was paid $550,000 for a single speech by a Chinese business group, and $200,000 for a single speech by a group linked to the Chinese government. Both speeches occurred when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, and as U.S. foreign policy was “pivoting” to focus on Asia.
The Kuwaiti national bank paid Bill Clinton at least $350,000 for a single speech at a time when his wife’s vetting for the Secretary of State job was public knowledge.
There are many other examples of the Clintons being paid extraordinary sums of money from foreign sources surrounding Hillary’s service as Secretary of State.
If the FBI has decided not to pursue an investigation of these unprecedented payments, the American people deserve to know why. And if it has, the American people deserve to know that, as well.
Let’s hope Director Comey tells the American people sooner rather than later.
---------------------- 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, Clinton Corruption Investigation, FBI Director James Comey, Hillary Clinton, Bill 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!
by Kerby Anderson, Contributing Author: When Congress returns from a summer break, you have to wonder whether protest politics will once again be on display. Two weeks ago several House Democrats literally sat on the floor of the House of Representatives and demanded a vote on gun control measures that could not be passed in the U.S. Senate. What started with about 40 members grew to more than 170 including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
We have seen this before in other legislative bodies. Remember when union activists took over the Wisconsin legislature a few years ago? Or we can point to the disruption in the Texas Senate by pro-choice activists. Outside the legislative chambers we have seen protest politics in full throat with Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter.
Leading the House sit-in was Representative John Lewis (D-GA) who seemed blind to the irony of what he was doing. In the 1960s he staged sit-ins to fight for civil rights. Now he was organizing a sit-in to deny people their civil rights.The goal seemed to be that citizens should lose their Second Amendment right because they would be denied their Fifth Amendment right of due process. And they were using their First Amendment right as justification for disrupting the order of the House.
It is also ironic that Representative Lewis wanted a vote on using a watch list to deny citizens their right to own a firearm. A few years ago John Lewis was erroneously placed on such a list. Even though he had been a member of Congress for more than a quarter century, he couldn’t get his name cleared up quickly.
The bigger issue is whether we have lost all decorum in Congress and other state legislatures. When House Speaker Paul Ryan tried to restore order at three in the morning, pandemonium erupted. His attempts to gavel the session back to regular business were greeted with shouts and protests. Let all hope protest politics do not return to the House of Representatives.
----------- 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, Protest Politics, democrats, US House, John Lewis, Second Amendment 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 Patrick Buchanan: Does Hillary Clinton possess the integrity and honesty to be president of the United States? Or are those quaint and irrelevant considerations in electing a head of state in 21st-century America?
These are the questions put on the table by the report from FBI Director James Comey on what his agents unearthed in their criminal investigation of the Clinton email scandal.
Clinton dodged an FBI recommendation that she be indicted for gross negligence in handling U.S. security secrets, a recommendation that would have aborted her campaign. But Director Comey dynamited the defense she has been offering the country.
Comey all but declared that Clinton lied when she said she had State Department approval for the email server in her home.
He all but declared that she lied when she said she had only one server, and that no classified or secret material was transmitted. He also implied that she lied when she said she had used only one device and had turned over all of her work-related emails to State. The FBI found “several thousand” more.
Clinton said her emails were stored in a secure area. This, too, was false. Hostile actors and hostile regimes, said Comey, had access to email systems of those with whom she communicated.
Comey said he found no criminal “intent” in what Clinton did.
Yet, he charged her with having been “extremely careless” with U.S. national security secrets, a phrase that seems synonymous with the gross negligence needed to indict and convict.
While recommending against prosecution, Comey added, “This is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequence. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.”
Translation: Were Clinton still the secretary of state and were such recklessness with secrets to be discovered, she could have been forced to resign and stripped of her security clearance forever.
Yet if Clinton is elected president, our commander in chief for the next four years, and her confidantes Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, will all be individuals the FBI has found to be reckless and unreliable in the handling of national security secrets.
We will have security risks running the armed forces of the USA.
Nor is this the first time Clinton’s truthfulness has been called into question. Twenty years ago, she fabricated a tale about crossing a tarmac in Bosnia “under sniper fire,” and running with “our heads down.” Photos showed a peaceful arrival featuring a smiling little girl.
Family members of the dead heroes of Benghazi’s “13 Hours” say Clinton told them she would see to it that the creator of the anti-Islamic video that incited the mob that killed their sons would be run down, all the while knowing it had been a planned terrorist attack.
In 1996, The New York Times’ William Safire went over all of the statements Clinton had made in Whitewater and related scandals of Bill Clinton’s first term, compared them with subsequently revealed truth, and pronounced Hillary Clinton a “congenital liar.”
She has claimed she tried to join the Marines in 1975, and long contended she was named for famed mountaineer Edmund Hillary, who conquered Mount Everest. Only Sir Edmund climbed Everest when Hillary was 6 years old. The perfect running mate for this serial fabricator would be the Cherokee lass Elizabeth Warren.
Still, a question arises as to Comey’s motives in airing the findings of an FBI investigation. Normally, the bureau passes on the evidence it has found, along with its recommendation, to the Justice Department. And Justice decides whether to prosecute.
Instead, Comey called a press conference, documented the charge that Clinton was “extremely careless,” contradicted, point by point, the story she has told the public, then announced he was recommending against prosecution.
What was behind this extraordinary performance?
By urging no prosecution, but providing evidence for a verdict of criminal negligence in handing classified material, Comey was saying:
I am not recommending prosecution, because, to do that, would be to force Hillary Clinton out of the race, and virtually decide the election of 2016. And that is my not decision. That is your decision.
You, the American people, should decide, given all this evidence, if Clinton should be commander in chief. You decide if a public figure with a record of such recklessness and duplicity belongs in the Oval Office.
Comey was making the case against Clinton as the custodian of national security secrets with a credibility the GOP cannot match, while refusing to determine her fate by urging an indictment, and instead leaving her future in our hands.
And, ultimately, should not this decision rest with the people, and not the FBI?
If, knowing what we know of the congenital mendacity of Hillary Clinton, the nation chooses her as head of state and commander in chief, then that will tell us something about the America of 2016.
And it will tell us something about the supposed superiority of democracy over other forms of government.
-------------------- 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, Hillary Clinton, Morally Unfit, to Be PresidentTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Clinton Not 'Sophisticated Enough' To Understand Email Classification?
Image via Greg Nash (The Hill)
by Rick Manning: FBI Director James Comey testified before Congress that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may not have been "sophisticated enough" to understand what the classified markings on emails meant. This lack of "sophistication" was used to explain Clinton's lack of knowledge that she was breaking the law and hence an absence of intent.
Clinton has now been identified, under oath by the head of the FBI, as perhaps nothing more than a rube unable to understand basic classifications that tens of thousands of others interspersed throughout the federal government are required to follow.
Comey's remark comes after his agents grilled the presumptive Democratic nominee for three-and-a-half hours in a session that was not under oath just a couple of days prior to the announcement not to prosecute.
It must be incredibly galling to the former secretary of State, who has often been characterized as one of the smartest people in politics, that her key to freedom might be the FBI director's determination that she can't chew gum and walk.
In Clinton's defense, she was sophisticated enough on June 17, 2011 to instruct Jacob Sullivan, who was having trouble sending a secure fax to, "turn [the document] into nonpaper w [sic] no identifying heading and send nonsecure."
Incredibly, none of the Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee rose to defend her intellect by pointing to her direction to work around the "problem" of sending a secure fax by simply stripping away the security classification. It would seem that this would have been the ultimate defense of their anointed candidate for president as her intellectual reputation was battered by Comey's determination.
Gee, I wonder why they didn't?
--------------- Rick Manning (@rmanning957) is President of Americans for Limited Government. This article was also shared on The Hill. Tags:Rick Manning, Americans for Limited Government, FBI, Hillary Clinton, Email, classification, classifiedTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Visited the Dallas Police Dept And Here’s What I Think About The Shooting
by Allen West: I went by the North East Division of the Dallas Police Department to pay my regards to the officers about to go out on shift at 7pm roll call. There were officers who had gotten the call to pack riot gear and work security for the protest that was going to happen in downtown Dallas. To my horror, and concern, I watched the events unfold in downtown Dallas near where I go for Fox News interviews, at 1200 Main Street.
We now know there are four law enforcement officers dead, three Dallas Police Department and one Dallas Area Rapid Transit, along with a reported 11 officers shot, plus one civilian. My condolences go out to the families of those killed and wounded. All this comes from two snipers who opened fire upon these officers who were doing their duty to protect the civilians executing their First Amendment rights - to protest. No shooters are in custody.
All this occurred, and was being played out elsewhere, in protests called for by social media in response to two police shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota. Two black males were shot, but the facts are not known. However, earlier today President Obama decided to weigh in - my question is, will he weigh in on this?
Why does no one protest when countless blacks are killed in Chicago? Why did no one protest when Kate Steinle and others are gunned down by illegal immigrants? Why are there no protests when our law enforcement officers are gunned down? Heck, why were there no calls for protests after San Bernardino and Orlando?
Here's the deal, the progressive socialist left has been building this tinderbox and it was just set afire. They've been stoking this potential wildfire and our worst fears suddenly came to fruition. They've allowed people to march and chant "What do we want, dead cops, when do we want them, now" and "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon." There have been countless rushes to judgment - namely Ferguson, Missouri - along with the incessant castigations of racism, and this is where it ends.
In North Charleston, SC, a bad cop is in jail and will certainly be held accountable for his actions. But what did we see in Charleston, including the Mother Emmanuel Church shooting - no rabble rousing, just justice being served. That is how a civilized society exists, operates and sustains itself.
But that is not the world of the followers of Saul Alinsky, the rules for radicals. And they know exactly who they are.
These officers answered the call of duty to protect those who were protesting them, a police force that had nothing to do with Louisiana or Minnesota. And sadly, the families of four of the members of the Thin Blue Line will get the news. They left home today and sad goodbye for the last time. And yet still, if you are watching the news, there are those who are still taunting the police officers. This is a collapse of civil society, and it does not end well, but this is the result of those who have used social media to drive people into a frenzy. This is what happens when radicals ascend to positions of power, and a nation is fundamentally transformed.
------------ Allen West is a retired U.S Army Lt. Colonel and former U.S Representative. He shared this article on Family Security Matters. To hear more from Col. West, visit Allenbwest.com. Tags:Allen West, Dallas, police department, shooting of officers, what I thinkTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
President Obama announced, Wednesday, that he would leave more troops in Afghanistan when he exits office than previously planned. Instead of cutting the current troop deployment of 10,000 down to 5,500 soldiers, Obama will now keep 8,400 “in country,” continuing our longest war.
Entering the 15th year of armed conflict and military occupation, thousands of lives lost along with hundreds of billions in treasure spent to equip and train Afghan forces and build infrastructure — and buy off warlords — recent U.N. estimates find the tyrannical Taliban controlling more actual territory in Afghanistan today than before the 2001 U.S. invasion.
Don’t blame the military. Our all-volunteer army is the greatest fighting force on the planet. But militaries break things; building new institutions and especially new modes of thinking among a foreign population is more difficult.
No political magic exists capable of turning Afghanistan into Arizona. Not this year, not the next, a decade from now, or two decades . . . not even a century down the road.
We must never forget that “war is the continuation of politics by other means.”
And the politics don’t add up. There’s no credible plan to “win” in Afghanistan. All our leaders can muster is the witless maintenance of a deadly charade: nation-building a nation that balks at being built, hoping the roof falls in on someone else later . . . in the other party.
Sometimes courage means recognizing reality.
Our men and women in uniform have better things to do than fight and die for decades in a no-win war.
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, The Longest War, Afghanistan 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:AF Branco, Ignorance Is Bliss, Ignorance no excuse of the law, Hillary Clinton, lives by, another set of lawsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
With The Security Situation In Afghanistan ‘Precarious’ & ISIL On The March, Dems Filibuster The Defense Funding Bill
SEN. MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): “I would remind everyone that at a time when we face an array of terror threats around the globe, we cannot afford to put politics above support for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines or our efforts to move the appropriations process forward.” (Sen. McConnell, Floor Remarks, 7/7/16)
Dems Hollow Rhetoric: ‘Happy To Support A Defense Appropriations Bill That Supports’ The Troops
SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL), Vice Chairman Of The Department Of Defense Subcommittee: “This defense bill takes a responsible approach to protecting our country – honoring the bipartisan budget deal in place and strongly supporting Counter-ISIL efforts and fully funding the President’s request for Overseas Contingency Operations.As Secretary Carter has stressed, we will not take chances when it comes to funding the men and women serving in forward positions... At the same time, our bill improves readiness, supports our troops and their families in the field and at home, and continues to devote more resources to science and medical research so we are prepared for the future fight.” (Senate Appropriations Committee, Press Release, 5/26/16)
SEN. BARBARA MIKULSKI (D-MD), Vice Chairman Of The Appropriations Committee: “I commend Chairman Cochran and Vice Chairman Durbin for writing a bipartisan Defense bill that answers the question, ‘How can we best defend and protect the nation?’ This bill makes key investments to give our troops the right tools, technology, equipment and training to meet the growing and diverse challenges, as well as respects, acknowledges and supports our treasured allies, including Israel. Most importantly, this bill is crafted with the notion that our military is only as strong as its troops. The bill includes a 1.6 percent pay raise for military and civilian employees and protects important military and family benefits, such as the commissary system. Commissaries provide access to healthy foods at low prices around the world, and are one of the most popular services for service members and their families. Lastly, as the Senator for Maryland, I represent nine military installations that support 130,000 jobs. The men and women who work there, and their families, protect and serve the United States around the world. I am so proud of them, and happy to support a Defense Appropriations bill that supports them.”(Senate Appropriations Committee, Press Release, 5/26/16)
PRESIDENT OBAMA: ‘The Security Situation In Afghanistan Remains Precarious
“President Barack Obama said Wednesday that he will leave behind 3,000 more troops in Afghanistan than originally planned, effectively handing involvement in a raging civil war the United States joined after the 9/11 attacks to his successor. Speaking from the White House, Obama said he would draw down troops to 8,400 by the end of his administration, a change from the initial target of 5,500. Currently there are 9,800 troops supporting the Afghanistan government in its fight against the Taliban, attempts by al Qaeda to regroup and a nascent threat from ISIS. ‘The security situation in Afghanistan remains precarious,’ Obama said, with Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford at his side…” (“Obama To Leave More Troops Than Planned In Afghanistan,” CNN, 7/6/16)
In The Broader Middle East: ‘Scale Of The Carnage Inflicted By Extremists Over The Past Week Alone Has Been Staggering’
“Islamic State Extends Reach… Islamic State is increasingly reverting to less expensive but spectacular guerrilla maneuvers, calling on supporters to launch assaults while its costly makeshift army faces retention problems and casualties, Western officials said. It is expanding its global scope, inspiring groups and individuals spread across several continents, even though they may have different agendas and operational methods. The frequency of attacks outside Syria and Iraq has increased in tandem with battlefield and territorial setbacks . . .” (“Islamic State Extends Reach as It Suffers Defeats,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/07/2016)
“The scale of the carnage inflicted by extremists over the past week alone has been staggering. Just some of the more bloody attacks: more than 200 killed by a truck bomb in a crowded Baghdad market; 44 killed at an airport in Istanbul, Turkey; 23 killed in a siege of a café in Dhaka, Bangladesh.”(“Attack On Holy City Of Medina Appalls Muslims Amid Ramadan Violence,” CNN, 7/05/2016)
“Three suicide attacks in 24 hours -- that's how Saudis will remember the end of Ramadan, a month that has seen the wider region plunged into a wave of terror-related violence. The attacks -- including one in Medina, one of the holiest sites in Islam -- follow massive jihadi assaults from Turkey to Iraq that have been tied to ISIS.”(“Suicide Attackers Launch Wave Of Strikes In Saudi Arabia,” CNN, 7/05/2016)
‘The Numbers Of ISIL Fighters Now Far Exceeds What Al Qaeda Had At Its Height’
BRENNAN:“The numbers of ISIL fighters now far exceeds what al Qaeda had at its height. We're talking about tens of thousands of individuals.”(U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Hearing, 6/16/2016)
Tags:Inexcusable, Security Situation, Afghanistan, Precarious, ISIL On The March, Democrats, block Defense Funding BillTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
7 Key Takeaways From FBI Director’s Hearing on Clinton Email Use
by Melissa Quinn: FBI Director James Comey appeared before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Thursday to further detail the FBI’s yearlong investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server and handling of classified information while she was secretary of state.
Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, hastily scheduled the hearing just two days after Comey announced the findings of his agency’s investigation into Clinton and recommended that no criminal charges be filed against her.
Although the FBI ultimately concluded Clinton’s handling of classified information did not warrant criminal charges, Comey criticized her Tuesday for being “extremely careless” in setting up a server in the basement of her New York home and using a private email address.
A spokesman for Clinton said that she was happy the investigation is over.
“We are pleased that the career officials handling this case have determined that no further action by the [Justice] Department is appropriate,” Brian Fallon said in a statement to Politico. “As the secretary has long said, it was a mistake to use her personal email and she would not do it again. We are glad that this matter is now resolved.”
The FBI’s findings contradicted some of what Clinton has said publicly and to members of Congress regarding her private server and handling of classified information.
Those conclusions left many Republican lawmakers wondering how Comey and the FBI ultimately came to the decision not to recommend criminal charges and ultimately prompted Thursday’s hearing.
Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said Comey was given a “thankless” task in investigating Clinton.
“No matter what recommendation you made, you were sure to be criticized,” Cummings said. “In a sense, Mr. Director, you are on trial.”
Here are seven of the key takeaways from Comey’s appearance before the Oversight Committee:
FBI Director James Comey appeared before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Thursday to further detail the FBI’s yearlong investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server and handling of classified information while she was secretary of state.
Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, hastily scheduled the hearing just two days after Comey announced the findings of his agency’s investigation into Clinton and recommended that no criminal charges be filed against her.
Although the FBI ultimately concluded Clinton’s handling of classified information did not warrant criminal charges, Comey criticized her Tuesday for being “extremely careless” in setting up a server in the basement of her New York home and using a private email address.
A spokesman for Clinton said that she was happy the investigation is over.
“We are pleased that the career officials handling this case have determined that no further action by the [Justice] Department is appropriate,” Brian Fallon said in a statement to Politico. “As the secretary has long said, it was a mistake to use her personal email and she would not do it again. We are glad that this matter is now resolved.”
The FBI’s findings contradicted some of what Clinton has said publicly and to members of Congress regarding her private server and handling of classified information.
Those conclusions left many Republican lawmakers wondering how Comey and the FBI ultimately came to the decision not to recommend criminal charges and ultimately prompted Thursday’s hearing.
Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said Comey was given a “thankless” task in investigating Clinton.
“No matter what recommendation you made, you were sure to be criticized,” Cummings said. “In a sense, Mr. Director, you are on trial.”
Here are seven of the key takeaways from Comey’s appearance before the Oversight Committee:
1) Comey says there is no basis that Clinton lied to the FBI.
Nearly one year ago, on July 25, Clinton told reporters at a press conference that she was “confident” she “never sent or received any information that was classified at the time it was sent or received.”
However, during its investigation, the FBI concluded that 110 emails in 52 email chains Clinton returned to the State Department contained classified information when they were sent or received. Eight of those communications contained “top secret” information, 37 received “secret information,” and the rest contained “confidential information,” the FBI said.
Of those emails, a “very small number” had markings identifying them as classified.
During the hearing, Chaffetz questioned whether Clinton lied to the FBI during a three-hour interview that took place Saturday. Though Clinton told the public she never sent or received classified information, Comey said she didn’t lie to the FBI.
“We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI,” Comey said Thursday.
2) Chaffetz plans to file a referral to the FBI to look into whether she lied to Congress under oath.
While questioning Comey on Clinton’s statements regarding her handling of classified information, Chaffetz asked Comey if the FBI looked into whether the former secretary of state lied under oath about receiving and sending classified information.
During an October hearing before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, asked Clinton about classified information sent in emails stored on her server.
“There was nothing marked classified on my emails, either sent or received,” Clinton told Jordan during the hearing.
Comey told Chaffetz that, although he was aware of Clinton’s exchange with Jordan, the FBI hadn’t investigated whether she lied under oath because the agency never received a referral to do so from Congress.
Chaffetz confirmed the committee would send a referral to the FBI to probe Clinton’s testimony.
3) Comey says Clinton’s case is very different from that involving David Petraeus.
Since the FBI’s announcement, many have been pointing to an investigation into former CIA Director David Petraeus’s handling of classified information in comparison with the FBI’s handling of the Clinton matter. Petraeus pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge after disclosing classified information to his biographer Paula Broadwell.
Cummings, the committee’s ranking member, urged Comey to point out the similarities or differences between Petraeus’s and Clinton’s cases.
“He was caught on audio tape telling [Broadwell], and I quote, ‘I mean, they are highly classified,’” Cummings said.
Comey, though, said the case involving Petraeus “illustrates perfectly the kinds of cases the Department of Justice is willing to prosecute.”
“Clearly intentional conduct. Knew what he was doing was violation of the law,” Comey said of the former CIA director. “Huge amounts of information. If you couldn’t prove he knew it, raises the inference [that] he did it and effort to obstruct justice. That combination of things makes it worthy of a prosecution. A misdemeanor prosecution, but a prosecution nonetheless.”
4) There is no transcript or recording of Clinton’s meeting with the FBI on Saturday, and she wasn’t placed under oath.
Clinton met with the FBI for a three-hour interview Saturday, which Comey said was the agency’s last step before concluding its investigation.
During his testimony before the Oversight Committee today, Comey said he wasn’t involved in Clinton’s interview and admitted there was no transcript or recording of the meeting. Furthermore, Comey said Clinton was not put under oath during her interview with the FBI.
However, Comey stressed that it is still a crime to lie to federal agents.
5) Comey said Clinton isn’t sophisticated in her knowledge of classification systems.
Many of the Republicans questioning Comey wondered how Clinton, whose résumé includes first lady, U.S. senator from New York, and secretary of state, would not understand the government’s classification requirements.
“Is it your statement, then, before this committee that Secretary Clinton should have known not to send classified information and yet she did?” Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., asked Comey.
“Certainly she should have known not to send classified information,” Comey said. “As I said, that’s the definition of negligent. I think she was extremely careless. I have to think she was negligent. That I could establish. What we can’t establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent.”
Included in three of the emails found on Clinton’s server were paragraphs marked with a “(c),” indicating that the information referenced was to be treated as classified.
Much of that classified information originated from Clinton’s aides, but was included in emails the former secretary of state sent and received.
Comey said he would have assumed that any “reasonable” person would have known the importance of those markings. However, Comey later concluded he wasn’t sure “whether she was actually sophisticated enough to understand what a ‘c’ in parentheses means.”
“One of the things I’ve learned is that the secretary may not be as sophisticated as people would assume,” Comey said.
He further noted that Clinton didn’t have a computer in her office at the State Department.
6) Clinton gave people without security clearances access to classified information.
Comey told lawmakers Thursday that Clinton’s personal server set-up exposed people without security clearances to classified information.
“Did Hillary Clinton give non-cleared people access to classified information?” Chaffetz asked.
“Yes,” Comey replied.
Though the FBI director could not say exactly how many “non-cleared” people had access to that classified information, Comey did estimate it was between two and 10.
Both Chaffetz and Jordan questioned whether Clinton’s lawyers had security clearances and were exposed to that classified information when they were sorting through the emails that would later be turned over to the State Department.
Though Comey said Clinton’s lawyers were among those who were “non-cleared” and accessed classified information, Fallon, spokesman for Clinton, tweeted that the lawyers who sifted through the former secretary of state’s emails had Top Secret-level clearance.
7) Comey contradicted a number of statements Clinton made to reporters and Congress regarding the use of her private email server.
During his line of questioning, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., asked Comey to respond to a number of comments Clinton made over the course of the past year regarding her handling of classified information, some of which he said were found to be untrue throughout the course of the FBI’s investigation.
Comey first confirmed there was information marked classified found on Clinton’s server, despite her reassurances she neither sent nor received any information marked classified.
The FBI director then said that Clinton did, indeed, email classified material, though she in the past said she never did.
Gowdy then asked Comey if Clinton only used one device, as she said she did, to which Comey said she used multiple devices during her tenure as secretary of state.
Gowdy also questioned whether Clinton returned all work-related emails to the State Department. Thousands, Comey said, were not returned and were later recovered by the FBI.
Others were deleted, and traces of work-related emails were found “on devices or in slack space,” Comey said.
“Whether they were deleted or whether when a server changed out something happened to them, there is no doubt that the work-related emails were removed electronically from the email system,” he said.
-------------------- Melissa Quinn (@MelissaQuinn97) is a news reporter for The Daily Signal. Tags:Takeaways, FBI Director, James Comey, Congressional Hearing, Clinton EmailTo 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: America always has been an exceptional nation. People in other countries recognize that America is unique. It’s why so many of those fleeing foreign oppression come to the “land of the free.”
What made the U.S. great were its principles, not its officials. America was different from most other nations. It was committed to limited government and individual liberty, alien concepts in most countries. The U.S. attempted to restrain government abuse through the separation of powers, another unusual idea, especially at a time of absolute monarchs.
Federalism protected different levels of community. Not every dispute was decided at the national level. Ronald Reagan famously noted that, “the more government we can keep at the local level, in local hands, the better off we are and the more freedom we will have….”
Justice was to be equal for all. Being rich, important, influential, or a celebrity wasn’t supposed to matter before the bar of justice.
In recent years, however, America has begun increasingly to look like other nations. Not because the American people are any less exceptional. But because their leaders don’t believe that America is.
In fact, the Obama presidency could be defined by its concerted campaign to knock the U.S. off its pedestal. Barack Obama and those around him do not believe in what traditionally was called “American exceptionalism.” Every country thinks it is exceptional, he once explained. The U.S. isn’t any different.
Certainly it won’t be if he has his way. His administration has attacked every principle that set America apart. For President Obama, government is unlimited—with individual liberty only at Washington’s sufferance.
The federal government now decides which health insurance policies we must buy and from whom. New rules prevent employees from choosing greater flexibility and freedom at work. High taxes and regulations on Americans living abroad are causing an increasing number of them to simply give up their citizenship.
Separation of powers requires that law enforcement remain independent of executive control, and both Congress and the judiciary resist excessive executive authority, especially actions that are unlawful or unconstitutional. For this administration, however, ignoring the law is standard operating procedure.
The president even has promised to target our constitutionally protected gun rights through executive orders. Yet these days, our legislators and judges are likely to roll over and play dead when the president abuses his powers.
Federalism means little when the national authorities seek to impose their will on every American, no matter how personal the issue. Who should use what bathroom in a local school district? Uncle Sam will decide!
Then there is equal justice.
Most Americans have had an abiding faith that they will be treated based on what they deserve, not on what they can afford. Yet Washington usually takes care of its own.
The Left gets aroused when, say, a businessman takes advantage of the system. But they turn a blind eye when it comes to one of their own. Like presidential wannabe Hillary Clinton.
FBI Director James Comey laid out the facts that made a strong case for prosecution. Secretary Clinton dissembled shamelessly, endangered American national security, and clearly violated the law. If any mistakes were made, she said, they weren’t intentional. Imagine being prosecuted for murder and explaining that you really didn’t intend to hurt anyone. Most judges and juries would be less than impressed. But nothing was normal in this case.
What we know now is that the law is unequal. This administration routinely jails Americans who mishandle classified material. Blogger Jeff Dunetz pointed out that among those charged with crimes were the celebrated Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning, as well as lesser known John Kiriakou, Shamai Leibowitz, Stephen Kim, and Jeffrey Sterling. Also prosecuted but escaping jail time was accused leaker Thomas Drake.
All claimed to be acting in service of a higher good, yet all were convicted under the Espionage Act. Even national security figures Sandy Berger and David Petraeus were prosecuted, though they got off with probation. (As befits Washington, the latter has reestablished his status as a D.C. bigwig.)
The bigger you are, contrary to the adage, the less likely you are to fall. A potential president, like Hillary Clinton, merely gets verbal a slap on the wrist. Certainly no prosecution, let along jail time. After all, she was just “careless.” Why hold her accountable for her actions?
Imagine what her presidency would be like. After nearly eight years of the current occupant we need to send in political fumigators to prevent American liberties from being overrun by officious bureaucrats. Give Hillary Clinton eight years in office and we’re not likely to recognize the American political system.
Once, America rescued banana republics from abusive governments. Today America is becoming one—without benefit of the bananas!
Our nation is and remains exceptional. But the American people must act decisively to keep it that way. We are running out of time.
------------------ Ken Blackwell is a former ambassador to the U.N., Ohio Secretary of State and mayor of Cincinnati; and he is a member of the Policy Board ot the American Civil Rights Union. He is a contributing author to the ARRA News Service. Tags:The American Evolution, Ken BlackwellTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: FBI Director James Comey testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. At least five congressional committees are expected to hold hearings or launch investigations into the FBI's decision to clear Hillary Clinton. Here are a few highlights from Comey's testimony this morning:
Hillary may be facing perjury charges. Chairman Jason Chaffetz asked Comey if Clinton lied to Congress. Comey answered, "Not to my knowledge. I don't think there's been a referral from Congress." Chaffetz replied, "You'll have one in the next few hours."
Comey said that the lack of criminal intent was the deciding factor in his decision to not recommend charges. Rep. Trey Gowdy, a former prosecutor, destroyed Comey's reasoning.
Gowdy repeated a number of Clinton's public statements that Comey has since said were false. Then Gowdy asked Comey, "In interest of time. . . I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements. But I am going to ask you put on your old hat (as a prosecutor). False exculpatory statements, they are used for what?"
"Either for the substantive prosecution or for evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution," Comey answered. "Exactly. Consciousness of guilt and intent," Gowdy said.
Yesterday, Senator Mitch McConnell called on the FBI to release transcripts of Hillary's three and a half hour interview on Saturday. Incredibly, Comey told members of Congress that the FBI did not put Clinton under oath nor did they record the interview!
The Hillary Defense
In yesterday's report, we noted that other people who mishandled intelligence information have been prosecuted for significantly less than what former Secretary of State Clinton did. For four years, Clinton violated if not the letter of the law then certainly the spirit of various aspects of the Freedom of Information Act, the Federal Records Act and the Espionage Act.
Now defense lawyers who specialize in intelligence and national security cases are saying they will raise the Clinton defense in coming cases.
"I intend to use the Hillary defense," said attorney Sean M. Bigley. "I really question how any agency can say someone is a security risk if the president of the United States did something similar."
"I'm going to use it every chance I get . . . I'm going to bring it up over and over and over," said Mark Riley, a former intelligence officer who now represents clients in national security cases. "Any other person would have had their security clearance revoked," Riley added.
Speaking of revoking clearances, Speaker Paul Ryan has asked CIA Director James Clapper to deny Clinton access to classified information "for the duration of her candidacy as president." In addition, Senators John Cornyn (TX) and Cory Gardner (CO) have introduced legislation to revoke her security clearance.
That's a good start, but I hope they are planning to take action against two of her top aides, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin. They were part of the conspiracy to set up the private server and evade national security laws. Undoubtedly, they would be part of any future Clinton Administration too!
2016 Election Update
Presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump came to Washington, D.C., today to meet with House Republicans. At least 200 members of the GOP caucus attended, including many members who have not had a chance to meet Trump before. Afterwards, he met with Senate Republicans, and also met privately with Texas Senator Ted Cruz. Sources say Trump offered Cruz a speaking slot at the convention, which Cruz accepted, and that Cruz also agreed to help Trump in selecting judicial nominees.
Two weeks ago, Hillary Clinton held a similar meeting with congressional Democrats, many of whom had previously endorsed her. Bernie Sanders met with House Democrats yesterday. Apparently, he was booed when he declined to formally endorse Clinton. One House Democrat blasted the meeting as a "total display of self-obsession" on Sanders' part.
Today's GOP unity gathering comes on the heels of reports that a joint Trump/RNC fundraising effort raised $55 million last month. That may seem like a lot of money, but it is considerably less than the $68.5 million that Hillary and Democrats raised last month, and well short of the $106 million that Mitt Romney raised in June of 2012.
In other campaign news, both presidential contenders are continuing to hold very public auditions for potential running mates. Yesterday, Newt Gingrich campaigned with Trump in Ohio. Last week, Clinton was in Ohio campaigning with Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.
Senators Bob Corker (TN) and Joni Ernst (IA) took themselves out of contention yesterday as possible Trump running mates. Some believe the leading contenders are down to Gingrich and Indiana Governor Mike Pence. Other say there could be a surprise choice, like retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn.
Meanwhile, the polls are tightening and the race appears to be a tossup. The latest Rasmussen poll has Trump leading by two points.
Convention Chaos?
A new Wall Street Journal report suggests that efforts to oppose Donald Trump's nomination at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland may be gaining momentum. Anti-Trump members of the Rules Committee are reportedly close to forcing a vote that could unbind the delegates on the first ballot. If that happens, there could be trouble for Trump.
The Journal reports that fewer than 900 delegates are personally loyal to Trump. That's well-short of the 1,237 he needs to win. Meanwhile, 680 delegates are believed to be opposed to his nomination, leaving about 900 delegates "in play."
As I have noted before, Donald Trump not only won, he won "bigly" -- shattering the record for the most primary votes won by any Republican candidate in history.
I don't understand how party elites can think it is a good idea to cancel the votes of millions of Republicans in order to deprive the winner of the nomination. I just don't see how that ends well or how the party thrives if it shows such disrespect to the record number of voters who participated in the process this year.
Not to mention the terrible precedent it sets. Why would anyone bother to vote in another presidential primary if the results don't matter?
------------- 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, FBI Director Comey Hearing Highlights, The Hillary Defense, 2016 UpdateTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by David Horowitz, Contributing Author: In elections generally - but this one in particular - things are not always what they seem. Take the apparent exculpation of Hillary by FBI director James Comey. The Democrats responded with a statement that the issue had now been “resolved” because the target had not been indicted. But not so fast.
The failure to indict was not an exoneration, and what the public witnessed - the secret meeting between the head of Justice and the target’s husband, the job offer to her would-be prosecutor, and the FBI’s dossier of her misdeeds – was in effect a second trial, and it came with a conviction. The former Secretary of State had lied to Congress and the public, and not about private matters like sexual escapades with interns. She had lied about national security matters, and was reckless in handling secrets that affect the safety of all Americans. Worse, the fact she appeared to be getting away with a serious crime was a dramatic confirmation of Trump’s campaign narrative: the system is corrupt, the fix is in, I will change all this.
The Comey episode also turned a lot of Republican heads – most notably Paul Ryan’s – that had been openly skeptical of Trump’s candidacy, and lukewarm in endorsing his campaign. Until that moment, the failure of some Republicans to rally behind the Republican nominee, indeed to refrain from seconding Democrat attacks, has been the chief weakness of Trump’s candidacy.
When Trump objected to an obviously biased judge – a member of “La Raza” and opponent of securing the border – Ryan and other Republicans joined the Democrats in the ludicrous charge that Trump was a racist. (What Republican candidate in the last thirty years have the Democrats not slandered as racist?)
But Ryan is not attacking Trump now. Instead he is calling on officials to remove Hillary’s security clearance – a strong signal to voters that she is not fit to be commander-in-chief, and a powerful reinforcement of Trump’s campaign theme.
At the moment, Trump is in a virtual dead heat with Hillary, which is remarkable considering the slanderous attacks on his character not only by Democrats but by the chorus of #NeverTrump Republicans who have also called him a sexist and xenophobe, and have compared him to Mussolini and Hitler. These negatives have hurt him but will ultimately fail for the same reason that the anti-Trump attacks in the primary failed. Trump is not an unknown quantity.
He has been in front of the American public for thirty or forty years. Nothing in the public record would validate the charge Trump is a racist, let alone Hitler. Consequently these negatives are unlikely to over-ride the actual issues when voters make the judgments that will determine the election. At the same time, the obviousness of the slanders merely serves to confirm Trump’s narrative that corrupt elites fear him and will do anything to prevent him from upsetting their apple carts.
The reason Trump will win in November is that national security is at the top of voter concerns and Trump has been a strong advocate on this front. Beginning with his promise to build a wall, made national security issues – vetting Syrian Muslim refugees, rebuilding the military, “bombing the sh-t” out of ISIS and naming the enemy – have been centerpieces of his campaign. Of course he has also had help from the terrorists who carried out the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino and Orlando, and from a feckless Obama who refuses to recognize the Islamist threat.
But so did Mitt Romney, who had Benghazi and Fort Hood and the same feckless commander-in-chief to work with. Romney, however, chose not to do so. He took the war issue off the table when he embraced Obama’s foreign policy in the third presidential debate and never tried to make it central again.
Since World War II no Republican has won the popular vote in a presidential election where national security has not been a primary issue. The one seeming exception is Bush’s victory in 2000. But Bush did not win the popular vote even though he was able to get the necessary majority in the electoral college. In this election, Trump has instinctively seized the high ground on national security. He has put the disasters of Obama’s Middle East retreats front and center, and s challenged the crippling denial of the commander-in-chief and his failure to take appropriate measures to defeat our enemies at home and abroad.
Thanks to nearly eight years of a party in power that refuses to secure our borders and is more interested in disarming law-abiding Americans than confronting the terror threat in our midst, national security is now a primary issue on the minds of all Americans.
Donald Trump speaks to those concerns in a way that the damaged and compromised Hillary cannot. Her fingerprints are all over the disastrous Obama policies in the Middle East. National security is an issue that crosses party lines and also gender lines. Even more important, it is an issue that unifies the Republican coalition, whose current disunity is Trump’s greatest weakness.
With the fallout from Hillary’s server fail as a backdrop, Trump should be able to bring his party together at the upcoming convention, and go on to secure a victory in November.
-------------- David Horowitz is founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center (formerly the Center for the Study of Popular Culture), FrontPage Mag, and author of many books and pamphlets published over the last twenty years. Horowitz was a left-minded radical who transitioned over his life into a conservative. Yet despite the effort of the left "to deprecate and diminish him, Horowitz has succeeded in his main task of exposing the left's agenda and decoding the way it seeks to control American culture and politics." (The Life and Work of David Horowitz) He is a Contributing Author of the ARRA News Service and also shared article on Breitbart.com. Tags:David Horowitz, Freedom Center, 2016 Presidential Election, Donald Trump, victoryTo 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: My vice presidential prediction is: Trump is about to make his first mistake. I knew this would happen as soon as he hired campaign consultants, rather than relying on his gut. If these campaign consultants were any good, their first piece of advice to Trump would be, "Fire us immediately!"
Trump's advisers are undoubtedly telling him he's got the "outsider" image covered. He needs someone with experience in Washington -- as if presidents don't have staffs -- an elected Republican official with solid standing in the GOP, preferably a sitting senator or governor, who will give the ticket gravitas and heft.
This is completely wrong. Trump isn't a standard-issue GOP, trying to balance the ticket to get his party into power. He's starting a new party! He's just blown up the old GOP. Instead of a party for, by and of globalist plutocrats, the new Trumpian party is a party of Americans for America.
How is Trump going to find a decent running mate from among the Republicans who have gotten ahead under the old model of sucking up to donors and lobbyists?
Almost any sitting Republican senator or governor would be total counter-programming to Trump's message. One searches the country in vain to find a half-dozen elected Republicans who have not supported amnesty, job-killing trade deals, Wall Street bailouts -- or all of the above. Trump's message is: I'm leaving the deadwood behind.
We always secretly suspected Republicans were selling out the country for their own interests, but now Trump has flushed them all out. At least the GOP isn't being subtle. Their position is: No, we will never allow anyone to be president who wants to do something about the border.
The moment Trump chooses his vice presidential candidate, every person in the media will be handed a personalized crowbar to pry daylight between Trump and his nominee.
What do you say about Mr. Trump's comment 19 years ago in an appearance on Howard Stern? Can we really trust our nuclear codes to a man who likes attractive women?
If Trump picks a typical Republican, the odds are better than even that his nominee will end up withdrawing in order to win the good opinion of The New York Times.
Once a week until the election, there will be some fresh media hysteria about a Trump pop-off, and his nominee will come under enormous pressure to repudiate Trump -- destroying Trump's candidacy and winning himself a lifetime of media adulation. The nominee will have visions of well-compensated board positions, Time magazine's Man of the Year, meetings with actresses, his own show on Fox News -- maybe NBC! -- and not one, but two covers on Vanity Fair.
How much pushing would it take for any of the GOP donor shills to sell out Trump for the media's admiration? A month ago, Newt became a media darling for denouncing Trump's attacks on a judge who belongs to a Hispanic supremacist organization. You could probably get Rubio for a decent bass boat.
If Trump chooses a vice president who supports cheap labor for the donor class, how long before both parties decide to impeach President Trump?
Gingrich lobbied for the instant legalization of illegals because his benefactor, superglue heiress Helen Krieble, needed cheap labor for her horse farm. Trump impeached.
Pence's big immigration initiative was mass legalization for cheap foreign workers if they went home first, with any employer request bringing them right back. Trump impeached.
Sen. Bob Corker was one of only 14 Republicans to vote for Rubio's nation-destroying amnesty bill -- and went the extra mile to pass it. Trump impeached.
Chris Christie's temporary Senate nominee was one of the other 14, after Sen. Chuck Schumer convinced Christie to support amnesty in a single phone call. Trump impeached.
Trump doesn't need a vice president from the party he's just buried.
Everyone thinks Trump's model should be Reagan, who chose his main primary rival as his vice presidential nominee. It's true that the important thing is for Trump to win. Reagan couldn't have saved the country if he had lost, and nor can Trump.
But, apart from signing off on amnesty, choosing a Bush for his vice president was Reagan's biggest mistake, foisting this pestilence on the country for no reason. Reagan won in a landslide. Did he really need to worry about carrying Greenwich, Connecticut?
It took 26 years for voters to correct Reagan's vice presidential mistake, finally rejecting the Bush brand beginning with the 2006 midterm elections. This year, they are trying to correct Reagan's amnesty mistake. Why pick a vice president who won't let the voters do that?
If any of the establishment Republicans brought one thing to the table, it would be a different story. If they brought a roll of nickels -- great, Trump should be bowing and scraping to them. Hey, look! Chris Christie has 5,000 unused campaign balloons in his garage -- bring him in!
But these guys bring nothing. They'll only be a drain on Trump's campaign.
The model shouldn't be Reagan, but Lincoln, whose candidacy also introduced a new party -- one that arose from the exact same battle roiling the party today. The rich wanted cheap labor -- slavery -- and both parties, the Democrats and the Whigs, were happy to give it to them.
Lincoln's new Republican Party stood for the soul of the nation against the self-interest of the rich and powerful, just as Trump's does today.
Lincoln didn't choose some eminent Whig politician to give his ticket gravitas. He chose Hannibal Hamlin. No one other than a "Jeopardy!" contestant even remembers Hamlin's name today. He didn't exactly set the world on fire.
Hamlin was a former Democrat, didn't meet Lincoln until after the election, served only one term as Lincoln's vice president, was not liked by first lady Mary Todd and didn't work closely with the president.
He made no sense as Lincoln's vice president on any level, except the only one that mattered: Hamlin was ferociously opposed to slavery -- the new party's signature issue. He strongly supported Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, arguing that slaves should be armed. As soon as slavery was ended, Lincoln dropped Hamlin as his vice president.
The official GOP's opposition to Trump is the modern slavery party's version of the Civil War, fought by plutocrats with money and media.
For his vice president, Trump needs anyone -- from business, academia, the military or the political world -- who is Hannibal Hamlin on immigration, a warrior to defend our country from the rich's predatory demands for cheap foreign labor. His running mate also needs to be smart and courageous and not in love with his own press notices.
Among the possibilities Trump ought to be considering are people like Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory and Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo (the latter two are up for re-election this year, but perhaps they can run for both offices simultaneously).
Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama is one of approximately one elected officials I completely trust to protect Americans from the cheap labor-demanding rich -- which is why Trump needs to keep him in the Senate.
The same consultants who would have told Trump to never, ever mention immigration are telling him now that he needs a Christie, a Newt, a Corker, a Rubio -- or a woman. (Because that's how Margaret Thatcher emerged. No one had ever heard her name until the British Conservative Party decided it needed a woman on the ticket!) (That's sarcasm.)
If the consultants prevail with Trump, our only hope is that the conventional wisdom about vice presidents being irrelevant is correct -- at least for the six months of a Trump presidency before impeachment.
----------------- 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, VP Prediction, TRump's First Mistake,To 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 - @arra
#Christian Conservative; Retired USAF & Grad Professor. Constitution NRA ProLife schoolchoice fairtax - Editor ARRA NEWS SERVICE. THANKS FOR FOLLOWING!
To Exchange Links - Email: editor@arranewsservice.com!
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 principles & beleifs beliefs of other organizations, this blog/site is soley controlled and supported by the editor. 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.
