News for social, fiscal & national security conservatives who believe in God, family & the USA. Upholding the rights granted by God & guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, traditional family values, "republican" principles / ideals, transparent & limited "smaller" government, free markets, lower taxes, due process of law, liberty & individual freedom. All content approval rests with the ARRA News Service Editor. Opinions are those of the authors. While varied positions are reported, beliefs & principles remain fixed. No revenue is generated for or by this site - no paid ads accepted - no payments for articles.Fair Use doctrine is posted & used. Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru & 2010 AFP National Blogger of the Year] Follow @arra Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home Page
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato
Friday, September 02, 2016
Louisiana Legislator: Get A License Before Helping Your Flooded Neighbors
by Caleb Taylor : Looking to help out your neighbors in need? Don’t try it in Louisiana — at least one state legislator thinks you should have to get a government license to do that.
Institute for Justice:Referred to by locals as the “Cajun Navy,” a group of loosely organized volunteers with boats have been navigating the flooded neighborhoods, rescuing stranded residents and bringing them to safety. But one lawmaker has already said he is working on new legislation to require training and a license that would be required before the volunteers can get past law enforcement.
As local news station WWL reported, Republican State Senator Jonathan Perry has proposed licensing requirements for the volunteers. Perry argues that the purpose of the licenses would simply be to prevent the volunteers from being stopped by law enforcement as they try to save lives. Like most licensing requirements, however, this would likely require the volunteers to be trained, wasting valuable time as lives are on the line.
The Cajun Navy volunteers argued that they are more familiar with many of the flooded areas than outside rescue groups could be. One volunteer added that many of these concerned citizens are not going to simply wait for outside help while their neighbors are stranded. “They’re doers,” the volunteer said.This example in Louisiana illustrates a growing nationwide problem: politicians who want to regulate those offering to serve their fellow citizens.
The fact that the legislator in Louisiana looking to crack down on the “Cajun Navy” is a Republican illustrates something important: it shows that the urge to regulate occupations and services is a bipartisan problem that needs to be fixed.
This problem is prevalent here in the Natural State too.
According to the Institute for Justice (IJ), for instance, Arkansas has the second-most burdensome occupational licensing laws in the nation.
Arkansans are required to ask permission from the government to work in order to be a professional fisherman or makeup artist.
Should you have to have a license to be a doctor? Yes, probably. Should you have to have a license to be a makeup artist? No, the menace of rogue mascara appliers isn’t a sufficiently large health and safety issue for bureaucrats and legislators to be concerned about.
Tennessee, another state bordering Arkansas, passed legislation earlier in 2016 that makes it a little easier for its citizens to work while being free of out-of-control government occupational licensing.
Hopefully, Arkansas legislators will emulate Tennessee’s actions in 2017, rather than those of this Louisiana legislator in search of rogue Cajuns boldly helping their neighbors without the permission of bureaucrats.
--------------------- Caleb Taylor writes for the Arkansas Project an affiliate of the Advance Arkansas Institute, a nonprofit research and educational organization. Tags:cajun navy, Louisiana, flood, occupational licensing, regulations, Economic Freedom, Economy, Caleb Taylor, Arkansas ProjectTo 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 Submits Email Questions to Hillary Clinton . . .
. . . Written Answers, Under Oath, Due September 29
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced it submitted questions to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton concerning her email practices. Clinton’s answers, under oath, are due on September 29. On August 19, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted Judicial Watch further discovery on the Clinton email matter and ordered Clinton to answer the questions “by no later than thirty days thereafter….” Under federal court rules, Judicial Watch is limited to twenty-five questions.
The questions are:
Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.
Describe the creation of your clintonemail.com email account, including who decided to create it, when it was created, why it was created, and, if you did not set up the account yourself, who set it up for you.
When did you decide to use a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business and whom did you consult in making this decision?
Identify all communications in which you participated concerning or relating to your decision to use a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business and, for each communication, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the communication.
In a 60 Minutes interview aired on July 24, 2016, you stated that it was “recommended” you use a personal email account to conduct official State Department business. What recommendations were you given about using or not using a personal email account to conduct official State Department business, who made any such recommendations, and when were any such recommendations made?
Were you ever advised, cautioned, or warned, was it ever suggested, or did you ever participate in any communication, conversation, or meeting in which it was discussed that your use of a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business conflicted with or violated federal recordkeeping laws. For each instance in which you were so advised, cautioned or warned, in which such a suggestion was made, or in which such a discussion took place, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the advice, caution, warning, suggestion, or discussion.
Your campaign website states, “When Clinton got to the Department, she opted to use her personal email account as a matter of convenience.” What factors other than convenience did you consider in deciding to use a personal email account to conduct official State Department business? Include in your answer whether you considered federal records management and preservation requirements and how email you used to conduct official State Department business would be searched in response to FOIA requests.
After President Obama nominated you to be Secretary of State and during your tenure as secretary, did you expect the State Department to receive FOIA requests for or concerning your email?
During your tenure as Secretary of State, did you understand that email you sent or received in the course of conducting official State Department business was subject to FOIA?
During your tenure as Secretary of State, how did you manage and preserve emails in your clintonemail.com email account sent or received in the course of conducting official State Department business, and what, if anything, did you do to make those emails available to the Department for conducting searches in response to FOIA requests?
During your tenure as Secretary of State, what, if any, effort did you make to inform the State Department’s records management personnel (e.g., Clarence Finney or the Executive Secretariat’s Office of Correspondence and Records) about your use of a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business?
During your tenure as Secretary of State, did State Department personnel ever request access to your clintonemail.com email account to search for email responsive to a FOIA request? If so, identify the date access to your account was requested, the person or persons requesting access, and whether access was granted or denied.
At the time you decided to use your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business, or at any time thereafter during your tenure as Secretary of State, did you consider how emails you sent to or received from persons who did not have State Department email accounts (i.e., “state.gov” accounts) would be maintained and preserved by the Department or searched by the Department in response to FOIA requests? If so, what was your understanding about how such emails would be maintained, preserved, or searched by the Department in response to FOIA requests?
On March 6, 2009, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Eric J. Boswell wrote in an Information Memo to your Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, that he “cannot stress too strongly, however, that any unclassified BlackBerry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving email, and exploiting calendars.” A March 11, 2009 email states that, in a management meeting with the assistant secretaries, you approached Assistant Secretary Boswell and mentioned that you had read the “IM” and that you “get it.” Did you review the March 6, 2009 Information Memo, and, if so, why did you continue using an unclassified BlackBerry to access your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business? Copies of the March 6, 2009 Information Memo and March 11, 2009 email are attached as Exhibit A for your review.
In a November 13, 2010 email exchange with Huma Abedin about problems with your clintonemail.com email account, you wrote to Ms. Abedin, in response to her suggestion that you use a State Department email account or release your email address to the Department, “Let’s get a separate address or device.” Why did you continue using your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business after agreeing on November 13, 2010 to “get a separate address or device?” Include in your answer whether by “address” you meant an official State Department email account (i.e., a “state.gov” account) and by “device” you meant a State Department-issued BlackBerry. A copy of the November 13, 2010 email exchange with Ms. Abedin is attached as Exhibit B for your review.
Email exchanges among your top aides and assistants in August 30, 2011 discuss providing you with a State Department-issued BlackBerry or State Department email address. In the course of these discussions, State Department Executive Secretary Stephen Mull wrote, “[W]e are working to provide the Secretary per her request a Department issued BlackBerry to replace her personal unit which is malfunctioning (possibly because of her personal email server is down). We will prepare two versions for her to use – one with an operating State Department email account (which would mask her identity, but which would also be subject to FOIA requests).” Similarly, John Bentel, the Director of Information and Records Management in the Executive Secretariat, wrote, “You should be aware that any email would go through the Department’s infrastructure and [be] subject to FOIA searches.” Did you request a State Department issued Blackberry or a State Department email account in or around August 2011, and, if so, why did you continue using your personal device and clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business instead of replacing your device and account with a State Department-issued BlackBerry or a State Department email account? Include in your answer whether the fact that a State Department-issued BlackBerry or a State Department email address would be subject to FOIA affected your decision. Copies of the email exchanges are attached as Exhibit C for your review.
In February 2011, Assistant Secretary Boswell sent you an Information Memo noting “a dramatic increase since January 2011 in attempts . . . to compromise the private home email accounts of senior Department officials.” Assistant Secretary Boswell “urge[d] Department users to minimize the use of personal web-email for business.” Did you review Assistant Secretary Boswell’s Information Memo in or after February 2011, and, if so, why did you continue using your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business? Include in your answer any steps you took to minimize use of your clintonemail.com email account after reviewing the memo. A copy of Assistant Secretary Boswell’s February 2011 Information Memo is attached as Exhibit D for your review.
On June 28, 2011, you sent a message to all State Department personnel about securing personal email accounts. In the message, you noted “recent targeting of personal email accounts by online adversaries” and directed all personnel to “[a]void conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts.” Why did you continue using your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business after June 28, 2011, when you were advising all State Department Personnel to avoid doing so? A copy of the June 28, 2011 message is attached as Exhibit E for your review.
Were you ever advised, cautioned, or warned about hacking or attempted hacking of your clintonemail.com email account or the server that hosted your clintonemail.com account and, if so, what did you do in response to the advice, caution, or warning?
When you were preparing to leave office, did you consider allowing the State Department access to your clintonemail.com email account to manage and preserve the official emails in your account and to search those emails in response to FOIA requests? If you considered allowing access to your email account, why did you decide against it? If you did not consider allowing access to your email account, why not?
After you left office, did you believe you could alter, destroy, disclose, or use email you sent or received concerning official State Department business as you saw fit? If not, why not?
In late 2014, the State Department asked that you make available to the Department copies of any federal records of which you were aware, “such as an email sent or received on a personal email account while serving as Secretary of State.” After you left office but before your attorneys reviewed the email in your clintonemail.com email account in response to the State Department’s request, did you alter, destroy, disclose, or use any of the email in the account or authorize or instruct that any email in the account be altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used? If so, describe any email that was altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used, when the alteration, destruction, disclosure, or use took place, and the circumstances under which the email was altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used? A copy of a November 12, 2014 letter from Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy regarding the State Department’s request is attached as Exhibit F for your review.
After your lawyers completed their review of the emails in your clintonemail.com email account in late 2014, were the electronic versions of your emails preserved, deleted, or destroyed? If they were deleted or destroyed, what tool or software was used to delete or destroy them, who deleted or destroyed them, and was the deletion or destruction done at your direction?
During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.” Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.
Identify all communications between you and Brian Pagliano concerning or relating to the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of any emails in your clintonemail.com email account, including any instruction or direction to Mr. Pagliano about the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of emails in your account when transferring the clintonemail.com email system to any alternate or replacement server. For each communication, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the communication.
“These are simple questions about her email system that we hope will finally result in straight-forward answers, under oath, from Hillary Clinton,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
In his opinion ordering Clinton to answer written questions under oath Judge Sullivan wrote:The Court is persuaded that Secretary Clinton’s testimony is necessary to enable her to explain on the record the purpose for the creation and operation of the clintonemail.com system for State Department business.In its July 2016 request to depose Hillary Clinton, Judicial Watch argued:Secretary Clinton’s deposition is necessary to complete the record. Although certain information has become available through investigations by the Benghazi Select Committee, the FBI, and the State Department Inspector General, as well as through Plaintiff’s narrowly tailored discovery to date, significant gaps in the evidence remain. Only Secretary Clinton can fill these gaps, and she does not argue otherwise.
To [Judicial Watch’s] knowledge, Secretary Clinton has never testified under oath why she created and used the clintonemail.com system to conduct official government business. Her only public statements on the issue are unsworn.Judge Sullivan also ordered that Judicial Watch may depose the former Director of Information Resource Management of the Executive Secretariat (“S/ES-IRM”) John Bentel by October 31.
The questions and deposition arise in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit before Judge Sullivan first filed in September 2013 seeking records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former Deputy Chief of Staff to Clinton. The lawsuit was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).
Judicial Watch has already taken the deposition testimony of seven Clinton aides and State Department officials.
For further information on this case, click here. Tags:Hillary Clinton, email scan, Huma, Employment, Judicial WatchTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Natalia Castro: The foundation of American democracy is that government is by the consent of the governed, one person to one vote and every vote matters. This concept is the center to our democratic process and must be protected in a pursuit to protect equality.
Since the 1960s, one person, one vote served as a protection for constitutional rule. The cases of Baker v. Carr in 1962 and Reynolds v. Sims in 1964 gave federal courts power to hear issues of congressional districting and required that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population.
These cases, decided on the grounds of the 14th amendment, ensured that whether an individual lives in a rural or an urban area their representation in the House of Representatives is equal and their vote is worthy. The decisions mirror the statement of John Adams in 1776 that “equality in representation in the legislature is a first principle of liberty.”
The American system dictates that in the U.S. House of Representatives every person have approximately the same representation, which is the reason redistricting occurs every 10 years to rebalance the proportional representation of congressional districts. Thus ensuring that every person have a voice in congress even if they’re ineligible to vote.
The essence of a fair electoral system is that everybody has equal representation and that every citizens vote counts the same.
Which is why if “one person, one vote” is the foundation for equality, fairness, and democratic opportunity; “vote early, vote often” is the foundation for division, corruption, and unaccountability.
Voting is a ticket of citizenship which provides consent to be governed, if one person gives that consent twice they are negating the opportunity of another.
In Florida, where the Sun Sentinel of Jan. 2016 reports double voting can land a person in 5 years of federal prison, the occurrence is common among “snow birds” who vote in both their states of residence and their summer homes.
When a “snow bird” uses their double residence status as an opportunity to vote twice, they are disenfranchising the average Florida voter who can only vote once. This is a common dilemma among college students, often registered in their home state yet encouraged to register in their school state, opening the opportunity for double voting without knowledge of the ramifications.
Shockingly, the League of Women Voters of Florida president Pamela Goodman declared double voting is not a legitimate issue and “we should be focusing on enfranchising more voters and making it easier for people to vote.”
The truth is, this is the most fundamental issue to our American identity, the identity women Goodman represents fought for. In his 1957 speech “Give Us the Ballot” Martin Luther King Jr. explained “So long as I do not firmly and irrevocably possess the right to vote I do not possess myself. I cannot make up my mind — it is made up for me.”
Voting twice makes up another’s mind for them, it removes them from the democratic process.
One person, one vote is not just a legal statute or a constitutional provision, but rather the foundation to a democratic built on equality. In order for our representatives to be fair, they must be elected fairly. We cannot undermine the experiences and battles of African Americans fighting for the 15th amendment and women fighting for the 19th amendment, a fight revolving around a simple concept; one person, one vote, ensuring that when it comes to the ballot box, everyone is equal and anyone can make a difference.
--------------- Natalia Castro is a contributing editor at Americans for Limited Government. Tags:one person, one vote, controversial, Natalia Castro, 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!
Tags:Hillary Clinton, Warts and All, Lying about Lying, more lies, AF Branco, editorial cartoon 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 Daniel Greenfield: “I was often the ‘designated yeller.’” That’s how Hillary Clinton described her relationship with the Israeli prime minister. Yelling and cursing was her particular specialty.
One marathon Hillary yelling session allegedly lasted 45 minutes. Afterward the Israeli ambassador said that relations between the United States and Israel had reached their lowest point.
Her favorite name for Netanyahu was, “F____ Bibi.”
But it wasn’t just about her hatred of any particular Israeli leader. The same year that Hillary was yelling herself hoarse at a man who had fought terrorists on the battlefield, she addressed the American Task Force on Palestine, a leading terror lobby, and blasted Israel and praised Islamic terrorists.
Hillary told the terror lobby, “I may have been the first person ever associated with an American administration to call for a Palestinian state.” She praised Mahmoud Abbas, the PA terror dictator who had boasted, “There is no difference between our policies and those of Hamas.”
She celebrated Naomi Shihab Nye who had written of the Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli cities, “Oppression makes people do desperate things.” Echoing her, Hillary denounced the “indignity of occupation”. A few years later she accused Israelis of a lack of “empathy” in understanding “the pain of an oppressed people.”
Perhaps they were too busy mourning their dead to empathize with the terrorists who were killing them.
But fighting for her political life, Hillary and Huma dug through her closet and threw on a blue and white pantsuit. Her campaign placed an editorial in The Forward headlined, “How I Would Reaffirm Unbreakable Bond With Israel — and Benjamin Netanyahu.”
Probably by yelling “F___ Bibi” at him for another 45 minutes.
When Hillary Clinton promised to reaffirm her “Unbreakable Bond With Israel — and Benjamin Netanyahu” it was in the pages of The Forward. And, striving to sell a rotten radical to skeptical Jews, the left-wing paper has decided to run a piece claiming that “Trump Would Be Israel’s Worst Nightmare”. As if anyone in Israel goes to bed dreaming of eight years of Hillary.
The Forward shares Hillary’s view of Netanyahu. And it violently loathes Israel.
Its quick costume change from denouncing anything and everything about the Jewish State to a sudden bout of concern for Israel is as unconvincing as Hillary Clinton’s southern accent.
Jay Michaelson, the author of the editorial warning us how bad Trump would be for Israel, followed that up with another piece accusing Israel of being an apartheid state. During Passover, Michaelson’s seething hatred for the Jewish State had pushed him to declare, “I’m Seeking Freedom From the Organized Jewish Community This Passover.”
Should American Jews take their cues on how dangerous Trump would be for Israel from a guy who hates Israel? Who hates Israel so much that he can’t even stand the Jewish community?
The Forward, like Hillary, hates Israel. Its pages are dedicated to rationalizing, justifying and defending the Muslim hatred of Israel and Jews. There’s Lisa Goldman explaining that the Muslim anti-Semitism displayed at the Rio Olympics was really a “Jewish persecution complex” that lacked “nuance.” It’s not an outlier. The Forward’s view of Israel is as hostile and negative as any white supremacist website.
Or Hillary Clinton’s inbox where the likes of Max Blumenthal regularly made appearances.
Do The Forward or Hillary Clinton actually care about Israel? All they’re trying to do is keep the American Jews who don’t believe that Israel is an apartheid state or that Muslim anti-Semitism is the fault of the Jews on the Democratic reservation by scaring them with bedtime stories about Trump.
Michaelson warns us that Trump would destabilize the Middle East and endanger Israel. It’s hard to imagine how he could do so more than Hillary’s Arab Spring which turned Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood, sowed terrorist dragon’s teeth across the region, including an ISIS affiliate in the Sinai.
Trump would destroy American credibility, he tells us. What credibility? Nobody thinks we have any credibility now. Not on Syria, Iran, Libya, China, Russia or anything else. And much of that took place under Hillary Clinton.
Then we are told that Trump is an “extremist” because “moderate Saudi businessmen” don’t like him.
Whom should American Jews better take their guidance from than “moderate Saudi businessmen”? Perhaps Jay Michaelson, Hillary Clinton and the Forward. It’s hard to tell who in that gruesome bunch hates Israel more.
The “moderate” Saudi businessman whom Michaelson quotes is Saudi Arabia’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. Alaweed had his post 9/11 donation thrown back in his face after blaming America for the attack. And Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, claimed that he was an Al Qaeda supporter.
He had also donated $27 million to terrorism against Israel at a telethon whose host declared on television, “Do not have any mercy, neither compassion on the Jews, their blood, their money, their flesh. Their women are yours to take, legitimately. Allah made them yours. Why don't you enslave their women? Why don't you wage jihad? Why don't you pillage them?”
The Forward and Jay Michaelson would like American Jews to heed this warning about Trump’s extremism from a “moderate Saudi” who donated to the mass murder and rape of Jews.
Also, Jay Michaelson and the Forward warn American Jews not to vote for Trump because he “famously promised to “bomb the s___ out of ISIS.” This, according to Jay, ”would entail the murder of thousands of innocent people.” Some of whom might even be “moderate Saudi businessmen.”
Finally, we are warned that under Trump, “Egypt and Syria will soon resemble Hamas and Hezbollah: extremist, Islamist and violent.” This was formerly known as Obama and Hillary’s Arab Spring.
Michaelson contends that Republicans are voting from “that part of the brain that sends out constant ‘fight or flight’ messages based on threats and fear.” That’s an odd lack of self-awareness from a man who just desperately tried to hammer together some “fight or flight” messages on Trump.
But attacking Trump is easier than defending Hillary. And so we get this pathetic showing of Muslim terrorist financiers and Jewish anti-Semites against Trump. It’s as meaningful as Hillary’s pro-Israel pandering.
The real Hillary, the one caught with an inbox full of attacks on Israel, including approval for the bigotry of Max Blumenthal whose work was cited by the Kansas City Jewish Community Center gunman, is quite a different creature from the public Hillary who suddenly loves Israel.
The real Hillary, the one who kissed Arafat’s wife and listened placidly to her rant about Israeli poison gas, has a long anti-Israel history. Her time as Secretary of State has already given us a preview of her policies. She will continue demanding apartheid segregation for Jews living in ’67 Israel and she will go on pushing for more concessions to Islamic terrorists. She will back the Iran deal that she championed.
Hillary will go on financing Iran’s wave of Islamic terrorism while ignoring its nuclear violations.
But there is nothing extraordinary about any of this. Hillary is not a radical in a party of moderates. The Democratic Party has drifted so far into the fever swamps of the radical left that opposition to Israel is mainstream. The only reason that Hillary reserves her fulminations for phone calls and private emails is that even though her inner circle of advisers is vocally anti-Israel, some in her outer circle of donors are pro-Israel. And she still needs their support. At least while the election is still going on.
Israel has ceased to be a bipartisan issue. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton reversed JFK and LBJ’s pro-Israel policies. This rejection has been cloaked in euphemisms about “two states for two people”, but that really means championing the creation of Islamic terror states inside Israel.
This policy, which has until recently been bipartisan, represents the greatest threat to Israel.
Donald Trump is the first Republican presidential nominee to firmly break with it. Unlike Hillary, Trump hasn’t kissed Arafat’s wife or spent an hour on the phone yelling at the Prime Minister of Israel. Instead he has said that Jews should be able to keep on living and building houses in ’67 Israel.
Jews living as a free people in their own land is the essence of Zionism. And it’s a rejection of the hateful ravings of Hillary Clinton, the Forward and the “moderate” Saudi businessmen of Islamic terror.
-------------- 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, 2016 Presidential Election, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Muslim Terrorists, Jewish Anti-Semites, Against TrumpTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
FBI’s Hillary Clinton Interview Notes Raise SERIOUS Concerns About Her Health or Truthfulness
by Jeff Dunetz: The FBI on Friday released a detailed report about the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. The report is in two parts, one of which is the summary of the three-hour interview of the former secretary of state. The sections read so far are especially damning, because they suggest either she lied to the FBI, didn’t have the appropriate concern for classified information, or has health problems affecting her memory.
In 2009, within days of becoming secretary of state she signed two nondisclosure agreement. One about classified information and provides very specific steps for the handling of classified information the other about special access program. When one signs these documents (as Hillary did) it is a confirmation to the U.S. Government that you were briefed on the rules and you understand what classified information is, what a special access programs (SAP) are and you have been briefed or trained on the rules of how to handle them.
These documents form basis of the FBI’s questions about intent and whether or not Ms. Clinton understood how classified information was supposed to handled.
Signing this document is not the equivalent of the HR documents one normally signs first day of work it is considerably more important than that. It’s signed with the knowledge that if you break the rules you are going to get an orange jump suit, a room with bars, and three square meals, all courtesy of Uncle Sam and the American taxpayer.
But according to the first few pages of the 302 document (the FBI doesn’t record interviews, the 302 document contains the notes of the agent who did the question), Hillary Clinton remembered reading and signing the nondisclosures but told the FBI she could not remember the briefing or training she received, or remember how to handle the information. Throwing her people under the bus, she simply said that she trusted people at the state department to use their judgment and not send going to her that was classified.
Even worse Ms. Clinton told the FBI she could not recall a specific briefing on how to handle information connect with special access programs (SAP)–and that is HUGE. SAP programs are America’s most secret information. These are the secrets shared with only a few people, for example the names and location of human spies.
Remember this is a woman who signed documents saying she knew and understood the rules and was aware that a violation of the rules could mean she goes to the jail.
Ms. Clinton also couldn’t remember if she ever used the Secretary of State’s power to classify information, could not recall receiving e-mails that shouldn’t be an unsecure system. In total her response to 40 key questions was a loss of memory.
Not remembering anything, made it hard for the FBI to ask her questions about intent, or try to catch her telling a lie. There was no chance of a “Law and Order” moment where the cop catches the suspect in a lie and can use that fact to pry the truth from the suspect.
In what may turn out to be her most damaging answer, Clinton couldn’t remember her exiting the State Department briefing before she left office in February 2013. She blamed it on concussion she received in December 2012 and a blood clot she developed in January 2013.
Especially during the past few week Hillary Clinton has faced claims that she was not healthy enough to be president. She just told the FBI director that she had trouble remembering things because of her heat. I feel a few campaign ads coming out of this one.
Here’s the truth about most of her “I can’t remember” answers. Any lawyer worth his salt would tell Hillary to answer I don’t know, to all of those questions. The objective was to make sure she wasn’t indicted. “I don’t remember” is a lie that can’t be proven. She couldn’t plead the 5th, didn’t want to commit perjury, and didn’t want to self-incriminate. “I don’t recall,” is the safest of answers.
If I’m wrong about Hillary lying about her memory, it means that during the briefings and training Hillary Clinton received about how to handle this country’s most sensitive information she didn’t care enough to pay attention. The only other option is scarier, perhaps Ms. Clinton is suffering from some health problems affecting her memory. No matter which of the above is the real reason she said “I don’t recall,” lying, lack of concern or illness affecting he memory, Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be President.
My good friend Ed Morrissey looked at the documents from a totally different angle, Ed’s great so his take is worth a read.
------------- Jeff Dunetz is Editor and an conservative author at The Lid Tags:FBI, Hillary Clinton, Interview Notes, Raise SERIOUS Concerns, Health, Truthfulness, Jeff Dunetz, The LidTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Closing The Gap, Kaine Embraces Kaepernick, Police Demand Apology
by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: Closing The Gap - Donald Trump had a good week and Hillary Clinton had a bad one. That's not just my opinion. The polls confirm it. Survey after survey this week found Trump closing the gap with Clinton. For example:
A Fox News poll found Clinton leading Trump by just two points -- 41% to 39%. Earlier this month, Clinton led Trump by nine points in the same poll.
The latest Rasmussen poll has Trump leading by one point -- 40% to 39% for Clinton. Last week, Rasmussen had Clinton leading 42% to 38%.
In addition, there is positive movement in key states too. A series of polls by Emerson College found Hillary leading Trump by five points in Michigan (45% to 40%), three points in Pennsylvania (46% to 43%) and the candidates were tied at 43% in Ohio.
In Wisconsin, a Marquette University poll found Trump just three points behind Hillary. Earlier this month, the same poll had him down 15 points!
And in Virginia, where Trump trailed by as much as 19 points earlier this month, a new Hampton University poll finds Clinton leading by only two points -- 43% to 41%.
Kaine Embraces Kaepernick - You won't hear Hillary Clinton condemn San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick. Choosing between the Black Lives Matter movement and the National Anthem is just too tough. But her running mate, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, did wade into the controversy.
Kaine said yesterday, "I wouldn't presume to tell him what to do," adding that the rest of us should "respect people's ability to act according to their conscience."
Kaine was clearly struggling to not sound hostile toward this ingrate, who added insult to injury this week by wearing socks with pigs as police officers. And Kaine says we should respect him?
Every weekend in Chicago, dozens of black residents are shot by black thugs. There were 90 homicides in August alone. Where is Kaepernick's concern about these black lives?
The police are the only ones preventing chaos and anarchy in our cities. The residents of Baltimore are begging the police to do more to stop the thugs who are terrorizing them.
Kaepernick Takes A Knee
Kaepernick Takes A Knee - Last night, the 49ers played the San Diego Chargers, and Kaepernick once again refused to stand during the National Anthem. He took a knee this time.
However, his "stand" was particularly offensive as the Chargers were hosting a "Salute to the Military," with more than 200 Armed Forces personnel presenting a giant American flag and a remembrance of the Vietnam War.
Another 49ers player, Eric Reed, joined Kaepernick in kneeling, and Seattle Seahawks player Jeremy Lane also refused to stand for the National Anthem at his game last night.
Some players are speaking out against Kaepernick. But, sadly, we will have to wait and see how far the rot goes among other players in the NFL. America yearns to know how many professional football millionaires feel oppressed.
But we don't have to wait to find out how deep the rot goes in the NFL as an organization. Under Commissioner Roger Goodell, the NFL is not about to irritate the progressive left. It so far has refused to insist that players respect our flag or make a living doing something else.
This is the same NFL that threatened North Carolina over its efforts to make sure that men were not using women's bathrooms. This is the same NFL that lambasted Georgia when it considered legislation to ensure that the First Amendment rights of pastors were protected so they would not be forced to participate in same-sex weddings. This is the same NFL that refused to allow the Dallas Cowboys to honor police officers during regular season games.
What would the NFL do if one of its players said, "I am not standing for the National Anthem until America stops oppressing Christians"? Would the head of the NFL, or for that matter the Democrat vice presidential candidate, say, "Well, you have to respect him for taking a stand"?
The hypocrisy is disgusting.
I strongly suspect there is no conservative cause for which an NFL player could stage an on-field protest without risking a severe reprimand. And it appears as if there is no left-wing cause an NFL player can promote that would result in a reprimand. The cultural left is well on its way to destroying American football, just as it has defiled everything else Americans have enjoyed.
Leaving all other issues aside, my friends, you know Donald Trump and Mike Pence will fight against this left-wing political correctness every day they are in office. You also know that Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine will promote it with every fiber of their being every day they are in power.
Police Demand Apology - Let me be absolutely clear about this controversy: Colin Kaepernick has a right to free speech and expression. ON HIS OWN TIME. When he is in uniform and on the field, he is not on his own time. He is a representative of the San Francisco 49ers and the National Football League.
Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, blasted Kaepernick and the NFL.
"It's just ridiculous that the same league that prohibits the Dallas [Cowboys] football club from honoring the slain officers in their community with their uniforms stands silent when Kaepernick is dishonoring police officers with what he's wearing on the field," Johnson said.
"I think the league is in a downward spiral regarding their obligations to the public under [NFL Commissioner] Roger Goodell, and this is just another example of that."
Earlier this week, Martin Halloran, president of the San Francisco Police Officers Association, sent a letter to Jed York, CEO of the 49ers and to Commissioner Goodell. Here is an excerpt of that letter:"Perhaps Mr. Kaepernick could comment on the murder of 40 police officers in the United States in the past few months. . . Perhaps he could lend his commentary to the [thousands of] murders that African Americans inflicted on one another in 2015. The law enforcement community cannot be continuously blamed for all of society's problems, including [the] racial divide in our country. It isn't fair and it isn't true."ACTION ITEM: Let's keep the heat on York and Goodell! Click here to join the National Association of Police Organizations and the San Francisco Police Officers Association in protesting Colin Kaepernick's disrespectful attitude toward law enforcement, our military men and women and our country. Sign our petition demanding action.
------------- 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 Closing The Gap, Kaine Embraces Kaepernick, Colin Kaepernick, Police Demand ApologyTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Government Workers Now Outnumber Manufacturing Workers by 9,932,000
by Terence Jeffrey: Government employees in the United States outnumber manufacturing employees by 9,932,000, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Federal, state and local government employed 22,213,000 people in August, while the manufacturing sector employed 12,281,000.
The BLS has published seasonally-adjusted month-by-month employment data for both government and manufacturing going back to 1939. For half a century—from January 1939 through July 1989—manufacturing employment always exceeded government employment in the United States, according to these numbers.
Then, in August 1989, the seasonally-adjusted employment numbers for government exceeded the employment numbers for manufacturing for the first time. That month, manufacturing employed 17,964,000 and government employed 17,989,000.
Manufacturing employment in the United States had peaked a decade before that in June 1979 at 19,553,000
From August 2015 to August 2016 seasonally-adjusted manufacturing employment declined by 37,000--dropping from 12,318,000 last August to 12,281,000 this August.
The 22,213,000 government employees in August, according to the BLS, included 2,790,000 federal employees, 5,120,000 state government employees, and 14,303,000 local government employees.
---------------------- Terence P. Jeffrey is editor-in-chief of the conservative CNSNews.com. Previously, he served for more than a decade as editor of Human Events, where he is now an editor at large. Tags:Terence Jeffrey, CNS News, government workers, outnumber, manufacturing workersTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Kerby Anderson, Contributing Author: Student debt is a major problem today for the younger generation, and it has become a significant campaign issue. A recent op-ed by Susan Dynarski in the New York Times changed my perspective on the issue of student debt.
Let’s consider the basic numbers. Politicians often cite two numbers: one trillion and seven million. Student borrowers owe more than $1 trillion. Seven million of these borrowers are in default. It is tempting to connect these two facts and conclude that more debt leads to more default. That is not the case.
It turns out that the biggest borrowers tend to become the highest earners. Students with the smallest debts are the ones who actually have a bigger problem paying it back.
For example, borrowing is the highest for people who go to graduate school. Forty percent of new loans go to graduate students. Those who graduate from medical school or law school generally have high salaries and are therefore able to pay back their student loans. Their percentage of default is much lower than for other students who took out loans for college.
Even college graduates do fairly well in repaying their loans. The typical college graduate earns tens of thousands of dollars more each year than the typical high school graduate. Their default percentage is relatively low as well.
The highest percentage of student defaults are concentrated among the millions of students who go to college but drop out before they get a degree. They have smaller debts than many of the other students I have mentioned, but they also have the highest rate of default on student loans.
There is a policy application to these numbers. We shouldn’t be trying to get all students to borrow less. Those going to graduate school or planning to graduate with a marketable degree are a much lower risk. This is an important fact to keep in mind when politicians talk about student debt and even propose free tuition.
----------- 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, student debtTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
United Nations Joins Dishonest Pipeline Protest Mob
by Phil Kerpen, Contributing Author: The anti-Keystone activists insisted that killing that pipeline was singularly important for the future of the world, because of the supposedly uniquely dirty Canadian oil sands. Ultimately they succeeded, with Secretary of State John Kerry spiking the project (despite the State Department’s own conclusion it would have no adverse environmental impact) based on the false “perception” among the public of “dirty oil.”
Score one for the dishonest environmentalist smear merchants, who have now exposed their hypocrisy by moving on to oppose the Dakota Access Pipeline, a project not from Canada but from North Dakota, and that would compete with the supposedly uniquely evil Canadian stuff.
This 1,172 mile pipeline will bring American energy from the Bakken region of North Dakota to market and represents a $3 billion investment of private capital. The design, construction, and operation will meet the highest standards with modern control technologies. The river crossings are deep underground.
Yet the activist groups again go to any extreme necessary to stop the project – with ongoing protests at the construction site that have grown violent and resulted in dozens of arrests.
Their real agenda is anti-oil, period. Even if the consequences of blocking pipeline infrastructure means more rail and truck shipments with more accidents and higher prices for consumers.
How far are the anti-energy activists willing to go? All the way to the United Nations, which has stepped in to interfere with the project.
Alvaro Pop Ac, Chair of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, issued a statement claiming: “The project was proposed and planned without any consultation with the Standing Rock Sioux or others that will be affected by this major project.”
The United Nations statement was issued in response to green groups bringing their anti-pipeline protest crowds out in Washington, DC. One of those groups, Earthjustice, filed a lawsuit in federal court against the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers using the Standing Rock Sioux as plaintiffs. Like the United Nations, the lawsuit alleges a lack of consultation.
“This consultation process included meetings between the Corps and Plaintiff on November 6, 2014, January 22, 2016; January 25, 2016; February 26, 2016; March 3, 2016; March 7, 2016; March 22, 2016; April 29, 2016, May 14, 2016.”
The Standing Rock Sioux also “initially scheduled, and then withdrew from, a site visit of the proposed Lake Oahe crossing on September 28, 2015.”
The Army Corps also attached a detailed spreadsheet showing 389 consultations with 55 indigenous nationals and tribes, including the nine with the Standing Rock Sioux.
To the United Nations, apparently, that constitutes “without any consultation.”
The anti-energy activists have settled on this surreal strategy of wishing away hundreds of consultations because they have no meaningful substantive objections to a project that has been exhaustively vetted and is environmentally and economically sound.
They bussed in the protest crowds and ginned up the usual PR machine and called in the United Nations to try to either bully a judge to issue an injunction or, more likely, create enough of a political headache for the Obama administration to stall the pipeline, which had already begun construction, into the next administration.
If they succeed then the Keystone precedent will be extended: if you can make enough political noise to create your desired “perception,” you can stop a major infrastructure project – regardless of the facts.
------------------ Phil Kerpen is president of American Commitment. Follow him at (@kerpen) and on Facebook. He is a contributing author at the ARRA News Service. Tags:Phil Kerpen, American Commitment, United Nations, Dishonest, Pipeline Protest, MobTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Save the Filibuster and Save the Senate From Partisanship
by Brian Darling: The filibuster is under attack again, this time by Senate Democrats who are hoping to win back that chamber as well as the White House in November.
Carl Hulse, chief Washington correspondent for The New York Times, reported Wednesday that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid wants Democrats to “move to curtail the filibuster” if they win both the White House and the Senate “only to run up against persistent use of the tactic by Republicans.”
Hulse wrote:‘Unless after this election there is a dramatic change to go back to the way it used to be, the Senate will have to evolve as it has in the past,’ Mr. Reid told me, referring to a former tradition of rarely mounting filibusters. ‘But it will evolve with a majority vote determining stuff. It is going to happen.’Senate Democrats are looking at the polls and have decided that, if Democrats are successful in winning both the Senate and the White House, the Senate rule that allows extended debate, Rule 22, would need to be abolished.
So what Reid is saying is that if Democrats win the Senate, they should abolish the filibuster to squelch debate and expedite a left-wing agenda, including tipping the Supreme Court to the far left.
But what is left unsaid is that if Democrats don’t regain the Senate majority, which they lost to Republicans in 2014, they will be motivated to defend their right to filibuster in order to obstruct policies they oppose.
“Filibuster for Me, but Not for Thee” should be the motto of Senate Democrats. This is partisanship pure and simple.
The Senate is unique. Over the long history of this nation, it has developed a tradition of being the chamber of the legislative branch that protects the idea of extended debate and the power of individual senators to amend legislation.
Making it easier for the leadership of one party to end debate in the Senate not only would amass power in that leadership but take power from individual senators. It also would give the party in power complete control of the Senate; strip the minority party of the power to use the storied filibuster to leverage compromise and votes on amendments.
Abolition of extended debate runs contrary to Senate tradition and would transform the institution into a smaller version of the House of Representatives. The Senate would be run by strict majority rule.
Any attempt at so-called “filibuster reform” would be a mistake and lead to more divisiveness and partisanship in Washington. It also would create an America where the party in power can transform our laws dramatically, making them temporary and subject to the will of fleeting majorities in Congress.
Rule 22 states that the Senate can’t vote on a rules change until two-thirds of senators vote to end debate on any rules change. Rule 5 memorializes the idea that the Senate is a continuing body and that the rules continue from one Congress to the next.
Reid, as Senate majority leader in 2013, used the “nuclear option” to abolish the filibuster for presidential nominations for the executive branch and for the judiciary except for those to the Supreme Court.
The Nevada Democrat did this by having his Democrat caucus vote that filibustering presidential nominations was unconstitutional. He was factually wrong.
As I wrote in a January 2011 paper for The Heritage Foundation titled “The Filibuster Protects the Rights of All Senators and the American People”:
The Senate’s rule is constitutional under Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution: ‘Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings.’ The Senate has passed many rules, points of order, and budgetary temporary points of order that require a supermajority to proceed on legislation. Under the Constitution, it can change its rules, and no provision in the Constitution gives another body the authority to strike down the filibuster or any other Senate rule …
In the Senate, if a senator wants to deviate from the strict rules of the Senate, he or she must first move to suspend the rules of the Senate, which requires approval of a two-thirds majority of all senators. This is also constitutional. Thus, to argue that all supermajority thresholds for votes are unconstitutional is inconsistent with a common understanding of the Constitution.Senate Republicans had set the table for this power grab when they pushed in 2005 for a “constitutional option” to abolish filibusters to block presidential nominations.
At the time, Republicans were pressing for the confirmation of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominations and were willing to toss aside Rule 22 to load up the bench with a few conservatives. Many regretted that ploy when Reid used the same logic and deployed Republican talking points in 2013 to make the argument for expediting liberal President Barack Obama nominees to the federal courts.
As the new Senate minority leader in 2005, before Republicans lost the majority in the 2006 elections, Reid vowed: “I am going to do everything I can to preserve the traditions and rules of this institution I love.”
A little-known senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, argued that same year: “If the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting, the bitterness, and the gridlock will only get worse.”
So, the evidence shows the party in power in the Senate is for some version of “filibuster reform,” and the party out of power wants to preserve the right of the minority and individual senators to participate in the deliberative process.
The bottom line is that the rules forbid what Republicans attempted in 2005, what Reid did in 2013, and what Democrats are contemplating for next year should they retake the Senate.
There is no way for Democrats to implement Reid’s plan without violating the Senate rules and the Constitution, which allows the Senate to make its own rules.
Reid, who is retiring, won’t be back in early January, when the Senate is sworn in for the 115th Congress. Here’s hoping the new and returning senators will toss aside his latest plan to curtail the filibuster.
------------- Brian Darling is a former senior communications director for Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and a former senior fellow in government studies at The Heritage Foundation. Tags:Harry Reid, Democrat, filibuster, partisanship, Brian Darling, Heritage Foundation, The Daily SignalTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
The gnashing of teeth up at The New York Times testifies to Trump’s triumph:
“Mr. Trump has spent his entire campaign painting Mexico as a nation of rapists, drug smugglers, and trade hustlers. … But instead of chastising Mr. Trump, Mr. Pena Nieto treated him like a visiting head of state … with side-by-side lecterns and words of deferential mush.”
As I wrote in August, Trump “must convince the nation … he is an acceptable, indeed, a preferable alternative” to Hillary Clinton, whom the nation does not want. In Mexico City, Trump did that. He reassured voters who are leaning toward him that he can be president. As for those who are apprehensive about his temperament, they saw reassurance.
For validation, one need not rely on supporters of Trump. Even Mexicans who loathe Trump are conceding his diplomatic coup.
“Trump achieved his purpose,” said journalism professor Carlos Bravo Regidor. “He looked serene, firm, presidential.” Our “humiliation is now complete,” tweeted an anchorman at Televisa.
President Nieto’s invitation to Trump “was the biggest stupidity in the history of the Mexican presidency,” said academic Jesus Silva-Herzog.
Not since Gen. Winfield Scott arrived for a visit in 1847 have Mexican elites been this upset with an American.
Jorge Ramos of Univision almost required sedation.
When Trump got back to the States, he affirmed that Mexico will be paying for the wall, even if “they don’t know it yet.”
Indeed, back on American soil, in Phoenix, the Donald doubled down. Deportations will accelerate when he takes office, beginning with felons. Sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants will face U.S. sanctions. There will be no amnesty, no legalization, no path to citizenship for those who have broken into our country. All laws will be enforced.
Trump’s stance in Mexico City and Phoenix reveals that there is no turning back. The die is cast. He is betting the election on his belief that the American people prefer his stands to Clinton’s call for amnesty.
A core principle enunciated by Trump in Phoenix appears to be a guiding light behind his immigration policy.
“Anyone who tells you that the core issue is the needs of those living here illegally has simply spent too much time Washington. … There is only one core issue in the immigration debate, and that issue is the well-being of the American people. … Nothing even comes a close second.”
The “well-being of the American people” may be the yardstick by which U.S. policies will be measured in a Trump presidency. This is also applicable to Trump’s stand on trade and foreign policy.
Do NAFTA, the WTO, MFN for China, the South Korea deal and TPP advance the “well-being of the American people”? Or do they serve more the interests of foreign regimes and corporate elites?
Some $12 trillion in trade deficits since George H. W. Bush gives you the answer.
Which of the military interventions and foreign wars from Serbia to Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya to Yemen to Syria served the “well-being of the American people”?
Are the American people well served by commitments in perpetuity to 60- and 65-year-old treaties to wage war on Russia and China on behalf of scores of nations across Eurasia, most of which have been free riders on U.S. defense for decades?
Trump’s “core issue” might be called Americanism.
Whatever the outcome of this election, these concerns are not going away. For they have arisen out of a deeply dissatisfied and angry electorate that is alienated from the elites both parties.
Indeed, alienation explains the endurance of Trump, despite his recent difficulties. Americans want change, and he alone offers it.
In the last two weeks, Trump has seen a slow rise in the polls, matched by a perceptible decline in support for Clinton. The latest Rasmussen poll now has Trump at 40, with Clinton slipping to 39.
This race is now Trump’s to win or lose. For he alone brings a fresh perspective to policies that have stood stagnant under both parties.
And Hillary Clinton? Whatever her attributes, she is uncharismatic, unexciting, greedy, wonkish, scripted and devious, an individual you can neither fully believe nor fully trust.
Which is why the country seems to be looking, again, to Trump, to show them that they will not be making a big mistake if they elect him.
If Donald Trump can continue to show America what he did in Mexico City, that he can be presidential, he may just become president.
-------------------- 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, Conquistador Trump, Donald Trump. visits, Mexico, immigration speech, video, 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 Dr. Thomas Sowell: We have gotten so used to seeing college presidents and other academic "leaders" caving in to so many outrageous demands from little gangs of bullying students that it is a long overdue surprise to see a sign that at least one major university has shown some backbone.
Dr. Robert J. Zimmer, president of the University of Chicago, has spoken out in the plainest language against the stifling of opinions that differ from political correctness, on campuses across the country.
"Free speech is at risk at the very institution where it should be assured: the university," Dr. Zimmer said.
"Invited speakers are disinvited because a segment of a university community deems them offensive, while other orators are shouted down for similar reasons," he said. Demands have been made that assigned readings in some courses be eliminated because they "might make some students uncomfortable."
Worst of all, such demands "have been supported by university administrators," Dr. Zimmer pointed out.
By contrast with many other colleges and universities where speech codes restrict what students can and cannot say, freshmen students entering the University of Chicago have been informed by a letter from the Dean of Students that "freedom of expression" is one of that institution's "defining characteristics."
The Dean of Students spelled it out: "Members of our community are encouraged to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn, without fear of censorship. Civility and mutual respect are vital to all of us, and freedom of expression does not mean the freedom to harass or threaten others."
That such things need to be said is a painful commentary on the academic world in general. It is doubtful if any such declaration or policy could be made at any of the Ivy League universities, which are bastions of political correctness.
At Harvard, not only have invited speakers been shouted down and sometimes assaulted, even a Harvard professor's classroom was invaded by disruptive students who didn't like what he was teaching. Such things have also happened at Berkeley and other elite institutions across the country, as well as at less renowned institutions.
The uniqueness of the University of Chicago is not something new. Back in the 1960s, as campus riots spread across the country, and academic administrators caved in to even the most outrageous demands, dozens of disruptive students were simply expelled from the University of Chicago and dozens more were put on probation. As Professor George J. Stigler, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, said, "our faculty united behind the expulsion of a large number of young barbarians."
But such faculty support required a sense of mission, beyond a quiet life on campus in which to pursue one's own career. Even as grade inflation soared, and failing grades virtually disappeared in some colleges and universities across the country, that was not true among professors of economics who had been trained at the University of Chicago.
A survey in the economics department at Cornell University, during a year in the 1960s when I taught there, showed that the only students who received a failing grade in any economics course that year were students who took courses taught by professors who were trained at the University of Chicago.
In later years, when I gave failing grades to one-fourth of my class at UCLA, I discovered that this was not at all unusual in UCLA's economics department, which had a sizable contingent of economists trained at the University of Chicago. We also opposed many politically correct policies of the UCLA administration.
One of the many name-calling responses to people who do not go along with political correctness is to use the all-purpose smear, "racism." But the first time I saw a white professor at a white university with a black secretary, it was Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago in 1960 — four years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Years earlier, the first black tenured professor at an elite white university was Allison Davis at the University of Chicago. But who cares about facts in these politically correct times?
-------------- Thomas Sowell is an American economist, social commentator, and author of dozens of books. He has a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Chicago and degrees from Columbia University and Harvard University. He is a retired professor of Economic and presently is a Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Visit his website: tsowell.com and view a list of other articles. Tags:Thomas Sowell, commentary, Gem in Chicago, free speech, University of Chicago To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
. . . Narrows The Gap In 1 National & In 2 State Surveys
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton
by Dave Andrusko: As most of you know, my family is on vacation, so I am only checking in every other day to update our readers. Lots of very interesting developments since Tuesday on the presidential front.
There are three fundamental dynamics that shape the contest between Republican Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the poster girl not only for the Planned Parenthoods and NARALs but also for the most extreme elements of the international abortion industry.
This is a change election; Clinton has a nearly 25-year track record which has culminated with an electorate that does not trust her or believe she is honest; and because of his own miscalculations and unprecedented media hostility, it is difficult for at least some Trump supporters to admit to pollsters they support him. The size of this unknown (or “silent”) Trump vote will not be known until November 8.
Here is a quick update, starting with the most positive news for Trump and ending with surveys in two states that show him still behind but closing.
#1. Using a combination of national telephone calls and an online survey, Rasmussen Reports tells us that Clinton’s 4 point advantage from last week has disappeared. When Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Green are included, Trump leads 40% to 39%. Both Green and Johnson are certified on a majority of state ballots.
#2. The Los Angeles Times daily poll (which is conducted much differently than other polls) shows Trump ahead 45.0% to 42.4%. By contrast, a Fox News poll found that in a four-way race, Clinton leads Trump 41% to 39%.
#3. Wisconsin is one of those intriguing states Trump may need to thread the electoral needle and win the presidency. Two very recent polls show dramatic changes in Trump’s fortunes. The Marquette University Law School poll finds Clinton up 5 points—42-% to 37% (and three points among those who say they are certain to vote]–while the Monmouth University poll also has Clinton up 5 points, 43% to 38%.
Good news, to be sure. Especially so when you consider that in a Marquette poll that covered August 4-7, Trump was down a whopping 15 points in a head-to-head match, and 13 points in a four-way contest.
Two other polls worth mentioning.
#4. Clinton’s favorability numbers hit record lows in the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll. Her 41% favorable versus 56% unfavorable is the worst in her quarter century in the national limelight. Trump’s is almost very lower: 35% favorable to 63% unfavorable.
However if you look only at registered voters, the numbers are almost exactly the same: 38% favorable/59% unfavorable for Clinton; 37% favorable/60% unfavorable for Trump. And
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.