News for social, fiscal & national security conservatives who believe in God, family & the USA. Upholding the rights granted by God & guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, traditional family values, "republican" principles / ideals, transparent & limited "smaller" government, free markets, lower taxes, due process of law, liberty & individual freedom. All content approval rests with the ARRA News Service Editor. Opinions are those of the authors. While varied positions are reported, beliefs & principles remain fixed. No revenue is generated for or by this site - no paid ads accepted - no payments for articles.Fair Use doctrine is posted & used. Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru & 2010 AFP National Blogger of the Year] Follow @arra Contact: email@example.com (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home Page
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato
Trump’s contract is an impressive document–a 100 day action plan for restoring a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. That is why he introduced it at Gettysburg, where Lincoln resolved to save the union on behalf of the same cause.
The Trump Contract with the American Voter might be the most serious proposal to end Washington corruption ever made by a candidate for president. It also includes seven actions to protect American workers, five actions to restore our security and our rule of law, and ten legislative proposals to be introduced in Congress on his first day in office.
Just as important as the proposals themselves is that with his contract, Donald Trump is asking the voters to hold him accountable. He’s not merely offering an eight point plan for his campaign website, to be quickly forgotten when he gets into office. He’s offering voters a contract that tells them exactly how he will govern if elected president.
That was the key to the Contract with America when Republicans won in 1994. It wasn’t about our personalities. It was about telling the voters exactly what we were going to do, and inviting them to fire us in two years if we didn’t.
Once we won, the explicit commitments we’d made in the Contract with America were the key to actually getting it done. In this sense, it was a management document for the Republicans in Congress as much as it was a campaign document. We really had made a Contract with America.
We were compelled to introduce and fight hard to pass the legislation, because we knew the voters would hold us accountable if we didn’t–just as we’d told them they should. And so that’s what we did. It led to historic achievements including welfare reform, four straight balanced budgets, and the largest capital-gains tax cut in American history.
In his Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter, he has made the same kind of commitment. He’s told voters clearly what he will do if elected president, and invited us to hold him accountable if he doesn’t. That alone is a historic step for a presidential candidate.
In the first and most important section of the Contract, he outlines a specific plan to clean up the corruption of our political system and rein in our sprawling federal bureaucracy. These measures include a Constitutional amendment to put term limits on members of Congress (echoing the Contract with America), a hiring freeze on non-essential federal employees to cut the size of government, a “one in, two out” rule that would require two federal regulations to be eliminated for every new one, and a host of new ethics rules to stop the revolving door and limit the corrupting influence of foreign money on our system.
Trump’s Contract with the American Voter should also alleviate any concern among traditional Republicans that their party’s candidate is somehow not Republican enough. The provisions in the Trump Contract would reduce the size and scope of government as much as any president in our lifetimes, including Ronald Reagan. Its ethics reforms and bureaucracy-cutting measures would significantly reduce the power of the executive branch Trump seeks to lead. And they would help restore accountability and honesty to government once again.
It in addition, the Trump Contract would strengthen the American military, restore law and order, adopt pro-growth economic policies, secure the border, guarantee school choice for all, and put Justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. No principled Republican could support Hillary Clinton over a candidate who has made such clear commitments.
As Trump made clear a speech in Charlotte this week, the Trump Contract also represents what he called “a new deal for black America.” This too is historic. Trump’s promises of universal school choice starting with the least well off would alone transform opportunity for African Americans who have been so poorly served by the Democrats under the Obama administration.
P.S. I hosted a Facebook Live on Trump’s Gettysburg speech on Saturday. Watch here!
---------------------- 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, Donald Trump, Historic Contract, American VoterTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Comey wrote that new emails have been discovered "in an unrelated case that may be pertinent to" the initial investigation. This dramatic turn of events comes just 11 days before the election.
As we have reported, there are persistent rumors in Washington that many FBI agents are furious with outcome of the Clinton investigation. Perhaps this is Comey's way of attempting to head-off an open rebellion or preventing agents from going public. We will keep you posted.
Off The Runway - Carol and I were relaxing last night when my iPhone pinged. Looking down, I saw these unnerving words: "Our plane just skidded off the runway."
The text was from our son, Zach, who is a special assistant to Governor Pence, and is traveling with him around the country in this grueling campaign.
The next words eased my fears. "You'll see it on the news, but everyone is fine." As you can imagine, there were a lot of prayers of thanksgiving going up from the Bauer family and our extended family.
It was also a reminder that as this battle continues, Donald Trump and Mike Pence not only deserve our votes but also our prayers for their safety in what has been one of the ugliest and mean-spirited campaigns in presidential history.
Speaking Of Skidding Off The End . . . That is exactly where our country is headed if Hillary Clinton is elected. Every day brings more evidence of just how deep the corruption flows through the veins of Clinton Incorporated.
We shared with you yesterday about how Bill and Hillary became super rich off their public service. They accumulated hundreds of millions of dollars during a time when the American middle class was being crushed.
Here's the latest: When Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state, her campaign chairman, John Podesta, served with her at the State Department. When Raytheon, a major defense contractor, wanted to boost foreign military sales, who did Raytheon hire to lobby the State Department? Heather Podesta, John Podesta's sister. Her lobbying contract was terminated just as Hillary Clinton stepped down as secretary of state.
And don't forget, as I mentioned yesterday, that Podesta -- Hillary's campaign chairman -- was having regular dinners with top Justice Department officials while she was under investigation. But just like Bill's tarmac visit with Attorney General Lynch, I'm sure John and his DOJ buddies were just talking about golf and grandkids.
If Hillary wins, the lesson she will learn is that there is nothing she and Bill can't do. If she wins, those who voted for her, or voted in ways that allowed her to win, will have empowered the corruption that will inevitably follow.
Poll Position - Remember the ABC News/Washington Post poll I told you about yesterday -- the one that had Hillary Clinton up by 12 points just a few days ago? She lost two more points last night.
Clinton's lead has been cut from 12 points to just four points. She's lost eight points in the past four days!
The Trump/Pence team has momentum, my friends. We've got 11 days to go. Keep fighting!
By the way, other models -- here, here and here -- also predict a Trump/Pence win.
The latest to come around is South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley. As Gov. Haley explained, it's not about personalities, but policies.
I suspect part of this trend -- GOP officials backing the nominee -- may be the result of some quiet reflection over the possibilities on November 8th. Possibilities such as Trump narrowly losing and GOP holdouts being blamed for every horrible thing that Hillary does. That will be a huge burden for elected Republicans to carry.
For example, on the date we lose the next religious liberty case at the Supreme Court or when the court effectively repeals the Second Amendment, millions of Americans will ask, "What did my senator/governor do to help Trump/Pence prevail?"
Elections have consequences.
The first corruption scandal that breaks or when the White House and various government agencies launch a full-throated attack to muzzle talk radio and right-leaning Internet sites, conservatives will remember the circular firing squads and the Republicans who attacked Trump/Pence with more vehemence than they ever demonstrated against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
I suspect it is this realization that is causing some Republicans to reconsider and man up.
Pastor Endorses Trump - Pastor Saeed Abedini is an Iranian-American Christian. For that "crime," he spent three and a half years locked up in one of Iran's worst prisons while the Obama Administration negotiated a terrible nuclear deal with the tyrants in Tehran.
Pastor Abedini voted last week. He voted for Donald Trump and he is urging fellow Christians to do the same. Here's what Pastor Abedini wrote about Trump in a recent Facebook post: "I am finally free in a free country. Last year on the same day I was sick and in chains for Christ, and now I can vote to choose my next president. And most amazingly, I can vote for someone that I know fought for me and called my name so many times. He met my family and gave them a $10,000 gift. I think his ideas are more biblical than the other candidates."As for Hillary Clinton, Abedini wrote:"As a woman who says she stands for women's rights when she was [secretary of state], she never contacted my mom, wife, sister or my daughter. She never did anything to help when I was in prison as an American pastor who was detained in Iran as a hostage."I want to issue a challenge to all the pastors reading this report. I suspect many have already planned sermons for this Sunday and perhaps even the next. But I urge you to please stress the necessity of voting and voting in defense of religious liberty because our First Amendment freedoms are under attack.
I urge you to remind your congregations that just a few weeks ago, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights labeled phrases like "religious freedom" and "religious liberty" as code for bigotry and intolerance.
Tell your congregations about Dr. Eric Walsh, a lay minister who was fired from his job for what he said in a sermon about traditional marriage. Now the state of Georgia is demanding that he surrender his sermons.
Tell them about the court ruling that is forcing crisis pregnancy centers to promote abortion.
Tell your congregations to vote!
------------- 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 Bombshell, Off The Runway, Clinton Corruption, Coming Home, Pastor Endorses TrumpTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
. . . Oklahoma State Rep. John Bennett ventures where few dare to tread.
Oklahoma State Rep. John Bennett
by Robert Spencer: In an age of near-universal denial and willful ignorance at the highest levels about the ideological roots, nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, it is as unusual as it is refreshing to find lawmakers at any level who are willing to approach the problem honestly. State Representative John Bennett of Oklahoma, a Marine and combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, is one of an all-too-rare breed.
On Tuesday, Bennett held an “Interim Study” on “the current threat posed by radical Islam and the effect that Shariah Law, the Muslim Brotherhood and jihadist indoctrination have in the radicalization process in Oklahoma and America.” In his request to hold this study, he explained: “This will be a study of the current threat posed by radical Islam and the effect that Shariah Law, the Muslim Brotherhood and jihadist indoctrination have in the radicalization process in Oklahoma and America.”
This kind of study should have been held not just in the Oklahoma House of Representatives, but in the U.S. House, and Senate as well. That such an idea is inconceivable is an indication of the fix we’re in. And the situation is only marginally better in Oklahoma: nowadays the misinformation and disinformation about what we’re up against is so universal that anywhere the truth is told about this threat, there is significant pushback from the allies and enablers of jihad and Islamic supremacism.
And so it was in Tulsa on Tuesday. The interim study featured testimony by former FBI agent John Guandolo and Chris Gaubatz, whose exploits as an undercover agent infiltrating the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are chronicled in the eye-opening book Muslim Mafia.
Gaubatz and Guandolo presented evidence, including land records, showing that the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City (ISGOC) is owned by the Muslim Brotherhood group the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), that both CAIR, which has an active chapter in Oklahoma City, and ISGOC are Muslim Brotherhood organizations, and that CAIR has extensive ties to the jihad terror group Hamas, which styles itself the Muslim Brotherhood for Palestine. They pointed out that since Imad Enchassi, the imam of ISGOC, is a Palestinian and has all these ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, he likely also has links to Hamas.
Guandolo and Gaubatz did not base their case on innuendo and hearsay. They laid out FBI evidence, Muslim Brotherhood documents, and more, demonstrating that the claims they were making were based on solid evidence.
Predictably, however, the mainstream media, which we now know beyond any shadow of a doubt is simply and solely a propaganda arm for the Left and the Democratic Party, focused entirely on the presence of Adam Soltani of CAIR-OK and Enchassi. The Tulsa World ran a piece with the hysterical headline “State representative brands CAIR-OK, its director and a local imam as terrorists.” It quoted Soltani raging against Bennett: “Rep. Bennett is shamefully wasting taxpayer money to promote his own biased agenda. This hearing was a new low for Rep. Bennett, as his guests presented a biased narrative that achieves nothing more than demonizing and marginalizing the Oklahoma Muslim community.”
But the Tulsa World and other mainstream media outlets that covered Bennett’s study did not see fit to inform their readers of any of that; instead, predictably enough, they portrayed the hearing as a baseless exercise in race-baiting and fearmongering conducted by a politician up for reelection.
John Bennett, and the people of Oklahoma, deserve better. There are legitimate questions about CAIR and ISGOC; Bennett dared to raise them Tuesday; for that, he is being subjected to a media lynching that is cynically designed to obscure the genuine concerns he raised – yet ever since a member of ISGOC beheaded a coworker in 2014, these concerns are more urgent than ever.
The media enablers of jihad must be decisively repudiated. Please email the Speaker of the Oklahoma House, Jeff W. Hickman, politely and courteously expressing your support for John Bennett and requesting that his hearing be just the first of a series. His email is firstname.lastname@example.org and his phone number is (405) 557-7339.
Mainstream Media Says Donald Trump & His Supporters Hurt Their Feelings
by Todd Starnes: CNN's Wolf Blizter unloaded on Kellyanne Conway, Trump's campaign manager -- demanding that they stop heckling journalists.
"He shouldn't be doing that," Blitzer said on CNN. "I mean, can you talk to him? And say to him, 'Mr. Trump, we only have a few days left, and these are hardworking young journalists, they deserve to have some security,' if you will, because of some of those Trump supporters out there, they get pretty nasty with what they're screaming at these young people."
Blitzer actually told her that some of the reporters are scared.
Well, boo-hoo and bless their hearts (as we say back in the South).
I'll be sure to muster a bit of sympathy for the terrified and tearful reporters, quivering in their safe spaces in some darkened corner of a Trump venue.
Ms. Conway should've asked for a list of journalists who had been attacked at Trump rallies by Trump supporters. To my knowledge, there are none.
For the record, Trump and his supporters are not heckling at journalists. They're heckling at Clinton's media operatives.
The Mainstream Media is just getting a taste of what they've been doing to Donald Trump ever since he announced his campaign for the White House.
I'd like to encourage the Mainstream Media to put on their big boy pants and man up.
------------------ Todd Starnes (@toddstarnes)is A Christian Conservative, the host of Fox News & Commentary and heard daily on 250+ radio stations and on his iTune podcasts. Tags:Todd Starnes, the media, Trump supporters, Donald TrumpTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Tags:Democratic Decay, Reports, voter fraud, happening, swing states, 2016, Election, editorial cartoon, AF BrancoTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Media Bias Is One Thing; Its Complicity Is Another
by David Limbaugh: We keep reading that if Donald Trump’s personal issues weren’t sucking up all the media oxygen, his campaign might get more traction against Hillary Clinton from the WikiLeaks disclosures, but is that really true?
Let’s concede that the ongoing allegations against Trump are a distraction and damaging to his campaign. Those matters are being litigated, figuratively and literally, so it is hard to argue that news of these allegations is being suppressed.
But could we please put a pin in this for a minute and look at the Clinton scandals? Despite claims to the contrary, one is not automatically defending or covering for Trump by raising issues of Clinton corruption. Somehow Bill and Hillary Clinton always get a pass on their own misconduct by turning the allegations on their accusers and attributing them to smears by their political opponents, benefiting from an unconscionably protective liberal media phalanx.
So talk about allegations against Trump all you want, but don’t use them as a license for Clinton’s misconduct, and don’t always try to besmirch the character of people seeking accountability from the Clintons by saying they are indifferent to women’s claims against Trump.
I’m not indifferent to those claims, but I’m also not going to be deterred from calling out liberal media bias for fear that some on my side will say I’m just flacking for Trump. Nonsense. The issue of Hillary Clinton’s corruption is vitally important, as is the role of the liberal media in suppressing it.
[PL Booth* comment: I firmly believes the media in general is complicit and ignores Clinton problems as much as possible since they are in bed with the American Socialist Party misnamed Democratic.]
The Hill reported that in viewing recordings “of each major network’s evening newscasts, which are watched by an average total of 22 million to 24 million people nightly, the newest batch of WikiLeaks revelations was covered for a combined 57 seconds out of 66 minutes of total air time on ABC, NBC and CBS. … On the other hand, allegations from four women of unwanted sexual advances by Trump were covered a combined 23 minutes.”
This is what Newt Gingrich and others mean when they complain that liberal media are covering allegations against Trump 24 times as much as those against Clinton. And we wonder why the Clintons are able to skate through their lives with impunity.
Are we to assume from this that allegations against Hillary Clinton are about 4 percent as important as those against Trump on the matter of fitness for office? You can’t be serious. So what, then? Why would the liberal networks so shamelessly smother genuinely disturbing allegations against Clinton by highlighting allegations against Trump? Clinton gets a twofer here, a pass on the WikiLeaks bombshells and hyper-focus on claims against her opponent.
Can you imagine how the media would react if the facts were flipped — if the sexual allegations were against Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, email erasure, Benghazi and other scandals were connected to Trump? We would see liberal media in full war mode, and there would be no end to their caterwauling about Trump’s corruption and the national security threat that he would pose as president. Note: This hypothetical is not quite fair to Trump because there actually are sexual misconduct allegations against Bill Clinton and ample evidence that Hillary was not just his enabler but an accessory after the fact, in terrorizing Bill’s victims. The media have never cared about that. I repeat: My bringing these up doesn’t mean I’m excusing behavior Trump may or may not have engaged in. But that’s not the point here.
The liberal media aren’t stupid. They know their coverage is biased, distorted and outrageously unbalanced. But that doesn’t faze them, because they are liberals and the highest ethic is pursuing their shared agenda, no matter how corrupt their means. There is no other rational explanation.
This is one of the things that scare me tremendously about a third Obama term through Hillary Clinton. Liberal media are thoroughly in the tank for these people and are helping them fleece the American people. Look at their brazen apathy concerning the Obamacare premiums debacle, which they are lying about because they want to protect Obama and his agenda, they agree with his and Clinton’s goal of single-payer and want to help in advancing this nefarious goal, and, above all, they won’t do anything that might decrease Clinton’s chances of winning the election.
If the liberal media don’t care about their darling presidential candidate’s accepting from foreign governments donations to the Clinton Foundation — along with personal gifts on the side, as we’re now discovering, for influence (or even possible influence) — if they don’t care about Obama and Clinton’s self-serving lie that the terrorist attacks in Benghazi were inspired by a video, if they don’t care about her commingling government emails with her own emails and recklessly exposing classified information, if they don’t care about her intentionally deleting 33,000 emails under subpoena, if they don’t care about her and Obama’s egregious lies on Obamacare, if they don’t care about the targeting of political conservatives by the IRS, if they don’t care about Clinton’s assuring donors in private that she favors open borders and would protect Wall Street as president while telling the public the opposite, and on and on, can you imagine what kind of free rein Clinton would have if elected?
It’s one thing for conservatives to drone on about liberal media bias, which we’ve done for decades, but have we reached the point that it is becoming a threat to the republic as we have known it? [PL Booth comment: I do believe we are far past the point where media bias harms the nation. Our Universities and all the major media are complicit with that criminal organization we laughingly call the democrat party. ]
-------------- Patrick L. Booth*, Contributing Author and editor of the The View From Blue Eye, Missouri provided and highlighted items in this article by David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics who writes engaging columns from a fresh, conservative point of view. David was born in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. Tags: David Limbaugh, Media Bias, Complicity, PL Booth, The Blue Eye ViewTo 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: Should Donald Trump surge from behind to win, he would likely bring in with him both houses of Congress.
Much of his agenda — tax cuts, deregulation, border security, deportation of criminals here illegally, repeal of Obamacare, appointing justices like Scalia, unleashing the energy industry — could be readily enacted.
On new trade treaties with China and Mexico, Trump might need economic nationalists in Bernie Sanders’ party to stand with him, as free-trade Republicans stood by their K-Street contributors.
Still, compatible agendas and GOP self-interest could transcend personal animosities and make for a successful four years.
But consider what a Hillary Clinton presidency would be like.
She would enter office as the least-admired president in history, without a vision or a mandate. She would take office with two-thirds of the nation believing she is untruthful and untrustworthy.
Reports of poor health and lack of stamina may be exaggerated. Yet she moves like a woman her age. Unlike Ronald Reagan, her husband, Bill, and President Obama, she is not a natural political athlete and lacks the personal and rhetorical skills to move people to action.
She makes few mistakes as a debater, but she is often shrill — when she is not boring. Trump is right: Hillary Clinton is tough as a $2 steak. But save for those close to her, she appears not to be a terribly likable person.
Still, such attributes, or the lack of them, do not assure a failed presidency. James Polk, no charmer, was a one-term president, but a great one, victorious in the Mexican War, annexing California and the Southwest, negotiating a fair division of the Oregon territory with the British.
Yet the hostility Clinton would face the day she takes office would almost seem to ensure four years of pure hell.
The reason: her credibility, or rather her transparent lack of it.
Consider. Because the tapes revealed he did not tell the full truth about when he learned about Watergate, Richard Nixon was forced to resign.
In the Iran-Contra affair, Reagan faced potential impeachment charges, until ex-security adviser John Poindexter testified that Reagan told the truth when he said he had not known of the secret transfer of funds to the Nicaraguan Contras.
Bill Clinton was impeached — for lying.
White House scandals, as Nixon said in Watergate, are almost always rooted in mendacity — not the misdeed, but the cover-up, the lies, the perjury, the obstruction of justice that follow.
And here Hillary Clinton seems to have an almost insoluble problem.
She has testified for hours to FBI agents investigating why and how her server was set up and whether secret information passed through it.
Forty times during her FBI interrogation, Clinton said she could not or did not recall. This writer has friends who went to prison for telling a grand jury, “I can’t recall.”
After studying her testimony and the contents of her emails, FBI Director James Comey virtually accused Clinton of lying.
Moreover, thousands of emails were erased from her server, even after she had reportedly been sent a subpoena from Congress to retain them.
During her first two years as secretary of state, half of her outside visitors were contributors to the Clinton Foundation.
Yet there was not a single quid pro quo, Clinton tells us.
Yesterday’s newspapers exploded with reports of how Bill Clinton aide Doug Band raised money for the Clinton Foundation, and then hit up the same corporate contributors to pay huge fees for Bill’s speeches.
What were the corporations buying if not influence? What were the foreign contributors buying, if not influence with an ex-president, and a secretary of state and possible future president?
Did none of the big donors receive any official favors?
“There’s a lot of smoke and there’s no fire,” says Hillary Clinton.
Perhaps, but there seems to be more smoke every day.
If once or twice in her hours of testimony to the FBI, grand jury or before Congress, Clinton were proven to have lied, her Justice Department would be obligated to name a special prosecutor, as was Nixon’s.
And, with the election over, the investigative reporters of the adversary press, Pulitzers beckoning, would be cut loose to go after her.
The Republican House is already gearing up for investigations that could last deep into Clinton’s first term.
There is a vast trove of public and sworn testimony from Hillary, about the server, the emails, the erasures, the Clinton Foundation. Now, thanks to WikiLeaks, there are tens of thousands of emails to sift through, and perhaps tens of thousands more to come.
What are the odds that not one contains information that contradicts her sworn testimony? Cong. Jim Jordan contends that Clinton may already have perjured herself.
And as the full-court press would begin with her inauguration, Clinton would have to deal with the Syrians, Russians, Taliban, North Koreans and Xi Jinping in the South China Sea — and with Bill Clinton wandering around the White House with nothing to do.
This election is not over. But if Hillary Clinton wins, a truly hellish presidency could await her, and us.
-------------------- 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, A Presidency from Hell, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, wandering around, The White HouseTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Bad News For Hillary: Bubba and Bobbi Sue Are Mad As Hell
Editorial Cartoon by William Warren
by Rick Manning: This is a turnout election, and that is why Donald Trump is going to win.
The dirty little secret of the 2008 and particularly the 2012 presidential elections is that they were effectively turnout elections. President Obama’s unprecedented ability to use micro-targeting and predictive analytics to identify and target people who connected with his message allowed him to focus his energies and resources on registering and turning out his voters rather than playing the normal game of attempting to appeal to the great middle.
2016 is no different, even though it feels that way to many Washington, D.C. based political “experts.”
In fact, the 2016 presidential election is the easiest to define in decades, pitting the nation’s Thurston and Muffys and the Silicon Valley nerds who hope to sit at their lunch table against Bubba and Bobbi Sue in a fight over who will control the country.
The clear definition of this battle comes as quite a shock to the Thurston and Muffys who have run the country non-stop since they took over with the election of George H.W. Bush. While issues like tax rates and cutting the size of government have been disputed in virtually every election with some differences in the growth of government based upon the outcome, more and more, those on both sides of the aisle who have been dependent upon Bubba and Bobbi Sue’s votes have grown discontented and downright dismissive of these voters.
Bill Clinton, who won his first term in the White House at least partially on the back of blue collar voters who couldn’t connect with Bush and his inability to negotiate a grocery line, recently derisively called his former fellow Bubbas, “rednecks” who he grew up with in Arkansas. And while Clinton spent the Vietnam War at Oxford University not inhaling, many of those same “rednecks” he now has no use for ended up walking through rice paddies and dying.
Yet, rather than going to the Vietnam Memorial Wall in D.C. and looking up the names of his former classmates and friends who paid the ultimate price in a country far, far away, Clinton dismisses their concerns about the state of America with a sneering pejorative.
This would not matter if a standard issue GOP candidate were on the ballot who gives lip service to the little guy while being more concerned with the brie and wine crowd, but with Trump as the GOP nominee, it has crystalized the divide. Shockingly, it is not the Marxist dialectic defined haves versus have nots, but instead a battle between those who are cultural Americans and those who are globalists. And Trump is going to win because there are a lot more voters in America who follow NASCAR, watch football and go to church, than there are those who don’t. And they have come to realize that they have been played for fools by those to whom they entrusted their country.
Reports from those talking directly to blue collar registered voters with a low propensity to turnout in previous elections shows a shocking uniformity in their newly found commitment to vote.
Having had sand kicked in their faces by the politicians with bank bailouts, bad trade deals, attacks on their ability to freely exercise their religious beliefs, illegal immigration, Benghazi, Hillary’s abject corruption, videos of Islamic State cutting off the heads of Christians and the promise by Clinton to import up to a million more people from countries where jihad is an art form, Bubba and Bobbi Sue are going to vote to restore America.
In a turnout election, that is very, very bad news for those who seek to protect the status quo, but it is very, very good news for liberty, the Constitution and the United States of America.
You see, to paraphrase George Bailey’s contempt for Mr. Potter in “It’s a Wonderful Life”, in America the Bubbas and Bobbi Sues are the ones who do a majority of the living and dying in America. They are the ones who go to work every day in the hope that their sons and daughters have a better future. And they are the ones who pay the taxes, fight the wars and provide the fabric of American life. And they are tired of being the butt of Hollywood’s jokes, and the victim of Washington, D.C. politicians who trade their jobs and futures away in deals designed to make multi-national corporations happy.
And that is why Donald Trump will be elected President on Nov. 8, because Bubba and Bobbi Sue are mad as hell and they aren’t going to take it anymore.
--------------- Rick Manning (@rmanning957) is President of Americans for Limited Government. Article also on ALG Blog. Tags:Rick Manning, Americans for Limited Government, Bad News, Hillary, Bubba and Bobbie Sue, mad as hell, voting, Donald TrumpTo 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: In a thought-provoking new e-book, Christian Overman addresses the important issue of The Lost Purpose for Learning. He begin with a 19th century quote from Princeton theologian A.A. Hodge: “It is self-evident that on this scheme, if it is consistently and persistently carried out in all parts of the country, the United States system of natural popular education will be the most efficient and wide instrument for the propagation of Atheism which the world has ever seen.”
This statement by Hodge certainly turned out to be prophetic. Christian Overman points out that before the federal government took over the schools, education was primarily a Christian endeavor. That isn’t to say that all teachers were Christian. But it means that there were certain foundational ideas about God and the world that were part of education in America.
When we turn to the topic of Christian education, we find that sometimes it hasn’t done much better. The reason is the acceptance by so many Christians of a sacred-secular dualism (what he calls the SD infection). They put spiritual things in the sacred realm and things related to the physical world in the secular realm.
You end up with Christian education where the class begins with prayer, but the teaching is essentially no different from secular education. The academic material is similar to what is provided in the public schools and only have a little bit of Christianity sprinkled on the top.
Christian Overman is pleading for a holistic Christian education. Here is how he would evaluate a Christian school. He says he would ask the headmaster: “What specific training have your teachers received for designing lesson plans that will help my children see God’s purpose and intentions for what it is your teachers are teaching?” Most headmasters could not give a good answer to that question.
You need to get a copy of this e-book because it not only identifies the problem but offers specific solutions.
----------- 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, Christian Overman, lost purpose of learningTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
October 2016: Porker of the Month - Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA)
Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.)
Porker of the Month
(Washington, D.C.) – Today, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) named Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) its October Porker of the Month for his efforts to allow the wasteful Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank to function with limited accountability.
The Ex-Im Bank is an independent government agency that was founded in 1934 to help encourage U.S. exports. The bank provides taxpayer-backed direct loans, guarantees, and export credit insurance, which totaled $12.4 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2015.
Rep. Dent called Ex-Im, “an important job creation tool of the United States” in a lengthy defense of the bank in an August 12, 2016, Lebanon Daily News op-ed. But, Rep. Dent is failing to tell his constituents the inconvenient fact that 64 percent of Ex-Im Bank financing is directed to just 10 giant, highly profitable corporations, including a whopping 40 percent to Boeing. Stable, profitable companies have all received taxpayer support from the Ex-Im Bank despite having had no trouble securing private financing.
Rep. Dent claimed that Ex-Im was critical for Pennsylvania’s economy. However, an analysis by Veronique de Rugy at the Mercatus Center found that the bank only supports “roughly 1 percent of all Pennsylvania exports.” Furthermore, “less than 0.3 percent of small business employees and less than 0.04 percent of small business establishments benefit from the Ex-Im Bank annually.”
After taxpayer groups, including the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, convinced Congress to allow the bank’s charter to expire on June 31, 2015, Rep. Dent was a key leader in the effort to resurrect the bank. He voted to reauthorize it at the end of 2015 and took credit for ensuring the Bank’s survival. Now, Rep. Dent is fighting to allow the bank to operate with just two board members instead of three, which means one-third less accountability for the taxpayer-backed corporate welfare it provides. Rep. Dent, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), attempted to circumvent regular order by attaching this authority to the short-term continuing resolution (CR) on September 28, 2016. While that effort failed, they had already succeeded in attaching the same provision to the fiscal year 2017 Foreign Operations appropriations bill that will likely be included in the omnibus spending bill that is expected to pass before the current CR expires on December 9, 2016.
CAGW President Tom Schatz said, “The Ex-Im Bank is an anathema to taxpayers. The fact that this haven of corporate welfare was resurrected in 2015 was bad enough, but now Rep. Dent and his congressional cronies are trying to enable the bank to waste more taxpayer dollars with even less oversight. Rep. Dent and his allies seem intent on maintaining their inexplicable support for this misguided agency despite its abundant flaws. There is a reason that elimination of the Ex-Im Bank was included in CAGW’s Prime Cuts 2016. Taxpayers deserve better.”
For his dubious efforts to facilitate an unaccountable, wasteful, and unnecessary haven for corporate welfare, CAGW names Rep. Charlie Dent its October Porker of the Month.
----------------- Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government. Porker of the Month is a dubious honor given to lawmakers, government officials, and political candidates who have shown a blatant disregard for the interests of taxpayers. Tags:Citizens Against Government Waste, CAGW, porker of the month, October, 2016, Pennsylvania, Rep. Charlie Dent, pushing, wasteful, Export-Import Bank, Ex-Im Bank To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Obama Threatens to Veto Military Bill Because It Protects Religious Groups
President Barack Obama would interpret existing
religious protections narrowly in order to make
religious groups bend to the LGBT agenda.
(Photo: Pool /ABACA/Newscom via The Daily Signal)
by Roger Severino & Melanie Israel: On D-Day, Franklin Roosevelt famously asked a country of many faiths to pray that God protect our troops as they “struggle to preserve our republic, our religion, and our civilization” against tyranny.
Given our military’s tradition of defending religious liberty from attack, it is disappointing to see President Barack Obama threaten to veto the military’s main authorization bill if it contains protections for religious freedom.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is an annual bill that sets policies and budgets for our nation’s fighting forces and is currently being negotiated by both houses of Congress in conference before a final vote.
Included in the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act is an amendment offered by Rep. Steve Russell, R-Okla., that applies decades-old religious exemptions from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
The Russell Amendment is sound policy that will prevent the administration from stripping contracts and grants from faith-based social service providers whose internal staffing policies reflect their faith.
Jewish day schools and Catholic adoption centers, for example, are not liable under Title VII for being authentically Jewish or Catholic, and their staffing policies shouldn’t disqualify them from federal grants and contracts either.
But Obama’s veto threat is actually the strongest proof of why the Russell Amendment is needed. It shows that the president wants absolute freedom to discriminate against religious social service providers that interact with the government—all because many religious organizations won’t endorse the LGBT cause. Congress should say no to the president’s blatant attack on religious diversity.
Undermining Religious Liberty
For decades, the left has attempted to raise sexual orientation and gender identity to special protected status through Congress. Seeing little success using the democratic process, the Obama administration has instead turned to issuing various edicts that misinterpret existing civil rights protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
On July 21, 2014, Obama issued an executive order that unilaterally elevated sexual orientation and gender identity to special status for purposes of federal contracts.
As our colleague Ryan T. Anderson pointed out at the time, the order “disregards the consciences and liberties of people of goodwill who happen not to share the government’s opinions about issues of sexuality. All Americans should be free to contract with the government without penalty because of their reasonable beliefs about morally contentious issues.”
The executive order left in place the Title VII religious staffing exemption, and the Russell Amendment merely reaffirms this protection while clarifying that religious organizations have a right to employ people committed to authentically living in accordance with their faith tenets. In short, religious organizations are free to be religious organizations.
But Obama would interpret existing religious protections narrowly in order to make religious groups bend to the LGBT agenda. As seen in the administration’s education and health care mandates on gender identity, in practice, this means requiring employee bathrooms and showers meant for women be opened to biological men who self-identify as female regardless of people’s religious beliefs on the matter. The administration’s proven lack of respect for religious freedom when it comes to sexual orientation and gender identity policies is more than enough reason to keep the Russell Amendment.
Reaffirming Long-Standing Policy Is Apparently Unacceptable
Despite the Russell Amendment’s straightforwardness and precedent, 42 Senate Democrats have written to the Senate Armed Services Committee asking that the Russell Amendment be stripped from final National Defense Authorization Act language during conference negotiations.
The letter states that prospective employees should not be “disqualified from a taxpayer-funded job based on an individual’s religions.” Except that’s not how federal contracts typically work. Existing organizations bid for contracts to produce services or products based on their ability to deliver them, not to provide somebody “a taxpayer-funded job.”
But moreover, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act already specifically protects religious organizations’ ability to hire based on religion, so the burden is on the objectors to the Russell Amendment to prove why a system that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court and has served religious pluralism well for decades should now be stripped away when it comes to federal contracts.
Will Congress Hold the Line?
The Russell Amendment was included in the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act and passed by a comfortable margin (277 to 147) because it reflects the best of our traditions without taking away anything from anyone.
Congress should not let the president’s veto threat get in the way of passing sound policy, and the Russell Amendment is just that — a commonsense continuation of policy that has served our diverse society well since 1964.
-------------- Roger Severino is the director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation and Melanie Israel is a research associate for the DeVos Center for Religion & Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation. Tags:President Obama, Threatens, Veto, Military Bill, Protecting Religious GroupsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Tuesday, November 1 is the day the Department of Education told us to expect their final rule that will officially dump student loans onto taxpayers. The rule is in its final review at the White House Office of Management and Budget.
This proposed rule would force hardworking American families who never went to college or paid their own way to bail out those who borrowed money they couldn’t repay. And it would spend billions of taxpayer dollars without a vote in Congress, which under our Constitution is supposed to have the power of the purse.
That’s bad enough, but the cost estimate provided by the Department of Education is so absurdly, comically bad that nobody can defend it with a straight face. They say it will cost taxpayers “$1.997 billion in the lowest impact scenario to $42.698 billion in the highest impact scenario.”
Ignore all those decimal places (the bureaucrats who cooked this up never learned significant digits in middle school) and think about this: what would you tell a contractor if he gave you a price quote of $2,000 to $43,000 to do work on your house? Would you hire him? I know I wouldn’t. And we’re not talking about thousands but BILLIONS!
We’re doing everything we can to stop this outrage.
American Commitment supporters like you have already sent thousands of comment letters to the Department of Education. We sent a letter to OMB co-signed with lots of other conservative groups and I had a personal meeting over there.
We’ll keep pushing for Congress to step in and stop this – especially if OMB ignores us and the final rule is published next week. But right now, today, I’m asking for you to use our action page to write directly to OMB in the slim hopes that if enough of us demand they take their regulatory review responsibility seriously, then just maybe they will at least delay this rule until they have a cost estimate that isn’t a total embarrassment.
------------------ 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, President Obama, Student Loan, OMB, student bailout, on backs of taxpayersTo 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: Despite controversies that rage
over immigration, it is hard to see how anyone could be either for or against immigrants in general. First of all, there are no immigrants in general.
Both in the present and in the past, some immigrant groups have made great contributions to American society, and others have contributed mainly to the welfare rolls and the prisons. Nor is this situation unique to the United States. The same has been true of Sweden and of other countries in Europe and elsewhere.
Sweden was, for a long time, one of the most ethnically homogeneous countries in the world. As of 1940, only about one percent of the Swedish population were immigrants. Even as the proportion of immigrants increased over the years, as late as 1970 90 percent of foreign-born persons in Sweden had been born in other Scandinavian countries or in Western Europe.
These immigrants were usually well-educated, and often had higher labor force participation rates and lower unemployment rates than the native Swedes. That all began to change as the growing number of immigrants came increasingly from the Middle East, with Iraqis becoming the largest immigrant group in Sweden.
This changing trend was accompanied by a sharply increased use of the government's "social assistance" program, from 6 percent in the pre-1976 era to 41 percent in the 1996-1999 period. But, even in this later period, fewer than 7 percent of the immigrants from Scandinavia and Western Europe used "social assistance," while 44 percent of the immigrants from the Middle East used that welfare state benefit.
Immigrants, who were by this time 16 percent of Sweden's population, had become 51 percent of the long-term unemployed and 57 percent of the people receiving welfare payments. The proportion of foreigners in prison was 5 times their proportion in the population of the country.
The point of all this is that there is no such thing as immigrants in general, whether in Europe or America. Yet all too many of the intelligentsia in the media and in academia talk as if immigrants were abstract people in an abstract world, to whom we could apply abstract principles — such as "we are all descendants of immigrants."
A hundred years ago, when a very different mix of immigrants were coming to a very different America, there was a huge, multi-volume study of how immigrants from different countries had fared here. This included how they did as workers in various industries and in agriculture, and how their children did in school.
Some people like to refer to the past as "earlier and simpler times." But it is we today who are so simple-minded that it would be taboo to do anything so politically incorrect as to sort out immigrants by what country they came from. As Hillary Clinton said in one of her recently revealed e-mails, she is for "open borders."
However congenial the idea of open borders may be to elites who think of themselves as citizens of the world, it is not even possible to have everyone come to America and the country still remain America.
What is it that makes this country so different that so many people from around the world have, for centuries, wanted to come here, more so than to any other country? It is not the land or the climate, neither of which is so different from the land and the climate in many other places.
Nor is it the racial makeup of the country, which consists of races found on other continents. What is unique are American institutions, American culture and American economic and other achievements within that framework.
People who came here a hundred years ago usually did so in order to fit within the framework of America and become Americans. Some still do. But many come from a very different cultural background — and our own multiculturalism dogmas and grievance industry work to keep them foreign and resentful of Americans who have achieved more than they have.
Some immigrant groups seek to bring to America the very cultures whose failures led them to flee to this country. Not all individual immigrants and not all immigrant groups. But too many Americans have become so gullible that they are afraid to even get the facts about which immigrants have done well and improved America, and which have become a burden that can drag us all down.
-------------- 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, Immigration Controversies, immigrants, Ellis Island To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Poll Position, The Supreme Issue, A New Deal, Clinton Corruption
by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: Poll Position - Remember the ABC News poll that made headlines a few days ago because it showed Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump by 12 points? The left shouted from the rooftops, "The election is over!"
ABC News and the Washington Post just released an updated survey. Hillary's lead has been cut in half -- down six points in the last five days.
Last week, the Fox News poll had Hillary Clinton leading by six points. The latest Fox survey has Hillary's lead cut in half -- down to just three points.
Last month, a Monmouth University poll had Hillary Clinton leading in New Hampshire by nine points. The latest Monmouth poll finds Trump trailing by just four points.
The latest poll in Nevada shows Clinton and Trump are tied.
Do not be discouraged. Ignore the media. Trump can win!
But I want to offer a word of caution. Given these latest polls, I suspect the Clinton campaign and their media allies are in panic mode, desperately trying to manufacture the next anti-Trump controversy. Steel yourselves. The days ahead will be rough!
The Supreme Issue - In recent days, I have received numerous messages from values voters telling me, "Gary, I'm not going to vote for Hillary, but I want assurances about Donald Trump."
My first response is that values voters should be deeply reassured by Trump's selection of Indiana Governor Mike Pence as his running mate. I have known Mike Pence for many years, since before he was elected to Congress.
He often describes himself as "A Christian, a Conservative and a Republican, and in that order." And I can vouch for his sincerity! (By the way, Gov. Pence is attracting his own large and enthusiastic crowds on the campaign trail.)
But if you still need more assurances, here you go.
Yesterday, Donald Trump spoke with CBN's chief political correspondent, David Brody. He asked Donald Trump this question: "What is your message to those that are on the fence and aren't sure?"
Without missing a beat, Trump answered: "I just want the people to remember: United States Supreme Court. Whether they love me or like me or don't like me, we're going to put great justices, pro-life justices, we're going to put Second Amendment justices [on the court] and I think for the evangelicals it's so important that they get out and vote." [Emphasis added.]David Brody noted that Trump has done nine interviews with CBN, adding that Trump has never asked for questions in advance, and that he "just speaks from the heart and lets it rip the way he sees it."
Brody also observed this fact about the election: "If evangelicals show up in droves, Trump wins. . . A record turnout by evangelicals seals the deal for Trump."
Either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be president next year. Men and women of faith must choose between a radically pro-abortion candidate and a candidate promising to appoint pro-life justices. That should be an easy choice.
A New Deal - Donald Trump continued his outreach to minority voters yesterday during a speech in Charlotte, North Carolina. In his remarks, Trump promised "a new deal for black America." No other GOP presidential nominee has made such a serious appeal to African American voters as Trump has. Here are some excerpts of his remarks. "Today I want to talk about how to grow the African-American middle class, and to provide a new deal for Black America. . . My vision rests on a principle that has defined this campaign: America First. . .
"I'm asking today for the honor of your vote, and the privilege to represent you as your president. Here is the promise I make to you: whether you vote for me or not, I will be your greatest champion. I have no special interest, I take no orders from donors or lobbyists -- I work for you, and only you. . . I am asking people to break from the bitter failures of the past, and to imagine the amazing possibilities for our future. . .
"African-American citizens have sacrificed so much for this nation. They have fought and died in every war since the Revolution, and from the pews and the picket lines they have lifted up the conscience of our country in the long march for Civil Rights. Yet, too many African-Americans have been left behind. . .
"The conditions in our inner cities today are unacceptable. The Democrats have run our inner cities for fifty, sixty, seventy years or more. They've run the school boards, the city councils, the mayor's offices, and the congressional seats. Their policies have failed, and they've failed miserably. . .
"One of the greatest betrayals has been the issue of immigration. Illegal immigration violates the civil rights of African-Americans. No group has been more economically-harmed by decades of illegal immigration than low-income African-American workers. Hillary's pledge to enact 'open borders' . . . would destroy the African-American middle class. . .
"We won't let your jobs be stolen from you anymore. When we stop the offshoring to low-wage countries, we raise wages at home -- meaning rent and bills become instantly more affordable. . .
"I promise that under a Trump Administration the law will be applied fairly, equally and without prejudice. . . We will also police our streets. I want every poor African-American child to be able to walk down the street in peace. Safety is a civil right. The problem is not the presence of police but the absence of police. . .
"The reduction of crime is not merely a goal -- but a necessity. We will get it done. The war on police urged on by my rival is reckless and dangerous, and puts African-American lives at risk. We must work with our police, not against them.
"On immigration, my policy is simple. I will restore the civil rights of African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and all Americans, by ending illegal immigration. I will reform visa rules to give American workers preference for jobs, and I will suspend reckless refugee admissions from terror-prone regions that cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. A portion of the money saved by enforcing our laws, and suspending refugees, will be re-invested in our inner cities. It is time to help the American citizens who have become refugees in their own country. . .
"School choice is at the center of my plan. My proposal redirects education spending to allow every disadvantaged child in America to attend the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice. School choice is the great civil rights issue of our time, and I will be the nation's biggest cheerleader for school choice. . .
"Finally, today, my agenda includes the protection of religious liberty, the promotion of family, and support for the African-American church. . .
"This is just the beginning. . . I am humbled beyond words to be the nominee for the Party of Abraham Lincoln. And it is my highest and greatest hope that the Republican Party can be the home of the African-American vote once again. Together, we will have a government of, by and for the people. And we will make America great again for all Americans."There was much more in Trump's incredible speech. Read the rest here, And PLEASE share this report with friends and family members.
Trump is offering a very positive vision for America's future, so much more than just something to vote against. But the left-wing media will never tell you that.
Clinton Corruption - There are several stories making headlines today, once again highlighting the tremendous corruption and scandals that surround the Clintons.
Responding to ethical concerns raised during an internal audit, top Clinton Foundation official Doug Band wrote a 13-page memo defending his actions with statements like this: "We have dedicated ourselves to helping the President [Bill Clinton] secure and engage in for-profit activities."
In other words, his "defense" was to remind the Clintons how much money he was making for them. And Band was very productive.
According to the Washington Post, Band bragged about raising "in excess of $8 million for the foundation and $3 million in paid speaking fees for Bill Clinton." Band also wrote that he had "secured contracts for the former president that would pay out $66 million" over nine years.
So the Clintons were getting rich shaking down American corporations for cash while these companies shipped your jobs overseas.
Remember the story about Gov. Terry McAuliffe's PAC directing big money to a Democrat candidate who was married to a top FBI official investigating Hillary Clinton? It turns out that Hillary Clinton was directly involved in raising money for McAuliffe's PAC.
We are also learning that Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, had multiple dinners with top officials at the Department of Justice. One of those officials was the lawyer who kept Podesta "out of jail" for his involvement in several Clinton White House scandals. Were they simply reminiscing about old times or plotting new schemes?
------------- 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. Poll Position, The Supreme Issue, A New Deal, Clinton CorruptionTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
What Policy Makers Should Learn from Broken Windows
by Art Carden: “Thanks to tariffs, we saved Bob’s job at the steel mill. Now he’s able to provide for his family.”
“Thanks to the minimum wage, Rob now earns higher wages.”
“Look at all the farm communities that are so vibrant because of subsidies!”
“War is clearly good for the economy—look at how many jobs we create building tanks and bombs and guns!”
To oppose tariffs, minimum wages, and agricultural subsidies—not to mention war—must mean you hate Bob, Rob, farmers, and the unemployed.
Well, not exactly. All these examples are instances of popular but fallacious reasoning. All emphasize the easy-to-see benefits without acknowledging the more opaque costs. The French economic journalist Frédéric Bastiat explored this almost two centuries ago in his essay “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen,” and Henry Hazlitt turned Bastiat’s insight into his short classic Economics in One Lesson. The one lesson, in short: don’t stop the analysis at the merely visible effects.
Consider the thought experiment that made Bastiat famous, his Parable of the Broken Window, and consider further how he exposes the errors made by so many pundits and policymakers. Bastiat asks us to consider what happens when a young man breaks his father’s window. He notes how an observer might ask, “What would become of the glaziers if no one ever broke a window?” and so conclude that a shattered window does some social good by supporting the glass industry.
For Bastiat, however, the child who breaks a window is a social malefactor, not a benefactor, because he makes society poorer to the tune of one window, even though the glazier’s income rises because he replaces it. Had Bastiat’s protagonist James Goodfellow not had to pay to replace a window, he would have been able to “encourage the national labour” by spending the money on something else.
It seems blindingly obvious, but it’s an insight a lot of people fail to appreciate when we apply it to public policy. People are drawn to stories, and many stories are going to be more convincing if we can put names and faces to them. Too often, though, we act as if the names and faces are the arguments rather than just illustrations.
Consider Bob, Rob, farmers, and factories. It’s easy to see that Bob has a job in the steel mill and, owing to tariffs, higher wages than he might have otherwise. The rest of us bear the harder-to-see costs of a tariff. First, the rest of us are paying more for the steel, which means Bob’s higher wages are coming out of steel consumers’ pockets. The extra money I have to pay for steel and steel-produced goods is money I can’t spend on coffee or yard work or a kitchen remodel. We create an opportunity for Bob to earn money producing steel by destroying an opportunity for someone else to earn money doing other stuff. There is yet another cost, one that the economist Steve Landsburg never tires of pointing out. We aren’t just paying more for steel; because the price is higher, some people who would have bought steel before are no longer able to.
Similar logic applies when we consider Rob, the beneficiary of a higher minimum wage. We see that Rob earns higher wages. Good for Rob. His higher wages, however, come out of the pockets of his employers and their customers, and as those who buy goods produced by low-wage labor tend to be low-wage laborers themselves, the net redistribution is from some poor people to other poor people. Even if it comes out of “corporate profits,” think about to whom those profits accrue. Do you have a 401(K) or 403(B) or any stock whatsoever? Congratulations: Rob’s extra earnings are coming out of your pocket. It’s all well and good if you don’t mind and want to be charitable. Charity is a virtue. But do your fellow shareholders need you to exercise virtue on their behalf? Might it be possible that your fellow shareholders have goals and aspirations that are just as worthy as Rob’s?
That’s only part of the story. By raising the price of labor, minimum wages reduce the amount of labor people wish to hire. We raise Rob’s wages, but we might reduce the number of hours he is able to work or deprive someone else of his or her job entirely. Once again, this might not be obvious or immediate in that we might not be able to see someone literally getting fired because the minimum wage increased. The real employment cost can come from reductions in employment as people either do less business or substitute capital and high-skill labor for low-skill labor.
What about farm subsidies? Perhaps you’ve seen a bumper sticker that says “No Farms, No Food.” It’s a terrifying prospect: without farms, we wouldn’t have food to eat. Much better to have the subsidies that encourage farmers to produce and that thereby ensure we are able to remain well-fed, correct?
I’ll see this argument and raise it Bastiat and Hazlitt. The money for the subsidy comes out of taxpayers’ pockets. The chunk of money that comes out of my pocket is (once again) money I can’t spend remodeling my kitchen or paying for yard work or what have you. The farmers’ income is income that isn’t being earned by someone else.
As with tariffs and minimum wages, the story gets worse. It’s not just a transfer. When we subsidize, we are literally paying people to waste resources by producing corn or soybeans or what have you that are not worth to consumers what they cost to produce. It’s possible that the subsidy increases production of something for which there are spillover benefits, but this is a different argument from the one we’re considering here. In this case, we are subsidizing the “vitality” of farming communities by devitalizing other communities.
Finally, there might be very good reasons for going to war, but economic stimulus is not one of them, and for the same reasons we have explored above. It’s easy to see Rosie the Riveter making planes and tanks and bombs and guns and bullets. It’s a lot harder to see the refrigerators and cookware and other goods and services we give up because we’re using resources and Rosie’s labor for the production of war materiel. Again, there might be times when war is necessary, but we needn’t kid ourselves by thinking that we are making ourselves richer by making tanks with steel and labor that could have been used to make cars and refrigerators.
People often support tariffs, minimum wages, and subsidies with the best of intentions, but good intentions do not mean good policy, and just because we intend to help people doesn’t mean we actually do. Henry Hazlitt called Bastiat’s Parable of the Broken Window the “one lesson” of economics. It’s a lesson that, sadly, appears we have yet to learn.
------------- Art Carden is Associate Professor of Economics at Samford University’s Brock School of Business. H/T Intercollegiate Review (IR) who shared this article with the editor. IR is published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) and is dedicated to advancing the principles that make America free, virtuous, and prosperous. Tags:Art Carden, Policy Makers, Broken Windows, Intercollegiate Review, Intercollegiate, Studies Institute, 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
#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.