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, February 10, 2017
Dr. Tom Price Sworn In As HHS Secretary
ARRA News Service: Early today, the US Senate voted 52-47 along party lines to confirm pro-life Congressman (Dr.) Tom Price for Secretary of the Health and Human Services. Price is an orthopedic surgeon.
Addressing Obamacare, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi said, “We’re relying on him for a lot of the confirmation on the ‘repeal,’ ‘repair’ and ‘replace.’ He’s the perfect one to do it, he’s a medical doctor that’s had a wide range of experience.”
Price has a long pro-life voting record as a member of Congress and has voted pro life 100% of the time according to the National Right to Life Committee.
In a statement about the nomination, Trump said Price has earned a reputation for being a “tireless problem solver” and “the go-to expert on healthcare policy.” “He is exceptionally qualified to shepherd our commitment to repeal and replace Obamacare and bring affordable and accessible healthcare to every American.”
Vice President Mike Pence swore in Dr. Tom Price as HHS Secretary.
Action Needed - Imminent Senate Vote to Repeal Obama’s Social Security Administration Gun Grab!
NRA-ILA: Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives issued a strong statement in support of the Second Amendment by passing H.J. Res. 40, which would repeal Barack Obama’s scandalous attempt to grab guns from thousands of law-abiding Social Security Administration (SSA) beneficiaries.
Since then, anti-gunners and their media collaborators have been issuing false, contradictory, and downright dishonest attempts to derail this critical measure to protect the Second Amendment rights of tens of thousands of innocent, law-abiding, non-violent Americans.
Make no mistake, the SSA rule:
Is contrary to science;
Is contrary the Second Amendment;
Is contrary to fundamental principles of due process;
Is unrelated to public safety; and
Cynically targets a misunderstood, marginalized population.
As Jeffery Swanson, a Professor in Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University School of Medicine explained in an article in the Washington Post, the rule isn’t “supported by evidence” and is “far too broad.” He continued, “[W]hat the policy actually does is take away the gun rights of a large category of individuals without any evidence that they pose a risk of harm to self or others, and without legal due process protections commensurate with abridging a constitutional right.”
The Social Security Administration in fact didn’t even try to defend the rule on public safety grounds. In responding to commenters who submitted evidence the rule was not supported by science or evidence, Social Security wrote: We are not attempting to imply a connection between mental illness and a propensity for violence, particularly gun violence. Rather, we are complying with our obligations under the NIAA, which require us to provide information from our records when an individual falls within one of the categories identified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g). [Emphasis added.]The SSA’s rule, in other words, is not designed to keep guns out of dangerous hands. It’s a bureaucratic directive based on an entirely new reading of a nearly 50 year old statute by anti-gun zealots who are willing to target a vulnerable, stigmatized population as an intermediate step to further disarming America at large.
A vote on the repeal is expected as early as next week in the Senate.
That’s why gun control advocates are ratcheting up their attacks in the press.
And that’s why it’s imperative that your U.S. Senators hear from you so that they do their part to send the repeal of the SSA’s anti-gun rule to President Trump’s desk.
You can use the Contact Your Legislators feature on the NRA-ILA’s website or call the Congressional Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.
The first pro-gun legislative act of the Trump era Congress is on the verge of success, but it needs your help to get over the line.
Don’t delay. Please contact your U.S. Senators TODAY and urge them to vote YES on House Joint Resolution 40, a measure to roll back one of the worst of Barack Obama’s executive gun control actions. Tags:NRA-ILA, News, Gun Laws Anti-Gun Legislation, Action Needed, Imminent Senate Vote, Repeal, Obama’s Social Security Administration, Gun Grab, Legal, Legislation,To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Presidents Trump and Lincoln and Managing the Bureaucracies
by Newt Gingrich and Allen Guelzo: President Trump will soon discover that federal bureaucrats are far more hostile, destructive, and obstructionist than federal judges.
Ninety-five percent of federal bureaucrats’ donations were for Clinton (99 percent at the State Department, 97 percent at the Department of Justice), so it is clear there will be continuing resistance to President Trump’s policies.
And the intense hostility of the Left will encourage these pro-Clinton bureaucrats to feel noble about undermining and betraying the president.
Eventually, President Trump will be faced with a choice: either dramatically shrink his goals and accommodate the Left or learn from Abraham Lincoln and force bold, deep change on the bureaucracy. Once he took office, Lincoln fired almost 80 percent of federal employees. This aggressiveness enabled him to replace pro-secession bureaucrats, who would have ensured the North lost the war, with pro-Union enthusiasts who helped him win.
Allen Guelzo, a Henry R. Luce professor of the Civil War era and the director of the Civil War Era Studies Program at Gettysburg College, has written on Lincoln’s experience. The Trump team should meet with Guelzo.
“Until the 1883 Pendleton Act every federal office-holder – from cabinet secretaries to postmasters – could be removed without cause or explanation by the president. And since federal appointments generally paid better than their private-sector equivalents, competition for these jobs was intense, and tended to be handed out as compensation for political services. In the 19th century, political parties did not command huge campaign chests of their own; political operatives worked largely in the expectation that their time and services would be paid-for by appointment to political office. That, in turn, meant that presidents guarded their appointment powers jealously, since dangling the prospect of federal jobs was the surest way of guaranteeing the loyalty of a political party’s ground-game.
“Lincoln was fully as willing to work the patronage lever when he became president. Lincoln’s White House staffer, William O. Stoddard, remembered that Lincoln hired and fired federal office-holders with dizzying energy. ‘I doubt if ever before there was so general displacement as at the beginning of Mr. Lincoln’s term.’ Partly, this was because patronage appointments remained the principal means of securing political loyalty. But it was also a matter of ‘draining the swamp.’ Lincoln, as the first Republican – and first anti-slavery – president, came to Washington after six decades of almost-uninterrupted Democratic dominance of the executive branch. Successive Democratic presidents, from Thomas Jefferson to James Buchanan, had stocked federal offices with pro-slavery Southern appointees who would not shrink from sabotaging the presidency of Lincoln, ‘the Black Republican.’
“As Stoddard explained, ‘the departments fairly swarmed with the family dependents and connections of the Southern political magnates who then, for so long a time, had controlled the dominant party.’ John Floyd, a Virginian who had been Secretary of War under Lincoln’s predecessor, had actually arranged to ship artillery and munitions to Southern arsenals before leaving office in the expectation that these could then be seized by Southern secessionists. But the possibility of betrayal from within was not limited to Southern Democratic appointees. ‘Many of the men from the North were strong Southern sympathizers,’ Stoddard explained, ‘and so accustomed were they to consider their offices their property that even avowed secessionists considered themselves bitterly injured when required to make way for more loyal men.’
“So, once in office in 1861, Lincoln did not hesitate to purge the executive branch of anything which hinted at disloyalty. Of the 1,520 executive branch positions immediately under Lincoln’s oversight, Lincoln fired 1,195 of their occupants, which amounted to ‘the most sweeping removal of federal officeholders in the country’s history up to that time.’ Lincoln especially ‘liked to provide for his friends, who were often remembered gratefully for services given him in his early struggles in life,’ wrote Noah Brooks, who was himself in line to receive a White House appointment at the time of Lincoln’s death. ‘Sometimes he would ‘break the slate,’ as he called it, of those who were making up a list of appointments, that he might insert the name of some old acquaintance who had befriended him in days when friends were few.’
“Lincoln also cast a keen eye on patronage appointments which were technically under the control of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Postmaster General. In August, 1861, Lincoln notified James Pollock, the director of the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia, to find a job for an Illinois political operative at the mint. When Pollock hesitated, Lincoln tartly wrote to him: My dear Sir, You must make a job of it, and provide a place for the bearer of this, Elias Wampole. Make a job of it with the Collector, and have it done. You can do it for me, and you must.
Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN“As Emanuel Hertz wrote in The Wizardry of Lincoln’s Political Appointments and Party Management, ‘Lincoln never abdicated his power of appointing and filing the appointive position in his administration. He had no general almoner or dispenser of patronage. He looked into every appointment himself and no matter how low were the fortunes of war he was always read to consider the strengthening of the party in one place or another by judicious distribution of patronage.’”
Within a month or two it will be clear that large elements of the federal bureaucracy are dedicated leftists who believe it is their duty to stop the Trump Administration and destroy it if possible.
The challenge to President Trump and his team is going to be real and unavoidable.
---------------------- 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. Allen Guelzo is a, a Henry R. Luce professor of the Civil War era and the director of the Civil War Era Studies Program at Gettysburg College. The above commentary was shared via Gingrich Productions. Tags:Newt Gingrich, Allen Guelzo, commentary, Presidents Trump and Lincoln, Managing the Bureaucracies, Allen Guelzo, professor, Gettysburg CollegeTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Dems Ponder If ICE Raids Linked to White House Anger Over 9th Circuit
ICE agents arrest Luis Alejandro Villegas, 31; was released from local custody Dec. 31, 2016, after being detained for driving while intoxicated on Jan. 27, 2017, in New York. (ICE photo)
by Bridget Johnson: A Southern California lawmaker floated the theory that a series of Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids across the Los Angeles area Thursday were intended to distract from the Trump administration's loss at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals over its travel ban executive order.
Protesters demonstrated outside ICE offices on Thursday night after activists reported raids during the day in which 100 people or more were taken into custody.
“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deportation officers conduct enforcement actions every day around the country and here in Southern California as part of the agency’s ongoing efforts to uphold public safety and border security. Our operations are targeted and lead driven, prioritizing individuals who pose a risk to our communities,” ICE told CBS News.
“Examples would include known street gang members, child sex offenders, and deportable foreign nationals with significant drug trafficking convictions. To that end, ICE’s routine immigration enforcement actions are ongoing and we make arrests every day.”
At a House Democratic Caucus retreat in Baltimore today, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), vice-chair of the caucus, said "the timing of it is quite curious."
"He would never do anything like that," chimed in caucus chairman Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.). "The president would never do anything like that."
Sanchez said she "got word, initial reports of raids that took place in California in Downey, which is just outside my city, Santa Clara, and I believe San Bernardino County."
'We are looking into them. We understand that there are more than 100 people that were detained, that physically were removed from their homes and taken into custody. We don't know much more than that right now, so we're waiting for news to trickle down," she said.
"And somebody cynically suggested, although I'm not suggesting, that perhaps on the heels of a tremendous opinion by the Ninth Circuit -- which I think, you know, upholds the values of this country and makes clear the separation of powers in the system of checks and balances -- that perhaps on the heels of that, that was done intentionally to try and take attention away from a big loss by the Trump administration on what they want to do and what they want to turn America into," Sanchez added.
Crowley said "the timing is interesting, to say the least."
"But I want to say this as well, I don't think Linda nor I, nor any Democratic member of the House or the Senate or just about anyone in the United States would defend anyone who is being deported because they have violated our -- a law in a felony form or pose a threat to our nation," he added. "We just don't know enough about who the targets were in this. Our experience in the past has been that many families have been torn apart by similar raids in recent years. So, until we have more information, it's very difficult for us to make those observations."
"But in light of how the president does react in terms of when times don't go so great for him -- a distraction, take attention away from a loss, an incredibly important loss, but a win for the people of the United States that the Constitution and its values still stand," Crowley said.
Several dozen people were also swept up in Georgia raids Thursday, with Sarah Owings, chairwoman of the Georgia-Alabama chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, saying ICE is now going after people with traffic offenses instead of prioritizing violent criminals.
“They were using what limited resources they had on things they considered to be important, what was best to keep the country safe,” she said. “Now it’s going to be more like a fire hose. It’s going to go everywhere.”
------------------ Bridget Johnson is a veteran journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill. She is the Washington Editor for PJ Media. Tags:Democrats, Ponder If ICE Raids, Linked to, White House Anger, Over 9th Circuit, Bridget Johnson, PJMediaTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Judicial Tyranny, Going Forward, By Any Means Necessary, Ignorance Is Killing Us
by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: Judicial Tyranny - As expected, the judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Trump Administration yesterday. But let's be clear about the ruling. The court DID NOT declare the president's executive order unconstitutional.
This was a ruling only on a procedural motion -- lifting the injunction against the order's enforcement. It did not address the merits of the case or the constitutionality of the order.
Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano noted that yesterday's ruling never referenced the federal law President Trump relied upon when he issued the order. The judges were substituting their opinions for the law.
Liberal Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz agrees with Judge Napolitano, saying, "Look, this is not a solid decision. This is a decision that looks like it's based more on policy than on constitutionality. There are many, many flaws."
Five years ago, the liberal majority on the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws Arizona passed to address problems created by the Obama Administration's refusal to enforce our immigration laws.
In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy declared: "The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration. Arizona may have understandable frustrations . . . but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law."
Professor Jonathan Turley, another liberal legal eagle, told MSNBC: "I still think that the law favors the administration once you get to the merits. . . the courts have been highly deferential to the president, and they generally don't second-guess."
Turley went on to say that the Obama Administration claimed that the executive branch had so much power over immigration that "[President Obama] could even refuse or order the failure to enforce immigration laws. . ."
Going Forward - The Trump Administration has few good options going forward. The problem in this case isn't the law. It is left-wing judicial activism at every level.
The administration could request a review by the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. But asking more liberals to review a liberal decision is unlikely to produce a different result.
The administration could appeal directly to the Supreme Court, which is split 4-to-4. But as clear as the precedent may be, politics is obviously getting in the way. Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer are unlikely to do President Trump any favors.
When it comes to the law, liberals have never been known for consistency. That is the problem with left-wing judicial activism -- it is constantly substituting prevailing liberal opinions for the law. They simply make it up as they go.
Some have suggested that President Trump may be better off starting over with a new executive order or perhaps new legislation from Congress that utilizes its Article III, Section 2 authority to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
But think about this: Do you recall after 9/11 how quickly the media and the left began to blame the Bush Administration for not doing enough to prevent the attack?
It came out later that there had been warnings that something big was being planned. The left asked, "Why didn't Condoleezza Rice figure out that Al Qaeda was going to use airplanes as missiles?"
Sixteen years after this war started (four jihadists were arrested in France today), Donald Trump came into office determined to do everything possible to prevent another attack. Now the same liberals and the same media that attacked Bush for not doing enough are attacking Trump for doing too much!
By Any Means Necessary - Yesterday I wrote about the leaders of the Berkeley riots who were happy with the damage they caused. Their group is called BAMN, an acronym that stands for "By Any Means Necessary." That is the mantra of the entire left-wing complex, which is determined to stop Trump by any means necessary.
Allow me to remind you of some recent events, all of which have been thoroughly documented:
Paid agitators sent to cause violence at Trump rallies. . .
A massive propaganda effort to convince us that Russia stole the election. . .
An unprecedented effort to intimidate electors into betraying the will of the voters. . .
An unprecedented boycott of the inauguration by elected Democrats. . .
Thousands of demonstrators sent to harass Americans at the inauguration. . .
Senators refusing to show up at committee hearings to prevent votes on cabinet nominees. . .
The slowest confirmation of cabinet nominations in modern history. . .
Widespread civil disobedience of elected officials refusing to cooperate with the federal government. . .
Repeated smear campaigns against decent men and women using the most disgusting charges of racism and bigotry. . .
Civil servants plotting with former political appointees, even using encryption technology, to sabotage the administration. . .
The growing use of fascist tactics to shutdown free speech and deny civil rights. . .
Multiple media outlets suggesting the president is mentally unstable or promoting his assassination. . .
This is what we are fighting, my friends. This is the bitter fruit the left has produced. But don't think for a second that this all about Donald Trump. The left would be doing this to President Cruz or President Rubio or President Carson.
The difference, in my opinion, is that I doubt anyone else would fight back the way Donald Trump does! And for that, I am thankful.
Ignorance Is Killing Us - Earlier this week, hundreds of New York City high school students walked out of their classes to protest President Trump's immigration order. As Jesse Watters quickly discovered, they had no idea what they were protesting.
Beyond the sheer level of ignorance, what really got my attention were the signs in the crowd which read, "Punch A Nazi." Well, we all hate Nazis -- the modern definition of evil.
Here's something to consider: Even though the Nazis lost World War II, do they have heirs today? Yes, they do. The Nazis of today are the extremists Trump is trying to keep out of our country. They are lslamofascists.
What were the Nazis known for? Their obsessive hatred of the Jews. Most of the countries identified in the president's order ban travel by Israelis to their countries. One nation, Iran, calls for a second Holocaust.
The Nazis also hated Christianity. Hitler felt Germany was cursed because the country was Christian and not Muslim. Who are the anti-Christians today? The Islamofascists. It is ISIS that is beheading Christians and committing genocide. It is no accident that there are so few churches in Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Sudan, etc.
Sadly, the ignorance on parade in the streets of New York City is what happens when you have a country that no longer teaches its children real history and which no longer values patriotism.
If the kids in the streets of New York want to punch real Nazis, they should join the U.S. military, which is punching them right now on multiple battlefields.
-------------------- 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, Judicial Tyranny, Going Forward, By Any Means Necessary, Ignorance Is Killing UsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Black-robed politicians on the Left Coast handcuff Trump, keeping the borders wide open for terrorists.
by Matthew Vadum: Three unelected federal judges in San Francisco yesterday ordered the Trump administration to continue accepting visitors and would-be immigrants from seven dangerous countries that are incubators of Muslim terrorism.
When President Trump learned his temporary ban on the admission of aliens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen that was put on hold Feb. 3 by Seattle-based Judge James L. Robart would continue in abeyance, he got on Twitter immediately.
At 6:35 p.m. Eastern time he tweeted in all caps: “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”
The open-borders crowd doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on. That may be why at a press conference celebrating the outrageous ruling, a member of Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s (D) team deployed the phrase “social justice” to justify the decision. “Social justice” is a magical amulet that nullifies anything the Left doesn’t like, including the president’s executive order. Its very invocation is an admission that a cause is illegitimate and un-American.
The Ninth Circuit’s fairy dust-based decision is “an intellectually dishonest piece of work,” said retired Judge Andrew Napolitano.
Tucker Carlson was in fine form last night as he roughed up the platitude-spouting, Haitian-born District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine (D) on television.
Racine, who supported the lawsuit by filing an amicus brief, absurdly argued EO 13769 was “discriminatory to a certain religion” and therefore violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.
Carlson retorted that “there is a precedent for singling out people for special treatment because of religion” and that the U.S. had used “explicit religious tests until pretty recently.” Until September 1988, he said, the U.S. granted refugee status to Soviet Jews because they were persecuted in their home country.
Probably the two most insane legal principles invented in the decision are (1) that everyone, everywhere on the planet enjoys due process rights under the U.S. Constitution, and 2) that courts can second-guess a national security-related executive order based on something other than the actual words in the order.
That a panel of the notoriously left-wing U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit committed this unlawful, unconstitutional atrocity is not surprising but it is still unsettling. In the decision Judges William C. Canby, Richard R. Clifton, and Michelle T. Friedland, substituted their vision of how to conduct foreign affairs for the nation’s elected president. The ruling not only violates separation of powers but also constitutes an attack on the status of the president as Commander-in-Chief charged with protecting the United States.
Conservatives who follow judicial affairs know that no other court compares to the Ninth Circuit. In 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court reversed an incredible 86 percent of the decisions it reviewed from that court. The circuit previously struck down the Pledge of Allegiance because it contained the phrase “under God.” It has also found that citizens have no constitutional right to own guns. Some call the court the “Ninth Circus” and the “Nutty Ninth,” and for good reason. (The ruling in Washington and Minnesota v. Trump may be read here at the Ninth Circuit’s website.)
The litigation arose out of Executive Order 13769, which President Trump signed Jan. 27. The order, which isn’t much different from an executive order President Obama signed a few years ago dealing with the same seven countries, is titled “Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States.”
The idea behind EO 13769 was to put a brief pause on the admission of aliens from the terrorism-plagued countries so the new administration could devise new strategies for dealing with visitors from those countries in ways that enhance, as opposed to imperil, U.S. national security. It also indefinitely halts the entry of Syrian refugee applicants because they can’t be properly vetted and many of them are no doubt jihadists posing as bona fide migrants.
Meanwhile, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), whose state challenged the travel ban, rejoiced at the Ninth Circuit ruling. He wasted no time shooting back at Trump.>dir>I just saw a tweet from the president. He said, see you in court. Well, Mr. President, we just saw you in court, and we beat you, and you ought to think about this because these courts have said this is unconstitutional and it will not stand. And we’re hopeful that that happens. If it doesn't Washington State's going to continue its fight.Inslee’s gloating over the Left Coast court’s ruling may be short-lived. Legal observers say even with the current 4-4 ideological split on the U.S. Supreme Court, Trump would still stand a good chance of prevailing there.
As Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) sees it, the case shouldn’t even be before the courts because the law is so clearly on the president’s side.
"President Trump's order to temporarily pause the refugee program and travel from seven war-torn countries is plainly legal under the Constitution and our immigration laws,” Cotton said.
“No foreigner has a constitutional right to enter the United States and courts ought not second-guess sensitive national-security decisions of the president,” he said.
“This misguided ruling is from the Ninth Circuit, the most notoriously left-wing court in America and the most reversed court at the Supreme Court,” he said. “I'm confident the administration's position will ultimately prevail."
Daniel Horowitz seemed to anticipate the kooky ruling in a recent column at Conservative Review.
“The ubiquitous notion,” he wrote, “among the political and legal establishment that there are any constitutional limitations on our sovereign right to exclude any immigrant for any reason is the most dangerous constitutional crisis we are facing in the coming months.”
Two centuries of case law, he adds, “the accepted laws of nation states, and the principles of the social compact, popular sovereignty, and jurisdictional sovereignty, the American people — as expressed through their elected representatives — have the right to exclude or deport any non-citizen for any reason.”
Obviously, Horowitz and Cotton are right.
According to 8 U.S. Code § 1182:Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may … suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.Of course, there are limits to what the highest court in the land is willing to do. It bent over backwards to avoid conflict with the executive branch by upholding the grotesquely unconstitutional Obamacare law forcing Americans to purchase health insurance. Would it dare challenge a president in the area of foreign affairs and national security where a president’s authority is at its highest ebb?
For the high court to give a U.S. president the finger by ignoring the text of this clearly-worded federal statute would be nearly unthinkable and truly earth-shattering. It would create a constitutional crisis the likes of which the republic hasn’t seen in a very long time. It seems unlikely the U.S. Supreme Court would want to generate so much intense political heat.
But even if Trump continues to face resistance from leftists on the bench who make up stuff to arrive at preordained results, he doesn’t have to play by the legal Left’s rules by limiting his fight to the current litigation. He could moot the Ninth Circuit’s ruling by issuing a new executive order or by issuing a series of executive orders dealing with the individual subjects addressed by his original executive order.
This is chess, not checkers, and a president has a lot more moves available to him than judges do. There is absolutely no reason for him to limit his efforts to protect the homeland to his opponents’ turf in the judiciary.
This brings us to the larger problem of judicial supremacism, which isn’t anything new. But the Ninth Circuit’s boneheaded decision illustrates how unelected people in black robes can expose us to grave threats in an age in which Muslim terrorists want to annihilate America and Western Civilization.
Courts arrogate jurisdiction to themselves, taking authority away from the people’s representatives. To the Left, everything is justiciable, and that’s the problem. And this lust for power is going to get Americans killed.
It could be said that from Honolulu to Baltimore, a curtain fashioned of black cloth has descended over the country.
The courts take on too many cases they have no business hearing. In too many instances, judges recognize no limits on their authority. This is wrong. This is not what the Framers of the Constitution wanted.
It is not even what Chief Justice John Marshall wanted when he invented American-style judicial review in Marbury v. Madison. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” wasn’t intended to be a gateway to judicial dictatorship.
At long last limits must be imposed on judicial review.
When unelected judges seize power they are not supposed to have and thumb their noses at We The People by rejecting the Constitution and the unambiguous language of a congressionally approved statute specifically giving the president discretion regarding the admission of aliens, it is time for a revolution against those usurping judges.
Americans fought a long and bloody war to win independence from an oppressive mother country.
by John York: Some Americans think state boundaries and the principle of federalism are outdated relics from the past. They couldn’t be further from the truth.
New data in a report from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) paint a clear picture: States with the best policies are being rewarded with an influx of residents, and states with unattractive policies are losing residents.
Take two of the most high-tax, high-spend states in the union: New York and Illinois.
Over the past decade, New York has suffered a net loss of nearly 1.5 million residents and over 650,000 Illinoisans have moved elsewhere. Meanwhile, Texas, a right-to-work state with no income or estate tax, saw its population grow by 1.3 million.
Despite their appealing metropolitan hubs, New York and Illinois are shedding denizens.
States that scored high on the ALEC-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index, which takes into consideration 15 variables from the number of public employees to sales tax rates, have seen an influx of job-creating companies and taxpaying citizens over the last decade, while low-scoring blue states have been losing both.
While tax rates and labor laws are not the only factors that contribute to a state’s flourishing, the correlation between sound economic policy and private sector growth is clear.
The formula is simple. Good policy contributes to vibrant economies, and vibrant economies attract people eager for opportunity.
‘Laboratories of Democracy’
Federalism is about creating competition between the states by allowing them to craft their own respective policies, and then seeing what policies work best. This system has even more to commend it today than at the time of the founding.
Contrary to the expectations of progressive social scientists and pundits, government spending stimulates the government, but little else. A high minimum wage ultimately hurts those it is meant to serve. Progressive tax rates do not close chasmal blue state budget gaps.
Federalism is not just a boon to citizens—it is an advantage to state policymakers as well.
The states are often thought of as “laboratories of democracy.” That expression was initially coined by Justice Louis Brandeis, who ironically did not subscribe to the competitive view of federalism.
The idea is that when states implement policies, they provide test cases from which other states can learn. When a policy pays off, other states typically follow suit; when a policy is cursed by unintended consequences, other states can avoid the same pitfalls.
Many progressives claim that allowing states wide discretion to establish their own fiscal policies and regulatory regimes will result in a “race to the bottom” in which states attempt to drive out their poor and needy by decreasing welfare payments and lure in corporations by eliminating important regulations.
In other words, for progressives who are willing to pay the high price tag for expensive public services, there are still plenty of states willing to oblige.
Another critique of studies like the ALEC-Laffer Index is they heap too much praise on red states that implement conservative fiscal policies when, in fact, their citizens are shielded from the real downsides of fiscal conservatism—namely, limited spending on social programs.
Federal welfare policies allow frugal state governments to get credit for lowering taxes without taking the blame for cutting popular social safety net programs.
Essentially, critics argue, progressive federal policies end up subsidizing conservative state policies. As a result, states that score high on the ALEC-Laffer Index end up looking more appealing to more people.
On its face, this critique has some merit. Many of the states that score the highest on the ALEC-Laffer Index also tend to be states that get more money back from the federal government—mostly in the form of welfare payments—than they pay in taxes.
North Dakota, ranked No. 3 on the ALEC-Laffer Index, gets back $1.68 for every dollar paid in taxes. Tennessee and Oklahoma, also in the ALEC-Laffer top 10, get more back from the federal coffers than they put in as well.
Meanwhile, California, only four spots from the bottom on the ALEC-Laffer Index, gets only 78 cents back for every dollar sent to Washington. New York, dead last on the index, retrieves only 79 cents.
Under current law, individuals can deduct their state taxes from their overall income for the purposes of determining what they owe the federal government in taxes. Thus, state politicians can hike up their tax rates without changing the effective tax rate their citizens pay.
While federal spending may make low-tax red states more appealing to residents and potential residents, the state tax deduction does the same for blue states.
Still, the broader thrust of this progressive critique is correct. Federal policy does alleviate some of the downsides that come along with both conservative and progressive fiscal policy.
A More Perfect Federalism
For the states to function as true laboratories of democracy, they should bear even more of the costs—and reap more of the rewards—of their policies.
The federal government should put more of the onus of funding and managing social welfare programs on the states and also consider eliminating the state and local tax deduction. This way, the real costs and benefits of state policies will be clear to citizens who can vote—or move—accordingly.
Were this done, the appeal of economically responsible red states would likely be even higher than ALEC’s study demonstrates it already is.
Lessons learned from state experimentation are of critical importance today.
As ALEC’s recent report shows, every one of the 50 states is wrestling with the mounting expense of unfunded liabilities caused by generous pensions and social welfare programs. Some states, like Arizona, are addressing the problem early and aggressively and others are taking note.
As state governments roll out various packages of cuts and revenue-raising measures to push themselves back into the black, they will provide test cases not just for one another, but for our radically insolvent federal government as well.
---------------- John York is a research assistant in the B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics at The Heritage Foundation. Tags:John York, Heritage Foundation, Why, People, Leaving Blue States, in DrovesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Tags:Editorial Cartoon, AF Branco, nutty, liberal bias, 9th Circuit Court, rules against, Donald Trump, constitutional travel banTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Sorta. A parliamentary no-confidence vote failed, despite 161 lawmakers voting for the resolution and only eight voting with the government.
Confused? The no-confidence measure failed because the Social Democrats, controlling nearly two-thirds of the 465 seats in parliament, abstained on the measure, which required a majority of parliament to vote affirmatively.
Not a very confident vote of confidence.
The vote came after eight days of protests in Bucharest, the capital, and around the country — the largest since the 1989 fall of communism. A quarter of a million people took to the streets of Bucharest last Sunday, and half a million nationwide.*
The protests came after last week’s late night corruption decree, issued “by the cabinet, without parliamentary debate,” as Reuters reported — and “designed to decriminalize a number of graft offences, cut prison terms for others and narrow the definition of conflict-of-interest.”
“The emergency ordinance . . . effectively decriminalized some forms of corruption if the amount involved was less than $47,000,” explained the New York Times, meaning amnesty for Liviu Dragnea, the head of the ruling Social Democrat Party, and dozens of other politicians convicted of graft and corruption.
The decree was hastily rescinded, but Romanians cannot trust their government.
“It’s too late,” one protester said. “Their credibility is zero.”
“This government has offered us a perfect demonstration of what it can do during its first 30 days in office,” another quipped. “Conclusion: they must leave.”
But Prime Minister Sorin Grindeanu told fellow legislators, “I do hope that as of today we get back to work.”
Unfortunately, that’s what Romanians fear.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
* The same ratio of protesters to population in the U.S. would mean eight million protesters nationally.
------------------ Paul Jacobs is author of Common Sense which provides daily commentary about the issues impacting America and about the citizens who are doing something about them. He is also President of the Liberty Initiative Fund (LIFe) as well as Citizens in Charge Foundation. Jacobs is a contributing author on the ARRA News Service. Tags:Paul Jacob, Common Sense, Confidence Game, RomaniaTo 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: Shortly after the “Women’s March on Washington,” Dr. Steve Turley wrote about the “feminist futility” of the march and its major policy initiatives. Feminists and LGBT activists have been pushing programs and policies that almost guarantee that future feminists and activists will be smaller in number. It all comes down to what I have written about in the past: the fertility gap.
Steve Turley cited a recent demographic study done by a professor at the University of London. He points to a significant demographic deficit between secularists and conservative religionists. In the U.S., self-identified secular women averaged only 1.5 children per couple. By contrast, conservative evangelical women averaged 2 to 3 children per couple. That is a fertility gap of 28 percent.
There are many reasons why this is happening, and they go back to feminism in general and the “Women’s March” in particular. Feminists focus on women’s freedom and relegate motherhood to merely a lifestyle choice. Secular women are more likely to abort, so they are less likely to have as many children as evangelical women.
To put it another way, inherent in the message of feminism and secularism is perspective that essentially guarantees its demise. Conservative women have more children than liberal women. Religious women have more children than secular women.
The only factor that alters that demographic difference is the conversion of children raised in religious homes into secularists. Unfortunately, the colleges have done a fair job of doing that. But that doesn’t change the reality that the message of feminism can be self-destructive.
----------- 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, Feminist FutilityTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
9th Circuit Rigged Decision Heralds The End of Borders
by Rick Manning: It is obscene that unelected judges from the most liberal Appeals Court in the land are dictating the security of the nation and overriding the president’s constitutional and legal authority, with no legal justification.
The net effect of the 9th Circuit’s rigged decision is the effective elimination of the federal government’s capacity to control the borders.
Under this insane standard, if sustained, any limit of immigration quotas now violates due process because it denies rights to some that have been granted to others.
With a guaranteed delay of the temporary travel restrictions imposed by President Trump in his executive order, it no longer serves its intended purpose to protect the people of the U.S. from terrorists who wish to infiltrate and do us harm.
In the meantime, I humbly pray that the irresponsible actions by liberal jurists from the left coast don’t result in the deaths of Americans at the hands of terrorists who have been given a free pass into our country under false pretenses.
--------------- Rick Manning (@rmanning957) is President of Americans for Limited Government. Article also on ALG Blog. Tags:Rick Manning, Americans for Limited Government, 9th Circuit, Rigged Decision, Heralds, End of BordersTo 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: “Disheartening and demoralizing,” wailed Judge Neil Gorsuch of President Trump’s comments about the judges seeking to overturn his 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from the Greater Middle East war zones.
What a wimp. Did our future justice break down crying like Sen. Chuck Schumer? Sorry, this is not Antonin Scalia. And just what horrible thing had our president said?
A “so-called judge” blocked the travel ban, said Trump. And the arguments in court, where 9th Circuit appellate judges were hearing the government’s appeal, were “disgraceful.” “A bad student in high school would have understood the arguments better.”
Did the president disparage a couple of judges? Yep.
Yet compare his remarks to the tweeted screeds of Elizabeth Warren after her Senate colleague, Jeff Sessions, was confirmed as attorney general.
Sessions, said Warren, represents “radical hatred.” And if he makes “the tiniest attempt to bring his racism, sexism & bigotry” into the Department of Justice, “all of us” will pile on.
Now this is hate speech. And it validates Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s decision to use Senate rules to shut her down.
These episodes reveal much about America 2017.
They reflect, first, the poisoned character of our politics. The language of Warren — that Sessions is stepped in “racism, sexism & bigotry” echoes the ugliest slander of the Hillary Clinton campaign, where she used similar words to describe Trump’s “deplorables.”
Such language, reflecting as it does the beliefs of one-half of America about the other, rules out any rapprochement in America’s social or political life. This is pre-civil war language.
For how do you sit down and work alongside people you believe to be crypto-Nazis, Klansmen and fascists? Apparently, you don’t. Rather, you vilify them, riot against them, deny them the right to speak or to be heard.
And such conduct is becoming common on campuses today.
As for Trump’s disparagement of the judges, only someone ignorant of history can view that as frightening.
Thomas Jefferson not only refused to enforce the Alien & Sedition Acts of President John Adams, his party impeached Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase who had presided over one of the trials.
Jackson defied Chief Justice John Marshall’s prohibition against moving the Cherokees out of Georgia to west of the Mississippi, where, according to the Harvard resume of Sen. Warren, one of them bundled fruitfully with one of her ancestors, making her part Cherokee.
When Chief Justice Roger Taney declared that President Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus violated the Constitution, Lincoln considered sending U.S. troops to arrest the chief justice.
FDR proposed adding six justices to emasculate a Supreme Court of the “nine old men” he reviled for having declared some New Deal schemes unconstitutional.
President Eisenhower called his Supreme Court choices Earl Warren and William Brennan two of the “worst mistakes” he made as president. History bears Ike out. And here we come to the heart of the matter.
Whether the rollout of the president’s temporary travel ban was ill-prepared or not, and whether one agrees or not about which nations or people should be subjected to extreme vetting, the president’s authority in the matter of protecting the borders and keeping out those he sees as potentially dangerous is universally conceded.
That a district judge would overrule the president of the United States on a matter of border security in wartime is absurd.
When politicians don black robes and seize powers they do not have, they should be called out for what they are — usurpers and petty tyrants. And if there is a cause upon which the populist right should unite, it is that elected representatives and executives make the laws and rule the nation. Not judges, and not justices.
Indeed, one of the mightiest forces that has birthed the new populism that imperils the establishment is that unelected justices like Warren and Brennan, and their progeny on the bench, have remade our country without the consent of the governed — and with never having been smacked down by Congress or the president.
Consider. Secularist justices de-Christianized our country. They invented new rights for vicious criminals as though criminal justice were a game. They tore our country apart with idiotic busing orders to achieve racial balance in public schools. They turned over centuries of tradition and hundreds of state, local and federal laws to discover that the rights to an abortion and same-sex marriage were there in Madison’s Constitution all along. We just couldn’t see them.
Trump has warned the judges that if they block his travel ban, and this results in preventable acts of terror on American soil, they will be held accountable. As rightly they should.
Meanwhile, Trump’s White House should use the arrogant and incompetent conduct of these federal judges to make the case not only for creating a new Supreme Court, but for Congress to start using Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution — to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and to reclaim its stolen powers.
A clipping of the court’s wings is long overdue.
-------------------- 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, President Trump. Must Break, Judicial PowerTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
They argue that the 9th is too big, too liberal and too slow resolving cases. If they succeed, only California, Oregon, Hawaii and two island districts would remain in the 9th's judicial fiefdom.
Right now, Flake said, the circuit is far too sprawling.
“It represents 20 percent of the population -- and 40 percent of the land mass is in that jurisdiction. It’s just too big,” Flake told Fox News on Wednesday. “We have a bedrock principle of swift justice and if you live in Arizona or anywhere in the 9th Circuit, you just don’t have it.”
Flake says it typically takes the court 15 months to hand down a decision.
“It’s far too long,” he added. . . .
The court has a reputation as one of the most liberal in the country, in large part because of its makeup. Eighteen of the court’s 25 active judges have been appointed by Democrats. Former President George W. Bush appointed six justices, while former President Barack Obama appointed seven.
Under Flake’s bill, the new circuit would cover Nevada, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Arizona and Alaska, leaving the 9th with three Pacific states as well as the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam.
A separate House version introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs and four other Arizona Republicans would leave Washington state in the 9th Circuit.
Congressional efforts to split the circuit go back to 1941.
“The problem is the judges in the 9th Circuit, particularly the liberal judges, don’t want to give up any of their jurisdiction,” Flake said. . . .
Ethan Sabo on Kevin Jackson's The BlackShereexpressed frustration over the 9th Circuit Court: "In what amounts to sedition, the 9th Circuit overturned President Trump’s executive order that protects American citizens against dangerous Muslim radicals from 7 countries.
The citizens of 46 other Muslim countries can travel to America based on the order, however the court found a way around siding with U.S. taxpaying citizens.
As Alan Dershowitz declared, the Trump administration will win the case in the Supreme Court. The problem is how many bad characters are now scrambling to get to America to do us harm.
Because of the gross judicial misconduct by the 9th Circuit, some argue that it must be disbanded. Part of the argument is the court is too big, too liberal and too slow in resolving cases." Tags:U.S. Senators, Jeff Flake, John McCain, introduced legislation, create 12th Circuit, Break up, 9th Circuit Court, FoxNews, video, Kevin Jackson, The BlackShereTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by John Porter, Contributing Author: I have been for quite some time honestly trying to understand why, and to make some sense of the terrible, senseless and sometimes tragic display of people in their destructive pillaging, looting, burning of automobiles and destruction of other property, including businesses and college campus structures, and of course physically attacking other fellow Americans in various cities all across this nation.
I'm sure some of the participants are apparent crazed individuals still smarting and upset over the results of our presidential election. But it has now become apparent and recognized by most that a great number of these people are masked and/or hooded thugs, paid professional demonstrators, being financed by George Soros and other groups for the purpose of disrupting, not only the agenda of our new president, but more importantly and dangerously so, the very system of government we have in this country.
President Trump is only their springboard (excuse) of opportunity to act. I own a copy of and have studied Sal Alinsky's "Rules For Revolution." I can assure you these people are following those rules to the letter on the methods of overthrowing a government. Ladies and gentlemen, please, these are not American people spontaneously exercising their right to peacefully protest, of which we all are supportive. I am completely convinced these are organized mobs, organized for the sole purpose of disrupting, not for the Constitutional right to be heard on a legitimate grievance, thus paving the way for a police state through Federal regulations. I will write more later on Saul Alinsky's teachings and their major role in this anarchy.
As I reflect on what I have been watching unfold on TV in these incited demonstrations, marches, riots of violence, and hearing some elected public officials with their supportive reactions, it is apparent to me that the real objective could very well be to bring down our Representative Republic form of government. Even former president Obama has already weighed in with his support of this destructive and disruptive activity. In the Senate we are witnessing Democrat Party leadership doing everything in their power to disrupt the functioning of the Executive branch of our government by not even showing up to vote on cabinet nominations.
I am very saddened by so many people showing a total disrespect, and disregard for President Trump and those millions of American citizens who voted him into office, yes through the Constitutional Electoral College process. Whether one likes him or hates him, he has already acted on most of the issues he promised during his campaign that he would do. He has acted on those he can without congress, and those which takes congress is being finalized as you read this. President Trump is keeping his commitments and pledges to the people at a speed never before seen of any president to date.
What did he mean in saying "We are going to return the government to you, the people." Of all the things he is acting on, and there are many, he is attempting to set right and return to the founding father's concept of the people running the government and not the government running the people. We are a country of laws passed by those we elect, not through politically appointed government department regulators.
The elimination of Federal Regulations (deregulation) of how we as individuals are to live and how we manage our businesses is of paramount importance to him. President Trump has a stated goal of eliminating as much as 75% of Federal government regulations.
Almost all of these debilitating regulations are imposed upon us by various politically appointed Federal Bureau Department heads. You and I are being forced to live the way these department heads think we should, businesses are being run the way they think is best. President Trump is trying to reverse this headlong plunge into America becoming a police state through regulation.
What is a police state?: "A totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that supervises the citizens' activities. Not in a blue uniform with a badge, but a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power. The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the government and it's agencies. It is a country in which the government uses regulations rather than laws to severely limit people's freedom."
Please, we must understand, my fellow Americans, a police state of Federal Regulations is no different that a police state of Communism or Totalitarianism. They all are dedicated to forcing how people must live according to the dictates of government. The only winners are those in power in the police state, and they will always be in power as long as the police state remains in tact. It is perpetual protection for them and perpetual slavery to the government for us.
This is exactly what President Trump wishes to bring to an immediate halt and began a reversal. He needs all our help. We must fight back with him. We must stop being afraid to do so. Those trying to destroy the Republic are not afraid to do what they are doing.
------------------ John Porter is an Americans first, constitutional conservatives second. His allegiance is to the Constitution. He seeks to help save America from the grips of socialism and an all powerful, intrusive government, and from the evil of Islam. He is a contributing author to the ARRA News Service. Tags:John Porter, The Police StateTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Majority Of Americans Think Trump Is Truthful, Media Untruthful
by Daniel Greenfield: The media is going to need a whole lot of alternative facts to deal with these numbers.
After Trump won, the media decided to address its failure to influence the election by loudly calling him a liar at every opportunity. This was policy. Loud headlines in the Washington Post and the New York Times trumpeted it.
Week after week of constantly calling President Trump and anyone who worked for him liars resulted in....The Trump administration is more trusted than the news media among voters, according to a new Emerson College poll.
The administration is considered truthful by 49 percent of registered voters and untruthful by 48 percent.
But the news media is less trusted than the administration, with 53 percent calling it untruthful and just 39 percent finding it honest.
The numbers split along party lines, with nearly 9 in 10 Republicans saying the Trump administration is truthful, compared with more than 3 in 4 Democrats who say the opposite.
The Emerson poll found that 69 percent of Democrats think the news media is truthful while 91 percent of Republicans consider the Fourth Estate untruthful.To summarize, the one thing Americans can still agree on is that the media can't be trusted. Hardly any Republicans trust the media, but even the vast majority of Democrats don't trust the media.
So constantly calling Trump a liar doesn't work when even your own people don't believe you can be trusted.
-------------- 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, Majority Of Americans, Think, Trump Is Truthful, Media UntruthfulTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Sessions Confirmed, Senator Scott Speaks About Tolerance, Lines Drawn, Kudos To DeVos
Jeff Sessions Confirmed and Sworn in As Attorney General
by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: Sessions Confirmed - Senator Jeff Sessions, President Trump's nominee for attorney general, was finally confirmed last night. After weeks of leaving the Justice Department decapitated, the left finally ran out of stalling tactics. The vote was 52-to-47, virtually along party lines. Only one Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin, voted for Sessions. (I suspect that has something to do with the fact that Trump carried West Virginia by 42 points.)
Jeff Sessions believes in the rule of law. His confirmation as attorney general means that the mass amnesties of the past eight years are over. This attorney general understands that a nation without borders is not a nation.
This confirmation also means that Democrat senators in red states will have a lot of explaining to do. Why did they allow themselves to be dictated to and controlled by the radical leftists and race baiters who control their party?
For example, Trump won North Dakota by 35 points. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D) needs to explain to her constituents why she opposed the president's attorney general. Are North Dakotans big amnesty backers? I doubt it.
The same goes for Sen. Jon Tester (D) of Montana, which Trump won by 21 points. And Sen. Joe Donnelly in Indiana, which Trump won by 19 points. And Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, which Trump also won by 19 points. And Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) of Ohio, which Trump won by eight points.
Senate Democrat Leader Chuck Schumer said that when Sessions was confirmed, "it turned my stomach." Well, Sen. Schumer, millions of Americans are sick to our stomach because you and so many other so-called "progressives" are so eager to smear someone with false charges of racism.
Jeff Sessions' record in the Senate has been one of decency and humility. His leadership and commitment to conservative principles will be deeply missed in the Senate, but I cannot think of a better man to lead the Department of Justice.
Speaking of Decency. . . I want to share you with what one of three black senators, the only one who is a Republican, had to say yesterday. Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina is a courageous Christian man. I am proud to call him a friend.
Sen. Scott supported Jeff Sessions' nomination to be attorney general and the tolerant crowd, which says we are bigots, viciously attacked this black senator. Sen. Scott went to the Senate floor yesterday and read some of the messages he has received from so-called "progressives."
We have seen Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) make news for opposing Jeff Sessions. We have seen Sen. Elizabth Warren make news for opposing Sen. Sessions. But if you were watching ABC,CBS,CNN,NBC or MSNBC you did not see anything about Sen. Scott's powerful statement last night.
Please share this video with your friends and family members:
Lines Drawn - Battle lines are being drawn on illegal immigration. Texas Governor Greg Abbott is going after sanctuary cities and he is also going a step further. Legislation is advancing in Texas, which, according to the governor's spokesman, "imposes criminal penalties on [local officials] who put themselves above the law to the detriment of Texans."
State Sen. Charles Perry, who sponsored the measure to crack down on lawless local officials said, "If we elect people [who] don't have the integrity to do what they say they're going to do -- apply the law -- the system collapses on itself."
Meanwhile, in Phoenix, Arizona, protests erupted last night when immigration officials took an illegal immigrant with a felony conviction into custody. Protestors surrounded federal vehicles and attempted to prevent them from transporting detainees. Seven people were arrested.
Here's the bottom line: Either this lawlessness will be dealt with by the Trump Administration or a new principle will be established allowing states and localities to nullify federal law, to pick and choose which laws they want to enforce.
Some are suggesting that if the left can get away with this kind of selective law enforcement, why shouldn't red state governors and local officials declare their states and cities "abortion free zones," where the right to life is protected, and "prayer sanctuary cities," where prayers can be freely heard on public property?
Speaking Of Lawlessness. . . The organizers of the Berkeley riots are patting themselves on the back for the great job they did in smashing windows and denying someone their civil rights. No, I'm not making this up.
"We are happy with the results," said Ronald Cruz, who is part of left-wing hate group "By Any Means Necessary" or BAMN.
Yvette Felarca, also a BAMN leader, told a local media outlet that the Berkeley riot was a "stunning achievement." When pressed as to why the protest could not be a peaceful one that still allowed Milo Yiannopoulous to speak on the campus, Felarca answered: "This isn't a matter of violent versus peaceful protests. I was there. . . It was a mass protest, it was a militant protest, and everyone was there to shut him down. And so -- whatever it was going to take to do that -- we were all there with a united cause, and we were stunningly successful."Asked whether the violence was counterproductive, Ms. Felarca flatly rejected that idea, saying, "I think the left has been far too timid for far too long. . . We need . . . more militant protests that are mass and militant."
By the way, Ms. Felarca is a middle school teacher who seems to enjoy picking fights.
Kudos To Secretary DeVos - Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has been on the job just 48 hours, but already she has scored a major win for homeschooling. Unhinged liberals across the country are now embracing the movement to get their kids out of the public schools DeVos now leads.
What sweet irony!
Liberal senators and activists attacked DeVos because of her advocacy of school choice. Now that they failed to defeat her nomination, some liberals are pulling their kids out of the public schools and are embracing . . . school choice options!
---------------- 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, Sessions Confirmed, Senator Scott Speaks About Tolerance, Lines Drawn, Kudos To DeVosTo 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.