News for social, fiscal & national security conservatives who believe in God, family & the USA. Upholding the rights granted by God & guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, traditional family values, "republican" principles / ideals, transparent & limited "smaller" government, free markets, lower taxes, due process of law, liberty & individual freedom. All content approval rests with the ARRA News Service Editor. Opinions are those of the authors. While varied positions are reported, beliefs & principles remain fixed. No revenue is generated for or by this site - no paid ads accepted - no payments for articles.Fair Use doctrine is posted & used. Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru & 2010 AFP National Blogger of the Year] Follow @arra Contact: email@example.com (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home Page
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato
Friday, April 21, 2017
Obama’s Chickens Coming Home To Roost . . .
. . . Ticking time bombs from Syria to North Korea.
by Daniel Greenfield: Democrats inherit the foreign policy crises of a thousand Republican presidential fathers, but the foreign policy crises inherited by incoming Republicans in the White House are always orphans.
Or at least that’s how the media likes to spin it.
If you believe your random mainstream media outlet of choice, North Korea and Syria were crises freshly spawned by this administration with no prior history. But these ticking time bombs are the direct result of the two terrible terms of his predecessor.
The Nobel Peace Prize winner’s years in the White House were the most dysfunctional, schizophrenic and senseless eight years of our national foreign policy. His domestic policy was a disaster, but it was a radioactive toxic waste dump with clear and consistent goals. ObamaCare, the abuses of the Justice Department, the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency were the naturally terrible outcome of left-wing policies being implemented with inevitably terrible results.
But Obama’s foreign policy was a wildly inconsistent mess. The Nobel Peace Prize winner couldn’t quite decide if he was a humanitarian interventionist or a pacifist non-interventionist. He couldn’t make up his mind if he wanted to take the side of the Sunnis or the Shiites in their Islamic unholy war. He didn’t know if he wanted to appease Russia or sanction it, to pivot to Asia or run the other way, to play another round of golf or replace his defense secretary for the fifth time.
Obama could be consistent on domestic policy because there were few hard choices to make. Government had to be constantly expanded and every arm of it enlisted in pursuing left-wing goals. Republican opposition was largely hapless. The “Irish Democracy” of the public response to ObamaCare was more effective at sabotaging it, but by the time anyone understood that it was far too late.
The world stage was a much more dynamic place with players who didn’t fit into Obama’s ideology. The Islamist democracy proponents got Obama to kick off the Arab Spring. When Gaddafi shot the Islamists in the streets, the interventionists got him to sign on to regime change in Libya. But then Syria boiled down to Sunni and Shiite Islamists shooting each other and interventionism hit a roadblock.
Obama stopped at his own Red Line and couldn’t figure out what to do next. His foreign policy had somehow boiled down to helping Shiites kill Sunnis in Iraq and helping Sunnis kill Shiites in Syria.
He was bombing and arming the same Islamists at the same time to improve relations with them.
Even a guy who thought they speak Austrian in Austria and celebrated Cinco de Cuatro had to know that something had gone horribly wrong with his foreign policy. When the Russians stepped in and promised to clean up the WMD mess in Syria, he was happy to take them up on the offer without looking at the fine print.
Like a badly programmed computer, Obama locked up in Syria because Islamists fighting Islamists didn’t fit into his left-wing code. He feared alienating either Iran or the Muslim Brotherhood. Meanwhile appeasement not only failed to defuse the growing conflict with Russia, but poured more fuel on the flames. And bluffing China with a hollow pivot only sent the message that America was impotent.
Obama’s tenure was marked by two inexplicable wars; a surge in Afghanistan that failed to accomplish any of its goals while killing and crippling thousands of Americans, and an illegal regime change operation in Libya that left the country looking like Iraq. Obama and his fans don’t talk about either of these wars. And you can’t blame them. They make ObamaCare look like a shining success story.
But they’re not the biggest Obama disasters that President Trump inherited.
President Bush left Obama a largely stabilized Iraq. All he had to do was keep the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds working together. It wasn’t a cakewalk, but it was far from the mess that it had been or would be again. A decade ago though Democrats had been as obsessed with Iraq as they would be with Russia. Obama, like the leading non-Hillary candidates, ran on being against the war. So he pulled out instead.
Pulling out alone might have been disastrous because it would encourage the Shiite majority to trample on the Sunni minority. But Obama combined a pullout from Iraq with backing for Sunni Islamists nearly everywhere else, including next door in Syria, who helped swell the ranks of ISIS.
The threat of ISIS and other Sunni Islamists helped Iran get a firm grip on Iraq and Syria. The Arab Spring wedged it deeper into Yemen. And Obama was too worried that Iran would walk away from a potential nuclear deal to do anything about it. The nuclear deal sealed the deal for a resurgent Iran.
And that means that Russia is the dominant power in the region.
Obama alienated Egypt by backing the Brotherhood. President Trump has been trying to undo that disaster. Obama backed Turkey’s totalitarian Islamist tyrant even as he quarreled with and then sidled up to Russia. The only remaining strong ally in the region capable of defending itself is Israel.
Meanwhile possible alliances in Asia fell apart as Obama dithered. The Philippines has an anti-American government that Obama further alienated during his disastrous final months in office. South Korea has fallen back into political instability at a time when it can least afford it while Japan stands alone.
Obama’s Asia pivot was exposed as another gimmick when he proved unwilling to defy the People’s Republic in the South China Sea. His diplomatic efforts seemed to prioritize ideological gestures toward Vietnam’s Communist regime over meaningful strategic alliances. Aside from the risk of war over China’s expansionism, this failed policy was cutting off the non-military China route to resolving North Korea.
This is the route that President Trump is now struggling to reopen again by restoring leverage.
Perversely, Obama did more damage with his failed Asia pivot than he would have done by staying out of it. The non-military option, like so much of diplomacy, depends on the perception of what we might do. In Asia, as in Syria, Obama made it painfully clear that he would do nothing. And the average totalitarian regime has difficulty grasping that different American governments really are different.
The Iran deal once again sent the message to North Korea that nuclear weapons can only benefit it. And that, when combined with Obama’s failures in Asia, funnels us into the military option in North Korea.
Back in Syria, Obama’s Red Line stranded us in the middle of an Islamic civil war and credibility crisis. Obama had handed over the keys to the region to Iran and Russia. America is now stuck trying to get them back.
President Trump chose to do it by going back to the point of collapse and enforcing Obama’s Red Line. It was a controversial choice, but it made a clear statement that presidential promises mean something. It also sent a message to Syria, Russia and Iran that just because we don’t want yet another war, doesn’t mean that they have a free hand to do anything they want.
Obama saw foreign policy in the social justice terms of the left. Trump and his people see a geopolitical struggle. His predecessor believed that we had to atone for our historical crimes. Trump understands that at the root of local crises like Syria and North Korea is a larger contest with Russia and China. It’s the worldview that Obama had sneeringly dismissed as rooted in the Cold War in his debate with Romney.
And yet it’s far more useful than Obama’s incoherent foreign policy whose three pillars were Islamism, appeasement and global warming.
President Trump believes that global stability comes from the stability in the relationship between world powers. Syria and North Korea are just the ways that Russia and China test us to see how far they can push. His goal is to achieve stability from the top down by reaching an understanding with the other powers. And to do that he has to undo the credibility crisis that he inherited from Barack Obama.
Obama left behind plenty of domestic and international ticking time bombs, from ObamaCare to Iran, and Trump’s first years in office will be occupied with finding ways to keep the bombs from going off.
-------------- 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, President Obama, Chickens Coming Home To Roost, Ticking time bombs, Syria, North KoreaTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Newt Gingrich: Republicans are struggling with the repeal and replacement of Obamacare.
They should be.
Health is a matter of life and death. People pay very personal attention to it. In the end, regular people skip past the macro policies that shape the nation and ask, “what about me?”
In our immediate network of family and friends, Callista and I know an older woman with a history of breast cancer who has had both hips replaced, a middle-aged woman taking anti-rejection medicine for a recent liver transplant, a young woman (30) diagnosed with breast cancer, a dear friend suffering from a rare disease in which his red blood cells no longer carry oxygen, and the list goes on.
In every case, the individuals and their family and friends will ask: How does this health care bill affect me? Will I be better or worse off? Their natural bias is against change, because they have adjusted to the current system and know how they are getting care today.
I am not arguing against repealing and replacing Obamacare. It is a failing system that will ultimately cripple the country and leave millions without insurance coverage. I am suggesting that its replacement must be carefully thought out. Every House and Senate Republican who deals with this issue, along with the leaders in the Executive Branch, will be asked a lot more questions about this bill than they would about other legislation. They must be able to answer those questions.
Health care is almost one-fifth of the national economy. That means nearly one dollar out of every five in the entire system is affected by health reform. Everyone who gets money from health care, and everyone who pays money for health care, has a direct, immediate personal interest in how their lives will be affected.
Speaker Paul Ryan was exactly right shortly after the House Republicans had to pull the health bill from the floor when he said, “What you’re seeing is we’re going through the inevitable growing pains from being an opposition party to becoming a governing party.” He noted then that 64 percent of House Republicans have never worked with a Republican in the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress.
As Speaker Ryan concluded “It’s a new system for people.”
The same is true for President Trump and his White House team. No one on the team has ever shepherded a major reform through the Congress.
But House Republicans and the president can – and will – learn quickly. We can achieve a dramatically better health system.
We can pass very effective and ultimately very popular bills on health and health care.
Over the next several newsletters, I am going to outline the principles of “becoming a governing party,” recognizing that it is a new system for the GOP team, and the principles of successful health reform.
Principle No. 1: A governing majority system always pays attention to the wishes of the American people, because that is what makes it a majority.
Minority parties develop the attitude that they are never going to be a majority anyway, so they might as well do what they want even if it infuriates the public. I fought with this mentality for 16 years in a House GOP that had been in the minority since 1954.
Ironically, the very nature of President Reagan (who had been a Democrat for most of his life and automatically thought about governing rather than opposing) made the House Republicans work as part of a governing majority from 1981-1988. As a second term member when Reagan came into office, I imbibed the spirit of governing from him. It was reinforced by studying Prime Minister Thatcher, who thought of herself as the leader of the next government – not the leader of the opposition.
My next newsletter will be about the health reform that the vast majority of Americans want. That is the starting point for a governing majority that wants to continue to govern.
---------------------- 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, Governing Majorities, Health Reform, Part One, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Journalist Compares the NRA to Head-Chopping Terror Group
by Bob Owens: A mentally ill or perhaps senile editorialist at the Missourian has made the bizarre assertion that the oldest civil rights organization in the United States is more dangerous than the fanatical Islamic terrorist group that throws gays from the rooftops, burns captured enemies alive, gang-rapes women and children for their own amusement, and chops off the head of anyone who disagrees with their barbaric views.Which organization is more dangerous to Americans — ISIS or the NRA?
As you know, ISIS is the acronym for The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. It is a terrorist organization founded in 1999, headquartered in Syria and feared around the world.
The NRA is the acronym for the National Rifle Association, founded in 1891, headquartered in Fairfax, Virginia, and feared by politicians across America.
What makes ISIS so feared is its willingness to kill in pursuit of its goal of creating a fundamentalist caliphate.
What makes the NRA so feared is its willingness to spend heavily and campaign aggressively in pursuit of its goal of removing all restrictions on the possession and use of firearms just about anywhere by just about anyone.I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised that a radical journalist would stoop to downplaying the savagery of one of the most despicable terrorist organizations today as he simultaneously and dishonestly attacks the five million men and women of the National Rifle Association for having the temerity to exercise their First Amendment rights in order to defend the Second Amendment and the Constitution itself.
Intellectually lazy and morally bankrupt, Kennedy completely misstates the views of the NRA (which was founded in 1871, by the way, not 1891 as he ignorantly claims) in order to beat up a strawman of his own design.
The NRA has never advocated for the removal of “all restrictions on the possession and use of firearms just about anywhere by just about anyone.” The NRA instead works with legislators in all 50 states and on the national level to ensure that law-abiding citizens are able to exercise their rights as the Founding Fathers intended.
And maybe that’s Mr. Kennedy’s actual problem.
------------------ Bob Owens is the Editor of BearingArms.com. A long-time shooting enthusiast, he began blogging as a North Carolina native in New York. His personal blog is bob-owens.com, and he can be found on Twitter at @bob_owens. Tags:Journalist, Compares, NRA, Terror Group, anti-gun, hysteria, liberal, media bias, Bob Owens, BearingArms.comTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Don't Dismiss Dean, Another Known Wolf, Kudos To Australia, CUFI Summit
by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: Don't Dismiss Dr. Dean - Former Vermont Governor Dr. Howard Dean has weighed in on the Ann Coulter/Berkeley controversy. He tweeted, "Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment."
When leftists like Howard Dean say hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment then the first question we should ask is, "What does Howard think is hate speech?" We just went through an entire election cycle in which the left told us every day what hate speech was.
According to the left, hate speech is saying that some illegal immigrants commit crimes. (By the way, the Trump Administration warned nine sanctuary cities today that they had to prove their compliance with federal law or risk losing federal dollars.)
According to the left, hate speech is saying that marriage is between a man and a woman. According to the left, hate speech is saying that terrorist acts are being committed by radical Islamists.
Just like hate crimes, hate speech is a one-way street. Hate speech is any speech that offends the left.
Little Howard Dean wannabes on university campuses say it is hate speech if you cite research proving that most police officers really are good guys. And of course, flying the Confederate flag is hate speech. But burning an American flag is not.
But it is hate speech to say we should limit immigration from nations that have large radical Islamic populations. It is not hate speech to say that the flag of Islam will fly over the White House.
My point is simply this: Increasingly the left, including the left-wing media, define mainstream conservative ideas as hate speech.
So don't dismiss the Howard Deans of the world when they tell you that hate speech isn't protected by the First Amendment. They mean it and they mean to shut you up.
One of the reasons the country is so on edge is that at least half of America understands that the other side wants to make it impossible to defend our values.
Another Known Wolf Strikes - Progressives on both sides of the Atlantic are turning themselves into pretzels arguing that Karim Cheurfi, the Paris shooter, was not directed by ISIS or inspired by ISIS. (Never mind the note found on his body.)
Instead they will try to convince themselves and us that Cheurfi was "a lone wolf" who had just broken up with his girlfriend or who didn't get a promotion at work or who just didn't like French food. Whatever "triggered" him, it had absolutely nothing to do with Islam, which we all know is a religion of peace.
Well, once again we quickly learned that this lone wolf was in fact a known wolf. How known? Cheurfi was pulled in for questioning two months ago for . . . threatening to kill police.
Sadly, it gets worse. He had been sentenced to 20 years in prison for . . . attempting to kill police. But he was out on early release.
Just like our elites, French elites says that criticism of Islam is hate speech. Obviously French authorities should be more concerned about those publicly saying they want to kill police officers.
But for the elites of Europe, just like the politically correct elites here, threatening to murder the men and women of law enforcement has no legal consequences. It is just another occupational hazard those on the thin blue line are expected to deal with.
Clueless Media - Left-wing journalists were having a meltdown yesterday afternoon because President Trump said the Paris shooting "looks like another terrorist attack." He didn't even say "Islamic terrorist attack." But many talking heads were in a frenzy that he would prejudge the situation.
Apparently shooting three police officers blocks from the Eiffel Tower on the eve of the French election, when authorities had just broken up one plot, is not enough evidence for someone to suggest that it "looks like" another terror attack.
Listening to these commentators yesterday, I did my own rush to judgment: "Looks like another clueless media maven to me."
Kudos To Australia - Loyal readers of this daily report know that I have been suggesting for quite some time that we should be asking some pointed questions about values to prospective immigrants and refugees. Well, I am pleased to report that our Australian allies have done it.
New immigrants to Australia will be asked questions like the following:
Does Australia's principle of freedom of religion mean that in some situations it is permissible to force children to marry?
In Australia's multicultural society, under which circumstances is it permissible to cut female genitals?
While it is illegal to use violence in public under what circumstances can you strike your spouse in the privacy of your home?
Under what circumstances is it appropriate to prohibit girls from education?
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull yesterday defended the new values focus, saying, "We don't define ourselves . . . by race or religion or ethnicity. We're defined by a commitment to a common set of political values -- freedom, equality of men and women, mutual respect, the rule of law, democracy."
Turnbull added, "We're proud of them, we're committed to them, we should celebrate them, and we should put them at the core of becoming an Australian citizen."
I trust the Trump Administration officials in charge of the new "extreme vetting" program are taking notes!
CUFI Washington Summit - Join me in our nation's capital on July 17th and 18th for the Christians United for Israel Washington Summit.
This year's Summit features an outstanding lineup of speakers, including:Pastor John Hagee
Col. Allen West
Ambassador John Bolton
Dr. Sebastian Gorka
Knesset Member Avi Dichter
And many others.There will be a Night to Honor Israel celebration, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is scheduled to address the Summit via satellite.
Just In. . . The Associated Press is reporting that President Trump will unveil his tax reform plan next week. The president says his plan will reduce both individual and corporate taxes, and be "bigger I believe than any tax cut ever."
------------------- Gary Bauer is a conservative family values advocate and serves as president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families Tags:Don't Dismiss, Howard Dean, Another Known Wolf, Kudos, Australia, CUFI Summit, Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working FamiliesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Natalia Castro: Whenever President Donald Trump brought up immigration on the campaign trail in 2016, his own voice was often drowned out by supporters shouting, “build the wall, build the wall!” Trump’s favorite social media platform, Twitter, has even been trending #buildthewall since before he was even elected as President.
A simple policy slogan united the American people around Trump last year, but now it is Congress that must unite to make this dream a reality — or the midterms could mean the end of Republican control.
After the election, House Speaker Paul Ryan rallied behind President Trump’s position on constructing a strong border wall, but now he seems to be back tracking, as if he is surprised about opposition.
This is different than seemingly all of Ryan’s past positions, which have led Americans to believe the wall is moving forward.
On December 9, 2016, Ryan was asked on Sean Hannity specifically asked if Trump and House Republicans would disagree on immigration, but Ryan asserted, “We are working on a common platform…we are working on getting border funding up and running right away…that is enforcing current law. What President-elect Trump has asked us to focus on is enforcing current laws…and getting the border secured. So that is what he said he wants us focusing on, and that’s exactly what we’re working on.”
Based on this alone we would assume legislation to promote the wall would come immediately, as Ryan said it is simply building the infrastructure to enforce our current, most basic laws.
A day later, in Washington, D.C., Ryan continued to defend that once Mick Mulvaney was confirmed as Office of Management and Budget Director, the House could receive a supplemental plan from the White House and is “hoping in the first quarter we can get this done.” He continued to note that, “This something we want to get on right away. And so we do believe this is one of the most important promises the president made running for office. It’s a promise he’s going to keep and it’s a promise we’re going to help him keep.”
Republicans seem to be backing down in order to prevent a Senate filibuster from Democrats. At a March 28 event organized by the National Council of La Raza, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer suggested, “Senate Democrats are prepared to fight this all the way.” When asked if Senate Democrats would shut down the government over the wall, Schumer offered, “We hope our Republican colleagues work with us and not put it in.”
The same day, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) suggested at a Republican leadership press conference that “All of the committees, House and Senate leaderships, are working together to try to finalize the rest of the FY17 bill… My guess is that comes together better without the supplemental,” which Blunt said would be dealt with “at a later time.”
Just two days before Ryan changed his position, Democrats made their threats and Republicans have apparently changed their planss.
But Ryan cannot pretend that in September, Democrats will not try the same thing. Backing down now would not bode well for getting the wall built.
First of all, Democrats don’t agree with the wall today and certainly will not in September. If Chuck Schumer wants to bring the government to a partial shutdown to prevent the wall from being added to the budget — that is exactly what he is going to do, this year or next.
Republicans cannot wait to see how Schumer is going to react, they promised the American people the wall and need to deliver quickly.
Historically, maintaining a majority during the midterms is an extremely difficult task. Dating back to 1906, White House incumbent parties lose seat in the House of Representatives 89 percent of the time, with losses averaging about 35 seats.
Only three times in modern history have incumbent parties actually been able to gain seats in the midterms, 1934, 1998 and 2002.
Ryan cannot act like the House has leeway to delay President Trump’s promises, Republicans only need to lose 21 seats over the next two years including upcoming special elections, to lose control of the House altogether.
And these special elections have already been shaky, with many calling the Georgia and Kansas special elections a “wake up call” since Republicans are just barely holding onto the seats they won handedly in the 2016 general.
Immigration is the standout issue that made Trump what he is today, and “build the wall” is the policy position that made it all happen. So far, Trump appears to be sticking to his guns, with Politico reporting on April 19 that funding for the wall is among the priorities the administration is asking for in the April 28 continuing resolution.
The GOP Congress needs to prove that they hear the American people, and follow through with the winning agenda Trump has set out. If they fail the build the wall, Trump may be unable to carry them through midterms.
-------------------- Natalia Castro is a contributing editor at Americans for Limited Government. Tags:Build that Wall, Speaker Ryan, Natalia Castro, Americans for Limited GovernmentTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Census: More Americans 18-to-34 Now Live With Parents Than With Spouse
by Terence Jeffrey: Four decades ago, in the mid-1970s, young American adults--in the 18-to-34 age bracket--were far more likely to be married and living with a spouse than living in their parents’ home.
“There are now more young people living with their parents than in any other arrangement,” says the Census Bureau study.
“What is more,” says the study, “almost 9 in 10 young people who were living in their parents’ home a year ago are still living there today, making it the most stable living arrangement.”
The Number 1 living arrangement today for Americans in the 18-to-34 age bracket, according to the Census Bureau, is to reside without a spouse in their parents’ home.
That is where you can now find 22.9 million 18-to-34 year olds—compared to the 19.9 million who are married and live with their spouse.
In 1975, according to Census Bureau data, 31.9 million Americans in the 18-to-34 age bracket were married and lived with their spouse.
Back then, this was the most common living arrangement for that age bracket.
Also in 1975, 14.7 million in the 18-to-34 age bracket lived in their parents’ home; 6.1 million lived in an “other” arrangement (including with siblings, grandparents, other relatives, or unrelated roommates); 3.1 million lived alone, and 0.7 million cohabitated with an unmarried partner.
In 2016, according to the Census Bureau, only 19.9 million were married and lived with a spouse—while 22.9 million lived in their parents’ home.
Also in 2016, 15.6 million lived in an “other” arrangement. 9.2 million cohabitated with an unmarried partner, and 5.9 million lived alone.
The Census Bureau counted college students living in a dormitory as living in their parents' home. By contrast, it counted someone as living with a spouse even if they and their spouse still lived with a parent. The category of living with a spouse, the study said, included any “young adult who lives with a spouse, regardless of whether anyone else is present in the household (e.g., parents, roommates, other family members).”
In 1975, when calculated as percentages according to the Census numbers, 57 percent of 18-to-34 year olds lived with a spouse, 26 percent lived in their parents’ home, 11 percent lived in an “other” arrangement, 5 percent lived alone, and 1 percent lived with an unmarried partner.
In 2016, 31 percent lived in their parents’ home, 27 percent lived with their spouse, 21 percent lived in an “other” arrangement, 12 percent lived with an unmarried partner, and 8 percent lived alone.
The rise in young adults living at home coincided with a decline in the economic status of young men.
“More young men are falling to the bottom of the income ladder,” says the Census Bureau study. “In 1975, only 25 percent of men, aged 25 to 34, had incomes of less than $30,000 per year. By 2016, that share rose to 41 percent of young men (incomes for both years are in 2015 dollars).”
“There are now more young women than young men with a college degree, whereas in 1975 educational attainment among young men outpaced that of women,” says the study.
In the last decade, says the study, the pace of change in the living arrangements of young Americans has been rapid--but has not been uniform across the states and regions of the country.
“Within the last 10 years, the breadth and speed of change in living arrangements have been tremendous,” it says. “In 2005, the majority of young people lived independently in their own household (either alone, with a spouse, or an unmarried partner), which was the predominant living arrangement in 35 states. By 2015—just a decade later—only six states had a majority of young people living independently.”
With the exceptions of California and Mississippi, the Top Ten states with the highest percentages of 18-to-34 year olds living with their parents were concentrated along the Atlantic coast. (See chart below). They included: New Jersey (46.9%), Connecticut (41.6%), New York (40.6%) Maryland (38.5%), Florida (38.3%), California (38.1%), Rhode Island (37.1%), Pennsylvania (37.1%), Massachusetts (37.0%) and Mississippi (36.8%).
With the exceptions of Washington and Oregon, the ten states with the lowest percentages of 18-to-34 year olds living with their parents were concentrated in the Midwest and Mountain states.
These included North Dakota (14.1%), South Dakota (19.9%), Wyoming (20.9%), Nebraska (22.7%), Iowa (22.8%), Montana (24.1%), Colorado (24.6%), Kansas (26.0%), Washington (26.6%) and Oklahoma (26.7%), which tied with Oregon (26.7%).
“Why are there geographical differences in young adult living arrangements?” the Census study asks. “For one, local labor and housing markets shape the ability of young people to find good jobs and affordable housing, which in turn affects whether and when they form their own households.”
---------------------- Terence P. Jeffrey is editor-in-chief of the conservative CNSNews.com. Previously, he served for more than a decade as editor of Human Events where he is now an editor at large. Tags:Terence Jeffrey, CNS News, U.S. Census, More Americans, 18-to-34, Live With Parents, Than With SpouseTo 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: “You all start with the premise that democracy is some good. I don’t think it’s worth a damn. Churchill is right. The only thing to be said for democracy is that there is nothing else that’s any better. …
“People say, ‘If the Congress were more representative of the people it would be better.’ I say Congress is too damn representative. It’s just as stupid as the people are, just as uneducated, just as dumb, just as selfish.”
This dismissal of democracy, cited by historian H. W. Brands in “The General vs. the President: MacArthur and Truman at the Brink of Nuclear War,” is attributed to that great populist Secretary of State Dean Acheson.
Few would air such views today, as democracy has been divinized.
Indeed, for allegedly hacking the Clinton campaign and attacking “our democracy,” Vladimir Putin has been condemned to the ninth circle of hell. Dick Cheney and John McCain have equated Moscow’s mucking around in our sacred democratic rituals to an “act of war.”
Yet democracy seems everywhere to be losing its luster.
Among its idealized features is the New England town meeting. There, citizens argued, debated, decided questions of common concern.
Town hall meetings today recall a time when folks came out to mock miscreants locked in stocks in the village square. Congressmen returning to their districts in Holy Week were shouted down as a spectator sport. A Trump rally in Berkeley was busted up by a mob. The university there has now canceled an appearance by Ann Coulter.
Charles Murray, whose books challenge conventional wisdom about the equality of civilizations, and Heather Mac Donald, who has documented the case that hostility to cops is rooted in statistical ignorance, have both had their speeches violently disrupted on elite campuses.
In Washington, our two-party system is in gridlock. Comity and collegiality are vanishing. Across Europe, centrist parties shrink as splinter parties arise and “illiberal democracies” take power.
Russia and China, which have embraced autocratic capitalism, have attracted admirers and emulators by the seeming success of their strongman rule.
President Trump, seeing the way the world is going, welcomes to the White House Egypt’s President Abdel-Fattah al-Sissi, whose army dumped over the elected government and jailed thousands.
Following a disputed referendum that granted President Recep Tayyip Erdogan near-dictatorial powers, Trump phoned his congratulations to the Turkish autocrat. It was Erdogan who described democracy as a bus you get off when it reaches your stop.
Why is liberal democracy, once hailed as the future of mankind, in a deepening bear market? First, Acheson was not all wrong.
When George W. Bush declared that the peoples of the Middle East should decide their future in democratic elections, Lebanon chose Hezbollah, the Palestinians chose Hamas, the Egyptians the Muslim Brotherhood. The first two are U.S.-designated terrorist groups, as members of Congress wish to designate the third. Not an auspicious beginning for Arab democracy.
In Sunday’s election in France, a Communist-backed admirer of Hugo Chavez, Jean-Luc Melenchon, and the National Front’s Marine Le Pen could emerge as the finalists on May 7.
Democracy is increasingly seen as a means to an end, not an end in itself. If democracy doesn’t deliver, dispense with it.
Democracy’s reputation also suffers from the corruption and incompetence of some of its celebrated champions.
The South African regime of Jacob Zuma, of Nelson Mandela’s ANC, faces a clamor for his resignation. Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff was impeached in August. South Korean President Park Geun-hye has been removed and jailed for corruption. Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez was elected president four times.
In Federalist No. 2, John Jay called us a “band of brethren” and “one united people” who shared the same ancestors, language, religion, principles, manners, customs.
Seventy years later, the brethren went to war with one another, though they seem to have had more in common in 1861 than we do today.
Forty percent of Americans now trace their ancestral roots to Latin America, Asia and Africa. The Christian component of the nation shrinks, as the numbers of Muslims, Hindu, atheists, agnostics grow. We have two major languages now. Scores of other languages are taught in schools.
Not only do we disagree on God, gays and guns, but on politics and ideology, morality and faith, right and wrong. One-half of America sees the other as “a basket of deplorables. … racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic … bigots.”
How, outside an external attack that unites us, like 9/11, do we find unity among people who dislike each other so much and regard each other’s ideas and ideals as hateful and repellent?
Democracy requires common ground on which all can stand, but that ground is sinking beneath our feet, and democracy may be going down the sinkhole with it.
Where liberals see as an ever-more splendid diversity of colors, creeds, ethnicities, ideologies, beliefs and lifestyles, the Right sees the disintegration of a country, a nation, a people, and its replacement with a Tower of Babel.
Visions in conflict that democracy cannot reconcile.
-------------------- 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, Democracy, Death SpiralTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
TAKE ACTION: Reverse Obama Census Proposal That Promotes Group Identity Politics
Proposals to further balkanize America through
the 2020 Census were left behind by the
Obama administration in its last few days in office.
by Mike Gonzalez: There are only 10 days left to comment on one of the most important early challenges in the young Trump administration: proposals to further balkanize America through the 2020 census.
This poison pill was left behind by the Obama administration in its last few days in office. On Sept. 30, an interagency group proposed to the Office of Management and Budget two changes that would create new ethnic cleavages and work to preserve existing ones.
The Obama people just assumed that the Clinton administration would just rubber-stamp these changes. Then the Nov. 8 election happened.
Now the Trump administration is asking Americans to comment on whether we really want to do this by commenting here. For conservatives who care about promoting a united country with a national purpose, and who want to put a stop to the reinterpretation of America as a nation of adversarial groups, the answer should be no.
One proposal would mean that Americans and U.S. residents of Middle East and North African origin would now be reclassified as a single and unified minority group. Included in the proposed category would be Arab-Americans whose families have been here for generations, including such figures as actress Marlo Thomas; Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.; and activist Ralph Nader.
Arab-Americans are estimated to be majority Christian and have a higher median income than average Americans. They have been classified as white in the U.S. Census and other government documents for over a century.
Also included are Iranian-Americans, many of whom are professionals who emigrated here around the fall of the Shah in 1979 and who have per capita average incomes estimated to be 50 percent higher than the nation.
Added to this incongruous group are also Americans with origins in Morocco and Algeria, Kurds, and at one time even Israelis, though the OMB has desisted from that after protests.Middle East and North African excludes people who originate from Pakistan or Afghanistan.
The second proposal would effectively mean that people of Latin American or Iberian origins would no longer be able to declare whether they are also black, white, or “some other race.” This change would practically make “Hispanic” their only racial identifier.
It would so by collapsing what are now two separate questions—Are you Hispanic or not? What race are you?—into one: What is this person’s race or origin?
As I explained in The Wall Street Journal last month, the proposed new census form would define “white” as “German, Irish, English, Italian, Polish, French, etc.” If you are “Mexican-American, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Salvadoran, Dominican, etc.,” you are directed to check the box for “Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin.”
Proponents say responders can always check more than one box. The reality is that given the way the questions are framed that is unlikely to happen.
As a long study that the government released in February makes clear, the growing number of Americans of Spanish or Portuguese ancestry who are checking the “white” box—more than 29 million out of 56 million in the 2010 Ccnsus—would be nudged away from doing so.
These changes are very important to conservatives as they would harm the country in long-lasting ways. As I said in my own comment earlier this month:(1) adding one more ethnic group would further sub-divide America along ethnic lines and take another step to transform the U.S. into what the Founders never intended, a nation of groups;
(2) creating a Hispanic race would deepen these fractures and threaten to make them permanent, and
(3) dangling purported advantages such as congressional redistricting would further help perpetuate divisions within the country by giving people an incentive to identify themselves as a member of a subnational group and a disincentive to build inter-ethnic coalitions.Group identity politics is the lifeblood of the liberal project. As Michael Lind wrote in Politico a year ago, “If increasing numbers of Hispanics identify as white and their descendants are defined as ‘white’ in government statistics, there may be a white majority in the U.S. throughout the 21st century.” Many groups are also concerned that the number identifying as black Americans will also be reduced.
As Arthur Schlesinger Jr. cautioned us in his book, “The Disuniting of America,” around the time of the last large addition of groups, under the Clinton administration, the ethnic reinterpretation of the country “reverses the historic theory of America as one people—the theory that has thus managed to keep American society whole.” The new underlying philosophy is that “division in ethnic communities establishes the basic structure of American society.”
TAKE ACTION: The comment period ends on April 30.
------------- Mike Gonzalez (@Gundisalvus) is a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, is a widely experienced international correspondent, commentator and editor who has reported from Asia, Europe and Latin America. He served in the George W. Bush Administration first at the Securities and Exchange Commission and then at the State Department. Tags:Reverse, Obama Census Proposal, That Promotes, Group Identity Politics, Mike Gonzalez, Heritage Foundation To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Tags:Editorial Cartoon, AF Branco, Obama presidency, enemies stronger, America, weaker, third term wishesTo 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 lilling O'Reilly, joint effort, leftist mob, mainstream media, Murdoch Brothers, Bill himselfTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Paul Jacob, Contributing Author: Last November, Maine voters passed a ballot measure, Question 5, to begin electing their federal representatives to Congress, and their governor and state legislators, using Ranked Choice Voting. This selection mechanism allows voters to rank their choices, thereby removing the “spoiler effect” that often pushes citizens to support the lesser of two popular evils.*
Last month, Maine’s State Senate submitted advisory questions to the Maine Supreme Court about the new law’s constitutionality.
It is indeed constitutional. “Those who argue that ranked-choice voting conflicts with the Constitution,” explained Marshall Tinkle** in the Bangor News, “seem to be reading things into it that simply are not in the text.”
Last week, the Maine Supreme Court heard oral arguments. Justices Donald Alexander and Joseph Jabar seemed concerned about ranked-choice voting making it easier to vote for the person and not the party.
That’s not unconstitutional. But is it somehow bad?
“We are going to have a lot of people abandoning the political parties if ranked-choice voting remains,” argued Alexander. Or perhaps the parties might better serve voters?
The attorney representing the Committee for Ranked Choice Voting, James Kilbreth, reminded the justices that the voters have spoken, and as to the resistance by legislators in implementing their will, he remarked, “This is the tail-wagging-the-dog kind of problem.”
The courtroom broke out in laughter when Chief Justice Leigh Saufley responded, “Mr. Kilbreth, it’s a fairly large tail.”
I’m a big fan of ranked choice voting***, but the court’s decision is not about the policy. It’s about whether the dog (the people) will wag the tail (the legislators) or vice-versa.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
* Portland, the state’s largest city, has used ranked choice voting since 2011.
** And Tinkle should know, since he “wrote the book” on the subject — the reference book, The Maine Constitution.
*** I serve on the Board of Directors of FairVote, an organization that promotes ranked choice voting and other methods to make every person’s vote count.
------------------ 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, Wag that Tail, DogTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Justice Antonin Scalia Leaves His Mark On The Ozarks
Former Ambassador Ken Blackwell & the late SCOTUS Justice Anonin Scalia
by Dr. Bill Smith: On April 19, 2017, at the Arkansas State University Mountain Home Performing Arts Center, Dr. Robin Myers, Chancellor of ASUMH, will introduce John Scalia, the son of Maureen and the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who will represent the Scalia family.
Dr. Meyers will be announcing the dedication of the U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia Criminal Justice Institute at ASUMH which is located in the North Central Ozarks (God's County).
Myers said the university had planned on hosting a dedication ceremony for Scalia last year when Scalia was scheduled to return to Mountain Home to hunt and fish. However, Scalia died in his sleep at age 79 on the night of February 12, or the morning of February 13, 2016, following an afternoon of quail hunting and dining at Cibolo Creek Ranch in Shafter, Texas.
ASUMH and the community were very impressed by Justice Scalia visit to the Ozarks and his willingness to share with students and the community. Meyers noted, "Students at ASUMH were the beneficiaries of numerous events that Justice Scalia made available to them. While in our area, Justice Scalia lectured for classes and addressed the community in an event titled “A Conversation with U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.”
Hopefully, we can expect more universities to follow suit. Dr. Walter Williams shared on May 17, 2016 that George Mason University School of Law has just been renamed the Antonin Scalia School of Law in honor of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
-------------- Dr. Bill Smith is editor of the ARRA News Service. Tags:Justice, Anonin Scalia, leaves mark, on the OzarksTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Over 200 Million Americans Could Be Dead In One Year After An EMP
by Printus LeBlanc: Recent tensions with North Korea have put the U.S. power grid on the front page. Former Chief of the Central Intelligence Agency, James Woolsey stated, “I think this is the principal, the most important and dangerous, threat to the United States.” He further said, “If you look at the electric grid and what it’s susceptible to, we would be moving into a world with no food delivery, no water purification, no banking, no telecommunications, no medicine. All of these things depend on electricity in one way or another.”
The United States of America is a society completely dependent on electricity. Food production, transportation, and communications all depend on one thing, electricity. The Department of Homeland Security classifies sixteen different critical infrastructure sectors. No sector is more important than the energy sector. No other critical infrastructure sector, from health services to the chemical sector can operate without electricity. It is the critical piece of our critical infrastructure. If the President and Congress decide to spend any money on infrastructure, the U.S. power grid should be alone, at the top of the list.
The U.S. power grid is comprised of three smaller grids. One grid powers the East Coast to the Rocky Mountains while another serves people from the Rockies to the Pacific. The last grid is the state of Texas. Each of these individual grids is comprised of a network of power producing facilities, tens of thousands of miles of transmission lines, and hundreds of substations, bringing power to your home and business.
A key piece of the energy chain is the high-voltage transformer (HVT). HVTs “step-up“ and “step-down” voltage of newly generated electricity for transmission and distribution reasons. The voltage is increased or stepped-up to transmit over long distances and then is decreased or stepped-down to be distributed to homes. Without these HVTs, it would be nearly impossible to supply the US with electricity. These HVTs are peculiarly vulnerable to attacks from man and nature. These transformers weigh between one and four hundred tons and cost up to eight million dollars. The Department of Energy estimated it could take up to 20 months for the larger HVTs to be built. What would the US look like without power for 2 months, let alone 1 year?
There four principle modes of attack that could destroy HVTs. These are an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP), a Coronal Mass Ejection (CME), a cyber-attack, and a physical attack.
A nuclear bomb detonated in the upper atmosphere might not even be noticed by people on the ground. Most Americans would look up and see a sky that resembles the Aurora Borealis. However, they would notice the effects immediately. Their world could come to a complete stop. Cars could lose power and drift to a stop. Planes in the air could lose power and begin a rapid powerless decent towards the earth. Trains could lose power and coast to a stop. Anything with a microchip could be dead. This includes HVTs. A large device detonated 400-500km above Kansas would affect all within the continental U.S.
200 million people could die in a year without water and electricity.
A CME would have the same effect as an EMP, but on a global scale. A CME is an ejection of particles from the sun, also known as a solar flare. These happen quite often. The last major CME event to hit the Earth was in 1859. When it hit, there were reports of sparks shooting off telegraph wires in telegraph stations. A CME event today could shut down electronic devices worldwide.
On April 16, 2013, an attack occurred in Metcalf, California substation. An unknown number of assailants shot hundreds of rounds at the HVTs in the substation. The damage caused the substations to shut down. The energy companies were able to reroute power and avoid a shutdown. To this day, nobody has been charged in the attack. Many within and outside the government have labeled this a dry run.
Another lesser known attack occurred in Utah on September 25, 2016. An assailant fired several shots into the transformer’s radiator system. The shots caused the transformer to overheat and fail. The damage was estimated at $1 million and between 6 and 12 months to repair. Once again, power companies were able to divert power and prevent a cascading failure.
In response to the attack, Brian Harrell, a director in Navigant’s energy practice and former director of the cyberthreat-sharing portal at the North American Electric Reliability Corp, said, “we must assume that at some point in the future a North American utility will suffer from a planned and coordinated attack against electrical infrastructure.”
A coordinated attack on several substations at the same time has the ability to create a rolling blackout that power companies cannot keep up with fast enough, and overload the system. From there, the system crashes.
Small computers control every piece of the electric grid. These are Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems. SCADAs tell a substation how much voltage is coming in and going out. SCADAs tell HVTs when to shut down. By hacking these devices and infecting them with viruses, a hacker can force the SCADA systems to break the machines being monitored. The U.S. and Israel recently launched such an attack against the Iranian nuclear program. The virus was called Stuxnet. It was successful in destroying thousands of centrifuges. The cyber genie has been let out of the bottle, and the entire U.S. power grid is in danger.
It is time to take the security of the electrical grid serious. The principal reason for the existence of government is security. People come together to form groups for security. The U.S. government must not ignore the EMP threat anymore. The President and Congress have stated their desire to pass an infrastructure bill. The most important aspect of the infrastructure bill must be the electric grid.
Segments from Heritage Foundation Movie "33 Minutes"
---------------- Printus LeBlanc is a contributing reporter at Americans for Limited Government. Tags:Americans for Limited Government,Printus LeBlanc, EMP, 200 Million Americans, Could Be Dead, Missle, 33 Minutes to ImpactTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
NumbersUSA: A new report from the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General found that ICE deportation officers are so overloaded that they lose track of aliens that have been released pending their deportation, including some posing national security risks. Under the Obama Administration, deportation officers based in Washington, D.C., handled more than 10,000 released deportable aliens per person on average, while those in Atlanta averaged more than 5,000 released to the streets. Due to caseload and lack of direction, “ICE is almost certainly not deporting all the aliens who could be deported and will likely not be able to keep up with growing numbers of deportable aliens,” the report said.
A 2001 Supreme Court decision limits the length of time that ICE can detain aliens who are subject to a deportation order but cannot be deported. These aliens are released but assigned to officers who are supposed to monitor their whereabouts. Should deportation become feasible – for example, if an intransigent country accepts their repatriation – the officer is responsible for taking the alien into custody pending deportation. Other ICE officers oversee aliens held in detention and those released temporarily for a hearing in immigration court but their effort is much less complicated than monitoring released aliens.
The officers’ caseload increased with the surge of Central American minors and family units over the last several years. In fiscal year 2014, the Border Patrol apprehended nearly 500,000 alien along the southwest border. The increase translated into more aliens that ICE must detain, deport, and supervise, the report said. The Obama Administration decided to move ICE officers to the border to help with the surge, which further overloaded interior deportation offices.
The IG found that the caseloads of deportation officers (DOs) supervising released aliens were much larger than those of officers working with detained aliens. On average, those working with non-detained cases were responsible for between 1,700 and 10,000 aliens per DO, compared to averages ranging from 65 to 110 aliens for those working on detainee cases. Irrespective of the numbers, the workloads should have been reversed under an effective deportation strategy given the complexities facing non-detainee officers.
The IG uncovered other problems. The report said, “(u)nless they verify the status of immigration proceedings, ICE DOs may not know about aliens who fail to report for court appearances and, thus, whose names should be forwarded to the fugitive operations unit. Without checking on criminal history, DOs may be unaware of aliens who have committed crimes and should be detained.”
Citing a “particularly troubling example of overworked staff,” the report said, “a DO at one field office we visited reported that a heavy workload limited oversight of non-detained aliens in that geographic area that ICE had flagged as risks to national security. In addition to oversight of these aliens, the DO supervised about 6,000 juvenile aliens, 150 of whom were detained; the DO said managing the detained juveniles took up most of the workday, including many hours of overtime. Without adequate oversight, this ICE DO may be unaware of missed check-in appointments and missed court dates and may have inaccurate information on the whereabouts of the non-detained aliens deemed to be a risk.”
ICE accepted all IG recommendations for improvement, including adjusting its caseload, providing more guidance to officers, and finding better ways to force intransigent countries to repatriate their citizens. The latter point was an element in the President’s executive order earlier this year and some progress has been made with certain countries since then.
O'Reilly Out, Fascism At Berkeley, Another Trump Justice
by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: O'Reilly Out - Fox News announced yesterday that Bill O'Reilly would not be returning to his hugely popular show, "The O'Reilly Factor." The announcement came in the wake of sexual harassment allegations.
I have no idea if the allegations are true. O'Reilly denies them, calling the charges "completely unfounded claims." But don't miss the bigger picture.
The same radical left that is at war with conservatives on university campuses and with the Trump Administration has been at war with Fox News since it first emerged on the cable scene. Barack Obama repeatedly went afterFox News, the only viable conservative alternative to the left's monopoly on the network news media.
Last year, Roger Ailes was forced out. Now Bill O'Reilly, the most watched cable TV personality in history, is out. We should not ignore the larger ideological struggle taking place.
Let me be clear: I am not an O'Reilly fan. He wrote a book alleging that President Ronald Reagan was mentally impaired, which was not true. That aside, there is no doubt that the left is trying to destroy Fox News.
The O'Reilly controversy started with an investigative report in the New York Times. In short order, left-wing groups like Media Matters and Color of Change started harassing the companies that advertised on "The O'Reilly Factor." Dozens of companies quickly caved to the pressure, costing the network tens of millions of dollars.
Knowing how the left-wing smear machine works, Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity had better look out. The long knives are out for them now.
Left-wing Fascism At Berkeley - For the third time in as many months, the University of California, Berkeley, has banned a leading conservative from speaking on campus. The latest victim of the radical left's fascism is author and commentator Ann Coulter.
In a statement announcing the cancellation of Coulter's April 27th appearance, Berkeley administrators declared, "Given currently active security threats, it is not possible to assure that the event could be held successfully -- or that the safety of Ms. Coulter, the event sponsors, audience, and bystanders could be adequately protected -- at any of the campus venues."
Initially, Berkeley made several absurd demands. For example, the university demanded that Coulter speak only during the day -- when students are in class. She agreed.
Then Berkeley demanded that the event be closed to the public and that only students could attend. Coulter agreed.
Then Berkeley said that the location could not be announced until right before the event was set to begin. In other words, Berkeley did its best to ensure that virtually no one would be able to attend her speech. But Coulter accepted all these conditions.
She asked in return only that the rioters be prosecuted and that students who engaged in violence be expelled. Well, that was too much for Berkeley. Rather than defend free speech and uphold the rule of law, Berkeley cancelled Coulter's appearance.
Berkeley is a sad example of how our institutions of higher learning are becoming "Constitution/Conservative Free Zones," where the First Amendment's freedom of speech does not apply to conservatives.
Coulter, however, is unbowed. "They can't stop me. I'm an American," she said. "I have constitutional rights. . . The speech will go on."
I am glad Coulter isn't backing down. The left's fascist tactics and its totalitarian tendencies must be exposed and resisted. Public institutions that refuse to guarantee First Amendment freedoms and fail to enforce public safety should lose access to public dollars.
Another Trump Justice? At an event in Iowa this week, Senator Charles Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was asked about the possibility of another vacancy opening up on the Supreme Court in the near future. Grassley answered, "I would expect a resignation this summer." He declined to offer any names as to which justice might step down.
However, Grassley is now the second Republican senator to suggest another Supreme Court confirmation battle may be imminent. Senator Ted Cruz made a similar prediction earlier this year.
Cruz warned then that given the way Democrats were acting over Neil Gorsuch, "they will go full Armageddon meltdown" if Trump has the chance to appoint a second justice.
Most of the speculation focuses on Justice Anthony Kennedy, who turns 81 in July. And I hope the rumors are true. Replacing Kennedy, who has been terrible on values issues, with a solid conservative would be a big improvement.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in a significant religious liberty case from Missouri. The issue at stake is whether religious schools can participate in ANY state-funded programs. In this case, safety improvements on school playgrounds.
During yesterday's hearing, a majority of justices seemed sympathetic to the religious schools. The court's decision could have a major impact on education reform.
The vast majority of states have laws similar to Missouri's, which prohibit even "indirect" public funding to churches. Such laws have been used as a justification to deny vouchers or tax credits to faith-based private schools.
This is why your support for CWF is so important. Control of the courts will be a major issue in upcoming Senate contests.
------------------- 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, O'Reilly Out, Fascism At Berkeley, Another Trump JusticeTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Kevin Jackson: Black Shooter Murdering White People Is 'Legacy of Obama'
Kevin Jackson on PJ Media Video: Fox News contributor Kevin Jackson described the Fresno mass shooting as part of President Obama's legacy. He said, "This is a difecta, if you will, in terms of the legacy of Obama. We've got a black man killing white people; he's killing them in the name of Islam." He said the only thing that would have made this incident a trifecta of Obama-ism is if the murderer had targeted law enforcement officials. Cue the extreme left outrage now...
Tags:Kevin Jackson, Fox News, video, Black shooter, murdering white people, legacy of Obama, PJ MediaTo 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.