Breaking News: President Trump Pardons Former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Anna Giaritelli, Washington Examiner, writes: President Trump pardoned former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Friday after a judge ruled that he was in criminal contempt of court.

"Today, President Donald J. Trump granted a Presidential pardon to Joe Arpaio, former Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona," the White House announced Friday evening. "Arpaio's life and career, which began at the age of 18 when he enlisted in the military after the outbreak of the Korean War, exemplify selfless public service. After serving in the Army, Arpaio became a police officer in Washington, D.C. and Las Vegas, NV and later served as a Special Agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), formerly the Bureau of Narcotics. After 25 years of admirable service, Arpaio went on to lead the DEA's branch in Arizona."

"In 1992, the problems facing his community pulled Arpaio out of retirement to return to law enforcement. He ran and won a campaign to become Sheriff of Maricopa County," the White House added. "Throughout his time as Sheriff, Arpaio continued his life's work of protecting the public from the scourges of crime and illegal immigration. Sheriff Joe Arpaio is now eighty-five years old, and after more than fifty years of admirable service to our Nation, he is worthy candidate for a Presidential pardon."

Last month, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton found Arpaio in criminal contempt of court for not following a different judge's orders to stop traffic patrols that targeted illegal immigrants. Arpaio was found in civil contempt of court in May.

Arpaio insisted Wednesday that the judge was biased against him and said he will air his grievances at a future date.

"I don't want to get too much into legal – during a civil case. The judge and I won't go into all of his bias, believe me, but it will come out again. No one will print it, but he pushed us over to another judge for contempt of court," Arpaio said.

"And they charged me with the wrong charge. No jury. I can go on and on. Once again, the truth will come out," added Arpaio.

The career law enforcement official complained that while he has only received two parking tickets in his life, he has been accused and convicted of these unrelated crimes.

Arpaio's defense argued during the second trial that he was unaware of the limitations the first judge had ordered, which he was later held in contempt of violating.

---

Tags: President Trump, pardons, Arizona, former sheriff, Joe Arpaio To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Presidential Approval Ratings: What the Elite Media Won’t Tell You

by Newt Gingrich: According to the elite media, President Trump is a negative, dangerous, unpredictable leader who is getting more and more unpopular.

The most recent average of polls has President Trump at 39% approval.

One news analyst wrote that Trump is turning us from a 50-50 country to a 60-40 country, with the new majority consolidating against the President.

In their eagerness to declare the Trump presidency a failure, the elite media is failing to inform us of two things.

First, President Reagan had a similar period during his first term when his approval rating fell to 35% — even lower than President Trump’s. Reagan bounced back, carried 49 states in a landslide reelection, and went on to oversee an economic boom and change world history by pushing the Soviet Union into collapse.

So, history tells us that presidential approval ratings at this point in time are not indicative of a president’s future success.

Second, in addition to failing to contextualize President Trump’s approval ratings in history, the elite media is ignoring the present. Look, for example, at the radically different way it has treated President Trump and President Emmanuel Macron of France.

According to the elite media, Macron is the brilliant young technocrat who saved France from Marine Le Pen and Trump-like populism. Macron won with a stunning 66% of the vote. He formed a new party which swept the legislative elections, giving him a unique opportunity to reform France.

The news media loved him. They lionized him because he was seen as the anti-Trump. Macron was smooth where Trump was rough. Macron was sophisticated and international where Trump was an American populist (oh how it pains the elite media to have a crude populist as their president when they could have someone elegant who understands fine wine and cheese).

Unfortunately for the elite media, the Macron myth has not aged well. As voters came to know him, they were put off by his icy, imperialist aloofness. As they came to understand his proposed reforms, they decided they opposed them.

Macron was at 64% approval in June. Now, less than two months later, he has fallen to 36%….BELOW TRUMP.

How can the elite media explain this collapse?

How can the elite media rationalize that their young, moderate, sophisticated technocrat is now below President Trump?

They can’t.

So, they don’t.

However, Macron is not alone. The elite media has also failed to inform viewers that the approval ratings of other world leaders have been recorded at similarly low levels in recent months.

For example, British Prime Minister Theresa May earned a 34% satisfaction rate, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe had a July approval rating of 34.2%, and the Democratic Party in the United States received 38% approval in June.

All of these approval ratings are lower than President Trump’s – but you don’t see the elite media fighting to break that news story.

So, the next time you watch biased and uninformed TV pundits opine on President Trump’s approval ratings, remember two things: President Reagan’s 49 state reelection victory in 1984 and the current ratings of other world leaders.

Then relax and enjoy the nonsense knowing it is just that: nonsense.
----------------------
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, Presidential Approval Ratings, Elite Media, Won’t Tell You To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Deception Used To Pass Common Core In Arkansas

by Linda Collins-Smith: How was Common Core imposed on Arkansas schools? It started with deception in the Arkansas legislature.

In 2011, the Arkansas legislature authorized the State Board of Education to impose Common Core, but the public and many legislators were not aware the legislation did that. Even years later, some legislators were surprised to learn they voted to authorize the State Board of Education to impose Common Core.

Three steps were taken to make sure the legislation passed without notice.

• Step #1- Hide the issue in a bill presenting itself as being a harmless house cleaning bill for the Department of Education.
• Step #2 - Rush the bill through the legislature.
• Step #3- Don’t mention Common Core.

Step #1 hide the issue.

Just a few lines concerning Common Core were tucked away in a long and seemingly boring bill requested by the Department of Education.

Let’s take a look at the title of SB383 of 2011. It says:

An act to amend various provisions of Arkansas Code Title 6 concerning public education; to make technical corrections to Title 6; and for other purposes.

The title tells you NOTHING…. other than it has something to do with “public education.”

If you read the rest of the front page and the next several pages of the bill, you still won’t read anything about Common Core.The words “Common Core” appear only once on line 24 of page 6. It is a 35-page bill. In just a few short lines of a seemingly boring bill, the legislature gave the State Board of Education the power to mandate Common Core in your public schools

Much like the Trojan Horse, a very close inspection was necessary to find the danger lurking inside.

Since the bill came from the Department of Education, we wonder if the sponsors of the bill were made aware of the Common Core provision. If they were, they didn’t mention it.

Step #2 rush the bill through.

Another element that made this Trojan Horse so effective is the timing for when the bill was presented. The bill was not run until very late in the 2011 legislative session. The legislature was rushing to finish. Committees were meeting more than once a day and the House and Senate were meeting long hours hurrying to finish. This is a time when many bills speed through the process with little to no examination.

Step #3 don’t mention Common Core.

• SB383 was heard by the House Education Committee on March 29, 2011. It was the committee’s third meeting of a long day. The explanation of the bill was given by an employee of the Department of Education. He described the bill saying: “This is the Department’s cleanup bill for this session.” There were no questions and no one spoke against the bill. The committee gave the bill a “Do-Pass” recommendation.
• SB383 was considered by the full House the next day. The bill didn’t come up until almost 7 PM. The explanation was as short and wrong.  The legislator handling the bill gave a very brief explanation. He said the Department of Education was using the bill to bring the laws together in one place where you could read them.  The bill had nothing to do with that, but that was his only explanation.  There were no questions and no one spoke against the bill. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the bill.
• The bill had first passed the Senate. There is no audio or video from the Senate to review, but it is unlikely Common Core was mentioned or that there was a real examination of the bill.

Curbing deception in the legislature

Remember Nany Pelosi’s crazy statement on the Obamacare bill, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it….”  Is Arkansas operated any differently?

Little can be done about legislators failing to read legislation. But something can be done to help alert legislators and the public to issues contained in legislation.

Reasonable legislators should amend their rules to require honest bill titles which summarize each issue presented in the bill.  Instead of a meaningless two-line title, an informative title might be a page or more long.  That is not much to ask the legislature to do, considering the deceptions that occur with meaningless bill titles.

Last legislative session Senator Linda Collins-Smith filed SJR10 to take a first step to stop deceptive titles.  Her proposal only applied to ballot titles for constitutional amendments proposed by the legislature but it was an important first step. Unfortunately, the committee kept her proposal bottled up in the committee

Unless you insist your legislators write some basic legislative rules to require legislation to have meaningful titles, we will continue to be surprised by these Trojan Horses.
--------------
Linda Collins-Smith is a Republican member of the Arkansas State Senate from Pocahontas in Randolp County in northeastern Arkansas. Since 2015, she has represented Senate District 19.  Article was shared by Conduit for Action
--------------
Tags: Linda Collins-Smith, Arkansas, education, deception used, to pass, Common Core To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Thanks to the Teachers Union, Poorest New York Students Will Be Taught By Worst Teachers

by Lindsey M. Burke : Last year, 822 public school employees sat idle in “rubber rooms” in New York City.

Well, perhaps not entirely idle. Some played Scrabble, others slept. On average, a quarter of these taxpayer-funded employees have sat in these rubber rooms—places where teachers who have been dismissed from the system but can’t be fired spend their days—for five years.

The average salary of these teachers — who are not working — is $94,000 per year. Their counterparts in the district who are working every day earn $10,000 less each year.

Yet, as the poorest and most disadvantaged children in New York head back to school in the coming weeks, they’ll find these union-protected employees have been shuffled into their classrooms, likely moved into unfilled teaching slots in the worst-performing schools in the city.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, a vocal opponent of school choice, has not only backed policies that prevent low-income children from leaving these schools. His administration will now transfer teachers who had previously been fired from the district system for disciplinary reasons or poor performance—a rare occurrence, indeed—into classrooms across the city, likely to schools that are already underperforming and have trouble filling teaching slots.

“You’re going to force the worst teachers in the system into the schools that are struggling the most,” one Manhattan principal told The New York Times.

These teachers cost New York City taxpayers $150 million last year alone, the result of a deal struck initially by the Bloomberg administration with the teachers union to provide more autonomy to principals over personnel decisions, without unionized teachers facing the threat of actual firing.

If, come October, schools still have unfilled teacher slots, some 400 teachers currently filling rubber rooms—or what the city refers to as “Absent Teacher Reserves”—will be transferred in, with no input from school principals.

Instead of moving these teachers out of the system entirely—as would happen in the private sector, private schools, and many charter schools—these teachers are retained due to policies pushed by union special interest groups, and will now make their way back into the classroom.

It is a crystal-clear instance of union policy protecting adults in the government school system instead of working to ensure children have access to a quality education—and in this case, quality teachers.

While union heads argue that the new policy of moving these idle teachers back into hard-to-staff schools will provide “stability” for students, principals, understandably, see things differently.

According to The New York Times:“I have had over the past five years a lot of [absent teacher reserves] come in,” said the principal, who spoke anonymously for fear of repercussions for the school. “And I have to say, less than 10 percent of them—way less, maybe 5 percent of them—would I hire.”This in a city where just 28 percent of fourth-graders are proficient in reading, a figure which falls to fewer than 2 in 10 black and Hispanic students.

It is a further injustice to the children already trapped in the worst-performing schools in New York City to double down on the lackluster education they currently receive by transferring these individuals—previously relieved for poor teaching performance, among other things—into their classrooms.

Stanford scholar Eric Hanushek has identified how important teachers are to children’s future success, particularly for poor children. As Hanushek has found, children in classrooms with teachers near the high end of the quality distribution experience an entire additional year of learning.

He also found that having a good teacher—as opposed to an average teacher—for three to four consecutive years would close the mathematics achievement gap between poor and non-poor children.

Access to a quality teacher can also have a dramatic impact on a child’s future earnings potential. According to Hanushek, relative to an average teacher, a teacher in the 75th percentile would increase each child’s average income by $14,300 over the course of her lifetime, or $358,000 in a classroom of 25 children.

Access to quality teachers is one important feature parents look for in a given school.

It’s unbelievable then, that in an American city today, policymakers would assign children to government-run schools based on their parents’ ZIP code, consigning the poorest among them to the worst schools. And then to top it all off, would send some of the worst-performing teachers into their classrooms.

Yet that is exactly what will happen this fall in New York.

If only parents could exercise school choice.
--------------
Lindsey M. Burke (@lindseymburke) researches and writes on federal and state education issues as the Will Skillman fellow in education policy at The Heritage Foundation.

---

Tags: Teachers Union, New York, poorest students, tought by, worst teachers, Lindsey M. Burke, 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!

Left-wing Insanity, The Silent Majority, Brown vs. Kaepernick

Gary Bauer

by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author:  More Left-wing Insanity -  Wednesday afternoon, the ACLU posted a picture of a beautiful little girl in a "free speech" onesie holding an American flag. The picture was captioned, "This is the future that ACLU members want."

I have no doubt that the progressives at the ACLU made a completely unbiased, race-free decision when they posted that picture. But the backlash was immediate. You see, the little girl was white.

The ACLU, whose mission is to fight mobs in defense of free speech, caved to the online mob and wouldn't even defend its own speech.

In response to the criticism, it effectively apologized, noting that the group's Twitter followers had kept it "in check" by reminding the ACLU that "white supremacy is everywhere."

WHAT?! When did toddlers become symbols of white supremacy? This is a sad example of just how hyper-sensitive the left has become.

If anyone ran an ad of a little black girl, Hispanic girl or Asian girl, and bigots attacked it, saying, "That's not the future I'm working for," millions of decent people would be repulsed by such ugly racism. It would make the evening news.

Yet when it happens the other way around, there is nothing but crickets from the so-called "mainstream media" about this shocking example of left-wing racism.

Again, where are the leading progressive figures saying that the ACLU should be ashamed for caving into that kind of bigotry? Where is the public condemnation of the left's racism?

Speaking Of Hate. . .   Pro-family Christian groups are sick and tired of the left labeling them as so-called "hate groups," and they are fighting back. This week, D. James Kennedy Ministries filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for calling the Christian ministry a "hate group."

We have reported in the past how the SPLC has also maliciously labeled other Christian groups such as the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Family Research Council as "hate groups."

Dr. Frank Wright, president of D. James Kennedy Ministries, said, "These false and illegal characterizations have a chilling effect on the free exercise of religion and on religious free speech for all people of faith."

He is absolutely right. No decent person wants to be thought of as a "hater" or be associated with "haters."

But the SPLC and intolerant progressive groups like it are working overtime to define as bigotry the deeply held values of millions of Christians. They want to criminalize traditional conservative ideas. They are guilty of religious bigotry, defamation and slander.

The Silent Majority -  In these raging cultural debates, the angriest and loudest voices often get the most attention. But what is getting lost is the perspective of the "silent majority." For example:

• A recent NPR poll found that 62% of Americans felt that Confederate statues should remain as historical symbols. Only 27% said they should be removed. Blacks in the poll were split 44% to 40%.
• 88% of voters oppose tearing down statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Only 7% support it.
• We told you recently about one left-wing columnist who wants to "blow up" Mount Rushmore. Well, only 6% of voters think that monument should be "changed or closed."
• And when it comes to free speech -- a really controversial issue on college campuses -- 85% of Americans said that preserving the First Amendment right to free speech is more important than ensuring no one is offended. Only 8% said it was more important to silence offensive speech. Sorry, little snowflakes.

Another issue that made headlines recently was President Trump's decision to reverse Barack Obama's policy allowing transgendered individuals to serve in the military. This week, the White House issued guidance to the Pentagon on how President Trump's new policy was to be enforced.

Now here's what big media won't tell you: A study commissioned by the Obama Administration found that deployability was a major problem. But Obama's Pentagon progressives put political correctness ahead of military readiness and ignored these concerns. President Trump did not.

According to the Washington Free Beacon, "On average, transgender troops seeking basic sex-change operations would be nondeployable for 238 days, or 34 weeks out of a year. The figure amounts to 65 percent of one year."

Brown v. Kaepernick -  Football legend Jim Brown played in the NFL from 1957 to 1965. Brown had tremendous talent, and was once described as "the greatest pure runner in the history of the NFL."

He played during an era when legal segregation still existed -- before the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Needless to say, Jim Brown has seen tremendous changes in America in his lifetime, changes for the better.

So I was encouraged to hear his recent remarks on the Colin Kaepernick controversy. Here is what this American sports legend had to say:
"I'm going to give you the real deal: I'm an American. I don't desecrate my flag and my national anthem. I'm not gonna do anything against the flag and national anthem. . . This is my country, and I'll work out the problems, but I'll do it in an intelligent manner. . . Colin has to make up his mind whether he's truly an activist or he's a football player. Football is commercial. You have owners. You have fans. And you want to honor that if you're making that kind of money. . ."Prayers For Texas -  As Hurricane Harvey barrels down on the Texas coast, Carol and I are praying for our many friends in the Lone Star State. We pray that lives would be spared, that the damage would be minimal and that communities would quickly come together to help those in need after the storm passes.
-------------------
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, Left-wing Insanity, The Silent Majority, Brown vs. Kaepernick To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

What’s Wrong With You? Don’t You Care?

by Tom Balek, Contributing Author: I’m glad that many people are generous and caring. I know that there are some among us who have problems and need help. I’m happy to help someone in need, like most Americans are.

In fact, statistics show that Americans are more kind and caring to strangers than pretty much any group of people in the world. When a disaster occurs in any corner of the globe, it is expected that the USA will be there to help pick up the pieces with military, financial, and humanitarian assistance. And at home we not only support charities, we also provide a safety net of food, housing, medical care and other benefits through our tax dollars.

Generosity was expected of the mostly Christian men and women who founded and developed our nation. Our pioneers valued hard work and honesty too. Anyone who took unfair advantage of this generosity was shunned by society. But as our government and our daily lives became more secular over the years, generosity has come to be viewed as a weakness by the unscrupulous, and the number of reprobates and schemes exploded as government officials learned they can build lucrative careers by giving away other peoples’ money.

We moan about our crushing national debt while politicians claim they can’t cut spending because it is mostly untouchable mandatory “entitlements”. How naïve or apathetic does one have to be to not see the enormous waste, fraud and abuse in these entitlement programs?

I remember my shock the first time a drug addict offered to sell me food stamps on the street at 50 cents on the dollar. It had never occurred to me that food stamps could be sold. Yesterday I was in line at the grocery store behind a veiled Muslim woman and her husband, both dressed to the nines, and venting their displeasure to each other (in Arabic) about the cashier who struggled to separate valid food stamp items from the others. The wife used her EBT card for the legitimate groceries, and the husband paid for the non-qualifying products with his American Express card. I didn’t follow them to the parking lot, but I would bet they loaded their groceries into a new luxury car.

One of many problems with ObamaCare is the costly expansion of the Medicaid program to include middle income Americans who can no longer buy health insurance through normal channels. Concurrent with the failure of ObamaCare is an epidemic of opioid addiction, overdoses, deaths, and the related social costs including unemployment and destroyed families. Some politicians claim that even more Medicaid spending is required to address the burgeoning opioid problem. In reality, expanded Medicaid has largely caused the opioid epidemic as millions of people now walk around with unlimited health care credit cards in their pockets and it is only too easy to report aches and pains and ask for opiates which can be easily sold for cash.

Signs appear on the street offering to buy diabetes supplies for cash, next to signs in Spanish advertising tax filing help and promising large refund checks for merely listing dependents. Education grant checks go to people who never appear on campus. Couples live together and raise families but never marry because they would risk losing earned income credit and other entitlements. I could list schemes and scams for the rest of the day and not even scratch the surface.

The Tin Man wanted a heart. The scarecrow wanted a brain. The cowardly lion wanted some courage. There’s no reason why we can’t have all three. We should all care about others, but we have to be smart enough to avoid abuse, and strong enough to say no once in a while.
------------------
Tom Balek is a fellow conservative activist, blogger, musician and contributes to the ARRA News Service. Tom resides in South Carolina and seeks to educate those too busy with their work and families to notice how close to the precipice our economy has come. He blogs at Rockin' On the Right Side

---

Tags: Tom Balek, Rockin' On The Right Side, What’s Wrong With You, Don’t You Care To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

The RAISE Act Would Improve Productivity and Boost Worker Pay

Eric Ruark

by Eric Ruark: Last month, The New York Times brought attention to a paper published by the Roosevelt Institute, authored by economist J.W. Mason. One of Mason’s contentions is that the slower-than-expected (by “experts”) increase in worker productivity despite the “strong” economy over the last several years is due, in part, to a slack labor market. This slackness depresses the demand for goods and services, tamps down wages, and retards worker productivity.

Mason recognizes that the U.S. economy is in a recovery only in the sense that it is still not in a death spiral, but to pretend, as many economists do, that things are not only fine but peachy keen (not Mason's terms) is to totally misrepresent the performance of the U.S. economy since the Great Recession.
Since 2007...there has been no tendency to make up the ground that was lost during the recession. On the contrary, the gap between per-capita GDP and the pre-recession trend has steadily increased, reaching 15 percent in the last quarter of 2016 (the most recent available). There is no precedent in the postwar period for a deviation from trend this large or this persistent.One of the sections of the paper discusses labor force participation and its recent, significant decline. This is a problem, on several fronts. Immigration expansionists will claim that this is because of an aging U.S. labor force, which necessitates the importation of massive numbers of immigrants to prop up our economy and our Social Security system. This is a frequent claim, but one that is untrue. The retirement of Baby Boomers in increasing numbers is a factor in the declining labor force participation rate, but the not the most significant factor, and, according to Mason, not a significant one when the higher education levels of younger workers is accounted for, since a younger, more educated workforce should be offsetting older workers exiting the labor force.We find that changes in the composition of the population can explain as much as 40 percent of the fall in the employment-population ratio since 2007, if the effects of rising education are ignored. If demographic variables are defined to include education, the contribution of demographic change to falling employment is essentially nil.Mason’s paper is academic in tone but not overly technical and well worth the read for those interested in economics. It does not deal with immigration, and there is only one mention of immigration, almost a throw-away line consistent with the ethos of what The New York Times labels a “liberal think tank.” In discussing types of spending that may grow the economy by raising the GDP but would have “grave social costs,” Mason mentions “spending on foreign wars, immigration enforcement, environmentally destructive infrastructure projects.”

One could argue (I do) that Mason’s wish to see more Americans in the labor force would be brought about by greater enforcement of our immigration laws, and that there are grave social costs that have resulted from allocating tremendous sums of taxpayer money to DHS without receiving immigration enforcement in return. But, the paper does contain information useful to those of us who make the argument that our current immigration system exacerbates the structural defects in the U.S. Economy.

A strong argument in favor of the RAISE Act is that it would improve economic output, in part by bringing in more productive workers. And the RAISE Act’s point system will favor employers who are willing to pay premium salaries for truly valuable employees; not those employers who are looking to undercut wages.

A good example of how our immigration system undermines productivity is mechanization. Mechanization is displacing workers in the labor market, and this trend will accelerate. However, the relative low-cost of labor in an economy as advanced as the United States’ is delaying mechanization and keeping economic productivity lower than it could be.

Mason says:
Our economic problem is not that machines are replacing labor, thanks perhaps to wages that are too high. Rather, it is that machines are not replacing labor, because wages are too low.And Marco Annunziata, the chief economist of General Electric, told The New York TimesThe investment [such as in technologies like 3D printing] that should be most powerful in driving productivity for companies has been the weakest…It means that all these innovations aren’t scaling. They’re only being implemented on an episodic basis, on a small scale.Down the road, as mechanization becomes less capital-intensive and companies do decide to concentrate on integrating technological innovations, the U.S., if we continue our current course, will reach a tipping point where tens of millions of workers will be displaced over a short period of time, adding to the tens of millions of Americans already out of work.

What Senators Cotton and Perdue understand is that the immigration system does not suit the needs of American workers. They also understand what Paul Ryan, Chuck Schumer, Marco Rubio, et. al., reject: that rising wages are good for U.S. workers and good for our economy, and essential if we wish to reduce income inequality.

The “experts” tell us that rising wages will cause run-away inflation. Here’s Mason on that point:
The idea that the economy has now reached supply constraints and is in danger of overheating should not become conventional wisdom without more critical scrutiny….And one of the most important results of “overheating” is wages rising relative to productivity. But if real wage growth is never allowed to exceed real labor productivity growth, it is impossible for the wage share of national income to ever rise.Mason argues correctly that wages may be rising but they are not at the level they should be, given the losses in the Great Recession. Some employers prefer to keep the balance tilted heavily in their favor through mass immigration. That is not the purpose of the U.S. immigration system.

NumbersUSA believes American workers deserve a RAISE.
----------------
Eric Ruark is the Director of Research for NumbersUSA.

---

Tags: Eric Ruark, The Raise Act, improve productivity, Boost Worker Pay To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

U.N. Issues Warning - Recommends U.S. Constrain Rights of Free Speech & Assembly

Editorial Cartoon by Kevin Siers (2001)
via Daniel J. Mitchell Blog (10/5/2014)

by Joseph Klein: The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, acting under its “Early Warning and Urgent Action Procedures,” intervened in the ongoing controversy over the deadly violence in Charlottesville and the Trump administration’s response. The urgent warning procedure is supposed to short circuit the normal periodic country human rights review process, which takes place about every five years. It is to be invoked only in those situations that could “spiral into terrible events” and require immediate action, according to Anastasia Crickley, chair of the committee, which monitors implementation of the global convention on prohibiting racial discrimination.

The early warning procedure has been used only 20 times since 2003. It was invoked two times regarding Sudan in 2004 and 2005 without any specific condemnation of the Sudanese leaders for their racist incitements and ethnic cleaning. It was used twice to condemn a law in Israel, the UN’s perennial punching bag, which restricted marriage between an Israeli citizen and a person residing in the West Bank or Gaza. The procedure was used once before in 2006 regarding the United States when the committee criticized the U.S. government for not respecting the alleged rights of an Indian tribe. Moral equivalence was the UN committee’s calling card then and it remains so today.

Indeed, the UN committee was so anxious to pillory the Trump administration that it decided to lump the United States together with Burundi, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Kyrgyzstan and Nigeria as the only UN member states, out of a total of 193 states, meriting its “early warning” notice during the last decade.

“We are alarmed by the racist demonstrations, with overtly racist slogans, chants and salutes by white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and the Ku Klux Klan, promoting white supremacy and inciting racial discrimination and hatred,” said Ms. Crickley. “We call on the US Government to investigate thoroughly the phenomenon of racial discrimination targeting, in particular, people of African descent, ethnic or ethno-religious minorities, and migrants,” she added.

The UN committee demanded that the “highest level politicians and officers” of the United States government “unequivocally and unconditionally reject and condemn racist hate speech and racist crimes in Charlottesville and throughout the country.” While not mentioning President Trump by name, he was the committee’s obvious target of criticism for not going far enough in “unequivocally condemning” the events in Charlottesville, as Ms. Crickley herself declared.

The UN committee also recommended that there be some constraints on the rights of free speech and assembly so that they are not abused to promote “racist hate speech” or used to destroy the rights of others to “equality and non-discrimination.” The committee chair, Ms. Crickley, elaborated on this point in remarks quoted by the New York Times.

“We believe it is time that the United States considered these matters and considered seriously that balance, between freedom of expression and hate speech,” Ms. Crickley said. “Whether freedom to publicly and collectively express neo-Nazi views and to chant racist hate speech in effect constitutes freedom of expression — I think that’s a question that needs to be seriously addressed in the U.S.A.”

This “question” has already been “seriously addressed” by the U.S. Supreme Court and resolved. No matter how odious and offensive the views of white supremacists, neo-Nazis or others may be, their expression is protected speech under the First Amendment unless it is calculated to incite imminent violence. Unlike other countries, including in Western Europe, the United States does not balance freedom of speech against other values such as human dignity as equivalents. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo expressed the primacy accorded to freedom of expression in the United States this way: “Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.”

Americans protected by the First Amendment do not need any lecturing from Ms. Crickley, her committee or the United Nations as a whole regarding the appropriate boundaries for free expression in the United States. That is a matter solely for adjudication by U.S. courts exercising their proper judicial authority under the U.S. Constitution.

Ms. Crickley recognizes that her UN committee is not a "court of justice." Hallelujah! However, she claims that the committee has "moral authority" behind its decisions that the United States should respect. To the contrary, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination lacks even a modicum of “moral authority” in how it has applied its “early warning” process. Sudan provides a perfect example.

In its August 2004 early warning notice on Sudan, the UN committee simply took note of the UN Security Council’s prior resolution in July 2004 condemning acts of indiscriminate violence against civilians “by all parties to the crisis.” It ignored the fact that just one party, the racist Arab regime in Sudan, had embarked on a campaign of murdering, ethnically cleansing and enslaving millions of indigenous black Africans. Yet the specific complaint by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination against the regime in its 2004 early warning notice was its failure to provide the committee with information on the situation in Darfur that it had requested. The UN committee’s 2005 early warning notice regarding Sudan simply recommended “the deployment, without further delay, of a sufficiently enlarged African Union force in Darfur with a Security Council mandate to protect the civilian population.”

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination issued no further early warning notices calling out the Sudanese leaders for their continued racist statements and crimes. Ten years following its first early warning notice on Sudan, there were an estimated 429,000 enslaved citizens in Sudan. According to the Global Slavery Index, Sudan has the sixth highest prevalence of slavery in the world, which includes trafficking in persons and the abusive servitude of minority groups and migrant workers. Yet President Trump, not Sudan’s racist dictator, has alarmed the committee so much that it skipped over Sudan and decided to ring its warning bell against the United States instead.

The Trump administration should completely disregard what the United Nations has to say regarding the Charlottesville tragedy. Its human rights apparatus, including the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, is a living example of double standards on steroids.
------------------
Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam. His article was in FrontPage.Mag, a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

---

Tags: Joseph Klein, FrontPage Mag, UN, United Nations, Issues Warning, Recommends U.S. Constrain, Rights, Free Speech & Assembly editorial cartoon, Kevin Siers To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

‘We May Not Win’: Tillerson Afghanistan Gaffe Takes Credible Threat Of Force Off The Table

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson

by Robert Romano: We may not win one, but neither will you.”

That was Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s message to the Taliban in Afghanistan in a press briefing on Aug. 22. The U.S. military might not win a battle, but we’d prevent the Taliban from winning one, too.

Tillerson added, “And so at some point we have to come to the negotiating table and find a way to bring this to an end.”

The statement appeared to contradict President Donald Trump who in his Aug. 21 address to the nation promised, “Our troops will fight to win. We will fight to win. From now on, victory will have a clear definition: attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge.”

To be fair, Trump did hold out the possibility for a settlement in his speech. That is, after defeating the Taliban: “Someday, after an effective military effort, perhaps it will be possible to have a political settlement that includes elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan, but nobody knows if or when that will ever happen.”

In a separate prepared statement on Aug. 21, the Secretary of State had also said, “The Taliban has a path to peace and political legitimacy through a negotiated political settlement to end the war. We stand ready to support peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban without preconditions.”

Tillerson should have stuck with that. The language is much tighter, and did not send unintended message the U.S. believes there is no military way to win the war in Afghanistan thereby necessitating such talks.

Either, Tillerson simply misspoke at the Aug. 22 press briefing and it was a gaffe that should be corrected. Or, Tillerson was directly contradicting the President’s stated policy. Which must also be corrected.

Does Tillerson’s belief that “we have to come to the negotiating table and find a way to bring this to an end” because “we may not win” reflect the inner thinking of Trump’s cabinet?

Because taken literally, the statement appears to have broad strategic implications and if the record is not set straight, could lead the enemy to believe we are fighting to achieve a stalemate, said Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning in a statement.

“It is immoral to expend a single ounce of American blood or another dime of our treasure to play for a tie in Afghanistan. Yet, that is exactly what Secretary of State Rex Tillerson advocated when he said that the U.S. military ‘may not win’ in Afghanistan instead justifying the President’s new policy as a way to bring the Taliban to the table for a settlement,” Manning said.

Manning added, “At best, Tillerson is proposing a war of attrition, where the U.S. forces the Taliban to the table by wearing them down. At worst, he is proposing a war of attrition, where the enemy wears us down and outlasts the Trump administration. Either way, his statement undermined the clear statement of strategy by President Trump to the nation on Monday, which promised victory. ‘We may not win’ is not a vision of victory, it is the equivalent of waving a white flag before the Trump plan ever gets off the ground.”

In short, there is a world of difference between what Trump said, that the Taliban would be defeated and that “perhaps it will be possible to have a political settlement that includes elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan” versus “we may not win” and “at some point we have to come to the negotiating table and find a way to bring this to an end.”

The President’s statement was contingent on achieving victory. Whereas, Tillerson’s statement, by saying “we may not win” because “we have to come to the negotiating table” absolutely takes the credible threat of force off the table.

By keeping all options on the table, and conditioning peace on victory, Trump clearly stated a pathway forward: Pound the enemy into submission. We must demonstrate clearly that we capable of defeating the enemy, else we may be sending mixed signals when we cannot afford to. That puts lives at risk, and makes the determination of the U.S. to win uncertain, because the President’s cabinet is visibly divided.

This risks the enemy becoming convinced a steady stream of casualties could bleed our desire to win, when we must be unequivocal in our resolve.

If the enemy perceives that we will not act with force to win first, if we send mixed signals about our own reluctance to sacrifice, then why would the Taliban ever come to the table? As Manning noted, “After almost sixteen years in Afghanistan, time is not on the side of the U.S., it is on the side of the enemy which is indigenous to the country. They only need to outlast us.”

Meaning, Tillerson must clarify his remarks and the President needs to firmly restate that peace with the Taliban will only come after victory — that is, if there’s anybody in the Taliban alive left to negotiate.

The American people do not support wars whose stated goals are to fight for a stalemate. Equivocating on our willingness or capability to act by force if we must is a very dangerous message for the State Department to be sending when our soldiers are risking their lives, for it is that type of message which could create a strategic perception in our enemy that we do not believe we will win — making the situation more dangerous by sending mixed signals.

The threat of force must be credible and the administration must present a united from Trump’s strategy to win in Afghanistan. There is no substitute for victory, now, Mr. President.
------------------------
Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of Americans for Limited Government. His article was first shared on the ALG's NetRight Daily blog.

---

Tags: Robert Romano,editorial, Americans For Limited Government, Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, gaffe, Afhanistan To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

What Still Unites Us?

by Patrick Buchanan: Decades ago, a debate over what kind of nation America is roiled the conservative movement.

Neocons claimed America was an “ideological nation” a “creedal nation,” dedicated to the proposition that “all men are created equal.”

Expropriating the biblical mandate, “Go forth and teach all nations!” they divinized democracy and made the conversion of mankind to the democratic faith their mission here on earth.

With his global crusade for democracy, George W. Bush bought into all this. Result: Ashes in our mouths and a series of foreign policy disasters, beginning with Afghanistan and Iraq.

Behind the Trumpian slogan “America First” lay a conviction that, with the Cold War over and the real ideological nation, the USSR, shattered into pieces along ethnic lines, it was time for America to come home.

Contra the neocons, traditionalists argued that, while America was uniquely great, the nation was united by faith, culture, language, history, heroes, holidays, mores, manners, customs and traditions. A common feature of Americans, black and white, was pride in belonging to a people that had achieved so much.

The insight attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville — “America is great because she is good, and if America ceases to be good, she will cease to be great” — was a belief shared by almost all.

What makes our future appear problematic is that what once united us now divides us. While Presidents Wilson and Truman declared us to be a “Christian nation,” Christianity has been purged from our public life and sheds believers every decade. Atheism and agnosticism are growing rapidly, especially among the young.

Traditional morality, grounded in Christianity, is being discarded. Half of all marriages end in divorce. Four-in-10 children are born out of wedlock. Unrestricted abortion and same-sex marriage — once regarded as marks of decadence and decline — are now seen as human rights and the hallmarks of social progress.

Tens of millions of us do not speak English. Where most of our music used to be classic, popular, country and western, and jazz, much of it now contains rutting lyrics that used to be unprintable.

Where we used to have three national networks, we have three 24-hour cable news channels and a thousand websites that reinforce our clashing beliefs on morality, culture, politics and race.

Consider but a few events post-Charlottesville.

“Murderer” was painted on the San Fernando statue of Fr. Junipero Serra, the Franciscan who founded the missions that became San Diego, San Francisco, San Juan Capistrano and Santa Clara.

America’s oldest monument honoring Columbus, in Baltimore, was vandalized. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia called for Robert E. Lee’s statue to be removed from Capitol and replaced by — Pocahontas.

According to legend, this daughter of Chief Powhatan saved Captain John Smith from being beheaded by throwing herself across his neck. The Chief was a “person of interest” in the disappearance of the “Lost Colony” of Roanoke Island, among whose missing was Virginia Dare, the first European baby born in British America.

Why did Kaine not call for John Smith himself, leader of the Jamestown Colony that fought off Indian attacks, to be so honored?

In New Orleans, “Tear It Down” was spray-painted on a statue of Joan of Arc, a gift from France in 1972. Besides being a canonized saint in the Catholic Church and a legendary heroine of France, what did the Maid of Orleans do to deserve this?

Taken together, we are seeing the discoverers, explorers and missionaries of North America demonized as genocidal racists all. The Founding Fathers are either slave owners or sanctioners of slavery.

Our nation-builders either collaborated in or condoned the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans. Almost to the present, ours was a land where segregationists were honored leaders.

Bottom line for the left: Americans should be sickened and ashamed of the history that made us the world’s greatest nation. And we should acknowledge our ancestors’ guilt by tearing down any and all monuments and statues that memorialize them.

This rising segment of America, full of self-righteous rage, is determined to blacken the memory of those who have gone before us.

To another slice of America, much of the celebrated social and moral “progress” of recent decades induces a sense of nausea, summarized in the lament, “This isn’t the country we grew up in.”

Hillary Clinton famously described this segment of America as a “basket of deplorables … racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic … bigots,” and altogether “irredeemable.”

So, what still unites us? What holds us together into the indefinite future? What makes us one nation and one people? What do we offer mankind, as nations seem to recoil from what we are becoming, and are instead eager to build their futures on the basis of ethnonationalism and fundamentalist faith?

If advanced democracy has produced the disintegration of a nation that we see around us, what is the compelling case for it?

A sixth of the way through the 21st century, what is there to make us believe this will be the Second American Century?
--------------------
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, What Still Unites Us? To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Screen Time Addiction

by Kerby Anderson, Contributing Author: Over the last few years, I have been speaking and writing about the challenge that technology poses to parents and really to all of us. And if you watch the news and visit various websites, you will see the growing concern on the part of parents and policy makers.

Perhaps you read about the Denver anesthesiologist Tim Farnum who has been on a crusade against smartphones. He is convinced they have turned his young sons into zombies. He says it made them moody and withdrawn. As a responsible parent, he has limited their time on them and discovered that his sons exhibited scary withdrawal symptoms equivalent to the withdrawals of a crack addict. You may have read that he wants a ballot initiative to make Colorado the first state to ban smartphones to pre-teen kids.

A study by Common Sense Media surveyed more than 1,700 parents of children age 8 to 18, who shared their perceptions of their kids’ engagement with media and technology. The parents did see some slight positives in terms of relationships with friends. And they also thought they saw a slight benefit in education.

On the other hand, they detected many problems. By a margin of three-to-one, they believed technology hurt their kids more than helped their kids with face-to-face communication, ability to focus, and behavior. By more than five-to-one, they all agreed that these devices have a harmful impact on physical activity. And they also by a lower margin believed that heavy screen time hurt emotional health more than it helped.

These and other stories should be a reminder to us that we need to set an example for our children and grandchildren. If we are addicted to technology, then we shouldn’t be surprised that they become addicted to the same technology. Also, we should work to protect them from the negative aspects of smartphones and social media. Young people spend too much time in front of a screen.
--------------
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, Screen Time To 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 Blocks Praying Coach’s Push to Get High School Job Back

by Ken McIntyre: The Supreme Court could be the next stop for a high school football coach after a federal appeals court said a Washington state school district acted properly in firing him for praying in public after games.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that Joe Kennedy “took advantage” of his authority as a teacher and assistant coach at Bremerton High School by praying after games, when he sometimes was joined by players and parents from the opposing teams.

In doing so, the judges decided, Kennedy acted to “press his particular views upon impressionable and captive minds before him,” adding:By kneeling and praying on the 50-yard line immediately after games while in view of students and parents, Kennedy was sending a message about what he values as a coach, what the [school] district considers appropriate behavior, and what students should believe, or how they ought to behave.Washington’s Bremerton School District has no legal obligation to return Kennedy to the job he held from 2008 to 2015, the Associated Press reported of the court’s two opinions totaling more than 60 pages.

“According to the 9th Circuit, it is unconstitutional for a coach to make a sign of the cross or bow his head in prayer when a player gets hurt,” said Mike Berry, deputy general counsel to First Liberty Institute, a public interest law firm that specializes in religious liberty cases and represents Kennedy, a former Marine.

“We are deeply disappointed by the decision and will consider all options available to Coach Kennedy as we continue to review the opinion,” Berry said in a prepared statement.

The Daily Signal has followed the Kennedy case since October 2015 and produced video reports last year.

“I just want the ability to go back out there and help these young men, and also have my constitutional rights that I fought for in the Marine Corps for 20 years,” Kennedy said in an interview The Daily Signal’s Kelsey Harkness after filing suit last August.
Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., 75, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, wrote the unanimous main opinion. Concurring were Judges Dorothy W. Nelson, 88, appointed by President Jimmy Carter, and Morgan B. Christen, 55, appointed by President Barack Obama. Smith also wrote a separate opinion.

“Teachers and coaches don’t get to pressure students to pray,” Richard Katskee, a lawyer with the Washington, D.C.-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told The Seattle Times.

The group had filed an amicus brief supporting the school district’s decision to suspend Kennedy and not renew his contract in 2015.

Both the school district and Kennedy cited the First Amendment in making their cases June 12 to the 9th Circuit. The coach unsuccessfully had asked U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton to force the district to rehire him as the case proceeded.
“Banning all coaches from praying individually in public just because they can be seen is wrong,” First Liberty President and CEO Kelly Shackelford said in a prepared statement following Wednesday’s ruling. “This is not the America contemplated by our Constitution.”

Before appealing to the nation’s highest court, Kennedy’s lawyers could ask for a rehearing or arguments before an expanded number of 9th Circuit judges.

Read the opinions here.
----------------
Ken McIntyre (@KenMac55) is a 30-year veteran of national and local newspapers, serves as chief White House correspondent at The Daily Signal and The Heritage Foundation's Marilyn and Fred Guardabassi Fellow in Media and Public Policy Studies.

---

Tags: Ken McIntyre, The Daily Signal, 9th Circuit Court, bloocks, getting job back, praying coach, Joe Kennedy To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Latest Climate Lie-Ence: The Usual Suspects – Working Up The Usual Fiction

The Climate Change Freaks: 

Consistently Incorrect

by Seton Motley, Contributing Author: Global warming – Oops,…I mean climate change – is The Greatest Scam on Earth. It is a giant lie – perpetrated by some of the world’s biggest frauds.

Being Leftist means never having to say you’re sorry. The climate change liars have been caught lying and falsifying and manipulating data too many times to count. They have been so wrong so often on so many things.

And yet The Establishment continues to take them gravely seriously. It’s a joke. A huge, unfunny, accidental attempt at humor.

One of the climate change Left’s biggest – is the biggest oil company on the planet, ExxonMobil. Exxon is currently suffering a years-long, multi-pronged Leftist attack. The climate freaks keep coming up empty – but they simply retrench and return to lie another day.

The Leftists are working an inside-out-outside-in approach. They have Leftist elected officials bringing governments to bear – while coordinating with outside Leftist groups, and the Leftist foundation funders. How do we know this?

NY’s Government Assault on Exxon: Coordinated in Advance with Leftist Groups: “(O)n Exxon, (New York Democrat Attorney General Eric) Schneiderman ain’t the lead attack dog – the Rockefeller Foundation is: ‘The Rockefeller Family Foundation (which has an endowment of about $130 million) has long targeted the oil industry and honed in on ExxonMobil last January….’

“The (Rockefeller January meeting’s) agenda was to ‘establish in the public’s mind that Exxon is a corrupt institution that has pushed humanity (and all creation) toward climate chaos and grave harm’ and to ‘delegitimize’ Exxon as a political actor….Participants at the meeting included activist groups like Greenpeace and Public Citizen, and trial lawyers who have won judgments against the industry before….

“The ultimate goal would include ‘getting discovery’ from ExxonMobil through legal action brought by public officials, thus ‘creating scandal’ around the country.”

The latest salvo against Exxon – was happily water-carried by the utterly ridiculous New York Times.

What Exxon Mobil Didn’t Say About Climate Change

In which co-screed-ers Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes try the Left’s (at least) fifth new attempt to say that Exxon knew about actual cataclysmic climate change (there isn’t any), that they failed to disclose what they knew (which is hard to do with nothing) – and that all of the above represents a criminal act of some sort or other.

This is a stretch so far – as to leave Gumby, Plastic Man and Reed Richards all gaping in awe.

Our co-auteurs – quickly give away their game: “Part of the impetus for these suspicions was reporting by Inside Climate News and The Los Angeles Times in 2015 that concluded Exxon Mobil had long known about the risks of climate change but denied them in public.”

The Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News, you say? Bizarrely, our co-creators – admit to their tightly-closed-circle Leftist scam:“Today, we are publishing the results of our peer-reviewed analysis in the journal Environmental Research Letters. To our knowledge, this is the first academic, empirical analysis of Exxon Mobil’s 40-year history of climate change communications. (Our research was funded by Harvard University Faculty Development Funds and by the Rockefeller Family Fund, which also helped finance the reporting by Inside Climate News and the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, which published its examination of Exxon Mobil with The Los Angeles Times.)”Get that? The Leftist Rockefeller Foundation paid for a bunch of Leftist hackery that they attempted to dress up as “news.”

The Leftist Rockefeller Foundation then takes that bunch of Leftist hack news – for which they paid. And pretend it serves as an impetus for a hack study – for which they paid – of the Leftist paid-for hack news – for which they paid.

In case you think we’re joking – here’s the study:

Assessing ExxonMobil’s Climate Change Communications (1977–2014): “We examine whether these (ExxonMobil) communications sent consistent messages about the state of climate science and its implications—specifically, we compare their positions on climate change as real, human-caused, serious, and solvable. In all four cases, we find that as documents become more publicly accessible, they increasingly communicate doubt.

Almost forty years – and these clowns come up with four cases. On which they have no definitive proof – only “doubt.”

And “doubt” about climate change – is quite understandable. For a whole host of reasons. The lies. The data manipulation. The prolonged, pronounced wrongness.

And there’s this. Back in the 1970s – when these clowns started their peek into Exxon – the avalanche of “news” headlines…was of the looming, impending Ice Age. Here’s seventy-one such stories – just for starters.

That Ice Age – never materialized. Just as the cataclysmic warming of which the likes of these two have more recently shrieked – hasn’t materialized. Yet the shrieking continues unabated.

This Leftist-funded “study” – allegedly predicated by their Leftist-funded fake news – is just the latest in a long line of climate lies foisted upon us by a Socialist-Communist Left that doesn’t like free markets, or companies that excel therein.

Here’s my global climate prediction: This newest, perhaps-lamest attempt at smearing ExxonMobil – will go absolutely nowhere. Just like all the others.
----------------
Seton Motley is the President of Less Government and he contributes to ARRA News Service. Please feel free to follow him him on Twitter   /   Facebook.

---

Tags: Seton Motley, Less Government, climate change, lie, usual suspects, working up. unusual fiction, global warming To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!