Dianne Feinstein Wants to Ban Commonly Owned Semi-Autos, Again!

by NRA-ILA: On Wednesday, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced S. 2095, which she is calling the Assault Weapons Ban of 2017. The 125-page firearm prohibition fever dream is perhaps the most far-reaching gun ban ever introduced in Congress.

Subject to an exception for “grandfathered” firearms, the bill would prohibit AR-15s and dozens of other semi-automatic rifles by name (as well as their “variants” or “altered facsimiles”), and any semi-automatic rifle that could accept a detachable magazine and be equipped with a pistol grip, an adjustable or detachable stock, or a barrel shroud. And that’s just a partial list. “Pistol grip” would be defined as “a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip,” meaning the ban could implicate even traditional stocks or grips specifically designed to comply with existing state “assault weapon” laws.

Needless to say, semi-automatic shotguns and handguns would get similar treatment.

Also banned would be any magazine with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds or even any magazine that could be “readily restored, changed, or converted to accept” more than 10 rounds.

While Feinstein’s bill would graciously allow those who lawfully owned the newly-banned guns at the time of the law’s enactment to keep them, it would impose strict storage requirements any time the firearm was not actually in the owner’s hands or within arm’s reach. Violations would be punishable (of course) by imprisonment.

Owners of grandfathered “assault weapons” could also go to prison for allowing someone else to borrow or buy the firearm, unless the transfer was processed through a licensed firearms dealer. The dealer would be required to document the transaction and run a background check on the recipient.

Should lawful owners of the newly-banned firearms and magazines decide that the legal hazards of keeping them were too much, the bill would authorize the use of taxpayer dollars in the form of federal grants to establish programs to provide “compensation” for their surrender to the government.

This bill is nothing more than a rehash of Feinstein’s failed experiment in banning “assault weapons” and magazines over 10 rounds. Except this time, Feinstein would like to go even further in restricting law-abiding Americans’ access to firearms and magazines that are commonly owned for lawful self-defense.

The congressionally-mandated study of the federal “assault weapon ban” of 1994-2004 found that the ban had little, if any, impact on crime, in part because “the banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction” of firearm related crime.

Don’t let Dianne Feinstein infringe on our Second Amendment rights with a policy that’s been proven to do nothing to stop crime. Please contact your U.S. Senators and encourage them to oppose S. 2095. You can contact your U.S. Senators by phone at (202) 224-3121, or click here to Take Action.

---

Tags: NRA-ILA, Dianne Feinstein, Wants to Ban, Commonly Owned Semi-Autos, Again, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Semi-Automatic Bans, Assault Weapons Ban, Handgun Ban, Anti-Gun Bill 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 Veterans Who Have Shaped My Life

by Newt Gingrich: Last Saturday night, Callista and I had the great privilege of attending the Marine Corps Ball in Rome, Italy. The event commemorated the 242nd birthday of the United States Marine Corps, and we were lucky to have arrived in Rome in time to attend.

Former Private First Class Harold Blunk was the guest speaker. In May 1968, during the Vietnam War, he played a major role in the brutal battle for Foxtrot Ridge. This melee was part of the larger battle for Khe Sanh (one of the largest set piece battles with the North Vietnamese Army in the entire war).

Private Blunk’s role was powerfully captured in the citation written for the Silver Star he was awarded for the indisputable valor and bravery he exhibited in the face of combat:

“In spite of the withering enemy fire, he continued to call in fire missions, adjust the fire around the perimeter, and coordinate the adjustments with the forward observer in the company command post.

Throughout the hours of darkness, he and his fellow Marines repelled numerous enemy attacks on their position. Private First Class Blunk’s leadership and courage in the face of overwhelming odds rallied his fellow Marines and was decisive in their holding the ‘Crow’s Nest.’ With ammunition running critically low, he and another Marine left their besieged perimeter on more than one occasion to collect enemy weapons and ammunition to continue their fight against the enemy.”Now, 49 years later, Harold Blunk is a successful businessman and active citizen, who is delighted to visit Marine celebrations and remind younger Marines of the bond of courage and sacrifice which binds them all together.

With Veterans Day approaching, I couldn’t help but think of Harold and other veterans I have known and who have helped shape my life. Here are a few:

My stepfather, Bob Gingrich, served in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. He spent 27 years in the Army and felt he was serving a cause larger than himself. Much of my devotion to and passion for public service grew from the example he set and his attitude and habits.
Callista had four uncles who served in World War II. Three served in Europe and made it home. Uncle Louie served in the Pacific and was killed in the last months of the war. He is buried on Luzon.

One of the most decent men I ever worked with was the late Republican leader Bob Michel. He landed in Normandy and fought his way across France. In the Battle of the Hürtgen Forest in 1944, he was in a foxhole when a German sniper killed the man next to him. He always wondered why he had been spared, and felt God wanted him to devote his life to serving others.

One of the most amazing men I have worked with is former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole. Severely wounded in Italy in the last months of World War II, he spent more than three years in rehabilitation hospitals. Bob then forced himself to get well enough to earn a law degree, run for office, and serve 27 years in Congress. He eventually became Senate Majority Leader and a Republican Presidential nominee. Today, at 94 years old, Bob Dole still goes to work every day.

Our freedom, prosperity, and safety depend on the bravery and loyalty of veterans like these and the monumental sacrifices they make for our country. We are infinitely grateful for their service, as well as for the support and countless sacrifices made by their families, who often spend long periods, periods of intense worrying, without their loved ones.

This Veterans Day is a good time to remind ourselves how much we owe the brave men and women who make great sacrifices to defend America and our freedoms.

To all of our veterans and those who continue to serve our country, thank you for your dedication and service. May God continue to bless and protect you, and these United States of America.
----------------------
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, Veterans, Shaped My Life To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Instead of NFL Anthem Protests, Let's Remember the NFL Players Who Served

Lou Groza, 2nd from left, & Otto Graham, 2nd from right
were among WWII veterans with the Cleveland Browns on
Dec. 12, 1954 when the Browns defeated the Pittsburgh
Steelers in Cleveland to win the NFL divisional championship.
Also pictured is Coach Paul Brown, right, Pete Brewster, far
left, and Chuck Noll, third from left. (AP, File, 1954)

by Norm Beznoska Jr., Contributing Author : This Veterans Day, I hope all Americans will stand up for America and honor our veterans, those brave men and women who served our country honorably since its founding. Especially those ungrateful few National Football League and National Basketball Association players and their cheerleaders in the news media who use their profession to mock our flag, our national anthem, and the men and women who served and died under that flag. They haven't a clue what it took to get them where they are, or to appreciate what they have as an American.

Their "taking a knee" during the anthem is disgraceful to a nation of real heroes: America's veterans and our police officers who protect their right to protest. It only serves to point to their ingratitude and contempt for our country and flag.

Their protests taunt the fans and those who chose to defend them, like 1,000 of their own NFL teammates who served in the armed forces in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.

Among these NFL veterans were eight of our own Cleveland Browns, all now deceased: Dante Lavelli, co-founder of the NFL Players Association, a U.S. Army infantryman, who fought in WWII at Normandy and the Battle of the Bulge; Lou "The Toe" Groza, NFL Hall of Famer, U.S. Army surgical technician in the Pacific in WWII; Frank "Gunner" Gatski, U.S. Army private 1st class, who fought across Europe in WWII; Lt. Weldon Humble, U.S. Marine Corps, who won a Bronze Star fighting in the Pacific in WWII and served during the Korean War, too; Marion Motley, U.S. Navy, who served in WWII; Alex Agase, U.S. Marine Corps, who served in WWII; Otto Graham, Hall of Fame quarterback, who trained as a Navy pilot in WWII and later was a captain in the Coast Guard; and Maj. Don Steinbrunner, U.S. Air Force, who received the Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross and died in Vietnam in 1967.
---------------------------
Norm Beznoska, Jr., aka Navyman Norm, is a Strongsville, OH resident. He contributes to the ARRA News Service via articles and Letters to the Editor. His article was originally shared in and the image shared by the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

---

Tags: Norm Beznoska, Navyman Norm, NFL anthem protests, remember, NFL Players, who served, military  To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Senate Tax Reforms Unveiled . . .

. . . Economic growth may stall if Trump’s demand to cut corporate taxes is ignored.

by Matthew Vadum: Senate Republicans unveiled their tax reform bill yesterday, cutting taxes while keeping the Obamacare penalty for not carrying health insurance intact and rebuffing President Trump’s demand for an immediate reduction in the nation’s sky-high corporate income tax rates.

Tax-writers on Capitol Hill seem keenly aware of legendary columnist Robert Novak’s words: “God put the Republican Party on earth to cut taxes. If they don’t do that, they have no useful function.”

So far this year Republican office-holders have failed to deliver on major campaign promises. Despite controlling the White House and both houses of Congress for almost 10 months, Republicans have been unable to reduce spending or even its rate of growth, but now they must either begin to deliver or start looking for new jobs.

In other words, tax reform is a “must-pass” item on the congressional calendar, especially after Republican setbacks this week in off-year elections. Not too many political handicappers thought Republican Ed Gillespie would receive the brutal thrashing he received at the hands of Democrat Ralph Northam in the Virginia governor’s race, especially after Northam allies ran a widely-condemned TV ad characterizing Gillespie supporters as bigoted yahoos who want to run over minority children with their pickup trucks.

It’s dirty pool but the Left appears reinvigorated. Will the Right follow suit? That is up to Republicans.

The Senate measure previewed yesterday would cut taxes across-the-board while eliminating a host of tax deductions. While much of the Senate plan is similar to the House Republicans’ plan, the House version would raise taxes on high earners.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) argued the merits of the Senate tax reform plan in a Washington Post op-ed.

The “nation’s broken tax code, which has become too big, too complex and too antiquated to satisfy the needs of 21st-century Americans … is a self-inflicted wound on our economy.”

The Senate proposal “vastly simplifies the tax code by clearing away numerous special deductions, credits and the like, while preserving important deductions for things such as mortgage interest, charitable contributions and medical expenses,” Hatch said.

The plan “provides tax relief to the middle class, as promised,” he said. A family of four with income around $73,000 — roughly the median in 2016, “could see their federal income tax bill reduced by nearly $1,500, a decrease of nearly 40 percent, and a corresponding boost in take-home pay.”

The text of the draft legislation had not been released at time of writing, but the Senate Finance Committee, which is scheduled to take up the yet-to-introduced bill Monday, released a summary of its major provisions. Some details have been reported by the media.

The current seven individual income tax brackets are 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, 35, and 39.6 percent.

The Senate measure would change the brackets to 10 percent, 12 percent, 22.5 percent, 25 percent, 32.5 percent, 35 percent, and 38.5 percent. The House bill would collapse the seven brackets into just four – 12, 25, 35, and 39.6 percent, but high earners would be subject to an extra “bubble tax” raising their tax rate to 45.6 percent. The 6 percent surcharge or bubble kicks in after the first million dollars in taxable income but then disappears at about $1.2 million in taxable income, according to a Politico analysis. The Senate bill does not include the bubble tax.

In both the Senate and House plans, the standard deduction for single personal income tax filers will rise from the current $6,350 to $12,000, and for married couples, it will climb from $12,700 to $24,000. The alternative minimum tax (AMT) on both individuals and corporations is eliminated in the House bill, but it is unclear if the Senate measure eliminates the corporate AMT. Both the Senate and House measures preserve the tax-deductibility of charitable donations.

The Senate bill eliminates the state and local tax deduction that allows homeowners to deduct their property taxes, along with state and local income or sales taxes. The House bill initially did the same but lawmakers from high-tax states protested and the measure was changed to allow an itemized deduction for property taxes up to $10,000.

Taking away the deductibility of state and local taxes is a good move, according to Veronique de Rugy of George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, because it eliminates the “federal distortion that enables punitive tax policy in states such as California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey.” Although getting rid of the deduction is unpopular in some circles, the reform would put pressure on states to reduce state-level taxes.

Both the Senate and House bills would reduce the corporate income tax rate to 20 percent from the current 35 percent, though the Senate measure would delay the rate change until 2019, CNBC reports. On the campaign trail, Trump had pushed a 15 percent rate.

Lowering the corporate rate is “the most pro-growth reform in the whole plan,” and would benefit all Americans, de Rugy says.

Currently that rate is the highest of all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. Contrary to left-wing talking points, the rate reduction won’t benefit only big corporations and “will boost the economy and grow wages.”

A significant share of the corporate tax (scholars have argued anywhere between 25 percent and a 100 percent) falls on workers. Outside of some political circles that are immune to facts, it has become uncontroversial to say that a cut to the corporate tax will boost the economy and grow wages.The Senate measure would leave the mortgage interest deduction for homeowners alone, allowing them to continue to deduct interest paid on mortgage debt up to $1 million. The House plan caps the deduction at interest paid on up to $500,000 of mortgage debt for new home purchases.

Although Obamacare is collapsing as insurance premiums skyrocket and insurers pull out of markets, both the Senate and House bills would not eliminate the tax penalty established under Obamacare for failure to have health insurance, as some had hoped.

Some Republican lawmakers are expected to push to include the repeal as part of tax reform.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) tweeted recently that there is no reason to “repeal popular tax deductions when [$300 billion is] available from mandate repeal[.]”

A December 2016 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office found that killing the Obamacare tax penalty would raise $416 billion over a decade.

The Senate version of tax reform would retain the health care expense deduction, first instituted during World War II. Only taxpayers whose medical expenses exceed 10 percent of their adjusted gross income may currently take advantage of it. The House bill would do away with the deduction.

In the Senate bill, the widely hated tax on dying after a lifetime of paying taxes will remain intact, but the estate tax exemption will double. The House bill would raise the estate tax exemption for individuals from the current $5.49 million to $10 million, and then eliminate the tax altogether after six years.

Like the House bill, the Senate plan also drives a stake through the heart of the extraterritorial enforcement of U.S. tax laws, under which dividends from abroad and profits of U.S. businesses are taxed upon arrival in the U.S. after already being taxed where they were earned. The move to a territorial tax system will lead to the repatriation of trillions of dollars from outside the country, backers say. Extraterritoriality in tax law is destructive, eliminating the possibility of countries competing to be tax havens, and used to be considered fundamentally unfair in this nation of ours that was founded on limited government principles. Extraterritoriality is an odious doctrine that smacks of one world government, albeit an American one.

Until now Republicans have been gambling that a hoped-for economic boom that seems to be getting underway will make people forget their promises and allow them to remain in power. They forget at their peril that Republican President George H.W. Bush was defeated by Bill Clinton in 1992 in part because he reneged on his promise not to raise taxes. Republicans have to cut taxes or they’re in big trouble.

It is not hard to find conservatives who think that the tax cuts now being discussed don’t go far enough.

“You don't need a crystal ball to predict that whether the GOP tax reform bill passes or not, these policies will doom many Republican candidates in the 2018 elections and perhaps beyond,” opined Jake Novak of CNBC.com. “Ignoring a conservative base that has for decades demanded lower taxes and spending cuts is disastrous.”

Congressional Republicans need to come together and honor their promises or Americans will be in for a rough ride over the next few years.
---------------
Matthew Vadum, senior vice president at the investigative think tank Capital Research Center, an author at the David Horowitz Freedom Center's FronPage Mag, an award-winning investigative reporter, and author of the book,Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers.

---

Tags: Senate, Tax Reforms, Unveiled, Economic growth, may stall, Trump’s demand, corporate taxes, ignored To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Military Families Oppose War Against School Choice

ARRA News Service: Military families are overwhelmingly in favor of private school choice programs, a new report by EdChoice has found. The survey, titled “Surveying the Military,” included 1,200 active-duty personnel, veterans, and their spouses and showed 72 percent are in favor of education savings accounts (ESAs), 64 percent are in favor of school vouchers, and 63 percent favor tax-credit scholarships. Additionally, the survey results show 51 percent of military respondents believe K–12 education is on the wrong track.

The EdChoice researchers report military parents are more active than other groups of parents and say they need flexibility when it comes to their children’s education: “Military families are proactive in the way they support their children’s education, and direct receipt of funds—perhaps via ESAs—could extend their involvement and further personalize the education of military-connected students whose lives require immense mobility and flexibility.

“Our survey findings indicate policy influencers and policymakers have a real opportunity to address military families’ preferences for personalized student learning and greater access to options in K–12 education,” the researchers added.

The information presented by EdChoice is similar to a recent survey produced by the Military Times. According to that poll, 35 percent of respondents say their dissatisfaction with their children’s education was a significant factor in deciding whether to continue with their military service. Forty percent said they have either declined or would decline a better job opportunity to remain at their current military facility because of well-performing schools. The survey concluded, “The men and women who wear the uniform are at risk of voting with their feet if the education of their children suffers because of their choice to serve the nation.”

The success of school choice programs has been well documented, and many families have taken notice of it. In 2016, EdChoice released important impirical research on private school choice programs. According to the researchers, 31 empirical studies found expanded choice options improved public schools; 25 found choice programs saved taxpayers’ money; and eight found school choice strengthened civic values and practices.

Legislators in states with a large number of active-duty military personnel should be mindful of these surveys. Florida and North Carolina, both of which are in the top 10 of states with the highest active-duty populations, have enacted private school choice programs, but California, Hawaii, Kentucky, and Texas are devoid of any, despite having large military family populations.

In a new Research & Commentary on military families’ views on school choice, Heartland Policy Analyst Timothy Benson concluded, “There is no time like the present to help ease the burdens of these courageous men and women. ESAs, vouchers, tax-credit scholarships – none of these programs should be off the table for legislators in 2018. For our servicemen and veterans, it is the least we can do.”
------------------
ARRA News Service was provided the above EdChoice research summary by The Heartland Institute - one of the world’s leading free-market think tanks.

---

Tags: military families, oppose, war against, school choice To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Why Is Socialism On The Rise Again?

Editorial Cartoon by AF Branco

by Natalia Castro: The United States has maintained a familiar enemy for nearly all modern history; not a country, but an ideology: communism. Communist ideology has left a mark of disaster and devastation on every nation it has touched, but today’s Americans do not realize this and economic turmoil is growing the political ideology’s roots in our own country.

The Cold War birthed the fight of communism versus capitalism, but antiwar movements in the early 1970’s increased American favor for communism, now American acceptance for this form of governance is once again at a high.

In 1973, polls showed one in four Americans believed socialism was favorable for some countries. Tom Smith explains in his 1983 research assessment on American attitudes toward communism, “During the 1960s the public thought American power was more likely to increase than Soviet power. The perceived American edge declined, however, and in 1974 Soviet power was rated as more likely to rise than American. This Soviet advantage was seen as persisting throughout the 1970s, but with the margin declining until in 1980 momentum was finally seen as returning to America.”

As some Americans questioned the success of capitalism, they were enticed by the promises of communism. This shifted dramatically in the opposite direction when American power rose once again, proving the capitalist system was capable of victory. This is a consistent trend.

Following the 2008 and 2009 financial crisis and recession, however, support for communist and socialist policies grew once again. In 2009, 20 percent of American viewed socialist economic policies as favorable, among Americans making $20,000 a year or less, preference to capitalism led socialism by only 8 points, per a Rasmussen Reports, poll. Following economic devastation, once again communist and socialist policy emerged as an answer for some Americans.

Support for communist and socialist agenda has increased steadily since, with a Pew Research poll showing in 2011 31 percent of Americans view socialism favorably. Note, the skew not only leans towards people on the lower end of the income scale but the youth as well. 49 percent of people surveyed between the ages of 18-29 viewed socialism favorably, three percent more than those in the same age group who viewed capitalism favorably.

Today, American favor towards socialism is at a high once again. A YouGov report from October 2017 found, 34 percent of Americans would have preferred to live in a socialist country. With 51 percent of millennials taking preference toward a socialist or communist government in the U.S., rather than our capitalist system.

The Huffington Post of April 2017 presents an answer to why Millennials and low-income Americans view communist and socialist policy as ideal. Contributor Sean Vazquez explains, “Born after the Cold War was winding down, most millennials don’t consider the Soviet Union the arch-enemy their parents did, and favor a more liberal view… True socialism and communism haven’t influenced this generation’s life as much as it did their parents and grandparent’s generations. They have, however, been negatively affected by the mishandling of the economy by the capitalist system… Socialism or communism are viewed by Millennials as an alternative to the disasters capitalism has created.”

Surveys consistently show younger Americans cannot identify prominent socialist and communist leaders of the past, such as Mao-Tse-Tung, Stalin, or Lenin. The aforementioned YouGov report found that 7 of 10 Americans could not even correctly define the term communism.

As Dennis Prager explains in a PragerU webcast, modern Americans are not taught of the dangers communist governments have introduced to the world. While Americans are taught the horrors of the Nazi government in Germany, as modern Americans antagonize Nazi identities (rightly so), the same treatment is not granted to communist views.

This is despite the fact that in the last 100 years, communist governments in Soviet Russia put 20 million Soviet citizens to death under repressive policies, 1.6 million were killed during forced population transfer, and a minimum of 2.7 million died in the Gulags, labor colonies and special settlements. The Wall Street Journal explains in a report, “If we add to this list the deaths caused by communist regimes that the Soviet Union created and supported — including those in Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia — the total number of victims is closer to 100 million. That makes communism the greatest catastrophe in human history.”

Yet, communism is not taught this way, and thus, its roots in socialist economic policy are seen as acceptable. In the 1980’s Ronald Reagan was able to rekindle faith in the country and the capitalist system, dispelling this favor toward communist and socialist agendas. Today, a lack of education regarding communism and socialism has propelled the idea that can solve our economic woes. It cannot; it can only bring destruction as it has since the theory’s existence.
---------------
Natalia Castro is a contributing editor at Americans for Limited Government.

---

Tags: Natalia Castro, Americans for Limited Government, Socialism ,On The Rise Again To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Honoring Our Veterans

by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: Honoring Our Veterans - Saturday is Veterans Day. Communities across the country will honor our military veterans for their service and sacrifice.

The day originally began as Armistice Day to mark the 11 AM ceasefire on November 11, 1918, that ended World War I. Congress voted to change the name to Veterans Day in 1954 to commemorate the veterans of all our wars.

Sadly, we are living in an era of increasing hostility toward America. General John Kelly recently expressed his concern that the notion of sacrifice is becoming passé.

A false narrative has taken root on our college campuses. We are teaching our children not American history but anti-American history. We are teaching that our nation is an evil, oppressive force, founded on slavery and genocide. No wonder growing numbers of young Americans do not describe themselves as patriotic.

Increasingly, the shared values that used to unite us now divide us. Monuments to our founding fathers are under attack. Once widely-held beliefs, like the meaning of marriage, are now flash points in the culture war. Even the Pledge of Allegiance is denounced as "an instrument of white nationalism."

As millionaire football players are taking a knee in protest of the police, the national anthem, country, gender pay inequality and whatever else they can think of, it's important for all of us to make our own statements this Veterans Day.

Disabled Navy veteran John Wells made quite a statement when he refused to be used as a pawn by the New Orleans Saints. The football team allegedly wanted to honor Wells, but he declined, saying:

"The ongoing controversy with NFL players' disrespect for the national flag forces me to decline to participate in the presentation. I am unable, in good conscience, to enter an NFL stadium while this discourtesy prevails. Since this award is tainted with the dishonorable actions of the NFL and its players, I cannot accept it."

Legendary sports announcer and Navy veteran Vin Scully made a strong statement when he said, "I have overwhelming respect and admiration for anyone who puts on a uniform and goes to war. . . I will never watch another NFL game."

Here's a suggestion: Go to a cemetery this Veterans Day and take a knee in prayer for the men and women who have sacrificed so much for our freedom. As General Patton said, "Thank God that such men lived."

Use this opportunity to talk to your children and grandchildren about what happened at Concord Bridge and Gettysburg, on the beaches of Normandy and, more recently, in the deserts of Iraq and in the mountains of Afghanistan.

As Ronald Reagan once said:

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

To the millions who have always been there to stop the tyrant, protect the weak and preserve the peace - we have not forgotten you. A grateful nation thanks God for giving us heroes like you.
-------------------
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, Honoring Our Veterans To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Fear Thy Neighbor . . .

. . . U.S. Rep Rand Paul (R-KY) has become the victim of a rising leftist wave of violence spreading across America.

Editorial Cartoon by AF "Tony" Branco

---

Tags: Editorial Cartoon, AF Branco, fear they neighbor, Rand Paul, attacked, violence, spreading, across America To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

To Anachronism in Heaven

by Paul Jacob, Contributing Author: Symbols sure seem important in politics and government. I love the Statue of Liberty. Others may cherish the Lincoln Memorial and Mount Rushmore more. I’ve even heard people wax poetic on the images we find on our coinage.

But what about “The Star-Spangled Banner”? The lyrics are not general at all, but instead an exultation about a moment of victory in a very bad war that our union almost lost way back in 1814.

The melody leaps all over the place, making it difficult to sing.

But its words are what stick in some peoples’ craws.

No, not the florid, old-fashioned* phrasings. What bothers some people is all the violence . . . and a mention of the word “slave.”

Now, if the song were about slavery, or even mentioned the enslaved ancestors of current Americans, I’d side with the California branch of the NAACP, which wants to junk the old warhorse.

But the offending line does not seem to be what these activists say it is, one of “the most racist, pro-slavery, anti-black songs in the American lexicon.” The words refer, instead, to British sailors and soldiers:

No refuge could save the hireling and slave

From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave. . . .The phrase “hirelings and slaves” means “mercenaries and conscripts.” Wednesday, on Fox, Tucker Carlson grilled a cheerful advocate of the NAACP position, whose main point was “unity.” He doesn’t think the anthem promotes “unity.”

But what would? Doesn’t taking on the anthem constitute just another divisive salvo in the culture wars?

We’ve bigger problems.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
------------------
Paul Jacob 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, Anachronism, Heaven To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

That Bloodbath in the Old Dominion

by Patrick Buchanan: The day after his “Silent Majority” speech on Nov. 3, 1969, calling on Americans to stand with him for peace with honor in Vietnam, Richard Nixon’s GOP captured the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey.

By December, Nixon had reached 68 percent approval in the Gallup Poll, though, a year earlier, he had won but 43 percent of the vote.

Contrast Nixon’s numbers with President Trump’s.

Where Trump won 46 percent of the vote against Hillary Clinton, his approval rating is now nearly 10 points below that. He has less support today than on the day he was elected, or inaugurated.

Tens of millions of Americans are passionately for Trump, and tens of millions are passionately against him. The GOP problem: The latter cohort is equal in intensity but larger in number, and this is especially true in purple and blue states like the commonwealth of Virginia.

There is no way to spin Tuesday as other than a Little Bighorn, and possible harbinger of what is to come.

In George Washington’s hometown of Alexandria and Arlington County, Democratic candidate Ralph Northam won 4-1. In Fairfax and Loudoun counties, the most populous D.C. suburbs, Northam won 2-1.

In the rural counties, however, Republican Ed Gillespie rolled up the landslides.

As there are two Americas, there are two Virginias.

Consider. Of all the delegate seats in the Virginia assembly allocated to Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William counties, the GOP can today claim only one.

Northern Virginia is taking on the political and socioeconomic profile of San Francisco.

Another and perhaps insoluble problem for the GOP, not only in the Old Dominion, is demography.

Democrats rolled up their largest margins among African-Americans, Hispanics, single women, immigrants and the young. And these voting blocs are growing.

Gillespie ran up his largest margins among white males near and past retirement age and married white women. These Middle Americans are in inexorable demographic decline.

The Greatest Generation is passing on, and baby boomers born between 1946 and 1951 are now on Medicare and Social Security.

Yet reports of the GOP’s demise are grossly exaggerated.

Though Gillespie lost by nine points, Jill Vogel, who ran for lieutenant governor on Trumpian issues, lost by six.

By 2-1, Virginians do not want their Confederate monuments torn down. Northam, sensing this, moved toward Gillespie’s position as the campaign went on. Also, among the 27 percent of Virginians who regarded taxes and immigration as the top issues, Gillespie won by nearly 4-1.

It was health care concerns, the No. 1 issue, that buried the GOP.

As for mainstream media rage and revulsion at the “racism” of Gillespie ads suggesting Northam supported sanctuary cities and was soft on the MS-13 gang, this reflects an abiding establishment fear of the Trumpian issues of illegal immigration and crime.

Then there was the Republican messenger.

A former chairman of the RNC, Washington lobbyist and White House aide, Gillespie is an establishment Republican unconvincing in the role of a fighting populist conservative. His speeches recalled not Trump’s run, but that of the Republicans Trump trounced.

Ed Gillespie was Virginia’s version of Jeb Bush.

Message from the Old Dominion: A purple state, trending blue, with its economy recession-proof as long as Uncle Sam across the river consumes 20 percent of GDP, is a steepening climb for the GOP. You must have a superior candidate, comfortable with cutting issues, to win it now.

Republicans are being admonished to drop the monuments-and-memorials issue and respect why NFL players might want to “take a knee” during the national anthem.

But if to win in Northern Virginia the GOP must move closer to the Democratic Party, why would the rest of the state want to vote for the Republican Party?

During the campaign, both candidates moved rightward.

Northam rejected sanctuary cities and accepted Lee and Jackson on Richmond’s Monument Avenue, and Gillespie ran Trumpian ads, even if they seemed to clash with the mild-mannered candidate himself.

The lesson for 2018:
While the solid support of Trumpians is indispensable for GOP victory, it is insufficient for GOP victory. Republican candidates will have to decide how close they wish to get to President Trump, or how far away they can risk going and survive.

Facing this choice, Sens. Jeff Flake and Bob Corker decided to pack it in. Other Republicans may follow. But a house divided will not stand.

Republicans should recall that off-year elections are often problematic for incumbent parties. In 1954, President Eisenhower lost both houses of Congress. After pardoning Nixon in 1974, Gerald Ford lost 49 seats. In 1982, Ronald Reagan sustained a 27-seat loss.

In 1994, Bill Clinton lost 53 seats and control of the House. In 2010, Barack Obama lost 63 seats and control of the House.

If the nation chooses to turn Congress over to Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer in 2018, will that be all Trump’s fault? Or should perhaps some credit go to Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and venerable political tradition?
--------------------
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, Bloodbath,  Old Dominion, Virginia, lessons learned To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Rep. Gaetz: "We Are at Risk of a Coup d'Etat in This Country" Unless Mueller Resigns or is Fired

Robert Mueller

by Michael W. Chapman: House Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) called on Special Counsel Robert Mueller -- who is investigating alleged Russian collusion with the Trump 2016 campaign -- to resign because there is an apparent conflict of interest involving Mueller and an alleged campaign to undermine the president and force him from office.

Rep. Gaetz also called for a special prosecutor to investigate the Uranium One scandal, the Clinton Foundation, and the Fusion GPS firm, which produced the "Russian dossier" alleging Trump-Russia collusion and which was paid by Obama for America's law firm, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.

Special Counsel Mueller's investigation is, in part, based on the Fusion GPS-provided "dossier."

"We are at risk of a coup d'état in this country if we allow an unaccountable person [Mueller] with no oversight to undermine the duly-elected president of the United States," said Gaetz in a Nov. 8 speech on the House floor. "And I would offer that is precisely what is happening right now with the indisputable conflicts of interest that are present with Mr. Mueller and others at the Department of Justice."

"I join my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona [Rep. Trent Franks], in calling for Mr. Mueller's resignation or his firing," said Gaetz. Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) called for Mueller to resign in August 2017 because of his friendship with James Comey, the man who succeeded him as FBI director in 2013 and who was fired by President Trump in May 2017.

Mueller was the FBI director from 2001 to Septmber 2013. Comey is one of the figures in the alleged Russia-Trump collusion investigation.

"Moreover, we absolutely have to see the Department of Justice appoint a special counsel to look into the Clinton Foundation, the Uranium One deal, and the Fusion GPS dossier that I will now have the opportunity to discuss," said Rep. Gaetz.

The congressman then noted that the Justice Department has yet to respond to a letter sent to it by the House Judiciary Committee back in July with questions about the Uranium One scandal.

The Uranium One matter is about the 2010 sale of Vancouver-based Uranium One to Rosatom, the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation. That sale, because it involved uranium and national security issues, had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which, at the time, included Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, among other Obama administration officials.

Former President Bill Clinton was friends with people invested in Uranium One. Prior to the sale, a Russian bank promoting the Uranium One pending puchase, paid Bill Clinton $500,000 to give a speech in Moscow. Also, at least nine investors in Uranium One prior to, during, and after the October 2010 sale donated $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. While all this was occuring, the FBI, headed by Mueller, was investigating a bribery and kickback case involving a subsidiary of Rosatom and the transportation of uranium into the United States.

Despite abundant evidence of bribery and money laundering involving Russian nuclear official Vadim Mikerin, the sale of Uranium One was approved, which gave Rosatom (and Russian President Vladimir Putin) control over 20% of U.S. uranium production.

At the time, Mueller was the FBI director; the lead attorney on the case was Rod Rosenstein, now the deputy attorney general; and FBI agent Andrew McCabe, now the assistant FBI director. McCabe's wife, Jill McCabe, received nearly $500,000 from a then-Gov. Terry McAuliffe political action committee. McAuliffe is close friends with the Clintons. Jill McCabe was running for the Virginia State Senate.

Commenting on these issues and Mueller's connection to them, Rep. Gaetz said, "I do know that there's no world in which Mr. Mueller can potentially investigate these matters. It is federal law that even the appearance of a conflict of interest means that someone cannot engage in prosecutorial duties regarding allegations and investigations. That conflict of interest is absolutely present."

"As early as 2009, the FBI knew that we had informants alleging corruption into United States uranium assets," said Gaetz. "There were allegations of bribery, kickbacks, extortion. Even in 2010, members of Congress were raising these questions and asking the Obama administration to provide answers that were never given."

"I don't think it's a coincidence that at the same time we were hearing from sources that there was bribery to influence our uranium assets, you had former President Bill Clinton getting paid $500,000 by a bunch of Russians to go give a speech," said Gaetz.

"Must have been one hell of a speech!" he said. "But it's deeply troubling to me that these circumstances seems to be ripe for corruption, and seem to demonstrate an ecosystem of corruption that must be thoroughly investigated."

The congressman continued, "Now, why can't Mr. Mueller and Mr. Rosenstein conduct this investigation? First of all, Mr. Mueller was the head of the FBI in 2009. He potentially had a role to play in these questions. At the very least, the fact that the FBI never prosecuted any case, never raised objections, never allowed Congress to be able to look into these matters, that would be an act of omission."

"So, at best, there is an omission that creates a conflict of interest for Mr. Mueller," said Gaetz, who earned his J.D. from the College of William and Mary. "At worst, there might have been actual malfeasance, or active negligence. And in those circumstances we need fresh eyes and clear eyes to give the American people confidence that our justice system is, in fact, working for them. But it's not only the Uranium One deal that gives us a great deal to question."

"The American people are well aware that the Clinton Foundation functioned largely as a money-laundering organization, to influence the State Department and to ensure that there were special people with special access, with special relationships to the Clintons, that got special treatment," said Gaetz. "That is not an America that abides to the rule of law. And as a member of the Judiciary Committee we have to see the rule of law held up and cherished. We're a model for the world."

"But if we have circumstances where our president, who was elected, is undermined as a consequence of these things," he said, "if we do not replace Bob Mueller with someone who can come in absent of association with the individuals who may be implicated, then I fear that this special place that we hold in the world may be diminished."

Gaetz then mentioned that he has introduced a resolution calling for Robert Mueller to resign and for a special counsel to be appointed to investigate Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation.

"And to my colleagues on the other side who say, well, hey, you know, there were a variety of agencies that were involved in approving the Uranium One deal, there were eight or nine groups that could have said no," remarked Rep. Gaetz. "Are members of Congress really taking the position that the Clintons don't have their tentacles in just about every agency of government?"

"How ludicrous!" said Gaetz. "You're talking about the former president of the United States and, at the time, the lady who was serving as our Secretary of State. The fact that this was a multiagency process only underscores the conflicts of interest that lie with Rosenstein and Mueller."
-------------------
Michael Chapman writes for CNSNews.com. He has worked as a writer for The McLaughlin Group; associate editor of Consumers' Research magazine; associate editor of Human Events; editorial page editor of The Lima News; journalism fellow for The Phillips Foundation; editorial writer and national issues reporter for Investor's Business Daily; and editorial director of the Cato Institute. H/T Family Security Matters.

---

Tags: Michael Chapman, Family Security Matters, U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, Risk of a Coup d'Etat, Robert Mueller To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Now It’s The Democrats Who Have A ‘Russian Problem’

Hillary Clinton: "So?"

by Richard Pollock: Suddenly it’s the Democrats who have a serious Russia problem.

Democratic fingerprints are all over a growing number of Russia-related scandals, including payments to Fusion GPS for its Russian-sourced Trump dossier, lobbying on behalf of Russia’s largest bank to lift economic sanctions, former President Barack Obama’s administration’s approval of the sale of Uranium One to Russia, and giving twenty percent of America’s uranium reserves to Moscow.

Republican Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Chuck Grassley of Iowa have called for the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into the mounting scandals tying Democrats to Russia.

Whoever in DOJ is capable w authority to appoint a special counsel shld do so to investigate Uranium One "whoever" means if u aren't recused

— ChuckGrassley (@ChuckGrassley) October 25, 2017

“The bottom line is very simple, says former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova in an interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation. “The Russian connection now is owned by the Democratic Party.”

What are the Democratic ties to Russia?

Fusion GPS
In 2016 the Hillary for America presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) paid an undetermined amount of funds to Fusion GPS, a political opposition research for the salacious Trump-Russia dossier. The firm reportedly paid $168,000 to Christopher Steel, a British MI-6 agent.

If a federal court rules in favor of the House of Representatives that is seeking Fusion GPS bank records, the full amount paid to the firm for the dossier could be revealed.

The funds to Fusion GPS were secretly paid through the Perkins Coie law firm, a Democratic law firm. Both former Obama White House counsel Robert Bauer and Marc Elias head up the “political law” section of the firm.

It was Elias who collected the funds from Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC and made the secret payments to Fusion GPS.

The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center on Oct. 25 filed a formal complaint before the Federal Election Commission charging the Clinton campaign “violated campaign finance law” by failing to accurately disclose the payments for the dossier.

The legal center claimed the campaign and the DNC were paying their law firm for “legal expenses,” when in fact they were covertly paying for the “dirt” contained in the Trump dossier. Hillary for America paid at least $12.4 million to Perkins Coie for legal expenses, according to The New York Times, and the DNC forked over $5.4 million to the law firm.

“The stated purposes of the disbursements to Perkins Coie did not reflect the ‘actual purpose’ of how the disbursement was intended in hiring Fusion GPS,” the complaint charges.

British agent Steele recruited and paid unnamed Russian sources, many reportedly with ties to the Russian intelligence services and to the Kremlin. Steele had to work with these agents, whose motives and credibility are unknown.

The unverified charges were designed to embarrass and humiliate President Donald Trump. Paying for information undercuts the credibility of any opposition research, because people are monetarily incentivized to make claims.

“I would never consider my information as reliable if I paid for it,” said an American businessman with decades of experience in Russia. “And if they did pay for it, they would come back next week and say, ‘you know what, I have more information for you,'” he told TheDCNF in an interview.

“And it would not be uncommon for them to say ‘I want to introduce you to somebody else. He has more information, but you’ll have to pay him as well,'” the businessman said.

Either Fusion GPS or the Clinton camp could have disseminated the fake dossier to the six liberal news organizations that received it, however, it’s interesting that neither of them felt confident enough to publish them.

BuzzFeed published the dossier last January, but added the disclaimer, “The allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors.”

“From my personal standpoint and my thorough review of this document, I have deemed it a complete and total fabricated fraud,” Col. James Waurishuk (Ret.), a 30-year veteran who worked for the CIA’s Asymmetric Warfare Task Force, said in an interview with TheDCNF.

Did FBI Director James Comey Use the Fusion GPS Dossier As “Evidence” Before a Court?
Did former FBI Director James Comey and the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) use the Fusion GPS unverified information as “evidence” before a secret federal surveillance court to obtain permission to eventually spy on Trump campaign aides and later his transition team?

Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked FBI Director Christopher Wray on Oct. 4 if the FBI may have improperly presented any of the dossier information to a government surveillance court. He has not received any reply.

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence now is seeking all Justice Department applications before the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, also called the FISA Court, to determine if any of the applicants rely on information from the dossier.

If the unsubstantiated dossier information was entered as “verifiable” information before the FISA Court, the implications are “staggering,” former diGenova told TheDCNF.

That would mean the Obama administration pursued “a type of manipulation of intelligence data and false intelligence data to mislead a court,” diGenova said. “It’s staggering in terms of its implications.”

Tony Podesta and Russia
Last week, Democratic lobbyist Tony Podesta stepped down as the head of his lobbying firm, the Podesta Group, that he co-founded with his high-profile brother, John Podesta in 1988.

Podesta reportedly resigned so he could prepare for possible legal action against him and his firm by Special counsel Robert Mueller.

Podesta has business relationships with many Russian state enterprises and government agencies.

He publicly lobbied on behalf of Sberbank, Russia’s largest bank, collecting $170,000 in fees in 2016.

Podesta lobbied both the Obama administration and Congress to lift the economic sanctions against Sberbank.

The lobbyist also represented Uranium One after it became a wholly owned subsidiary of ROSATOM, the Russian atomic energy agency. He received $180,000 for his representation of the nuclear firm for services delivered in part of 2012 and in 2014 to 2015.

Podesta did not, however, register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), a Podesta Group spokesman confirmed to TheDCNF.

He also failed to register under FARA when he represented a pro-Russian Ukrainian organization to lobby on their behalf in the U.S.

Podesta worked with Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, on behalf of a group called the European Center for a Modern Ukraine, a front group for Ukraine’s pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych. Ukraine’s parliament threw Yanukovych out of office, and he fled to Russia where he is now living.

Throughout the Manafort indictment is reference to “Company B.” The reference is the cover name for the Podesta Group, according to NBC News.

Uranium One
The public is aware the Obama administration, led in 2010 by former Secretary of State Clinton who sat on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CIFIUS), approved the sale of Uranium One to the Russians. In a single stroke 20 percent of America’s uranium reserves were sold to Russia.

Two House committees and the Senate Judiciary Committee are investigating the circumstances surrounding the sale.

They are focused, in part, on the $145 million that Uranium One executives donated to the Clinton Foundation, according to independent investigator Peter Schweizer and author of “Clinton Cash.”

Uranium One’s owner, Frank Giustra is entirely enmeshed with the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation. He personally contributed more than $25 million to the foundation, according to the foundation’s web site. Giustra co-founded with former President Bill Clinton the “Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership.”

Prior to the sale, an FBI informant showed the bureau there was widespread bribery and corruption on the Russian side of the Uranium One deal, according to The Hill. Yet neither the FBI nor Attorney General Eric Holder notified the committee that there was corruption among the buyers.

Importantly, Holder sat on CIFIUS too, but he apparently did not notify the committee of the criminal activities the FBI informant had uncovered.

Under the Obama administration, the FBI imposed a “gag order” on the informant, preventing Congress from hearing his charges.

However, under pressure from investigative reporters John Sullivan and Sara Carter, the Justice Department lifted the gag order on Oct. 25 and approved his testimony before Congress.

Finally, there is Tony Podesta again. After the Uranium One sale was complete, he lobbied on behalf of Uranium One, pocketing $180,000. He never registered as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

John Podesta and Joule Unlimited
Immediately prior to joining the Obama White House as special counselor, John Podesta joined the board of a highly secretive technology company called Joule unlimited.

He served on the board for three years, sharing it with three Russian businessmen with direct ties to the Kremlin.

Dmitry Akhanov, president of Rusnano USA, also sat on the Joule board. He awarded the company one billion rubles, the equivalent of $35 million in U.S. dollars. He promised Joule “cheap money,” and he dangled $4.6 billion in government contributions and $5.7 billion in state guarantees before the board.

It’s not known what kind of private meetings or discussions Podesta had with any of the Russians.

But Lucia Ziobro, the special agent in charge at the FBI’s Boston field office, issued an “extraordinary warning” to Boston-area high-tech firms in 2014 about Russian investors to startups like Joule.

“The FBI believes the true motives of the Russian partners, who are often funded by their government, is to gain access to classified, sensitive and emerging technology from the companies,” she wrote in a Boston Globe op-ed.

Calls for a New Special Counsel
The Justice Department should appoint another special counsel to investigate Clinton for her Russian ties, Sen. Graham said on Sunday.

“I think we need a special counsel to investigate the Fusion GPS episode between the Democratic Party, Mr. Steele and Russian operatives,” Graham told “Fox News Sunday.”

“Everything about Fusion GPS stinks,” Graham said. “The idea that the Democratic Party would hire, through a law firm, a foreign intelligence officer to go to Russia and try to gather dirt means that they’ve set themselves up to be manipulated by the Russians.”

He also supports a special prosecutor on the Uranium One deal.

Grassley also endorses the idea of a special prosecutor.
---------------
Richard Pollock is a senior investigative reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation. Previously, he won an Emmy as the Washington producer for ABC's "Good Morning America," and later served as the senior producer for "Fox News Sunday" and the Washington Bureau Chief of PJTV. Article shared under Daily Caller stated criteria.

---

Tags: Christopher Steele, Democratic National Committee, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Richard Pollock, The Daily Caller  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 Real Value in Veterans That Hollywood Doesn’t Show You

by Steven Bucci: Nov. 11 is the day we celebrate Veterans Day. For many of us who have served, it is an important day; to large parts of Middle America, it is a time to celebrate; and to others, they couldn’t care less.

What should this day mean to every American? Are we properly serving our veterans? Are veterans burdens, or assets?

By way of education, Nov. 11 actually started out as Armistice Day, commemorating the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1919. This is when the Treaty of Versailles was signed, ending World War I.

This was to be the war to end all wars. It wasn’t—but America celebrated the holiday in honor of those who fought in it, until the much larger World War II came and passed.

After World War II in 1947, at the prodding of the citizens of Emporia, Kansas, and with the help of then-Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Armistice Day became Veterans Day.

Today, many people tend to confuse Memorial Day and Veterans Day. The former is intended to honor those who have given their lives in service of the nation. The latter is designated to honor all those who have served, both living and dead.

To some, this is a difference without a distinction. But to those who have served, the difference couldn’t be starker.

If you have served in uniform, you hold the sacrifice of those who have died as sacred. No one who has served in the armed forces—even the most decorated of veterans—feels they are quite in the same category as those who made the ultimate sacrifice.

As such, Memorial Day is especially poignant for those who have worn a uniform.

Where does that leave us relative to Veterans Day?

On Veterans Day, we honor again those who died, but it is a special time for recognizing the cost also paid by those who served, and lived.

Many have a vision of older men (and women), wearing ball caps that read “U.S. Marine” or U.S. Army (ret.),” or perhaps the uniform caps of the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, or other service organizations, with white hair, misty eyes, and shaking salutes when taps is played.

But there is a bigger picture than that now. After more than a decade of war provoked by the horrific 9/11 terror attacks, we now have a new generation of veterans.

How do you “see” them?

The combat since 9/11 has lasted a long time. It involved a huge number of troops. Despite desperate fighting, and in some cases terrible wounds, the vast majority of veterans have returned to America, and that is a blessing.

Unlike those dark days during the Vietnam War, when the left blamed veterans for the war they were sent to fight and treated them shamefully, veterans today are thanked.

This is a huge step forward in maturity for our nation. Even those who disagreed with the war do not take it out on the men and women who served us so honorably.

There is, however, a trend developing, fostered by those who wish our nation ill, that must be pointed out.

Apparently too cowardly to buck the trend of gratitude to our troops, but longing for the days of the post-Vietnam War era where veterans were ostracized and typecast as broken and dangerous time bombs, ready to explode, the left works to pigeonhole them again.

Look at the movies now coming out. A standard narrative is the psychological damage of war, and how the nation has “used” these young citizens.

It’s true enough that many veterans need help dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries. Suicide among veterans is far too high—even one is too many. Those who need help and support must be given access to it.

It is to America’s credit that the grass roots of the country have rallied around veterans and are finding newly innovative ways to help every day. But veterans’ struggles with PTSD are not the whole story.

The vast majority of veterans, active duty and reserve, have returned to America and have reintegrated. They have found jobs, and built families, and are contributing positively at every level of American life.

Far from being the broken victims depicted by Hollywood, they are doing what the greatest generation did after World War II and the Korean War, but were not allowed to do after Vietnam—they are fueling American life.

Their leadership, their maturity, their innovation, and their resilience exceeds that of their non-veteran peers. They are assets to the nation, not burdens.

Across America, veterans are starting companies, nonprofits, and ministries. They are filling the ranks of management and leadership in already-established firms and in government. They are not waiting for a handout—they are taking charge and contributing.

At the same time, they are not forgetting their sisters and brothers who have those deeper wounds. Many of the newer veterans service organizations (such as Concerned Veterans for America) are reaching out to help.

As veterans move up successfully in organizations, they consciously look for other vets to help. Those who have fought know better than anyone else that one can survive a war and still be a casualty, and they live (still) by the code of “leave no one behind.”

So America, on Veterans Day 2017, don’t just say “Thanks for your service” to the vets you encounter. That is wonderful—we appreciate it greatly. But also take the time to listen to them, attempt to understand them, and above all, to realize that they are ready to work with you to continue to bless America.

Their stories will reignite your realization that America is not “done.” Their strength will motivate you to be a better citizen. Their willingness to continue to serve our wonderful country will cause you to swell with pride that America is still producing young men and women who are a new greatest generation.
-----------------
Steven P. Bucci, who served America for three decades as an Army Special Forces officer and top Pentagon official, is director of the Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Article shared on The Daily Signal. His twitter account is @SBucci

---

Tags: Steven Bucci, Heritage Foundation, The Real Value, veterans, Hollywood Doesn’t Show 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!

Arkansas Swamp Dweller: Prosecutor Refuses Prosecuting Voter Fraud

ARRA News Service Editor: Below is a significant letter to the editor by Mr. Hester that details a very significant injustice which has also provided the Jonesboro Sun with several top front page stories and editorials.  Mr. Hester worked diligently against alcohol sales, developing numerous statistics that defied 'fake news' about the economic growth of wet counties. His LTE addresses the failure of a prosecuting attorney to prosecute voter fraud even after an Arkansas State Police investigation into Shady Grove Township voter fraud revealed the owners of the County Store asked people to change their voter registration to the township to sway the wet/dry ballot issue.
-------------------

by Bobby L. Hester, Letter to the Editor: The alleged voter fraud that took place in the Shady Grove Township in Greene County, AR which Prosecuting Attorney Scott Ellington has decided not to prosecute should anger every legitimate voter in northeast Arkansas.

Amazingly, Mr. Ellington compared the crime of voter fraud to someone driving with improper tags to the crime of voter fraud. According to him, a felony crime that is planned is no worse than a misdemeanor crime likely caused by an oversight and should be treated the same.

How similar are these contrasting crimes? According to a staff member at the court in Jonesboro, driving with improper tags is a misdemeanor and the fine is $125 including court costs.

Driving with improper tags is likely to be an oversight on the part of the perpetrator. Only one person is involved, the driver or owner of the car. This person is not attempting to influence a group to do something wrong.

On the other hand, voter fraud, in this case falsifying a voter registration form, is a felony with the penalty of a possible $10,000 fine and/or up to 5 years in prison under state and federal law. The penalty for a crime indicates the seriousness of the crime.

Was there an attempt to influence the outcome of an election with this "alleged" voter fraud? Prosecutor Ellington gave as his primary reason for not proceeding to prosecute the case as a lack of knowledge by the suspects and a lack of evidence that could lead to a conviction.

Just a minute!  Below are the facts.

"Supposedly, out of the blue," thirty people, mostly from the same town, all decided within a six week period and totally independently from each other, to move to a tiny, sparsely populated township in a different county where there are no dwellings for them to live. They didn't actually move but only changed their address to the new location.

These thirty people all decided to move into dilapidated campers and mobile homes located primarily at two locations in this township. These campers were only moved into the area shortly before these thirty individual changed their address. These "homes" had no utilities and thus actually uninhabitable. These places were checked several times before the election by a Jonesboro Sun reporter and by at least two other people. It was apparent that no one lived in these campers and trailers any time before the election or after the election.

Thirteen of the thirty accidentally changed their address to the address of the Old General Store which would lose its license to sell alcohol if the township went dry. Nine addresses were located at another location where there were three campers and an old trailer house, all obviously unoccupied.

Most of the camper owners then registered to vote within a six week period in the same small township and all accidentally put a wrong address on a voter registration form.

The above happened very shortly before an election on a wet/dry vote would be held which also would directly affect several of those thirty. Is it possible for even one of these incidents to happen let alone 30 people without there being some kind of conspiracy to affect the wet/dry election outcome?

Why did Prosecuting Attorney Ellington not want to do his job in relation to this case? If the breaking of the law in this case was intentional, and all evidence clearly indicates it was, it was to influence the outcome of an election that affected all of us as citizens in our  democracy.

This was a crime against all citizens of Arkansas and the U.S. Without a fair, honest, legitimate vote, democracy is meaningless. This situation must be dealt with; otherwise, our laws are pointless.
----------------
Bobby L. Hester resides in Jonesboro, Arkansas.

---

Tags: Bobby Hester, letter to editor, voter fraud, Arkansas, Shady Grove Township, individuals, changed voter registration, camper trailers, to sway, wet/dry ballot issue To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!