The Culture of Death and Growing Totalitarianism

by Newt Gingrich: The British government’s decisions to allow two critically ill babies to die in two years is a natural reflection of the culture of death and the steady increase in totalitarian tendencies among Western governments.

Last year, the British government ordered life support removed from Charlie Gard, ending his life when he was just 11 months old. Now, Alfie Evans – just 23 months old – has received what amounts to the same death sentence. On Monday, he was removed from life support by court order – against the wishes of his parents.

Then, something remarkable happened. The child confounded his doctors and refused to die.

As of the time I am writing this, Alfie Evans is still alive and is breathing unaided. This is despite the claim made by a medical professional during a court hearing that Alfie would die quickly – possibly in “minutes” – if taken off life support.

But even this display of the power of the human spirit to defy the expectations of the supposedly rational and objective state did nothing to sway the minds of the British courts and state-run medical apparatus.

On Wednesday, another legal appeal by the parents to be allowed to try and save their son’s life was denied. The secular system has asserted its right to define what lives are worth living and is determined to prevent its authority from being questioned. Alfie Evans’ life – like Charlie Gard’s before him – has been determined to be limited by the standards of the secular state – and therefore without value.

These tragic government-imposed death sentences for innocent infants should frighten all of us about increasing secularism in society and the steady shift toward a totalitarian willingness to control our lives – down to and including ending them – on the government’s terms.

This is a direct assault on the core premise of the Declaration of Independence. We Americans asserted that we “are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” In the American Revolution, in our fight against the British crown, we asserted that rights come from God not from government.

However, our secular, liberal culture increasingly dismisses the concept of God and asserts that our rights come from a rational contract enforced by government. In the original American model, we asserted our God-given rights against the power of a potentially tyrannical government. In the emerging left-wing secular order, since there is no God, our rights depend on a secular state controlling itself.

Britain is giving us a vivid, tragic sense of how dangerous and heartless government tyranny can be once God is rejected and there is nothing between us and the government.

Ironically, this latest decision was made the same year Stephen Hawking died 55 years after he was diagnosed with ALS (commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease) and told he had only two years to live. Apparently, the British government learned no lessons from Hawking’s remarkable lifetime of work and achievement, which he pursued despite having to battle an extraordinarily challenging illness. In fact, in 1985, Hawking contracted pneumonia while he was writing A Brief History of Time, and his wife was asked if his life should be terminated. She refused, and Hawking went on to live another 33 years and publish one of the most acclaimed books of the 20th century, which has since sold more than 10 million copies worldwide – all after it had been suggested he be taken off life support.

Hawking should be a permanent reminder that the human spirit is more important than the human body and that the will to live and achieve should not be destroyed by the state.

Yet, in the very country which produced and nurtured Hawking, the government still ordered the removal of life support from two babies.

Charlie Gard’s condition was potentially treatable by an experimental process in the United States. An American hospital and other organizations were willing to treat him. Supporters gave more than 1.3 million pounds (about $1.8 million) to pay for the travel and treatment. His parents wanted him to have the chance to live. However, the British bureaucracy took time to consider if he could go. During that bureaucratic process, his condition worsened. Then, having allowed his condition to worsen by refusing to say yes, it was too late. During the bureaucratic deliberation, Charlie’s parents and those who wanted to try to save him were told they had no right to help their own child. The child belonged to the government, and the government would decide whether he had the right to live.

Alfie Evans

This year, Alfie Evans had international support for an opportunity to live. The “Pope’s hospital”, Bambino Gesù Pediatric Hospital, has offered to treat Alfie (as it did with Charlie), and Pope Francis has publicly appealed to the British government to allow the young child to be taken to Rome. An air ambulance was sent to Alfie’s hospital earlier this week to bring him to the doctors who wanted to try for a miraculous cure.

In a real sense: What better place is there to hope for a miracle than in the Pope’s pediatric hospital, which has helped many children with rare diseases?

This appeal for hope fell on the deaf ears of the state, which refused to allow Alfie’s parents to transfer their child to Rome. In fact, The Telegraph reported that despite a judge ruling that Alfie’s parents could “explore” taking the child home, doctors treating the child have been against this because they fear that “in the ‘worst case’ they would try to take the boy abroad.”

In other words, the “worst case” scenario would be for Alfie’s parents to seek medical help to save their child.

This is monstrous. It is difficult to understand the arrogance and coldness of British judges who prefer to order death rather than allow parents to fight for the lives of their children. Yet at least twice in two years we have seen a supposedly free country’s court system impose death on its most innocent citizens.

Some of this cruelty and inhumanity is a function of the growing culture of death and the expanding sense that secular values must drive religious values out of public life.

Some of it comes from a National Health Service which must bureaucratically define what is worth investing in and what is not. In a world of limited medical resources, little babies with rare conditions become expendable “for the greater good.” The fact that we are all diminished makes no difference to the atheist bureaucratic left.

Those who say they favor socialism must be made to confront this inhumanity, which is an integral part of socialist implementation. When the government controls everything, the government defines everything, and humanity is crushed beneath petty rules and petty rulers.

In America, we are watching the steady growth of intolerance and the totalitarian impulse. Look at the campuses which now seek to control speech. Look at the polls which show young people are being educated into support for censorship. Look at the California legislature which is considering legislation that, taken to its logical conclusion, will outlaw the sale and distribution of the Bible and the Koran (the secular society sees both as intolerant, dangerous documents).

When you read about these two babies being denied life support by a supposedly free government, remember what John Donne warned when he wrote “any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

In these two years, we have seen two babies effectively sentenced to death by a government we would once have considered humane. What will the next horror be?
----------------------
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, Culture of Death and, Growing Totalitarianism To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Broward County Deputies Vote ‘No Confidence’ In Sheriff Scott Israel

Sheriff Scott Israel

by Tom Knighton: Sheriff Scott Israel is not having a good 2018. First, Parkland happened on his watch. While his troubles weren’t crap to many people’s in that incident, it still wasn’t a good day.

Since then, he tried to blame the guns only to see it backfire in his face when stories surfaced about the myriad of ways his department failed to prevent the attack despite the numerous opportunities they had to do something, anything, that might have changed the course of history. Time and again, he’s found himself at the center of a firestorm.

Now, deputies in his office added far more insult to injury when they gave the sheriff a vote of “no confidence.”
Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel has faced a firestorm of criticism in the wake of the February 14 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida that left 17 students and teachers dead, and now he’s been officially rebuked by his own deputies. The Broward Sheriff’s Office Deputies Association announced last week they were calling for a “no-confidence” vote in Israel and today brought the results: an overwhelming 534 votes out of 628 against him.

“Deputies and sergeants cast their ballots to say ‘Sheriff, we no longer have confidence in your leadership’,” said union BSO Deputies Association President Jeff Bell, reported CBS Miami.

“The time now is for the Sheriff to listen to his membership and listen to the residents of Broward County,” continued Bell. “We ask you to start changing your policies that are absolutely failing, we ask you to change your leadership to something that somewhat resembling amazing,” presumably taking a swipe at Israel’s past comments to the media that he had exhibited “amazing leadership” as sheriff.As is Israel’s usual MO, he immediately tried to deflect. You see, just as before, it’s not his fault. Responsibility falls on others. Israel isn’t a bad leader who completely botched the response to Parkland. Oh, no. It’s all about a handful of greedy deputies.

Sheriff Israel responds to IUPA vote: pic.twitter.com/RCuoz0Y9cO

— Broward Sheriff (@browardsheriff) April 26, 2018

Now, remember that Sheriff Israel claimed he was giving “amazing leadership” to the Broward County Sheriff’s Office. This gives me an opportunity to speak on leadership, which I know all of you really, really wanted to hear. Okay, maybe not, but here it goes anyway.

A real leader doesn’t need to talk about his “amazing leadership.” His people will. He creates an environment where the people are proud to be part of it. They’ll tell everyone for you.

Instead, the Broward County Sheriff’s Office is a mess. They fell down on the job over and over and over. Now, deputies are calling for votes of no confidence and getting them. And how does Israel handle it? He pretends it’s a fraudulent vote (“purportedly voted”), and argues it’s really all about a pay raise.

Note, however, that BSO Deputies Association President Jeff Bell never mentioned pay. He specifically called on Israel to modify policies. All Israel is doing, in my opinion, is validating the deputies’ concerns. He’s telling the world they’re right.

The union will be trying to get Governor Scott to temporarily remove Israel. Permanently removing him, however, requires the Florida Senate, but considering how disgusted people are with Israel’s management, that’s not an impossibility.
---------------
Tom Knighton is a Navy veteran, a former newspaperman, a novelist, and a blogger at Bearing Arms. He lives with his family in Southwest Georgia.

---

Tags: Tom Knighton, Bearing Arms, Broward County Deputies, Vote No Confidence,In Sheriff Scott Israel To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Gov. Hutchinson Forgotten Promise – Eliminate All Grocery Tax

by Conduit for Action: Do you remember when Asa Hutchinson made a campaign promise to eliminate the grocery tax? He doesn’t want you to remember that!

During the 2006 election for governor, Asa Hutchinson proposed eliminating the grocery tax immediately. His opponent, Mike Beebe, proposed only a gradual reduction of the grocery tax. Hutchinson was not elected. Governor Beebe kept his promise and cut out most, but not all, of the tax on groceries.

Asa Interviewed on Little Rock’s KARK/Ch. 4 in 2006


Despite Asa having made elimination of the grocery tax a plank of his unsuccessful bid for governor in 2006, as governor, Hutchinson has done nothing to eliminate the rest of the grocery tax.

In addition to ignoring his earlier campaign promise, the tax task force he proposed and that is operating under the guidelines he set is now considering the option of raising the grocery tax back to the full sales tax rate.

Campaign promises are unfortunately too often forgotten by the candidate making them!

ACTION — remind the candidates of their promises before and after you go to the polls on May 22!

---

Tags: Conduit for Action, Governor, Asa Hutchinson, Arkansas, grocery tax To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Alfie Evans, Kudos To McConnell, Comey’s Claptrap, Korea Shock

Alfie Evans

by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: Alfie Evans - I’m sure many of you have been following the case of Alfie Evans, the terminally ill twenty-three-month-old who’s been the subject of a tragic court battle in England.

Shortly after his birth, Alfie was diagnosed with a rare and degenerative neurological condition. According to medical experts, Alfie had become so ill that the only humane course was to take him off a ventilator and let him die.

Every court has ruled against Alfie and his parents. On Wednesday, the British Court of Appeal approved the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration for Alfie. It also prohibited his parents from seeking care elsewhere. Doctors stopped feeding him, predicting that he’d die in a matter of hours.

But Alfie did not die. In fact, it’s been several days and, as of this writing, he’s still breathing on his own. Doctors have begun feeding him again. Alfie’s will to live has inspired millions and prompted a debate in England and around the world over who should ultimately decide whether a person lives or dies. Here are a few points to consider:

• England has a socialized health care system called the National Health Service. This case highlights the dangers of government making the most important health care decisions. What is happening in England is essentially what American conservatives argued would happen under Obamacare’s death panels. Government bureaucrats would be the ultimate arbiters of who lives and who dies.
• Some people have argued that Alfie should be left to die because British taxpayers are the ones who’d have to pay for his care. But Italy has granted Alfie citizenship and a Catholic hospital in Rome has agreed to pay for his care and take all possible steps to save him.
• There’s a profound irony in these cases. In many Western countries, governments have enshrined the right of women to control the fate of their unborn children, even if it leads to the baby’s death. But in this case, the government is doing the opposite, telling Alfie’s mother that she has no right to control her baby’s fate. So much for women’s rights.
• The European Union considers the freedom of movement a basic right. That means once migrants from the Middle East cross into Europe they can move to any country they wish to find work. Meanwhile, parents who wish to seek life-saving care for their child in another EU country are being told no.

This leaves me with a sad conclusion. What the British authorities are really worried about is not the costs associated with saving Alfie Evans. Again, Italy has agreed to care for the boy, which eliminates the cost issue.

Nor are they worried that the infant will die and that they will be accused of being heartless. Their real fear is that Alfie will be taken to Italy and live, which will expose them for the moral monsters they are.

Kudos To McConnell - After pushing through Mike Pompeo’s confirmation yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell teed up votes on six of President Trump’s nominees to critical circuit court positions. The circuit courts are right below the Supreme Court and often have the final say in legal disputes given how few cases are accepted by the Supreme Court.

Comey’s Claptrap - Bret Baier’s interview of James Comey on Fox News last night did not help Comey’s credibility. He claimed he did not, even now, know that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid for the anti-Trump dossier. He claimed the dossier played “Just a small part of the FISA warrant.” That claim has already been rejected by Congressional investigators.

But Comey really had a Pinocchio moment when he aggressively denied there were any differences in how the Hillary investigation was handled and how the Trump investigation is being handled. He must think the American people are idiots. Comey literally wrote the Clinton exoneration months before Hillary or her staff were interviewed!

Comey’s book and book tour, as well as his interviews and speeches, are destroying his credibility and damaging the FBI’s reputation. Criminal prosecution is still a real possibility.

Korea Shock - The leaders of North and South Korea signed a historic declaration this morning pledging “no more war.” Prudence and history requires us to be skeptical about North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un’s sincerity. Only time will tell if he is serious about ending his nuclear program.

But we can say with certainty that this moment would not be happening if not for the iron fist of Trump’s foreign policy toward North Korea. Trump’s approach has been a combination of tough language, massive military maneuvers and the toughest economic sanctions regime ever implemented. The Clintons, Bushes and Obama all failed to get to this point. Trump is cleaning up the mess. We should hope and pray he succeeds.
-------------------
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, Alfie Evans, Kudos To McConnell, Comey’s Claptrap, Korea Shock To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Here Are GOP Senators Who Voted For The Mueller Coup Bill

Img via Crooks & Liars Blog
Link Unknown

by Daniel Greenfield: This isn't just an attack on Trump. It's an attack on the Constitution.

4 Republican senators voted to protect the Clinton-Mueller coup effort. The bill would prevent Mueller or a special prosecutor from being fired without, effectively, the approval, passive or active, of a Federal judge.

With every committee Democrat backing the legislation, only one Republican was needed to secure passage.

But they got four.
In the end, four Republicans voted for the bill: Sens. Thom Tillis (N.C.), Lindsey Graham(S.C.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa) and Jeff Flake (Ariz.).

Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch (Utah), Mike Lee (Utah), John Cornyn (Texas), Mike Crapo(Idaho), Ben Sasse (Neb.), John Kennedy (La.) and Ted Cruz (Texas) opposed it.Here's the major split between Republicans.The bill, sponsored by Tillis and Graham (R-S.C.) with Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Christopher Coons (D-Del.), would codify Department of Justice regulations that say only a senior Department of Justice official can fire Mueller or another special counsel.

It would give a special counsel an "expedited review" of their firing. If a court determines that it wasn't for "good cause," the special counsel would be reinstated.And we've already seen federal courts playing this game before. The latest DACA ruling among them. It amounts to giving federal judges the power to keep a special counsel going indefinitely.
--------------
Daniel Greenfield is Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and a New York writer focuses on Islamic terrorism and the radical left. David Horowitz is a Contributing Author of the ARRA News Service

---

Tags: Daniel Greenfield, FrontPage Mag, Jeff Flake, GOP Senators, Who Voted For, Mueller Coup 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!

Mueller Coup Bill Is A Threat To The Constitution

Mueller Witch Hunt

by Daniel Greenfield: The Mueller coup bill which got out of the Senate Judiciary Committee has troubling implications even far beyond the politics of the moment.

The idea of an independent prosecutor has always been controversial. Far too much power has already shifted away to the unelected officials of the judiciary and away from officials elected by voters. Democrats turned on the idea after the Starr-Clinton era, but now they would like to make the special counsel into a permanent institution at the discretion of any friendly federal judge.

The bill doesn't just empower an endless coup effort by Mueller and his team of Clinton/Obama allies. It provides for a dramatic power shift. It allows DOJ figures and judicial allies to launch a permanent investigation, much like the one aimed at Trump, that turns into an endless witch hunt.

The Grassley amendment that was meant to provide some sort of limited check (but which never made it in) would have been little more than a face saving gesture. But even it couldn't be tolerated.

Meanwhile Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee couldn't take a consistent stand against either the Mueller coup effort or the Constitution.

Because this is a Constitutional issue.

There are three bodies. Not four or five.

The president is subject to removal by the voters and by congress. Not by holdovers from a previous administration.

And that's what endorsing the Mueller coup bill really means. It's an attack on the voters and on the Constitution.
--------------
Daniel Greenfield is Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and a New York writer focuses on Islamic terrorism and the radical left. David Horowitz is a Contributing Author of the ARRA News Service

---

Tags: Daniel Greenfield, FrontPage Mag, Mueller Witch Hunt To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Macron: The Last Multilateralist

by Patrick Buchanan: “Together,” President Macron instructed President Trump, “we can resist the rise of aggressive nationalisms that deny our history and divide the world.”

Before Congress he denounced “extreme nationalism,” invoked the U.N., NATO, WTO, and Paris climate accord, and implored Trump’s America to come home to the New World Order.

“The United States is the one who invented this multilateralism,” Macron went on, “you are the one now who has to help preserve and reinvent it.”

His visit was hailed and his views cheered, but, on reflection, the ideas of Emmanuel Macron seem to be less about tomorrow than yesterday.

For the world he celebrates is receding into history.

The America of 2018 is coming to see NATO as having evolved into an endless U.S. commitment to go to war with Russia on behalf of a rich Europe that resolutely refuses to provide for its own defense.

Since the WTO was created in the mid-’90s, the U.S. has run $12 trillion in trade deficits; and among the biggest beneficiaries — the EU.

Under the Paris climate accord, environmental restrictions are put upon the United States from which China is exempt.

As for the U.N., is that sinkhole of anti-Americanism, the General Assembly, really worth the scores of billions we have plunged into it?

“Aggressive nationalism” is a term that might well fit Napoleon Bonaparte whose Arc de Triomphe sits on the Champs-Elysees. But does it really fit the Hungarians, Poles, Brits, Scots, Catalans and other indigenous peoples of Europe who are now using democratic methods and means to preserve a national home for the unique peoples to whom they belong?

And the United States would seem an odd place to go about venting on “aggressive nationalisms that deny our history.”

Did Macron not learn at the Lycee Henri IV in Paris or the Ecole Nationale d’Administration how the Americans acquired all that land?

General Washington, at whose Mount Vernon home Macron dined, was a nationalist who fought for six years to sever America’s ties to the nation under which he was born.

How does Macron think Andrew Jackson acquired Florida from Spain, Sam Houston acquired Texas from Mexico, and Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor acquired the Southwest? By bartering?

Aggressive nationalism is a good synonym for the Manifest Destiny of a republic that went about relieving Spain of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines.

How does Macron think the “New World” was conquered and colonized if not by aggressive British, French and Spanish nationalists determined to impose their rule upon weaker indigenous tribes?

Was it not nationalism that broke up the USSR into 15 nations?

Was not the Zionist movement that resurrected Israel in 1948, and, in 1967, captured the West Bank, and then annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, a manifestation of aggressive nationalism?

Macron is an echo of that George H.W. Bush who, in Kiev in 1991, warned Ukrainians against the “suicidal nationalism” of declaring independence from the Russian Federation.

“Aggressive nationalisms … divide the world,” warns Macron.

Well, yes, they do, which is why we have now 194 members of the U.N., rather than the original 50. Is this a problem?

“Together,” said Macron, “we will build a new, strong multilateralism that defends pluralism and democracy in the face of ill winds.”

Macron belongs to a political class that sees open borders and free trade thickening and tightening the ties of dependency, and eventually creating a One Europe, whose destiny his crowd will forever control.

But if his idea of pluralism is multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural nations, with a multilateral EU overlord, he is describing a future that tens millions of Europeans believe means the death of the nations that give meaning to their lives.

And they will not go gentle into that good night.

In America, too, millions have come to recognize that there is a method to the seeming madness of open borders. Name of the game: dispossessing the deplorables of the country they love.

With open borders and mass migration of over a million people a year into the USA, almost all of them peoples of color from Third World countries who vote 70-90 percent Democratic, the left is foreclosing the future. The left is converting the greatest country of the West into what Teddy Roosevelt called a “polyglot boarding house for the world.” And in that boarding house the left will have a lock on the presidency.

With the collaboration of co-conspirators in the media, progressives throw a cloak of altruism over the cynical seizure of permanent power.

For, as the millions of immigrants, here legally and illegally, register, and the vote is extended to prison inmates, ex-cons and 16-year-olds, the political complexion of America will come to resemble San Francisco.

End goal: Ensure that what happened in 2016, when the nation rose up and threw out a despised establishment, never happens again.
--------------------
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, Macron, The Last Multilateralist To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Nancy Pelosi Doubles-Down On Calling Tax Cuts Crummy

by Onan Coca: Nobody would ever mistake House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for a genius, but you’d expect her to understand when her rhetoric is hurting rather than helping.

I don’t know, maybe not.

After a recent speaking engagement at Georgetown University, there has to be more than a few people out there wondering if Nancy’s got a screw loose.

After speaking to the crowd of students, the engagement was opened up to student questions and that’s when things took a tricky turn for Nancy Pelosi(D-CA).

The Washington Free Beacon reports:

“You’ve spoken about the effects of the Republican tax plan, specifically referring to its effects on average Americans as crumbs,” the student said in comments first flagged by the NTK Network. “As the son of small business owners, I know that it’s helped my parent hire more employees. It’s helped us pay off our mortgage, helped put me through college.”

The student asked Pelosi if she still thought “crumbs” was a good way to describe benefits resulting from the tax law.

“Would you still refer to the effects of this tax plan on average Americans as crumbs?” the student asked.

“Yes there are some benefits that some are feeling in a particular way,” Pelosi responded. “My statement was really a fuller statement that says while they provide a banquet for the top one percent, they are giving some crumbs to other people.”That would be bad enough if Pelosi had stopped there… but she didn’t. No, then she just started flat-out lying arguing that the tax cut would actually lead to “tax increases.”“Here’s a tax bill that they advertise as a benefit for the middle class, and did you know 83 percent of the benefits of the tax bill go to the top one percent?” Pelosi said. “In the life of the bill, 86 million middle class families will pay more taxes.”

Pelosi knows that to get the tax cute passed the Republicans could only let them run for eight years, after year 8, taxes will indeed begin to go back up again. However, the reason this will happen is that the Democrats refuse to make the cuts permanent, which would mean that Pelosi’s dire warnings about tax increases are actually THE DEMOCRATS’ FAULT. TA-DA.

And yet, Nancy Pelosi has the audacity to pretend that taxes going back up are the fault of the GOP and the tax cut bill.
----------------
Onan Coca blogs at Eagle Rising and his article was shared by Jeff Dunetz on The Lid

---

Tags: Nancy Pelosi, Doubles-Down, calls, Tax Cuts Crummy To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Significant Correction

by Kerby Anderson, Contributing Author: A number of months ago, the American Journal of Political Science issued a correction to a previous study. What was the error? The Journal reversed its conclusion that conservative individuals exhibited traits associated with “psychoticism.” They admitted that the interpretation of the coding was exactly reversed. In other words, it was liberal individuals, not conservative individuals, that exhibited these traits. As one commentator put it, “That’s one heck of an oops.”

This finding made quite a splash in technical journals. For example, the publication Retraction Watch had the headline, “Conservative political beliefs not linked to psychotic traits, as study claimed.” It reported that researchers have fixed a number of papers that mistakenly reported that people with conservative beliefs exhibit traits associated with psychoticism, such as authoritarianism and tough-mindedness.

One article that appeared in The Cut tries to answer a very important question: “Why it took social science years to correct a simple error about psychoticism.” A PhD student in psychology at the University of Minnesota concluded that the authors had simply inverted the items in the survey.

Although the article helps explain how the error began, it doesn’t really spend much time talking about why it took so long to discover the error. Is it possible that the erroneous finding that conservatives exhibit these traits was not discovered because it reinforced the bias most liberal researchers in psychology already have?

On most college campuses, there is a prevailing view that conservatives are rigid, intolerant, and closed-minded. And there is also the view that liberals and progressives are flexible, tolerant, and open to new ideas. But if you spend any time at the major universities, you will often see just the opposite.
--------------
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, Significant Correction, universities, college campuses, conservatives, liberals To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Liberal Outrage: ‘An Angry Master’

. . . Liberals are in a psychotic frenzy over Kanye West thinking independently toward Trump, rather than the lockstep groupthink they expect out of black Americans. Indeed, The Left strokes out when any high-profile black leaves the Democrat plantation.

Editorial Cartoon by AF "Tony" Branco

---

Tags: Editorial Cartoon, AF Branco, Liberal Outrage, An Angry Master, Kanye West, thnking independently To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

How Bernie's Like Trump

Bernie Sanders

by Paul Jacob, Contributing Author: Yesterday I made fun of Bernie Sanders' jobs guarantee idea. Today, let's take it seriously.

Not as policy, mind you. As propaganda.

It's not worth talking about as a policy because there is no policy yet. "It is not clear when Sanders will announce the plan," Fox News relates, "and a Sanders spokesperson told the Post that it was still being crafted."

It is mere advocacy. A press release. Vaporware.

But that's the key to it, really. The jobs guarantee isn't policy.

It's a ploy.

Bernie Sanders knows there is hardly a hope of passing such a bill. He probably understands that the current fiscal mess precludes it. He might even understand that it is literally a horrible notion, the worst policy idea in the world, and he would still have reason to pitch for it relentlessly.

Because what he is really after is the hiking of the national minimum wage to $15/hr. That is the next Democratic ratcheting up of government. And by insisting that the government guarantee $15/hr jobs, he is readying everyone to accept, as a compromise, the hiking of the minimum wage to that very figure.

Yesterday I noted a link between socialism and slavery. But minimum wages link up not with slavery but unemployment.

Which Bernie knows all too well. Before he got in politics, he was a layabout, a bum.

Not like President Trump at all, that way.

But by fixing on one key, "anchor" concept ($15/hr) and demanding the Moon, he might just get his mere lunacy, er, minimum wage hike.

And that is a Trumpian* ploy.

This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.

* Though Trump's better. His "linguistic killshots>" are far more memorable . . . because funny and (usually) visual.
------------------
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, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Progressives Using Lawfare To Target Political Opponents

by Printus LeBlanc: The Democrat Party has unveiled a not so new technique to attack their opponents. Everyone knows about the typical intimidation techniques such as boycotts, protesting, and rioting. Lawfare is an asymmetric technique using the legal system against an enemy. Keeping their enemies tied up in court and legal costs demoralize and sometimes forces the opponents to quit. Republicans need to wake up to tactics of the left and realize they are sometimes playing into their hands.

This has been a successful strategy for the Democrat Party so far, as we have seen with former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. After the fraudulent Mueller investigation was started, it quickly became apparent Flynn was one of the primary targets. After months of interviews and interrogations, Flynn finally gave in and pled guilty to lying to the FBI. The charge had nothing to do with what Mueller was supposedly investigating, it was just another scalp.

Shortly after the guilty plea, the mainstream media concluded Flynn must have lied to the FBI if he pled guilty. It quickly became apparent the plea had nothing to do with guilt or innocence, it had more to do with finances. Flynn was going broke defending himself against the multimillion-dollar team Mueller sent after him. Almost immediately after pleading guilty, Flynn was forced to sell his home in Alexandria, Va. to pay his legal bills.

Since the guilty plea, it has revealed that former FBI Director James Comey briefed several Members of Congress in March of 2017 on the Flynn matter. Writing for the Washington Examiner, Byron York stated, “According to two sources familiar with the meetings, Comey told lawmakers that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe that Flynn had lied to them, or that any inaccuracies in his answers were intentional.” Why did Flynn plead guilty then? Because he couldn’t afford to prove his innocence.

Former Trump campaign advisor Michael Caputo has been under constant siege since the end of the 2016 election. Once the various congressional committees started to investigate the non-existent connections between President Trump and Russia, Mr. Caputo would end up retaining lawyers in March of 2017. Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) would state Mr. Caputo was Vladimir Putin’s “image consultant” in congressional testimony with no evidence to back up the claim.

So far Mr. Caputo has only been interviewed by the House Intelligence Committee as a witness, but that comes at a steep price. Caputo estimates his legal bill will be in the neighborhood of $125,000, and that is if he is not part of the special counsel probe. If he has to go to the grand jury, the cost could further skyrocket.

Why would anyone want to serve in the Trump administration if they are going to have to spend more than half if not all their salary on lawyers for non-existent crimes? It has become increasingly obvious the Trump-Russia narrative was faked by the DNC and Hillary Campaign, but do the people caught up in the investigation get their time or money back? No.

It appears we had an attempted coup after the last election. Why does it seem the only people that are paying for the coup are Republicans that had nothing to do with Russia? Republicans must realize the longer they keep this sham investigation going instead of focusing on the coup attempt they are only hurting innocent people.
----------------
Printus LeBlanc is a contributing editor at Americans for Limited Government.

---

Tags: Printus LeBlanc, Americans for Limited Government, progressives, using lawfare, target opponents To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Democrats Fighting Over Trump's Border Wall -- Got to L:ove It!

. . . House Democrat: ‘Pelosi Lied’ About Border Wall Funding In Omnibus (Hat tip to the Washington Examiner Article below):

Texas House Democrat said House
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, lied
when she said the omnibus spending
bill would not fund a border wall.

by Laura Barrón-López: A House Democrat who represents a district along the southwest border in Texas is accusing House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., of lying last month when she said Democrats restricted funding for new border barriers to “see-through fencing” in the omnibus spending package.

Rep. Filemon Vela, D-Texas, is targeting Pelosi on the issue.

In March, lawmakers approved $1.6 billion for border security, including more than $400 million for 25 miles of “levee fencing” along the border in the Rio Grande Valley. Democratic leaders, including Pelosi, declared it a victory for Democrats because President Trump wouldn’t get the “great beautiful” border wall he promised voters on the campaign trail.

“Democrats won explicit language restricting border construction to the same see-through fencing that was already authorized under current law,” Pelosi said in a statement after the deal was announced.

On Wednesday, Vela questioned Customs and Border Patrol Commissioner Kevin McAleenan about the language. McAleenan said in a hearing before a House Homeland security subcommittee that the 25-mile new levee barrier would not be “see-through.”

After congressional testimony from McAleenan, Vela made the accusation that the leader of his own party caucus isn’t telling the truth about levee barriers along the border.

“Pelosi lied,” Vela told the Washington Examiner after the hearing.

Vela then read Pelosi's statement saying that new funding would go only to the type of barriers authorized under current law and not to a wall. "That was a lie," he concluded.

The language in the omnibus approves “$445,000,000 for 25 miles of primary pedestrian levee fencing along the southwest border in the Rio Grande Valley Sector.”

There’s another $445 million for the replacement of existing walls, which is separate from the $445 million for “brand new concrete levee walls,” Vela said.

“When we were passing the omnibus she said that all we were doing was funding see-through fencing — it’s just not true,” he said.

“Basically Trump’s getting what he wants, at least for these 25 miles he’s getting concrete wall,” Vela said, who is a staunch opponent of any funding for border barriers, even fencing. “It’s disingenuous for Democratic leadership to say they’re against the wall when they actually supported this kind of funding for a concrete barrier.”

A Pelosi aide disputed that anyone was hiding the ball. Democratic leaders said all along that levee walls were funded, said Drew Hammill. A “levee is a concrete barrier the same height as the current earthen barrier,” he said.

After the omnibus passed, it was reported that funding would go toward new and replacement levee walls. Dirt embankments run along the entire Rio Grande border and some of it is already buttressed by concrete levee walls.

In his testimony, McAleenan said that the newly funded barriers set to be constructed in stretches of the border along the Rio Grande Valley are based on 2008 models in different areas along the border.

“That is actually not see through because it’s a concrete wall that helps protect the levee, it’s a hydraulic wall and that’s consistent with appropriations language,” McAleenan said during a hearing on the future of the CBP.

Still, the squabble among Democrats highlights just how contentious border and immigration issues have become. Trump made construction of a border wall a central promise of his election campaign. Democrats, mindful of their political base's opposition to a wall, vowed never to fund it. Now with barrier construction ongoing, Republicans and Democrats are rushing to define every new project as a win.

Republican leaders and the White House were eager to boast about barrier funding in the omnibus, but conservatives scoffed, saying the bill didn’t fund the border wall.

And for some Democrats, the frustration of watching Congress fund ongoing construction while so-called Dreamers are left without legal status has opened up fights over what defines a border wall and what does not.

Environmentalists and Vela argue that the concrete levee wall approved by the omnibus would not protect the levees against flooding.

“All of those levees that would be turned into border walls were just repaired a few years ago, so they’re essentially brand new,” said Scott Nicol, a co-chair of the Sierra Club’s Border Lands team.

The levees are tall piles of dirt, according to Nicol, man-made embankments designed to prevent flooding.

When built, the levee wall would run on the U.S.-facing side, but it would “do absolutely nothing” for flood control, said Nicol.

“It would literally be concrete,” he said of the barrier OK'd by lawmakers. “That’s what the slabs are made out of.”

See-through fencing along the border typically consists of “bollards,” six-inch wide steel posts that are 18-feet tall and placed four inches apart.

Hamill said that “on top of the concrete barrier is bollard fencing, which is see through.”

That “permeability is necessary, because if water tops the barrier, it has to be able to flow through,” he said.

There were levee walls built along the southwest border in 2008 and the omnibus funding fills in the gaps along the 25 miles in question. McAleenan said the fresh cash going toward the new levee wall is “similar wall to what we built in 2008.”

“There’s never a place, with regard to these 25 miles, where the concrete is not serving as a levee, with an earthen structure abutting the concrete on the U.S.-facing side,” Hammill said.
----------------
Laura Barrón-López covers Democrats for the Washington Examiner.

---

Tags: IDemocrats fighting, Trump's Border Wall, Got to Love It, Laura Barrón-López, The Examiner To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Planned Parenthood Prez to Playboy: ‘There’s No Specific Moment Life Begins

by Katie Yoder: Life begins at different times, depending “on the pregnancy,” according to the president of America’s largest abortion provider.

On Monday, Playboy magazine published an interview with Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards in the wake of her new memoir, Make Trouble and as she prepares to step down from her position in May after serving for 12 years. During the interview, when asked about when life begins, Richards cited doctors as saying “there is no specific moment when life begins.” Or, she said, “It depends on the pregnancy.”

Viewed as both savior & evil incarnate, Planned Parenthood president @CecileRichards has one of the most polarizing jobs in America. Our candid conversation discusses the controversial challenges of her role & battles she’ll face once she steps down. https://t.co/r4W1NPuacS pic.twitter.com/JKlKp9wws5

— Playboy (@Playboy) April 25, 2018

While the interviewer, journalist David Hochman, described Richards as “warm, connected and excited about life,” he asked her questions that many in the media refuse to touch – questions about life.

“In your opinion,” he asked towards the beginning, “when does a human life begin?”

Her life, she ironically said, began with the birth of her children.

“For me,” she said, “it was when my babies were born, and they’ve been such an important part of my life. That was it for me.”

Hochman had a follow up ready. “Is there any point during pregnancy when an abortion would be terminating a life?” he asked.

For her response, she cited doctors.

“That’s a question medical folks have dealt with, and I’m not a doctor,” she said. “I’ve spent a lot of time with ob-gyns, and they will tell you there is no specific moment when life begins."

“It depends on the pregnancy, and that’s frankly why doctors and their patients should be in charge of these decisions and not government,” she added. “For Planned Parenthood, it depends on the state and what kind of abortion services we provide. We go to whatever the legal limit is, but it isn’t the same state by state.”

She called it “incredibly cruel” that some “women with really troubled pregnancies” “have to fly across the country to have someone provide them with health care.”

She didn’t speak highly of her opponents either.

“I think the mind-set on the right actually goes beyond religion, frankly,” she said. “It’s really about women and sex.”

“I think there are men, a lot of them in office, who simply don’t believe that women should be able to have sex freely,” she added. “Women are everywhere, and for some men that is unsettling. People may think our opponents are rallying around religion, but it’s really about control over women’s opportunities.”

Even though the president is no fan of her organization, she stressed, “Trump may be the best thing to have happened to the feminist movement.”

“Trump has lit a fire for millions of people—women, yes, but also men—to step forward, be heard, get involved in fighting back and making trouble, and I’m tremendously optimistic about where we’re heading,” she concluded.

Though, in the end, she would be better than him.

When Hochman asked her (like many others in the media) if Richards would consider “running in 2020,” Richards responded, “I think I could do a better job than the one who’s in there now, for sure” even though “it’s not an aspiration.”

Hochman also asked Richards about her own abortion.

“I didn’t think about it that much except that, like a lot of women who have either had an abortion or, more important, had children, I became even more adamant about abortion rights,” she said. “The responsibility of having a child is a lifetime decision.”

It’s also a lifetime decision to end the life of a child.

Under Richard’s leadership, the Susan B. Anthony List reports that, there have been “3.8 MILLION lives lost to abortion.” The abortion giant has committed roughly 7.6 million abortions since Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the U.S.

According to Planned Parenthood’s most recently published annual report, the organization performed 321,384 abortions and received $543.7 million in “government health services, reimbursements & grants” for the year 2016-2017.
-----------------------
Katie Yoder is Associate Culture Editor, the Joe and Betty Anderlik Fellow at Media Research Center a 501c3 non-profit.

---

Tags: Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, "There’s No Specific Moment Life Begins" To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Bernie Sanders’ ‘Jobs’ Program Would Undo Our Real Economic Progress

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has no estimate of
how much his forthcoming jobs plan would cost.

by David Kreutzer: Sen. Bernie Sanders’ big-idea solution to everything is big government.

The independent senator from Vermont wants government-run, single-payer health care. Seeing efficiencies that nobody else can see, he wants to turn post offices into banks.

Now, he wants to leverage the notoriously inept federal job-training system (see here, here, here, etc.) and a new set of regional bureaucracies to guarantee everybody a job.

In addition to not actually working, the program would require gobs of money. Of course, that is no problem for Sanders so long as at least one solvent corporation or rich person remains in America. We will tax them to pay for whatever is the big-spending plan of the day.

In this worldview, the economy is a big pile of money that simply needs to be distributed fairly. Incentives matter little. Tax cuts are thievery and not a means of stimulating job-creating investment.

However, reality is different. Incentives do matter, just as we have seen in the past year. The tax cuts passed in December have already led to pay raises, bonuses, and (more importantly) increased investment. It is this increased investment that will lead to continuing raises and bonuses.

The rhetoric of big-government jobs programs originated in the Great Depression, a time when the unemployment rate was 25 percent. But today’s unemployment rate is barely above 4 percent—a level widely viewed as representing full employment.

Of course, there are still people who want to work and can’t find a job—but the big picture is backward from what most people think. The problem is not so much with job availability as with finding workers who can show up and pass a drug test.

The issue is not just with marijuana. Seventy percent of firms in one survey blamed opioids for problems with absenteeism, reduced productivity, and safety issues. The track record of federal jobs programs gives little hope that yet another expensive jobs bill will solve what is more a mental health problem than a job shortage.

Wages grow when productivity grows. Stimulating investment, as the recent tax cuts are doing, will increase productivity. Bloated, costly, ineffective federal jobs programs will not. Pretending otherwise may stir up the crowds at rallies of the uninformed, but it won’t get them good jobs.
-----------------
David Kreutzer (@dwkreutzer) is the senior research fellow in energy economics and climate change at The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis. In this position, Kreutzer researches how energy and climate change legislation will affect economic activity at the national, local, and industry levels.

---

Tags: Bernie Sanders, jobs program, would undo, real economic progress,  David Kreutzer, The Daily Signal To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

A True State's Man: Pompeo Wins DOS Post

Mike Pompeo confirmed as Secretary of State

by Tony Perkins: No wonder President Trump is frustrated. Heading into this week, the U.S. Senate had only confirmed 432 of his political appointees. (And you thought your HR department was slow!) To the White House's relief, that number climbed to 433 after an early afternoon vote that sent CIA Director Mike Pompeo to his new post as secretary of state.

For a man whose nomination almost didn't make it out of committee, Pompeo certainly enjoyed some surprising Democratic support. After a testy confirmation hearing filled with hardball questions, plenty of people wondered if Pompeo would be the first secretary of state to be voted down before his nomination ever hit the floor. While Democrats raked him over the coals for everything from marriage views to climate change, even Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) seemed dead-set against Trump's pick. Fast-forward two weeks, and suddenly the president's choice is more popular than Rex Tillerson! By a 57-42 margin, every Republican and a healthy number of Democrats agreed: Mike Pompeo is ready for the job.

For Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Pompeo's confirmation should have been an embarrassing reminder that not every Democrat shares his extremist views on sexuality and public service. During the confirmation hearing, he desperately tried to persuade his colleagues that Pompeo wasn't fit to head up DOS because he shares the mainstream belief that marriage is between a man and woman. In an attack that bordered on harassment, Booker asked how he could lead the State Department with biblical convictions. "We have married gay couples at the CIA," Mike replied simply. "You should know... My respect for every individual, regardless of sexual orientation, is the same."

That may have made Mike unfit to serve in Cory Booker's government, but fortunately, not everyone in the party shares his intolerance. Five Democrats up for reelection in November thought better of endorsing Booker's religious test. Unlike the far-Left wing of the party, they understand that what voters care about isn't Pompeo's view on marriage, but his ability to protect American interests overseas. And after the Christian inquisition of Russell Vought, Democrats ought to know: this kind of religious prejudice doesn't appeal to the broader electorate.

Another senator who should have been stung by today's vote was Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who ranted on the Senate floor earlier this week about Pompeo working with peaceful Muslims like our friend Dr. Zuhdi Jasser. "Mike Pompeo was deeply intertwined with this network of anti-Muslim organizations," he claimed. "... I hope some of you will take a look at that details this network of organizations. They have fairly innocuous sounding names, like the American Islamic Forum for Democracy... but if you really take look at what they do, they preach intolerance."

First of all, who is Senator Murphy to judge what makes someone truly Muslim? Dr. Jasser, who heads up the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, is a deeply religious man who happens to believe that Muslims should take a more active role fighting Islamic terrorists. His organization, like others on Murphy's list, is widely respected for speaking against the violence that so many in the Muslim community excuse.

Dr. Jasser was understandably upset by Murphy's characterization, which, he argued, was just another attempt to smear American Muslims leaders as somehow anti-Muslim.

It is a sad day in American discourse when a United States senator motivated by partisan extremism willfully slanders and maligns an American Islamic organization. Never mind that our AIFD happens to actually be dedicated to countering Islamist radicalization and leading efforts at reform in order to defend the homeland. The sad truth Senator Murphy ignores, is that had he actually read the work we have done with former Congressman Pompeo (R-Kans.), he would have learned that we, for example, joined the congressman in exposing the radical Islamist ideology of a radical imam, Sheikh Monzer Taleb, preaching in Congressman Pompeo's backyard in Wichita. To us, there is nothing more pro-Muslim. Unfortunately, Senator Murphy prefers to read from the scripture of American Islamist talking points handed to him and his staff.He's right. Like other liberals, Murphy is just parroting the reckless talking points of groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center. Not to mention, Zuhdi goes on, how dangerous this kind of allegation is. "Do we need to remind Senator Murphy, who obviously knows little to nothing about Islam, Muslims, or any of the dynamics within the American Muslim community, that declaring any group of organizations let alone American Muslims as being anti-Muslim is the equivalent of [calling us apostates or infidels]?"

Fortunately for America, these pathetic campaigns against a qualified man failed. We can celebrate the fact that after a year and a half, the president finally has a leader he can depend on at State. FRC has no doubt that as secretary of state, Mike Pompeo will make international religious freedom a foreign policy priority, an issue that's especially important given how religious liberty is so intricately connected to the security and prosperity of nations themselves. The State Department needs a strong and competent leader to bring it in line with the president's policies. In Mike, they have exactly that.
--------------
Tony Perkins is President of the Family Research Council . This article was on Tony Perkin's Washington Update and written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

---

Tags: Tony Perkins, Family Research Center, FRC, Family Research Council, Mike Pompeo, Confrimed, Secretary of State To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Admiral Sunk, Cooper vs. Comey, A Cultural Moment, Pompeo Confirmed

Gary Bauer

by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: Admiral Sunk - The politics of personal destruction, a phrase popularized by Bill Clinton during his impeachment proceedings, has reached a new low. This morning, Dr. Ronny Jackson withdrew his name from consideration to lead the Veterans Administration.

Why? Because a lynch mob on Capitol Hill, led by Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), smeared him with unproven charges. In a statement responding to the allegations, Jackson wrote this:

"The allegations against me are completely false and fabricated. If they had any merit, I would not have been selected, promoted and entrusted to serve in such a sensitive and important role as physician to three presidents over the past 12 years."

Rear Admiral Jackson has been serving on the White House medical team since 2006. In 2013, he was formally appointed as White House physician by Barack Obama, who repeatedly and effusively praised his service and conduct.

How is it that Jackson was an angel during his entire time in service to Obama, yet now he is the devil? The only thing that has changed is the president he serves.

Among other things, Senator Tester accused Jackson of recklessly prescribing drugs, calling him "the candy man." He specifically cited prescriptions for Ambien, given to people flying on Air Force One.

But even Obama officials are defending Jackson, saying that it is common practice for staff on multiday trips, "working 16-hour days and going across time zones" to take sleeping aids so they are alert when they land.

During an interview on Fox & Friends this morning, President Trump attacked Jon Tester, and said he would "pay a big price" in Montana this year for destroying an honorable man.

Tester is running for reelection this November in a state Trump carried by 20 points. I suspect Tester will see a lot of President Trump in Montana this year.

Cooper vs. Comey - Last year James Comey told us that he leaked his classified memos to a friend, Columbia Law Professor Daniel Richman. We learned earlier this week that his "friend" had a special employment status at the FBI.

Now we are learning that Comey also gave the memos to another close friend, Patrick Fitzgerald, who is also serving as Comey's defense lawyer. And, according to Fox News, it is possible that at least one more person may have received the memos as well.

This revelation raises a lot of questions. For example, was this the only time that Comey gave information to his "friend" to leak to the media? Why was Professor Richman working for the FBI? Does he still have a security clearance and access to FBI headquarters? The professor needs to testify under oath immediately.

As former Attorney General Michael Mukasey recently explained, those memos were not pages ripped from James Comey's personal diary. They were classified government documents. Comey may not believe that mishandling classified information is a prosecutable offense, but he's wrong.

During a town hall event last night, CNN's Anderson Cooper grilled Comey about his idea of what is and is not a leak. Anderson asked Comey, "Shouldn't you be nailed to the door? Aren't you a leaker?" Watch it here.

A Cultural Moment - I'm not a fan of Kanye West. He has clearly had some issues over the years. But I don't think we should underestimate the potential significance of the cultural conversation that Kanye sparked this week.

First he defended conservative black activist Candace Owens. The left didn't like that at all. Then West expressed support for Donald Trump. The left really didn't like that.

But after he was attacked, West doubled down, tweeting this: "Obama was in office for eight years and nothing in Chicago changed."

While the left was piling on Kanye, Chance the Rapper tweeted, "Black people don't have to be democrats."

The left is now in full panic mode. Last night, all three late night comedy shows attacked Kanye West because they know what is at stake.

You may recall that Trump repeatedly cited the decline of the black community throughout the campaign and did what many Republicans don't do -- he invited blacks to vote for him, saying, "What do you have to lose?"

It didn't get nearly as much attention as Kanye has received, but recently BET co-founder Robert Johnson praised Donald Trump's handling of the economy. Johnson said, "When you look at that [jobs report], you have to say something is going right. . . you've never had African-American unemployment this low."

Sadly, conservatives have been losing the country even when we win elections. A big reason is that we have been losing the culture, which is upstream from politics.

I had a front row seat when the left attempted to destroy Clarence Thomas. That's what the left does to anyone, particularly African Americans, who dares to say, "I won't sit in the back of the Democrat bus anymore."

Kayne West has triggered the entire snowflake empire. The amount of hair on fire this week will contribute enormously to global warming.

But if West sparks a revolution of free thinking that reintroduces black Americans to the Party of Abraham Lincoln, this could be a cultural moment unlike anything we have seen in decades.

Pompeo Confirmed - The Senate voted this afternoon to confirm Mike Pompeo as secretary of state. The vote was 57 to 42, much less than the 94 votes Hillary Clinton and John Kerry received.

Among the Democrats voting for Pompeo were: Donnelly (IN), Heitkamp (ND), Manchin (WV), McCaskill (MO) and Nelson (FL) -- all representing states Donald Trump won. They supported Pompeo so they could tell voters this year, "See I can work with the president."

Don't be fooled, my friends. I assure you that if these senators were not up for reelection this year, they would have joined the vast majority of Democrats who opposed Pompeo.

By the way, the vote came after the Senate wasted more than a day "debating" the nomination.

As we have reported, Democrats have been regularly abusing Senate rules forcing 30 hours of "debate" on almost every single nominee. That is time the Senate cannot spend on serious issues like border security or confirming the president's conservative judicial nominees.

I am pleased to report that may be changing.

Yesterday, Senate Republicans advanced a resolution that would dramatically limit the amount of time wasted on nominations.

That's a good first step. But I hope Senate Majority Leader McConnell is prepared to take more aggressive steps, like keeping the Senate in session as long as it takes to get Trump's nominees confirmed.
-------------------
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, Admiral Sunk, Cooper vs.  Comey, A Cultural Moment, Pompeo Confirmed To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!