News Blog for social, fiscal & national security conservatives who believe in God, family & the USA. Upholding the rights granted by God & guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, traditional family values, "republican" principles / ideals, transparent & limited "smaller" government, free markets, lower taxes, due process of law, liberty & individual freedom. Content approval rests with the ARRA News Service Editor. Opinions are those of the authors. While varied positions are reported, beliefs & principles remain fixed. No revenue is generated for or by this "Blog" - no paid ads - no payments for articles.Fair Use Doctrine is posted & used. Blogger/Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru & 2010 AFP National Blogger of the Year] Contact: editor@arranewsservice.com (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home PageFollow @arra
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato
(429-347 BC)
Friday, August 31, 2018
Giffords' Gun Control Activists Plot Rollout of Next Generation Firearm Restrictions
by NRA-ILA: Planned obsolescence is a term usually applied to design and economics and refers to intentionally building a limited lifespan into a product to ensure sales of future versions of the same thing. For example, electronics manufacturers have been accused of putting products on the market for which they have already developed “superior” versions or that cannot effectively run constantly updating operating systems so consumers will quickly be forced to “upgrade.”
Gun control advocates, however, have also adopted this technique to ensure that today’s “solution” to firearm-related violence inevitably tees up tomorrow’s even stricter measure to close the former law’s “loopholes.” As an article this week in USA TODAY demonstrated, even as gun control advocates are pressing for laws to give judges the discretion to order the seizure of guns that people already own, they are already preparing to argue that this is not enough. The next step requires giving bureaucrats the discretion to determine who should own guns in the first place.
The article is one of the more nuanced discussions of the recent events in Jacksonville, Florida, and pointed out that the suspect in that case ironically obtained the firearm he allegedly used to commit his crimes in the much stricter gun control jurisdiction of Maryland. Specifically, the article cited rankings compiled by the (very anti-gun) Giffords Law Center to Prevent Violence, which gave Maryland an A- for its gun control laws, placing it among a half-dozen states in America with unusually stringent firearm restrictions.
By all accounts, the 24-year-old Jacksonville suspect had a rather tumultuous past. As a minor he was at the center of a bitter divorce and custody battle between his parents, had boisterous arguments with his mother to which police repeatedly responded, and was subject to inpatient mental health treatment. Yet his background still appears not to have triggered an automatic disqualification under Maryland’s expansive list of categorical prohibitions for firearm ownership, several of which were passed in the aftermath of the notorious 2012 shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
To its credit, the article cites two academics, one a well-known gun control advocate, who nevertheless argue that while these circumstances might seem like obvious red flags in retrospect, they would not have been clear signs of a violent disposition before the fact. “[I]f we rolled back the clock and you showed me his background, would I say he’d commit a mass shooting?” asked one rhetorically. “I wouldn’t.” The other said that lashing out after anger and disappointment (the suspect is said to have targeted opponents after being eliminated from a gaming competition) isn’t unique to people with mental disorders. Rather, it’s “unique to being human.” The suspect in the Jacksonville case also lacked a significant history of violence, which “gun policy experts” identify as the best predictor of future violence, according to the article.
The article goes on to conclude that “[p]robably none of today’s gun control measures would have kept a firearm from [the suspect].” This includes Maryland’s recently passed “Extreme Risk Protective Order Law,” which takes effect October 1. This is because the suspect’s “mental health troubles appeared to have been largely in the past, and there were no signs of violence in recent years.”
Still, the Giffords Law Center insisted in public statements that “Congress knows the steps they can take to stop this madness.”
A Giffords lawyer explained: "If Maryland allowed law enforcement discretion when issuing handgun licenses, they might have been able to prevent this individual from buying a handgun based on his psychiatric record if they believed that he would not be someone who would use a gun safely."
Yet she contradicted herself by adding that most mass shooters are not mentally ill and that “[m]ost mentally ill people are not only not violent or a threat, but they’re statistically more likely to be victims of violent crime.”
Why a licensing official should therefore deny an applicant on the basis of a nonviolent mental health history was not made clear. Indeed, it seems the gist of the Giffords lawyer’s comments was that irrational prejudice against the mentally ill is unjustified and harmful, but licensing officials should still have discretion to deny applicants on that basis.
Close followers of Second Amendment topics know that discretionary issuance of licenses to carry firearms in public remains one of the most hotly contested issues in the field, with judicial circuits split on the degree to which this is constitutionally permissible. Yet even the adverse decisions indicate that discretionary issuance of licenses for acquisition and possession within the home would face a significantly higher bar in the courts.
Nevertheless, while Extreme Risk Protection Order laws might be the darling of gun control advocates today, that concept merely tees up tomorrow’s demand that bureaucrats have an unfettered case-by-case veto over firearm purchases in the first place. And this discretion should apparently extend, according to at least one Giffords attorney, to denials based on irrational bias or fear of misunderstood groups.
Under that theory, what becomes obsolete is constitutional due process and your Second Amendment rights. Which, if you’re a gun control advocate, is all according to plan.
--------------------- NRA-ILA article. Tags:Giffords Law Center, Gun Control Activists, Plot Rollout, Next Generation, Firearm RestrictionsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by NumbersUSA: Federal District Judge Andrew Hanen issued a ruling on Friday that denies a request from eight states, led by Texas, to temporarily halt the Obama-era DACA executive amnesty. But Judge Hanen did indicate in his decision that he will likely rule that the program is illegal."This Court by separate order has found that the Plaintiff States have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA") program is contrary to the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"). The Court also found that the Plaintiff States had made a clear showing of irreparable injury."Despite Judge Hanen hinting that he would eventually rule in the states' favor, he decided not to immediately halt the amnesty program, citing the delay from the states in filing the challenge."The Court did not grant the requested preliminary injunction as it found that the States had delayed seeking this relief for years, that the balance of private interests fell in favor of the denial of the requested relief, and that implementing that relief at this point in time was contrary to the best interests of the public."
Had Judge Hanen issued the preliminary injunction, it would have conflicted with three other federal courts who all issued injunctions against the Trump Administration's efforts to end DACA. An injunction from Hanen would have almost certainly caught the attention of the Supreme Court and forced it to rule on DACA.
Should Judge Hanen ultimately rule against DACA, the case would still likely head for the Supreme Court.
To read Judge Hanen's full decision, click here.
-------------------- NumbersUSA Tags:DACA, likely illegal, Federal District Judge, Andrew Hanen, NumbersUSATo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Trump Has the Nerve to Eliminate Pay Raises for Federal Employees
. . . He also called for performance-based pay raises. What a novel concept.
by Nate Jackson: At a time when the economy is booming, wages are rising, and blue-collar optimism is soaring, the federal government is also still growing too fast. Accumulation of debt hasn’t slowed — in fact, it’s accelerated. So it’s a welcome sign when President Donald Trump cites federal spending as a justification for freezing the pay of more than two million civilian federal workers next year. The pay freeze doesn’t apply to military personnel, who will receive a 2.6% raise.
“We must maintain efforts to put our nation on a fiscally sustainable course, and Federal agency budgets cannot sustain such increases,” the president said of the planned pay freeze in a letter to Congress. In fact, Trump said, “Federal employee pay must be performance-based, and aligned strategically toward recruiting, retaining, and rewarding high-performing Federal employees and those with critical skill sets.”
Performance-based pay raises? Gosh, that’s a novel concept. Of course, there’s an even chance Congress will override Trump in coming spending bills.
“Trump has the nerve to eliminate pay raises for federal employees to ‘put our nation on a fiscally sustainable course,’” fumed a DNC spokesman, who slammed the move as “yet another slap in the face to American workers.” That same spokesman also lamented the GOP tax cuts, which let American workers keep more of their own money. By the way, Democrats didn’t put up much #Resistance when Barack Obama froze pay for federal workers in 2011.
One element of this debate is just how much more federal workers earn than their private-sector counterparts. Last year, we noteda Congressional Budget Office study revealing that pay gap to be 17%. Most of the disparity comes via benefits, not necessarily wages.
As we said then, there are extremely hard workers who earn their pay as public servants. The problem is we have people like the EPA employee who browse porn all day, IRS employees who steal from taxpayers, and CFPB bureaucrats resisting Trump by forming “Dumbledore’s Army” based on children’s literature. When you factor in the total job security that government workers have and then lump in extra pay and benefits, the private sector simply can’t compete.
A final note: Given that Hillary Clinton received95% of all donationsfrom non-military federal employees, this is a low-cost move for Trump in more ways than one.
-------------------- Nate Jackson is managing editor for the Patriot Post. Tags:President Trump, Has the Nerve,Eliminate Pay Raises, Federal EmployeesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Arkansas Eliminating Unnecessary Rules and Regulations in Arkansas
AR Gov. Hutchinson
by Gov. Asa Hutchinson: Bills and laws that our legislators pass are assigned a number, which tells you nothing about the subject of the law.
But sometimes when legislation moves through the general assembly, it will pick up a nickname that describes its purpose.
The tradition of nicknames is a helpful shorthand for voters who try to keep track of legislation.
In keeping with that tradition, maybe we should call Act 781 of 2017 The Housecleaning Bill.
The Act, which I enthusiastically supported and signed into law, requires my directors in each state agency to inventory every rule and to get rid of all unnecessary rules that are outdated and serve no useful purpose.
To use a budgeting term, think of it as a line-item examination of state rules and regulations.
Basically, Act 781, sponsored by Representative Jim Dotson, requires agencies to sort through all their rules and to get rid of all unnecessary rules that are outdated and serve no purpose. Under The Housecleaning Bill, December 1 of last year was the deadline for each agency to file a preliminary report; and July 1 of this year was the deadline for the final list. All of my agency directors met that deadline.
This week, various legislative committees have been meeting with agency representatives, whose task was to defend the decision about every rule.
When you consider that we have nearly 3,400 rules and regulations in place, some of them dating back a hundred years, you understand that this housecleaning was long overdue.
Our agency directors recommended repeal of 830 outdated and unnecessary rules and regulations. In other words, 25 percent of all of our rules have been eliminated.
This has been a lot of work for our agencies, and much work lies ahead for our legislators. But when the work is done, our house will be cleaner, our government leaner.
---------------- Asa Hutchinson is Governor of Arkansas. Tags:Asa Hutchinson, Governor, Arkansas, Unnecessary Rules and RegulationsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Contrary To What Some Say, U.S. Doesn’t Lead World In Mass Shootings
by Tom Knighton: Anti-gun activists love to claim that the United States leads the world in mass shootings. For most Americans, a single study is all they needed to believe that. After all, as Americans, we tend to think the world revolves around us to some degree. Not individually, but as a nation, it seems we tend not to pay that much attention to the rest of the world. So, we hear about mass shootings here and not much of anywhere else.
But that doesn’t mean they don’t happen there.
“There’s a study!” anti-gunners will claim.
Sure. But it’s a pile of bovine excrement. Lankford’s study reported that over the 47 years there were 90 public mass shooters in the United States and 202 in the rest of world. Lankford hasn’t released his list of shootings or even the number of cases by country or year. We and others, both in academia and the media, have asked Lankford for his list, only to be declined. He has also declined to provide lists of the news sources and languages he used to compile his list of cases.
These omissions are important because Lankford’s entire conclusion would fall apart if he undercounted foreign cases due to lack of news coverage and language barriers.
Lankford cites a 2012 New York Police Department report which he claims is “nearly comprehensive in its coverage of recent decades.” He also says he supplemented the data and followed “the same data collection methodology employed by the NYPD.” But the NYPD report warns that its own researchers “limited [their] Internet searches to English-language sites, creating a strong sampling bias against international incidents,” and thus under-count foreign mass shootings.
Does Lankford’s paper also have that problem?Yes, it does. Additionally, the fact that Lankford won’t release his list of mass shootings seems to indicate that he knows his study is crap but doesn’t want anyone to figure it out.
When John Lott delved into the data themselves, they could only look at about a third of the time period but found 15 times as many shooters as Lankford did. It seems that Lankford’s study was seriously undercounting mass shootings. If one were to assume that the same multiples were found in the two-thirds Lott and company were unable to examine, that’s a whole lot of shootings Lankford never bothered with.
The result? Of the 86 countries where we have identified mass public shootings, the US ranks 56th per capita in its rate of attacks and 61st in mass public shooting murder rate. Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Russia all have at least 45 percent higher rates of murder from mass public shootings than the United States.
When Lankford’s data is revised, the relationship between gun ownership rates and mass public shooters disappears.
How could that be? One possibility is that guns don’t just enable mass shooters; gun owners can also deter and prevent such shootings. Another is that culture — not gun ownership — is a bigger factor in shootings.Frankly, I think both possibilities are correct, but that’s just me.
It’s unlikely that this study will get a whole lot of play. It goes against the anti-gun narrative to such a profound degree that it’s guaranteed to cause some serious cognitive dissonance. Anti-gunners will reject it outright, not because of bad methodology or anything, but simply because they don’t like the outcome. They prefer the poorer study that confirms their beliefs. Confirmation bias to an extreme.
But the truth is, we’re not some mass murder mecca. This great country is one with a whole lot of people, a free press that talks about all of this stuff ad nauseum, and a large global footprint that can drown out what’s going on elsewhere. That’s why it seems like Lankford’s study made sense. It’s because, as Americans, we tend to think about things in such a way that we forget there’s a whole other world out there that doesn’t do things as we do.
------------------ 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 and also contributes to PJ Media. Tags:Tom Knighton, Bearing Arms, Contrary To What Some Say, U.S. Doesn’t Lead World, Mass ShootingsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Golden Fleece to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
The Golden Fleece Award
ARRA News Service: Congressman French Hill (R-AR) named the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services as the latest winner of the Golden Fleece Award for making what appears to be an estimated nearly $1 billion in improper payments to Qualified Health Plan issuers for enrollees that were either ineligible or did not have the proper documentation.
“At a time when healthcare costs are skyrocketing and our nation is over $20 trillion in debt, it is essential that our federal agencies act as good stewards of taxpayers’ dollars,” said Hill. “This lack of oversight and accountability is unacceptable, and action must be taken immediately because hardworking Arkansans and Americans deserve better.”
In the letter to the Administrator of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Seema Verma, Congressman Hill wrote:The Honorable Seema Verma
Administrator
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
7500 Security Blvd
Baltimore, MD 21244-1849
Dear Administrator Verma:
I write today to inform you that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is this month’s recipient of my Golden Fleece Award for making what appears to be nearly $1 billion in improper payments.
An audit released by the Office of the Inspector General this month found that in 2014 CMS authorized an estimated $434.4 million in payments to Qualified Health Plan issuers for enrollees who were not eligible for these payments and a further $504.89 million in improper financial assistance payments for enrollees without the proper documentation.[1] At a time when healthcare costs are skyrocketing and our nation is over $20 trillion in debt, it is essential that our federal agencies act as good stewards of taxpayers’ dollars.
I am committed to ensuring effective practices at our Nation’s federal agencies. Should you require any additional authority from Congress to address these concerns, I urge you to notify us as soon as possible. I thank you for your consideration and look forward to working with you to address this important issue.
Sincerely,
French Hill
Member of CongresszAbout the Golden Fleece Award
Every year, Congress appropriates trillions of dollars to fund the federal government, and every year the federal government wastes portions of these funds in unconscionable ways. As a Member of Congress, and as a taxpayer, this frustrates me to no end. In an attempt to increase accountability for every single government program, Congressman Hill decided to bring back the Golden Fleece Award.
Originally introduced by Democratic U.S. Senator from Wisconsin William Proxmire in March 1975, the Golden Fleece Award was a monthly bulletin on the most frivolous and wasteful uses of hardworking taxpayers’ dollars. The Golden Fleece Award became a staple in the U.S. Senate during this time, and Senator Robert Byrd once stated that the awards were “as much a part of the Senate as quorum calls and filibusters.”
In reviving this idea, the Golden Fleece Award will again have the opportunity to serve as an important reminder to taxpayers about the need for necessary, commonsense reforms to our federal spending. Tags:Congressman, French Hill, R-AR, awards, August, 2018, Golden Fleece Award, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, $1 billion, improper paymentsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Enough With The Victimhood: Millionaire Athletes And Their Lost Cause
. . . As an American black citizen, I have had enough of what the Left has done to my race.
by Sylvia Thompson: I must admit I have never in my life purchased a ticket to a sports event. I am not a sports enthusiast. But I am an American black citizen, and I have had it up to the gills with black people who embrace victimhood. I also highly resent my being expected to do the same in order to affirm my “blackness.”
Black victims these days, for the most part, are the product of decades of Black Americans being used primarily by white progressive leftists to advance an anti-American agenda.
The current brouhaha surrounding the despicable behavior of NFL athletes toward the National Anthem and the American flag is a prime example of what the Left has done to my race.
One must assume these players and their guilt-conflicted white coaches and owners (and victimhood-inflicted black coaches) are being manipulated by the Left, because no intelligent, thinking people would deliberately cut themselves off at the knees. Essentially, what these young misguided mostly black men are doing is ensuring the demise of their lucrative paychecks. Further, I would wager that if these teams consisted of all white athletes, none of this idiocy would be allowed. We are witnessing this travesty because the vast majority of players are black and can whine “oppression” if appropriate action is taken against them for their unconscionable behavior.
The twisted reasoning that claims these protests are to highlight “injustice” and “police brutality” is a laughable crock. What they do in fact is dishonor valued symbols of this nation’s heritage and cover over truth about black crime.
Black males bear the brunt of police encounters because black males commit disproportionately more crimes. Police encounters with black men are so often confrontational because so many of these men, especially the young, don’t think “compliance” applies to them. They foolishly assume they are above the law and disrespect for police officers is an act of honor.
These young blacks, sadly, took much of their direction from racists Barack Obama and Eric Holder during Obama’s destructive, eight-year regime and Holder’s corruption of the Justice Department. These two men, abusing their federal powers, gave young blacks the impression they need not heed the law, because laws are somehow unjust when they are applied to black Americans. The NFL lot, and any other athletes taking a similar stance, are also influenced by Obama’s and Holder’s disdain for law and law enforcement.
I am not familiar with one case where a black suspect to a crime was not proven legally to have caused the behavior against him, particularly in cases where the police officer involved was exonerated by facts. Michael Brown of “hands up, don’t shoot” infamy is one good example. Blatant lies were spread to cloud the truth about Brown’s case.
Back in the day when I was growing up in the racially segregated South, the opposite prevailed in many cases. There was much injustice particularly toward black men, but not today. Today, too many blacks have been fed the notion that it is now “pay-back” time, and they can flaunt their lawlessness because some whites flaunted theirs during an earlier time in our nation’s history.
Although Obama and Holder no longer wield power in this country, some of their minions continue on the pernicious path of “paying back” American whites for wrongs, real or imagined. But as the saying goes, there is a new Sheriff in town and he is not guilt-conflicted. He expects fair play under law and tolerating pay-back is not part of his agenda. Black Americans, when they break the law, can no longer claim victim status simply because they are black. Those days are over.
American laws and law enforcement personnel will be respected in America, again; our traditions and values will not be impugned in America without consequences, again. Anybody unsettled about this turn of events is welcome to leave this country. I suggest all the black players try a country in Africa, and see how successful they will be at making millions playing games. They will all soon learn what oppression really means.
Some self-directed, independent-thinking blacks (and there are many of us) have offered that if these millionaire protestors want to tackle some real problems, they might consider the thousands of black children killed in abortions annually (by the progressive Left), or perhaps the many, many young blacks murdered routinely on inner-city streets by other young blacks (in cities run by progressive, leftist Democrats), or the downright criminal state of education of black inner-city children, orchestrated by the progressive leftist National Education Association (NEA). The NEA’s aim is to produce unintelligent pawns to feed the cause of progressivism.
I am annoyed by the expressions of “sincerity” gracing the faces of the NFL protestors—as if to convey the “hallowedness” of their cause. In actuality, they provide a picture of grown men allowing themselves to be made fools of by the progressive Left. I don’t doubt, however, that some of these men have been coerced into compliance with this lost cause, either through threats of violence or shunning (from coaches and players). Alejandro Villanueva of the Pittsburgh Steelers and former Army ranger is very likely a victim of such threats. He was publicly castigated by his leftist coach for his patriotism. The coach demanded unity behind an ignorant cause.
And finally, this issue has nothing to do with First Amendment rights. President Trump’s speaking out against the clownish behavior of the athletes, on behalf of the majority of American citizens, does not mean he can or would stop any of these misguided people from making fools of themselves. To restrict them, as a government entity, would indeed be a violation of the First Amendment. But their employers, if they were to develop even a modicum of testicular fortitude, could and should fire them for doing major damage to the bottom line of the business. The rest of us non-millionaire “Joes” would certainly be pink-slipped by an employer if we dared to be so clueless about the necessity of profits and so disdainful of the sensibilities of customers.
I will wait patiently for the true sports enthusiasts to vent their rage by simply boycotting the games. It will be sweet revenge to witness the slain goose cease producing its golden eggs.
------------------- Sylvia Thompson is a black conservative FrontPage Mag writer whose aim is to counter the liberal, leftist spin on issues pertaining to race and culture. She igrew up in Southeast Texas during the waning years of Jim Crow-era legalized segregation, and she concludes that race relations in America will never improve as long as the voices of many are stifled by intimidation from the few. She believes the nation needs resounding voices of opposition from true patriots and Bible-oriented Christians, to stem the forces that would transform this nation into something it was never intended to be. Tags:Sylvia Thompson, FrontPage Mag, Enough With The Victimhood, Millionaire Athletes, Their Lost CauseTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
American Bar Association Gives Judge Kavanaugh Its Highest Possible Rating Of Unanimously ‘Well Qualified’
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION on Judge Kavanaugh: “The American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has completed its evaluation of the professional qualifications of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh … After an exhaustive evaluation process, the Standing Committee has determined by a unanimous vote that Judge Kavanaugh is ‘Well Qualified’ for the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.”(American Bar Association, Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, Letter to Sens. Grassley and Feinstein, 8/31/2018)
SENS. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY) & PAT LEAHY (D-VT): The ABA’s evaluation is “the gold standard by which judicial candidates are judged.”(The Washington Post, 3/18/2001)
Tags:Democrats’ Gold Standard, American Bar Association, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
D-Day, Department Of Injustice, Anti-American History, Values Voter Summit
by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: D-Day? Is today D-Day in the Mueller investigation? "Meet The Press" host Chuck Todd raised eyebrows yesterday when he gleefully speculated that a big announcement is imminent from Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Here's what Todd said:
"I think he [Mueller] knows, more than anything, he keeps quiet between Labor Day and Election Day [to avoid accusations of election interference]. . . I'll be honest, I'm not missing work tomorrow. I wouldn't miss work tomorrow. Tomorrow is the last business day of the pre-Labor Day to Election Day window."
I can't help but wonder if Mueller has given a heads-up to a few swamp reporters to set the stage. Or is this just part of the ongoing psychological warfare against the president of the United States and his team?
If some bombshell is dropped later today or over the weekend, we will call our staff back in and reach out to sources we respect to give you the most complete report we can on Tuesday. Meanwhile, please pray for the country, the president and vice president.
Department Of Injustice - The conflicts of interest in the Mueller investigation continue to pile up. Here's the latest.
Wednesday we told you that demoted Justice Department official Bruce Ohr (whose wife, Nellie, worked for Fusion GPS, which was paid by the Clinton campaign to produce the Steele dossier) informed congressional investigators that he had been passing updates on the dossier to multiple officials in the Justice Department, even though that had nothing to do with his official duties.
His actions obviously stoked a very anti-Trump atmosphere among the Obama appointees and other swamp creatures at the Justice Department.
Well, Fox News is reporting that one of the people Ohr regularly "kept in the loop" was Andrew Weissmann, who is now one of Mueller's top deputies.
One of the famous symbols of justice is Lady Justice, holding an old fashioned scale that is supposed to be balanced.
But it is becoming more apparent every day that on one side of that scale was every significant official at the Justice Department, all of them out to ruin Donald Trump. It was for an indeterminate period of time the Department of Injustice.
Speaking at a rally in Indiana last night, President Trump issued a stern warning, saying:
"Our Justice Department and our FBI have to start doing their job and doing it right and doing it now. Because people are angry! People are angry!
"What's happening is a disgrace. And at some point, I wanted to stay out, but at some point if it doesn't straighten out properly. . . I will get involved and I'll get in there if I have to."
Anti-American History - Given the left-wing mindset of Hollywood, I am always dubious about what they will do to the great moments of American history. So when I heard about the film "First Man," which is about Neil Armstrong's historic moon landing, I grew concerned. And apparently with good reasons.
Yesterday we learned that they left out of the film Armstrong's planting of the American flag on the moon.
Actor Ryan Gosling, who portrays Armstrong, was asked about the omission, and said, "I think this was widely regarded in the end as a human achievement [and] that's how we chose to view it."
Once again, we see that these left-wing elites view themselves as citizens of the world, and they are perfectly happy to rewrite history.
Granted, Gosling and the film's director are Canadians. It's also true that Armstrong famously referred to his landing as "one giant leap for mankind." That was a symbol of America's largess and intention to share the benefits of our research. But you have to ignore history to not know that the moon landing was a tremendously patriotic endeavor.
The Soviet Union stunned the world when it put Sputnik into space 12 years earlier. America was in shock. A young president went on national television and declared that we would beat the Soviets to the moon.
That is what a great country does. And every communist nation in the world got the message when they had to watch Neil Armstrong unfurl the American flag on the moon.
If during his presidency Barack Obama had decided it was time to go back to the moon, he likely would have picked left-wing astronauts, just like all his appointees. And they probably would have taken the flag down. Or perhaps they would have taken a knee in protest of America's great injustice.
Join Me In D.C. - Join me in our nation's capital September 21st – 23rd for the 2018 Values Voter Summit!
Vice President Mike Pence said, "The Values Voter Summit [is] the greatest gathering of conservative pro-family Americans in the nation." And he is absolutely right!
That is why American Values, my non-profit public policy organization, has been a proud sponsor of the Summit every year.
This year's Summit features an incredible lineup of speakers, including:
David & Jason Benham
Dr. Bill Bennett
Gov. Matt Bevin
Secretary Ben Carson
Brigitte Gabriel
Dr. Sebastian Gorka
Dana Loesch
Rep. Mark Meadows
Lt. Col. Oliver North
Dr. Everett Piper
Secretary Mike Pompeo
Rep. Steve Scalise
Todd Starnes
And Many More!
There will be educational and informative breakout sessions, as well as a gala dinner honoring my good friend former Congressman Frank Wolf for his years of leadership on religious liberty issues.
American Values will be hosting a special luncheon Saturday, September 22nd.
Seats are going fast, so register today.
I look forward to seeing you there!
------------------- 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, D-Day, Department Of Injustice, Anti-American History, Values Voter SummitTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Tags:AF Branco, Editorial Cartoon, Lanny Davis, promised, CNN, blitzedTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Patrick Buchanan: “Priests who prey on parochial school children and altar boys are not only sinners, they are criminal predators who belong in penitentiary cells not parish rectories….”
This summer, the sex scandal that has bedeviled the Catholic Church went critical.
First came the stunning revelation that Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, former archbishop of Washington and friend to presidents, had for decades been a predator-priest who preyed on seminarians and abused altar boys, and whose depravity was widely known and covered up.
Came then the report of a Pennsylvania grand jury that investigated six dioceses and found that some 300 priests had abused 1,000 children over the last 70 years.
The bishop of Pittsburgh, Donald Wuerl, now cardinal archbishop of Washington, defrocked some of these corrupt priests, but reassigned others to new parishes where new outrages were committed.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, Vatican envoy to the United States under Pope Benedict XVI, charged that Pope Francis had been told of McCarrick’s abuses, done nothing to sanction him, and that, as “zero tolerance” of sexual abuse is Francis’ own policy, the pope should resign.
In his 11-page letter of accusations, Vigano further charged that there is a powerful “homosexual current” among the Vatican prelates closest to the pope.
Not unlike Watergate, the issue here is whether Pope Francis knew what was going on in the Vatican and in his Church, and why he was not more resolute in rooting out the moral squalor.
Orthodox, conservative and traditionalist Catholics are the most visible and vocal demanding an accounting. Progressive and liberal Catholics, to whom Pope Francis and Cardinal McCarrick were seen as allies on issues of sexual morality, have been thrown on the defensive.
Now, accusations alone are neither proof nor evidence.
Yet there is an obligation, an imperative, given the gravity of the revelations, that the Vatican address the charges.
When did Pope Francis become aware of McCarrick’s conduct, which appears to have been widely known? Did he let his close friendship with McCarrick keep him from doing his papal and pastoral duty?
This destructive scandal has been bleeding for decades. Too long. The Church is running out of time. It needs to act decisively now.
Priests who prey on parochial school children and altar boys are not only sinners, they are criminal predators who belong in penitentiary cells not parish rectories. They ought to be handed over to civil authorities.
While none of us is without sin, sexually active and abusive clergy should be severed from the priesthood. There needs to be a purge at the Vatican, removing or retiring bishops, archbishops and cardinals, the revelation of whose past misconduct would further feed this scandal.
For too long, the Catholic faithful have been forced to pay damages and reparations for crimes and sins of predator priests and the hierarchy’s collusion and complicity in covering them up.
And it needs be stated clearly: This is a homosexual scandal.
Almost all of the predators and criminals are male, as are most of the victims: the boys, the teenagers, the young seminarians.
Applicants to the seminary should be vetted the way applicants to the National Security Council are. Those homosexually inclined should be told the priesthood of the Church is not for them, as it is not for women.
Secular society will call this invidious discrimination, but it is based on what Christ taught and how he established his Church.
Inevitably, if the Church is to remain true to herself, the clash with secular society, which now holds that homosexuality is natural and normal and entitled to respect, is going to widen and deepen.
For in traditional Catholic teaching, homosexuality is a psychological and moral disorder, a proclivity toward acts that are intrinsically wrong, and everywhere and always sinful and depraved, and ruinous of character.
The idea of homosexual marriages, recently discovered to be a constitutional right in the USA, remains an absurdity in Catholic doctrine.
If the Church’s highest priority is to coexist peacefully with the world, it will modify, soften, cease to preach, or repudiate these beliefs, and follow the primrose path of so many of our separated Protestant brethren.
But if she does, it will not be the same Church that over centuries accepted martyrdom to remain the faithful custodian of Gospel truths and sacred tradition.
And how has the embrace of modernity and its values advanced the religious faiths whose leaders sought most earnestly to accommodate them?
The Church is going through perhaps its gravest crisis since the Reformation. Since Vatican II, the faithful have been departing, some leaving quietly, others embracing agnosticism or other faiths.
“Who am I to judge?” said the pope when first pressed about the morality of homosexuality.
Undeniably, Francis, and the progressive bishops who urge a new tolerance, a new understanding, a new appreciation of the benign character of homosexuality, have won the plaudits of a secular press that loathed the Church of Pius XII.
Of what value are all those wonderful press clippings now, as the chickens come home to roost in Vatican City?
-------------------- 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, Cancer On the Papacy, Priests who prey, criminal predatorsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Kerby Anderson, Contributing Author: Does the 14th amendment automatically grant citizenship to anyone born in this country? That is the current policy of this government, but a number of constitutional scholars disagree.
I have written about this in the past and want to focus on it again. But I also have noted that a number of conservative lawyers who have been on my radio program accept the government’s policy. If you think the policy should be changed, I would recommend you start by convincing fellow conservatives and constitutionalists.
Michael Anton (Hillsdale College lecturer) writes in the Washington Post that citizenship should not be a birthright. He says, “The notion that simply being born within the geographical limits of the United States automatically confers US citizenship is an absurdity — historically, constitutionally, philosophically and practically.”
The purpose of the 14thamendment was to resolve the question of citizenship of freed slaves. Essentially, it was needed to overturn the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. “Second, the amendment specifies two criteria for American citizenship: birth or naturalization (lawful immigration) and being subject to US jurisdiction.”
It is that second point that has been used to justify birthright citizenship. Government officials argued that “subject to the jurisdiction” simply means they are “subject to American law.” Therefore, you can argue that a tourist is subject to the laws of America while in the country. That appears to be a misreading of the amendment.
Michael Anton says that the problem can be fixed if Congress would clarify legislatively that children of noncitizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and thus not citizens under the 14thAmendment. Although that may be true, he needs to start by convincing his fellow conservatives that such a change needs to be made.
by Paul Jacob, Contributing Author: It is hard not to miss the ideological left’s inconsistency regarding “diversity”: demanding diversity of race and gender, they enforce a monoculture that somehow cannot tolerate intellectual and political competition.
We see this in
higher education, dominated by left-of-center professors and administrators;
in the news media, overwhelmingly filled with Democrats; and
even in the corporate world, especially in HR Departments.
That some areas of life are filled with one type of person, and others with a different kind, should shock no one. But the intolerance of this? It has recently become extra extreme on the left: De-platforming, physical attacks on free speech, censuring and firing employees who dare offer facts inconvenient for progressivism. When a senior Facebook engineer attempted to bring in tolerance and diversity, what should have been a non-story received national attention.*
It amounts to a new segregationism.
People are segregating more and more in their communities based on income and culture (see Bill Bishop’s The Big Sort) — despite many of these same self-segregators support for Martin Luther King’s civil rights agenda of de-segregation.
Another current trend is shunning. When it was discovered, the other day, that the In-N-Out burger chain had contributed $25,000 to the California Republican Party, the Twitterverse cooked up something special: “#BoycotInNOut — let Trump and his cronies support these creeps” . . . well, that gem is from the chair of the California Democratic Party.
Apparently, this Democratic Party official is demanding separate eating establishments for progressives and conservatives.
But hey, where would I eat?
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
* Arguably, many of the stories we fret about should be non-stories — as in, “none of our business.” But when some people make others’ business theirs, the stories just will not stay local.
------------------ 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. Jacob is a contributing author on the ARRA News Service. Tags:Paul Jacob, Common Sense, Re-SegregationTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
DOJ Joins Fight Against Discrimination By Elite Universities
Harvard College
by Natalia Castro: Discrimination is wrong in any form. Yet liberal universities are attempting to combat discrimination, not by creating equality, but instead by discriminating against different groups. This is the basic idea behind affirmative action- one group has been discriminated against historically, so another group must be discriminated against currently to even out the playing field. But Asian-Americans are not rallying behind this idea. Despite being a minority group in this country, Asian-Americans have been determined “too privileged” to receive the benefits of affirmative action, so they are fighting back against this racist system. And now, the Department of Justice is on their side.
In a lawsuit filed against Harvard College, Students for Fair Admissions argues the school’s admission process deliberately discriminates against Asian American students by placing caps on the number of students in different minority groups admitted and placing preference on other groups despite academic achievement levels.
The lawsuit cites a study conducted by Harvard’s own Office of Institutional Research in 2013 which found that Asian Americans would comprise 43.4 percent of the admitted class under an “academic-only” model. Instead, this group only makes up 18.7 percent of the actual admitted class. In fact, subsequent research by the group found that being Asian American actually decreased the likelihood of admission for students.
Unfortunately, when this study was shared with William Fitzsimmons, Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid, Fitzsimmons chose not to discuss the findings with his colleagues and made no changes to the system.
But Harvard is not the only higher education institution guilty of this practice, and it is hurting Asian Americans across the country.
The results found that at Caltech, Asian Americans routinely constitute more than 40 percent of the student body. Conversely, at MIT the number of Asian American students at the school halted in the 1990’s and has stalled at 26 percent since. At Harvard, the percent of Asian American students peaked at 21 percent and has maintained about 17 percent ever since.
Researchers note, “At both MIT and Harvard there seems to be a limit or “ceiling” on how many Asian American applicants are to be admitted. If there were no such ceiling, both MIT and Harvard would probably enroll a significantly larger number of Asian American applicants. As it is, some of those applicants may conclude they were rejected on account of their race.”
The study also reminds that when affirmative action was greenlighted in 1978, it was viewed as a “temporary necessity” to equalize a history of racial injustice, but 40 years later it is perpetuating exactly what it was meant to end.
As the lawsuit notes, monitoring this discrimination in universities is of compelling interest to the government. The lawsuit explains, “Because Harvard uses race as a factor in admissions decisions… and accepts federal funds… it is subject to Title VI. Harvard thus shoulders the heavy burden of strict scrutiny. The Court, as a result, must give ‘close analysis to the evidence of how the process works in practice,’… to determine whether: Harvard intentionally discriminates against Asian-American applicants Harvard engages in racial balancing; Harvard’s use of race is narrowly tailored to achieving ‘critical mass’; Harvard has given serious, good faith consideration to nonracial approaches; and, there are, in fact, no workable, race neutral alternatives.”
For this reason, the Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest on the side of the Students for Fair Admissions urging the court to take this case to trial promptly.
Attorney General Jeff Session noted, “No American should be denied admission to school because of their race. As a recipient of taxpayer dollars, Harvard has a responsibility to conduct its admissions policy without racial discrimination by using meaningful admissions criteria that meet lawful requirements. The Department of Justice has the responsibility to protect the civil rights of the American people. This case is significant because the admissions policies at our colleges and universities are important and must be conducted lawfully.”
Everyone knows two wrongs don’t make a right. And that is exactly what schools like Harvard are doing when they attempt to combat discrimination with affirmative action. The discrimination is only getting worse and hardworking students are being left out. By siding with the Students for Fair Admissions, the Justice Department is sending the strong message that merit, not race, should determine a student’s academic future.
--------------- Natalia Castro is the Public Outreach Coordinator at Americans for Limited Government. Tags:Natalia Castro, Americans for Limited Government, DOJ. Joins Fight, Against Discrimination, Elite UniversitiesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo named scholar and national security expert Kiron Skinner on Thursday as director of policy planning, the official who heads the department’s in-house think tank. It’s a signal that Pompeo is moving back to regular order in how State does business, but also that he is serious about implementing President Donald Trump’s “America First” national security strategy.
Skinner directs Carnegie Mellon University’s Institute for Policy and Strategy and also is the Taube professor of international relations and politics at the private research university in Pittsburgh. She is a research fellow at the California-based Hoover Institution.
Skinner replaces Brian Hook, who will be captaining implementation of the Trump administration’s pressure campaign on Iran. The Hook appointment makes sense because he has been State’s point man on Iran, and Iran is a top administration priority.
The shift, however, also signals a new phase in how the State Department does the business of state. Since the upper political ranks were so thin, the shop known as the Policy Planning Staff has been unusually operational over the past 17 months, leading negotiating and policymaking efforts that were normally done by senior diplomats.
Pleased to announce the appointment of Dr. Kiron Skinner as the incoming Director of Policy Planning. Dr. Skinner will provide strategic views on policy formulation. Her vision and expertise will be strong assets in the @StateDept’s work on behalf of the American people. pic.twitter.com/10B0sVs0BC
Pompeo has made filling out the senior diplomatic ranks a priority, using the Policy Planning Staff for the important work of thinking through how State will address the long-term challenges and the next steps in advancing Trump’s foreign policy.
What is most telling about the appointment of Skinner is that it is an unconventional choice. This shows how much Pompeo gets what will become the new conventions of this unconventional modern world.
Statecraft no longer can be stovepiped into the isolated world of embassies and meeting rooms. Modern diplomacy swims in a witch’s brew that is as much about the impact of new technologies such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, and the internet of things and great power strategic competitions as it is about negotiating treaties and consular affairs.
Skinner, 57, has led cutting-edge technology projects at major universities, served on the Defense Policy Board (which advises the Pentagon), and is as comfortable with generals and general managers as she is with diplomats. By picking her, Pompeo shows that he gets it.
Skinner is a good fit for Pompeo’s team. She is a big thinker. While she may be a less familiar name to folks in foreign policy circles, she is well known in the national security and tech policy communities. She will be a strong bridge between the converging world of all things online, security, and diplomacy.
Kiron Skinner on the #TrumpKimSummit: “I think the way this will play out is that the United States will remain firm… about what it wants.” pic.twitter.com/mP0A2iydRY
Skinner also is someone who will help bring together the tribes in the Trump administration. She is a well-known quantity and has long-standing connections in the conservative community.
She served on the presidential transition team. She definitely has the president’s confidence and a strong relationship with the national security adviser, John Bolton. She served as a foreign policy adviser on the campaigns of George W. Bush and Newt Gingrich. She is known to be close to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
In addition to a long string of academic credentials and experience working with government and the private sector, what is key about Skinner is that she understands Trump’s foreign policy. Early on she was one of the few academics to appreciate the popular power of the Trump message, including on foreign policy.
Writing in Forbes magazine about an emerging Trump doctrine four months before the 2016 election, Skinner pointed out:
Go beyond this rhetoric, however, and hear Trump’s explanation for America first: ‘The world is most peaceful and most prosperous when America is strongest. America will continue and continue forever to play the role of peacemaker. We will always help save lives and indeed humanity itself, but to play the role, we must make America strong again.’
Is there any country other than the United States that most Americans would like to see as the organizer of the international system?
In addition to his politically incorrect rhetoric, Trump seems so much like a foreign policy radical because he is tampering with long-held maxims. One such maxim is that China should not be taken on directly. Yet Trump says the United States cannot be strong militarily when it is weak economically, and its economic plight has a lot to do with China’s ‘assault on American jobs and wealth.’
With outstanding conservative and academic credentials, Skinner has the potential to help anchor the Trump foreign policy philosophically in the principles and worldview of President Ronald Reagan.
Having somebody rooted in Reagan in the heart of Foggy Bottom ought to help keep Trump’s foreign policy headed in the right direction.
-------------------- Helle C. Dale (@Helledale) is the Heritage Foundation's senior fellow in public diplomacy. Her work focuses on the U.S. government’s institutions and programs for strategic outreach to the public of foreign countries, as well as more traditional diplomacy. James Jay Carafano (@JJCarafano) is a leading expert in national security and foreign policy challenges, is The Heritage Foundation’s vice president for foreign and defense policy studies, E. W. Richardson fellow, and director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies. Article shared in The Daily Signal. Tags:Helle C. Dale, James Jay Carafano, The Daily SignalTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Jake Wagner: A State Senator running for a congressional seat in MA is dredging up an oldie but a goodie: Impeach Justice Thomas.
Back in July, there was talk on the left about the prospect of impeaching future-Justice Kavanaugh. There was talk about Trump’s nomination being impermissible due to him being an “unindicted co-conspirator.” And now there is talk of removing Justice Thomas from the bench.
It is patently obvious that this is a desperate cry for help from the left. The left is literally shaking at the notion of the Supreme Court being reduced to an objective interpreter of law. The left longs for the day when judicial activists would remake the nation and its law in favor of progressive policy aims. They are now faced with the reality of Scalia’s seat being preserved by Gorsuch. They are now facing the possibility of Kennedy’s seat being converted by Kavanaugh. They may face the possibility of losing Ginsburg’s seat.
All of this is frightening to them as the liberal utopian nightmare will come to an end.
The thought of abortion being legal up to the age of thirty in California or Illinois and the thought of it being *gasp* illegal in Texas or Indiana is too much to handle. Heaven forbid states making their own decisions.
So what do they do? Trump adds two, the left will subtract two via impeachment.
If only Neil Gorsuch’s father had used a racial slur thirty years ago, then the left could impeach Gorsuch too! It’d be the trifecta, no Gorsuch, no Kavanaugh, and no Thomas! Maybe Alito ate at Chick-Fil-A once.
I wrote in a previous article: The framers made it clear that justices were not to be removed for capricious reasons. There was some debate as to the scope of the judiciary’s insulation from the political processes and accountability.
The Anti-Federalists believed that “there is no authority that can remove them from office for any errors or want of capacity.” They lamented that wickedness masked by error would insulate judges from political and legal accountability.
Hamilton argues that such accountability would give “scope to personal and party attachments and enmities, [rather] than advance the interests of justice or the public good.”
If Supreme Court justices were to be removed for anything other than law breaking, we’d be removing them all the time. While the definition of “during good behavior” is malleable, both the anti-federalists and later congresses understood it to match the criteria mentioned in Article II. Judges are considered civil officers. They can only be removed for misconduct.
There is an excellent article that delves into this subject, though it was written in the context of judicial mental capacity.So what does this mean for Justice Thomas?
Politico reports: Thomas' 1991 confirmation hearing was marked by sexual harassment allegations against him relating to his conduct at several federal agencies. L'Italien said she would file the impeachment resolution against Thomas for perjury during his confirmation hearings to the Supreme Court, insisting there is "considerable evidence that Thomas lied under oath" about his professional conduct, namely claims that he sexually harassed Anita Hill.
L’Italien added “There is an elephant in the room for Congress in the #MeToo era. Our leaders have to start talking about it. Two of the most powerful men in the country have been credibly accused of sexual crimes and gotten away with it.”There are several issues to be addressed.
1: Assuming everything is true, Justice Thomas is insulated from impeachment because the conduct did not occur while he was on the bench. It is out of Congress’ hands to filter out former lechers, lushes, and any assortment of shady characters once they have been confirmed. This is why they serve during “good behavior.” It is not contingent upon past offenses, prior to serving in that capacity. L’Italien has no power here. If Thomas is currently talking dirty to RBG, then by all means, have him impeached.
2: Assuming everything is true, Justice Thomas committed no crime, so she is wrong there, but Justice Thomas was never accused of sexual harassment either. According to an article from CBS in 1999, “[Anita] Hill herself did not accuse Thomas of outright harassment.” According to FindLaw, sexual harassment is a tort i.e. a civil offense. The victim can sue for damages or a remedy. Sexual harassment, by definition, is not a criminal offense. Conduct is only criminal when it reaches the level of sexual assault. Both of which, were never alleged.
3: We cannot assume it’s true. L’Italien makes the claim that Thomas perjured himself, when there are a number of factors that lead one to conclude that Thomas was the credible party, not Hill. The DailyWire had this piece two years ago. It says “the Left painted Thomas as a misogynistic monster despite the glaring contradictions, lies and lack of evidence to support such a narrative. The U.S. House and Senate dismissed the baseless accusations presented by Hill, confirmed Thomas to the court, and the public largely viewed Hill as discredited.”
And in my best rendition of whataboutism, I find it interesting that she is using perjury as her vehicle of impeachment. We all know that perjury is the go-to for impeachment these days. Get someone under oath, get them to lie, bam, impeached! It’s why Clinton was impeached. But here, the standards of the left fall apart. What happened to “everyone lies about sex”? It’s okay for Bill to lie about sex with an intern WHILE he was president, but not okay for Clarence to lie about having inappropriate conversations BEFORE he was a judge? Perjury is still a crime by the way.
But even that is unsatisfactory. My first two points, plus my whataboutism, reflect a problem with how the left goes about making claims. It is impossible to dip down into the muck and simply reply with “who cares” or “so what.” To argue that there is no case because the conduct doesn’t meet a certain standard is to be a “harassment apologist.” But to deny the accusation altogether is to ignore the victims of sexual assault. It’s a no win scenario predicated on the firm belief that Joe Biden’s “I believe Anita Hill” is sufficient to ward off any challenges to the claim. Well creepy Uncle Joe says it’s true so it must be true.
I don’t think L’Italien believes her own garbage. She is doing this for practical reasons, but staking a moral claim plays well with the base. There is only one goal: undo Trump’s accomplishments and prevent any further success, by any political means necessary.
Thomas has always been a threat to the size of government and to the hegemony of the federal government over states and individuals. It is only natural that they would seek to have him removed from office.
I can hear the protesters…“Impeach now, we don’t care how.”
------------ Jake Wagner is an editor at The Resurgent and former project manager for a legal and civic education non-profit. Barbara L'Italien, a state senator running in a crowded field to replace retiring Rep. Niki Tsongas, is declaring her intention to file an impeachment resolution against Thomas as part of an effort to address sexual assault if elected to Congress. Tags:High-Tech, Lynch Mob, Rides Again, Jake Wagner, The ResurgentTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Personal Tweets by the editor: Dr. Bill - OzarkGuru - @arra
#Christian Conservative; Retired USAF & Grad Professor. Constitution NRA ProLife schoolchoice fairtax - Editor ARRA NEWS SERVICE. THANKS FOR FOLLOWING!
To Exchange Links - Email: editor@arranewsservice.com!
Comments by contributing authors or other sources do not necessarily reflect the position the editor, other contributing authors, sources, readers, or commenters. No contributors, or editors are paid for articles, images, cartoons, etc. While having reported on and promoting principles & beleifs beliefs of other organizations, this blog/site is soley controlled and supported by the editor. This site/blog does not advertise for money or services nor does it solicit funding for its support.
Fair Use: This site/blog may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as provided for in section Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Per said section, the material on this site/blog is distributed without profit to readers to view for the expressed purpose of viewing the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. Any person/entity seeking to use copyrighted material shared on this site/blog for purposes that go beyond "fair use," must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
