Jon Voight: Impeachment Effort Against Trump Is ‘War Against Truths’

Jon Voight

by David Ng: Veteran actor Jon Voight has called the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump a “war against truths,” and has called upon the country to “stand with our President Trump in a time of such evil words.”

In a short video posted late Thursday to his Twitter account, Voight described the current political climate and the Democrats’ push to impeach Trump a “war.”

“War. This is war against truths. This is a war against the highest noble man who has defended our country and made us safe and great again,” the Jon Voight said. “Let me stand with our president. Let us all stand with our President Trump in a time of such evil words trying for impeachment.”

This is war pic.twitter.com/NbHIzbyr4O

— Jon Voight (@jonvoight) September 27, 2019

The Coming Home actor said the impeachment efforts currently underway represent a crime.

“This is a crime that the left are trying to force. This is a disgrace by such ignorant followers that have no truth of what truly has been brought back to our country,” he said. “We have gained greatness. We have gained jobs. We have gained more than any president has promised.”

The Oscar-winner described the radical left as “destructive” and “corrupt.”

“This radical left are destructive. Their codes of what is supposed to be are corrupt with lies, deceits and anger,” he said. “And we ask why: we ask how could a human being have such anger toward the greatness of our country’s glory? I’ll tell you why. Because for so long their anger has been growing and with such deep pain with no open heart for loving and seeing the truth.”

Jon Voight continued: “The truth of what really matters is the productivity of what was promised and what we the American people of the United State were promised and have received.”

“And what does the radical left do for such greatness? They want to destroy. They want civilization to be run like a corrupt ring. I say stand now with Trump. Let truth prevail. And may God show all the truth, that we are truly a nation stronger because of our president. The left are afraid, for their power is lessening with every deal that is accomplished by Donald Trump.”

“In the name of God, and his power for this nation, let us stay strong and without such evil among us. God Bless.”

Voight’s evocation of “war” echoes Breitbart News founder Andrew Breitbart, who made “#War” a call to arms and a motto for conservatives.
------------------
David Ng (@HeyItsDavidNg) writes for Breitbart

---

Tags: Jon Voight, Impeachment Effort, Against Trump, Is ‘War Against Truths’, David Ng, Breitbart To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Impeachment Push May Only Strengthen Trump

by Dr. Victor Davis Hanson: Contrary to suggestions by some, most Trump supporters are not automatons or blind supporters. What bothers them, and should bother others, about the latest Ukraine hysterias is the familiar monotony of this latest scripted psychodrama.

The whistleblower admits to hearsay (“I was not a direct witness to most of the events described”). His term-paper report is laden with anonymously sourced rumors, e.g., “According to multiple White House officials I spoke with,” “I was told by White House officials,” “Based on my understanding,” “I learned from multiple officials,” “I do not know whether similar measures were taken,” “I do not know whether those officials spoke with or met with . . . ”

Between references to Internet news accounts and “I heard from” and “I learned from” and “I do not know” anonymous officials, there is nothing here to launch an impeachment of any president.

In the complaint are all the now-familiar tell-tale signs of pseudo-exactness, in the form of Mueller-report-like footnotes and page references to liberal media outlets such as Bloomberg, ABC, and the New York Times. There is the accustomed Steele-dossier scare bullet points. We see again Comey-memo-like disputes over classification status with capital letters UNCLASSIFIED stamped as headers and footers and TOP SECRET lined out.

Scary references abound to the supposed laws that the legal-eagle whistleblower believes were violated. In sum, there is all the usual evidence of an administrative-state bureaucrat, likely to be some third-tier Brennan or Clapper-like intelligence operative, who is canvassing disgruntled White House staffers, writing a report that imitates intelligence-department formats, combing the Internet, in “dream-team” and “all-star” footnote fashion, for scare quotes and anti-Trump stories, and then likely having it dressed up in legalese by an activist lawyer. Take all that away, and one is left with “I heard.”

After nearly three years of this, we know the delivery system that ensues. Along with the sensationalized initial media hype, the promised “smoking gun” leak usually follows. But when the “overwhelming” evidence or “walls are closing in” documents are released, there is no criminal act to be found other than occasional art-of-the-deal bluster from Trump. And then on to the next crude coup attempt, since the line of wannabe Glen Simpsons, Bruce Ohrs, Andrew McCabes, and John Brennans seems endless.

Lost in the conundrum is the reality that no president in recent memory has been so investigated, audited, sued, and examined as Trump without finding evidence of criminal behavior. Certainly, in the present instance, we have never before demanded and obtained transcripts of private and confidential presidential calls to foreign leaders. I assume that, from now on, such disclosures will be the standard practice (as will be the demand to disclose FBI notes of private presidential conversations). So historians can now delve into the archives to have access to any private conversation that took place between foreign leaders and our presidents in any previous administration.

Any president has a perfect right to tell a foreign head of state and recipient of major U.S. aid that his corruption-plagued country has played a destabilizing but still murky role in recent American elections and in scandals that have affected the American people, and in particular the current president of the United States — and that it would be a good thing to get to the bottom of it.


Americans, left and right, would like to know the exact nature of Ukrainian-Russian interference and the degree, if any, to which CrowdStrike played a role in the Clinton-email imbroglio and why CrowdStrike (which analyzed the server that the DNC refused to turn over to the FBI) was apparently exempt from FBI investigation.

That Biden is now a Democratic front-runner does not provide immunity or excuse the fact that he was vice president of the United States tasked with Ukrainian affairs when his problem-plagued son, without any energy or foreign-policy experience, made a great deal of money for apparently nothing more than lending his Biden name to benefit a corrupt Ukrainian-Russian-related company. Nor should we overlook that Joe Biden threatened to cut off U.S. aid — $1 billion — to Ukraine if it did not within six hours fire the too-curious prosecutor who was looking into the mess. And that prosecutor was fired. And that $1 billion in aid was not cut off. And Hunter Biden was no longer a target of any investigation. And he made a great deal of money.

The VP emeritus had the temerity, in Biden signature mock-heroic style, to boast of his intervention — he was impressing a foreign-policy symposium with his seasoned clout. “Well, son a b****, he got fired,” he bragged, prompting laughter from symposium attendees. Note that he was also emphasizing his own absolute exemption from any legal repercussions for such a blatant and explicit quid pro quo gambit.

Not just Trump supporters but the public is baffled by the apparent asymmetry in the application of the law, or at least the intention to apply the law. The Biden-Obama experience between 2009 and 2017 apparently had set a de facto precedent of what does and what does not constitute collusion.

It is apparently not improper for the president of the United States, caught in a hot-mic exchange with the Russian president, to offer a quid pro quo deal in which the United States suggests it will pull back from missile-defense agendas in exchange for good Russian behavior designed to help the president and hurt his opponent in the forthcoming reelection. And such a deal, from what we can tell, was then more or less carried out, as subsequent events suggest.

It is also not improper for a vice president or for U.S. senators to threaten a foreign government with cut-offs of designated American aid if it does not go easy (or hard) on particular American citizens, and such leverage is unapologetically memorialized in letters or public appearances, with the overt assumption that such behavior will never be questioned, much less seen as improper or illegal.

We are now witnessing just one more episode in many, and with many still to come. Yet the public is exhausted with the number of “scandals” that, despite being hyped in the press, have all failed to reveal any wrongdoing.

Ukraine comes after the suits alleging voting-machine fraud, efforts to warp the Electoral College voting, initial articles of impeachment, allegations that Trump violated the emoluments clause (while he has lost money during his presidential tenure), the would-be invocation of the Logan Act against the Trump national-security advisor, the months consumed with the 25th Amendment that at times reached the bathos of a Yale psychiatrist diagnosing the president as mentally impaired without ever examining her patient firsthand, the Comey-memo leak effort, and the appointment of Robert Mueller’s “dream team” and “all-stars” at a cost of over $30 million and 22 months in a failed effort to prove Russian “collusion” and Trump’s “obstruction” efforts to interfere with the investigation of a non-crime.

And now the Ukraine chapter. In between all these maneuvers, we have witnessed mass hysterias of Stormy! Tax Returns! Recession! Racism! along with the Covington Kids and Kavanaugh 1.0 and 2.0 manias (so far nuns have not started biting each other or investors cornering the Dutch tulip market) — and the constant celebrity and media effort to compete over the best way of metamorphically burning up, shooting, decapitating, beating up, stabbing, dismembering, or caging the president, in an age when a Missouri State Fair clown was banned for wearing a comic Obama mask.

These episodes are not just designed to drive down polls or crowd out coverage of real achievement on economic growth, energy development, low unemployment, judicial appointments, deregulation, tax reform, and clarity overseas on Iran, China, Russia, and North Korea. They are veritable coups aimed at aborting a presidency before a scheduled election, either out of unhinged hatred for Trump or out of desperation that an extremist counter-agenda, as witnessed in the first three Democratic debates, is apt to turn off most voters.

And there is a monotony in the scripts. So often we hear from a whistleblower who claims to have a superior moral conscious — “higher loyalty” Jim Comey, or the anonymous “Resistance” fighter who wrote the 2018 New York Times op-ed, or boy scout Andy McCabe forced to initiate a veritable coup to surveille and catch the president in an incriminating statement, or an outraged John Brennan or James Clapper or Bruce Ohr coming forward with “damning” information on Trump. Then the requisite Democratic senate staffer or administrative-state bureaucrat takes action, often with the help of some congressional official, Fusion GPS factotum, or Lawfare busybody, but not before the accusation is leaked and blared on cable news, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NPR, etc. and billed as the magic bullet that will finally bring down the Trump monster.

After nearly three years of this, the mystery is not that it continues, given the opposition’s perceived limited alternatives, but that there is still any expectation of novelty, sincerity, or believability. A wearied public has reached the point of no return. From now on, it is far more likely that each new feigned outrage will have the opposite effect of helping Trump and hurting his accusers. After all, we are now reduced to Representative Adam Schiff (D., Calif.) supposedly reading the transcript of the Trump phone call, but instead making things up as he does, editorializing, and adding and subtracting, as he pleases, from what was actually said. And when caught, Schiff can only stammer that as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee he was actually offering a “parody” of the supposed grounds-for-impeachment document.

In this entire melodrama Biden will become the real casualty, and Trump the benefactor, at least in the long term.

When the entire nature of the whistleblower, his handlers, and his media enablers is fully known, when attention turns, as it already has, to Biden’s real legal exposure, two things will follow:

Biden will get snappy, befuddled, and indignant to questions, to the extent he will even entertain them — all the while losing ground to Elizabeth Warren. Trump will be the eventual beneficiary of Warren’s more likely and more alienating candidacy. And, even if impeached, Trump will be perceived, rightly or wrongly, as growing stronger for enduring ever shriller and more monotonous attacks.
--------------------------
Victor Davis Hanson (@VDHanson) is a senior fellow, classicist and historian at the
and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution where many of his articles are found; his focus is classics and military history. He has been a visiting professor at Hillsdale College since 2004. Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 by President George W. Bush. H/T National Review.

---

Tags: Victor Davis Hanson, Impeachment Push, May Only Strengthen, President 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!

The Hong Kong Protests Require US Action

by Newt Gingrich: As the Hong Kong protests continue and the calls for freedom for the people of Hong Kong become more widespread, the United States now has an opportunity to take action.

More than 20 years after the British handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997, the high degree of autonomy and freedoms that were promised to the Hong Kong people have been suppressed and violated by the ruling Chinese Communist Party. Though the extradition bill that ignited these protests has been withdrawn, the demonstrations have evolved into demands for the Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam’s resignation, investigation into police brutality, the release of arrested demonstrators, and more democratic freedom.

Indeed, public dialogue platforms for protestors to voice concerns are being organized by Lam, but concrete progress toward protecting the rights entitled to the Hong Kong people remain elusive. The Hong Kong police have even stooped to dehumanizing the protestors. Recent footage was released showing officers kicking what a senior police official described as a “yellow object” – when it was clearly a human being lying on the ground dressed in a yellow shirt.

Leaders in Congress on both sides of the aisle have made strong statements condemning the Chinese Communist Party and Hong Kong government’s exploits – but now is the time to attach action to words.

The Congress can do this by passing the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019 that was introduced by Congressman Chris Smith and Senator Marco Rubio. This bill will hold Hong Kong and Chinese Communist Party officials accountable for their promises to protect the rights and freedoms of the Hong Kong people.

In 1984, under China’s “one country two systems” model, China signed a Joint Declaration with the British that would give Hong Kong a “high degree of autonomy” after the 1997 handover. It also protected Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms “including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of travel, of movement, of correspondence, of strike, of choice of occupation, of academic research and of religious belief.” The Joint Declaration further promised to uphold the rule of law and protect human rights and Hong Kong’s 1997 Basic Law, which identified democratic elections as an “ultimate aim.”

In 1992, the United States passed the Hong Kong Policy Act, which resulted in Hong Kong being treated separately from the rest of mainland China in terms of trade, commerce, immigration, investment, and cultural and educational collaborations. However, while Hong Kong has grown to become an international economic and business hub (the US was Hong Kong’s number two trading partner in 2018) it has not evolved into the democratic and free “special administrative region” of China that was promised decades ago.

As Hong Kong moves toward what a report by the British House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee called “One Country, One and a Half Systems” – with the Communist Party’s approach being closer to a “One Country, One System” model – the United States must not turn a blind eye to the violations against Hong Kong’s freedoms and autonomy.

Under the 1992 Hong Kong Policy Act, Hong Kong’s special treatment is based upon its maintenance of its promised autonomy. These privileges however can be selectively suspended by the president through executive order.

The proposed Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act expands on this by directing “various departments to assess whether political developments in Hong Kong justify changing Hong Kong’s unique treatment under US law.” It requires the State Department to annually certify and report to Congress whether Hong Kong’s status of autonomy, and the government’s adherence to protecting civil liberties, and upholding of the rule of law justify its continued special status. Additionally, the Commerce Department will submit an annual report to Congress that determines if China is exploiting Hong Kong to circumvent US sanctions and export controls. This important bill also ensures that violators of human rights in Hong Kong are held accountable by applying sanctions and banning any entry to the US. Moreover, it provides protections for nonviolent protestors who have been arrested for defending human rights or the rule of law in Hong Kong by prohibiting US visa denial.

The final version of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act must include all of these requirements and it must be passed into law.

I recently signed a letter to Congress calling for its passage. The United States has a clear moral and economic interest in preserving the autonomy and freedoms allotted to the people of Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act will send an important signal that the United States will act to protect the rights of the people of Hong Kong – and will continue to be a leading advocate for freedom in the world.
----------------------
Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) 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. This commentary was shared via Gingrich Productions.

---

Tags: Newt Gingrich, commentary, Hong Kong Protests, Require US Action To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Impeachment: A Preview for What Could Come Next for Donald Trump

. . . What Everyone Should Know about Impeachment

by Hans A. von Spakovsky: As the inquiry moves forward, it is important to understand that the Framers of the Constitution did not provide for impeachment as a partisan political weapon or as a response to a president’s policies with which members disagree. Here is how the process, according to the Constitution, should work.

Some Democrats began calling for President Trump’s impeachment less than two weeks after he took office – almost before he could begin carrying out his duties as president. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi consistently balked at heeding their demands for more than two and a half years.

That changed this week, with her announcement that the U.S. House of Representatives would embark upon an impeachment inquiry.

As that inquiry moves forward, it is important to understand that the Framers of the Constitution did not provide for impeachment as a partisan political weapon or as a response to a president’s policies with which members disagree.

Speaker Pelosi was sensitive to this back in 1998. Back then, when commenting on the impeachment of Bill Clinton, she said quite correctly that impeachment should not be based on “vengeance.” Expanding on that theme, she lamented that in the “investigation of the president, fundamental principles which Americans hold dear – privacy, fairness, checks and balances – have been seriously violated and why? Because…Republicans in the House are paralyzed with hatred of President Clinton.”

So why did the Founders provide for impeachment? It was created as a constitutional remedy for serious misconduct by the president and other federal officials that renders them unfit for office. Specifically, it is to address “Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

How does the impeachment process work?
The Constitution gives the “sole Power of Impeachment” to the House, which can approve articles of impeachment by a simple majority. As a practical matter, therefore, it might be said that the category of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” includes whatever the House says it does. But America’s founders took this phrase from English common law, where it had developed a definition. It is a narrow category of serious misconduct that requires removing the president now, rather than waiting for the next election.

Articles of impeachment approved by the House are similar to a criminal indictment by a grand jury: they are a list of unproven accusations. The House has adopted 19 of the more than 60 resolutions of impeachment introduced since our Founding. Fifteen of those have been for federal judges, including Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1804.

The last resolution of impeachment approved by the House concerned former U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. in 2009. He was accused of receiving gifts, cash payments and other valuable items from lawyers practicing before him.

The Senate has the “Sole Power to try all Impeachments,” although the Constitution does not explicitly require the Senate to act on the articles of impeachment or to hold a trial. Under congressional rules, members of the House who are designated as impeachment “managers” have the role of prosecutors.

The impeachment trial of a president is presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and held before the entire Senate.

Impeachment trials of other officials (under rules established by the Senate) take place before an impeachment trial committee of senators. In these trials, Senators have a role that combines features of both judge and jury, with the authority to govern the conduct of the trial and decide any evidentiary issues that may arise.

An impeachment trial in the Senate is not a criminal trial. None of the procedural and due process rules of the federal courts apply. Instead, the Senate has adopted a specific set of rules for impeachment trials. It is a legislative civil proceeding intended to decide whether a federal official should be removed from office and barred from ever holding federal office again.

Those are the only remedies outlined in the Constitution. However, it also provides that officials who have been impeached and removed may still, if appropriate, be prosecuted. This would include a president after he leaves office.

It takes a vote of “two thirds of the Members present” in the Senate to convict an impeached federal official. Removal from office is automatic upon conviction, and the Senate takes a separate vote whether that individual should also be barred from future federal office.

The House has impeached only two presidents in our history: Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999. Both were acquitted by the Senate and, therefore, remained in office. Richard Nixon resigned before the House could vote on articles of impeachment that had been approved by the Judiciary Committee.

The last trial held in the Senate and the last federal official convicted and removed from office was Judge Porteous. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley acted as the defense counsel for Porteous, illustrating that an impeached official is not limited to choosing a member of Congress as his defense counsel.

Impeachment is a way of removing public officials for serious misconduct. It has been used very rarely in American history and should follow the norms and standards that America’s Founders understood when they provided for it in the Constitution.
----------------------------------
Hans A. von Spakovsky  (@HvonSpakovsky)  is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, impeachment. the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. More ARRA News Service articles by or about Hans von Spakovsky

---

Tags: Hans von Spakovsky, The Heritage Foundation, National Interest, Impeachment, Preview for What Could Come, Politics, 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!

Rush Limbaugh: Latest Anti-Trump Narrative A 'Nothing Burger'

Rush: This is as big a nothing burger!

by Free Press International News Service*: The entire Trump-Ukraine story is just another “nothing burger” and a way for Democrats and their “media brethren” to continue their non-stop investigations of President Donald Trump, radio host Rush Limbaugh said on Sept. 25.

“This is as big a nothing burger as Trump-Russia collusion was. There is nothing here. This thing is manufactured like Christine Blasey Ford was manufactured. This is manufactured like the Steele dossier was manufactured,” Limbaugh said.

“It’s all about reversing the 2016 presidential results. They cannot get over it. And when I say ‘nothing burger,’ I’m talking about substance. Politically, it’s not a nothing burger because it’s the ongoing effort of the Democrats to overturn the election results of 2016,” Limbaugh said.

What House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has done “regarding impeachment is not move it farther along,” Limbaugh said. “She did not do anything but convene an inquiry. There has been no floor vote. There will not be a floor vote. There will not be any impeachment, not any real impeachment. Everything you’re seeing is deception. Everything that you’re seeing and reading in the Drive-By Media is designed to deceive you.”

What is being revealed by the Ukraine story, Limbaugh said, “is that Joe Biden may be the most corrupt politician in Washington bar none. And what I suspect is going on is something I mentioned yesterday. This effort going on here is actually a twofer. It is designed by the Democrats to take out both Trump and Biden and clear the way for anybody else, probably Elizabeth Warren.”

Limbaugh continued: “And honestly, folks, no matter how difficult it may be, do not doubt me on this. There’s nothing here. There is no violation of law. There is no violation of the Constitution. There is no violation of campaign finance laws. There is nothing here like there was nothing to Trump-Russia collusion. There’s nothing here like Christine Blasey Ford had nothing on Brett Kavanaugh.”

The Democrats and Drive-Bys are just in continuation mode in their quest to “overturn the election results of 2016 using different narratives or different stories or different scandals,” Limbaugh said. The Democrats “launched this without knowing what was in that phone call” between Trump and Ukraine’s president. “But, see, it doesn’t matter. It’s what they can say was in the phone call. It’s what they are saying that Trump did. It is the never-ending allegation that the Drive-Bys originate, the Democrats parrot.”

Limbaugh continued: “Somebody leaks a bunch of crap about what Donald Trump said on the phone call with the president of Ukraine. Let’s review. Let’s go back and look what the Drive-By Media told us about this phone call. They told us that the whistleblower had heard that the president was going to withhold funds from Ukraine. The president was gonna blackmail Ukraine. The president was gonna withhold money that we had pledged if they didn’t investigate Biden.

“Guess what? That’s not in the transcript. Trump didn’t do it. Never stated. It’s not there. Then we were told by the Drive-By Media that Trump had said eight times in that phone call ‘the Bidens’ and ‘the Biden investigation’ and ‘pressure.’ We were told that Trump mentioned it eight times to the president of Ukraine: Investigate Biden, find out what Biden did, find out what Biden’s son has done.

Zilch, zero, nada. There were not eight times. And there was no quid pro quo. The president was not suggesting that, ‘Hey, here’s a way you can get the money if you’ll do what I want.’ The reporting on this has been a lie. Everything that was supposedly incendiary about this never happened. And yet the Democrats and Pelosi acted on it and created this phony impeachment scam.”
--------------------
Source: FreePressers* (@FreePressers).

---

Tags: Free Press International, Free Pressers, Limbaugh, Latest Anti-Trump Narrative A 'Nothing Burger' To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Do Democratic Loyalists Really Know their Party?

Lloyd Marcus

by Lloyd Marcus: Do you find yourself scratching your head wondering why your intelligent, moral, and Christian relatives and friends continue to support the Democratic party despite its amoral, anti-Christian, and anti-American agenda?

A part of the problem is that for decades Republicans and conservatives have brought an olive branch to a gunfight, allowing progressives free rein to demonize Republicans and conservatives in the minds of many Americans. Trump is a rare Republican who understands the viciousness of our enemies within and is fighting back appropriately.

No matter how hard I try to educate relatives and friends about the benefits of conservatism and voting Republican, some persist in viewing me as an Uncle Tom black man betraying his people. Stenciled on their brains is the lie that conservatives and Republicans are selfish, rich, and racist white men who abuse and exploit everyone. Thank God for the #WalkAway Campaign and the Blexit movement in which youths, white and black, have finally seen the light and are exiting the Democratic party with its decades of lies and broken promises.

Still, there are Democratic walking brain-dead zombies who reject the truth that their party has been hijacked by hate-filled anti-Christian and anti-American progressives. The Bible speaks of unfortunate souls who prefer to embrace a lie rather than the truth. We must pray for them.

However, there are Democratic loyalists who simply do not realize what their “workingman’s” party has become. For example: A lifelong Democratic senior relative is excited about voting for Joe Biden for president.

This relative has no idea that Biden and his fellow Democrat presidential contenders demonically seek to legalize murdering babies after the child is born. In their perverted definition of women rights, Democrats say that a woman has the right to murder her healthy born baby. I pray for the right time to tell my senior relative the truth about Biden and her beloved Democratic party.

Progressives are extremely good at keeping their assaults on our culture off evening news broadcasts and the front page of the New York Times. Consequently, few Democratic voters know their party supports LGBTQ ideology being taught is schools beginning in pre-k. The LGBTQ curriculum in public schools mandates that students read I Am Jazz, about a boy whose insane parents began his sex change at three years old. The Pope and pediatricians say that teaching transgender ideology is child abuse. Hellbent on making the perverted sexual behavior of less than 3% of the population mainstream, Democrats seek to make it illegal to counsel anyone troubled by their same-sex attraction.

I doubt that the average Joe Democratic voter knows his presidential candidates welcome the invasion of illegals while promising them free healthcare, along with numerous other benefits unavailable to Joe and his fellow American citizens. Do loyal Democratic voters know that Democratic sanctuary cities protect illegals who rape and murder Americans?

San Francisco is a Democrat-controlled sanctuary city. A Democratic relative’s eyes almost popped out of her head as I told her about the poop maps distributed in San Francisco to help tourists avoid the piles of human excrement left by vagrants defecating on the streets. She knew nothing about the swiftly expanding massive tent cities, rat infestation, and resurgence of old diseases due to filth. She had no idea that rather than reversing their policies which are destroying the once beautiful city by the bay, Democrats are tripling down on their insane policies.

As I stated, progressives are masters at hiding their war on all things wholesome and good. I chatted with a Christian pastor at his church’s picnic. He never heard of the Equality Act, which Democrats have already successfully passed in the house.

In response to Scotus redefining marriage, this pastor’s church wrote in its by-laws that they will not perform homosexual weddings, nor rent their facilities for homosexual weddings. I explained to the pastor that the deceptively titled Equality Act will force his church to abandon its biblical convictions, making it illegal not to surrender to every demand of LBGTQ anti-Christian terrorists. A member said that about 40% of that church’s congregation is Democratic. I doubt those Democrats are aware of their party’s war on their religious liberty.

How many blue-collar Democratic voters know their party’s Green New Deal will kill jobs and destroy Trump’s booming economy? Within the next 12 years, their insane Green New Deal includes eliminating 99% of cars; eliminating air travel, banning affordable energy, banning meat, gutting and rebuilding every building in America, and numerous other outrageous environmental wacko demands.

A gentleman probably in his 90s was in front of me in the checkout line at the dollar store. This pleasant gentleman struck up a conversation with me about the weather. He said that the unusual humidity is the result of us not taking care of the environment. He said the Arctic icebergs are melting.

I thought, “Why bother trying to educate him? He is probably an old guy, stuck in his ways.” And yet, I felt guilty for not sharing the truth with the misinformed senior.

As we exited the store, I succinctly told him, “Sir, we cannot control the weather. Everything you are hearing in the news about us destroying the environment is a political attempt for government to take more control of our lives.” To my surprise, he replied, “I think you’re right.”

This is what we all must do, folks. We must begin speaking up rather than assuming we have lost the battle for the hearts and minds of our fellow Americans. My wife said that because she does not possess expert knowledge of every issue, she is reluctant to speak out when someone parrots Democratic and fake news media lies. I encouraged her to confidently share what she does know about an issue. Remember, God uses ordinary people. Your little becomes much when you place it in the Master’s Hand. Spread truth and trust God to reap positive results.
-------------------
Lloyd Marcus (@LloydMarcus) is an "Unhyphenated American" and an internationally renowned conservative columnist, singer/songwriter and author. He is Chairman of the Conservative Campaign Committee Political Action Committee. He is a prominent voice of the American Tea Party movement and the singer/songwriter of the ”American Tea Party Anthem.” Marcus has been on Fox News, CNN, PJTV and more.

---

Tags: Lloyd Marcus, Do Democratic Loyalists, Really Know their Party To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Blumenthal's Bluster, Where We Stand, The Deep State, Keeping Our Streets Safe

by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: Blumenthal's Bluster
As the impeachment of President Trump begins, the battle lines are hardening. Senator Lindsey Graham dismissed the allegations against the president as "a nothing burger." Senator Richard Blumenthal had a visceral reaction to Graham's quip, saying:

"Donald Trump is going to choke on this supposed nothing burger. He will go down with this supposed nothing burger in his throat because what it shows is repeated, concerted, premeditated criminal conduct."

I found Blumenthal's statement very revealing. Like much of Hollywood's "art," (here and here) it reveals the degree of hatred festering on the left toward Donald Trump.

My old friend Bill Bennett, commenting on this raw hatred, said it reminded him of the animosity Inspector Javert had for Jean Valjean in Les Miserables, which had tragic results.

Sadly, I suspect the left has given little thought as to how it might heal the wounds caused by impeachment or how it might begin to help reunite the country that has been so divided by its extreme policies and growing anti-Americanism.

But let me remind you, my friends, that the left's hatred isn't just about Donald Trump. It's about you. It's about me. It's about all the 63 million "deplorable and irredeemable" people who voted for Donald Trump. They tell us that all the time.

The left's rage didn't begin with Donald Trump. It smeared Ronald Reagan, Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, George W. Bush, John McCain and even Mitt Romney. The left viciously attacked Brett Kavanaugh and it is still attacking him.

Today is the anniversary of Christine Blasey Ford's Senate hearing. And Kamala Harris is still demanding Kavanaugh's impeachment.

Where We Stand
It is hard for anyone to keep up with all the nuances of this dispute, and the developments that have taken place at such a rapid pace. Of course, that's the left's goal -- to confuse and demoralize conservatives. But let me just summarize where we are:

• An anonymous CIA employee, with an identified anti-Trump bias, has filed a complaint about a presidential phone call to another head of state.
• The employee was not on the call.
• His identity, and those of anyone he worked with, is being hidden.
• What he alleged has been shown from the transcript to be false, and there are numerous inconsistencies in the complaint.

On this basis, we're being told by virtually every Democrat and reporter in America that the president must be removed from office.

That's it.

The Deep State
From the time of the campaign all the way until now, the president has been under repeated attacks from elements of America's intelligence agencies, including the CIA and FBI. Many of the people, like Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe, and Strzok, have been removed. But there are still many more who have not been identified and "weeded out."

The president has appointed various people he was told would clean house. Former Indiana Senator Dan Coats, an old friend of mine, was named director of national intelligence. But he quickly became a mouthpiece for the agency he was running rather than a reformer of the agency. Thanks for nothing, Dan.

Early in his administration, a CIA official resigned and wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post lambasting the president. He was promptly hired to be a commentator for NBC News. More recently, an intelligence analyst at the State Department used his resignation to make a big splash in the news.

The current controversy reportedly originated with an employee at the CIA. The current head of the CIA is Gina Haspel, a career officer and the first woman to lead the CIA.

The president was told, and we were all told, that she was the ultimate professional who would not tolerate any nonsense. Clearly, she needs to call in all agency supervisors and review the rules regarding their involvement in partisan politics.

It is worth remembering that even before the inauguration, then President-elect Trump was expressing his frustration with the intelligence community. At the time, Senate Democrat Leader Chuck Schumer bragged to Rachel Maddow, "Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community -- they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you."

If this abuse of our intelligence agencies cannot be ended, then the globalists have won and we have lost the country. I pray and still believe that is not true. But the jury is still out.

Keeping Our Streets Safe
Progressives are all in on open borders, and one of their key demands is abolishing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, ICE. That would be a colossal disaster.

ICE Director Matt Albence held a press conference at the White House yesterday. He told reporters that last year ICE arrested "more than 105,000 criminal aliens" and deported "more than 145,000 criminal aliens." ICE also arrested "nearly 10,000 gang members" and deported 6,000 gang members. So far this year, ICE has filed more than 160,000 detainers with local jails nationwide.

That gives you some idea of the extent of the criminal illegal alien problem we have in this country. And Democrats want to abolish the agency responsible for getting these criminals off our streets.

Albence noted that ICE conducted major operations this week resulting in 1,300 arrests. Of those arrested:

• Three had convictions for manslaughter or murder.
• 100 had convictions for sexual assault, and nearly half of the victims were children.
• 70 had drug convictions.
• And more than 320 had DUI convictions.

Needless to say, Director Albence had tough words for sanctuary cities and the politicians who support them. He said:

"To the public who want to live and raise your families in safe neighborhoods, we ask you to hold your lawmakers accountable before you or someone you love is unnecessarily victimized by a criminal that ICE could have removed from your community."

L'Shanah Tovah
To all of our Jewish friends and supporters, Carol and I wish you a happy Rosh Hashanah!
-------------------
Gary Bauer (@GaryLBauer)  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 Famlies, Blumenthal's Bluster, Where We Stand, The Deep State, Keeping Our Streets Safe To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

What A Stretch . . .

. . . Adam Schiff and the Democrats are determined to impeach Trump and willing to lie and twist the facts to do it.

Editorial Cartoon by AF "Tony" Branco

---

Tags: AF Branco, editorial cartoon, What a Stretch, Adam Schiff, Democrats, Impeachment of 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!

Democrats' Risky Bet on Impeachment

by Michael Barone: Precedents abound in a country whose first presidential election took place 230 years ago, that has seen 41 presidential contests between two political parties founded 187 and 165 years ago. Three of our 44 presidents have faced impeachment proceedings -- Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton -- and now it seems Donald Trump will be the fourth.

Democrats have been itching to oust Trump from office since the 9 p.m. Eastern hour on election night nearly three years ago, when it became clear he had been elected. High law enforcement and intelligence officials started trying to keep him from the White House starting months earlier and for three years pushed the theory that he and his campaign were acting in collusion with Russia, even though they had little evidence aside from a dossier full of Russia-supplied hearsay, whose lurid claims were never verified.

Collusiongate finally collapsed, in the words of New York Times editor Dean Baquet, "the day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand," when "our readers who want Donald Trump to go away" realized that wasn't going to happen.

So, now, weeks before the promised release of inspector general reports on law enforcement misconduct, we hear that a whistleblower had been told Trump abused his powers in a telephone conversation with the president of Ukraine. On Tuesday afternoon, Trump announced he would release the transcript, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the Democratic-majority House was officially considering impeachment.

The transcript released Wednesday doesn't read exactly as the still-anonymous whistleblower had claimed. Trump asked the newly installed Ukrainian president to investigate 2016 anti-Trump efforts there. Democrats claimed Trump offered a quid pro quo by suggesting he'd released U.S. aid he'd been holding up. But Trump said nothing about that. Given the American president's broad powers, any request the president makes of a foreign government could be called a threat.

Trump also mentioned Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden, who had a $50,000-a-month contract with a Ukraine firm. And he adverted to the elder Biden's public boast that as vice president, he threatened to deny Ukraine $1 billion in aid if the government didn't fire the prosecutor investigating the firm.

On Collusiongate, Democrats followed the Nixon precedent, allowing a special prosecutor and congressional committees to conduct long investigations, with numerous leaks to sympathetic media. That produced evidence that made impeachment certain, and Nixon resigned. But Collusiongate didn't follow precedent.

Now Democrats seem to be following the Andrew Johnson precedent. Johnson's Republican critics hated him for obstructing equal rights for free blacks and for his vitriolic and scurrilous oratory. Proceedings began on Feb. 24, 1868. The House voted for impeachment on March 3, and on May 16, the Senate voted 35-19 against him, 1 vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to remove him from office.

So, Democrats' course is, as my Washington Examiner colleague Byron York puts it: "Move fast. Don't withhold judgment. And don't wait for the results of a long, ponderous investigation." Pelosi seems primed to push for a quick vote as soon as 218 yeas are in sight. But in the 53-47 Republican Senate, absent new facts or changed public opinion, there are far fewer votes for removal than in 1868.

Current polling shows voters oppose impeachment by nearly 2-1 margins, similar to when Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998. Both parties thought impeachment would help them politically. Clinton's job approval rose sharply, but his personal ratings slumped badly. The former helped keep him in office, while the latter hobbled his chosen successor, Al Gore, two years later.

Speaker Newt Gingrich forecast big Republican gains, but they actually lost four seats in November 1998, and Gingrich lost his speakership. But Republicans held onto their House majority that year and in the next three congressional elections.

Those largely positive results reflect late 1990s contentment and the fact that both parties had intellectually serious arguments in line with their values. Republicans argued that Clinton's lies in a federal court proceeding violated his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. Democrats argued that his offense was only a personal matter unrelated to his official duties.

Donald Trump's support has remained impervious to charges of personal or professional misconduct, just as his detractors remain impervious to claims that his policies have been successful. What could hurt Democrats in times of discontent, when impeachment is unpopular, is their opportunism in seizing on any excuse to vent their rage. The Ukrainian phone call is much smaller potatoes than collusion with Russia would have been.

But Democrats "who want Donald Trump to go away" just couldn't wait to let voters make that choice. They risk four more years of angry frustration.
----------------------------
Michael Barone is a Senior Political Analyst for the Washington Examiner and a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel  and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics Shared by Rasmussen Reports.

---

Tags: Michael Barone, editorial, Rasmussen Reports, Democrats, Risky Bet, Impeachment To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Joe Biden: Impeachment’s First Casualty

by Patrick Buchanan: By making Ukraine the focus of the impeachment drive in the House, Pelosi has also assured that the questionable conduct of Biden and son Hunter Biden will be front and center for the next four months before Iowa votes.

Even before seeing the transcript of the July 25 call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Nancy Pelosi threw the door wide open to the impeachment of Donald Trump by the Democratic House.

Though the transcript did not remotely justify the advanced billing of a “quid pro quo,” Pelosi set in motion a process that is already producing a sea change in the politics of 2020.

The great Beltway battle for the balance of this year, and perhaps next, will be over whether the Democrats can effect a coup against a president many of them have never recognized as legitimate and have sought to bring down since before he took the oath of office.

Pelosi on Tuesday started this rock rolling down the hill.

She has made impeachment, which did not even come up in the last Democratic debate, the issue of 2020. She has foreclosed bipartisan compromise on gun control, the cost of prescription drugs and infrastructure. She has just put her own and her party’s fate and future on the line.

With Pelosi’s assent that she is now open to impeachment, she turned what was becoming a cold case into a blazing issue. If the Democrats march up impeachment hill, fail and fall back, or if they vote impeachment only to see the Senate exonerate the president, that will be the climactic moment of Pelosi’s career. She is betting the future of the House, and her party’s hopes of capturing the presidency, on the belief she and her colleagues can persuade the country to support the indictment of a president for high crimes.

One wonders: Do Democrats blinded by hatred of Trump ever wonder how that 40% of the nation that sees him as the repository of their hopes will react if, rather than beat him at the ballot box, they remove him in this way?

The first casualty of Pelosi’s cause is almost certain to be the front-runner for the party nomination. Joe Biden has already, this past week, fallen behind Sen. Elizabeth Warren in Iowa, New Hampshire and California. The Quinnipiac poll has her taking the lead nationally for the nomination, with Biden dropping into second place for the first time since he announced his candidacy.

By making Ukraine the focus of the impeachment drive in the House, Pelosi has also assured that the questionable conduct of Biden and son Hunter Biden will be front and center for the next four months before Iowa votes.

What did Joe do? By his own admission, indeed his boast, as vice president he ordered then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to either fire the prosecutor who was investigating the company that hired Hunter Biden for $50,000 a month or forgo a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee that Kiev needed to stay current on its debts.

Biden insists the Ukrainian prosecutor was corrupt, that Hunter had done no wrong, that he himself was unaware of his son’s business ties.

All these assertions have been contradicted or challenged.

There is another question raised by Biden’s ultimatum to Kiev to fire the corrupt prosecutor or forgo the loan guarantee. Why was the U.S. guaranteeing loans to a Kiev regime that had to be threatened by the U.S. with bankruptcy to get it to rid itself of a prosecutor whom all of Europe supposedly knew to be corrupt?

Whatever the truth of the charges, the problem here is that any investigation of potential corruption of Hunter Biden, and of the role of his father, the former vice president, in facilitating it, will be front and center in presidential politics between now and New Hampshire.

This is bad news for the Biden campaign. And the principal beneficiary of Pelosi’s decision that put Joe and Hunter Biden at the center of an impeachment inquiry is, again, Warren.

Warren already appears to have emerged victorious in her battle with Bernie Sanders to become the progressives’ first choice in 2020. And consider how, as she is rising, her remaining opposition is fast fading.

Sen. Kamala Harris has said she is moving her campaign to Iowa for a do-or-die stand in the first battleground state. Sen. Cory Booker has called on donors to raise $1.7 million in 10 days, or he will have to pack it in. As Biden, Sanders, Harris and Booker fade, and “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg hovers at 5 or 6% in national and state polls, Warren steadily emerges as the probable nominee.

One measure of how deeply Biden is in trouble, whether he is beginning to be seen as too risky, given the allegations against him and his son, will be the new endorsements his candidacy receives after this week of charges and countercharges.

If there is a significant falling off, it could be fatal.
--------------------
Patrick Buchanan (@PatrickBuchanan) is currently a blogger, conservative columnist, political analyst, chairman of The American Cause foundation and an editor of The American Conservative. He has been a senior adviser to three Presidents, a two-time candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and was the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000.

---

Tags: Patrick Buchanan, conservative, commentary, 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’ Excessiveness Will Backfire

David Limbaugh

by David Limbaugh: How many times do Democrats get to cry wolf before a rational body politic tells them to go fly a kite? Instead of retreating with tails between their legs over their failed Russia hoax, they’re already at it again.

Did any Democrats leading the false charge that President Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election ever apologize for putting the country through this nightmare? Did any of their media water carriers ever backpedal from their anti-Trump sensationalism?

Of course not, because in their minds Trump is so evil and his presidency so bad for the country that even ignoble efforts to remove him are morally warranted. What’s wrong with deceit and abuse of process if it will rid the country of the orange scourge?

Alert people should now recognize that Democrats are still willing to go to almost any lengths to undo the 2016 election — or preempt Trump’s 2020 reelection. Their raw contempt for Trump and his supporters knows no bounds, and their just-launched “impeachment inquiry” is further evidence of it.

I note in my soon-to-be-released new book, “Guilty By Reason of Insanity: Why the Democrats Must Not Win,” that there is no real fissure in the Democratic Party between the old guard and the young radicals, the latter of whom are led by the “Squad.” Sure, there is sometimes spirited debate between the established powers and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s socialist quartet, but in the end, the entire party has embraced a thoroughly extremist leftist agenda.

Even if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would have us believe that she and her veteran Democratic colleagues are more measured, there is no doubt where her party is headed. Even if in her heart of hearts, she thinks the Young Turks are going too far too fast, which I strongly doubt, the Democratic Party base is not about to allow her to vacillate, much less to moderate.

So it is that Pelosi, despite having long resisted Rep. Jerry Nadler’s and other Democratic congressional militants’ efforts to initiate impeachment proceedings, has snapped to attention over these new hyped-up allegations concerning Ukraine and opened an impeachment inquiry herself.

Just like the Russia hoax, this one already involves more damning evidence against Democrats than Trump. Democrats, in a monumental act of projection, tried for three years to interfere with an election by falsely claiming Trump interfered with that same election. Now they’re alleging that Trump abused his presidential power with Ukraine by trying to expose Joe Biden’s possible abuse of power with Ukraine. In addition to Biden’s alleged misconduct, three Democratic senators wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general in May 2018 urging him to cooperate with the Mueller investigation. This is plot thickening on steroids.

Pelosi acted precipitously, before Trump released notes from his call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and before release of the whistleblower complaint against Trump, both of which are turning out to be nothing — veggie burgers with no fries. Then again, with the liberal media in their pocket (or vice versa), Democrats have little to fear from performing such stunts.

Some commentators argue that though Democrats know they don’t have the votes to convict Trump in the Senate, they are pursuing this “inquiry” because their agenda isn’t resonating with the people. Corruption charges will distract from their policy bankruptcy and might cripple Trump enough to defeat him in 2020. Others say their angle is more subtle — to snooker Trump and his officials into committing a process crime by defying court orders to produce documents, or perhaps lying to Congress or the FBI.

Of course, liberal commentators dispute that Democrats are trying to distract from their preposterous agenda, because in their view, the Democrats’ insane environmental and fiscal proposals and their ruthless obsession over identity politics are winning ideas. Thus, they don’t need to fabricate phony corruption charges. These allegations are legitimate. Though there was manifestly no quid pro quo in Trump’s comments to Zelensky, the Trump haters divine evil intent and malice aforethought with every Trump stream-of-consciousness utterance.

That they were all embarrassingly wrong for three years over Russiagate gives them no pause. They are incorrigible and shameless.

Some Trump supporters are concerned about this, fearing that Democratic relentlessness will finally bear fruit. I honestly don’t think so. Once again, the Trump haters, so consumed with venom that they’ve lost objectivity, have overplayed their hands. This impeachment fantasy is going nowhere. Democratic excessiveness is part of what led to Trump’s rise in the first place, and there’s good reason to believe it will aid in his reelection. People have had enough of this insanity. By becoming more extreme and unreasonable, the left is only solidifying and amplifying Trump support. So bring it on.
---------------------
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book is "Jesus is Risen: Paul and the Early Church." Follow him on Twitter& @davidlimbaugh and his website at davidlimbaugh.com.

---

Tags: David Limbaugh, Democrats’ Excessiveness, Will Backfire To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Political Realignment Is Coming to America

The next time hatred comes your way, don’t recriminate. Recruit.

by Edward Ring: Just over three years ago, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, speaking at a fundraiser in New York City, characterized half of Donald Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables.” And for more than three years, Trump, along with everyone who supports him, has been subjected to passionate hatred from nearly everyone who would rather have seen Clinton elected.

It might be tempting to return the favor and hate back. That not only would be a tactical mistake—since you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar—but also inaccurate targeting. There are a surprising number of liberals, progressives, and even socialists, who are not only anti-Clinton, but are begrudgingly, and increasingly, capable of seeing the positive side of the Trump presidency.

A very early indication of this came in October 2016, when John Pilger published in the London Progressive Journal an influential article titled, “Why Hillary Clinton Is More Dangerous Than Donald Trump.” Pilger, notwithstanding his socialist leanings, is a world-renowned journalist and filmmaker of undeniable courage and integrity.

In an eloquent tirade notable for its many, many examples of how Hillary Clinton is a murderous establishment puppet, this observation by Pilger summed it up: “She is no maverick. She embodies the resilience and violence of a system whose vaunted ‘exceptionalism’ is totalitarian with an occasional liberal face.”

Sound familiar? And wow, how that system has tried, and continues to try to take down Trump.

Pilger saw it coming. About Trump, he wrote, “In the circus known as the American presidential campaign, Donald Trump is being presented as a lunatic, a fascist. He is certainly odious; but he is also a media hate figure. That alone should arouse our skepticism.”

A “media hate figure.” Ain’t that the truth! And liberals eat it up. And along with Trump, they hate us. Or do they?

John Pilger isn’t alone. There are millions of liberals, progressives, Democrats, and even socialists who have seen through the establishment’s programmatic hatred, despite (or perhaps because of) it coming from every quarter—entertainment, academia, corporations, politicians, and all mainstream media, online and offline.

Their skepticism is indeed aroused, and not just over Trump.

Loving the Bull
Many Trump supporters cheered his election not because of his pugnacity (about time), or his policies (also about time), but because when you hate the china shop, you love the bull.

Trump has exposed the Democrat versus Republican, Right versus Left, liberal versus conservative paradigms as, if not obsolete shams, then at least models that have lost most of their dialectic vitality. They remain real and represent important differences, but they are overshadowed by a new political polarity, worthy of urgent and vigorous dialectic—globalism versus nationalism.

Until Trump came along, the globalist agenda crept relentlessly forward under the radar. Issues that now can be framed explicitly as globalist versus nationalist—immigration, trade, foreign policy, even climate change—found deceptive expression when shoehorned into the obsolete paradigms.

It suited the uniparty establishment to engage in phony, ostensibly partisan bickering to keep up appearances. It suited them to pretend that immigration and “free” trade bestowed unambiguous global economic benefits, while claiming that to oppose it was economically ignorant and “racist.” It was convenient to pretend ceaseless foreign interventions were based on moral imperatives, while silencing the opposition as “isolationists.” It was easy to get away with promoting climate change policies based on supposedly indisputable scientific evidence, while stigmatizing opponents as “deniers.”

Suddenly all of that is revealed as almost Ptolemaic in its contrived complexity. Here is Trump’s Copernican breakthrough: if you want open borders, absolutely free movement of capital and jobs, and an aggressive international “climate agenda” enforced by the American military, you are a globalist. If you do not, you are a nationalist.

The impact of the globalist agenda has been felt acutely in America already, but the pain is spreading and intensifying.

Unskilled immigrants are taking jobs away from the most vulnerable Americans, and every year, they continue to arrive by the millions. Manufacturing jobs which are vital to America’s economic vitality are being exported to any nation with cheaper labor, costing Americans still more jobs. Policies that are supposedly designed to save the planet have made it virtually impossible to build anything cost-effectively—houses, roads, reservoirs, power plants. In states where the globalist agenda is well advanced, the gap between rich and poor is at record levels, and the cost-of-living is prohibitive.

The rest of the world faces the same onslaught from globalists. With rare exceptions, such as the administrative clerisy and the minute fraction of economic refugees for whom the rudest of welfare benefits in developed nations far exceeds their lot in their nations of origin, the only beneficiaries are the investor class and multinational corporations.

Economic development, utterly dependent on cheap fossil fuel, is denied because fossil fuel is denied. African cities that might become inviting metropolises fueled by natural gas and nuclear power are instead hellholes of misery, as a burgeoning population forages into wilderness areas for food and fuel, stripping it of life.

The problem with the globalist vision isn’t just that it denies people their cultural identity as it McDonaldizes the world. The problem is that it’s not working economically or environmentally. It is an epic disaster, unfolding in slow motion. If globalism isn’t stopped, it will engulf the world in war and misery.

And guess what? There are liberals, progressives, and socialists, who get it. The see how their lives are being destroyed. They see through the platitudes, they see the hypocrisy. They can tell that globalism is not working. They’re looking for new ideas.

Modern American Nationalism Transcends President Trump
Donald Trump may have accelerated nationalist movements around the world, but how they find expression in the decades to come depends on how they are shaped by his followers, including belated, reluctant followers, including many who had been his critics. For many years, there have been a lot of smart Democrats who are rejecting the tactics of globalists, even if they have not been critical of globalism itself.

In California, a crucible of American culture, two respected Democrats offer examples of brave commentary that constitutes rank heresy to establishment globalists. In Berkeley, of all places, Michael Shellenberger, a Time magazine “Hero of the Environment” and co-writer of the EcoModernist Manifesto, has worked tirelessly through his organization Environmental Progress to campaign for reviving nuclear power in America.

Shellenberger in recent years has turned his attention to California’s homeless crisis, calling for emergency measures that cut through a web of stultifying, counterproductive laws that have prevented effective solutions.

Another Californian, quite possibly the most intelligent Democrat who’s ever lived, is Joel Kotkin, a fellow in urban studies at Chapman University, described by the New York Times as “America’s uber-geographer.” For more than a decade, Kotkin has patiently explained how urban containment (because suburban sprawl supposedly causes excessive “greenhouse gas” emissions”) is strangling our cities and preventing equitable economic growth.

Backing up everything he writes with data, Kotkin has exposed the hidden agenda behind extreme environmentalism, and how it benefits a coalition of special interests—investors, tech billionaires, the professional consultant class, and public sector unions—but condemns everyone else to a feudal existence.

Nationalism Can Be a Model for World Peace and Prosperity
What is nationalism? Why does that word have to connote something extreme? Why can’t it simply acknowledge the practical reality of borders, language, culture, and history, and the ongoing right of citizens to determine their own destiny and compete in the world?

Why is it that to the establishment in America and throughout the western democracies, “globalism” is still held up as an ideal, and the inevitable destiny of humanity? Why can’t that inevitability be restricted to the technical facts of globalization—communications, transportation, trade, finance—without also requiring a surrender of national sovereignty? Why can’t nationalism be compassionate, benevolent, economically enlightened, and inclusive?

Nationalism can be all those good things. It can be a model for world peace and prosperity.

As for “climate change” mitigation, why are rational criticisms such as those produced by the luminous Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg castigated as denying reality? Shall the reasoned skeptics of the world be swept away by an orchestrated crusade fronted by children? Should the 16-year-old schoolgirl Greta Thunberg’s vapid denunciations of world leaders actually be taken more seriously than Bjorn Lomborg’s impeccable cost/benefit analyses?

Although mass movements of people proceed more slowly, a philosophical realignment arguably is already upon us. In terms of applied political theory, the prevailing opposition today is nationalism versus globalism. Like all polarities, these labels are fraught with ambiguities and contradictions. For that reason, there are virtues to some aspects of globalism just as surely as there is a dark side to nationalism. Moreover, the 20th-century polarities of Left versus Right and liberal versus conservative are still potent. But to have a meaningful political discussion today, those 20th-century labels are subsumed within the new model.

To be a left-wing socialist liberal, most of the time, is to be a globalist. But not always. Not any more. Remember this, the next time hatred comes your way. Realignment is coming.

Don’t recriminate. Recruit.
----------------------
Edward Ring is a senior fellow of the Center for American Greatness. He is a co-founder of the California Policy Center, a free-market think tank based in Southern California, where he served as their first president.

---

Tags: Edward Ring, Center for American Greatness, Political Realignment, Coming to America To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Alternative History

by Kerby Anderson: Both The New York Times and presidential candidates seem to be singing off the same song sheet as they propose an alternative history for the United States.

The newspaper has its “1619 Project,” arguing that the nation didn’t begin with the Declaration in 1776 nor with the Constitution in 1787. It began in 1619 when the first slave arrived at the Jamestown settlement.

Beto O’Rourke has picked up on this theme, proclaiming, “Racism in America is endemic. It is foundational. We can mark the creation of this country not at the Fourth of July, 1776, but August 20, 1619, when the first kidnapped African was brought to this country.” Both the newspaper along with progressive professors and politicians want to rewrite American history.

In a recent column, Mackubin Thomas Owens provides some background. Back in the 1930s, Antonio Gramsci (the father of cultural Marxism) proposed that socialists and communists subvert Western culture from the inside. One of my radio guests reminded us of one activist who described this project as a “long march through the institutions.”

That is exactly what has been done in the classrooms of America. Many students were required to read Howard Zinn’s book, A People’s History of the United States. Owens refers to it as a “disgraceful work filled with outright falsehoods, omissions, distortions of evidence, logical fallacies, plagiarism, and dubious sources.”

We shouldn’t be surprised at what is being talked about today. The philosophy of the classroom in the last generation has become the philosophy of the media and government in this generation. Now, more than ever, we need to challenge this revisionist history being promoted in our culture.

---

Tags: Kerby Anderson, Viewpoints, Point of View, Alternative History, The New York Times, 1619 Project To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!