While Dems Waste Time on Impeachment Trump and McConnell Are Remaking the Judiciary

by Newt Gingrich: The number 162 is important. After Thursday’s approval of Judge Steven Menashi to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 162 is the number of new Trump-appointed federal judges that have been approved by the United States Senate with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s leadership.

This is an extraordinary number. It includes two Supreme Court Justices, 46 circuit court judges, 112 US District Court judges, and two judges on the United States Court of International Trade.

This means that one out of every four appellate court judges have been nominated by President Trump and confirmed by the Senate. As Politico wrote one year ago, “McConnell’s pace of filling federal court seats has been eye-popping, especially on the powerful appellate circuits.” Importantly, many of these courts are being changed so that Republican appointees outnumber Democratic appointees. (In fact, Menashi’s appointment flipped the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in this way.)

This is 50 percent more circuit court judge confirmations than either Obama or Clinton achieved in their first terms. And Trump’s record is only for the first three years. There is still a year to go.

The number of judges confirmed is made even more impressive by the President’s emphasis on appointing younger judges. As President Trump asserted: “The average age of my newly appointed Circuit Court judges is less than 50. … that is 10 years younger than President Obama’s nominees.”

This means the Trump-McConnell team is transforming the judiciary from liberal to conservative for at least a generation – and possibly even longer. The prime requisite for these new judges as President Trump explained is that they must “truly love our Constitution.”

President Trump recognized McConnell as “a man whose leadership has been instrumental to our success… there is nobody that has done a better job ever than Senator Mitch McConnell…generations from now Americans will know that Mitch McConnell helped save the constitutional rules of law in America.”

McConnell for his part, has made filling the courts his central goal, because, as he said, “the circuit courts, where 99 percent of litigation stops, are full of bright young men and women who believe in the quaint notion that maybe the job of a judge is to follow the law.”

Leader McConnell’s mantra as been “leave no vacancy behind” – and he has proven again and again that he means it.

And there is much more to come. Already there are a projected 108 additional vacancies (both currently vacant and announced future vacancies). This includes six courts of appeals judgeships, 100 district court judges, and two Court of International Trade vacancies.

If these 108 can be completed in the next 12 months, that will be an even more dramatic first term achievement. Leader McConnell’s mantra will suddenly take on even more meaning.
----------------------
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, While Dems Waste Time, on Impeachment, Trump and McConnell, Remaking the Judiciary To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Day Two Nothing New, Now It's Bribery, Fighting The Faithful

Gary Bauer

by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: Day Two, Nothing New
Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine, testified today before Adam Schiff's sham impeachment committee. President Trump recalled Ambassador Yovanovitch in April. It's clear from her testimony that "Hell hath no fury like a diplomat scorned." Here are some observations.

• Yovanovitch, who was appointed by Obama, said she felt threatened by President Trump and was deeply frustrated that no one "justified" her dismissal. She reportedly wanted a statement from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo defending her. Translation: How dare the president think he has the right to appoint his own people.
• Memo to Ms. Yovanovitch: You serve at the pleasure of the president. He can fire you for any reason. Maybe he doesn't like your singing voice. It doesn't matter. And it certainly didn't matter when Barack Obama fired all of George W. Bush's ambassadors. Why does Ms. Yovanovitch think she's somehow special?
• Like fellow diplomats George Kent and William Taylor before her, Yovanovitch expressed concern that U.S. policy toward Ukraine had been "hijacked" and that Foreign Service professionals were being undermined. She declared, "This is not a time to undercut our diplomats."
• But exactly who is doing the hijacking? And whose policy? Policy is set by the duly elected president, not the unelected bureaucrats. What many Americans heard this week was entitled Deep State operatives venting their frustrations. They objected to Donald Trump winning the presidency and they object to him using the power of the presidency to enact his agenda. The Deep State is undermining Trump daily!
• I was particularly amused during the opening round of questioning when the Democrat counsel went after Fox News, Sean Hannity and investigative journalist John Solomon. Are they on trial now?
• Some progressives are trying to make today all about gender and a rerun of the Kavanaugh hearings.
• While Ambassador Yovanovitch made a big deal about her efforts to fight corruption in Ukraine, Rep. Elise Stefanik noted that the Obama State Department was so concerned about Hunter Biden's apparent conflict of interest with the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma that it specifically prepped Yovanovitch to deflect questions about Biden and Bursima during her Senate confirmation hearings. Yet now we're not supposed to ask questions about Biden and Burisma.
• Kudos to Rep. Mike Turner, who drew attention to the missing whistleblower who triggered this entire controversy. Turner read into the record a series of headlines such as, "Whistleblower Wants To Testify To House Panel, Schiff Says," and "Whistleblower Reaches Agreement To Testify, Will Appear 'Very Soon,' Rep. Adam Schiff Says." Well, where is the so-called "whistleblower"?
• And kudos to Rep. Jim Jordan, who exposed the partisan hypocrisy on full display here. Democrats are attempting to impeach the president because they claim he abused his authority by inviting Ukraine to meddle in our elections. (He did not.) But we know the Ukrainians were meddling in the 2016 election to help Hillary Clinton. Jordan recited a series of anti-Trump actions and statements from Ukrainian officials and asked Ambassador Yavonvitch whether she ever raised concerns about their partisan activity. Of course she didn't.

It's Bribery Now
As I have suggested before, Democrats are struggling to manufacture a crime. We noted earlier this week that they dropped "quid pro quo" for "extortion." Now they're trying out "bribery." Speaker Nancy Pelosi leveled the charge yesterday.

Where did that come from? A focus group paid for by a political arm of the Democrat Party, as if we needed any more evidence that this was a purely partisan effort.

But, if it is bribery to say to a foreign government, "I will give aid if you do this or take aid away if you do that," then America's entire foreign aid program is one gigantic bribe, and virtually every presidential candidate is guilty.

Many Democrats have said recently, in effect, "If I'm elected president, I will pull military aid from Israel if it builds homes in Judea and Samaria." Or, "I will pull foreign aid from countries that don't promote gay rights."

I think those "incentives" are wrong, but they are not bribery. Foreign aid is given because we want countries to accommodate certain interests in order for us to share your tax money with them.

And, by the way, the Ukrainian foreign minister said yesterday that there was no "bribery" or linkage of U.S. aid and cooperation in investigations.

It's time to stop this charade and move on!

Fighting The Faithful?
As you know, I was appointed by President Trump to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. This appointment was a tremendous honor as it gives me an opportunity to work on an issue I care deeply about.

One of my colleagues on the Commission is Kristina Arriaga, appointed by former House Speaker Paul Ryan. She has a sterling record of fighting for religious liberty for decades, and a passion that has made her one of the most effective advocates for religious freedom that I know in Washington.

That's why I was so heartbroken to learn that she resigned from the Commission last night. Kristina explains her reasons for stepping down in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece.

She is particularly concerned, as am I, about efforts in Congress to "reform" the Commission. Such efforts appear intended to push a left-wing agenda and control the commissioners.

For example, Ms. Arriaga writes that a Senate bill reauthorizing the Commission requires it to explore the "abuse of religion to justify human rights violations." Such a mandate would force "the commission to enter ideological fights over . . . sex segregation at religious services, circumcision or same-sex relationships."

In addition, the legislation includes "new reporting requirements . . . as well as restrictions on commissioners' public speaking and use of the USCIRF affiliation."

These provisions are so broad that they appear to be an effort to muzzle the commissioners in the work we do outside the commission. I will never be muzzled nor will any of the other commissioners!

My friends, I assure you that the Democrats and Republicans on the Commission have worked very closely together with very little division. We have diligently avoided bitter ideological disputes. In fact, most votes have been unanimous.

Unfortunately, there are some in Congress who are trying to politicize our work, pushing other agendas rather than working to end religious persecution. That will not help the Commission fulfill its purpose to defend religious freedom.

We hope the Senate will reach a bipartisan agreement that will allow the Commission to continue its vital work without undue interference.

Good News From The Courts

• ISIS bride Hoda Muthana will not be returning to the United States anytime soon. Judge Reggie Walton dismissed a lawsuit by Muthana's family contending that she is an American citizen and entitled to return to the U.S. Muthana was born in the United States, but her father was a Yemeni diplomat and the children of diplomats are not eligible for "birth-right citizenship."
• The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling that unbelievably banned prayers prior to a high school football game between two Christian schools.

-------------------
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 Families, Day Two, Nothing New, Now It's Bribery, Fighting The Faithful To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Wrong: Vindman Claimed Obama Sent 'Javelin' Weapons To Ukraine

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman

by Free Press International: One of the star witnesses in the drive by Democrats to impeach President Donald Trump falsely claimed that President Barack Obama sent advanced anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, a report said.

The claim from Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the White House National Security Council staff expert on Ukraine, came in closed-door testimony for which the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released a transcript, Rowan Scarborough noted in a Nov. 13 report for The Washington Times.

Obama talked internally about sending lethal aid to Ukraine but did not. Trump was the first to do so.

“Trump’s decision in late 2017 to ship Javelin anti-armor weapons is significant amid impeachment proceedings,” Scarborough wrote. “The deal showed he went beyond Obama in committing first-time lethal weapons for Ukraine to combat Russia-backed separatists.”

Democrats claim that Trump risked national security by withholding aid as he allegedly tried to win a commitment from Ukraine to investigate the dealings of Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

“Col. Vindman has become a hero to the liberal media for bucking his commander in chief. Some conservatives target him over testimony they say shows hostility toward Trump appointees,” Scarborough wrote.

Vindman filed a complaint with the National Security Council legal counsel after Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Vindman said he believed it was wrong for the president to ask Zelensky for an investigation of Biden.

At his Oct. 29 deposition, Vindman was asked about military aid by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, California Democrat.

“Under the previous administration, there was a, I’m aware of the transfer of a fairly significant number of Javelins, yes,” Vindman testified.

The historical record shows that assertion to be wrong. The Obama administration limited its aid to support items to Ukraine after the 2014 Russian invasion.

Scarborough noted that, ironically, Schiff, who is trying to remove Trump from office and has accused the president many times of a Russian election conspiracy, talked about how important it was to ship Javelins to Ukraine.

“And in terms of the defensive weapons that we have been willing to sell Ukraine, is it one of the most important to Ukraine?” Schiff asked Vindman.

“Yes, in terms of the lethal munitions the U.S. provides, it is certainly one of the most important ones, yes,” Vindman responded.

Scarborough noted that Vindman “was assigned to the Joint Chiefs in late 2017 when the Trump administration made the decision to send the first Javelins to Ukraine. The delivery happened in the spring of 2018. Vindman arrived at the White House that July.”

Defense News reported: “One irony is that the Trump administration was going further with its aid than the Obama administration by deciding to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons. In 2017, Trump announced his intent to provide the Javelin, and Congress approved an assistance package of 210 missiles and 37 launchers, together worth $47 million.”

One reason for the irony, Scarborough noted, “is that Democrats accuse Trump of being a yes man for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Yet, Trump directly confronted Putin by helping Ukraine better defend against Russian tanks.”

J.D. Gordon, the 2016 Trump’s campaign’s director of national security, said he negotiated a Republican Party platform that promised appropriate military aid to the Ukrainian armed forces.

Gordon has been critical of allowing Obama-era NSC staffers stay in place, such as the CIA analyst who turned into the whistleblower whose 9-page complaint triggered Democratic impeachment action.

“If President Trump thought it was harmless to keep Obama-era holdovers throughout the government like the so-called whistleblower and hiring an abundance of people who obviously despised him like Lt. Col. Vindman, he was sorely mistaken,” Gordon said.

Robert C. O’Brien, Trump’s current national security adviser, said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that Trump doesn’t get credit for ramping up Ukraine’s defense in the face of Putin aggression.

“We’re the first administration, President Trump is the first president to send lethal military aid to Ukraine,” he said. “I think that’s very important. And I think that’s something that’s been lost in all the hullabaloo about the telephone call.”

Reuters reported in April 2018 that “Ukraine has received the first U.S. Javelin missiles and launch units, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said on Monday.”
-----------------------
Free Press International News Service, aka: Free Pressers (@FreePressers).

---

Tags: Free Press International, Wrong, Alexander Vindman, claimed, Obama sent, 'Javelin' weapons, to Ukraine To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Top Democrats Concede They're Losing The Impeachment Battle

Nancy Pelosi

by Matt Margolis: CNN reported Thursday evening that top Democrats are privately acknowledging that the impeachment hearings will do little to persuade the vast majority of the public that President Trump committed an impeachable offense.

According to CNN, in a private meeting earlier this week, "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her top lieutenants were skeptical about the prospects of a dramatic shift in opinion even as public impeachment hearings began this week, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter." Nevertheless, they intend to carry on, in the hopes that things might change.

Democrats have tried various shifts in narratives in order to find something that would stick, even accusing Trump of "bribery" with regards to the $400 million in military aid that was briefly held up by Washington (without Ukraine officials even being aware of it) but even that hasn't moved the needle in a significant way.

It seems Democrats fault the American public, for apparently not being smart enough to understand what abuse of power is. "Abuse of power is not necessarily a concept that most Americans run around thinking about," claimed House Intelligence Committee member Rep. Jim Himes, (D-Ct.). "The point is we are all working to try to make a fairly unusual concept to most Americans — abuse of power — understandable."

Really? Never mind the fact that Nancy Pelosi was essentially pressured into going forward with impeachment from the moment she became Speaker, even though she knew it was a political loser for the Democrats because of the weakness of the charges. Nope, instead, it's the fault of the American people who are too small-minded to understand concepts like "abuse of power," "quid pro quo," or "bribery."

The problem isn't that Americans don't understand what these terms mean. The problem, for Democrats, is that they've failed to prove these occurred to sway public opinion. They bring forth witnesses who heard from someone who heard from another person what somebody else was thinking and expect the public to just swallow it.

There's another theory Democrats have chosen to ignore: the American public isn't interested in impeachment. The ratings for the impeachment hearings are well below those of James Comey's testimony or the Brett Kavanaugh hearings. It seems as though Americans are tuning out this impeachment nonsense because they know that Democrats have been itching for impeachment since Trump was elected.

"I'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected," Rep. Al Green said back in May. Perhaps that has resonated with the public far more than the hearsay and innuendo Democrats are working with right now.
---------------------
Matt Margolis  (@MattMargolis) writes for PJMedia. He the co-author of the bestselling book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama and the author of the book Trumping Obama: How President Trump Saved Us From Barack Obama's Legacy.

---

Tags: Matt Margolis, PJMedia, Top Democrats, Concede, They're Losing, Impeachment Battle To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Sex Ed Programs Create Market for Abortion, Former Abortion Clinic Owner Tells Arkansans

Carol Everett

Jerry Cox, Contributing Author: A former abortion clinic owner recently explained to Arkansans how abortionists use sex-education and similar programs to create a market for abortion.

According to the Harrison Daily Times, Carol Everett, who ran an abortion facility for many years before becoming pro-life, recently spoke at an event for the Informed Choices pregnancy resource center.

She told the crowd,“I sold abortions . . . I spoke in the schools to the fifth and sixth graders. My goal was to get them pregnant. We offered low-dose birth control pills for $45 a month which we knew she would get pregnant on. Abortion is a method of birth control for many and there is more than a 50 percent repeat rate.”She went on to discuss how profitable abortion is, and how abortionists use sex-education programs to encourage students to have sex, become pregnant, and seek abortions.

Recently we learned that Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, is looking for someone to help operate sex-education programs in and around central Arkansas.

Planned Parenthood’s announcement implies that the group either is currently operating sex-education programs in Arkansas schools or wants to operate these programs in the future.

Carol Everett’s story further illustrates why Arkansans simply should not let abortionists anywhere near our children.
-------------------
Jerry Cox is the founder and president of Family Council and the Education Alliance and a contributing author to the ARRA News Service.

---

Tags: Jerry Cox, Family Council, Sex Ed Programs, Create, Market for Abortion, Former Abortion, Carol Everett, Clinic Owner, Tells Arkansans To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Trade In Goods Deficit With China Down 12.8% First Nine Months Of 2019 . . .

. . . Or $38.5 Billion As Trade Talks Continue

Editorial Cartoon by AF Branco

by Robert Romano: The U.S. trade in goods deficit with China is down 12.8 percent in the first nine months of 2019, or $38.5 billion, compared to 2018, according to the latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

The numbers came with the 10 percent tariffs President Donald Trump levied on $200 billion of goods and 25 percent on $50 billion until May, when Trump raised the tariff to 25 percent for all $250 billion. Then, in July he added another 10 percent tariff on the remaining $300 billion of goods, bringing it to a total of almost $550 billion of goods being taxed.

The goods trade deficit reduction of $38.5 billion as of September was where things stood at the time the U.S.-China trade deal in principle was announced in early October, and now we’re about to find out if the agreement will be closed or not.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting a setback in talks on Nov. 12, noting a disagreement over U.S. application of tariffs: “The logjam centers on whether the U.S. has agreed to remove existing tariffs in the so-called ‘phase one’ deal that the two countries have been working toward — or whether the U.S. would only cancel tariffs set to take effect Dec. 15, according to people familiar with the talks.”

For the uninitiated, this is China moving the goal posts — again.

And Trump knows it. The same thing happened in May when Beijing reneged on the deal that was to include provisions on intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, financial services and currency manipulation.

Trump spoke of the impasse at a speech to the New York Economic Club on Nov. 12, explaining that because China broke the deal, that is why he raised the tariffs in the first place, “We had a deal. This gentleman can tell you, we were so close to a deal. The hard points were negotiated: opening up China, intellectual property, all sorts of tremendous penalties. And then, one day, we get a call — seven months ago, we get a call, they’d like to see us. And we saw them, and they explained why they can’t do three or four things that were already agreed to. And I said, ‘Okay. Hey, look, I’m in the real estate business in New York. I’ve heard that before.’ Sadly. It wasn’t like, “Oh, gee, I’m so shocked.” But I was a little surprised. You know, it’s China. They’re not supposed to do that. But they did. And I’ll tell you what: I’ll bet you they wished they didn’t do it. Then I put on 25 percent tariffs on everything coming in — on the first $250 billion of product.”

So, with no deal, the tariffs increased to 25 percent on $250 billion. Now with the deal, Trump said, “It’s going to 15 percent very soon.”

But take note of the aforementioned number. In May, if Beijing had taken the deal, at that time it was 10 percent on $200 billion — $20 billion — and 25 percent on $50 billion — $5 billion. Together that was $25 billion of tariffs if Beijing had simply accepted the deal in May.

Now, Trump says if a deal is made right now, the tariffs will only go down to 15 percent on the $250 billion of goods, or to $37.5 billion, instead of just $25 billion. It keeps getting worse for China the longer they wait. They lost another $12.5 billion because they thought the U.S. would fold. They were wrong, and so the President is ratcheted up the pressure. That’s the way Trump negotiates.

And the President promises it will get even worse for Chinese exporters if they withdraw again. Trump declared, “And I tell this to Larry, I tell it to everybody: If we don’t make a deal, we’re going to substantially raise those tariffs. They’re going to be raised very substantially.”

Perhaps that will be clear to Beijing, even if it’s not clear to the reporters at the Wall Street Journal.

In June, the first month of the increased tariff, imports from China actually dropped 0.7 percent. The same thing happened again in August, with a 0.77 percent drop. In data going back to 1985, imports from China have never dropped in the month of June, and they usually increase in August, too, with a few exceptions, including 2019. Meaning the tariffs are definitely having an impact.

Overall imports from China for the year are already down $53 billion. At the current pace, exports to the U.S. could drop by $72.5 billion, or 13.4 percent this year. That amounts to a little more than 0.5 percent of China’s $13.6 trillion Gross Domestic Product.

U.S. goods exports to China are also down 15 percent, or $14.5 billion. But that’s just 0.06 percent of the $21.5 trillion U.S. Gross Domestic Product.

China has far more to lose in this fight.

From the U.S. standpoint, the overall savings in 2019 so far of $38.5 billion on the trade in goods deficit is $38.5 billion less that will be subtracted from the U.S. economy when the numbers are figured — trade deficits come out of the overall number when GDP is calculated — so no skin off our nose.

So, it’s time for Chinese President Xi Jinping to choose. Deal now, or deal later, but it’s going to keep getting worse if they wait.
--------------------
Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government.

---

Tags: Robert Romano, Americans for Limited Government, Trade, Goods Deficit, With China, Down 12.8%, First Nine Months, 2019, $38.5 Billion, Trade Talks To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Flashback: Obama Fired All Bush Appointed Ambassadors In 2008

by Shelby Talcott: The former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testified Friday about President Donald Trump firing her amid an alleged “smear campaign,” but firing ambassadors appointed by former presidents is commonplace.

Former President Barack Obama fired all ambassadors appointed by former President George W. Bush in 2008, The Washington Post previously reported. Yovanovitch testified Friday that the Trump administration, including the president’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, “kneecapped” her. She said State Department leaders did not support her after being recalled in May.

“Political ambassadors sometimes are permitted to stay on briefly during a new administration, but the sweeping nature of the directive suggests that Obama has little interest in retaining any of Bush’s ambassadorial appointees,” WaPo’s 2008 article about Obama’s decision to fire all political ambassadors reads.

Yovanovitch was appointed by Obama in 2016, and newly elected presidents typically re-vamp the positions with their own choices once taking office. Yovanovitch was allowed to stay on for three years after Trump took office, but has testified that senior officials “declined to acknowledge” the “smear campaign” against her leading up to her firing, Politico reported.

“Often the posts involving the most important bilateral relations (such as with Great Britain, Japan and India) or desirable locales (such as the Bahamas) are given to close friends and well-heeled contributors of the president,” the WaPo article added.

A 2017 Snopes fact-check also noted that Trump firing appointed ambassadors was not an unprecedented move.

“The resignation and replacement of ambassadors at the end of an administration is routine,” the fact check reads, adding that some presidents have fired everyone at once while others decide on a case-by-case basis.

The other ambassador to have testified is Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the E.U. He testified Oct. 17 that he communicated a quid pro quo to Ukraine. Sondland linked giving military aid to Ukraine with the country agreeing to take part in investigations that Trump asked for in a revised statement, USA Today reported. Trump selected Sondland to the position in 2018. (RELATED: EU Ambassador Revises House Testimony, Says He Discussed Military Aid With Ukrainian Official)

Democrats said during Friday’s public testimony that they were angry at Yovanovitch’s sudden dismissal, despite Obama doing the same thing when he became president in 2008. The testimony comes amid an impeachment inquiry into Trump following an August whistleblower complaint. The whistleblower complaint accused the president of pressuring Ukraine to look into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.
---------------------------
Shelby Talcott @ShelbyTalcott writes for The Daily Caller.

---

Tags: The Daily Caller, Flashback, Obama Fired All, Bush Appointed Ambassadors, In 2008 To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Trump Impeachment Not Justified by Evidence and Testimony Made Public So Far

President Donald Trump

by Hans von Spakovsky: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., hasn’t yet produced most of his witnesses in the public impeachment hearings regarding President Donald Trump. But if the State Department’s George Kent and acting Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor are representative of the testimony Democrats are relying on, future historians may label this episode “The Big Impeachment Blowout.”

The House impeachment inquiry is not a criminal proceeding. But as I listened to the hearsay and speculation that Kent and Taylor were offering Wednesday at the opening public hearing on impeachment, I couldn’t help thinking of REO Speedwagon’s song “Take It on the Run.”

One line of the song says: “Heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from another you been messin’ around.”

Both Kent and Taylor admitted they never talked to Trump and only heard thirdhand what supposedly occurred in the president’s July 25 telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Democrats seem to have dropped the quid pro quo claim, since there was no evidence of it in the rough transcript the White House released of the call. The claim does not seem to be playing with the American public.

Taylor admitted in the hearing that Zelenskyy had no idea that U.S. aid was being delayed, and Zelenskyy himself has said there was no quid pro quo.

Democrats have now switched to using the terms “bribery” and “extortion,” no doubt because those terms sound more sinister, despite the fact that they’ve produced no evidence—so far—that would come even close to showing a violation of the federal laws defining bribery and extortion.

Both witnesses expressed their opinions disagreeing with the way Trump has conducted diplomatic relations with Ukraine and the handling of U.S. aid to the country.

But the president is not a postman for Congress or the State Department. His job is to faithfully execute the law. As the chief diplomat of the United States, he defines our foreign policy, not George Kent or William Taylor.

Our country doesn’t give money or aid to other countries for no reason. We give it with specific conditions attached.

The president has a duty to make sure that our money is going to countries that will use it as we intend and not divert it into profiteering and personal corruption. State Department bureaucrats have never been good at ensuring that countries prevent such corruption.

The priority of our diplomats is to maintain their access to government officials in the countries in which they are stationed. This too often overrides their duty to guard against corruption. The president has the final responsibility for ensuring U.S. aid is not improperly diverted in other nations.

It was widely known that Ukraine had, and still has, a corruption problem. It would have been irresponsible for Trump not to look into corruption and demand changes before our money went there.

Even Kent admitted in his testimony that Burisma, the Ukrainian company that employed former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden as a highly paid board member, was part of the “pervasive and longstanding corruption in Ukraine.”

Of course, we will not hear any facts about that because Schiff has refused to allow the Republicans to call Hunter Biden as a witness, which would enable the younger Biden’s possible self-dealing in Ukraine to be investigated.

If everything Hunter Biden and his father Joe Biden did was ethical and above board when it came to Ukraine, why wouldn’t Democrats want Hunter Biden to testify?

And why has Schiff’s committee blocked the Republicans from being able to call the so-called whistleblower who started this whole show trial that Democrats call an impeachment inquiry? What are they afraid will come out about this government employee that might damage his credibility and the claims he is making?

Apparently, Schiff doesn’t want any testimony that would support the legitimacy of the president’s corruption concerns about Ukraine or would somehow detract from the impeachment narrative Democrats are trying to weave into the minds of the American public.

We certainly won’t have an objective, bipartisan inquiry into all of the relevant aspects of what happened here—and why it happened. Schiff even interrupted Republican questioning to tell witnesses they should not answer questions based on “facts not in evidence,” a bizarre statement given the nature of a congressional hearing and how it is normally conducted.

Schiff used to be an assistant U.S. attorney—a federal prosecutor. Like all people in that position, he had to follow the U.S. Attorneys’ Justice Manual.

Before taking a case to a grand jury, much less to trial, Schiff had to convince his boss, in writing, that he had evidence establishing a case. He couldn’t just wing it and submit a case, however weak, based entirely on hearsay, to the grand jury on the off-chance it would indict.

Yet that is exactly what Schiff is doing here—throwing witnesses into closed and now open hearings hoping that he can stir the political pot into an impeachment boil.

It would undermine our system of government for a duly elected president to be removed through impeachment for partisan reasons.

Impeachment should only be used when there has been serious, substantial misconduct of such a nature that we can’t wait for the next election. As far as is publicly known at this time, that standard has not been met regarding Trump.
---------------------------------
Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, 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: President Trump, Impeachment, Not Justified, by Evidence and Testimony, Made Public So Far, Hans von Spakovsky, The Heritage Foundation, The Daily Signal To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

MAGA Shield . . .

. . . Keep in mind, with all the mud being slung at President Trump by the Deep State, the Media, and the Democrats, they’re really aiming at us.

Editorial Cartoon by AF "Tony" Branco

---

Tags: Editorial Cartoon, AF Branco. MAGA Shield, Keep in mind, with all the mud, slung at President Trump, by the Deep State, the Media, and the Democrats, they’re really aiming at us To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

When Did Ukraine Become a ‘Critical Ally’?

by Patrick Buchanan: Despite constant pressure from Sen. John McCain and our neocons to bring Ukraine into NATO, wiser heads on both sides of the Atlantic rejected the idea.

On hearing the State Department’s George Kent and William Taylor describe President Donald Trump’s withholding of military aid to Ukraine, The New York Times summarized and solemnly endorsed their testimony:

“What clearly concerned both witnesses wasn’t simply the abuse of power by the President, but the harm it inflicted on Ukraine, a critical ally, under constant assault by Russian forces.”

“‘Even as we sit here today, the Russians are attacking Ukrainian soldiers in their own country, and have been for four years,’ Taylor said. ‘I saw this on the front line last week; the day I was there a Ukrainian soldier was killed and four more wounded.'”

Kent compared Ukrainian resistance to Russia’s intervention on the side of the Donbass secessionists to “our own Minutemen in 1776.”

“More than 13,000 Ukrainians have died on Ukrainian soil defending their territorial integrity and sovereignty from Russian aggression. … American support in Ukraine’s own de facto war of independence has been critical.”

Kent went on:

“The American colonies may not have prevailed against British imperial might without help from transatlantic friends after 1776. In an echo of Lafayette’s organized assistance to General George Washington’s army and Admiral John Paul Jones’ navy, Congress has generously appropriated over $1.5 billion over the past five years in desperately needed train and equip security assistance to Ukraine…”

“Similar to von Steuben training colonials at Valley Forge, U.S. and NATO allied trainers develop the skills of Ukrainian units at Yavoriv near the Polish border, and elsewhere. They help rewrite military education for Ukraine’s next generation, as von Steuben did for America’s first.”

“One would think, listening to this,” writes Barbara Boland, the American Conservative columnist, “that the U.S. had always provided arms to Ukraine, and that Ukraine has relied on this aid for years. But this is untrue and the Washington blob knows this.”

Indeed, Ukraine has never been a NATO ally or a “critical ally.”

Three decades ago, George H.W. Bush implored Ukraine not to set out on a course of “suicidal nationalism” by declaring independence from the Russian Federation. Despite constant pressure from Sen. John McCain and our neocons to bring Ukraine into NATO, wiser heads on both sides of the Atlantic rejected the idea.

Why? Because the “territorial integrity and sovereignty” of Ukraine is not now and has never been a vital interest of ours that would justify a U.S. war with a nuclear-armed Russia.

Instead, it was the avoidance of such a war that was the vital interest that nine U.S. presidents, from Truman to Bush I, secured, despite such provocations as the crushing of the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 and the building of the Berlin Wall.

In February 2014, the elected pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown by U.S.-backed protesters in Maidan Square, cheered on by McCain. This was direct U.S. intervention in the internal affairs of Ukraine. Victoria Nuland of the State Department conceded that we had dumped billions into Ukraine to reorient its regime to the West.

To Vladimir Putin, the Kyiv coup meant the loss of Russia’s historic Black Sea naval base at Sebastopol in Crimea. Rather than let that happen, Putin effected an uprising, Crimea’s secession from Ukraine, and the annexation by Russia. In eastern Ukraine, the pro-Russian Donbass rose up in rebellion against the pro-NATO regime in Kyiv.

Civil war broke out. We backed the new regime. Russia backed the rebels. And five years later, the war goes on. Why is this our fight?

During the Obama years, major lethal aid was denied to Ukraine.

The White House reasoned that arming Ukraine would lead to an escalation of the war in the east, greater Russian intervention, defeat for Kyiv, and calls for the U.S. to intervene militarily, risking a war with Russia.

Not until Trump became president did lethal aid begin flowing to Ukraine, including Javelin anti-tank missiles.

So where are we?

Despite dramatic depictions of Ukraine as our embattled ally, Ukraine has never been an ally. We are not now nor have we ever been obligated to fight for its sovereignty or territorial integrity. Efforts to bring Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia into NATO have been repeatedly rebuffed in the United States and by our European NATO allies.

Kent and Taylor are honorable men. But they are career diplomats of the Department of State and veteran advocates of a foreign policy that sees Russia as an enduring aggressor and Ukraine as a fighting ally entitled to U.S. military assistance.

They have, in the old phrase, gone native. They champion the policies of yesterday and the embattled countries to which they are accredited and to whose causes they have become converted.

But Trump was elected to overturn the interventionist policies America has pursued since the century began. He was elected to end Cold War II with Russia, to reach a modus vivendi as Reagan did, and to extricate us from the endless wars into which Presidents Bush and Obama plunged the nation.
--------------------
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, When Did, Ukraine, Become a ‘Critical Ally’? To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Income Inequality

by Kerby Anderson, Contributing Author: One of the many themes being debated during this campaign season is income inequality. It is often the justification used for raising taxes and redistributing income.

We can certainly have a moral debate about what we should do (if anything) about the differences in income, but first we need to have accurate numbers. Former Senator Phil Gramm and former commissioner John Early took the time to provide The Truth About Income Inequality.

Census Bureau data fails to account for two very important facts. First, the richest people in America pay almost two-thirds of federal, state, and local taxes. Gramm & Early conclude that “ignoring the earned income lost to taxes substantially overstates inequality.”

Second, the Census Bureau data also “fails to count $1.9 trillion in annual public transfer payments to American households.” That includes transfer payments from 95 federal programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps. They conclude that by leaving out taxes and transfer payments it overstates inequality in America by more than 300 percent. “More than 80% of all taxes are paid by the top two quintiles, and more than 70% of all government transfer payments go to the bottom two quintiles.”

They also conclude that the average bottom-quintile household receives $45,389 in government transfers and an additional $3,313 in private transfers from charitable and family sources. That means the average household in the bottom quintile has $50,901 in available resources.

This recent article is a reminder that before we have a debate about a topic like income inequality, we need to get the right economic facts on the table.
----------------
Kerby Anderson (@kerbyanderson) is a radio talk show host heard on numerous stations via the Point of View Network (@PointofViewRTS) and is endorsed by Dr. Bill Smith, Editor, ARRA News Service.

---

Tags: Kerby Anderson, Viewpoints, Point of View, Income Inequality To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Transparency for Big Tech

Phil Kerpen

by Phil Kerpen, Contributing Author: A new Wall Street Journal expose finding that "Google has increasingly re-engineered and interfered with search results to a far greater degree than the company and its executives have acknowledged" is sure to bolster efforts from the company's opponents to break it up or cripple it with regulations.

There is a through-the-looking-glass quality to the debate for those of us who have spent the last 15 years or so in the Net Neutrality wars.

The same players – including Big Tech companies themselves and their surrogates – who have told us for years that only heavy-handed government neutrality regulations can save us from ISPs manipulating traffic and acting as gatekeepers are now recoiling in horror at the prospect of a neutrality regulation for Big Tech companies that are engaging in precisely such manipulation.

At the same time, many of the people who most strongly opposed Obama's mangled form of net neutrality are now insistent that we repeat the same big government mistakes to address the behavior of Big Tech.

Senator Ted Cruz brought Section 230 – the provision of U.S. law that provides intermediary liability protection to the tech companies – into the scope of the debate by suggesting that limiting such a government-granted benefit could provide a mechanism for conservatives ideologically suspect of regulation to address the perceived thumb these companies had on the scale for Democratic candidates and their liberal allies.

Senator Josh Hawley pushed this idea to an extreme almost shocking from a Republican – a bill requiring certification of political neutrality by federal bureaucrats to retain 230 protection.

Cruz and Hawley understand something too many professional analysts on the right ignore at their peril – the conservative base is nearing a boiling point in its hatred of Big Tech and sees this as a central front in the culture war, not a venue for economic policy subject to ideological constraints.

How, in this context, can we chart a path forward that can satisfy this base anger without betraying free-market principles?

The answer could lie in FCC Chairman Aji Pai's brilliant resolution of the net neutrality issue. Not only have none of the predicted negative consequences occurred since Pai's more free-market version of net neutrality was enacted, but to the contrary data speeds have risen sharply, investment is up, and there have been no notable episodes of discrimination by ISPs.

The heart of the Pai order is a transparency rule, which replaces heavy-handed regulation with market discipline – in effect, if you want to treat traffic in a non-neutral fashion you can, but you have to explain what you're doing to your customers.

Ironically, the Big Tech companies continue to pursue reimposition of the heavy-handed Obama neutrality regulations on ISPs even as they fend off efforts to similarly regulate themselves or limit their liability protections.

But the success of the Pai order suggests a much more elegant solution: Big Tech should be subject to a transparency rule and, if they do in fact discriminate against certain content, they should explain how to their customers.

Such a rule could require clear disclosure of how traffic is treated, and clear specification of the standards used for limiting speech, including any possible viewpoint discrimination. Platforms that represent themselves to the public as neutral could be subject to civil complaints if they violate those representations.

A transparency rule would avoid the perils of more heavy-handed government regulation, dissipate the distrust toward Big Tech from the left and right, and harmonize the rules for ISPs with the rules for the edge giants they are increasingly competing with in the advertising market.

Crafting a transparency rule for Big Tech is easier said than done, of course. But just as with regulation of ISPs, it could be the least-bad option.
------------------
Phil Kerpen is president of American Commitment. Follow him at (@kerpen) and on Facebook. He is a contributing author at the ARRA News Service.

---

Tags: Phil Kerpen, American Commitment, Transparency for Big Tech 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 Democrats’ Election Interference Projection

David Limbaugh

by David Limbaugh: You know what doesn’t pass the smell test in the Democrats’ sham impeachment crusade? Their main beef is that President Donald Trump abused his power to interfere with a presidential election (2020), yet that’s all they have been doing for the last three years.

Interference with a presidential election (2016) was also their allegation with the Russia-collusion hoax. Oh, my, how they revere the integrity of the election process.

Remember Rep. Schiff’s endless guarantees that he had irrefutable evidence of Trump’s collusion with Russia?
Well, even the Democrats’ would-be savior, former special counsel Robert Mueller, and his team of Trump-hating attorneys, couldn’t produce a scintilla of evidence implicating Trump. If Schiff had the goods on Trump, he would have turned them over to Mueller. But nothing came of it, which means that Schiff didn’t just make an honest mistake or, in his emotional zeal, overstate his case.

No, he outright lied. And this isn’t a minor fib about a small matter but a major lie about a gravely serious matter. Savor the irony: Schiff brazenly fabricated a tale about having concrete evidence that Trump interfered with an election so that he himself could spearhead the mother of all election-interference capers: undoing Trump’s 2016 election and preventing his 2020 reelection.

Has Schiff been held to account for his lies? To the contrary, he’s been rewarded by his co-conspiratorial party with leadership of the latest election interference scheme. Interestingly, this charade began with a so-called whistleblower, who was probably not a whistleblower at all but a Democratic plant in the bowels of the Trump administration as part of another “insurance policy” to undermine the man who was duly elected under our constitutionally prescribed method for electing presidents.

For all the preening about the integrity of the democratic process from a party that routinely undermines the Constitution and our national sovereignty through judicial activism, lawless executive orders, the administrative state and its open borders policy, couldn’t the Democrats even pretend to treat presidential impeachment as mildly serious?

No, because their concern isn’t election interference or respect for the Constitution but regaining power and advancing their leftist agenda at all costs. If they were so dedicated to our democracy, they’d quit exploiting the impeachment clause to reverse the results of an election. They’d stop saying, along with other cynics, that “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” has no meaning apart from how the House chooses to define it.
Wrong. The framers chose all of their constitutional language carefully, and this was no exception. These terms had meaning under English common law and American jurisprudence. It’s one thing to say that because the House has the authority to impeach, the constitutionally specified grounds for impeachment are irrelevant or the House has no duty to honor the Constitution. These elected leaders are ultimately accountable to the people, and if they abuse their authority to impeach a president, because they hate him or have policy disagreements with him, then they should be held to account.

One said they must impeach him so he doesn’t get reelected. Another boasted that they are going to “impeach the mother—–.” When the Russia-collusion hoax didn’t work, they instantly pivoted to Ukraine. Why not? To them, impeachment is as easy as a grand jury indicting a ham sandwich.

Presidential impeachment is an extraordinary remedy and should be used sparingly for egregious and certain misconduct, not as a weapon used by a single party to disenfranchise voters — especially when the people will be able to decide the matter for themselves with another election within months of the completion of this bogus process.
Precisely because of the gravity of the procedure, great care should be taken to ensure fairness. They should at least follow accepted evidentiary rules and accord Trump a level of due process provided to an alleged petty thief.
Against Trump, the process began in the basement and has now come upstairs with a one-sided kangaroo proceeding conducted by the Trump-loathing Adam Schiff, who is acting both as prosecutor and judge, even interrupting the Republicans’ cross-examination in mid-question to coach a witness on his answer.

Everyone has already noted that the Democrats’ case is based on hearsay. But that’s not their only assault on justice and fairness. They claim Trump withheld aid to Ukraine in exchange for dirt on one of his likely 2020 rivals, Joe Biden. But the facts including the statements of the Ukrainian president and the delivery of the aid despite no investigation of Biden indicate the promise of aid wasn’t conditioned on an investigation, and so, the case for a quid pro quo is weak. Equally important, they have no idea what Trump’s motive was. If we are to have any respect for our election process, they must produce some evidence of Trump’s criminal intent (mens rea) beyond wishful thinking — especially when they are alleging bribery, a specific intent crime.

Trump was likely more concerned about uncovering Ukraine’s possible complicity in the 2016 election and why the Bidens weren’t investigated than in exposing Biden’s corruption to undermine his 2020 presidential bid. The point is we don’t know and won’t know, and yet, they’re going to impeach Trump anyway, imputing a motive to him they can’t possibly divine. The Democrats have been salivating over a plausible opportunity to impeach Trump since before he took office, so why quibble over a little hearsay and imputed motives?

People say that the thrust of this impeachment farce is a policy difference between the deep state and President Trump. To be sure, this is a factor, but the main thing is that the Democratic establishment, the leftist media and the entrenched bureaucrats cannot stomach Trump occupying the highest office in the land. They despise him and have contempt for the tens of millions of voters who elected him, and the last thing they want to do is to give Trump and his deplorables a chance to do it again.
---------------------
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, The Democrats, Election Interference, Projection 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 Fundamental Complaint

by Paul Jacob, Contributing Author: “Something is going on,” The Washington Post’s Adam Taylor. “From Baghdad to Hong Kong, Santiago to Barcelona, sites around the world have seen major protests over recent weeks.”

What is that something?

“Global protests share themes of economic anger and political hopelessness,” reads the headline to Taylor’s article.

He’s way off.

Hope, not hopelessness, drives people to demand change.

“Income inequality seems to have added an economic insecurity that helped lead to anger and protests,” Taylor informs . . . in keeping with a consistent Post narrative.

The millions who have marched in Hong Kong didn’t take to the streets over income equality. Their five clear and reasonable demands are about justice and basic democratic citizen control of government.

The protests and violence in stem from the central Spanish government denying self-determination and trying to bully the people by imposing long prison terms on Catalonian officials who committed the crime of holding an “illegal” referendum for independence.

Even where economic concerns are far more prominent (or the main driver of demonstrations, such as in Chile) the frustration is much less about inequality than a lack of opportunity in a stagnant and corrupt system.

“They promise changes every time we protest, but it’s not a new law or a concession that we want,” Iraqi student Ali Saleh explains. “It’s our rights. It’s a fundamental change in how we’re governed.”

The current global explosion of political unrest isn’t about income inequality or even economic insecurity alone. It is about the desire for more fundamental freedoms — economic as well as political — in an unfree world.

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

Why Trump is the Black Voters’ Clear Choice in 2020

by Lloyd Marcus: A rabbi once said that one of the reasons why Jews have prospered despite being the most persecuted people on the planet is that Jews never view themselves as victims. This powerful truth hit me like a ton of bricks. From as far back as I can remember, Democrats have deceived blacks by drilling the lie into their heads that they are victims of eternally racist America.

Insidiously, Democrats continue to sell blacks the lie that America is a hellhole of racism in which Republicans and conservatives are obsessed with conceiving ways to keep blacks down. Consequently, far too many blacks absurdly believe a majority of Americans (Trump voters) are white supremacists and their only hope of keeping them at bay is to continue voting for Democrats.

As a child, I instinctively knew Democrats were scamming blacks. When I was around nine years old, my parents and three younger siblings moved from a leaky roofed ghetto to a new 11-story government project in Baltimore. Everything was brand new, kitchen appliances and so on. Extremely excited, we were among the first families in the building of all-black residents. Within a short time, that building became a huge ghetto. The elevators were routinely out of service due to vandalism. Our apartment was on the 6th floor. Entering the pitch-black stairwell to walk up to our apartment was like walking into the shadow of death, as the sound of stepping on broken wine bottles echoed off the concrete walls. I suspect my fellow residents were Democrats. They believed every problem was always the fault of white racism.

At nine years old, I sarcastically said, “How can we stop mean white people from sneaking into our building at night, breaking light bulbs in the stairwells, peeing, breaking the elevators and smashing wine bottles?” Even at that young age, commonsense told me whitey was not responsible for problems we could fix ourselves.

In my mid-twenties, I again noticed the devastating negative consequences of Democrats infecting blacks with victim mindsets. I became a born-again Christian. Excited about my new life in Jesus, I began visiting reform schools and prisons sharing how Jesus changed my life. Shockingly, the majority of the inmates were young black men. Many were gifted and talented. Their glaring problem was not white racism, but hopeless victim mindsets instilled into them by Democrats. I repeatedly heard, “Why even try when whitey has systemically stacked the deck against you?”

Blacks today do not know that the Democratic party has become the home of socialists, communists, progressives, and anti-Americanism. All Democrats care about is furthering their anti-God agenda. The folks they claim to advocate for (minorities, women and LGBTQ) are nothing more than useful idiots. Democrats want blacks hating their country. This is why Democrats say all black success is despite America’s rabid racism.

Americans are good, fair-minded people. This is why white America elected Obama, the first black president, exempting him from the normal vetting process. It is unarguable that white America elected Obama because blacks are only 12% of the population. Hidden by his black skin exterior, Obama was the socialists/progressives’ perfect Trojan Horse to further their godless, anti-American agenda. White Americans naively assumed that electing a black president would finally end their being branded racist. They had no idea that Democrats would exploit Obama’s skin color, using it as a bludgeon to force their agenda down the throats of Americans.

Anyone who dared to speak out against Obama’s numerous unconstitutional executive orders was immediately attacked, high-tech beaten, and lynched in the public square, an “r” branded on their forehead for being a racist.

My conservative, self-reliant, the-world-does-not-owe-me-anything mindset came from my parents. Particularly my dad, the late Dr. Rev. Lloyd E Marcus. In 1952, the ban was lifted, allowing blacks to take the civil service test. Dad passed the test and became a Baltimore City firefighter. White firefighters at Engine 6 resented Dad and treated him like scum. Dad was assigned separate eating utensils, restroom and sleeping area. He could not even pour himself a cup of coffee from the same coffeepot as the whites.

Whenever the humiliation become too overwhelming, Dad retreated to the storage room to pray and read his Bible. Mean-spirited firefighters named the storage room, “Marcus’ Chapel.” Dad courageously endured because he had a wife and four kids to feed and knew he was a trailblazer.

Rather than wallowing in a victim mindset, Dad chose to represent Jesus by striving to be excellent. Dad won Firefighter of the Year two times, also winning respect and lifelong friendships with white firefighters. He went on to became Baltimore’s first black paramedic and fire department chaplain. Dad competed with whites for Firefighter of the Year without the Democrats’ insulting demands that standards be lowered to compensate for his skin color.

I hate that Democrats always send blacks the message that they are victims, repeatedly demanding lowered standards and special concessions. For example: Democrats say that being required to present a photo ID to vote disenfranchises blacks. This is extremely insulting. In essence, Democrats are saying unlike other Americans, blacks are too stupid to acquire a photo ID, which is absurd. You need a photo ID to cash a check, board an airplane, and countless other transactions. And yet, far too many blacks view this attack on their intelligence as Democrats advocating for them.

The true evil goal of Democrats is not to empower blacks neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and businessman extraordinaire Herman Cain. The success of these blacks pokes a huge hole in Democrats’ lie that blacks can only succeed in racist America via Democrats’ intervention and lowered standards.

Tragically, blacks have voted monolithically for Democrats for 60 years with nothing to show for it. Baltimore, Washington D.C., Chicago, and every other city controlled by Democrats are hellholes of black misery; black-on-black homicides, out-of-wedlock births (fatherless households), high incarceration, genocidal numbers of abortions, and school dropouts. And yet, Democrats are still deceiving blacks with their tired old lie that every issue plaguing black Americans is the result of white racism.

My stomach turned upon hearing Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren promising to end environmental racism. I thought, “Here we go again with another Democrat attempting to fill blacks with more victim nonsense while trashing America, claiming that even the weather in the U.S. victimizes blacks.”

As the rabbi stated, viewing oneself as a victim is not empowering. It weakens you.

President Trump is the best thing for blacks since sliced bread. Under Trump, black unemployment is at an historic low. The record of Trump’s extraordinary business career is filled with examples of advocating for and hiring blacks.

For decades, I pleaded with the GOP to make a strong effort to reach out to black voters. The cynical response was, “Why bother? African-Americans will always vote for Democrats no matter what we do.” My retort was, “Republicans have a moral duty to counter Democrats’ destructive lies by taking the truth about America’s greatness to black communities.” Trump is the first Republican president in my lifetime to seriously and sincerely court black voters.

Branding Trump as a racist is yet another evil Democrat lie to steer blacks away from a Republican who has their best interests at heart, implementing policies beneficial to them.

Unlike the Democratic party, the Republican party does not treat me like a poor inferior child in need of constant government intervention.

Folks, the bottom line is America is the greatest land of opportunity on the planet for all who choose to go for their dreams! This inspiring truth is as repulsive to Democrats as showing Dracula the cross.
--------------
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, Trump, Black Voters’ Clear Choice, 2020 To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!