This is How Radical Prosecutors Seek to Overthrow Justice and the Rule of Law

by Newt Gingrich and Sean Kennedy: When an extreme leftist won election to be the chief prosecutor for San Francisco, most right-minded people might have dismissed the outcome as par for the course in the liberal City by the Bay.

But that would have been a mistake. When San Franciscans elected Chesa Boudin, they didn’t vote in a run-of-the-mill progressive out to decriminalize property violations and spout “soft-on-crime” slogans. They elected the former advisor to Venezuela’s leftist dictator Hugo Chavez. Boudin is the tip of the spear in a revolutionary effort to upend the American system of justice – from within.

Consider his background.

In 1981, Boudin’s parents, Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, left their infant son with a babysitter before they helped orchestrate the robbery of a Brinks truck – in which its security guard and two police officers were murdered. Kathy Boudin actively distracted Nyack police, who had stopped the get-a-away truck, and convinced them to put away their drawn weapons. Seconds later, her accomplices jumped out of the truck and executed two of the officers and wounded others.

Legally adopted by domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernice Dorhn, Chesa Boudin has repeatedly downplayed the crimes of his parents and the terrorist group Weather Underground – including numerous bombings, violent prison breaks, and other robberies.

His parents’ heinous crimes were committed on behalf of an extremist break-away faction of the terrorist group, which is dedicated to the violent overthrow the US government. They did face justice and were sent to prison for their violent acts. However, now District Attorney-elect Boudin considers imprisonment “an act of violence in and of itself.”

He offers non-specified interventions to eradicate the conditions that “cause” criminal behavior. At the same time, he specifically plans to end enforcement against public urination, prostitution, and public drug use – and further decriminalize theft. This is just the opposite tack that turned New York City around under former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Police Commissioner Bill Bratton.

Broadly, Boudin has pledged to simply flout the laws he disagrees with saying, a “district attorney can challenge the legitimacy of laws by declining to bring charges in certain cases.”

This is the same approach the bigoted prosecutors, judges, and juries of the Deep South took toward crimes against African Americans for decades. It does not only undermine the rule of law – it erases it.

So, why does the radical son of terrorists in the leftist capital of America matter to you? Because his comrades are coming to your prosecutor’s office, if they aren’t already there.

Extreme leftist candidates have won dozens of local district attorney elections (from liberal big cities such as Boston and Philadelphia, to moderate suburban counties such as Fairfax, Virginia and Harris County, Texas). Billionaire progressive activist George Soros and his myriad organizations pour millions into these normally low-spending, local elections.

The progressive left has ousted longtime prosecutors in places such as St. Louis, and its members are not finished – they are only getting started.

The leftwing is even targeting Democrats. Jackie Lacey, the first African American and first woman to lead the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, which covers more than 10 million people, faces a carpetbagging competitor in George Gascon. Gascon resigned as the elected district attorney in San Francisco just to run against Lacey in the Democratic primary – funded, of course, by Soros and his allies. (Meanwhile, Gascon’s former colleagues in San Francisco have endorsed Lacey.)

The consequences of this radical leftwing effort are dire for residents.

In Philadelphia, where leftist Larry Krasner took office as the city’s district attorney in 2018, violent crime has risen in city. This year alone, gun assaults are up by 11 percent, murders jumped 6 percent, and robberies increased by 7 percent. And there’s a direct link between the spike in crime and the district attorney’s approach to prosecuting offenders. Krasner has dismissed charges against violent criminals at an eye-popping rate: 57 percent higher dismissal rate that his predecessor for homicide and 15 percent for all violent crimes – while obtaining 7 percent fewer violent crime convictions. Among so-called nonviolent offenders, 45 percent of suspected drug dealers have had their cases dismissed.

The same story is playing out across the country. Serious offenses and quality of life crimes go unchecked by these progressive prosecutors, who put ideology above public safety.

In Dallas, newly sworn in District Attorney John Creozot announced he would not prosecute drug offenses or theft under $750. A massive violent crime spike followed, especially in South Dallas. With an ineffectual police chief and deluded district attorney blaming poverty for crime, Texas Governor Greg Abbott acted to stop the bloodshed and sent in state troopers to police the area. Violent crime tumbled 24 percent within a few months.

Meanwhile, in St. Louis, a left-wing district attorney has driven 65 of her own career prosecutors out of public service – more than 100 percent turnover. A similar exodus of veteran and accomplished prosecutors is occurring in Philadelphia, Houston, and Denver.

The crime-fighting professionals who have devoted their lives to public safety would be right to feel under siege as their supposed colleagues and superiors denigrate, distrust, and desert them. Progressive district attorneys seem to disdain their prosecutors and the front-line police officers with whom they are supposed to work. Boston’s district attorney declined to prosecute Antifa rioters who threw bottles of urines at police.

Meanwhile, some of these officials have publicly declared law enforcement to be inherently racist. Others, such as Baltimore District Attorney Marilyn Mosby – who presides over the highest murder rate in the country – suggests with no evidence that “hundreds” in the city’s police force are corrupt liars.

Meanwhile, this summer, six Philadelphia police officers were shot by a career violent felon in a stand-off. Bystanders taunted the officers and threw objects at them. Philly’s federal prosecutor, William McSwain, laid the incident and rising crime at Krasner’s feet, saying “the crisis was precipitated by a stunning disrespect for law enforcement.”

Krasner, who made his career suing the police 75 times, had previously called law enforcement racist and “war criminals,” but his election victory party two years ago further clarified his approach as supporters chanted “F— the Police.”

A familiar chant went up at the victory party of Boudin: “F—the POA [Police Officers Association].”

Boudin and others’ disdain for public safety, the rule of law, and the brave men and women who police our streets and put away violent criminals is dangerous and disturbing. It is a fundamental violation of their oath to “well and faithfully discharge the duties [they are] about to enter.”
----------------------
Newt Gingrich & Sean Kennedy (@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, Sean Kennedy, Chesa Boudin, How Radical Prosecutors, Seek to Overthrow. Justice, the Rule of Law To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Hong Kong Strong

by Tony Perkins: While Americans sometimes take their democracy for granted, turnout shouldn't be a problem in Hong Kong this Sunday. That's when the region heads to the polls to choose their local leaders. Normally, foreign affairs reporter Gordon Chang pointed out, the district elections don't attract very much attention. This time around, things are different. Five months into Hong Kong's violent protests, the people want to be heard. And not just about their districts. About everything.

Despite political banners in tatters and fears that Sunday's elections will invite even more clashes with police, the people of Hong Kong plan to show up in force this weekend. "It's is one of the few avenues we have left to express our voice," said Lokman Tsui, a professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong: "When you are continually and structurally being disenfranchised, you hold onto any right you have left."

Thousands of miles away, American leaders are doing everything they can to give the locals more leverage. Led by congressmen like Chris Smith (R-N.J.), who's been trying since 2014 to pass a bill just like it, the Hong Kong Rights and Democracy Act sailed through both chambers and is on its way to the president's desk. What it does, Chris explained on "Washington Watch," is lets China know that if they don't support an autonomous Hong Kong, all of the special benefits and protections they currently enjoy will go away.

"When China got Hong Kong back from the U.K. they made solemn promises that Hong Kong would be autonomous--that human rights, as you and I understand [them]... would be enjoyed. [T]he basic law reads like our own Constitution. It's just in the Bill of Rights. It is wonderfully written. And now it's eroding under the current dictator, who wants to take religious oppression to Hong Kong itself." But America has leverage, Smith explains. "Its economy is based on exports. Without exports, it will implode. We can impact those exports in a very serious way if we say there's conditionality to having that special status for Hong Kong."

Unfortunately, Chris pointed out, a lot of these problems started years ago when America gave away its biggest bargaining chip. "Bill Clinton gave away everything [with the permanent most favored nation trade status]," he lamented. "He was weak and vacillating. And in May of 1994, he delinked human rights from trade. And that's when the Chinese government took the view of the United States that all we care about is profits and that the rule of law... and especially fundamental, universally recognized human rights are all negotiable. So he gave away the store. I believe May 26, 1994 was a day, frankly, we lost China."

He's right. Most people truly believed that trade would change China. And unfortunately, trade ended up changing American business more than China. We have sports leagues like the NBA refusing to speak up, because the regime threated to pull their pre-season games. Then there's Hollywood, who's embracing censorship as an acceptable price of putting more movies in Chinese theaters. Then there are American businesses, building factories with what can only be described as slave labor.

"People went on thinking if we just trade a little more, somehow China will matriculate from dictatorship to democracy. That has not happened. They're now a global threat. And a threat to their own people. It's unconscionable. The Uyghur Muslims, the Christians, the house church movement. [China is] on a tear. And Hong Kong is next."
----------------------------------------
Tony Perkins (@tperkins) is President of the Family Research Council . This article was on Tony Perkin's Washington Update and written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

---

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

Border Apprehensions at 15-month Low

by Numbers USA: Border Patrol officers apprehended 35,444 illegal border crossers last month, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, marking a 15-month low for apprehensions. In addition, officers encountered 9,806 inadmissibles at a port of entry for a total of 45,250 encounters last month -- also a 15-month low.

Nearly 23,000 of the more than 35,000 illegal border crossers who were apprehended were single adults. That represents a huge shift from this summer when well over 50% of apprehensions were of family units and unaccompanied minors. Only 2,848 unaccompanied minors and 9,733 family units were apprehended last month after crossing the border illegally.

The Trump administration has taken a number of steps to stem the flow of illegal border crossings which were at record-levels earlier this calendar year. The administration has implemented a Remain in Mexico policy, which requires most asylum seekers to stay in Mexico until they can see an immigration judge. The administration has also struck safe-third country agreements with Central American countries, requiring any asylum seekers who pass through those countries to claim asylum there. The Trump administration has also pressured Mexico to step up its efforts in stopping unauthorized migration.

Still, several of the administration's policies to end the border surge have been held up by the courts. Its effort to rewrite the Flores Settlement Agreement, which prevents the feds from detaining minors for longer than 20 days, and to block asylum claims from illegal border crossers have both been subject to nationwide injunctions by federal district judges.

For more on border apprehensions, view the FY20 Southwest Border Migration report:

U.S. Border Patrol Southwest Border Apprehensions FY 2020

USBP	Demographic	OCT	Total
Southwest Border	Unaccompanied Alien Child	2,848	2,848
	Family Units*	9,733	9,733
	Single Adult	22,863	22,863
Southwest Border Total Apprehensions		35,444	35,444

*Family Unit represents the number of individuals (either a child under 18 years old, parent, or legal guardian) apprehended with a family member by the U.S. Border Patrol.

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 To Date (TD), a total of  35,444 individuals were apprehended between ports of entry on our Southwest Border. In FY19, a total of 851,508 individuals were apprehended between ports of entry on our Southwest Border.

For breakdown by Sector, visit USBP Southwest Border Apprehensions by Sector

Office of Field Operations Southwest Border Inadmissibles FY 2020

Field Operations	Demographic	OCT	Total
Southwest Border	Unaccompanied Alien Child	389	389
	Family Units*	4,025	4,025
	Single Adults	5,291	5,291
	Accompanied Minor Child**	101	101
Southwest Border Total Inadmissibles		9,806	9,806

*Family Unit represents the number of individuals (either a child under 18 years old, parent, or legal guardian) deemed inadmissible with a family member by the Office of Field Operations.

**Accompanied Minor Child represents a child accompanied by a parent or legal guardian and the parent or legal guardian is either a U.S. Citizen, Lawful Permanent Resident, or admissible alien, and the child is determined to be inadmissible.

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 To Date (TD), 9,806 people presenting themselves at ports of entry on the Southwest Border were deemed inadmissible. In FY 2019, 126,001 people presenting themselves at ports of entry on the Southwest Border were deemed inadmissible.

OFO inadmissibility metrics include: individuals encountered at ports of entry who are seeking lawful admission into the United States but are determined to be inadmissible, individuals presenting themselves to seek humanitarian protection under our laws, and individuals who withdraw an application for admission and return to their countries of origin within a short timeframe.

For breakdown by Field Office, visit Southwest Border Inadmissibles by Field Office.

--------------------------
Article and additional info provided by NumbersUSA.

---

Tags: NumbersUSA, border apprehensions, 15-month Low To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Marijuana Tied to Heart Problems, Stroke in Young People

Jerry Cox, Contributing Author: A recent study presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions found that marijuana addiction among young people is tied to increased risk of heart problems.

A second study found regular marijuana use increases a young person’s risk of suffering a stroke.

Young people who who regularly use marijuana have a 47% – 52% greater risk of being hospitalized for an irregular heartbeat.

Irregular heart rhythms can lead to stroke or heart failure.

Researchers also found that young people who used marijuana more than 10 days per month were more than twice as likely to suffer a stroke, compared to people who didn’t use marijuana.

Time and again, researchers have found marijuana is dangerous.

• A 2017 study reported marijuana smokers were three times as likely to die of hypertension.
• Marijuana use has been linked to stroke and cardiovascular problems.
• Marijuana damages the brain and can lead to a permanent loss in IQ.
• Marijuana is also tied to an increased risk for schizophrenia.

All of this underscores what we have said for years: Marijuana may be many things, but “harmless” simply is not one of them.

Read more about this latest study here.
--------------
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, Marijuana, Heart Problems, Strokes, in Young People To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

ISIS

by Kerby Anderson, Contributing Author: After the government announced the death of the ISIS leader, many wondered what might be the next step. ISIS has been defeated on the battlefield and their leader is gone. But there is still more to do.

In his book, The State of Our Nation, Jim Denison described four steps that were necessary to defeat ISIS. These were: (1) take away its caliphate, (2) apprehend or kill its leader, (3) defeat its ideology, and (4) advance spiritual awakening.

The first step has been accomplished on the battlefield. Our troops have defeated ISIS forces that were defending their caliphate. They no longer hold any significant territory.

The second step has also been achieved. Every day that al-Baghdadi was alive he was able to rally ISIS troops to fight Western forces. He could claim protection from Allah. His death (and the death of other ISIS leaders) has been a significant blow to ISIS.

The third step is to defeat their ideology. In order to be effective we need to fight this intellectual battle. We need to do this individually as well as a nation. And that leads to the fourth and final step. We must commit ourselves to a spiritual awakening through prayer and biblical research.

More Muslims are coming to Christ than at any time in history. Some believe more Muslims have become Christians in the last few decades than in the previous fourteen centuries. Muslims are seeing the horrors of ISIS and wonder if that is what Islam really is. That is why they seem so willing to accept Christ as an alternative to their religion.

We need to be prepared to challenge the theology of Islam and present the life-giving message of the Bible. We have a greater opportunity to lead Muslims to the Lord than in any other time. We should be diligent about presenting the Gospel to them in this country and around the world.
----------------
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, ISIS 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 Does ‘High Crimes And Misdemeanors’ Mean?

by Joseph M. Bessette & Gary J. Schmitt:  Key Points

• The framers did not give an extended explanation of what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors.” However, through an analysis of the text of the Constitution, the Constitutional Convention, the ratification debates, and British and American impeachment precedents, it is possible to reach a broad understanding of what behavior is covered by those terms.
• The key to unlocking that understanding in the case of the presidency is that the office is one of powers whose ends and limits are fixed by a specific set of duties. High crimes and misdemeanors are not limited to actual crimes but extend to an abuse or violation of the public trust in carrying out those duties.
• By judging the actions of executive and judicial officials against the standard of their constitutional duties and broad public responsibilities, the impeachment process serves three great ends: It removes from office those who have forfeited their right to serve, protecting the public from further depredations; it induces others to act in accord with their high public responsibilities; and it provides the citizenry with a vital lesson in the principles of constitutional democracy.

Executive Summary
The United States Constitution establishes that “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”1 Although British law employed the term for centuries before the American Revolution, the definition of what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors” has long been a subject of ambiguity. Even studying the Constitutional Convention and subsequent ratifying debates sheds only a little light on how the founding generation separated impeachable offenses from occasional maladministration.

Demystifying this portion of Article II requires a close study of American legal history, which ultimately illustrates the phrase’s prudential breadth of meaning. At its core, impeachment has historically turned on acts that either impeded a constitutional officer’s capacity to execute their duties or grossly violated public trust. In fact, a number of impeachment trials have revolved almost exclusively around events that were disconnected from an officeholder’s responsibilities, thereby demonstrating that the definition of impeachable infractions does not stop at the abuse of official powers.

The impeachment trials of Sen. William Blount in 1799, Judge Robert W. Archbald in 1912, and Judge Halstead L. Ritter in 1936, among other examples, help illustrate this point. Although he was ultimately acquitted, Congress accused Blount of working with the British to profit from a proposed invasion of Florida and Louisiana—an early indication of the view that an officer could be impeached for conduct unrelated to their role in government. An overwhelming majority convicted Archbald for using his office to receive financial gains from the coal and railroad industry, while Ritter’s case concluded that income tax evasion definitively constituted grounds for impeachment.

If the historic context strongly suggests that “high crimes and misdemeanors” entails a broad range of activities, identifying the duties and scope of public trust associated with each constitutional office is crucial to determining when an officeholder has committed an act warranting impeachment. For example, judges, members of Congress, and the president all take an oath to support the Constitution, but only the executive branch is explicitly tasked with preserving, protecting, and defending the document. As the retainer of an immense share of public trust, the commander in chief cannot be exempt from any infractions that would be considered impeachable for any lower office, provided they were not in direct service of constitutional obligations.

The question of impeachment depends less on a strict legal definition than it does a dedication to political and moral principle. Impeachment exists to protect the public while encouraging those entrusted with political power to live up to the high responsibilities of their office.

Introduction
In upcoming weeks there will be much debate and discussion about the possible grounds for impeaching a president and, in particular, whether the president has committed “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Despite the range of arguments already voiced, we would like to add to that debate by reissuing an analysis we did in late 1998. The report then was tied to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, so we have removed the sections and sentences tied to that matter. But the heart of our earlier analysis, offered below, is still pertinent to today’s proceedings insofar as it reflects our best effort to come to a judgment about the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” through an analysis of the text of the Constitution, the debates within the Constitutional Convention, the ratification debate, and the history of impeachments in Britain and, more particularly, the United States.

Read the full report.
------------------------------
Joseph M. Bessette & Gary J. Schmitt (@GaryJSchmitt1) at the American Enterprise Institute (@AEI).

---

Tags: Joseph M. Bessette, Gary J. Schmitt American Enterprise Institute, What Does ‘High Crimes And Misdemeanors’ Mean To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Nancy Pelosi Is Already Attacking the Legitimacy of the 2020 Election

David Harsanyi

by David Harsanyi: “Nancy Pelosi just stated that ‘it is dangerous to let the voters decide Trump’s fate.’ @FoxNews In other words, she thinks I’m going to win and doesn’t want to take a chance on letting the voters decide. Like Al Green, she wants to change our voting system. Wow, she’s CRAZY!” tweeted President Donald Trump Tuesday.

Well, not exactly. Trump’s tweet quotes a Fox News reporter summarizing Pelosi’s position, not the speaker’s statement verbatim. Left-wing Twitterverse, of course, immediately jumped all over the president’s clumsy wording and acted as if the substance of his contention was wholly untrue. It wasn’t.

In her “Dear Colleague” letter pushing back against Republican anti-impeachment talking points, Pelosi wrote this: “The weak response to these hearings has been, ‘Let the election decide.’ That dangerous position only adds to the urgency of our action, because the President is jeopardizing the integrity of the 2020 elections.” Is he?

If a Republican had suggested that a presidential election was a “dangerous” notion, he would have triggered around-the-clock panic-stricken coverage on CNN and a series of deep dives in The Atlantic lamenting the conservative turn against our sacred democratic ideals.

What Pelosi has done is even more cynical. She’s arguing that if Democrats fail in their efforts to impeach Trump—and, I assume, remove him from office—then the very legitimacy of the 2020 election will be in question before any votes are cast.

Though most liberals have long declared the 2016 contest contaminated, as far as we know, absolutely nothing—not even the most successful foreign efforts in “interference” or “meddling”—damaged the integrity of the election results.

Notwithstanding the belief of more than 60% of Democrats, precipitated by breathless and often misleading media coverage, not one vote was altered by Russian President Vladimir Putin, nor was a single person’s free will purloined by a Russian Twitter bot or Facebook ad.

And, contra Pelosi’s implication, whatever you make of Trump’s request from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to investigate Joe Biden’s shady son, not one voter will be restricted from casting a ballot for whomever they please in 2020.

In truth, voters will know more about the inner workings of Trump’s presidency than they have about any other administration in memory. Maybe they care, maybe they don’t, but that’s not up to Pelosi.

Rather than safeguarding the integrity of our elections, Democrats have corroded trust in them. Post-2016 calls for increased control over speech on the internet, for instance, pose a far greater danger to American freedoms than anything our enemies at the Kremlin could cook up.

And if the contention is that the only truly legitimate election is one that is free of any attempts to mislead voters, as seems to be the case, then we might as well close up shop. The presence of unregulated political rhetoric is a feature of a free and open society. We will never be able to, nor should we aspire to, limit discourse.

It shouldn’t be forgotten, either, that this habit of injecting doubt into the electoral process is nothing new. For the past 20 years (at least), Democrats have shown a destructive inability to accept the fact that a bunch of voters simply disagree with them.

If it’s not “dark money” boring into their souls, it’s gerrymandering, special interests, confusing ballots, voter suppression, crafty Ruskies, or the Electoral College. Democrats can’t lose on the merits. Someone, somewhere, has fooled the proles into making bad decisions.

All that said, it is Pelosi’s constitutional prerogative to try to impeach Trump for any reason she sees fit, even if her goal is only to weaken the political prospects of her opponent. No, it isn’t a “coup,” but it’s certainly not a constitutional imperative, either. It’s a political choice.

In the end, the presidency happens to be one of the things we do decide via elections. That will almost surely be the case when it comes Trump, and Pelosi knows it. And if Trump isn’t removed by the Senate, and if the results don’t go the way Pelosi hopes, she’s preemptively given Democrats a reason to question the legitimacy of yet another election.
---------------------------
David Harsanyi @davidharsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of “The People Have Spoken (and They Are Wrong): The Case Against Democracy.” This article was shared by The Daily Signal.

---

Tags: David Harsanyi, The Federalist, Nancy Pelosi, Already Attacking, the Legitimacy, 2020 Election 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 Lawyer Leak, Trump Wants A Trial, The Chicken Wars

Gary Bauer

by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: The Lawyer Leak
Last evening, news broke alleging that a former FBI lawyer is currently under criminal investigation for altering documents related to the application for a FISA warrant to surveil Trump campaign associate Carter Page. This revelation is based on the findings of Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, whose report will be released on December 9th.

Keep in mind that the FISA courts were established so that intelligence agencies could monitor America's enemies -- foreign spies and terrorists.

We already know those courts were abused by elements of the Obama/Biden Administration in what clearly looks like an attempt to bring down candidate Trump and then to undermine President-elect Trump in the months leading up to and following his inauguration.

Most conservative commentators and analysts, as well as the president this morning on Fox News, are pleased with this leak, if it is true, because it appears to support what we have all been saying for the past three years.

I want to urge caution, however. The leak went to CNN and the Washington Post, which tells me that it's likely coming from the same Deep State people inside the intelligence agencies who are routinely leaking to friendly left-wing outlets.

Maybe they are just trying to get ahead of the story so it won't appear as dramatic when it is confirmed on December 9th. But there's another very real possibility.

Perhaps this unnamed former FBI lawyer is being set up as the fall guy. By that I mean maybe the Deep State has picked somebody and decided to throw him under the bus, while claiming that his actions didn't have that much impact and that everything else was done by the book.

After the repeated disappointments of the last three years, I think it is prudent to temper our enthusiasm until we have all the facts.

Trump Wants A Trial
President Trump spent much of the day yesterday with GOP senators, discussing a host of issues. He had lunch with several senators, including Mitt Romney and Susan Collins, and later hosted Sen. Lindsey Graham and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

As a result of these deliberations, it appears that an agreement has been reached between the president, the Senate leadership, as well as Trump's defenders in the House. If Speaker Pelosi, Adam Schiff and House Democrats impeach the president, our side will call their bluff.

We will have a trial, and we will subpoena the witnesses Schiff refused to call. We will bring Hunter Biden, the Deep State "whistleblower" and others before the Senate and the American people.

And if this trial goes on for some time, Senators Booker, Harris, Klobuchar, Sanders and Warren will be stuck in Washington, while Mayor Pete and Sleepy Joe are dominating the campaign trail.

By the way, you may recall that Nancy Pelosi said recently that she was pursuing impeachment in a "somber" and "prayerful" manner. Well, apparently some of Schiff's staffers didn't get the memo. After putting the country through this wrenching experience, they threw a party at a Washington, D.C. bar last night.

Their celebrations may be premature. After weeks of baseless accusations and five days of public hearings, the latest polls (here and here) suggest that the tide is turning against the left's impeachment nonsense.

Making His Case
President Trump took over Fox & Friends this morning during the 8:00 hour. If you missed it, you can watch it here.

It struck me that the Fox co-hosts were really beside the point. They did their best to interject and ask Trump questions, but the president used the time well to get his points across.

Here's what really jumped out at me, and I hope it's the beginning of a new theme. In discussing Ukraine, the president emphasized something he's touched on before but, in my view, should be his main argument.

He said he was concerned about corruption and frustrated with constant giveaways to foreign countries.

"Why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to countries when there's this kind of corruption," Trump asked. "Why isn't Germany putting up money? Why isn't France putting up money? . . . The European Union is benefitting a lot more from Ukraine than we are."

In case I don't get to see the president today, I hope our friends at the White House will tell him that this argument is a grand slam home run. He needs to keep saying it!

The Chicken Wars
Like so much of America, Chick-fil-A has been caught up in a culture war it never wanted. But while the left has insisted on forcing its morality on the rest of the country, Chick-fil-A has remained true to its values while most of Corporate America surrendered with barely a fight.

Or so it seemed until this week when reports emerged that Chick-fil-A's charitable foundation will no longer support the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Christians who have rallied to Chick-fil-A's defense over the years were confused and crestfallen.

There was no reason for this apparent betrayal. The company has been wildly successful, especially when you consider that it is closed one day a week. It gained nothing from the left. Predictably the tyrants of tolerance demanded even more, while loyal customers were livid.

I am pleased to report that my friend Franklin Graham went straight to the top for a clear answer. He called Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy, who assured Graham that the company remains committed to is core values. I certainly hope so.

In the days ahead, please join me in praying for the leadership of Chick-fil-A to remain steadfast in the faith.

Good News
Any time you hear something that demoralizes you, I want you to think about this: President Trump and the Republican Senate are making tremendous progress when it comes to restoring balance to the federal courts.

This week, the Senate confirmed Judge Barbara Logoa to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, flipping the court's composition to a conservative majority. In recent weeks, Trump appointees have flipped the Second and Third Circuit Courts too!

While it may seem at times that little is getting done in Washington, more than 160 Trump judges have been confirmed because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has made reforming the courts his top priority.

If Donald Trump and Mike Pence get four more years, and if the GOP maintains control of the Senate, many more circuit courts will be flipped and our slim 5-to-4 majority on the Supreme Court could well become a 6-to-3 majority.
-------------------
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, The Lawyer Leak, Trump Wants A Trial, The Chicken Wars To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

War Heroes on Lt. Col. Vindman: 'Operative with Agenda'

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman

Free Press International News Service: American war heroes are slamming Democrats’ star impeachment witness Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman as a “disgrace” and an “operative with an agenda.”

Vindman testified on Nov. 19 that after listening to the July 25 phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenksy, he went to the National Security Council (NSC) lawyer to report his concerns about the call.

In his testimony, Vindman said he did not have concerns whether the contents of the call were illegal or a crime, but said he found it morally wrong. He also testified that he advised the Ukrainians not to get involved in U.S. domestic politics.

Some military veterans, including prominent war heroes, blasted Vindman.

Mark Geist, a Marine who fought off terrorists during the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack on the U.S. annex in Libya, tweeted: “Vindman is a disgrace to all who have served. Transcript of his previous closed door testimony he clearly admits to undermining the @POTUS foreign policy and now he has chairman Schiff advising him on how to answer questions.”

Rob O’Neill, the Navy SEAL who killed Osama bin Laden, also criticized Vindman, tweeting: “I agree. I wish the left wouldn’t use his uniform to make him a saint. He’s an operative with an agenda.”

O’Neill’s tweet was in response to a tweet by Donald Trump Jr., who posted: “Anyone listening to Vindman stammer through this seemingly trying to remember the Catch Phrases he was well coached on should get that. He’s a low level partisan bureaucrat and nothing more.”

Navy SEAL Jonathan T. Gilliam tweeted: “This guy reeks of spy! #Vindman should be added to the list of deep staters that should be charged with conspiracy to overthrow.”

During his testimony, Vindman corrected Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, who had referred to him as “Mr. Vindman.”

Vindman interrupted Nunes with, “Ranking Member, it’s lieutenant colonel Vindman, please.”

Tim Kennedy, a current National Guard member, tweeted: “Correcting a civilian about how to be addressed is a for sure way to make everyone in the military think you are a douche bag.”

During Tuesday’s public impeachment hearings, former National Security Director of Russia and European affairs Tim Morrison said officials at the National Security Council (NSC) had raised concerns about Vindman’s judgment on multiple occasions.

Morrison said that, during his transition into the NSC, he detailed what predecessor Dr. Fiona Hill told him about Vindman: “Among the discussions I had with Dr. Hill in the transition was our team, my team, its strengths, and its weaknesses,” he said. “And Fiona and others had raised concerns about Alex’s judgment.”

Officials also had concerns that Vindman worked outside of the chain of command.

“I would consider it to be an unfortunate habit he picked up from his prior boss,” Morrison said, referring to Hill.
----------------------
Free Press International News Service aka: Free Pressers (@FreePressers).

---

Tags: War Heroes, Lt. Col. Vindman, 'Operative with Agenda,' Free Press, International News Service To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Let the People Decide Trump’s Fate

by Patrick J. Buchanan: How is it bribery for a president, responsible for seeing that the laws are faithfully executed, to insist that a regime dependent on U.S. aid investigate a conflict of interest and potential corruption when the enriched beneficiary is the son of the vice president of the USA?

Was there linkage between the withholding of U.S. military aid and the U.S. demand for a Ukrainian state investigation of the Bidens?

“Was there a quid pro quo?”

This question has bedeviled this city for months now. “The answer is yes,” said U.S. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland in sworn testimony on Wednesday.

Sondland added that President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, national security adviser John Bolton and Vice President Mike Pence were all wired in to what was up:

“They knew what we were doing and why. … Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret.”

And so where are we headed now?

The House intel and judiciary committees will advance one or more articles of impeachment against Donald Trump to the House floor, where they will be agreed upon in party-line votes and sent to the Senate for trial.

Impeachment appears as inevitable as anything in politics today.

Some are pressing the House, after Sondland, to slow down, cast a wider net, and demand the sworn testimony of Pompeo, Mulvaney, Pence, Bolton and Giuliani. Others are urging the House to strike while the iron is hot, move impeachment swiftly, and get it all done before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary.

As the goal of the more rabid anti-Trumpers is to impeach, convict and remove the president, and then proceed with civil and criminal charges, this looks to be a fight to the death.

Mulvaney may have shown the White House the way to fight a month ago. Asked whether the withholding of aid to Ukraine until an investigation of the Bidens had been announced was not the definition of a “quid pro quo,” Mulvaney blurted out:

“We do that all the time. … No question about it… That’s why we held up the money. I have news for everybody. Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy.” Welcome to the real world.

In return for meeting with President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump had a right to demand that Ukraine initiate an investigation into its most corrupt company, Burisma. Especially since the ne’er-do-well son of Vice President Joe Biden had been given a $50,000-a-month seat on Burisma’s board just days after Joe demanded and got the resignation of the state prosecutor and signed off on a billion-dollar loan guarantee for this third-most corrupt regime on earth.

We read often that allegations of corruption in the smelly deal that put Hunter Biden on Burisma’s board are “unfounded.”

Who did the investigating?

And what are we to make of the crocodile tears of Democrats that Ukrainian soldiers battling secessionists and Russians in the Donbass have died for lack of U.S. weapons held up by Trump?

Is this not manifest hypocrisy?

Most Ukrainian government officials were not even aware that the military aid for which Congress voted was being held up. And from 2014, when Vladimir Putin’s Russia seized Crimea and backed the secessionists in the Donbass, to 2017, President Barack Obama confined military aid to the Ukrainians to “sending blankets and meals,” as said the late Sen. John McCain.

If Trump imperiled “national security” by withholding for two months this latest tranche of military aid, did not Obama more gravely imperil our national security by denying Ukraine lethal aid for years?

Among the foreign service professionals who testified to Adam Schiff’s intel committee this week, none chose to associate himself with charges of “crimes” or “bribery” having been committed during that controversial phone call of July 25.

Indeed, the weakness of the Democratic case may be found in the endless escalation of the charges. First, Trump was guilty of a quid pro quo, and then an abuse of power, and then throwing fighting Ukrainian allies to the wolves. Next, it was bribery.

But how is it bribery for a president, responsible for seeing that the laws are faithfully executed, to insist that a regime dependent on U.S. aid investigate a conflict of interest and potential corruption when the enriched beneficiary is the son of the vice president of the USA?

Even before his first day in office, President Trump was in the gun sights of the “deep state” and its media auxiliaries.

And the origins of that “Get Trump!” conspiracy inside the “deep state” are now under investigation by the Inspector General of the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney for Connecticut John Durham.

The issue at hand: Criminal misconduct inside the U.S. government to determine the outcome of an election, and, failing that, to remove a president our government elite cannot abide.

Bottom line: If this country is not to be torn apart for a decade, the decision to retain or remove President Trump should be made by those who put him in the White House and not by rabid partisans like Adam Schiff.

Let the people decide the fate and future of the president of the United States. After all, they were the ones who hired him.
--------------------
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, Let the People, Decide Trump’s Fate 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 Impeachment Pseudo-Event

Michael Barone

by Michael Barone: "The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America" is the title of a 1960s book by historian and librarian of Congress Daniel Boorstin. Pseudo-events, he wrote, are staged solely to generate news media coverage. Real events involve independent actors and have unpredictable outcomes. Pseudo-events are shows.

It's not difficult to say which category the House Democrats' impeachment hearings belong in. It's a classic pseudo-event stage-managed to prod sympathetic media into running predictable stories. Inconvenient questions from Republican members are blocked, and the name of the original "whistleblower" is concealed, though the stage managers know who he is.

Yet on the front pages and cable news breaking-news bulletins, this pseudo-event is crowding out two genuine events of potentially world-shaking importance and uncertain outcome.

President Donald Trump is going to be impeached by the House and will not be removed from office by the Senate. But the potential for regime change -- or regime rigidification -- resulting from the prolonged rioting in Hong Kong and recent protests in Iran is hugely consequential and entirely unpredictable.

Foreign policy analysts classify nations as either upholders or disruptors of a world order. The disruptors in the years after World War I were Germany, Italy and Japan. The upholders failed to prevent them from triggering World War II. Since the end of the Cold War, the major disruptors have been China, Iran and Russia. Now the first two are facing vigorous protests and regime-change threats.

The nearly six months of protests in Hong Kong reflect a rejection of China's increasingly authoritarian state, which, armed with artificial intelligence facial-recognition technology, threatens an Orwellian eradication of freedoms.

Will dictator-for-life Xi Jinping crack down violently in Hong Kong as Deng Xiaoping did in Tiananmen Square in 1989? Not clear. There would be costs internationally, but China is growing less dependent on exports to the U.S. and advanced countries. That's partly due to Trump's tariff threats but also to the fact that Chinese wages are no longer rock bottom and China's labor force is growing smaller.

So as China is disengaging from America, Xi may be willing to endure a backlash from a violent crackdown in Hong Kong. How does America deal with a more hostile and less economically connected -- and potentially much more disruptive -- China? Both houses of Congress passed unanimous resolutions backing protesters' demands, but beyond that it's not clear that anyone knows how to influence the regime's behavior.

On Iran, Trump and the Democrats have opposite positions. Former President Barack Obama signed a nuclear agreement with Iran that he hoped would lead to friendly cooperation in the Middle East -- hopes that were never fulfilled. Trump renounced the agreement and has squeezed the Iranian economy with results that may have sparked the current protests. They're serious enough for the mullah regime to have largely shut down Iran's isolated internet.

Will they lead to regime change? Iran's "green" protests in 2009, largely ignored by the Obama administration, didn't. These may not either. But history shows that peaceful protests can -- sometimes -- topple a tyrannical regime, even though it's hard to predict just when. Former President Ronald Reagan envisioned the fall of the Berlin Wall and former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan the collapse of the Soviet Union, but neither knew those things would happen in November 1989 and December 1991, respectively.

It's possible that the regimes of post-Mao China and the mullahs' Iran might collapse after 40 years of tyranny. Or, less happily and more likely, these regimes may sweep aside the protests and last for centuries, like so many Chinese dynasties and Persian monarchies. Real events have uncertain and possibly momentous outcomes.

Not so with the impeachment hearings. Witnesses are heard complaining that Donald Trump subverted the "formal interagency policy process" and pressured -- "bribed" is the focus group-determined verb Democrats are now using -- Ukraine's government for political gain. But Ukraine is not a formal U.S. ally, and Barack Obama refused to even provide it defense weapons when Russia seized its territory in Donbas and Crimea. Now we're told that Trump should be ousted from office for a two-month delay in delivering the aid for those weapons.

"The executive power," Article II of the Constitution states, "shall be vested in a president of the United States of America," and Trump, as the career diplomats testifying have acknowledged, has no obligation to follow "interagency consensus." It's hard to avoid concluding that Democrats who detest Trump seized on this weak pretext for impeachment when the charges of Russian collusion they brandished for three years turned out to be baseless.

Polls show support for impeachment declining. Americans, it turns out, don't have to read Boorstin to recognize a pseudo-event when they see one.
-------------------
Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. HT Rassmussen Reports.

---

Tags: Michael Barone, The Impeachment, Pseudo-Event, Rassmussen Reports To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!