My Phony Valentine: Dems Show No Love for Life

by Tony Perkins: Imagine knocking out more than 500 pro-life laws in a single shot. It sounds too horrible to be true -- except that in this House of radicals, nothing is impossible. When Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) dropped her bill, the ridiculously named Women's Health Protection Act, it was like loading a deadly missile -- aimed at all 50 states.

"We face a five-alarm fire in the danger to women's reproductive rights," Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) barked at a press conference. "We need to command the urgency and immediacy that all of our lives are at risk." Lives are at risk, all right -- but not his. If Chu and her 215 co-cosponsors ever passed H.R. 2975, it would be the single most devastating vote on the unborn yet. It's so sweeping, Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) warned, that even the original Roe v. Wade ruling was tame by comparison. Those justices, he said, "never envisioned the extreme position reflected in this bill." We're talking about, he paused, "overturning nearly all federal and state limitations on abortion..." Everything pro-lifers have worked for literally decades would be eradicated -- along with hundreds of votes in statehouses all across America.

"The whole point of living in a democracy is that your vote matters," Americans United for Life argued. "What the House is considering would void democratically-enacted health and safety protections for more than 100 million Americans." Congressman (and doctor) Andy Harris (R-Md.) talked about the aftershocks of this Thursday on "Washington Watch." As we pointed out, if this legislation went into effect -- and it could if Democrats control of the Senate and White House -- then all of the pro-life laws at the state level would be eliminated. We're talking about elective abortions for any reason, right up to the moment of birth, at taxpayer's expense. It would torpedo even the barest protections -- like limits on painful late-term abortions, informed consent, even common sense safety standards -- things a majority of Americans, regardless of their party, support.

It's not all that surprising, Dr. Harris shook his head, when you consider how far outside the mainstream the Democratic Party is. "You know, even the so-called 'moderates' like Mayor Pete, can't bring himself to say that... late-term abortion should be outlawed or that the born-alive act should become law... [T]hey're as radical as they can be." But in this case, what the House is suggesting is "inventing a new constitutional right without the two-thirds majority necessary [to pass an amendment], plus the ratification of the states." And if Americans want to stop them, he insisted, "It all comes down to November."

"...[I]f it gets to the floor," Harris agreed, "I think it will have the votes to pass. Thank goodness that Mitch McConnell in the Senate will never consider it. And of course, the president would never sign the bill. But this this is a radical House... driven by the extreme Left-wing of the Democrat Party." And for once, he pointed out, they may not have the courts on their side."We're seeing now... how important it is that President Trump has appointed and confirmed over 190 judges, including two Supreme Court judges... In the next president's term [whether it's President Trump or someone else], there are likely going to be two appointments at least. And if those two appointments are liberal judges, then we're going to revert to the old days of the courts inventing a right to abortion in the Constitution. If President Trump is re-elected, I think we're going to have a 6-3 majority... [and] a good chance that they will turn over abortion law back to the states where truly belongs."Over in the Senate, it's night and day. While the House tries to disenfranchise voters and bulldoze state laws, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is pushing back with two pro-life bills of their own. One, a no-brainer for anyone with a scrap of decency, would order doctors to treat abortion survivors like patients when they're born alive. It has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, as multiple senators argued during an emotional hearing this week -- but that hasn't stopped Democrats from fighting it. They'd rather embrace infanticide than admit that abortion survivors are people. It's a horrifying position -- one that Americans will get a good long look at it when McConnell holds a vote.

The second bill is one pro-lifers have been eyeing for years: the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. In a nod to President Trump, who called for outlawing barbaric late-term abortions in his State of the Union speech, McConnell may be bringing the 20-week ban up for a vote as early as February 24. Although the media would never let on, the idea of limiting abortion to the first trimester is an overwhelmingly popular idea (everywhere, it seems, but Democratic headquarters). Sixty-percent of Americans, Gallup found, want to limit abortion to the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. This bill is even less restrictive -- outlawing it when science says that babies can feel the excruciating pain of their execution.

The good news is, voters are about to see where Democrats stand on two very fundamental bills. The bad news is, we can already know what it will be. Contact your senators and urge them to vote yes on born-alive and pain capable protections!
-----------------------
Tony Perkins (@tperkins) is President of the Family Research Council . This article was on Tony Perkins' Washington Update and written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

---

Tags: Tony Perkins, Family Research Center, FRC, Family Research Council, Phony Valentine, Dems Show, No Love for Life To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Pro-Abortion “Independent” UN Committee Lobbies General Assembly for More Power

Kate Gilmore, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Right

by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.: A UN committee known for aggressively promoting abortion rights is lobbying the General Assembly to establish a UN system-wide mechanism that would expand its power and influence.

According to a draft resolution shown to the Friday Fax alongside communications from UN committee members, the mechanism would give the UN secretariat and agencies power to decide a set of global indicators to evaluate the performance of countries and UN agencies on both the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The committee that monitors country compliance with that treaty is asking states to adopt it by the second week of March.

All UN member states and UN entities would be evaluated and required to report to the new mechanism on their performance on the indicators ostensibly based on the CEDAW treaty. But the resolution would make the CEDAW committee’s own non-binding opinions the basis of the indicators.

The proposal will not be an easy sell. Aside from duplicating and fragmenting the work of UN Women and UN treaty bodies to promote gender equality, it also undermines the already agreed indicators and implementation framework for the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by UN General Assembly.

The CEDAW mechanism also raises first order concerns about UN treaty bodies. The new mechanism would undermine the final authority of States to interpret the treaties they ratify. Some states, such as the U.S., are not parties to the CEDAW treaty.

More controversially, any kind of lobbying or interference in UN political negotiations from UN human rights bodies is highly controversial. It compromises their independence and implies that treaty body members may be using their influence to obtain favors from UN Member States, essentially horse-trading with human rights.

The new mechanism could dramatically increase the influence and reach of members of the monitoring committee. The mechanism could also potentially benefit CEDAW committee members after their tenure on the committee is over, by providing a government-funded international forum where their expertise and experience on CEDAW will be compensated. This presents a conflict of interests.

Moreover, the CEDAW committee members have approached states individually, including their own states of origin. This can raise the specter of undue influence and the possibility of a quid pro quo. Committee members are not compensated, but they hold considerable leverage on States that are parties to the treaty because the committee routinely issues critical comments against States.

The CEDAW committee has been at the forefront of promoting novel and extravagant interpretations of the CEDAW treaty. Committee members routinely tell countries to make abortion legal as a right under the CEDAW treaty even though the treaty is silent on abortion. The committee also promotes legalizing prostitution, special new rights based on “sexual orientation and gender identity,” and “comprehensive sexuality education” as well as other controversial topics that are not addressed in the CEDAW treaty.

The UN General Assembly will evaluate the work of all ten UN human rights treaty bodies beginning in September at the next session of the General Assembly. The lobbying activities of the CEDAW committee, and the questions it raised, may be raised at that time.
-------------------
Stefano Gennarini, J.D is the Vice President for Legal Studies at the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam).

---

Tags: Stefano Gennarini, C-FAM, Pro-Abortion “Independent” UN Committee, Lobbies General Assembly,for More Power To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Great Relearning

by Kerby Anderson: Jonah Goldberg reminded his readers of a famous essay by Tom Wolfe entitled “The Great Relearning.” It was an essay about the Summer of Love in 1968 in San Francisco. It had great significance to me since I grew up in the San Francisco area during that time, but it also has significance to all of us concerned about our culture.

He said that doctors at the Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic “were treating diseases no living doctor had ever encountered before, diseases that disappeared so long ago they never even picked up Latin names, diseases such as the mange, the grunge, the itch, the twitch, the thrush, the scruff, the rot.” He concluded that this happened because “the hippies, as they became known, sought nothing less than to sweep aside all codes and restraints of the past and start out from zero.”

They rejected everything from modern society, including basic hygiene. They had lots of sex with each other and shared everything from bed sheets to toothbrushes to food utensils. They were the beneficiaries of centuries of scientific investigation and wise application of sound medical and scientific knowledge. But they decided to tear down some fences and paid a heavy price.

Supposedly G.K. Chesterton warned, “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up.” Unfortunately, we had a counterculture in the 1960s that was willing to tear down fences of civilization without giving much thought to why those moral, medical, and sexual guidelines were created in the first place.

Does that sound like our world today? Moral anarchy reigns. Our society mimics Judges 17:6 where “everyone does what is right in his own eyes.” Sexual morality is now based on doing what each person feels is right for them. And marriage has been redefined by divorce and same-sex marriage. All of this suggests that maybe it is time for another “great relearning.”
----------------
Kirby Anderson is an author, lecturer, visiting professor and radio host and contributor on nationally syndicated Point of View and the "Probe" radio programs.

---

Tags: Kerby Anderson, Viewpoints, Point of View, Great Relearning 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 Left's Big Lie, What Barr Said, 2020 Update

by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: The Left's Big Lie
A constant theme on the left is that Donald Trump is a racist and his supporters are racists. Pete Buttigieg tried to soften the smear by saying that conservative voters were "at best looking the other way on racism." This obscene accusation is demonstrably false.

First, the president's economic policies have created tremendous benefits for minority communities. Unemployment rates for blacks and Hispanics are at record lows.

His crackdown on illegal immigration has boosted minority employment, and wages are rising fastest for those at the bottom of the pay scale. Many minorities are asking themselves why the left seems to care more about illegal immigrants than it does about native-born blacks and Hispanics.

Second, President Trump accomplished a number of important achievements that Barack Obama did not. Trump pushed through record funding for historically black colleges and universities, and he met with their presidents during the first weeks of his administration.

Even liberal activist Van Jones gives the president credit, saying, "Black colleges have been struggling for a long time, a bunch of them have gone under, he threw a lifeline to them in real life in his budget."

Trump signed historic criminal justice reform, giving many minorities like Alice Johnson a second chance at life.

Not only has Donald Trump done these things, he's proud of it. He talks about it at his rallies in front of tens of thousands of MAGA-hat wearing conservatives. At every one of these raucous events, Trump proudly declares how blacks and Hispanics are better off.

If his supporters were all racists, they should be booing and heading for the exits. But you don't see that. Instead, they are cheering and applauding because they are good people.

And at the end of these rallies, you don't just see cheers and applause. You often see tears. Why? Because Donald Trump almost always closes out his rallies by declaring, "We are one movement, one people, one family and one glorious nation under God."

While the left tries desperately to divide us with ugly lies and smears, President Trump's policies are working for all Americans. Not surprisingly, most Americans (61%) now say that they are better off today than they were four years ago. And that sounds a lot like "Four More Years" to me!

Left-wing Hate
Last weekend a deranged leftist tried to run down Trump supporters in Jacksonville, Florida.

The same day, a "Bernie bro" vandalized the GOP headquarters in Eureka, California, and attempted to burn it down. Talk about "feeling the Bern!"

On Monday, a retired New York police officer celebrating his 50th birthday was punched in the face by a crazed progressive who assumed he was wearing a MAGA hat. The hat read, "Make Fifty Great Again."

In New Hampshire Tuesday, a bitter leftist assaulted a teenaged boy in a MAGA hat and then broke the jaw of another man who intervened.

On Thursday, an angry liberal threatened Trump supporters with a cane sword, and, of course, that happened in Florida.

Sadly, such outbursts of left-wing hate and intolerance are happening all the time all over the country, like the Jewish man who was called Nazi by a loony leftist.

Now, if there were five attacks against Democrats in the past week, I guarantee you the media would be connecting THOSE dots. There would be bold headlines on every front page and breathless reports on every nightly news broadcast. They would all be condemning the president, his supporters, Rush Limbaugh and his listeners.

But when the violence comes from the left, there's none of that. The double standard is disgusting.

What Barr Said
Did you hear Attorney General William Barr diss the president? He told ABC News that Trump should tweet less about certain cases because it makes his job harder. I'm sure you heard that because the media can't stop crowing about it.

The White House said the president had no problems with Barr's comments, and that Trump has "full faith and confidence in Attorney General Barr." Now here's the rest of the story, which the media aren't talking about.

Barr said that he met with Justice Department officials days ago to discuss the sentencing in the Roger Stone case. When they told him that prosecutors were pushing a sentence of seven to nine years, Barr said that was out of line.

He suggested that the department should make no recommendation at all, while making the point that Stone was no threat to the public. That would argue for significantly less jail time, but the decision would be up to the judge.

Barr left the meeting thinking everyone was on the same page, and was stunned when he heard media reports that prosecutors were asking for seven to nine years. He told his staff Monday night that the department's position needed to be "clarified."

The president's tweet condemning the sentencing recommendation came Tuesday morning. Barr said he "never" discussed the Stone case with the president or the White House. You can watch the entire interview here.

This looks like another example of Deep State resistance. The holdovers from Mueller's team wanted another Trump scalp, and didn't care what the attorney general said. They assumed that once it was done, once the recommendation of seven to nine years was filed, there was no way Barr would dare to undo it.

Well, there's a new sheriff in town, and this president and this attorney general are determined to drain the swamp. Barr told ABC he wouldn't be intimidated by anybody – not the president or even the Deep State bureaucrats who think they run the government.

Fighting For Life
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell yesterday scheduled votes on two key pro-life bills – a ban on late-term abortions and a bill to ensure that babies who survive abortions are provided emergency medical care.

These should be easy votes. Polling shows that Americans overwhelmingly oppose late-term abortions and infanticide.

Unfortunately, left-wing politicians are all in on abortion on demand. Colorado Democrats voted down similar bills this week, and I expect virtually every Senate Democrat will do the same. These votes will expose the pro-abortion extremists in the Democrat Party, drawing clear distinctions for voters this November.

2020 Update

• Bernie Sanders is getting a boost from winning New Hampshire – he's now up 10 points over Joe Biden in the latest national poll.
• Joe Biden is facing a new threat in South Carolina and growing calls to drop out of the presidential contest. (Here, here, here, here and here.)
• In another big blow to Biden, Nevada's powerful Culinary Union declined to endorse a candidate.
• And the blows just keep coming. New polling finds that the Burisma scandal is hurting Biden's image and campaign.
• Elizabeth Warren is pulling her ads in South Carolina and betting it all on Nevada.
• Michael Bloomberg is facing more accusations of racism.
• The chairman of the Iowa Democrat Party is resigning.

-------------------
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 Left's Big Lie, What Barr Said, 2020 Update 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 Demands Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities

. . . It's time for leftist jailers who free dangerous illegal aliens to pay the price.

by Matthew Vadum: Crime victims harmed by dangerous illegal aliens should be able to sue the so-called sanctuary jurisdictions that unleashed them on an unwitting public in defiance of federal immigration authorities, President Donald Trump declared in his State of the Union address. At the same time, he endorsed pending legislation that would accomplish this goal.

This is another politically astute immigration-related proposal from Trump who demonstrates time and time again that he is one of the few Republican presidents in modern American history who actually knows how to fight the Left. It puts the illegal alien-coddlers and open-borders fanatics on the defensive and educates the public in clearly understandable terms about who the bad guys really are in this fight over the nation’s future. It comes almost a year after Trump proposed shipping immigration detainees to sanctuary cities, which are Democrat strongholds.

As FrontPage readers know, the sanctuary movement gave illegal aliens permission to rob, rape, and murder Americans by, among other things, stigmatizing immigration enforcement. Some left-wingers call sanctuary jurisdictions “civil liberties safe zones” to blur the distinction between citizens and non-citizens by implying illegal aliens somehow possess a civil right to be present in the U.S. Leftists also like to refer to all migrants, including illegal aliens, simply as “immigrants” in order to further muddy the waters. This helps the Left portray conservatives, who are generally not anti-immigrant –they’re anti-illegal immigration— as xenophobic bigots.

Sanctuary cities really ought to be called traitor cities because they are in open rebellion against the United States just as much as the Confederate Army was when it opened fire on Fort Sumter.

President Trump railed against the sanctuary laws of California in his address.

“Senator Thom Tillis has introduced legislation to allow Americans like Jody to sue sanctuary cities and states when a loved one is hurt or killed as a result of these deadly practices,” Trump said Feb. 4, referring to Jody Jones, a guest at the speech whose brother, Rocky Jones, was allegedly shot and killed by two-time deportee Gustavo Garcia, an illegal alien wanted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Local authorities in California ignored ICE and let Garcia go.

The December 2018 killing happened after California, which is home to more than 2 million illegals on which the state lavishes unearned benefits, enacted “an outrageous law declaring their whole state to be a sanctuary for criminal illegal immigrants — a very terrible sanctuary — with catastrophic results,” the president said.

The illegal, who had prior arrests for robbery and assault, was released under California’s sanctuary laws that mandate resistance to federal immigration law. Jones “was at a gas station when this vile criminal fired eight bullets at him from close range, murdering him in cold blood,” Trump said.

And Jones was just one of Garcia’s victims during what Trump called “a gruesome spree of deadly violence.” He killed another person, committed a truck hijacking, an armed robbery, and got into a firefight with police.

“Before SB 54, Gustavo Garcia would have been turned over to ICE officials,” Tulare County Sheriff Mike Boudreaux said previously, according to the Washington Post. “That’s how we’ve always done it, day in and day out. After SB 54, we no longer have the power to do that.”

California laws curb the power of state and local law enforcement to hold, question, and transfer detainees at the request of ICE, and punish employers for cooperating with the federal agency.

AB 450 prohibits private employers from voluntarily cooperating with ICE—including officials conducting worksite enforcement efforts. SB 54 prevents state and local law enforcement officials from providing information to the feds about the release date of criminal illegal aliens in their custody. AB 103 imposes a state-run inspection and review scheme on the federal detention of aliens held in facilities pursuant to federal contracts.

Legal challenges to the state’s sanctuary regime have not met with success.

In 2018 the Trump administration sued California, arguing state laws prevented ICE from enforcing federal law. The next year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the suit, finding improbably that California law was not in conflict with U.S. immigration law.

Charter cities are allowed in some circumstances to enact legislation that differs from state law, according to the League of California Cities. There are 121 charter cities across the state, including Bakersfield, Chula Vista, Fresno, Irvine, Los Angeles, Palm Springs, San Diego, San Jose, and Vallejo.

But in January, a California appellate court overturned a lower court ruling, finding that Huntington Beach and other charter cities have to follow the sanctuary laws.

Orange County Sheriff Don Barnes blames the sanctuary laws for a surge in crime.

“SB 54 has made our community less safe,” Barnes said earlier this month, according to the Washington Examiner.

“The law has resulted in new crimes because my deputies were unable to communicate with their federal partners about individuals who committed serious offenses and present a threat to our community if released.”

“The two-year social science experiment with sanctuary laws must end,” he added.

The federal legislation touted by Trump could do just that, though with Democrats in control of the U.S. House of Representatives, the bill won’t go anywhere for the time being. Control of the House could shift in November, allowing the next Congress to approve it.

The bill Sen. Tillis introduced, S. 2059, the proposed “Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act,” would allow a victim of a crime committed by an illegal alien to sue the sanctuary jurisdiction that shielded the alien from ICE for compensatory damages.

Among the original co-sponsors of the bill are Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

S. 2059 would allow “a civil action [to be] brought against a sanctuary jurisdiction by an individual (or the estate, survivors, or heirs of an individual) who— (A) is injured or harmed by an alien who benefitted from a sanctuary policy of the sanctuary jurisdiction; and (B) would not have been so injured or harmed but for the alien receiving the benefit of such sanctuary policy.” (Its companion bill in the House is H.R. 3964.)

In addition to creating a private right of civil action for victims of sanctuary jurisdictions, the measure would allow the feds to cut off Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding to any jurisdiction that blocks victims from proceeding with lawsuits.

“If politicians want to prioritize reckless sanctuary policies over public safety, they should also be willing to provide just compensation for the victims,” Tillis said when he launched the bill.

“The Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act is commonsense legislation that will enhance public safety and hold sanctuary jurisdictions accountable for their refusal to cooperate with federal law enforcement.”

Meanwhile, Attorney General William Barr announced Feb. 10 that the U.S. Department of Justice is cracking down on sanctuary states and cities that have “policies and laws designed to thwart the ability of federal officers to take custody of these criminals and thereby help them escape back into the community.”

“These policies are not about people who came to our country illegally but have otherwise been peaceful and productive members of society,” Barr said at the National Sheriffs’ Association Winter Legislative and Technology Conference.

“Their express purpose is to shelter aliens whom local law enforcement has already arrested for other crimes. This is neither lawful nor sensible.”

Barr said the DoJ is taking legal action against New Jersey, King County in Washington state, and California.

Of course, it’s not enough, but it’s a good start.
------------------
Matthew Vadum, senior vice president at the investigative think tank Capital Research Center, an author at the David Horowitz Freedom Center's FrontPage Mag, an award-winning investigative reporter, and author of the book,Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers.

---

Tags: President Trump, Demands Justice, for Victims, Sanctuary Cities, Matthew Vadum, FrontPage Mag To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Another Year of the Interloper?

Michael Barone

by Michael Barone: It's a familiar plotline. An interloper runs for a party's presidential nomination and, with an anti-insider pitch, scores wins and near-wins in the first contests with vote pluralities.

His numerous opponents, fearful of antagonizing his enthusiastic supporters, launch attacks on one another that, predictably, hurt the attacker as well as the target.

Party establishment types, convinced the interloper is a sure loser in November, dither and tilt things mildly against him while trying to maintain the impression of fairness.

Candidates with no chance remain in the race, dividing the anti-interloper vote, hoping the interloper will collapse. But he doesn't, and even starts winning absolute majorities in late contests.

That's how Donald Trump won the Republican nomination in 2016, and so far, it's consistent with how Bernie Sanders is doing in this year's Democratic race.

Remember that Trump lost the Iowa caucuses to Ted Cruz, and that 65% of New Hampshire Republicans voted for somebody else. Sanders' performance so far is comparable: He had a lead in first- and second-round popular votes in Iowa, though he lost SDEs (state convention delegate equivalents) to Pete Buttigieg for a total of 564-562; and he won 26% to 24% over Buttigieg in New Hampshire.

The animus of the party establishment is even clearer than in 2016 -- with Iowa Democrats' bolloxing of the vote count and the repeated anti-Bernie bias of MSNBC and CNN. Former White House chief of staff Reince Priebus and Fox News handled Trump more gingerly four years ago.

Sanders looks hard-pressed to grow his core constituency (under-35s) as Trump did his (non-college grads) at this point four years ago, though in time, Trump's ceiling grew higher.

Sanders repels the highest-income Democrats, for obvious reasons. He got only 16% in affluent Bedford and Windham, two of the three New Hampshire towns he lost to Hillary Clinton in 2016. But the vote there -- and likely in the affluent precincts of contests to come -- was split between Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg, each of whom has constituency problems.

Buttigieg gets just about zero support from black voters, who cast more than 20% of Democratic ballots nationally and a majority in South Carolina. Many Democratic voters' sense of moral superiority derives from Democrats' near-unanimous support from blacks as well as the charge, based on thin to zero evidence, of Republicans' and Trump's racism. Buttigieg puts that at risk.

As for Klobuchar, she has little history with black and Hispanic voters, and her surges in Iowa and New Hampshire were powered by white college graduates, who have been notoriously changeable in their preferences so far. And she doesn't have nearly the money Buttigieg has raised, much less the billions -- that's not a misprint -- Michael Bloomberg can spend.

Those problems are nothing compared to those of Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden, who finished with single digits in New Hampshire and lost two-thirds of their peak support in polls. But why should they drop out before Super Tuesday, March 3, when 39% of delegate votes will be determined?

One possibly salient difference between the 2016 Republican race and the 2020 Democratic contest so far is turnout. With Donald Trump as a box office draw, in 2016, Republican primary and caucus turnout was up 44% from its previous peak nationally, up 54% in Iowa and up 15% in New Hampshire.

There was a similar upsurge of Democratic turnout in 2008, but not in 2016 and not so far this year. Democrats' Iowa turnout was up only 3% from 2016 and down 27% from 2008. Democratic turnout in New Hampshire was up 8% from 2016 and up 1% from 2008.

The 2008 turnout numbers nationally and in the opening states showed the Democrats' huge enthusiasm edge, which was evident in November. 2016 turnout showed Democratic enthusiasm flagging and Republican enthusiasm about equal, foreshadowing November.

The 2020 Iowa and New Hampshire turnout is far below widespread expectations. My theory to explain this apparent disillusion: Democrats are still in shock over the collapse of the Russia-collusion meme. They fully expected to savor Donald Trump being frog-marched out of the White House. And now many of them have less appetite for politics -- MSNBC and CNN ratings are down -- when it seems he might just get reelected.

Of course the 2016 Republican plotline may not be replicated by the 2020 Democrats. Bernie could stumble. Pete or Amy could soar. Bloomberg, unorthodox both in party affiliation and on policy (see his abject apologies for his successful stop and frisk policy), could spend his way to the nomination of a party that bemoans the role of money in politics. Maybe it takes one interloper to beat another.
------------------------
Michael Barone is a Senior Political Analyst for the Washington Examiner and a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel  and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics Shared by Rasmussen Reports.

---

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

An Establishment in Panic

by Patrick Buchanan: Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar are all now headed for the Nevada caucuses on Feb. 22, where Sanders is favored… Sanders, however, is not without his own problems.

From the day he entered the race, Joe Biden was the great hope of the Democratic establishment to spare them from the horrifying prospect of a 2020 race between The Donald and Bernie Sanders.

Today, that same establishment wants Joe out of the race.

Why has Biden suddenly become an albatross?

His feeble debate performances and fifth-place finish in New Hampshire all but ensure Joe will not be the nominee, and if he stays in, he will siphon off votes in Nevada and South Carolina that would go to candidates who might put together a majority and stop Sanders.

The panic of the establishment is traceable to the new political reality.

With popular-vote victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders has largely united the left-wing of his party and displaced Biden as the front-runner and favorite for the nomination.

Meanwhile, the non-socialist wing of the party has failed to coalesce around a champion to stop Sanders and is becoming ever more splintered.

In Nevada, Sanders now has three moderate challengers.

Biden, “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg, who ran second in New Hampshire, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who ran third and took votes that might have given Buttigieg a win in the Granite State.

Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar are all now headed for the Nevada caucuses on Feb. 22, where Sanders is favored. And all three will be going on to South Carolina, a state into which billionaire Tom Steyer has poured millions of dollars.

Sanders, however, is not without his own problems.

Not only is he anathema to the establishment, he cannot wholly unite his party’s left-wing until his senatorial soulmate Elizabeth Warren gets out. Though she ran a poor fourth in New Hampshire, Warren is also going to Nevada to offer herself as a unity candidate.

But as Biden’s hour is up, so is hers. And if she is not out of the race before Super Tuesday on March 3, she risks being beaten in her own home state of Massachusetts.

Where does this leave the Democratic field?

Two candidacies, Warren’s and Biden’s, are in hospice care.

Two candidates, Buttigieg and Klobuchar, competing to be the moderate alternative to Sanders, are in danger of canceling each other out.

Two candidates, Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer, are billionaires who will be battling on Super Tuesday to crush the scourge of billionaires, Bernie Sanders.

Bloomberg, the three-term mayor of New York, upon whom the establishment has begun to look like the last best hope of stopping Sanders, has already dumped a third of a billion dollars into his campaign.

His poll numbers have risen accordingly, and he is probably the strongest challenger to Sanders now, because, with his $60 billion fortune, he can sustain himself and his organization through the convention.

But would Sanders lose gracefully to a plutocrat who deployed his billions to deny him a nomination Sanders has sought for half a decade?

Would Bernie Bros, who believe they were cheated out of the nomination in 2016, accept defeat and support a billionaire they believe robbed them of a prize they thought they had won fairly?

Bloomberg is now facing more serious matters as a candidate in a party of minorities. Here is an excerpt from an audiotape of Mayor Mike at a 2015 conference in Aspen, Colorado, addressing the crime-fighting tactic of stop and frisk that he used for years as mayor.

“Ninety-five percent of your murders and murderers and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take the description, Xerox it and pass it out to all the cops. They are male minorities, 15 to 25,” said Bloomberg.

“One of the unintended consequences is people say, ‘Oh, my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities.’ Yes, that’s true. Why? Because we put all the cops in minority neighborhoods. … Why do we do it? Because that is where all the crime is. … And the way you get the guns out of the kids’ hands is to throw them up against the wall and frisk them.”

Midweek, it was learned that Bloomberg, during the economic crisis in 2008, said that getting rid of “redlining” — a policy by which bankers routinely deny mortgages to low-income largely minority neighborhoods circled in red as risky — was to blame for the collapse.

In remarks at Georgetown University in 2008, Bloomberg said:

“It all started back when there was a lot of pressure on banks to make loans to everyone. … Redlining …was the term where banks took whole neighborhoods and said, ‘People in these neighborhoods are poor, they’re not going to be able to pay off their mortgages, tell your salesmen don’t go into those areas.'”

In presidential elections, Democratic candidates win 90-95% of the black vote. After revelations of his candid discussions of the merits of redlining and the benefits of stop and frisk, Bloomberg may have a tough time climbing that hill.
-------------------
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, An Establishment, in Panic To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Bernie’s Green New Deal To Go 100 Percent Renewable In 10 Years Would Destroy America

Editorial Cartoon by AF Branco

by Robert Romano: Are the American people about to vote to destroy the way of life?

If socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) is elected, his utopian promise to implement a 10-year Soviet-style Gosplan to end oil and gas consumption —the Green New Deal—will radically transform the U.S. economy, and possibly leave America in the dark and cold.

The plan, according to Sanders’ website, calls for “[r]eaching 100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation by no later than 2030 and complete decarbonization of the economy by 2050 at latest – consistent with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change goals – by expanding the existing federal Power Marketing Administrations to build new solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources.”

All sources of non-renewable energy accounting for 62 percent of the electricity grid would need to be replaced. No more coal, natural gas or petroleum based electricity generation. Those aren’t renewable.

In addition, 19 percent of the grid via nuclear power would come to an end, too, even though it doesn’t emit carbon. New nuclear plant construction would cease under the Sanders plan.

Every building including 129 million households would all have to be upgraded to no longer emit any carbon.

Home heating and hot water heaters via natural gas and oil would all have to be replaced. So would all of your stoves if they run on fire. Are you ready for winter yet?

Every car and truck—more than 250 million—that runs on gasoline and diesel would have to be replaced.

Convenient air travel would have to be banned.

The oil, coal and gas industries will be eliminated.

To get across the country, you’d probably have to take a train. Overseas? Hope you got your sea legs.

This is a dagger pointed at the heart of Middle America. Do you commute to work in a car? Do you live in a single family home? Can you afford tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars of upgrades for your home? How about a new electric car? Does that fit in your budget?

Work in the energy industry? Drive trucks for a living? Not any more. It’s job retraining camp for you.

The Green New Deal would change everything, compelling millions of Americans to probably move to warmer areas to survive as the federal government unilaterally ends the industrial revolution — the reason we’re such a prosperous species — with a radical revolution of its own.

The U.S. emits about 5.1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide every year as of 2017, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency: 45 percent from petroleum, 29 percent from natural gas and 26 percent from coal.

Of the portion of emissions devoted to natural gas, 1.47 billion metric tons a year, only 506 million is from electricity generation. The rest is from heating homes in the winter, making hot water, cooking food and the like

And then there’s the rest of the world — another 30 billion metric tons a year or so — which of course the plan fails to specify how much of that the U.S. will have to subsidize, too, in order to reach the goal of cutting emissions in half globally by 2030 outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at the United Nations.

That’s right. To get it done, we have to work out a cooperative plan with China, Russia, Europe and the rest of the world to halve carbon-based production that they need to keep their billions of peoples fed and warm in the winter.

How do we intend to persuade the world to commit economic suicide? Even if some sort of agreement could somehow be made, it would surely be a tyrannical scheme to arrest economic development, sacrificing an entire generation of opportunity and innovation on the altar of radical environmentalism.

This would set back economic progress for decades or longer and crash the global economy and dislodge hundreds of millions of careers.

There are also opportunity costs to be considered. What technological innovations, say in the fields of carbon capture, might have been achieved if the economy had kept growing the way it was before we willingly turned the lights out? What improvements to our lives will be foregone in the pursuit of a utopia?

In 2020, Americans will have a choice to make about which future they want to raise their children in. One where the government dictates allowances and rations resources, forces you to rebuild your homes and every other building in the country under Bernie Sanders, or one where Americans keep their liberty and the freedom to harness the gifts God gave humans to keep the economy growing.
--------------------
Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government.

---

Tags: Robert Romano, Americans for Limited Government, Bernie’s Green New Deal, 100 Percent Renewable, In 10 Years, Would Destroy America To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Rush Limbaugh: A Loving Brother and 'a Friend to Countless Americans'

by David Limbaugh: I am uniquely blessed to be Rush Limbaugh’s brother in ways too numerous to count, and I am blessed to be in the special position of witnessing firsthand the outpouring of love and prayers from his, family, friends and fans. His wife, Kathryn, has been amazing and a rock throughout.

I could fill a book with the well-wishes I’ve received. I sent Rush a link to my “mentions” column on Twitter so he could scroll through it and see for himself what he means to so many people.

These tender expressions of goodwill are uplifting and spiritually affirming. God is at work, and however this plays out, God is good, something Rush has been saying repeatedly in the last few weeks, despite his difficult circumstances.

Many of the messages he has received have brought him to tears, which is not typical for him. These are sobering times.

When Rush began his nationally syndicated radio show, the liberal media monopolized television news, and his show became an oasis and a lifeline for millions who felt their voices had been ignored. He gave them a sense of community, as they came to realize that the principles they believed in, their love for America and its founding ideas, were still commonly held.

He has been depicted as a bombastic shock jock who barely believes his own words and simply exploits his talents to enrich himself. In fact, he has been a calming voice of good cheer, humor and optimism — a respite from the message of negativity and moral chaos emanating from liberal America every day.

Many have praised Rush for saving AM talk radio and creating a professional genre in which he would have no peers — and that’s true. But what moves me more, as his brother, is something I fear people don’t sufficiently appreciate.

He has been the tip of the spear for political conservatism. No one has done more to bring conservatism into the mainstream of American life, and he’s paid a heavy price for it — but he never complains. He has been the left’s favorite target for hate and abuse for decades, opening myriad pathways for thousands of other conservatives to bring their talents and share their message with like-minded Americans. Had Rush not absorbed that mistreatment and kept charging forward with contagious optimism, there is no telling where we would be right now. No matter how fiercely the haters try, they can’t bring him down — they can’t even slow his charge — and more importantly, they cannot wipe the cheer from his face.

They have particularly seized on President Donald Trump’s awarding of the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Rush. Yes, Rush has been a stalwart Trump supporter, but this is not just political. I have given this a lot of thought, and as preposterous as this sounds to his detractors, Rush richly deserves this award — if it is truly intended to honor those who have served the cause of American freedom.

For the cause of American freedom, after all, is what Rush is about. It is the essence of what he articulates and promotes. People, especially our soldiers, serve the cause in various ways. But Rush advances it in a different way, and one that should not be undervalued. He helps keep the spirit of liberty alive. He helps sustain the ideas that have made America the freest, strongest and most prosperous nation in history, and a glorious blessing to the world. And sustaining these ideas is indispensable to sustaining our liberties.

Rush’s detractors don’t hate Rush because of the type of person he is. They have no idea. They hate him for what he stands for, and because he has been so effective at promoting ideas they find repugnant. I see it every day. Their hatred is actually transferred hostility for all those who reject their rejection of the American dream. They would not comprehend the showering of love that I’ve personally witnessed since Rush announced his diagnosis. Here’s a heartwarming sampling.

A text from a Democratic friend: “So my buddy called me. He and 50 others are going on a fast to pray for your brother and another person in their group. They did it before for a person in their group and he is cancer free. You guys sure have a lot of people that love you and your family. Awesome.”

Someone tweeted me: “Prayers for you and your family. We are surrounding Rush with prayers of healing and comfort. Everyone was crying when he received his medal. He has done so much to open Americans’ eyes to the truth. God bless.”

Another tweet: “First time I heard Rush in the ’80s I thought: I am not alone in my thinking.”

Another: “I was so thrilled to see him receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He has worked so hard to educate millions of us that it was well earned. Rush is so important to me. I was crushed to hear the news. I love him very much, as do so many.”

Radio host Chris Stigall wrote: “The thing he does better than any other broadcaster I know is connect. That has always been the thing his haters understood, even if they couldn’t articulate it. He formed a bond and a trust that cannot be broken. …Rush Limbaugh connects with good cheer, warmth, sincerity, a sense of humor and a sense of the everyman no one else fully possesses or can stylistically equal. Despite his fame and wealth over a thirty-plus year career, Rush Limbaugh never became cynical, or hateful, or condescending, or mean-spirited. He loves his country and the people who make it work so very much. It leaps from the speakers every day.”

Bob Lonsberry, another radio broadcaster, wrote: “I love Rush Limbaugh. That’s what I realized yesterday when I heard. … In that moment I was sickened and saddened and blindsided. It wasn’t news, it was personal, and it wasn’t about the legend who created and sustains the industry in which I work, it was about the joyous voice that’s been part of my life for more than 30 years. … It is impossible to calculate the good he has done for America as the leading voice in defense of our nation’s principles of liberty and in opposition to the doctrines of chaos and oppression. … And he is always optimistic. … With Rush, there is always a path forward, and a sense that it’s going to work out. … no matter how the media characterizes him, he is a happy man. He doesn’t bring people down, he lifts them up. … But is he first and foremost a friend to countless Americans? That’s how it looks to me. And that’s how it feels to me. The news yesterday wasn’t about a prominent person, it was about a personal friend. And I’m not the only one. There are tens of millions just like me. Who have found comfort, friendship and validation in a man on the radio. And yesterday hit us hard.”

Exactly. When I read or hear the haters talking about Rush, his show, his message, his soul, I realize I inhabit a different universe than them. They distort who he is, what he says, what he stands for, the kind of person he is. Their antipathy is disturbing. They actually wish him physical, emotional and spiritual harm. “I’m rooting for the cancer.” “I wont be happy until he’s until he’s screaming in agony 24/7.” Lovely. As passionate as I am about my own political beliefs, I never wish harm on those who disagree. If anyone needs prayers, it is them — and I mean that sincerely.

Rush has inspired so many people like this one: “But the main thing I wanted to tell you is that you really did make me who I am now. … You MADE me. Because of you, I was able to completely change careers. … I love what I’m doing now — and, I hope I’m making a difference. I owe all of this — every bit of it — to you. So thank you — for that, and for all you taught me over 36 years and counting.”

I have to say that while I’ve always known Rush is strong, I’ve never seen anything like how he has handled his diagnosis. He has honestly shown no concern for himself. His overriding concern is for his audience, his family and his friends. He is determined not to let any of us down. He seems more concerned about how this news will impact me than how it is affecting him. I am not exaggerating. He has shown more grace and class in this time than I would have thought possible. I couldn’t be prouder of him — and I’m even prouder that he is my brother.

No one knows what the outcome of this will be, but through it all, we must remain positive and optimistic. That matters. And we must draw closer to God.

You Rush fans and well-wishers can’t begin to understand how much you mean to Rush and to us. Your prayers are more comforting and more important than we can describe. God bless Rush, and God bless every one of you.
---------------------
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, Rush Limbaugh, A Loving Brother, a Friend, to Countless Americans To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Prayer Request . . .

. . . Rush Limbaugh has been diagnosed with lung cancer, so we pray for his speedy recovery. Our nation needs him now more than ever.

Editorial Cartoon by AF "Tony" Branco

---

Tags: Editorial Cartoon, AF Branco, editorial cartoon, prayers for, Rush Limbaugh 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 Whistleblower Who Shall Not Be Named

by Paul Jacob, Contributing Author: “YouTube — Google, one of the largest, most powerful companies on the planet — has just censored political discourse from a U.S. senator on the Senate floor,” reports independent, online journalist Tim Pool.

The case refers to the alleged “whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella, around whom hangs a sort of hush-hush infamy regarding the Ukraine phone call that became the centerpiece of the Democrat’s impeachment of Donald Trump. YouTube, under a self-imposed/tribe-imposed gag order not to mention the man’s name, takes down all videos that dare breach this rule. YouTube just took down a C-Span video featuring Senator Rand Paul discussing Mr. Ciaramella on the Senate floor — in which he defended whistleblower protections, but notes that they do not enforce anonymity.*

“Think about how dangerous that will be.”

“It is a chilling and disturbing day in America when giant web companies such as YouTube decide to censure [sic] speech,” the senator was quoted in The Washington Examiner after YouTube removed the clip. “Now, even protected speech, such as that of a senator on the Senate floor, can be blocked from getting to the American people.”

Rand Paul has been demanding full disclosure of possible conspiracy on the part of Ciaramella — working with Representative Adam Schiff, who led the impeachment push — but has not been getting very far. During the Senate impeachment trial, presiding officer Chief Justice Roberts declined to read a question (“as written”) by the senator that had specified the Unnamable Name without identifying him as the “whistleblower.”

Google is free to play censor, of course, but who wants an information age without the information?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* The senator also expressed some incredulity about the near-universal proclamations in support of whistleblower laws, calling Edward Snowden “the greatest whistleblower of all-time” but noting that half the Senate wanted Snowden put to death and the other half to plunk him “in jail forever. So it depends on what you blow the whistle on whether or not they’re for the whistleblower statute.”
------------------
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 Whistleblower, Who Shall Not Be Named To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Dems’ New Talking Point on the Trump Economy: Obama Built It

by Larry Elder: The “expert” predictions of economic disaster should Donald Trump win the 2016 election did not occur. Under Trump, the Dow Jones Industrial Average and Nasdaq composite have reached historical highs while unemployment for blacks and Hispanics have hit historical lows. In the wake of Trump’s undeniable economic success, what is the 2020 Democratic Party argument for why voters should back their candidate over Trump?

The morning after Trump’s election, Paul Krugman, economics professor and columnist for The New York Times, wrote: “Now comes the mother of all adverse effects — and what it brings with it is a regime that will be ignorant of economic policy and hostile to any effort to make it work. Effective fiscal support for the Fed? Not a chance. In fact, you can bet that the Fed will lose its independence, and be bullied by cranks. So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight. I suppose we could get lucky somehow. But on economics, as on everything else, a terrible thing has just happened.”

During the 2016 campaign, Mark Cuban, billionaire owner of the NBA Dallas Mavericks, predicted that a Trump victory could cause not just a minor stock market decline, but one as high as 20% or more: “When you’re flip-flopping, when you’re not sure what the candidate’s going to say from one thing to another, that uncertainty potentially as the president of the United States — that’s the last thing Wall Street wants to hear. I can say with 100% certainty that there is a really good chance we could see a huge, huge correction. … It could be 20%. You know, now, with high-frequency trading, accelerating, strong moves in any direction — it could be worse than that.”

So, Democrats and their media sympathizers now resort to a new talking point: Trump merely continued the economic growth that began under the Barack Obama administration.

Former Vice President Joe Biden, in a theme echoed by his Democratic rivals, said: “Donald Trump inherited a strong economy from Barack and me. Things were beginning to really move. And just like everything else he’s inherited, he’s in the midst of squandering it.”

Are Biden and the Democrats right about the Obama economy?

To examine the Obama economy, one must compare apples to apples, similar economic conditions to similar economic conditions. Obama dealt with a severe economic downturn, as did President Ronald Reagan. Historically, the bigger the downturn, the bigger the economic bounce back. During the recession Obama faced, unemployment reached a high of 10%, while inflation and interest rates remained low. During the recession Reagan faced, unemployment reached 10.8%, prime interest rates rose to 20.5% and inflation hit 13.5%.

Obama raised taxes, spent nearly $1 trillion on a so-called stimulus plan, increased regulations and signed a new entitlement program known as “Obamacare.” Reagan did the opposite. He decreased taxes and continued deregulation. Differences in results were stark. Obama’s recovery, according to the Joint Economic Committee, averaged an inflation-adjusted GDP growth of 2.2% over the next 25 quarters. The average recovery following post-1960 economic slowdowns, which lasted more than 12 months, is 3.9%. Under President Ronald Reagan it was 4.8%. Obama was the first president ever to preside over an economic recovery in which not a single year of the economy grew at least 3%.

Obama’s own economic team anticipated much higher growth. In February 2009, the Obama administration published its “Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U. S. Government: Fiscal Year 2010.” It said: “The Administration projects an economic recovery will begin in the second half of the year sparked by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. By the end of the year, real growth is expected to have reached 3-1/2 percent at an annual rate, a pace that is maintained through 2010. In 2011-2013, the rate of growth in real GDP is projected to accelerate to around 4-1/2 percent annually for several quarters.”

The economy under Obama did not come close to meeting his team’s projections. Trump boasts about “historic lows” in unemployment for blacks. But in January 2016, black liberal commentator Tavis Smiley admitted: “Sadly, and it pains me to say this, over the last decade, black folk in the era of Obama have lost ground in every major economic category. Not one, two or three, but every major economic category, black Americans have lost ground.”

Again, the big economic downturns historically produce big economic upturns. The media insist on calling the economic conditions Obama dealt with the “Great Recession,” even though by many metrics, Reagan faced a more serious “Great Recession.” But, unlike the economy under Obama, Reagan oversaw what should be called The Great Recovery.
--------------
Larry Elder (@larryelder) is a best-selling author and radio talk-show host, an American lawyer, writer and radio and television personality who is also known as the "Sage From South Central." To find out more about Larry Elder. Visit his website at LarryElder.com for list of other articles.

---

Tags: Larry Elder, commentary, Dems’ New Talking Point, on the Trump Economy, Obama Built It To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Media Is Complicit in Leftist Violence Against Trump Supporters & A Fond Memory

Patrick Bradley Mugshot

by Stephen Kruiser: Enemy of the People Update
It isn’t safe out there these days if one is a Trump supporter exercising one’s right to participate in the American political process. You have to look out for lunatics in vans, lunatics with cane swords, and lunatics who wake up looking like mug shots and slap kids.

If -- as all of you are -- are frequent consumers of conservative media, you know about these stories.

Those left to the editorial whims of The New York Times or any of the evening news networks, however, are probably blissfully unaware.

It’s not that they aren’t being covered at all, it’s that they aren’t being covered with the fervor and repetition that, say, a story about the president saying something mean to Jim Acosta would.

Leftists have been rationalizing violence for a very long time, long before Donald Trump ascended to the presidency. The unhinged cancer has metastasized these past three years, and will not be going into remission anytime soon.

The media’s role in letting the leftist violence get out of hand cannot be understated. There are both errors of commission and errors of omission.

Errors of commission happen when they do things like lie and insist that Antifa is a reasonable “anti-fascist” group of peaceful protesters.

Errors of omission occur when virtually no one in the mainstream media can work up any outrage for acts of physical violence committed against Trump supporters. The stories get a few minutes of daylight, then it’s off to the memory hole.

By contrast, these very same people refer to every verbal dig against reporters as “attacks” that are endangering their lives.

The media are enabling the riotous, violent behavior of the anti-Trump people. They keep the denigration of the president at a fever pitch and, when it spills over and manifests as violent behavior, turn a mostly blind eye.

One of President Trump’s greatest legacies will be his complete unmasking of the American mainstream media, forcing them to abandon any and all pretense of objectivity. Sure, all involved are still paying lip service to it, insisting that they aren’t swayed by personal political motivations, but their eyes are dead as they do so and it’s easy to tell that their hearts aren’t in it anymore.

They hate this president. They hate any Americans who support this president.

And deep down, they all feel that anything bad that happens to Trump supporters is justified because Orange Man Bad.

Journalists were once brave seekers and defenders of the truth.

Sadly, they’re now so emotionally damaged they feel morally justified in perpetually egging on a powder-keg mob.

But don’t call them any names, because that’s dangerous or something.

I Will Never Get Tired of Telling This Story

Happy Belated

You won't believe it. I can't believe it myself. I am 97 today. 1941, age 18. I joined @USArmy Air Corps in WV.1944, age 21; Ace in a day, 1947 age 24; broke sound barrier,1953 age 30 flew 2.5 Mach; now, what's next? @HISTORY @USATODAY #Friends @realDonaldTrump @DonaldJTrumpJr

— Chuck Yeager (@GenChuckYeager) February 13, 2020

I’ve probably mentioned this before and probably will again but here we go.

Back in the early ‘90s, I was at a party the night before the Indianapolis 500 that happened at the track every year. A fun mix of celebrities was there each year and Chuck Yeager was in attendance at this one. At one point during the evening, I was in his way as he was heading to the bathroom. He put his hand on my shoulder, smiled and said, “Excuse me, son.”

I didn’t wash that shoulder for quite some time after.
------------------------------
Stephen Kruiser is a PJ Media Associate Editor, professional comedian and writer who has also been a conservative political activist for over two decades. A co-founder of the first Los Angeles Tea Party, Kruiser often speaks to grassroots groups around America and has had the great honor of traveling around the world entertaining U.S. troops.  PJ Media shared this article.

---

Tags: Stephen Kruiser, PJ Media, Media, Complicit, in Leftist Violence. Against Trump Supporters To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!