News Blog for social, fiscal & national security conservatives who believe in God, family & the USA. Upholding the rights granted by God & guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, traditional family values, "republican" principles / ideals, transparent & limited "smaller" government, free markets, lower taxes, due process of law, liberty & individual freedom. Content approval rests with the ARRA News Service Editor. Opinions are those of the authors. While varied positions are reported, beliefs & principles remain fixed. No revenue is generated for or by this "Blog" - no paid ads - no payments for articles.Fair Use Doctrine is posted & used. Blogger/Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru & 2010 AFP National Blogger of the Year] Contact: editor@arranewsservice.com (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home PageFollow @arra
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato
(429-347 BC)
Wednesday, October 07, 2020
In Tonight's VP Debate, the Contrast Could Not Be Starker
by Tony Perkins: As Democrats repeatedly call for the remaining debates to be cancelled, tonight may be the last opportunity for a clear contrast between the candidates in this year's presidential election. Less than a month from election day, Vice President Mike Pence and the Democrat's vice-presidential nominee, Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), will go head-to-head in a debate tonight.
It's hard to imagine a sharper contrast in a vice-presidential debate. Mike Pence stands for pro-life, pro-family values, and since the beginning has helped the Trump administration achieve the strongest pro-life, pro-family record of any president in living memory. Meanwhile, California Senator Kamala Harris stands for the abortion and LGBT agenda, and was named the most liberal senator in 2019.
In the Senate, Kamala Harris has consistently voted against pro-life legislation, including the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, and the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. As Attorney General of California, she targeted pregnancy resource centers to force them to post pro-abortion messages on their doors in violation of their First Amendment rights. The abuse of the First Amendment was so egregious the U.S. Supreme Court rule in favor of the pro-life clinics. A recipient of Planned Parenthood largess, Harris also targeted David Daleiden for exposing Planned Parenthood's illegal sale of aborted baby body parts.
Senator Harris was an original cosponsor to the poorly named Equality Act, which would codify the policy wish list of the LGBT lobby. She also supported the Do No Harm Act (again poorly named), which would gut religious freedom protections on LGBT issues.
Senator Harris engaged in religious tests for judicial nominees, including Paul Matey, Judge Brian Buescher, Judge Allison Rushing, and Judge Peter Phipps. In fact, she has voted against a long list of officials nominated by President Trump, including Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, Judge Amy Barrett, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Ambassador Sam Brownback, and OMB Director Russ Vought. As attorney general of California, Harris filed briefs against religious freedom in the Hobby Lobby case and for the abortion center in the Whole Women's Health case.
Senator Harris then bucked the traditional wisdom of appearing moderate when she joined the 2020 presidential race, leaning into her progressive record rather than trying to hide it. She pledged to codify Roe v. Wade, repeal the Hyde Amendment, and unconstitutionally require state abortion restrictions to be pre-cleared by her Department of Justice. She even attacked her current running mate, Joe Biden, for not being sufficiently progressive on racial issues.
All of this contrasts with the record of Vice President Mike Pence, who served as a pro-life, pro-family representative and then Governor of Indiana. He was the first sitting Vice President to address the March for Life, and the first to visit a pro-life pregnancy resource center. Amid their relentless attacks on officials in the Trump administration, the liberal media criticized him hardest for, of all things, observing the common-sense Billy Graham rule of having someone else in the room when meeting with a woman.
It's hard to predict how tonight's debate will go. But the records of the candidates in the vice-presidential debate show a stark contrast on policy issues affecting religious freedom, the LGBT agenda, and the lives of the unborn.
----------------------------- Tony Perkins (@tperkins) is President of the Family Research Council . Article on Tony Perkins' Washington Update and written with the aid of FRC senior writers.Tags:Tony Perkins, Family Research Center, FRC, Family, In Tonight's VP Debate, Contrast Could Not Be, StarkerTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Debate Night, A COVID-19 Moment, Trump Orders Declassification
by Gary BauerDebate Night
The first and only vice-presidential debate between Vice President Mike Pence and Senator Kamala Harris will take place tonight at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. The debate will be moderated by Susan Page of USA Today, and will air at 9:00 PM ET.
I think many conservatives would agree that we have not necessarily been on offense over the last several weeks. So, tonight's debate between my good friend Vice President Pence and Senator Harris is a good opportunity to regain the momentum.
Usually vice-presidential debates are not game changers, but this one could be. If elected, Joe Biden would be 78 years old at the beginning of his first term. Donald Trump is four years younger and considerably more vital for his age. But we have been reminded in recent days about the fragility of life.
My point is that there is some chance (there always is) that one of these two individuals debating tonight could be our next president sooner than anyone might expect.
In fact, a recent poll found that 59% of voters don't expect Biden to finish his first term. The idea of "President Kamala Harris" should be deeply disturbing to every moderate and conservative voter.
I don't have to remind you about where Mike Pence stands on values issues. One of the hallmarks of his life has been his steadfast defense of religious freedom and the sanctity of life.
Harris, on the other hand, is THE MOST liberal senator, to the left of even Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, according to one analysis.
And when it comes to values issues, Harris is a pro-abortion extremist who can't think of one abortion she would oppose or one baby's life she would save. She has also attacked the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic charitable group.
Irony of ironies, Harris even used the left's race-baiting tactics against Joe Biden and nearly ended his presidential ambitions early in the Democrat primary. Yet, when she was called out for agreeing to be Biden's running mate after having savaged him for working with segregationist senators, Harris dismissed such concerns as a "distraction."
A COVID-19 Moment?
Is it possible that tonight's Pence/Harris debate could provide a teaching moment on the coronavirus? It's possible, but not likely.
Senator Harris will do her best to prevent the American people from hearing the truth. But I can provide it here for you.
COVID is a highly infectious respiratory disease.
Since it is a new disease, NO ONE had any immunity to it. The disease is unlikely to stop spreading until we introduce effective vaccines.
Because of the aggressive and comprehensive efforts of the Trump/Pence Administration, we will get those vaccines this year or early next year. That is record time, unprecedented in medical history.
COVID was already spreading around the world before we even knew it existed.
40% of people who contract it have no symptoms and no reason to contact a doctor or go to a hospital.
According to the Economist, Germany may have missed 82% of its cases. Worldwide, there may be 20 undetected cases for every one we discover.
This means that the fatality rate is much lower than what the media are telling you. It is not 5%, 4%, 3%, 2% or even 1%.
If you are older (over 70), have serious underlying health conditions – diabetes, heart failure, lung disease, etc. – contracting coronavirus presents a great risk, but even for those in that age group generally, the survivability rate is 95%.
Trump Orders Declassification
Last night President Trump tweeted that he has ordered the declassification of "any & all" documents related to the "Russia Hoax" and "the Hillary Clinton email scandal." The president also expressed his frustration that the declassification process is moving slowly, and some suspect CIA Director Gina Haspel may be responsible for that.
One important piece of information we have learned in recent days is that former CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama, and presumably Vice President Joe Biden, about Hillary Clinton's plot to smear Donald Trump as a Russian agent "as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server."
We also learned that the CIA forwarded this information to the FBI so it could investigate the Clinton campaign. Of course, we know that the FBI targeted the Trump campaign instead.
What this shows is that the only 2016 candidate plotting with foreign interests to interfere in the election was Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden and Barack Obama knew it.
Clinton hired a former British intelligence agent who then called on his Russian assets to contrive the now infamous debunked dossier.
Of course, not one of the Big Three networks devoted even one second to this important story, but that's exactly what you would expect from the media arm of the Democrat Party.
Michelle's Message
Former First Lady Michelle Obama jumped into the political fray yesterday by releasing a video in which she lied about the riots and smeared the president. It was character assassination against the president, but it was worse than that. It was character assassination against the entire country.
The left has been playing the race card for years in ways that only serve to deepen racial divides. This country is so decent and so good that the worst possible thing you can say about an individual is that they are a racist. That's why they keep saying it.
The left can't win the argument over America's role in the world, the size of government, religious liberty or the sanctity of life. So they always fall back to the last sign of how evil they are.
They tell the country, including children of this increasingly diverse country, that a particular president, a particular party and conservatives in general are racists. You can't say anything worse than that.
And for the first woman of color to be the First Lady of the United States to engage in this sort of race baiting is outrageous.
Don't get me wrong: I know racism still exists. It is a sin and should be confronted. But how is it that this "horribly evil and systemically racist nation" twice elected a black man as president?
And show me the black prime minister of Canada. Show me the black prime minister of Great Britain. Show me the black president of France. Show me the black chancellor of Germany. I could go on, but you get the point.
In his first four years, Donald Trump did more for black Americans (here, here, here and here) than Barack, Michelle and Joe Biden did in eight years, and more than the Democrat Party, with its history of segregation and Jim Crow, has done in decades.
Anytime you hear Michelle Obama speak, just remember that she once said she had never been proud of America until her husband won the 2008 Democrat Party nomination.
------------------------- Gary Bauer (@GaryLBauer) is a conservative family values advocate and serves as president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working FamiliesTags:Gary Bauer, Debate Night, A COVID-19 Moment, Trump Orders DeclassificationTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Kerby Anderson: Many Americans are concerned about the impact that social media and Big Tech are having on society. Therefore, it is not surprising that a number of documentaries have been focusing on problems from this technology.
One of the most important documentaries to come along is “The Social Dilemma.” It features an interesting blend of talking-head interviews with various Big Tech figures with a fictional dramatization of what happens when children in one family become addicted to social media.
Much of the discussion follows Tristan Harris. He is referred to as “the conscience of Silicon Valley.” In the past, he worked for Google, but left because he was concerned about the direction of technology and decided to establish the Centre for Humane Technology.
Near the end of the program, he raises the issue of the ethical and philosophical foundation rarely discussed. He concludes, “If we don’t agree on what is true or that there is such a thing as truth, we’re toast. This is the problem beneath other problems. Because if we can’t agree on what’s true, then we can’t navigate out of any of our problems.”
It was a great admission and illustrates the foundational problem confronting Big Tech in particular and society in general. The assumption running through this video is that there is no absolute truth. Truth is relative, or truth is personal. Relative ethics or postmodern ethics is the ethical assumption made when a critic expresses his or her own opinion. There is no appeal to an absolute standard of right and wrong.
The problem isn’t the technology. Tristan Harris describes the technology as “simultaneous utopia and dystopia.” The problem is the lack of an ethical foundation to evaluate it.
--------------------------- Kerby Anderson@KerbyAnderson) 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, Point of view, Social DilemmaTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
The Vice-Presidential Debate: Conservative vs Radical
by Newt Gingrich: The upcoming vice-presidential debate will be dramatically different than the first presidential debate.
The first presidential debate was a fast-moving clash of personalities – with a lot of clutter and confusion.
The vice-presidential debate can move more slowly and be more informative in clarifying the difference between the two tickets.
The contrast between Vice President Mike Pence’s Indiana conservatism and Sen. Kamala Harris’s San Francisco radicalism is so great that this should be a debate focused on issues far more than personalities. The stage is set for a truly historic encounter.
Vice President Pence believes in the historic America of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and American history. Sen. Harris is allied with the radicals who want to dramatically change America and who repudiate the Founding Fathers and the basic events which created America.
Harris’s radicalism was obvious when she said to Steven Colbert about the demonstrations and riots:
“They’re not going to stop … this is a movement. I’m telling you, … they’re not going to stop before election day in November, and they’re not gonna stop after election day. And that should be — everyone should take note of that on both levels — that this isn’t – they’re not going to let up and they should not. And we should not.”
When the Los Angeles mayor cut $150 million from the city police budget Harris said, “I applaud Eric Garcetti for doing what he’s done.”
By contrast, Vice President Pence strongly favors supporting police and locking up criminals. He has worked with President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr on Operation LeGend and other federal efforts to arrest and prosecute violent criminals. Meanwhile, Harris supports efforts to get criminals out of jail. In June, Harris advocated for the public to fund bail for arrested suspects implicated in the George Floyd riots in Minneapolis. “If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota,” Harris tweeted.
Vice President Pence favors prosecutors who enforce the law. Sen. Harris supports George Soros-funded district attorneys who are pro-criminal and anti-police.
When she was asked about her support for convicted felons and other prisoners voting from jail – and whether that would include the Boston Marathon Bomber while he is on appeal from his death sentence – she refused to rule it out, saying, “I think we should have that conversation.”
Vice President Pence supports giving patients more choices and control of their health care and coverage. The Trump administration is delivering on that promise with price transparency to create competition that will lower costs. Pence is for expanding the variety of health plans available to consumers (so they can pick a plan that best suits their needs), empowering patients to choose doctors independent of their insurance coverage, reducing the cost of drugs with more generic options, and ending kickbacks to middlemen that drive up prices.
In contrast, Sen. Harris is a firm believer in turning over more power and control over your health care to the government. She supported — and then backtracked — forcing everyone onto a single, government-run health care plan. But even her supposedly evolved position doubles down on Obamacare’s failures with one-size-fits-all health care plans, higher taxes, and more government control. It will lead to longer wait times for worse quality health care.
Vice President Pence is strongly pro-life while Sen. Harris is committed to repealing the Hyde Amendment which protects taxpayers from having to pay for abortion. She would support tax paid abortions – and it is not clear if that would include in the ninth month as many Democrats advocate.
Vice President Pence is a strong supporter of the right to bear arms and the Second Amendment. Sen. Harris has a robust plan for dramatically limiting the right to own guns.
Vice President Pence strongly supports constitutional conservative judicial nominees for federal courts and has supported all three of President Trump’s pro-constitution nominees to the US Supreme Court. Sen. Harris was the most vicious questioner of now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings. She has opposed all three conservative nominees. She and Vice President Joe Biden refuse to issue a list of the kind of justices they would appoint to the Supreme Court.
Parallel to their opposite positions on judges, Vice President Pence believes in protecting our religious liberties under the First Amendment while Sen. Harris would sue nuns for not supporting a pro-abortion agenda. Harris’ hostility to Catholics came out when she challenged one court nominee about his membership in the Knights of Columbus. She implied that if he was a faithful Catholic, he couldn’t serve on the Court. She is simply the most bigoted anti-Catholic nominee of a major party since the late 19th century.
Vice President Pence supports school choice and parents’ right to send their children to a good school. Sen. Harris is deeply opposed to school choice and favors a teachers’ union run bureaucratic school monopoly.
Vice President Pence is a strong supporter of hydraulic fracturing, which has given America energy independence, created millions of jobs, and lowered the cost of energy. Sen. Harris on CNN said “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking, so yes. And starting — and starting with what we can do on day one around public lands, right? And then there has to be legislation, but yes — and this is something I’ve taken on in California. I have a history of working on this issue. And to your point, we have to just acknowledge that the residual impact of fracking is enormous in terms of the impact on the health and safety of communities.”
Finally, where Vice President Pence is for enforcing our immigration laws, Sen. Harris is for eliminating criminal charges for entering the United States without permission. As she put it on CNN after one of the Democratic primary debates, “it should be a civil enforcement issue, but not a criminal enforcement issue.” Furthermore, she would provide government health care and free education for all immigrants in the country illegally, asserting “I’m opposed to any policy that would deny in our country, any human being from access to public safety, public education, or public health period.”
The gap between the conservative Vice President and the radical senator from San Francisco is so great this could be a tremendously powerful clash of ideas and policies.
------------------------ Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) is a former Georgia Congressman and Speaker of the U.S. House. He co-authored and was the chief architect of the "Contract with America" and a major leader in the Republican victory in the 1994 congressional elections. He is noted speaker and writer. This commentary was shared via Gingrich Productions.Tags:Newt Gingrich, commentary, The Vice-Presidential Debate, Conservative vs RadicalTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Weak Mayors Choose Politics Over Protecting People
Ken Blackwell
by Ken Blackwell: When I became Mayor of Cincinnati in 1979, I took an oath pledging to protect the citizens under my care. As Treasurer of Ohio and later its Secretary of State, I took nearly identical oaths of public service.
Every local official and governor makes similar binding commitments. Their primary responsibility under oath is adherence to the Constitution, and “performing and discharging the duties” of the office, including the protection of the lives, prosperity and property of their citizens.
No oath includes a directive for mayors or any official to sacrifice other people’s safety in order to achieve a political goal in an upcoming election. If breaking an oath of service was a criminal offense, many of our liberal politicians would be serving a life sentence in jail.
Damage to American cities from recent riots and looting is likely to exceed $ 2 billion. That does not include the incalculable personal cost to individuals who have lost life savings and livelihoods. It is difficult to afford business insurance in high crime urban areas, and many minority and immigrant business owners in decimated cities can’t get insurance because of riots. They are left with no savings, income, or hope of financial recovery. Don't their incomes matter? Their families? Their bills?
Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, New York City, and Louisville have four things in common: lawlessness and destruction, terrified citizens, Democrat mayors and governors, and governing executives who do little to keep them safe.
The end goal of these officials appears to be allowing local violence to go unchecked so they can blame it on the President of the United States. In other words, it’s about votes.
As violent protestors were destroying Minneapolis, Mayor Jacob Frey asked them to social distance, then asked President Trump for federal (taxpayer) aid to cover the millions in damage caused by the unchecked riots.
After more than 120 days of riots by leftist groups causing tens of millions in damage and police overtime, Portland mayor Ted Wheeler warned “right wing” groups not to protest in his destroyed city. Not far left enough for the far leftists burning Portland, progressives called for Wheeler’s resignation while he blamed Trump for all of it.
New York City Mayor de Blasio recently cut $1 billion from the city’s police budget. When the city’s murder and shooting rates doubled this summer, de Blasio blamed Covid, not his abandonment of the police. As President Trump balks at saddling all U.S. taxpayers with the cost of de Blasio’s malfeasance, the Mayor claims this “makes no sense.”
Well before the Grand Jury convened to investigate the death of Breonna Taylor and all the facts of the tragic incident were revealed, Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer authorized a payout of $12 million to her family. Fischer’s response to the riots in May and September was virtually nonexistent and led the City Council to request his resignation.
Liberal governors Tim Walz (D-MN), Jay Inslee (D-WA), Kate Brown (D-OR), Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) and Andy Beshear (D-KY) offered no criticism of these mayors’ lack of action in the face of violence.
It’s not just these five cities with unprotected citizens. An analysis of recent crime data shows that of the 20 cities with the highest projected murder rates, 18 are controlled by liberal Democrats.
Fadi Faouri is a Jordanian immigrant who runs a Louisville smoke shop. After his store was torched, he was accosted by a mob demanding he say “black lives matter.” He refused.
Appearing on Tucker Carlson Tonight, Faouri was shown telling a BLM protestor, “I only see you as a human being.” His final comment to Tucker was, “I’m a free man.”
Mr. Faouri suffered under politically-motivated lawlessness. As America tries to recover from destruction caused by officials who arguably chose to vilify a political opponent over quelling riots, we could use a lot more Faouris.
As the former mayor of a major metropolitan area, I watch and grieve as leftist-run cities become killing fields. Nearly 90 percent of African Americans murdered in the U.S are killed by other African Americans. Between 2017-2019, there were 1,226 white people killed in police-involved shootings and 487 black people. Local and state officials need to acknowledge these truths and focus on honest problem-solving.
Liberal mayors must be held to their oaths and elevate the safety of their citizens above their quest to achieve socialist political objectives.
At the most basic level, this means upholding a system of law and order that protects the rights of each American. No citizen deserves, or should expect, anything less.
--------------------- Ken Blackwell (@kenblackwell) is a former ambassador to the U.N., a former Domestic Policy Advisor to the Trump/Pence Presidential Transition Team, and former Ohio State Treasurer and mayor of Cincinnati who currently serves on the boards of numerous conservative policy organizations. Ke is a member of the American Constitutional Rights Union Action Fund Board of Directors and a contributing author to the ARRA News ServiceTags:Ken Blackwell, Weak Mayors, Choose Politics, Over Protecting PeopleTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
The words and actions of the candidate himself make a convincing case against him. Douglas Andrews: Last year, during an event at Hillsdale College’s DC campus, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a devout Catholic, was asked the following question by a former student: “What role, if any, should the faith of a nominee have in the confirmation process?”
Her answer: None.
She elaborated: “We have a long tradition of religious tolerance in this country. And in fact, the religious test clause in the Constitution makes it unconstitutional to impose a religious test on anyone who holds public office. So whether someone is Catholic or Jewish or Evangelical or Muslim or has no faith at all is irrelevant to the job.”
Judge Barrett has clearly given plenty of thought to this issue, and for good reason. “I do have one thing that I want to add to that, though,” she said. “I think when you step back and you think about the debate about whether someone’s religion has any bearing on their fitness for office, it seems to me that the premise of the question is that people of faith would have a uniquely difficult time separating out their moral commitments from their obligation to apply the law. And I think people of faith should reject that premise. All people … have deeply held moral convictions, whether or not they come from faith.”
Religious bigots like Bill Maher were unimpressed, though. Or perhaps they’re just constitutional ignoramuses. “Apparently, the pick is going to be Amy Coney,” Maher said shortly after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death. “We’re going to be saying the name a lot because she’s a f—ing nut. … Amy Coney Barrett. Catholic. Really Catholic. I mean really, really Catholic.”
Maher must be blissfully ignorant of that “religious test clause” mentioned by soon-to-be Justice Barrett — a clause found in Article VI of our gloriously pesky Constitution that says: “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
No. Religious. Test. Ever.
Regardless, when did a religion practiced by more than 50 million American adults become a pejorative? Why, Joe Biden himself is a Catholic. Granted, he’s a weak one, a fake one, a religiously intolerant one who supports open borders, abortion on demand, the redefinition of words like “marriage” and “family,” and gender-dysphoric men who demand to use our daughters’ bathrooms and compete against them in sports. But he’s a Catholic, mind you.
Biden, in fact, has called conservative Christians “the dregs of society.” Oh, his handlers will argue that he said no such thing. But in September 2018, when he prostrated himself before the radical — and deceptively named — Human Rights Campaign, he said those who’ve “tried to define family” and thereby opposed the agenda of the “LGBTQIA+” community are committing “a crime” and are “a small percentage of the American people, virulent people, some of them the dregs of society.” (Skip ahead to the 40-minute mark of the video.)
More recently — last week, in fact — Nikitha Rai, deputy data director for Scranton Joe’s Pennsylvania operation, said, “I’d heavily prefer views like that not be elevated to SCOTUS, but unfortunately our current culture is still relatively intolerant. It will be a while before those types of beliefs are so taboo that they’re disqualifiers.”
So Biden’s point person in Pennsylvania yearns for a day when the views of traditional Christians (and Jews and Muslims, for that matter) are verboten. And leftists think conservatives are intolerant?
Democrats and their media toadies have, in recent years, become increasingly fond of a particular expression made popular by the late poet Maya Angelou. “When someone shows you who they are,” she said, “believe them the first time.”
Fair enough. Biden and his campaign staff have shown us who they are. They’re anti-religious bigots. God willing, people of faith will remember that on November 3.
----------------------------------
Douglas Andrews writes for The Patriot Post.Tags:Douglas Andrews, The Patriot Post, Joe Biden, Anti-Religious BigotTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Michelle Malkin: Dear skeptical Americans: You have every right and reason to be hesitant about rolling up your sleeves and submitting to flu vaccine jabs this year.
The public health-industrial complex bureaucrats who have flip-flop-flipped on universal mask-wearing during this COVID-19 chaos are the same ones now pushing universal flu shots. Assurances about the safety and efficacy of seasonal influenza immunization should be taken with a boulder of salt. The actual scientific literature, as opposed to government-promoted propaganda, shows that safety and efficacy evidence is lacking on all fronts across all age groups.
Even more alarming: While gullible journalists regurgitate panicked talking points about a "twindemic" of COVID-19 and flu this fall and winter, scientific data suggests that taking the flu shot may increase the risk of influenza or other non-influenza respiratory viral infections.
Just four months ago, a study published by the Evidence-Based Medicine, Public Health and Environmental Toxicology investigated whether the seasonal flu vaccine played a role in increasing COVID incidence and mortality. "We found statistically significant positive correlations between" the vaccination coverage rate and reported COVID-19 incidence, "as well as mortality for Europe and the USA," the team reported. "A statistically significant positive correlation was also found between the VCR and the COVID-19 case fatality rate (CFR) for Europe. ... Our analysis indicates that receiving seasonal influenza vaccination(s) in the past might be an additional risk factor for the elderly in terms of enhanced susceptibility to infection with SARS-CoV-2 and higher likelihood of a lethal outcome in case of infection. More research about this possible risk factor is urgently needed."
You don't say.
But as always, Feckless Anthony Fauci casts his public health pronouncements as unassailable moral imperatives. (Remember: First, it was selfish to wear a mask because health workers needed them more than the rest of us did during shortages -- and they didn't do anything to protect the wearer, anyway. Then, it was selfish not to wear a mask because we "have to do our part to stop the spread of COVID" -- even though there is still no scientific support for universal mask mandates.) Well, Fauci now tells us that we all need flu shots because it's "our personal responsibility to protect ourselves," but also "the vulnerable around us, including young children, pregnant women, adults, 65 years of age or older and those with underlying chronic health conditions."
What Fauci won't tell you: Health care workers have for years objected to mandatory flu shots, citing several meta-analyses by the respected Cochrane Collaboration and studies by other mainstream researchers showing weak or no evidence that vaccinated workers are less likely to transmit the flu virus. In fact, after publishing an analysis of 50 controlled studies of flu shots in healthy adults, the Cochrane Collaboration in 2010 found only "modest" benefits of reducing flu symptoms and concluded that there was "no evidence" that the shots affected flu complications such as pneumonia. The independent Cochrane researchers slammed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for ignoring the "quality of the evidence" and instead quoting "anything that supports their theory."
The Cochrane Systematic Reviews, the gold standard for evidence-based scientific analysis, studied flu shots in children and found that "little evidence is available for children younger than two years of age." Moreover, its researchers noted in 2012, "It was surprising to find only one study of inactivated vaccine in children under two years, given current recommendations to vaccinate healthy children from six months of age in the USA, Canada, parts of Europe and Australia." Six years later, the Cochrane team found there was still not enough data to determine the effect of vaccination on school absenteeism and parental work absenteeism. And the effect of repeat flu shots on kids, the team concluded, was "uncertain."
As for pregnant women: In 2017, a study conducted by the CDC itself and published in the peer-reviewed journal Vaccine, reported an association between repeated flu vaccination and miscarriages. The results confirmed an earlier 2013 study published in Human & Experimental Toxicology that uncovered a flu shot-miscarriage link in women who received both the seasonal and the pandemic H1N1 flu shot during the 2008-2009 flu season. Earlier research hypothesized that a "synergistic fetal toxicity" might have resulted from receiving both pandemic and seasonal flu shots.
Independent journalist and researcher Jeremy R. Hammond, who has meticulously documented peer-reviewed scientific analyses of flu shot impact on children, pregnant women and the elderly, rightly summarizes the push for mandatory flu shots (now a reality for schoolchildren in Massachusetts) as a "mass uncontrolled experiment" without informed consent. How much longer will you be a guinea pig? Just say no to the flu shot bullies and ask this question:
Where are the "My body, my choice" zealots when you need them?
------------------------------ Michelle Malkin is mother, wife, blogger, conservative syndicated columnist, and author. She shares many of her articles and thoughts at MichelleMalkin.com. Her article was first shared Rasmussen Reports.Tags:Michelle Malkin, Beware of, Flu Shot BulliesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by John Stossel: Recently, I released a video that called California's fires "government fueled."
A few days later, Facebook inserted a warning on my video: "Missing Context. Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead."
Some of my viewers now feel betrayed. One wrote: "Shameful, John... what happened to you!!? Your reporting was always fair... (but) your... fires story was so... unfair, even Facebook tagged it."
A "fact-check" from Facebook carries weight.
Worse, Facebook says that because my video is labeled misleading, it will show my content to fewer people.
This kills me. My news model counts on social media companies showing people my videos.
I confronted the fact-checkers. That's the topic of my newest video.
Facebook's "fact-check" links to a page from a group called Climate Feedback that claims it sorts "fact from fiction" about climate change.
They post this complaint about my video: "Forest fires are caused by poor management. Not by climate change." They call that claim "misleading."
It is misleading.
But I never said that! In my video, I acknowledged: "Climate change has made things worse. California has warmed 3 degrees over 50 years."
I don't know where Climate Feedback got their quote. Made it up? Quoted someone else?
Facebook lets activists restrict my videos based on something I never said.
Now, Facebook is a private company that can censor anything it wants. I understand the pressure they feel. All kinds of people demand that Facebook ban posts they don't like.
There's no way Facebook can police everything. The site carries billions of posts.
I wish they'd just let the information flow. People will gradually learn to sort truth from lies.
But to please politicians, Facebook now lets other people censor their content. Mark Zuckerberg told Congress, "We work with a set of independent fact-checkers."
That's how Climate Feedback got its power. Facebook made it a fact-checker.
Facebook says I can appeal its throttling of my video, but my appeal must go to Climate Feedback, possibly the very activists who'd made up quotes from me.
I tried to appeal. I emailed Nikki Forrester, Climate Feedback's editor. She didn't respond. But two of the three scientists listed as reviewers agreed to interviews.
The first was Stefan Doerr of Swansea University.
When I asked why he smeared me based on something I never said, he replied, "I've never commented on your article."
That was a shock. He hadn't seen my video.
I referred him to the Climate Feedback webpage that Facebook cited when labeling my video "misleading." The page lists him as a "reviewer."
"If this is implying that we have reviewed the video," said Doerr, "then this is clearly wrong. There's something wrong with the system."
There sure is.
Doerr guessed that my video was flagged because I'd interviewed environmentalist Michael Shellenberger.
His new book, "Climate Apocalypse," criticizes environmental alarmism. Climate Feedback says Shellenberger makes "overly simplistic argumentation about climate change."
Their other reviewer was Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at The Breakthrough Institute. He hadn't seen my video either. "I certainly did not write a Climate Feedback piece reviewing your segment."
So, I sent him the video. After he watched it, I asked, "Is (misleading) a fair label?"
"I don't necessarily think so," he replied. "While there are plenty of debates around how much to emphasize fire management vs. climate change, your piece clearly discussed that both were at fault."
After those confrontations, Climate Feedback's editor finally responded to our emails. She gave us an address where we could file a complaint.
We did.
They wrote back, "after reviewing the video" (at least they now watched it), they stand by their smear because the "video misleads viewers by oversimplifying the drivers of wildfires." And both scientists I interviewed wrote to say, yes, we agree, the video downplays the role of climate change.
That's what this censorship is about. In my video, Shellenberger dares say, "A small change in temperature is not the difference between normalcy and catastrophe." Climate Feedback doesn't want people to hear that.
It's wrong for Facebook to give these activists the power to throttle videos they don't like.
----------------------- John Stossel is author of "Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media." Article shared on Rasmussen Report.Tags:Fake Fact-Checking, John Stossel, Rasmussen ReportsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Bill Donohue: With the impending battle over Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court, many reporters are focusing on a charismatic Christian organization, People of Praise, to which Barrett reportedly belongs.
Much of the coverage has been negative. The media and left-wing activists have tried to present this group as a fringe cult. These claims are bogus. People of Praise is comprised of many well-educated Christians. Indeed, they are a vibrant community that makes the Church stronger. Consider what those who know the organization have said about it.
Sean Connelly, communications director for People of Praise, said, “[C]harges of the mistreatment of women, insularity, lack of privacy and shunning are contradictory to our beliefs and our practices as a community.”
Connelly also said, “Contrary to what has been alleged, women take on a variety of critical leadership roles within People of Praise, including serving as heads of several of our schools and directing ministries within our community.”
Joannah Clark, who grew up in People of Praise and is now the head of the Trinity Academy in Portland, Oregon says, “This role of the husband as the head of the family is not a position of power or domination…. It’s a position of care and service and responsibility. Men are looking out for the good and well-being of their families.”
Clark also said, “At any point, a community member can decide to leave and is free to do so.”
Clark added, “There’s a high value on personal freedom,” and “I’ve never been asked to do anything against my own free will. I have never been dominated or controlled by a man.”
Clark further added, “I consider myself a strong, well-educated, happy, intelligent, free, independent woman.” “We are normal people – there’s women who are nurses, doctors, teachers, scientists, stay-at-home moms… We are in Christian community because we take our faith seriously. We are not weird and mysterious… And we are not controlled by men.”
The late Cardinal Francis George wrote, “In my acquaintance with the People of Praise, I have found men and women dedicated to God and eager to seek and do His divine will. They are shaped by love of Holy Scripture, prayer and community; and the Church’s mission is richer for their presence.”
Bishop Peter Smith, an auxiliary bishop of the Diocese of Portland, Oregon and member of People of Praise, said, “We’re a lay movement in the Church…. We continue to try and live out life and our calling as Catholics, as baptized Christians, in this particular way, as other people do in other callings or ways that God may lead them into the Church.”
Nathan W. O’Halloran, a Jesuit who grew up in a charismatic Catholic group, writes in America Magazine that “the charismatic movement…has been an answer to the prayer and the desire of many Catholics to live a more animated and evangelistic Christian life.”
Dan Philpott, a Notre Dame political science professor whose children attend Trinity School, run by People of Praise, said, “In my view, the phrases ‘right’ and ‘conservative’ aren’t really helpful. Most Catholic lay organizations are there to help people live faithful Christian lives. It’s hard to say that the causes it supports are really ‘left’ or ‘right.’ Its mission is really not political.”
Nicolas Rowan of the Washington Examiner, observes that “The group has enjoyed friendly relations with Pope Francis, contrary to many politically conservative Catholics.”
In the Associated Press, current members described People of Praise as, “a Christian fellowship, focused on building community. One member described it as a ‘family of families,’ who commit themselves to each other in mutual support to live together ‘through thick and thin.'”
The AP also notes that “People of Praise has a strong commitment to intellectualism, evidenced in part by the schools they have established, which have a reputation for intellectual rigor.”
The AP also reports that “Barrett’s parents are both registered Democrats, according to Louisiana voter registration records.”
In a Politico article, Adam Wren says, “What’s difficult to understand outside of South Bend, however, is just how deeply integrated this group is into the local community.” (Anyone who has studied cults knows that cults try to cut their members off from the rest of society.)
Peggy Noonan writes in the Wall Street Journal, “O. Carter Snead, a Notre Dame law professor and director of the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture, notes, Amy Barrett – herself a law professor as well as a judge – appears to be failing at being submissive and a total disaster at being subjugated.”
If any senator wants to vote against Barrett, he or she will have to come up with something more credible than trying to paint People of Praise as some kind of nutty organization.
----------------------------- Bill Donohue (@CatholicLeague) is a sociologist and president of the Catholic League.Tags:Bill Donohue, Catholic League, Defense of, People of Praise To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Daniel Greenfield: In June, Speaker Pelosi called for a national mask mandate forcing everyone in the country to wear masks. That same month, she tweeted a photo of a Congressional meeting with the brother of George Floyd, the ex-con whose death after a struggle with police led to nationwide race riots, and numerous injuries and deaths, while her nose and mouth remained uncovered.
In July, she ordered that any member of the House not wearing a mask be forcibly removed.
The media had spent the summer touting her “fashionable” and fashionably pricey masks from a small boutique in Virginia using fabric imported from Venice as the makings of a “style icon”.
In September, Pelosi was caught in a salon that was supposed to be closed without a mask.
The biggest mask hypocrites wear masks. As long as they think the cameras are on and people are paying attention. The moment they’re not signaling their virtue, the masks come off.
"Why don’t the NYPD wear masks? What signal does that send?" Governor Cuomo ranted.
The New York governor, whose order forcing nursing homes to accept coronavirus patients may have killed as many as 11,000 seniors, had previously accused President Trump of being "a co-conspirator of COVID" for not wearing a mask.
Meanwhile, at the height of the pandemic in New York, Cuomo signed an anti-police bill, closely flanked by Al Sharpton and police opponents, with nobody wearing masks.
“If you leave home, you should wear a mask," Mayor Bowser announced. “This means, if you’re waiting for a bus, you must have on a mask. If you are ordering food at a restaurant, you must have on a mask. If you’re sitting in a cubicle in an open office, you must have on a mask.”
The only people exempted from the Washington D.C. mask mandate were children under 3 and government employees.
“It's simple: Wear a mask. Save lives. Stop the spread,” Bowser insisted. Except it wasn’t.
Even though Bowser’s order had exempted district and federal employees, she dispatched investigators to the Trump International Hotel over a photo of President Trump not wearing a mask.
Meanwhile Bowser could be seen at numerous press conferences not wearing a mask.
At a George Floyd rally, Bowser was closely surrounded by black nationalist activists wearing masks, while she had her mask down.
In Oregon, Governor Kate Brown rolled out a statewide mask mandate, declaring, “The choices every single one of us make in the coming days matter.” Then she warned, “If you want your local shops and restaurants to stay open, then wear a face covering when out in public.”
A few months later, she, her family, and her security detail were caught in public without masks.
Senator Dianne Feinstein had demanded that the FAA issue "mandatory mask requirements for all aviation employees and travelers". Some months later, she was photographed walking through an airport without a mask on.
Governor Northam implemented a statewide mask mandate in Virginia, and was photographed without a mask, and in close proximity to people, while at the beach.
“Hypocrisy has become the hallmark of Ralph Northam and his administration," Republican legislators stated in a press release.
The Democrat politician explained that he had left his mask in the car.
This sort of behavior by politicians has become so commonplace that it’s almost hardly worth commenting on. Politicians scold the public about wearing masks and then get unmasked.
The media has repeatedly been caught pulling the same stunt.
CNN's Jim Acosta complained that President Trump wasn't wearing a mask, only to be caught not wearing a mask. The same thing happened with CNN's White House correspondent Kaitlan Collins. An MSNBC reporter, pretending to be outraged that no one at Lake Geneva on Memorial Day was wearing masks, had his shot interrupted when a passerby noted that the cameraman and half the MSNBC crew weren't wearing them either.
Mask virtue signaling and outrage happens in front of the cameras. It’s easy to spot plenty of talking heads and their crews without masks when the cameras turn the other way.
Public health officials, from Dr. Fauci down to state officials have been caught at it too.
Masks are inconvenient and unpleasant. But they’ve also become a political and social symbol. Like most leftist social statements, it’s important to be seen practicing it, rather than to actually practice it. Masks, like going vegan, driving a Prius, or issuing a statement about this country’s structural racism, show that you are morally superior because you “care” about an issue.
And showing that you care means that you don’t actually have to care except when showing off.
Democrat governors imposed lockdowns on other people while they flagrantly violated them.
Governor Pritzker preached to Illinois residents about the importance of "staying home for the good of each other and the good of our state" while his family traveled to their horse farms and mansions in Florida and Wisconsin, and while workers from Chicago labored to construct his mansion in Wisconsin.
Why should the relationship of Democrat politicians to masks be any different than their behavior in getting haircuts and opening up the salons they closed, taking the vacations they banned for others, and eating at restaurants that people in their states aren’t allowed to do.
Governor Whitmer had banned just about everything in Michigan and then her husband wanted a boat for a Memorial Day jaunt, and inquired, "I am the husband to the governor; will this make a difference?"
Obviously.
People are used to political hypocrisy from politicians, but the politicization of everything has made political hypocrisy as ubiquitous as any other vice masquerading as a virtue. In a society that is losing its religion, politics offers identity and moral values to an irreligious country.
And the mask is one of the caring facades that the cult of correctness and awareness wears.
The difference between virtue and virtue signaling is the same as the contrast between a face and a mask. The former conveys the truth about a person, while the latter seeks to mask it.
In a society where virtue is what you wear, rather than what you are, the masks are everywhere.
Masks, like virtue signaling, can be put on and taken off again. They don’t require any meaningful commitment. Like the t-shirt with a slogan about the environment or a bumper sticker for a political cause, they can be easily removed once the virtue has been signaled.
Virtue is inconvenient to people who lack it. That’s why virtue signaling is better. And it’s also why those who preach about masks the loudest are the biggest mask hypocrites. Virtue signaling is for self-righteous hypocrites who want the facade of morality without the morals.
A virtue that they remove at will, that is visible, but can be taken off when no one who matters is looking, is the culmination of a morality that confuses caring with spreading awareness. Putting on a mask says that you care, when you really don’t, and it lets you take it off when the camera isn’t on you, when you’re among friends, and when the point that you care has been made.
Democrat politicians aren’t wearing masks because they care, but because they want to reduce caring to wearing a mask, so that no one asks uncomfortable questions about the thousands of elderly people who died in nursing homes that they forced to accept coronavirus patients.
When you peek behind the mask of caring, a murderous amorality is there looking back at you.
Saving lives is hard. Wearing a mask for the cameras is easy. The politicians and the people who spend the most time trying to confuse caring and masking don’t care about human life.
The tragic truth that the Greeks knew well is that the mask of virtue is no substitute for virtue.
------------------------ Daniel Greenfield(@Sultanknish) is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.Tags:Daniel Greenfield, Biggest Mask Hypocrites, Wear MasksTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
"Russia" Declassified: Praise The Lord And Pass The Information!
by Mike Huckabee: Word went out while President Trump was in the hospital that he’d had enough of the Intelligence Community’s hiding of “Russia” documents and that he'd be using his time there to work on declassifying it all. Not surprisingly, he was true to his word.
He has DONE IT.
As he tweeted on Tuesday, “I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!”
Hallelujah.
Though we’ve heard from reputable sources that CIA Director Gina Haspel was holding on with her teeth to all remaining materials that might embarrass the Agency, rest assured that it's all coming out. Failure to produce these documents --- well, Director Haspel, I think that’s called “obstruction of justice.” Hand everything over now. Anyone who tries to slow the process can clean out his or her desk immediately and be escorted out, and they’d better hire themselves a good lawyer. As Devin Nunes said on Sunday, “THIS IS OVER.”
Last week, documents were declassified showing that then-CIA Director John Brennan personally briefed President Obama and other national security officials about information that Russian intel had learned Hillary Clinton was going after Trump with a made-up Russia scandal, tying Trump with Putin and the so-called hacking of DNC emails to detract from her own (real) email scandal. When former FBI Director James Comey was asked last Wednesday under oath about the investigatory lead the FBI got after this briefing, he laughably said “that doesn’t ring any bells with me.”
But now, in the first of what is sure to be a cascade of many document releases, we have Brennan’s own handwritten notes made after the briefing that Comey can’t seem to remember. They were first released by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe with heavy redactions on Tuesday; one may assume from Trump’s tweet that the un-redacted versions will be available right away pursuant to his order.
Investigative reporter Sara Carter has a good analysis of what was going on with Brennan and why he might have supplied those notes. Remember, a smart intel guy is going to think in terms of “CYA.”
Most of the Brennan notes as seen here are still almost totally redacted. This is obviously the way Haspel intends members of Congress (and us) to see them. Trump is saying that will change.
Brooke Singman at FOX News also reported this on Tuesday.
Brennan’s notes reinforce what Ratcliffe included in his letter last week to Sen. Lindsay Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Ratcliffe also declassified a CIA memo showing that officials referred the matter to James Comey and Peter Strzok at the FBI for potential investigation. This really should "ring a bell" with Comey.
Right now, we’re still having to deal with redactions, as in Brennan’s largely blacked-out note that says, “We’re getting additional insight into Russian activities from [REDACTED], CITE [summarizing] alleged approved by Hillary Clinton a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.”
Won’t it be nice to know who [REDACTED] is?
One other part of Brennan’s notes that isn’t redacted consists of cryptic notes in the margins: “JC,” “Denis” and “Susan.” Easy guesses are that he was talking about James Comey, Denis McDonough (Obama’s chief of staff) and Susan Rice.
Importantly, since one way Brennan can "C" his "A" is to say that the "dossier" was Russian disinformation, numerous sources have characterized Hillary’s plot as NOT being Russian disinformation. One observation that makes particularly good sense: “This is not Russian disinformation. Even Brennan knew, or he wouldn’t be briefing the President of the United States on it.” Another source said, “...this information has been sought by hundreds of congressional requests for legitimate oversight purposes and was withheld for political spite --- and the belief that they’d never get caught.”
Ratcliffe himself said in a statement to FOX News, “To be clear, this is not Russian disinformation and has not been assessed as such by the Intelligence Community. I’ll be briefing Congress on the sensitive sources and methods by which it was obtained in the coming days.”
As reported at NOQ (“News. Opinion. Quotes”) Report, “The President has promised to [eliminate the redactions] and offer complete transparency just in time for the November elections.” Mr. President, please make this happen IMMEDIATELY, as millions of people have already voted early. As I’ve long said, early voting is a bad idea, because voters need and deserve all the information they can get before casting their ballots. Holding information until after an election is in itself a political decision with potentially huge political consequences. We have only 27 days before voting (at least non-fraudulent voting) ends.
Paul Sperry, a longtime source of ours, tweeted, “When all the documents are finally declassified, and all the redactions removed from reports, the nation will see that the FBI and CIA not only knew that the Russia “collusion” allegations against Trump were a political dirty trick, but that they were in on the trick.”
Finally, Sean Hannity, on his TV show Tuesday night, did a segment on this breaking news featuring Gregg Jarrett, Corey Lewandowski and David Bossie, who was Trump’s 2016 deputy campaign manager.
Of course, Jarrett has reported at length about Hillary and the Russia hoax, not to mention Obama’s cover-up. “He [Obama] sat there silently,” Jarrett said Tuesday night, “as our government was thrown into turmoil for the last four years over what he knew, based on the intelligence presented to him by John Brennan, which was phony information conjured up by Hillary Clinton...”
Lewandowski was more focused on the two-tier justice system and who is going to pay for this CRIME, the greatest hoax in political history. He said Trump told him in 2018 (!) that, yes, Obama, Biden, Brennan, Clapper and Comey DID KNOW it was all a hoax. They attempted to depose a duly-elected President, yet “not one person has been put in jail for this yet.”
The time has come. As David Bossie said Tuesday night, “You don’t have to be Columbo to figure this one out.”
Great Comment p
"Mr. Biden contends that he will be the Second Coming of Franklin Roosevelt. But a lot of people suspect that he's really gonna be the second cousin of Bernie Sanders."
------------------------ Mike Huckabee, Morning Edition, October 07, 2020 Tags:Mike Huckabee, Morning Edition, "Russia" Declassified, Praise The Lord, And Pass The Information!To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Paul Jacob, Contributing Author: A rapid test for COVID-19 that you could perform in homes, workplaces, and classrooms would be less accurate than the best slower tests. But even somewhat accurate fast tests would help many to cope with the disease more effectively.
If necessary, asymptomatic persons who test positive could be retested by another method while staying isolated. If test-takers have already exhibited COVID-like symptoms (but also bad-cold-like symptoms), a quick positive result means that they could more quickly start appropriate treatment.
An easy, rapid test would be a godsend in situations where it is advisable for people to be retested continually.
In late August, Abbott Labs announced that production of a credit-card-sized, “$5, 15-minute, easy-to-use” test is being increased “to 50 million tests a month.” The U.S. has approved its mass-scale use.
Hooray! Another positive development in efforts to cope with a scourge that is not the Black Death but not just-the-flu either.
Not so fast.
Great as far as it goes, but as FEE writer James Anthony notes, this is only one approval of one test produced by one company. And the test can be performed only at “point-of-care” sites able to flourish special regulatory approval. So not at every workplace, classroom, or home.
Yet, according to Abbott, the test delivers results “in just 15 minutes with no instrumentation.”
Sounds like mere lay persons like you and me would have to . . . follow instructions.
Like governments should follow ours . . . and get out of the way.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
------------------ Paul Jacob (@Common_Sense_PJ) is author of Common Sense which provides daily commentary about the issues impacting America and about the citizens who are doing something about them. He is also President of the Liberty Initiative Fund (LIFe) as well as Citizens in Charge Foundation. Jacob is a contributing author on the ARRA News Service.Tags:Paul Jacob, Common Sense, The Really Slow, Fast COVID-19, TestTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Tags:A Different Animal, Because of Chris Wallace, debate with Trump, folks are starting, to looking at Fox News, a bit differentlyTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
If Biden Governs The Way He Campaigns, He’ll Be A Part-Time President
by Robert Romano: If former Vice President Joe Biden, who routinely takes time off from the presidential campaign, governs the way he campaigns, at best he’ll be a part-time President.
That’s too bad. Because if Biden wins, being President is a full-time job. Just ask President Donald Trump, who just contracted the Chinese coronavirus and has kept right on working through it after briefly being admitted to Walter Reed Medical Center.
Biden, who at 77 years old would be the oldest President ever elected, already appears to be semi-retired, only apparently seeking one term of office. He’s been called a potential “transition president.”
In Dec. 2019, a prominent Biden campaign advisor told Politico, “If Biden is elected he’s going to be 82 years old in four years and he won’t be running for reelection.”
Politico’s Ryan Lizza reported, “Former Vice President Joe Biden’s top advisers and prominent Democrats outside the Biden campaign have recently revived a long-running debate whether Biden should publicly pledge to serve only one term, with Biden himself signaling to aides that he would serve only a single term. While the option of making a public pledge remains available, Biden has for now settled on an alternative strategy: quietly indicating that he will almost certainly not run for a second term while declining to make a promise…”
But when confronted with the possibility of only serving one term by ABC News’ David Muir in August, Biden declared, “No, it doesn’t mean that” and when asked if he would leave open the possibility of running for reelection, Biden stated, “Absolutely.”
But that hardly settles the matter, and raises the prospect that the American people, should they choose Biden, could be electing a weak, lame duck President with little political capital to get anything done.
The first two years being critical to setting a presidency on a long-term path to success. Why?
Midterm elections are not kind to incumbent Presidents in either their first or second terms. Going back several presidencies, the midterm Congressional elections often result in changes to majorities in the House, Senate or both. In 1986, Ronald Reagan lost the Senate. In 1994, Bill Clinton lost control of the House and the Senate. In 2006, after winning reelection, George W. Bush lost control of the House and Senate. In 2010, Barack Obama lost the House, and in 2014, he lost the Senate. In 2018, President Trump lost Republican control of the House.
Meaning, even if Biden manages to win in November, depending on how large his majorities are, he might find himself politically incapacitated at the outset, with many observers simply waiting for Kamala Harris, Biden’s running mate, to take control.
Why stick your neck out for a one-termer?
Biden’s absence on the campaign trail is noticeable, said Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning, responding to President Trump’s working during his bout with COVID-19: “Sometimes being President means acting like the leader of the free world, rather than hiding in one’s basement. President Trump showed how a leader who understands the role of the President acts, while his opponent, Biden, continues to cower in fear of the Covid virus.”
Biden also has a weak record on working across party lines. During his tenure as Vice President, the stimulus spending, omnibus spending, Obamacare and Dodd-Frank financial reforms were all passed with little to no Republican support during Obama’s first two years. Obama’s last six years in office had very few major legislative accomplishments to speak of.
Trump in contrast has passed numerous bipartisan pieces of legislation, including in 2020, with ratification of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement that ended NAFTA, and several bills dealing with the coronavirus including its economic fallout, with the $2.2 trillion CARES Act that helped shore up small and large businesses, state and local governments, critical industries including airlines, sent checks to American households and extended unemployment benefits to those who needed it.
Thanks to those measures and President Trump’s leadership, the U.S. economy is currently experiencing a rapid recovery, with more than 14 million jobs already recovered of the 25 million lost when labor markets bottomed in April, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ household survey.
Throughout the pandemic, President Trump has routinely made himself available to publicly speak on his administration’s efforts in combating the virus, including building up the nation’s testing capacity, ventilator production, hospital resources and addressing the economic fallout of the state-led lockdowns.
With Biden, you get the feeling he would just leave everything shut down forever — even as others such as Dr. Anthony Fauci say we don’t need another lockdown — and send us a memo in a few years telling us if he’s going to run for reelection or not. With threats emerging from China, Iran and elsewhere, and ongoing damage being wrought by the pandemic and the lockdowns, the American people cannot afford to have as president somebody who is not fully committed to the task at hand.
---------------------- Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government.Tags:Robert Romano, Americans for Limited Government, If Biden Governs, The Way He Campaigns, He’ll Be, A Part-Time, PresidentTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Personal Tweets by the editor: Dr. Bill - OzarkGuru - @arra
#Christian Conservative; Retired USAF & Grad Professor. Constitution NRA ProLife schoolchoice fairtax - Editor ARRA NEWS SERVICE. THANKS FOR FOLLOWING!
To Exchange Links - Email: editor@arranewsservice.com!
Comments by contributing authors or other sources do not necessarily reflect the position the editor, other contributing authors, sources, readers, or commenters. No contributors, or editors are paid for articles, images, cartoons, etc. While having reported on and promoting principles & beleifs beliefs of other organizations, this blog/site is soley controlled and supported by the editor. This site/blog does not advertise for money or services nor does it solicit funding for its support.
Fair Use: This site/blog may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as provided for in section Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Per said section, the material on this site/blog is distributed without profit to readers to view for the expressed purpose of viewing the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. Any person/entity seeking to use copyrighted material shared on this site/blog for purposes that go beyond "fair use," must obtain permission from the copyright owner.