Americans for Legal Immigration PAC Endorses Donald Trump for President

Raleigh, NC -- William Gheen, the President of America's 3rd largest activist group and the nation's only Political Action Committee (PAC) dedicated to fighting against illegal immigration and amnesty endorsed Donald Trump for President.

This endorsement is a departure from the national organization's 11 year policy of not endorsing Presidential candidates.

"One thing I know with all my heart, is that the people supporting Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are America's best hope for survival! I sincerely believe that we must now work to consolidate support behind Trump because he is the strongest anti-establishment candidate and has the best chance of overcoming the devious plans of the biased media and DC insiders that are desperate to stop this populist political revolt! Trump is America's best chance to stop and reverse illegal immigration if we hold him to his promises and remove many of the incumbent Republicans in Congress who are aligned with Obama on Amnesty for illegals!" said William Gheen, President of ALIPAC.

William Gheen and ALIPAC announced this unprecedented endorsement of Donald Trump with the hope of helping Trump fulfill his campaign promise to deport all illegal aliens as current US laws and the Constitution require. It is also hoped that endorsing Donald Trump will bring more attention and energy to the down ballot candidates facing off against the 178 Cantor List Republicans who support the same kind of amnesty for illegals that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama support.

"We will fight tooth and nail for Donald Trump until the last day of his second term as long as he stays true to his GOP Primary supporters and his promises to deport illegals, build a substantial wall, decrease legal immigration levels to help American workers, and end dangerous Muslim refugee resettlement programs," said William Gheen, President of ALIPAC. "However, we do plan to oppose any touch back amnesty plans for deported illegal immigrants. ALIPAC stands behind our current laws that say any illegal immigrants deported from the United States are prohibited from legal entry for a minimum of ten years, and we hope Mr. Trump will honor that law when our members of Congress refuse to change it."

William Gheen is willing to accept that Donald Trump has had a recent conversion or evolution on immigration issues after reading Ann Coulter's book Adios America because many Americans have also experienced such an awakening on the issue. Often, new readers perusing the archives at www.ALIPAC.us are shocked to discover just how planned and intentional mass illegal immigration is, and how many Americans are losing life, limb, property, and livelihoods to illegal aliens while our biased media conceals those problems and deaths. ALIPAC activists have referred to such political transformations as "Lifting the Rock." ALIPAC.us is the world's largest archive of information about illegal immigration and is often used by book authors writing on the subject.

Most ALIPAC supporters support either Trump or Cruz (58-32%), almost everyone opposes Marco Rubio for his role in the Gang of Eight amnesty legislation which Americans for Legal Immigration PAC and the group's endorsed members of Congress have successfully fought and stopped from reaching Obama's desk since 2013! And even though ALIPAC is endorsing Trump, supporters of other candidates are still welcome and encouraged to keep fighting illegal immigration with ALIPAC.

While ALIPAC appreciates Cruz's promise to also enforce immigration laws and his campaign's focus on illegal immigration, revelations that his wife Heidi Cruz is both a recent employee of Goldman Sachs and a signatory to the Council on Foreign Relations document "Building a North American Community" disqualifies anyone in the Cruz family from occupying the White House. Heidi Cruz's employment with Goldman Sachs and role as a signer of the Open Borders Manifesto from the CFR is too much of a risk for America during this unstable and chaotic time.

"We appreciate Ted Cruz's efforts to stop the Gang of Eight amnesty bill and his Presidential campaign's attention to the illegal immigration issue, we cannot allow Heidi Cruz to become the First Lady of the United States," said William Gheen. "Mrs. Cruz's high level employment with the pro amnesty and open borders power groups of Goldman Sachs and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) means that the very groups ALIPAC has been fighting against for the last decade would once again hold sway in the Executive Branch."

William Gheen and ALIPAC's endorsement of Donald Trump follows other endorsements from prominent illegal immigration fighters such as legendary Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, and past AZ Governor Jan Brewer.
------------------
Direct inquires to Contact: ALIPAC.us | WilliamG@alipac.us | (866) 703-0864

---

Tags: William Gheen, ALIPAC, endorsed, Donald Trump, President, 2016, immigration, illegal immigration,  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: If It Ain't Broke, Break It . . .

. . . Otherwise how do you justify government "fixing" it?

The Great Democrat Sell Out of America: President Obama Signing Obamacare
(Image: Nancy Pelosi via Flicker)

by Hermain Cain: As former Speaker Newt Gingrich said recently during a Fox News Channel interview, "Democrats lie better than Republicans tell the truth."

He's right.

Democrats lied about ObamaCare. They lied about Benghazi. They are lying about the state of the economy using bogus calculations. They have lied about the so-called Iran deal, in which the USA got a lot of empty promises, while Iran can now boost its economy by doing business with the rest of the world.

Democrats have deceived their primary voters by not telling them that Hillary is pretty much already assured the Democrat presidential nomination. That's because the superdelegates (federal and state elected officials and a few other office holders) are not bound by the popular vote, which is unlike the Republican superdelegates.

I am not a believer in or supporter of Bernie Sanders's brand of socialism, but look what happened in the New Hampshire Democrat primary. Bernie got the most popular votes, but Hillary was awarded the most delegates!

To some extent, both political parties are more concerned about staying in power and political optics than they are about truly representing the priorities of the people. At least Republicans mean well, but their truthful message gets drowned out in the media by selective soundbites and Democrat lies.

For example, our health care system was not broken before ObamaCare. It needed some repairs, but as I have said numerous times, you don't blow up the building to fix a leak in the roof. The Democrats lied about the real state of health care in America in order to justify blowing up the entire building, and their solution is to now go to a single-payer (read: government) system. That means fewer choices for doctors and patients and longer wait times, which means a lot of premature deaths.

But the Democrats don't talk about that, just as they do not want to talk about the VA system, which is seriously broken. But since it is already broken, like the enforcement of our immigration laws, the Democrats are just fine leaving those systems alone.

The Democrats also have the military in their sights. It's not broken, but this administration has gradually and systematically made it smaller and more constrained in its capabilities.

The Supreme Court is not broken, but the Democrats want it to be more liberal leaning, so it can further weaken the enforcement of our Constitution.

If a federally controlled system is broken, the Democrats will leave it alone because it might upset some of their supporters. The tax code, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security all need complete overhauls. Democrats will never let that happen. But if a system is not broken, private or otherwise, the Democrats will work over a long period of time to get their regulatory clutches involved to the detriment of the people.

Democrats really don't care what the people think, because they think they know better what's good for the people they misrepresent.

If it's broken or dysfunctional and causes more people to depend on government assistance, then the Democrats will leave it alone. If it's not broken, the Democrats will find a way to break it, and then propose an even worse solution .

Let's keep working to save the savable from the rope-a-dope Democrats, before our entire system is broken forever.
-----------------
Herman Cain is a conservative radio host of CainTV, a 2012 GOP presidential primary candidate with over 40 years of experience in the private sector as an analyst for Coca-Cola, an executive at Pillsbury, a regional Vice President for Burger King, and CEO of Godfather's Pizza. Cain served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and a supervisory mathematician for the Dept. of the Navy.

---

Tags: Herman Cain, conservative, radio host, CainTV, dems, ain't broke, break it, democrats, ObamaCare  To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Supreme Court Vacancy Is GOP Senate Majority’s Defining Moment

by Robert Romano: “Our nation faces its greatest internal divide in more than 100 years, and the Supreme Court’s current composition reflects that division. Many of the issues that will define the next century are likely to be decided by whoever is the next member of the Supreme Court, and it is fitting that the American people should have a say in that process.”

That was Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning outlining the high stakes involved in the appointment of the next Supreme Court Justice after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
Consider these just for starters.

At some point the Supreme Court may revisit the D.C. v. Heller Second Amendment decision that upheld the individual right to bear arms.

Or the Citizens United First Amendment decision that upheld the right to speak up during elections.

Or upcoming decisions on the National Security Agency surveillance programs gathering intelligence on every single American as the Fourth and Fifth Amendments hang in the balance.

These will not be easy decisions, and they could even be 5 to 4 decisions.

In the landmark ruling Marbury v. Madison in 1803, Chief Justice outlined the role of judicial review, “It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

He might have added, by a majority vote. Meaning, how the Constitution is interpreted over the next generation could very well be determined by how the balance of the court is constituted right now.

And with the Supreme Court so closely divided, that means the very definition of the Constitution is at stake.

That is how important this is.

As Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) recently noted to reporters on Feb. 13, “It is a very important position because Senator Schumer talked about balance [in 2007] and we had balance: 4 conservatives, 4 liberals and 1 moderate, and maintaining that balance for the Supreme Court is just as important now as it was in 2007.”

Here, Grassley was referring to a July 2007 statement by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) that then-President George W. Bush should not be allowed to appoint any more Supreme Court spots during the remainder of his term except during “extraordinary circumstances.”

In this case, an Obama appointment now would without question shift the balance of the court to liberal.

“If that is the will of the voters, let it be decided in November at the polls, not by a lame duck President,” Manning said, urging the Senate to slow down.

“The easy and cowardly path would be to rubber-stamp whoever the current lame duck President appoints. However, with fewer than eleven months remaining in his term and a hotly contested election in both parties, it does a grave disservice to the voters of the United States to consider a nominee from someone who will soon be a footnote in history,” Manning insisted.

So far, Senate Republican leaders are holding strong and promising no action on any Obama nomination.

“[Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley] have it exactly right,” Manning said.

“The whole point of the Republican Senate majority at this point in history, if any, is to stop Obama from fundamentally transforming America in his final year in office, and his Supreme Court nomination will unquestionably shift the balance of the court and the nation,” Manning concluded.

Meaning, this could very well be the Senate GOP majority’s defining moment. Will it step up, or back down?

Time will tell, but its impact on how the Constitution is interpreted by the next Supreme Court Justice could last for a generation or more.
----------------
Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of Americans for Limited Government. His article was first shared on the ALG's NetRight Daily blog.

---

Tags: Robert Romano, Americans For Limited Government, Supreme Court, vacancy, GOp Senate Majority, defining moment To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Winner Hands Down . . .

. . . What a Hillary Clinton 2017 Inauguration may look like.

Editorial Cartoon by AF "Tony" Branco

---

Tags: Winner Hands Down, Hillary Clinton, 2017 Inauguration, FBI, editorial cartoon, AF Branco Judge, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Google's Theme Song: Man It Feels Good to Be a Crony

The Obama Administration - 

Cronyism Featuring Google

by Seton Motley, Contributing Author: This country was built upon the notion that the people with the best ideas would succeed - and in so doing would make life better for everyone. This is called capitalism. In human history, no other system has yet been devised that does more good for the most people. Yes, the Best Idea People get much richer - but everyone else gets richer too. It’s a virtuous circle.

To make the most room possible for everyone - our Founding Fathers placed determinate and very real limits on government. Because bigger government crowds out the Best Idea People - and everyone else. And drives an ever-bigger wedge between them.

Imagine the marketplace is a row of plane seats. On the window is the Best Idea People. On the aisle is everyone else. In the middle is government. Who do you want in Seat B - Heidi Klum or Michael Moore?

We have left far behind the concepts upon which we were founded. Our federal government is now an uber-corpulent nightmare mess. It’s ridiculous 2015 budget is $3.7 trillion. The entire private economy is $17.7 trillion. Which means the federal government alone takes from and then spends 21% of what every man, woman and child creates. And the Feds this year alone bleed another $1.9 trillion in regulations-compliance costs.

We’re now WAY past even Michael Moore rotundity. Soon enough, government will be taking up the entire plane row.

When the government’s regulatory hammer and checkbook are this big – the relationship between the private and public sectors is warped beyond recognition. The Best Idea People don’t succeed nearly so often as do the Best Crony People – those who have the best relationships with Huge Government. Because Huge Government can shove the Best Idea People out of the way – to make more room for the Best Crony People.

In the Age of Barack Obama, there is no bigger Best Crony – than Google. Which is pathetic in one additional way – Google doesn’t need the help. They are worth a net $350 billion. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Denmark – is $342 billion.

But being the Best Crony People is a whole lot easier than trying to be the Best Idea People. Ideas are hard – campaign donations are comparatively very easy. Google in two election cycles has been very, very good to Barack Obama. And Barack Obama’s administration has in turn been very, very good to Google.

The old Internet saw is: If something is free, what’s for sale – is you. What you do and view on the Net – is of value to advertisers (and others). Google’s bread and butter is Web data collection. The more you do with Google (Web search, email, documents, etc.) – the more they know about you. And the more they have on you to sell.

Which is one of the reasons why they want an “open Internet.” Open – to unlimited access to you by them. “Open Internet” is an innocuous sounding term Google uses to escape the noxious one: Network Neutrality.

Net Neutrality Passes: Everybody Equal, But Google Much More Equal: “It has now been reported that Google and its allies at the Free Press and New America’s Open Technology were uniquely given a copy of the 332 page document shortly before the vote, and allowed to offer tweaks to the rules that may be extraordinarily self-serving.”

But Net Neutrality wasn’t enough. For Google to really get the best Best Crony treatment possible – the Obama Administration needed to unilaterally execute complete Internet reclassification. Which is slamming 1934 landline phone law – down on to the Web. One year ago Friday, the Administration did just that.

Reclassification is the Administration grabbing sweeping new powers – to then execute sweeping new grabs. Most – just about all – coincidently help Google. Shocker: “FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has penned…the next backwards-looking power grab: huge new backdoor mandates via television set-top-boxes….Set-top-boxes are the devices we lease from cable companies to watch their television packages, which we are doing to a lesser degree as the marketplace has already created myriad ways for us to ‘cut the cord.’ Meaning, give up cable television and the set-top-boxes altogether.”

Set-top-boxes collect data. So of course Google wanted in – in 2014. But the marketplace is already passing them by: “The future (and increasingly the present) of television isn’t boxes, it’s apps (and alternate hardware like Apple TV and Amazon Firestick). Netflix, Amazon Prime, Roku, Hulu and a host of other companies deliver you (via their apps) unlimited streaming TV and movie content using only an Internet connection. No cable TV subscription (or box) required.”

Google loathes apps – because they can’t get at the data collected by them. So they want to muck up the apps (r)evolution – and prop-up the dying set-top-box. The Obama Administration is more than happy to oblige.

And how about the finite, vitally important world of wireless spectrum? The Administration has Google’s back there too. NAB: FCC Wants TV Spectrum for ‘Google Channels’.

Oh – and Google is world-renowned for its intellectual property theft. Who is currently head of the Administrations’s Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) – one of the government joints charged with protecting intellectual property? Michelle Lee – who’s last gig was Head of Patents and Patent Strategy…for Google.

There are many more examples of this sort of cronyism. And many more most certainly to come. Because that’s what Google wants – and that’s what the Google Administration does.

Man it feels good to be a crony.
----------------
Seton Motley is the President of Less Government and he contributes to ARRA News Service. Please feel free to follow him him on Twitter   /   Facebook.

---

Tags: Seton Motley, Less Government, Google, Croynism  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 2016 Election Is All About SCOTUS!

by Ken Blackwell, Contributing Author: For 30 years Antonin Scalia sat on the Supreme Court. He was a legal giant, unimpressed with the pretensions of power and resistant to liberal orthodoxies. He was unafraid to skewer what typically passes for legal "reasoning," even-or perhaps especially-when expressed by his colleagues. And he sometimes surprised even his critics, rigorously defending the Constitution irrespective of the issue.

His death in the midst of a heated presidential campaign will place the Supreme Court squarely within the vortex of partisan politics. President Barack Obama is likely to choose as his nominee someone dedicated to the concept of a "living Constitution," which means a document that is infinitely malleable, always available to turn the latest left-wing legal fad into the law of the land.

In recent years the left's legal agenda has become ever more unconstitutional, even anti-constitutional. Welfare is a right, the unborn are subject to destruction, marriage can be radically redefined by unelected judges, equal protection requires racial quotas, religious liberty only protects private belief, health care penalties to coerce behavior are taxes, gun ownership is for government, and the president can rewrite laws passed by Congress.

Every Democratic nominee is expected to embrace this agenda. Over the years many Republican judicial appointees have charted an independent, even liberal course, from Earl Warren to David Souter. It is hard to think of a single Democratic justice who has broken with left-wing orthodoxy.

In confirmation hearings Democratic senators have called on Supreme Court nominees to accept Roe v. Wade as a super-precedent, apparently more fundamental than the Constitution itself. When ObamaCare came before the high court no one doubted that the four Democratic appointees would unite to back the law.

President Obama treats jurisprudence as another weapon of political war. For instance, six years ago he nominated his Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who also had served in the Clinton administration. The president merged justice and politics.

No doubt he will do the same with his appointment to replace Scalia. The Senate has an obligation to stand for the Constitution and rule of law.

The Founders separated powers and allowed the different branches to check one another. One of the most important limits is the Senate's duty to "advise and consent" on top government appointments. Legislators have an independent authority, even obligation, to scrutinize nominees.

There is no more important duty for a Supreme Court justice than to uphold the Constitution. There will naturally be disagreements over how to apply fundamental principles to changing circumstances. However, that doesn't mean any result can be justified in the name of judicial interpretation.

The Constitution assumed a sea of liberty within which a few important islands of government power were created. Justices can argue about the islands' sizes. But a jurist who imagined the Constitution as an ocean of government power with just a few spots of liberty would not be qualified to hold office.

Moreover, if the nation's fundamental law isn't rooted in something permanent, then there is no certain protection of any liberty. If justices can act like a continuing constitutional convention in which five men and women can transform settled law on whim, we have passed from the rule of law to the rule of men. Sitting on the high court does not place one above the Constitution.

Thus, the Senate has an obligation to reject any nominee pledged to enshrine liberal zeitgeist as law. There's no need even to refer the nomination to committee or hold a hearing if the appointment is political. The Senate has a duty to advise and consent, not to say yes. Past Senates, including those controlled by Democrats, have rejected 25 presidential nominees to the top bench.

Indeed, the president's party set the precedent. In 2003 Democrats filibustered the appointment of the well-qualified (and Latino) Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2007 Chuck Schumer urged fellow Democrats to use their new majority to block any appointments by George W. Bush to the high court.

Then-Sen. Obama forthrightly opposed President Bush's 2005 nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court (and joined 24 colleagues, including then-Senators John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden, in attempting to filibuster the nomination). Sen. Obama explained that the Constitution requires "an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology, and record" and criticized Alito as "somebody who is contrary to core American values." Similarly, Sen. Obama voted against the nomination of John Roberts because of the latter's "overarching political philosophy."

Sen. Obama's arguments really do apply to anyone President Obama is likely to nominate.

Members of the U.S. Senate are obligated to defend the Constitution. That requires them to reject any attempt by the president to install another radical judicial activist for a lifetime on the bench.
------------------
Ken Blackwell is a former ambassador to the U.N., Ohio Secretary of State and mayor of Cincinnati. Hie is a Senior Fellow and Policy Board member of the American Civil Rights Union and contributing author to the ARRA News Service.

---

Tags: Ken Blackwell, 2016 election, SCOTUS, appointment, Antonin Scalia, replacement To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Unfair Reform?

by Paul Jacob, Contributing Author: am sure we all think it would be great, other things being equal, to try to make many of life's unfairnesses less . . . problematic. But most grown-ups understand (or used to) that "life isn't fair" is a truism for a reason.

So when Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump criticized his competing GOP hopefuls for wanting to reform Social Security and other so-called "entitlements," I was unimpressed.

"Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security," Trump said last year, referencing Medicare and Medicaid as well. "And we can't do that. And it's not fair to the people that have been paying in for years and now all of the sudden they want to be cut."

Not fair.

Well, yeah.

But the unfairness is not in fixing the system by raising retirement ages, etc. The real injustices lie in the past, with previous fixes and . . . "unfixes" -- that put us in the fix we are currently in.

And not fixing it now will lead to further, more obvious "unfairness" in the future.

Trump is just avoiding responsibility. By not addressing the problem honestly, we do not make things or keep things fair. We make things worse.

Peter Suderman notes that Chris Christie's endorsement of Trump, last week, puts the lie to the New Jersey governor's much-ballyhooed seriousness about entitlement reform.

Well, yeah.

But no major politician wants to handle it. For the problem shows how deep the unfairness runs in the American system.

That would require real leadership.

This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
------------------
Paul Jacobs 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. Jacobs is a contributing author on the ARRA News Service.

---

Tags: Paul Jacob, Common Sense, unfair reform, Donald Trump,   To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Why Hillary's Free Community College Plan Would Be Terrible For Students, Staff . . . Everyone

by Herman Cain: How to destroy the value of absolutely anything.

Hillary was at it again last week, promising to make community college free, and adding the very weird promise of “debt-free tuition” for four-year universities.

I’m not really sure what the latter is supposed to mean. Debt-free means you don’t owe anyone any money. Does that mean she would ban student loans to pay for tuition? Or does it mean every student loan would be automatically forgiven as soon as it’s time to pay it off? Because if that’s the case, there’s only one party that’s going to be willing to make the loans – which will be gifts and not loans at all.

But let’s go back to free community college. As is usually the case, Hillary never explains how she would pay for this. Neither she nor Bernie Sanders ever do. They just bluster about how much we need to “tax the 1 percent,” even though you could tax 100 percent of the 1 percent’s wealth and you wouldn’t have nearly enough money to cover even one of Hillary’s or Bernie’s give-stuff-away-free schemes.

But let’s leave that aside for a second. Let’s pretend for a moment that you could somehow find the money to make community college free for everyone. Would that make it a good idea to do it? No, it wouldn’t. In fact, the people who would suffer the most from such a scheme would actually be those who go and get a free community college education.

This has to do with a basic economic principle about what happens to the value of something when you make it free. It’s the same thing liberals have found out with health care as they’ve tried in various ways around the world to either give it away for free or sharply discount it. When you make something free, you devalue it. If liberals believe that everyone should be able to get a community college education regardless of ability to pay, then let’s imagine what would happen if everyone showed up at the community college for just that.

For one thing, enrollment would explode, and that would mean that the community college would not have enough faculty, or enough classrooms, or enough of the other necessary resources to serve all comers. They would have to hire more faculty and more staff. Great, you liberals say! You just created more jobs! Except that none of the people coming to get this service are paying for it, so making community college free didn’t just saddle the taxpayers with the existing costs of community college. It saddled them with much higher costs.

Another problem with making something free is that those who receive the thing don’t value it the same as those who paid for it. When you’ve paid tuition – even a nominal amount – you don’t want to blow off the opportunity and waste your investment. Even if your parents paid (perhaps especially then) you don’t want to explain to them that you wasted their money by not taking school seriously. But if you only showed up because it was free, then what do you have to lose by slacking off?

Entire community colleges filled with people who didn’t have to pay will not yield a positive learning environment.

Finally, if everyone’s got a community college degree, then what is the value of a community college degree? Exactly. It’s nothing. It’s no better than a high school diploma in terms of setting you apart from anyone else, because everyone’s got one.

Democrats don’t like to hear this, but something that has inherent value should cost you something. If it doesn’t, then either you’ll trash it, or everyone will get it and it will thus become worthless. And oh, by the way, it will also become unaffordable for the providers of the service to continue providing it.

This is a terrible idea, from a terrible candidate trying to keep up with another terrible candidate.
-----------------
Herman Cain is a conservative radio host of CainTV, a 2012 GOP presidential primary candidate with over 40 years of experience in the private sector as an analyst for Coca-Cola, an executive at Pillsbury, a regional Vice President for Burger King, and CEO of Godfather's Pizza. Cain served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and a supervisory mathematician for the Dept. of the Navy.

---

Tags: Herman Cain, conservative, radio host, CainTV, Hillary Clinton. free community college, terrible,idea, terrible candidate,  To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Engagement With Cuba Has Failed — Time For Something New

. . . A short history of how Cuba's "revolutionaries" respond to American diplomacy.

by Humberto Fontova: I trust that anyone that even glances at the fruits of Obama’s 16-month engagement with the Castro-Family-Crime-Syndicate (euphemized as “Cuba” by the media and the Obama administration) marvels.

Because never in the course of U.S. diplomacy has so much been surrendered by so many to so few for so little.

Not a penny of the $7 billion Castro stole at gunpoint from Americans (while torturing and murdering a few Americans who resisted) has been compensated—or even acknowledged. Some of the FBI’s most wanted terrorists still live like celebrities in Cuba. All this after Castro promptly got his murdering (of Americans) terrorists back as a bonus to an economic lifeline from Obama—in the nick of time and much of it at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer.

Oh, and by the way: repression in Cuba--involving everything from thousands, upon thousands of arbitrary arrests by KGB-trained secret police to machete attacks by regime-paid mobs against peaceful women dissidents—has cranked up to a recent record, which is really saying something.

In fact, since Obama began his “opening” to Cuba (which actually commenced the minute he took office in 2009) 6 peaceful Cuban dissident have “mysteriously died” (i.e. been murdered by the KGB-founded and mentored regime.) As usual, the world took no notice of these blatant murders.

This is the same “world,” by the way, that wailed in horror and indignation every time Nelson Mandela complained of a lumpy mattress in his country club prison cell in Apartheid South Africa. Sounds “insensitive,” I know. So have a look at his cell. By Cuban standards, Nelson Mandela’s cell looked like a suite at Motel 6. Naturally President Obama is prominent among those who honor Mandela and demonize his jailers.

Never mind that on Obama’s visit to Cuba next month he’ll be honoring and (helping fund) the Stalinist/Apartheid regime that jailed and tortured the most and longest-suffering political prisoners in the modern history of the Western hemisphere—many more than Apartheid South Africa, in fact.

In fact, U.S. engagement with the Castro brothers began before they were even in office. "Me and my staff were all Fidelistas." (Robert Reynolds, the CIA's "Caribbean Desk's specialist on the Cuban Revolution" from 1957-1960.)

"Everyone in the CIA and everyone at State was pro-Castro, except [Republican] ambassador Earl Smith." (CIA operative in Santiago Cuba, Robert Weicha.)

Their advice was taken, and January 7, 1959, thus marks a milestone in U.S. diplomatic history. Never before had the State Department extended diplomatic recognition to a Latin American government as quickly as they bestowed this benediction on Fidel Castro's that day.

Nothing so frantically fast had been bestowed upon "U.S.-backed" Fulgencio Batista seven years earlier. Batista had in fact been punished by a U.S. arms embargo and heavy diplomatic pressure to resign for a year. Batista was subsequently denied exile in the U.S. and not even allowed to set foot in the country that “backed" him.

In fact, during Castro's first sixteen months in power, the U.S. State Dept. made over ten back-channel diplomatic attempts to ascertain the cause of Castro's tantrums and further "engage" him. Argentine President Arturo Frondizi was the conduit for many of these and recounts their utter futility in his memoirs.

Result: In July 1960, Castro's KGB-trained security forces stormed into 5,911 U.S.-owned businesses in Cuba and stole them all at Soviet gunpoint -- $2 billion was heisted from outraged U.S. businessmen and stockholders. Not that all Americans surrendered their legal and hard-earned property peacefully. Among some who resisted where Bobby Fuller, whose family farm would contribute to a Soviet-style Kolkhoze, and Howard Anderson, whose profitable Jeep dealership was coveted by Castro's henchmen. Both U.S. citizens were murdered by Castro and Che's firing squads, after torture.

In July 1961, JFK's special counsel Richard Goodwin met with Che Guevara in Uruguay and reported back to Kennedy: "Che says that Cuba wants an understanding with the U.S.; the Cubans have no intention of making an alliance with the Soviets. So we should make it clear to Castro that we want to help Cuba." (How Che managed a straight face during this conversation requires an article of its own.)

Result: Soviet Nuclear missiles, locked and loaded, in Cuba a year later -- and pointed at Goodwin's and Kennedy's very homes.

In 1975, President Gerald Ford (under Kissinger's influence) allowed foreign branches and subsidiaries of U.S. companies to trade freely with Cuba and persuaded the Organization of American States to lift its sanctions.

Result: Castro started his African invasion and tried to assassinate Ford. You read that right. On March 19, the Los Angeles Times ran the headline "Cuban Link to Death Plot Probed." Both Republican candidates of the day, President Ford and Ronald Reagan, were to be taken out during the Republican National Convention. The Emiliano Zapata Unit, a Bay Area radical group linked to the Weather Underground, would make the hits.

Jimmy Carter, in a good-will gesture, lifted U.S. travel sanctions against Cuba and was poised to open full diplomatic relations with Castro.

Result: More thousands of Cuban troops spreading Soviet terror (and poison gas) in Africa, more internal repression, and hundreds of psychopaths, killers, and perverts infiltrated the boats and shoved their way on the Mariel Boatlift.

Ronald Reagan sent Alexander Haig to meet personally in Mexico City with Cuba's "Vice President" Carlos Raphael Rodriguez to feel him out. Then he sent diplomatic whiz Gen. Vernon Walters to Havana for a meeting with the Maximum Leader himself.

Result: Cubans practically take over Grenada, El Salvador, and Nicaragua. (But unlike the aforementioned Democrats, Reagan responded to Castro's response -- and with pretty dramatic results.)

President Clinton tried playing nice again in the '90s, removing travel restrictions, etc.

Result: Three U.S. citizens and one resident who flew humanitarian flights over Florida straits (Brothers to the Rescue) murdered in cold blood by Castro’s MIGS. Castro agent Ana Belen Montes moles her way to head of the Defense Intelligence Agency's Cuba division, resulting in the deepest and most damaging penetration of the U.S. Defense Department by an enemy agent in modern history.

Now Obama is outdoing all of the above. Instead, it’s high time to embargo Castro’s Cuba, both economically and diplomatically.
--------------------------
Humberto Fontova writes for the at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. David Horowitz is a Contributing Author of the ARRA News Service

---

Tags: Castro, Cuba, diplomacy, Obama, failed engagement, Humberto Fontova, 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!

Law Enforcement Seized This Oklahoma Man’s Truck Without Charging Him With a Crime

by Melissa Quinn, The Daily Signal: GRADY COUNTY, OKLA.— When Stephen Mills learned that the Grady County Sheriff’s Department seized his Ford F-250 back in 2010, he figured it would be a matter of days before police returned the vehicle to him and his wife.

It wasn’t.

Watch our video to learn about Mills’ efforts to get his truck back—and what ultimately happened.

Stephen Mills, chief of police, in Apache, OK
(9/1/2015 - AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki via Forbes)

Editor's Recommendation:  Read the following related Forbes article: This Oklahoma Police Chief Once Had His Truck Seized And Now He's Fighting To End Civil Forfeiture ... Mills has an extensive record of public service. He served 24 years in the Army, first as a military police officer and later as a Special Agent for the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division, before retiring in 2011. Mills also worked as a police officer in several Oklahoma towns, when in late 2014, he became chief of police for Apache, a small town with about 1,400 residents.

Simply put, Mills wants “civil forfeiture done away with.” “All forfeiture proceedings need to be done under criminal law and require a guilty verdict,” he said in an interview. Mills practices what he preaches: In Apache, “all property taken is taken either as evidence or illegal contraband.”...

---

Tags: rancher, Chief of Police, Stephen Mills, Apache, Oklahoma, stop, asset forfeiture, truck seized, without charge, chrime, Dailey Signal, video, Forbes, article To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

First They Came For The iPhones . . .

by Dr. Ron Paul: The FBI tells us that its demand for a back door into the iPhone is all about fighting terrorism, and that it is essential to break in just this one time to find out more about the San Bernardino attack last December. But the truth is they had long sought a way to break Apple’s iPhone encryption and, like 9/11 and the PATRIOT Act, a mass murder provided just the pretext needed. After all, they say, if we are going to be protected from terrorism we have to give up a little of our privacy and liberty. Never mind that government spying on us has not prevented one terrorist attack.

Apple has so far stood up to a federal government's demand that it force its employees to write a computer program to break into its own product. No doubt Apple CEO Tim Cook understands the damage it would do to his company for the world to know that the US government has a key to supposedly secure iPhones. But the principles at stake are even higher. We have a fundamental right to privacy. We have a fundamental right to go about our daily life without the threat of government surveillance of our activities. We are not East Germany.

Let’s not forget that this new, more secure iPhone was developed partly in response to Ed Snowden’s revelations that the federal government was illegally spying on us. The federal government was caught breaking the law but instead of ending its illegal spying is demanding that private companies make it easier for it to continue.

Last week we also learned that Congress is planning to join the fight against Apple -- and us. Members are rushing to set up yet another governmental commission to study how our privacy can be violated for false promises of security. Of course they won’t put it that way, but we can be sure that will be the result. Some in Congress are seeking to pass legislation regulating how companies can or cannot encrypt their products. This will suppress the development of new technology and will have a chilling effect on our right to be protected from an intrusive government. Any legislation Congress writes limiting encryption will likely be unconstitutional, but unfortunately Congress seldom heeds the Constitution anyway.

When FBI Director James Comey demanded a back door into the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone, he promised that it was only for this one, extraordinary situation. “The San Bernardino litigation isn’t about trying to set a precedent or send any kind of message,” he said in a statement last week. Testifying before Congress just days later, however, he quickly changed course, telling the Members of the House Intelligence Committee that the court order and Apple’s appeals, “will be instructive for other courts.” Does anyone really believe this will not be considered a precedent-setting case? Does anyone really believe the government will not use this technology again and again, with lower and lower thresholds?

According to press reports, Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. has 175 iPhones with passcodes that the City of New York wants to access. We can be sure that is only the beginning.

We should support Apple’s refusal to bow to the FBI’s dangerous demands, and we should join forces to defend of our precious liberties without compromise. If the people lead, the leaders will follow.
--------------
Dr. Ron Paul, Chairman of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, is a former U.S.Congressman (R-TX) for 21 years. He twice sought the Republican Party nomination for President. As a MD, he was an Air Force flight surgeon and has delivered over 4000 babies. Paul writes on political and economic theory, American foreign, domestic, and monetary policies, the military–industrial complex, the War on Drugs, the Federal Reserve, and compliance with the U.S. Constitution.

---

Tags: Ron Paul, first, they came for, iPhones, Apple, FBI, Congress, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Republicide . . .

Republicide – where republicans (like Sens. Marco Rubio, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Jeff Flake) tried to appease their donors, the leftist media, and illegal immigrants, and joined Democrats while ignoring their base - is (or should be) total suicide.  [Aka: Gang of 8]

Editorial Cartoon by AF "Tony" Branco

---

Tags: Republicide, republicans, gang of 8, editorial cartoon, AF Branco To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Guantanamo Bay . . .

. . . We are taking all legal preparations necessary!

Speaker Paul Ryan: We are taking all legal preparations necessary in the event President Obama tries to relocate Guantanamo Bay terrorist detainees to American soil.

Here's why: As top administration officials admit, bringing these terrorists to our backyard is against the law — and it will stay against the law. These prisoners are the worst of the worst, and nearly one out of every three of those freed return to terrorist activities.

The American people have already spoken on this issue. In fact, a new poll shows a majority of citizens oppose closing Guantanamo. House Republicans agree.

This is yet another attempt from a lame-duck president to distract from the litany of problems his successor will inherit.

Our first responsibility is to keep Americans safe—and that’s exactly what we plan to do.

---

Tags: President Obama, tries to relocate, Guantanamo Bay, illegal action, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

UN Stamps

by Penna Dexter, Contributing Author: At a recent ceremony at United Nations headquarters, six new postage stamps were unveiled. They were created by UN artist Sergio Baradat and are meant to elevate homosexuality, transsexuality and gay parenting. The stamps are very colorful and done in a sort of geometric art deco style. One depicts a male couple embracing and kissing; another a female couple doing the same. One shows a same sex couple carrying a little girl on their shoulders. Another shows a person coming out of a closet. There’s a stamp bearing a human butterfly figure, representing someone’s evolution as a transsexual. And one stamp is a picture of a bunch of people bearing different colors and designs. That one is an overall characterization of the UN human rights office’s “Free and Equal” campaign under which the stamps were created and which aims to promote what the office calls “fair treatment tor the gay and lesbian community.”

UN stamps are released in dollar denominations, so you’ll see these around. This is the first time the UN has ever released stamps with a gay theme and the action did not take place without controversy. The Center for Family and Human Rights, or C-Fam, reports that nearly half the UN member states opposed the stamps even up to the eve of their unveiling. Stefano Gennarini writes in C-Fam’s Friday Fax that the opposition included three “powerful UN blocs totaling 86 countries” who sent letters to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. The Secretary General failed to even acknowledge receipt of these coalitions’ letters. The Organization for Islamic Cooperation, which represents 57 countries, was one of the opposing groups. C-Fam reports that the 54-member African Group also denounced the release of the stamps saying it reflects badly on the UN by “associating it with issues that do not enjoy universal consensus.” And the 24-member Group of Friends of the Family, including Belarus, Egypt, and Qatar, said the action by the UN promotes “a deeply controversial agenda.” That agenda, they said, “thwarts unity, dialogue, and mutual respect.”

There is no UN treaty promoting LGBT rights or protecting homosexual conduct. Not that there haven’t been tremendous efforts over the years to get one. U.S. representatives, unfortunately have been part of the effort to spread same-sex marriage to nations where prevailing religious belief opposes it and to pressure countries that maintain laws that punish sodomy to drop those laws.

Mr. Baradat, who serves as the United Nations Postal Administration art director, identifies as LGBT. In creating and designing these stamps he said he was striving for the “beautiful, elegant, and loving.” The unveiling of the stamps was accompanied by a program of pop songs and love tunes sung by the New York City Gay Men’s Chorus. All this is part of an attempt to promote rights to engage in sodomy, same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, and transsexual behavior.

Not exactly the United Nations’ historical mandate.
-----------
Penna Dexter is a radio talk show host heard on numerous stations via the Point of View Network endorsed by Dr. Bill Smith, Editor, ARRA News Service

---

Tags: Penna Dexter, Viewpoints, Point of View, United Nations, LGBT rights, UN Stamps To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Third Time’s the Charm? Sportsmen’s Legislation Passes House in Third Consecutive Congress

NRA-ILA: On Friday, a bipartisan majority in the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act of 2015. The bill now heads to the Senate, where a similar package, the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act of 2015, has already advanced out of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on Environment and Public Works. This is the third straight Congress in which the House has passed far-reaching sportsmen’s legislation, with the prior versions falling prey to election-driven bottlenecks in the Senate. Hopefully, the third time will prove the charm for this important legislative package.

The SHARE Act is a compilation of a number of separate acts, several of which have been pending in one form or another for many years. The overarching goal is to promote America’s heritage of hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. This year’s version would enhance access to public lands for hunting, fishing and shooting, protect the right of self-defense, and curtail punitive regulations promoted by “animal rights” and environmental extremists.

For example, the bill contains the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act, which would allow a greater proportion of the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition to be returned to the states for the use of acquiring land for public target ranges. It also includes the Recreational Lands Self- defense Act, which ensures that otherwise lawfully-possessed firearms cannot be prohibited in publicly- accessible recreational areas under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. The Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act, as the name implies, would require that management plans of the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management facilitate hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. Other provisions authorize the National Park Service to establish hunter access corridors and require it to allow the transportation of hunting bows if certain requirements are met. Additional components would protect hunters against overly-expansive ivory regulations and allow for the importation of trophies from polar bears that were lawfully harvested before their listing as a threatened species.

The House also defeated a number of adverse amendments that would have diluted or defeated the purposes of the bill. Meanwhile, a critically important amendment introduced by Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA) was adopted to clarify 1986’s Firearm Owner’s Protection Act, which, among other things, protects the lawful transport of firearms from one location where they are legal to another. This amendment is in response to states like New York and New Jersey that continue to defy these federal protections. It would more clearly delineate what behavior is protected and provide remedies for persons whose rights under FOPA are violated.

The NRA thanks Speaker Paul Ryan, (R-WI), Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA). We also appreciate the hard work of Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT), Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-TX) and the lead sponsors of the bill: Reps. Robert Wittman (R-VA), Tim Walz (D-MN), Jeff Duncan (R-SC) and Gene Green (D-TX) on moving this legislation through the House.

Please contact your Senators and urge them to vote in favor of the SHARE Act, a longstanding effort whose time has come!

---

Tags: NRA, ILA, NRA-ILA, Sportsmen's Legislation, hunting, second amendment, passes US House, third consecutive congress, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Lawmakers: Obama Administration Illegally Diverted Billions Intended for US Treasury to Insurers

Republican lawmakers are questioning the legality
of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services'
decision to prioritize $3.5 billion in payments to
insurers  over the U.S. Treasury.
(Photo: Kevin Dietsch/UPI/Newscom)
Cropped image via The Daily Signal

by Melissa Quinn: Republicans on Capitol Hill are questioning the legality of a move by the Obama administration to give billions to insurers under a program implemented under Obamacare that they say is equal to an insurer bailout.

At issue for lawmakers on the House Energy and Commerce Committee is whether the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services violated the Affordable Care Act by diverting $3.5 billion intended for the U.S. Treasury to insurance companies.

“[Earlier this month], the administration announced that they would be using billions of taxpayer dollars to make payments to insurance companies under the Obamacare reinsurance program,” Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Penn., said Wednesday during a hearing with Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell.

“The announcement that the administration made represents an illegal wealth transfer from hardworking taxpayers to insurers,” he continued, “and this law is very clear—$5 billion of reinsurance fees must be returned to the taxpayers.”

Experts have pointed out that with the absence of payments to the U.S. Treasury in 2014 and 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services owes the U.S. Treasury $3.5 billion in payments from the transitional reinsurance program—$2 billion for 2014, and $1.5 billion for 2015.

“CMS to date has diverted $3.5 billion from the Treasury to help the insurance companies, effectively bailing out insurance companies with taxpayer dollars,” Pitts said.

Pitts argued that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services violated the law by prioritizing reinsurance payments to insurance companies instead of the U.S. Treasury.

Burwell, though, said the Department of Health and Human Services and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had the statutory authority to defer payments to the U.S. Treasury and direct the money to insurers.

“The consumer or the citizen is what we’ve tried to put at the center, and whether that’s in the decisions of how we’ve done the technology or how we make decisions about ensuring that those dollars actually went to the place where they would most help the consumer with regard to downward price pressure [on premiums],” Burwell told the panel Wednesday. “And it is our belief that we have that authority.”

On Tuesday, the Congressional Research Service addressed questions from both the Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce Committees in a memo regarding the transitional reinsurance program.

The memo explored whether the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had the authority to direct money away from the U.S. Treasury to insurance companies under Obamacare’s reinsurance program.

“Insofar as CMS’ interpretation allows the entire contribution of an issuer in any given year to be used only for reinsurance payments, such that no part of it is allocated for the U.S. Treasury contribution, then that would appear to be in conflict with a plain reading of [the Affordable Care Act],” the Congressional Research Service found.

Under the health care law, the memo continued, contributions from insurance companies collected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services “contain an amount that reflects ‘its proportionate share’ of the U.S. treasury contribution.”

“CRS has concluded that your action to divert billions to insurance companies appears to be unlawful,” Pitts told Burwell. “Did your department receive any pressure from insurance companies to divert billions from taxpayers to pay off insurers?”

In addition to questioning the legality of the reinsurance payments to insurers, Pitts also pressed Burwell on whether Marilyn Tavenner, former administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, had discussed the issue with her and other government officials.

Tavenner left the Obama administration last year and now leads America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade association representing insurers.

In addition to the report submitted to the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Ways and Means Committee has also taken issue with the administration’s diversion of funds from the reinsurance program.

Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Texas; Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Peter Roskam, R-Ill.; and Subcommittee on Health Chairman Pat Tiberi, R-Ohio, asked Burwell for documents related to the reinsurance program in a letter sent Feb. 9.

“It appears that the administration has illegally diverted funds from the U.S. Treasury to fund the transitional reinsurance program established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” they wrote. “Not only is this diversion inconsistent with past policies promulgated by the administration but it is incompatible with clear congressional instructions contained within the ACA. We ask that HHS immediately submit to the Treasury all diverted funds.”

Obamacare’s transitional reinsurance program, which is in place for 2014, 2015, and 2016, was designed to mitigate the risks insurance companies incurred by covering consumers who were uninsured prior to Obamacare’s implementation.

The Affordable Care Act imposed $25 billion in fees on insurance companies selling employer-sponsored and individual market plans spread over the reinsurance program’s short lifespan. The law called for $5 billion to be used for reinsurance contributions to employer and union retiree plans. The remaining $20 billion was to be used for contributions to individual market insurers.

The $5 billion for employer and union retiree plans was allocated immediately after the Affordable Care Act passed in 2009, and the money was spent before the end of 2010.

To repay the U.S. Treasury for the $5 billion doled out to employer and union retiree plans, which happened before the government collected money from insurers, the law specified that $5 billion be remitted to the Treasury in installments of $2 billion in 2014, $2 billion in 2015, and $1 billion in 2016.

Consequently, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was instructed to raise $12 billion in 2014 and $8 billion in 2015 through contributions to the transitional reinsurance program. Of the $12 billion raised in 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was supposed to return $2 billion to the U.S. Treasury, with the remaining $10 billion intended to go to insurance companies selling Obamacare plans.

For 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was supposed to collect $8 billion and remit another $2 billion to the U.S. Treasury.

The agency, though, did not raise the $12 billion it expected to collect. Instead, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said it estimated it would collect $9.7 billion for 2014. According to an announcement from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released in September, the Obama administration decided not to repay the Treasury first, as is specified in the Affordable Care Act.

The agency said it would distribute $7.9 billion of the estimated $9.7 billion to insurers. More than $1.6 billion—the amount remaining—was set aside for 2015, with the intent that it, too, would go to insurers selling individual market coverage.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ decision went largely unnoticed, with the exception of a January article in Forbes highlighting the government’s action.

Then, on February 12, the Obama administration announced it would again prioritize payments to insurers over the Treasury, which lawmakers say is a violation of the health care law.

According to the announcement from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the government estimated it would collect $6.5 billion through the transitional reinsurance program for 2015. Of that, the federal government said it would distribute $5.5 billion to insurance companies for reinsurance payments and $500 million to the U.S. Treasury. The remaining $500 million would go toward the program’s administrative costs.
------------
Melissa Quinn (@MelissaQuinn97)is a news reporter for The Daily Signal.

---

Tags: lawmakers, Obama Administration, illegally, diverted billions, from. US Treasury, to InsurersMelissa Quinn, The Daily Signal To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Why Are Christians So Mean And Nasty?

Dr. Chuck Balwin

by Dr. Chuck Baldwin: Let’s be honest with one another: the nation as a whole is little more than a reflection of its churches. We can blame “the government” all we want (and there is plenty of blame to go around), but it is the churches, not the government, that are most culpable for our nation’s ills.

Far too many professing Christians are just as mean and nasty as any unchurched person you will ever find--maybe more so. A sizeable portion of our professing Christians today are gossiping, slandering, backbiting, nosy, meddlesome, temperamental, mean-spirited, authority-hating, self-absorbed, whining little babies. They walk around with a chip on their shoulder just daring anyone to knock it off. If given the opportunity by gullible followers, they will destroy any church and any pastor they can.

Truly, the words of Saint Jude apply to huge numbers of professing Christians today: “Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.” (Jude 1:8, 10 KJV)

As a veteran pastor of over four decades of ministry, I have both seen and tasted the bitter caldron that these “Christians” have poured upon unsuspecting souls--all in the name of God, of course. I will take an educated guess and suggest that somewhere between one-fifth and one-fourth of all of the churches in America are splits off of an existing church because of the bitterness and discontent of a few troublemakers within the church. The damage done to pastors’ families by these vultures is incalculable.

I know a pastor and his family that lived in a church parsonage (pity the pastor’s family that is forced to live in a church parsonage) who, upon returning from vacation, found all of their furniture and belongings on the front lawn and new locks on the doors. I know pastors who have been falsely accused of all manner of impropriety by hateful, vicious church members. Pastors’ wives have been held up to the most vile and venomous attacks imaginable. I personally know of dozens of preachers’ kids that refuse to attend anybody’s church today because of the abuse they saw their parents go through at the hands of these “good Christians.”

And it seems the more dedicated a pastor is to truth, the more vicious are the attacks against him. The panty-waist, ear-tickling, stand-for-nothing pastors have the largest and most devoted followings. But put a real prophet in the pulpit, and in no time there will be a “Creek uprising” against him. In fact, many of these bigger corporate churches are comprised of church wolves who, after devouring a good patriot pastor across town, will flee to the wolf’s lair of the corporate church--under the safety of the corporate pastor--along with other wolves.

Of course, these carnal Corinthian Christians prey on the spiritually immature and gullible within the church. They put on the mask of piety, spirituality, and “love.” But the goal is to undermine the pastor’s work and hopefully (in their minds) drive the pastor out. They have the façade of an angel, but in reality, they are the instruments of Satan to divide and spoil the church. “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

Do you want to know why so many good pastors don’t seem to have the energy to engage the freedom fight? I’ll tell you why. Most of them are up to their armpits in discontent and disruption. It’s very hard to be a shepherd and watchman when you find yourself being forced to be a cross between a spiritual firefighter and babysitter. Most pastors spend the vast majority of their workweek putting out church fires that are started by spiritual arsonists and changing the spiritual diapers of spoiled, bratty Christians. It is the most exhausting work on the face of the earth. Help lead the charge for freedom? Are you kidding? It’s all these pastors can do to lead a peaceful church business meeting.

When we talk about the Black Regiment pastors of Colonial America, remember that those pastors had the dedicated, unflinching, dynamic support of their congregations. Those people loved their pastor; heeded his spiritual counsel; prayed for him; encouraged him; stood beside him; supported him and his family; and treated him and his family with tender loving care. When a pastor is loved and supported in such a way, he is free to courageously stand as a watchman and shepherd over the souls of men and over the liberties of his community. Take that away, and the pastor is reduced to a state of sheer self-preservation. It’s hard to lead an army from a cave.

There is no question that we need a revolution of liberty in this country. But like it or not, there will NEVER be any kind of lawful, lasting revival of liberty without the approbation of Heaven--and without the instruction, inspiration, and leadership of God’s men. The unchurched patriots reading this can scoff at what I am saying all they want: it doesn’t change the truth. Without men such as John Leland, John Witherspoon, Jonas Clark, Joab Houghton, James Caldwell, et al., there would never have been men such as George Washington, Patrick Henry, Sam Adams, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson, et al. And without the faithful and dedicated men and women within the churches of those Black Regiment preachers, there would never have been a Black Regiment to begin with.

Angry, self-willed, rebellious, hate-filled Christians are not only a curse to their pastor and church; they are a curse to liberty itself. They are doing the devil’s work of subverting the work of God (including the work of liberty) within the church and, therefore, within the community and country. Sitting home and sending out a barrage of hate-filled emails is doing NOTHING to restore liberty. Hate will NEVER win hearts and minds. And that’s what’s happening: we are losing the war for the hearts and minds. And one of the biggest reasons we are losing this war is because we have supplanted and destroyed the one position that is most necessary to winning the war for the hearts and minds: the courageous and inspired patriot pulpit.

The congregations of Jonas Clark and John Leland did not agree on everything no more than Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson agreed on everything. But they understood the Natural and Biblical principles of liberty enough to be able to fight together for the cause of freedom and independence. Before they ever won a War of Independence, they won the hearts and minds of the colonists with the love and understanding of liberty and Law.

Without the undergirding principles of Law and love, there can be no RIGHTEOUS indignation. Hatred and bitterness against evil is meaningless without love and affection for righteousness. And if Christian people are filled with hatred and bitterness against the most fundamental spiritual principles of truth and honor within the church (and tons of them are), how in the name of common sense can we expect the world around us to successfully engage in something as complex as political liberty within a nation? Without the undergirding principles of Law and love, there can be no approbation of Heaven. And without the approbation of Heaven, there can be no lasting liberty.

Before we will ever have a revival of genuine liberty within our nation, we must have a revival of genuine spirituality within our churches. And that will not happen until churches get really serious about learning and applying the immutable principles of Law within their own hearts. And that includes the Law of God relative to the way Christian people treat their pastors and one another. In the church, there is plenty of room for disagreement, but no room for division.

What is missing from the hearts and minds of so many professing patriots (Christians and otherwise) is old-fashioned humility. We refuse to hold ourselves accountable. We refuse to be taught. We know it all. We are never wrong. And if we are, we would never admit it. We refuse to submit to lawful authority. Bullheaded, stubborn, self-righteous people are totally unqualified to fight a freedom fight. They don’t even understand the meaning of the word freedom, much less understand how to wage a righteous, disciplined, and honorable fight to preserve or reclaim it.

“He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Micah 6:8 KJV)

And as far as our civil magistrates are concerned, here is God’s standard: “He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.” (II Samuel 23:3 KJV)

Unfortunately, there is very little humility or fear of God being demonstrated in the lives of most civil magistrates or citizens--including Christians. Perhaps the last serious--and truly humble--candidate for President of the United States was Congressman Ron Paul. But he was ultimately rejected by proud, war-thirsty Christians within the Republican Party. Sadly, most proud people are not even capable of recognizing true humility when they see it. It is so foreign to them; they don’t even know what it looks like.

“Judgment must begin at the house of God.” How are we going to fix the White House if we cannot even fix the church house?
-------------
Dr. Chuck Baldwin is the Pastor of Liberty Fellowship in Kalispell, Montana. Dr. Baldwin is Talk Radio Show Host for Chuck Baldwin Live.” He addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view.and is a writer/columnist whose articles and political commentaries are carried by a host of Internet sites, newspapers, news magazines and the ARRA News Service.

---

Tags: Dr. Chuck Baldwin, why, Christians, mean, nasty To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!