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)
Monday, October 31, 2016
3 Cases Hillary’s Supreme Court Will Overturn
by Natalia Castro: The inevitability of a Supreme Court nomination once the new President takes office in January might be the easiest reason to vote against Hillary Clinton in November. The courts have already decided on gun control, campaign finance regulation, and partial birth abortions; but with Clinton vying for her own justice on the matters, the entire concept of stare decisis will fall into question.
Clinton’s gun control proposals are advertised as “common sense gun reform” but in practice they are limitations toward the Second Amendment which the Supreme Court has already ruled against.
DC v. Heller made a clear 5-4 decision in 2008 to protect the right to bear arms as a Second Amendment guaranteed individual right toward self protection. The decision maintained that in the pursuit of a lawful goal, such as self defense, use of a personal firearm is justified.
Clinton has already announced that to her, the Supreme Court was simply wrong. Leaked audio had her saying, ““We’ve got to go after this. And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”
During the third presidential debate, Clinton proclaimed her love for gun rights, but then quickly reminded the audience that she “disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case” and advocated for the decisions reversal.
Reversing the Heller decision does not open the door to “common sense” reforms on gun control, it strips the people of the constitutional right to use their own weapon lawfully.
In 2009 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission upheld the First Amendment right to free speech when contributing to political campaigns. The 5-4 decision ruled that expenditures by for profit corporations, labor unions and other associations cannot be restricted by government. Advocates for the free speech hailed this as a victory for freedom, but Clinton is not an advocate for free speech.
In fact, the reversal of the Citizens United decision has been a pillar of the Clinton campaign.
Money that companies spend to promote their interest in governance is what Clinton claimed during the debate, “undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system.”
Where corporations see political activism, Clinton sees an opportunity to limit rights the Supreme Court already declared irrevocable.
And finally, Clinton has aims to reverse the 2007 Supreme Court ruling on partial birth abortions. The case of Gonzales v. Carhart upheld intact and dilation late term abortions. Clinton and abortion advocates want an exception in which the mother’s life is in danger.
The ruling was simple, the court found that there is “”uncertainty [in the medical community] over whether the barred procedure is ever necessary to preserve a woman’s health” and therefore it is not protected under the parameters established in Roe v. Wade and Stenberg v. Carhart.
Once again, Clinton decided her opinion on the matter is above the law of the land.
During the final debate Clinton proclaimed that, “I do not think that the United States government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions. So you can regulate if you are doing so with the life and the health of the mother taken into account.”
Unfortunately for Clinton, this case was determined with the women’s health in mind. In fact it was determined based on the inability for the medical community to meet the burden of proof which determines the mother’s life is in a vital position. Clinton’s advocacy for the case’s reversal is not based on women’s health, it’s based on abortion promotion. She views the procedure as a matter of right every woman possesses.
Clinton is not just undermining inalienable rights in her pursuit to liberalize the constitution, she is also dramatically altering the Supreme Court’s role in setting lasting precedents for national law.
Stare decisis is described as the doctrine of precedent by the Cornell Law Review, they explain that this doctrine is vital for promoting “the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles.” Without precedent, any change in the country’s political climate can alter the constitutional process.
Clinton wants the power to alter what the framers established and the courts have instituted, rather than use their judgements as the law of the land — something liberals usually argue in favor of. But in these three cases Clinton has pledged to undermine the Second and First Amendment, as well as expand what Roe v. Wade began.
These are only the cases Clinton has already pledged to reverse, with 4 years of judicial nominations Clinton could take apart other Supreme Court precedents we have not even thought of yet.
--------------- Natalia Castro is a contributing editor at Americans for Limited Government. Tags:Natalia Castro, Americans for Limited Government, 3 Cases, Hillary’s Supreme Court, Will OverturnTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Happy Halloweiner, Democrats Attack, Late Developments, Clinton Crisis
Witch Hillary: Off With Huma Abedin
and Antonys Weiner appendages
by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: Happy Halloweiner - Washington is still buzzing from Friday's bombshell announcement that the FBI has reopened the investigation into Hillary Clinton's mishandling of U.S. national security material. As you know, the latest twist involves a laptop that was shared by disgraced ex-Congressman Anthony Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin, Hillary's closest aide.
In the course of its investigation into Weiner's sexting scandal with a minor, FBI agents discovered as many as 650,000 emails on Weiner's laptop, some of which are connected to Hillary Clinton's private server. Over the weekend, the FBI secured a warrant to begin searching all the emails to determine whether any are new, perhaps part of the 30,000 messages that Hillary had "bleached" to keep them from investigators.
Huma Abedin could be facing perjury charges. She testified under oath that she turned over everything related to the server scandal -- including all emails and devices. She is now hiding in New York, no longer at Hillary's side.
Democrats Attack - Democrats immediately went on the attack. We're going to try to help you knock down some of the ludicrous arguments and lies that the Clinton campaign and its allies are making.
At a hastily arranged press conference Friday, Hillary blasted James Comey for sending his letter announcing that he was reopening the investigation to only the Republican chairmen of key House and Senate committees. Clinton was suggesting that this was a coordinated political attack against her. But her statement was a lie. Comey's letter also went to the ranking Democrat members of each committee.
Clinton's staff later claimed that Clinton simply didn't read the second page of Comey's letter. I'm not buying it. That letter could well determine her future. There is no way she didn't read the whole thing.
Meanwhile, her surrogates continued to repeat this lie. Former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson said yesterday during an interview on Fox News that Comey had sent the letter to Republicans in Congress, suggesting that Democrats had not received it. Clinton and her supporters are trying to rile up the left and boost liberal turnout by suggesting that the FBI is participating in GOP dirty tricks.
At a rally in Florida over the weekend, Hillary Clinton attacked Comey, saying, "It's pretty strange to put something like that out . . . right before an election. In fact . . . it's unprecedented." But Hillary knows it is not unprecedented.
In the closing days of the 1992 campaign, a special prosecutor investigating the Iran-Contra deal didn't announce an investigation but an indictment against former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger. Bill Clinton used the indictment to question George H.W. Bush's honesty and integrity. The Weinberger indictment was dismissed -- weeks after the election -- for violating the statute of limitations.
Others on the left and in the media are blasting Comey for reopening the investigation just days before the election. "Why so late?" they ask. That is easy to answer.
Hillary Clinton and her allies have done everything possible to stonewall the investigation, which is why it took so long for the FBI to discover more e-mails.
Several Clinton aides have plead the Fifth and refused to testify.
Her husband compromised the case by inappropriately meeting with the attorney general on an airport tarmac.
A top FBI official got hundreds of thousands of dollars funneled to his wife's campaign from a top Clinton confidant.
Late Developments -
So far no elected Democrat has broken ranks and called on Hillary Clinton to step down. But Douglas Schoen, Bill Clinton's pollster, has retracted his endorsement.
MSNBC co-host Mika Brzezinski, who has spent months bashing Donald Trump, said this morning, "The bottom line is this all goes back to the server. Something she should not have done. This is way more than a mistake. Way more. . . Democrats nominated someone who is under an FBI investigation for having a private server, among other things. So here we are."
Today's ABC News/Washington Post tracking poll has the race down to one point. Six days ago, Clinton enjoyed a 12-point lead in the ABC/Post poll. One-third of likely voters say they are now less likely to vote for Hillary.
Sources inside the Trump/Pence campaign say that Wisconsin, Michigan and New Mexico all appear to be within the margin of error and potentially winnable.
There are whispers in Washington that Attorney General Lynch is skirting the line of obstruction of justice. FBI agents in the bureau's New York office have repeatedly pushed for investigations of the Clinton Foundation, but keep getting blocked by the Justice Department.
A major left-wing theme is that Trump is an authoritarian who threatens our republic. It is an absurd charge given the left's support for Obama's abuse of executive orders. But what do you call what Clinton and her allies are doing now?
Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid is calling America's chief cop a crook, suggesting Comey is guilty of violating the Hatch Act and covering up evidence of Russian intervention in the campaign. For months, the left has denounced Trump for saying the election is rigged, yet Clinton and her allies are saying that Russians are rigging the election.
I learned a long time ago that whatever the left accuses conservatives of doing is precisely what they are doing, or have done.
Clinton = Crisis If Hillary Clinton prevails on November 8th, there will be no honeymoon. She will take office under a cloud of scandal, and there will be one crisis after another.
But if she is sitting in the Oval Office come January 2017, the FBI will become her number one target for a major purge. The most important law enforcement agency in the country will be brought to heel and weaponized just like Lois Lerner's IRS.
If you are a disgruntled Republican and vote in a way that makes it more likely that Clinton prevails, you are enabling unbridled corruption. You are voting to turn the country into a left-wing banana republic.
------------- Gary Bauer is a conservative family values advocate and serves as president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families Tags:Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families, Happy Halloweiner, Democrats Attack, Late Developments, Clinton Crisis, Anthony Weiner, Huma AbedinTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Forty-five percent of voters said they agreed with Trump's claim that emailgate is worse than Watergate. Despite this powerfully negative view of Clinton's email scandal, the Democratic nominee did not lose her lead on Trump in the poll, which was conducted after the latest FBI announcement of new evidence last week.
Clinton led Trump by three points (46 percent to 43 percent) in a two-way race, and by the same amount in a four-way race (42 percent to 39 percent, with Gary Johnson at 7 percent and Jill Stein at 5 percent). Before FBI Director James Comey revealed further evidence against Clinton last week, Clinton had a three-point lead on Trump in the four-way race, and a five-point lead in a head-to-head matchup.
The 45 percent of voters who see Clinton's scandal as worse than Nixon's represent less than the full amount of Trump's support, even in a two-way race. Perhaps more revealing, voters ranked Clinton's email scandal as equally bad as Trump's sexually aggressive comments about women. This suggests that, rather than being influenced by such scandals, voters have made peace with the negativity of the race.
Thirty-nine percent of voters said the latest FBI bombshell would not affect their vote in November, while 33 percent said it made them much less likely to vote for Clinton. Most of those voters are already aligned against the former secretary of State, however.
Among undecided voters, 42 percent said the news made them less likely to pull the lever for Clinton, including 30 percent who said it made them much less likely to vote for her. Nevertheless, a full 41 percent said it made no difference either way.
When it comes to down-ballot races, support nearly evenly splits between Republicans and Democrats. Forty-four percent said they would vote for a Democrat for Congress, while 43 percent said they would vote for a Republican.
Americans in the survey were united on only one issue: they want the election to be over already. A full 71 percent said they strongly agreed that they wish the election had already ended.
Politico and Morning Consult conducted the poll online, involving 1,772 likely voters on Saturday and Sunday. The poll had a 2 percent margin of error.
----------------- Tyler O'Neil is Assistant Editor of PJ Media, Tyler O'Neil is a conservative fundraiser and commentator. He has written for numerous publications. Tags:2016, Presidential Election, Democrats, Emails, Hillary Clinton, Polls, PJ Media, Tyler O'NeilTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
An Obama Halloween Power Grab: Tricks For Us, Treats for Cronies
Not Sure That’s a Good Idea, Actually
by Seton Motley, Contributing Author: Today is Halloween 2016. Which means the Barack Obama Administration is running out of time to issue government power grab payouts to the cronies that ensconced them in office.
But the administration’s expiration date approaches – so the three Donkeys got in line. And in their “I’m a Congressman” costumes unilaterally rewrote law – and again jammed the private Internet sector.
The media water carriers – as always in their “Objective Journalist” costumes – call what the FCC did a move to “protect privacy.” What the FCC actually did was issue another power grab that hurts everyone – except Google, Facebook, Netflix and the other cronies. Tricks for us – treats for them. Happy Halloween, All.
The FCC did this by writing brand new law – again, without benefit of Congress – for how Internet Service Providers (ISPs) collect and use data. Their new “law” – is unequal treatment before the law. It is far more stringent on and punitive of ISPs – than the actual laws are on Google, Facebook, Netflix and the other cronies. Thereby dramatically benefitting Google, Facebook, Netflix and the other cronies.
The FCC issued this fiat in a completely failed, giant-mess-making attempt to clean up an existing massive mess – that they themselves created with a previous unilateral power grab. That would be the FCC’s Net Neutrality fiat – which was also executed to benefit the same government cronies.
Of course, no one breaks the law of unintended consequences more than government.
The absurd Net Neutrality power grab upended about a century’s worth of existing privacy law and precedent. Another wing of uncertainty in the hallowed disruptive halls of Net Neutrality.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had all this time previously handled privacy. Several FTC officials expressed serious concern about the new privacy ambiguity created by the FCC’s grab. So did we. And the FTC and we, it turns out, were exactly right.
But rather than getting rid of the gi-normous power grab mess of their own creation – the FCC instead issued another power grab.
Will it fix the mess they themselves made? Highly doubtful. (Keep this in mind when huge-government-disaster-Obamacare proponents demand even more government to fix the huge mess government’s made.)
Will it create all sorts of new messes? Undoubtedly.
But you see, rolling back the last grab would roll back with it the giveaways to cronies. This new grab keeps those gifts in place – and delivers a whole new raft of them. And to the Obama Administration, that’s what’s really important.
The Administration knows time is running out for conducting cronyism. So it’s damn the private sector – and full speed ahead with the grabs.
Very scary, indeed. Happy Halloween, All.
---------------- 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, President Obama, Halloween Power Grab, Tricks For Us, Treats for CroniesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Tags:Danger, Surprise, FBI, reopens, Hillary Clinton, email scandal, Anthony WeinerTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Gun Control Measure Divides California's Politicians, Law Enforcement
Voters to decide the fate of California's Prop. 63, which would require a license to sell ammunition and a background check to buy it.
by Fred Lucas: A gun control measure on California’s ballot Nov. 8 is pitting sheriffs, police chiefs, and prosecutors against most of the state’s political establishment.
A state that already has some of the strictest limits on gun ownership in the nation is asking voters to impose regulations on ammunition sales and make it a crime not to report a stolen gun.
Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, introduced the “Safety for All” measure, officially known as Proposition 63. Newsom said the law will “help save countless lives.”
“Since we announced Prop. 63, over 10 mass shootings have occurred, along with so many other deaths that never made the headlines,” Newsom wrote in an op-ed published in the Orange County Register, adding:Ammunition is the most lethal part of a gun, yet there is no regulation surrounding its sale. Currently, under state law, you can sell ammunition anywhere: a hospital, day care center, restaurant, school, or church. Prop. 63 will change that by treating ammo the way we treat guns. It will require ammo purchasers to pass a background check and require sellers to obtain a business license and submit sales records to law enforcement.Supporters of the gun measure include the state’s two U.S. senators, Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. They also include California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, state Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, numerous mayors, and the state’s two largest newspapers, the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle, and the fourth-largest newspaper, The Sacramento Bee.
Among those lined up against them in opposition to the measure are the California Police Chiefs Association, California State Sheriffs’ Association, Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County, California Correctional Peace Officers Association, California Fish & Game Wardens Association, California Reserve Peace Officers Association, Western State Sheriffs’ Association, Law Enforcement Action Network, San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association, and Law Enforcement Alliance of America.
“We see this as a continued erosion of what we believe are Second Amendment rights,” Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood, president of the California State Sheriffs’ Association, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “California has the strictest gun laws now and they have no impact on crime because senators aren’t going to follow the law.”
Youngblood said his own personal experience showed why these laws would be bad policy.
“I’ve been the victim of a gun theft, and I didn’t realize it for several days,” Youngblood said. “I would have been in violation.”
The measure would require a license to sell a box of ammunition and a background check to purchase one. It also would create a new database.
The proposal would allow authorities to confiscate magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, something Californians already are prohibited from buying, according to the Los Angeles Assistant District Attorneys Association, one of the law enforcement groups opposing the measure.
Six-time Olympic shooting medalist Kimberly Rhode is among the highest-profile opponents.
“Only bureaucrats would believe that criminals and terrorists would jump through these hoops to buy ammunition,” Rhode said in a written statement sent to members of the National Rifle Association, adding:The enormous expense and time to enforce this proposition will fall on the taxpayers. Fact is, this proposal is nothing more than an anti-gun power grab: Newsom hasn’t gotten us to give up our guns, so he’s trying to take away our ammunition instead.The measure seems likely to pass, as a California Counts poll of 959 voters in August found that 93 percent of Democrats and 60 percent of Republicans support the measure.
While California Gov. Jerry Brown hasn’t weighed in on the matter, in 2013 the Democrat vetoed a bill that would have mandated the reporting of stolen guns. Brown said at the time:I am not convinced that criminalizing the failure to report a lost or stolen firearm would improve identification of gun traffickers or help law enforcement disarm people prohibited from possessing guns. I continue to believe that responsible people report the loss or theft of a firearm and irresponsible people do not.It’s wrong to make a criminal out of someone who may not even realize his or her gun is stolen or missing, said John Malcolm, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.
“This law could make criminals out of people who are morally blameless,” Malcolm told The Daily Signal. “These are special taxes and background checks on ammunition, just to make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. It’s an assault on the Second Amendment.”
Some opponents of the measure agree with a provision to make the stealing of a firearm from a misdemeanor to a felony.
However, the Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County pointed out that Newsom previously supported Proposition 47, which made it a misdemeanor to steal a gun valued at less than $950.
The measure would do nothing to deter crime, Michele Hanisee, the group’s president, said.
“For one thing, this initiative would do nothing to stop criminals from acquiring ammunition, guns, or large-capacity magazines. But it would make it prohibitively difficult for responsible gun owners to obtain ammunition for sport and home defense,” Hanisee said, adding:As prosecutors, we would enthusiastically support any proposed law that promised to be a realistic tool against gun violence. But Prop. 63 is simply bad public policy. Its passage would have zero effect on criminals—other than to encourage them to commit more crimes. At the same time, it would criminalize the conduct of ordinary citizens.---------------- Fred Lucas (@FredLucasWH) is the White House correspondent fo The Daily Signal. Tags:California, gun controlm proposition 63, voters, Divides California, Politicians, Law EnforcementTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Bloomberg’s “Scientists” Hoping to “Disprove” Your Fundamental Rights
by NRA-ILA: On October 15, a group of researchers at the Michael Bloomberg funded Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research did what they are paid to do: deliver “evidence” to support the necessity of banning guns. This time, they went after firearms on college campuses. Spoiler alert: they determined “the research” showed it’s a bad idea.
There are plenty of sound reasons to criticize the findings of the report from a scholarly point of view. You can read about some of them at this link, among other places.
But the question all gun owners must ask themselves in response to this or any similar effort (and there will be many more to come) is simply this: will your surrender your freedom because a group of people with fancy academic titles behind their names insist on it?
One of the most famous quotes on the law comes from Oliver Wendell Holmes, who wrote: “The life of the law has not been logic – it has been experience. … The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics.”
This helps explain why law students study case law, rather than just read books summarizing events, trends, or statistical sampling. Each case involves an actual dispute between real people arising in the real world. And each case is resolved individually, on its own merits. Together, they help form a body of law by which an entire people are governed.
The Second Amendment is a prime example of how experience drives legal precepts. Its proponents understood, many of them by first-hand experience, the essential lesson that a people could never be truly free if they had to depend on others to protect their very lives.
That lesson is as applicable today as it was in 1792. For all that military and law enforcement forces do to protect the nation on a grand scale, they won’t be there when the prowler shows up at your house at 3:00 a.m. or when a college student is accosted in a parking garage after an evening class.
But because they cannot alter essential human nature and experience, nor suppress the instinctual drive of every living being to self-defense, gun control proponents continually try to refocus the debate. They tell stories about victims who law-abiding gun owners didn’t harm. And they write “reports” concluding your gun won’t protect you when you need it.
Yet even their own statistics show that people do defend themselves with guns.
Each one of those people has a unique story, like the stories told in law school case books. And each one of the lives saved by a defensive gun used mattered.
Let’s be clear: antigun researchers are not seeking to discover the truth. They are seeking to support the policy goals of the antigun individuals and organizations that fund them.
But whatever they claim the “research” tells us about guns, you have a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms to protect yourself and your loved ones. That right is not dependent on anyone’s academic efforts, and it does not yield to them.
There is an entire industry devoted to undermining the Second Amendment, with branches in academia, politics, entertainment, law, and science. It wants to ban firearms. It assumes it will eventually succeed.
So hold fast to your rights. Hold fast to your guns. Because whatever they try to tell you, your life matters, too. Tags:Johns Hopkins, Bloomberg School Of Public Health, Michael Bloomberg, Public Health Research & Gun Violence "Epidemic", Second Amendment, NRA-ILA, fundamental rightsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Marcus means Bill's problematic possible return to the White House, the scene of his crimes, as First Dude in a new Clinton Administration -- specifically his difficulties with "the twin minefields of sex and money."
Starting with sex, Marcus argues that, "Trump's misbehavior with women is a far more important topic than Clinton's" because "Trump is on the ballot; Bill Clinton is not."
True, except that Mrs. Clinton has promised to place Mr. Clinton "in charge of revitalizing the economy," which Mrs. Marcus called "crazy." Maybe, but it wasn't Trump's idea to ballyhoo the old two-for-one Clinton couple "advantage."
"There is no condoning a record that reflects not just serial adultery, but abuse of power," writes Marcus. Yet, she does precisely that by adding, "Clinton was a successful president who deserved the two terms for which he was elected, but his misbehavior would disqualify him from a third term even if the Constitution allowed it."
What?! Quite a convenient drawing of the line, eh?
Of course, the problem isn't merely Bill, as the columnist admits: "[I]t has become clear that they cannot be trusted to appropriately navigate ethical boundaries between their private interests and public responsibilities."
Complaining about the "incessant schnorring for private jets, luxury vacation lodging, expensive trifles" by the Clintons, Marcus warns that, "It cannot happen in a new Clinton White House, especially with a Republican Party already drooling over the prospect of congressional investigations."
But, Ruth, how will electing Hillary Clinton the next president cause Bill & Hill to change their ways?
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, The Problem, Ruth Marcus, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton 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 Kerby Anderson, Contributing Author: Today is October 31st. Most people know it as “Halloween” but it also has long been known as The Festival of the Dead. The Celtic tribes and their priests, the Druids, celebrated this day as a marker for the change from life to death. November 1 was the beginning of the New Year, so Halloween or “Samhain,” was like New Year’s Eve. It was both a time of death and new beginnings.
The young would wander the countryside disguised in scary masks, carrying turnips carved into scary jack-o’-lanterns to frighten off ghosts and goblins. The veil between the living and the dead was believed to be the thinnest at this time, and therefore one could most readily communicate with loved ones in spirit.
Witches also celebrate Halloween as the “Feast of Samhain” which is the first feast of the witchcraft year. Being a festival of the dead, Halloween is a time when witches attempt to communicate with the dead through various forms of divination. Contrast this with God’s command against divination in Deuteronomy 18.
The term Halloween is shortened from All-hallow-even, as it is the evening before “All Hallows’ Day” also known as “All Saints’ Day.” Pope Gregory moved the day from May 13 to November 1. This made Halloween the eve of this celebration. November 1 became “All Hallow Mass,” and October 31, became “All Hallow’s Even.”
Today, Halloween has become one of the more celebrated holidays. We are told that people spend more on decorations at Halloween that any other holiday except Christmas. And often the Halloween celebrations have included more and more occultic activity. Christians have two options: to ignore Halloween or to provide an alternative (like a Fall Fun Festival).
I hope you have thought about what you will do. Don’t just go with the flow. Make an informed decision about what you will do on Halloween.
----------- Kerby Anderson 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:Kerby Anderson, Viewpoints, Point of View, Holloween, Christians, two optionsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Dr. Ron Paul: When Time-Warner announced it planned to merge with another major communications firm, many feared the new company would exercise near-total monopoly power. These concerns led some to call for government action to block the merger in order to protect both Time-Warner's competitors and consumers.
No, I am not talking about Time-Warner’s recent announced plan to merge with AT&T, but the reaction to Time-Warner’s merger with (then) Internet giant AOL in 2000. Far from creating an untouchable leviathan crushing all competitors, the AOL-Time-Warner merger fell apart in under a decade.
The failure of AOL-Time-Warner demonstrates that even the biggest companies are vulnerable to competition if there is open entry into the marketplace. AOL-Time-Warner failed because consumers left them for competitors offering lower prices and/or better quality.
Corporate mergers and “hostile” takeovers can promote economic efficiency by removing inefficient management and boards of directors. These managers and board members often work together to promote their own interests instead of generating maximum returns for investors by providing consumers with affordable, quality products. Thus, laws making it difficult to launch a "hostile" takeover promote inefficient use of resources and harm investors, workers, and consumers.
Monopolies and cartels are creations of government, not markets. For example, the reason the media is dominated by a few large companies is that no one can operate a television or radio station unless they obtain federal approval and pay federal licensing fees. Similarly, anyone wishing to operate a cable company must not only comply with federal regulations, they must sign a “franchise” agreement with their local government. Fortunately, the Internet has given Americans greater access to news and ideas shut out by the government-licensed lapdogs of the "mainstream" media. This may be why so many politicians are anxious to regulate the web.
Government taxes and regulations are effective means of limiting competition in an industry. Large companies can afford the costs of complying with government regulations, costs which cripple their smaller competitors. Big business can also afford to hire lobbyists to ensure that new laws and regulations favor big business.
Examples of regulations that benefit large corporations include the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) regulations that raise costs of developing a new drug, as well as limit consumers ability to learn about natural alternatives to pharmaceuticals. Another example is the Dodd-Frank legislation, which has strengthened large financial intuitions while harming their weaker competitors.
Legislation forcing consumers to pay out-of-state sales tax on their online purchases is a classic case of business seeking to use government to harm less politically-powerful competitors. This legislation is being pushed by large brick-and-mortar stores and Internet retailers who are seeking a government-granted advantage over smaller competitors.
Many failed mergers and acquisitions result from the distorted signals sent to business and investors by the Federal Reserve’s inflationary monetary policy. Perhaps the most famous example of this is the AOL-Time-Warner fiasco, which was a direct result of the Fed-created dot.com bubble.
In a free market, mergers between businesses enable consumers to benefit from new products and reduced prices. Any businesses that charge high prices or offer substandard products will soon face competition from businesses offering consumers lower prices and/or higher quality. Monopolies only exist when government tilts the playing field in favor of well-connected crony capitalists. Therefore those concerned about excessive corporate power should join supporters of the free market in repudiating the regulations, taxes, and subsides that benefit politically-powerful businesses. The most important step is to end the boom-bust business cycle by ending the Federal Reserve.
-------------- 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, Blame Government, Not Markets, Monopoly, Monopolies, cartels, Ron Paul InstituteTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Herman Cain: Don't think for a minute that this just started yesterday.
You know a Democrat idea is failing when they stop defending it and start blaming Republicans for the way things are turning out. So you know how bad things have gotten with ObamaCare. When all the Democrats can talk about is how those mean Republicans refuse to “fix” their horrible mistake, it’s clear this has become every bit the disaster some of us said it would back when they were cooking it up seven years ago.
But let’s not fall into the trap of thinking ObamaCare is just having a few momentary problems, or that it just requires a “tweak” as Democrats would have you believe. And don’t think for a second that ObamaCare is “working well overall” but just has a few complications in the mix.
ObamaCare has been a disaster from day one. Even before it passed, things were going wrong. There has never been a time when the law was “working well,” and that’s because it attempts to defy every known principle of economics. And that couldn’t possibly end well.
If you want to track the failure of ObamaCare, it’s happened in nine stages:
Obama and the Democrats shove it down the throats of an unwilling public, with nothing but Democrat votes. Also, don’t forget that Harry Reid had to use a sneaky reconciliation maneuver to get it through the Senate after Ted Kennedy’s death left the Democrats without their filibuster-proof supermajority.
Broken promises emerge immediately. The bill no one bothered to read before voting on it was supposed to reduce premiums and expand coverage options. None of that happened. You were supposed to be able to keep your plan and your doctor if you liked them. You know how that turned out.
Enrollment never hit targets, prompting Democrats to attempt massive (and sometimes absurd) marketing campaigns to millennials urging them to sign up. To this day they don’t have the risk pool they envisioned, and the one they do have is older and sicker than they ever thought.
Exchanges start to collapse. Only 16 states ever set them up in the first place, and of those who did, most struggled financially right from the word go.
Insurance companies report huge losses. At first the states and the federal governments tried to deny insurers the rate increases they sought, but eventually they had no choice but to accept them. By that time, it hardly mattered. Insurers were losing their shirts and bailing out of the exchanges.
The year 2016 saw the biggest premium increases to date, which doesn’t even include the additional cost to the taxpayers to subsidize these higher premiums for those eligible. Remember when media “fact-checkers” said it was “false” that ObamaCare would jack up premiums? Yes, you can feel free to laugh at them. They deserve it.
The blame game begins. Democrats insist this is all the fault of Republicans who are so mean and won’t fix Obama’s fatally flawed law. Meanwhile, the plan’s architect Jonathan Gruber says it’s working great, and ObamaCare shill Ezekiel Emmanuel says you should all just chill about the rate hikes.
As some of us expected all along, some Democrats start demanding we take the “next step” and go to a single-payer system. For those who don’t speak Democratese, that means the government pays all your bills for you, and thus makes all your decisions for you. Remember, whoever pays your bills owns you. And of course, they own your money too, because they need all of it to pay for this crazy idea.
Finally, the voters have had enough and they elect Donald Trump, who works with a Republican Congress to repeal and replace ObamaCare with something that recognizes the reality of economic markets and respects the rights of patients and their doctors.
What’s that? Number 9 hasn’t happened yet? I know. You’ve got your chance on November 8. Make it so.
----------------- 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, Nine Stages, ObamaCare failureTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
FBI Director Comey Sends Letter To Congress Citing New Evidence In Clinton Email Scandal
by Jonathan Turley: There is a major news development with the release of a letter from FBI Director James B. Comey that the Bureau has decided that new evidence requires further investigation into the Clinton emails. It was a surprising change just days before the election. After all, as recently as September 27, 2016, Comey rejected the idea that the bureau would reopen its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state. Comey wrote in a letter to top members of Congress that the bureau has “learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.”
I have been critical recently of the handling of the FBI investigation, particularly in the granting of immunity to key potential targets. I recently wrote a column on FBI investigation into the Clinton email scandal and revised my view as to the handling of the investigation in light of the five immunity deals handed out by the Justice Department. I had previously noted that FBI Director James Comey was within accepted lines of prosecutorial discretion in declining criminal charges, even though I believed that such charges could have been brought. However, the news of the immunity deals (and particularly the deal given top ranking Clinton aide Cheryl Mills) was baffling and those deals seriously undermined the ability to bring criminal charges in my view.
Wikileaks disclosures have only embarrassed the Bureau further in showing Clinton aides debating how to explain the deletions and how to delay turning over material. Comey now has told legislators that “I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.”
He did note that the FBI could not yet assess whether the new material is significant. Comey clearly felt obligated to let the Committees know about the development. In making such a decision, Comey is caught in the horns of a dilemma. The Justice Department strongly discourages investigatory announcements or actions shortly before an election to avoid any claims of trying to influence the outcome. On the other hand, if this is significant, the FBI does not want to be accused of hiding material developments from Congress or the public, particularly after criticism over its alleged different treatment given Clinton and her aides as opposed to other recent cases.
In such a situation, caution favors disclosure. It is unlikely that we will see major developments in the remaining two weeks, but the announcement shows that this is not a closed matter. In many ways, the lingering character of this scandal was only worsened by the tactics of Clinton aides in changing explanations and refusals to cooperate absent immunity. That served to delay the investigation, which will now likely extend beyond the election.
-------------- Jonathan Turley, Contributing Author,Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. Tags:FBI Director, James Comey, Letter To Congress, Citing New Evidence, Clinton Email ScandalTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Buchanan Calls Out Clinton Campaign for Brownshirt Tactics . . .
. . . And notes: Establishment Is In a Panic Over Trump
by Patrick Buchanan: On the networks discussing Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and other issues
VideoO Deleted: Buchanan Calls Out Clinton Campaign for Brownshirt Tactics on Hannity
Video: Establishment Is In a Panic Over Trump on Lou Dobbs.
Video Deleted: Buchanan Hammers Biased CNN Anchor Michael Smerconish.
-------------------- Patrick Buchanan is currently a conservative columnist, political analyst, chairman of The American Cause foundation and an editor of The American Conservative. He has been a senior advisor to three Presidents, a two-time candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and was the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000. He blogs at the Patrick J. Buchanan. Tags:Patrick Buchanan, conservative, commentary, videos, Clinton Campaign, Brownshirt Tactics, Establishment, Panic, Over Donald Trump, Trump, CNN bias 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 John C. Velisek, Contributing Author: I don’t normally read the mainstream newspapers anymore. Moving further and further into the liberal/progressive movement has made them virtually unreadable. Part of the global cabal, they attempt to steer the people to the way they want them to think. It is no different in this election.
The media bias against Trump is real and invading the airwaves every day. They have attempted to smear him with false accusations. Of course, the women who have come forth after what has been thirty years are lauded as paragons of virtue. Some are Clinton donors. Some are Clinton Foundation employees, and the one that made a big splash with the harridan Gloria Allred wrote a letter praising Trump just last April. Of course mainstream media won’t tell you this but will push the stories more and more until it is all that will be in the news.
They wring their hands over Trump being willing to fire bureaucrats throughout the government for not doing their job. The mainstream media seems to forget that the government is supposed to work for us, we don’t work for them.
Charile Sykes, a conservative radio host in progressive Wisconsin complains that Trump is performing “civil vandalism”. Perhaps he should re-read the Constitution and understand that the executive and judicial branches are not tasked with laws or regulations. That belongs solely to the legislative branch. Then perhaps he will understand that the informed people in this country are fed up with not being able to enjoy the freedoms and liberties that are ensconced in the founding documents of this country.
This movement will not fail if Trump loses. It will not die without Trump. The mainstream media believes that if the lie enough and if they slander Trump enough that his supporters will slowly fade away, and like the Tea Party become what they consider a relic of the past. Be forewarned, the Tea Party is still alive and well, no matter what the IRS attempts, and the Trump movement will continue to grow. Giving the American people a short attention span is also false. Americans will remember, and no amount of illegals being allowed to vote, or Muslims backing Hillary will change the national mindset that Trump is the one we need.
People have lost faith in capitalism mainly because the media has been active in the complicit taking down of all that this country stands for.
Many have been paying attention to the polls. Talking heads including the Washington Post have already called the election for Hillary. Not mentioned is the type of people being used in the polls. One poll went from 2 to 1 Dems over Repubs to 9-1 Dems over Repubs. Of course, Hillarys numbers increased.
All of the networks, NBC,CBS,ABC, and even Fox have spent five times the time on the bogus Trump as molester tripe than the actual facts of the Wikileaks e mails. The low information voters, and many millennial will vote for Hillary not understanding the danger of her policies, and run to their safe spaces when things go wrong under her administration.
Not knowing or being interested in Hillary's past is a danger to this country. If her past was known to those who are voting for her, she would be far behind. But there are many amongst the college age in our country that can’t list any of her accomplishments and voting for her because she is a woman. They listen to the Mainstream media that paints Trump as a Hitler. These younger low information voters refuse to take any time to understand what is at stake. Every election cycle we hear from the members of the Journo-list how the Republican candidate is a Nazi, a theocrat, or a dictator. They will call him anything that the Democrats can agree with the media will do the most damage.
Do they work together? How else would you explain an April 9th dinner between John Podesta, Hillary's Communication Manager, and 25 reporters from the mainstream media. These reporters were from the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS, the Los Angeles Times, MSNBC, NBC, Reuters, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal.
This was the same John Podesta that “shaped” a news story with the assistance of Maggie Haberman, when Haberman worked at Politico, and is now with the New York Times. Podesta even admits he has used her before to “tee up stories” . This is the same person who is covering this election for the New York Times. And Mark Leibovic, also a Clinton sycophant at the New York Times, has given Clinton’s communications manager Jen Palmieri veto power over his columns. The main stream media is paid and politically motivated to ensure only one side of any story is told.
It is widespread propaganda being fed to the masses to try and assure no media attention is given to those attempting to bring tyranny to this country. Examples include:
AP - The AP has been considered by the State Department for “friendly” Clinton email stories and allowed the State Department to determine the timing of the release of such stories.
CNBC- John Harwood a moderator of a presidential debate between Trump- and Clinton offered “helpful thoughts” and analysis before the debate.
CNN - Donna Brazile who was a CNN contributor at the time sent a debate question in advance to the Clinton campaign. Another CNN commentator Maria Cardona emailed an opinion piece to the Democratic National Committee and requested they suggest any changes or editorial input to make it better.
Media Matters - A George Soros organization, has a direct link to MSNBC president Phil Griffin. They bragged about how hey would write hit pieces on FOX and MSNBC would use them verbatim. They also bragged about how most mainstream media was “using our stuff”.
New York Times- Reporter Mark Leibovich allowed the Clinton campaign to approve or veto columns and quotes. Another Reporter Brian Stelter was instrumental in getting hit pieces by Media Matters printed in the NYT.
Politico – Ben Smith would take stories and write what we want him to write, according to Media Matters. Many pieces were sent to Mark Paustenbach, DNC official to allow him to share his thoughts. Mike Allen, Politico’s chief political officer provided questions in advance to a Clinton aide in order to assure a “no surprise” interview for Hillary.These are examples of how the news has moved from “fact gathering” to “shills for Hillary.”
Objectivity is a thing of the past, and it is not surprising that the approval ratings for mainstream media is at an all time low. These journalists who maintain that they perform a “public serve” in the dissemination of information, have pounced on facts groping women that have been proven to be categorically false, but ignored the dalliances of the sitting President Bill Clinton. It may be that they have decided that the American people has a small attention span, and won’t remember that we have a President impeached or that he was found to have lied about actual rapes and mistresses.
The next day, these same reporters had cocktails with Joel Benenson , a consultant for Obama in both elections. Of course, there was, according to the Democrats no collusion, it was just a friendly get together of like minded people.
These same reporters will not explain why almost a 100 national reporters and over 10,000 regional reporters are a part of “Correct the Record”, a Clinton group who sends out talking points and memos to all the reporters and 369 television producers. It brags about the fact that it has “engaged trusted names” to write for the opinion pages of national and regional papers across the country.
These globalists will continue to work towards the outcome that they seek. The American sovereignty that the American People envision is slowly being impeded by those in the media, those in politics, and globalists like George Soros. Soros has recently stated that the last goal of his life is the destruction of our country. Soros is also a major donor to Hillary.
All of these media types decry the growth of nationalism and populism. The global agenda can not abide by the fact that there is a shift in the paradigm. That left and right is no longer enough to create division. The forces on both the left and the right have started to form a coalition to fight the tyranny of the globalists that started long ago.
Many have talked of a war, perhaps even nuclear to create the chaos that the globalists need to implement the final steps of the agenda they have formed. Could it be that Obama is working towards that now, and if not Obama, would Hillary follow that same agenda? It certainly sounds like that may be so.
------------ John C. Velisek, retired Navy is a California conservative activist writing articles for various publication and is a contributing author to the ARRA News Service. You can follow John's work on @sjspecialist on Twitter and One Patriots Opinion on Facebook. He shared this article also on the Intellectual Conservative. Tags:John C. Velisek, Death of Honest Media, media biasTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Division will end when everyone reverts back to what the Founding Fathers intended for the Constitution and our nation;
However, how do you end racism while continually endorsing it?
by Jim Blockey, Contributing Author: Racism and the division in America today is so vast you might think it irreversible. Some believe these two are one in the same; I do not concur. While there are many similarities the two have totally different remedies.
The division in America is politically driven; half of us are conservative traditional real Americans; and the other half are liberals simply waiting for us real Americans to die off. The conservatives believe the people know what is best for themselves; while the liberals think they know what is best for everyone.
One last thing we are called a divided country and that is true. Remember this when you attempt to compromise or work with the other half. Our goal should not be to compromise or work with those whose desire is to lessen our greatness and wait for us to die.
A very wise man once said “What does light have in common with darkness?” It is our duty to restore the greatness our founders desired, and that can only happen when light continues to shine. When light shines darkness does not fade it dies.
This is an easy fix; simply read what our founders’ intentions were with the Constitution and the Amendments and stop manipulating the words to get to the meaning that will fit your agenda. Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Justice William Johnson on June 12, 1823 regarding the meaning of the Constitution, it warned,“On every question of the construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted; recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”Racism, although is involved politically, is not driven by politics. With racism you have to consistently remind people of their race.
In a successful marriage a spouse does not consistently remind the other spouse of the wrongs they have committed. Notice how I said “successful.” They definitely would not hold them accountable for the things their great, great, great, great grandfather did to their great, great, great, great grandmother.
Since Obama became president the hatred between races has escalated to at least the civil rights movement in the 60’s if not the civil war. Why? It is simple the media, our politicians and the black leadership in America look for any excuse to escalate it.
We now have a police v. blacks in America, which if you look at the statistics you will realize is not based on any reality. But as soon as the opportunity arises, there is Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Obama making the judgment against a white police officer being racist for shooting a black criminal (Jesse, Al, and Obama call victim). Did you hear an apology from any of these men after it was proven Michael Brown not only had robbed a store, but attacked Officer Darren Wilson and try to steal his gun? No, in fact they went to Mr. Brown’s funeral and implied that everyone, including the black witnesses, were mistaken or lying.
The problem is, what will mend America’s race dilemma will take the spotlight away from these black leaders. The only issue keeping the spotlight on Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton is racism; without racism there will be no microphone or TV camera in front of them. You see what America needs to do is refer to crimes as crimes not hate crimes. All the term “hate crime” does is put a focus on our differences.
If a police officer unjustly shoots any individual it should be dealt with in the same manner; race should not enter the equation. If race was the officers’ motivation then he has to suffer the consequences of his racism, if it was not racism, he will nonetheless, suffer the same consequences. That is equality. I believe we have lost the perception of what racism is and that it goes both ways. Racism is simply treating someone a certain way because of their race; whether it is a white individual or black individual performing the act of hatred.
Personally, I almost feel like treating a black individual equally is actually considered racism. While teaching if I removed a white child for calling me a vulgar name it was righteous; yet when I removed a black child for calling me that same name, I was racist.
What is truly sad is; while none of us have ever taken or known personally any individual that has taken any black man or woman as slaves it has fallen upon this generation to consistently defend ourselves from accusations of being racist despite a vast majority of us being unprejudiced. Furthermore, no person of those making these accusations has ever been taken as slave nor known any individual who was a slave.
We are forced to fight over an offense we did not give against those who were not alive to be offended.
This does not by any means declare unfair treatment has not existed; it does not proclaim it does not continue to exist. However, what I am pronouncing is today it exists from both sides and if our true desire is to remedy this quandary it must be dealt with as an individual dilemma rather than a collective one.
Simply put; just because you can formulate an event into a racist incident, does not mean you should. Teach our children when a person does something appalling, it merely means “that person” needs to account for their actions; not the entire race.
------------------ Jim Blockey is a retired school teacher and a seminar leader at SkillPath Seminars. He is founder of Save Education - Save America and is a contribution author on the ARRA News Service. Tags:Jim Blockey, Racism, Division, AmericaTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
by Penna Dexter, Contributing Author: Once the elections are over momentous decisions will need to be made regarding our health care system. The prevailing law is the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, which has got to either be fixed, or repealed and replaced. Any fix would eventually take us to a single-payer, national system.
Phil Gramm was a 3-term United States senator from Texas. He served 14 years on the Senate Budget Committee and chaired the Senate Banking Committee.
His recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal describes an earlier attempt to pass a national health care system. He knows what he’s talking about. He helped lead the opposition to the 1993 Health Security Act. Senator Gramm describes that proposal as “a comprehensive plan for the government to take over the health care system, with program details and cost-control measures precisely defined.”
Since then-first lady Hillary Clinton was tasked by her husband to spearhead the effort, it became known as HillaryCare.
The legislation would have set up regional Healthcare Purchasing Cooperatives. These co-ops would agree on treatment guidelines and implement cost control measures. Everyone would be required to pay into them. Providing treatment outside what was determined permissible by the regional cooperative would bring civil penalties. Accepting a separate payment for such care would bring criminal penalties. Doctors desiring to provide care not covered within the system would be forced to operate completely outside it.
The bill never became law. It stalled in the Senate.
Fast forward 18 years. The Affordable Care Act was not nearly so precise. Senator Gramm writes; “the Obama administration left as many details as possible to be written during implementation, after ObamaCare became law.”
Back in 1993, Senator Gramm teamed up with Senator John McCain and Senator Paul Coverdell to oppose the Health Security Act. They informed the American public and members of Congress of the ways in which the plan was inefficient, and unaffordable. Senator Gramm says that those arguments did not resonate. What sunk it, he says, was the “extraordinary loss of freedom” entailed in the law. In his column, the senator reminds us that what really killed this bill was its plan for a “National Control Board which would have determined every allowable benefit and treatment. The board’s decisions were to be “final — not reviewable by any agency or judge.”
The 1993 Health Security Act would have immediately closed down the market for individual and small group health insurance. The Affordable Care Act did not do this. The original understanding was that people would be able to keep their health insurance if they wanted to. But the law’s implementation is making that impossible with skyrocketing premiums and massive losses forcing insurance companies out of its markets.
So — the next Congress will have to decide: repeal the ACA and bring in a free health care market or nationalize the system and cause the loss of freedom that was considered unacceptable in 1993.
----------- 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, Fixing, Health Care, Phil Gramm, fomrer U.S. senator, Texas, Obamacare, HillaryCare, free market helathcareTo 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.
