Life Is Under Attack

Vice President Mike Pence

by Mike Pence: Look at how far the Democratic party has fallen.

This week, a delegate to the Virginia state legislature introduced a bill affirming abortion up to the moment of birth. In shocking testimony, the delegate admitted that even when it was obvious that a child was about to be born — in the 40th week of a pregnancy, even in the midst of active labor — this proposed law would allow for the child to be aborted, so long as a single doctor approves.

Governor Ralph Northam, a supporter of the bill, went even further in a radio interview the next day. He tried to reassure its opponents that if a child survived an abortion, “the infant would be kept comfortable. [And] the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue.”

There’s another word for this: infanticide. And it is morally reprehensible and evil.

Virginia’s bill comes just a week after the New York state senate was filled with cheers following the passage of a similar law. Governor Andrew Cuomo declared it “a historic victory for . . . our progressive values” and directed pink lights to shine on landmarks throughout the state, including One World Trade Center.

This shameless embrace of a culture of death is startling to every American who cherishes life. Not too long ago, the Democratic party’s stated position was that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” It was this widespread rejection of late-term abortion that led a large bipartisan majority in Congress to pass the partial-birth-abortion ban in 2003. But now look at how far the Democratic party has fallen.

To support, let alone cheer, late-term abortions not only marks a disturbing step backward by so-called “progressives” — it also violates every demand of human decency. As modern science has moved the point of viability ever earlier in pregnancy, most Americans have agreed that a child who can survive outside the womb deserves a chance at life. Only a handful of countries, including China and North Korea, allow late-term abortions.

Until we heard those cheers coming from Albany and the defense of the indefensible over the airwaves in Virginia, we thought states were moving beyond such barbaric practices.

These Virginia and New York late-term abortion bills should be a call to action for all Americans. A society can be judged by how it treats its most vulnerable, and it would be unconscionable for us to let this moment pass in silence. We must recommit ourselves, today and every day, to restoring the sanctity of life to the center of American law.

For my part, I couldn’t be more proud to serve as vice president to the most pro-life president in American history. From his first week in office, President Trump has been a tireless champion of life. He reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy, ensuring that our foreign-aid dollars don’t go to groups that promote or perform abortions abroad. He withdrew the United States from the United Nations Population Fund to prevent our tax dollars from supporting forced sterilization and abortion overseas. And he signed a law to empower states to withhold federal funding from abortion providers — and defund Planned Parenthood.

But the commitment to life extends further than our administration. Beyond the White House, state leaders are taking action to protect the unborn. They are encouraging parents to choose life by requiring brief waiting periods, setting ultrasound and other informed-consent standards, and prohibiting abortions based solely on a child’s sex, race, or disability — a measure I was proud to sign into law as governor of Indiana.

And thanks to the efforts of millions of compassionate and caring Americans across the country, we are changing minds and turning hearts to embrace life as never before. Fewer abortions are being performed than ever recorded — a decrease of more than 50 percent since the 1980s. This is a true cause for celebration.

So even in this dark moment in our nation’s history, Americans should take heart. The New York and Virginia bills aren’t some bold departure into a brave new world. They are the last gasp of a dying movement that stands in stark and irreconcilable contrast with our nation’s timeless founding principles.

After all, at the base of the same One World Trade Center that was bathed in pink last week to mark the passage of New York’s law, is the September 11th memorial. There, the names of all who died in the horrific terrorist attacks 18 years ago are etched in stone — including the eleven unborn children we lost along with their expectant mothers.

Our commitment to the unalienable right to life is as sure as the stone in which those names are etched. And our administration, and our movement, will continue to fight until our nation once again recognizes and celebrates the sanctity of all human life.
--------
Mike Pence is Vice President of the United States.

---

Tags: Mike Pence, Vice President, Life Is Under Attack To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

A Needed Discussion, Life Is Under Attack, Anti-Semitism In Congress

Gary Bauer

by Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: A Needed Discussion - Virginia Governor Ralph Northam made headlines yesterday for his remarks on late-term abortions. Here's what the governor said:

"So in this particular example if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."

I'm not entirely certain what "discussion" needs to ensue after the baby is born. But thank you, Gov. Northam, for kick-starting a national discussion on the evilness of late-term abortions. It's a discussion the country desperately needs to have.

If you're only watching the "mainstream media," you'd never know about the controversy. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC all ignored it in their evening news coverage last night.

Let me remind you again, that Northam's remarks came amid outrage over legislation sponsored by Delegate Kathy Tran (D) that would have permitted abortions even up to the point of birth. This radical pro-abortion bill had 22 co-sponsors.

President Trump weighed in yesterday, saying:

"I thought it was terrible. Do you remember when I said Hillary Clinton was willing to rip the baby out of the womb? That's what it is. That's what they're doing. It's terrible."

He's right. And it shows that the true extremists in the abortion debate are not those attempting to save lives, but those so eager to take lives at every opportunity.

Planned Parenthood spent millions of dollars backing Ralph Northam and candidates like Kathy Tran, and this is the payoff. Thankfully, Tran's bill was "aborted" in committee on a narrow 5-to-3 vote. But similar legislation is being pushed in other states, as we saw last week in New York.

The Endangered Species Act - Many people worry about endangered species. Progressives often carry this to extremes when certain animals such as spotted owls or snail darters are used to prevent all kinds of worthwhile economic projects. Over the years, more and more animals have been added to the Endangered Species Act, giving the left more ammunition to block economic progress.

At the same time, many on the left have another goal regarding one class of "endangered species" -- they want to ensure that no children with Down syndrome are born.

Sadly a Down syndrome diagnosis is often a death sentence for the unborn baby. Studies indicate that as many as 75% of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are "terminated."

I have a relative with Down syndrome in my family, and she is one of the most delightful, gentle, big-hearted individuals I have ever known. In fact, I have never met a person with Down syndrome who was not kind or gentle. In many ways, they are made more in the image of God than the rest of us.

The next time the Endangered Species Act comes up, I hope a pro-life legislator will include the unborn babies that our society says do not meet certain arbitrary standards for deserving life. Is the snail darter lobby really more powerful than the human baby lobby?

"Life Is Under Attack" - Vice President Mike Pence is also speaking up for the sanctity of life. In a column today at National Review Online, Pence blasts the left's embrace of infanticide as "morally reprehensible and evil." Here are a few excerpts from the vice president's column:

"This shameless embrace of a culture of death is startling to every American who cherishes life. Not too long ago, the Democratic Party's stated position was that abortion should be 'safe, legal, and rare.' It was this widespread rejection of late-term abortion that led a large bipartisan majority in Congress to pass the partial-birth-abortion ban in 2003. But now look at how far the Democratic Party has fallen.

"To support, let alone cheer, late-term abortions not only marks a disturbing step backward by so-called 'progressives' — it also violates every demand of human decency. As modern science has moved the point of viability ever earlier in pregnancy, most Americans have agreed that a child who can survive outside the womb deserves a chance at life. Only a handful of countries, including China and North Korea, allow late-term abortions. . .

"After all, at the base of the same One World Trade Center that was bathed in pink last week to mark the passage of New York's [new pro-abortion] law, is the September 11th memorial. There, the names of all who died in the horrific terrorist attacks 18 years ago are etched in stone — including the eleven unborn children we lost along with their expectant mothers."

Anti-Semitism In Congress - Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has made headlines in the past for bashing Israel, and she's back at it once again. In a recent interview with Yahoo! News, Omar laments that Israel is our ally and that we don't treat the terror-subsidizing Palestinian Authority as an equal.

She also criticized the Jewish state for being, well, Jewish, and blasted Israel for being anti-democratic. Omar said:

"When I see Israel institute a law that recognizes it as a Jewish state and does not recognize the other religions that are living in it, and we still uphold it as a democracy in the Middle East, I almost chuckle.

"If we see [something like the nation-state law] in any other society, we would criticize it. We would call it out. We do that to Iran. We do that to any other place that sort of upholds its religion."

This is utter nonsense!

There are at least 20 nations in the world where Islam is the official state religion. Why is Omar singling out the one and only Jewish state for criticism?

I don't hear Rep. Omar calling out the Palestinian Authority for making it a crime, punishable by death, to sell land to Jews. And no one is calling out Iran for the fact that it is a self-declared "Islamic Republic."

The problem with Iran is that it is the world's leading state-sponsor of terrorism. Its leaders refer to America as "the great Satan," and they have repeatedly advocated a second Holocaust by vowing to wipe Israel off the map.

Israel is our ally because it shares Western values of freedom and genuine tolerance.

Israel does not hang homosexuals.

Israel does not persecute religious minorities.

Israel does not threaten genocide against its Muslim neighbors.

Israel is not the obstacle to peace in the Middle East.
-------------------
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, A Needed Discussion, Life Is Under Attack, Anti-Semitism In 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!

An Open Letter To Our Legislators, Judges And Lawmen

Dr. Chuck Baldwin

by Dr. Chuck Baldwin: I know I am speaking for tens of thousands of my fellow Montanans and tens of millions of my fellow Americans when I write what I’m about to write.

The “red flag” laws that are sweeping the country violate every principle of liberty upon which our country was founded. There is no due process associated with “red flag” laws. A judge’s order to seize the firearms from an American citizen who has not been accused of a crime, charged with a crime, convicted of a crime—or who never even threatened to commit a crime—based on the accusation of a single individual is anything but due process.

Our accuser could be a disgruntled employee, a bitter ex-spouse or relative, a vengeful neighbor, an anti-gun liberal or even an anti-gun policeman. By definition, “red flag” laws use mere suspicion of what one “might” do as justification to seize a person’s firearms. Tactics such as these have been used in virtually every despotic regime of history. In the name of protecting society, the rights and liberties of individuals were denied. Eventually, these repressive governments included political or religious persuasion as triggering “red flags,” which led to their disarmament—all in the name of public safety, of course.

You know as well as I do that when the rights of ONE American are abridged, the rights of ALL Americans are abridged. This is not yet a communist nation where the rights of the state—or even the rights of a majority of citizens—supersede the rights of the individual.

Furthermore, it is a fallacy to suggest that a mental health diagnosis, by itself, indicates that someone is automatically a threat to himself or others. Dr. Ann Bukacek, a highly-respected medical doctor in the community in which I live, recently wrote:

Mental health diagnoses given by physicians or other mental health care workers do not predict firearm violence. As a physician for over 30 years who has treated many patients with mental health diagnoses and some autistic spectrum patients, I have not had one of those patients commit an act of gun violence. I did have a patient who bludgeoned a man to death with a blunt object, and that patient carried no mental health diagnosis. Psychopaths with no conscience, especially the more intelligent ones, usually escape detection and/or a particular diagnosis.This doctor’s examination of the issue reflects reality.

Besides, under these “red flag” laws, exactly who is it that determines that someone is “crazy”? Is it one judge, who bases his or her conclusion on the accusations of just one individual? Is it up to politicians or government bureaucrats to define who is and who is not “crazy”?

There are some people who believe that anyone who would even own a firearm is “crazy.” Others believe one’s political or religious beliefs qualify him as “crazy.” Heck! We have all read the documentation of various governments (local, State and federal) that have assigned all kinds of “crazy” (even “dangerous”) definitions against people based on their interpretation of Bible prophecy or their association with political candidates such as former Congressman Ron Paul or their opposition to politically correct ideologies, etc.

Does the judge who issues a warrant to seize a person’s firearms under a “red flag” law provide the accused with an opportunity to defend himself BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No. Does the judge provide an opportunity for a close examination of the accusations against the accused (including investigating the accuser) BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No. Does the judge allow the accused to face his accuser BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No.

“Red flag” laws turn the Bill of Rights and the fundamental legal doctrine that a man is innocent until proven guilty completely upside down. “Red flag” laws are a mockery to every constitutional principle of liberty since the Magna Carta. Seizing a citizen’s firearms by force (and thereby rendering him defenseless) without a crime being committed—or even the accusation of a crime being made—is old-fashioned TYRANNY. Such an act presumes a person is guilty until proven innocent.

Then there is this: After the guns are seized, it could take years for the victim to prove his innocence (or competence) and have his guns returned—and in what condition would they be when (and IF) returned? Furthermore, will you legislators, judges and police officers who collaborate to strip an innocent person’s ability to defend himself accept any responsibility when the real bad guys take advantage of this person’s vulnerability and invade his home and bludgeon or rape or even kill his family? Of course you won’t. But mark it down: You will be held responsible in the eyes of Almighty God—and in the eyes of the citizens you have victimized.

And are you really going to try and tell us that police officers are more competent and mentally stable than the rest of us? Are you kidding? The examples of improper, unsafe, careless and even homicidal acts of cops with guns are ubiquitous.

It was an FBI agent who was armed at a nightclub in Denver and then started gyrating and dancing like a madman until his handgun fell on the floor, discharged and wounded a fellow patron. But no official even questioned this officer’s fitness to possess a firearm—even AFTER that event took place.

Then there is the case of the Dallas police officer who walked into the wrong apartment and shot and killed the man who lived inside. Where was the “red flag” regarding this officer? And what about the two police officers in St. Louis who used a revolver to play Russian roulette, and one of the two wound up shooting and killing the other one? Why wasn’t a “red flag” raised about these nincompoops? These stories could go on forever.

Where are the “red flag” laws for the policemen and sheriff’s deputies in this country? The only difference between them and the rest of us who are being victimized by these draconian “red flag” laws is that they wear badges, and we do not—and the other difference is the vast majority of private citizens who carry firearms are not nearly as stupid and incompetent as the policemen mentioned above.

So much for equal justice under the law.

It has taken many of us a lifetime of hard work and labor to be able to obtain our gun collections; we have successfully passed FBI background checks and local and State requirements and obligations for responsible gun ownership, yet our guns are going to be confiscated overnight on the word of someone (an anonymous someone, at that) who claims we “might” be unsuitable to own a gun? Again, such an act turns American history and our Bill of Rights upside down.

Kris Kobach is the former Secretary of State of Kansas. He is a former professor of constitutional law at UMKC School of Law. He wrote an excellent analysis of the constitutional violations of these “red flag” laws:

1. The seizure of guns without any hearing at all. The laws all contain an ex parte provision that allows the state to temporarily seize a person’s guns without even notifying the gun owner or giving him a chance to be heard. This is the quintessential denial of due process. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that a person cannot be denied of liberty (to exercise one’s constitutional right to bear arms) without due process of law. This confiscation is “temporary,” but it can easily lead to long-term or permanent confiscation.

2. Based on the testimony of one unrelated person. The confiscation order can be based on the testimony of only one person claiming that the gun owner poses a risk to the safety of himself or others. The law [proposed in Kansas] deceptively says that it has to be the testimony of a “family member.” But “family member” is defined to include “former dating partners” and anyone who has ever lived with the defendant. So a jilted former boyfriend or girlfriend, or even a roommate from years ago, could easily set in motion the disarming of a lawful gun owner.

3. Using a very low standard of proof. The standard for obtaining an ex parte order against a gun owner is absurdly low – one need only show “reasonable cause” to believe that the person may pose a risk. That’s even lower than the “probable cause” standard for obtaining a search warrant. In addition, the judge is forced to rush his decision and issue the confiscation order on the same day of the ex parte hearing. Within two weeks of the ex parte hearing, a hearing with the gun owner present must occur; the purpose is to put in place a long-term confiscation order. But even at that hearing, the standard of proof is far below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials. Rather, it need only be shown by “a preponderance of evidence” that the person poses a risk of injury to self or others. What kind of evidence? Things like the “reckless storage” of firearms and drinking habits can be considered. If you keep a handgun in the bedside table and drink beer regularly, you may [be] in trouble.

4. Shifting the burden of proof to the gun owner. The long-term confiscation order lasts up to a year, but may be renewed indefinitely. Once it is in place, it becomes very difficult to remove. To have the confiscation order lifted, the gun owner must prove he does not pose a threat to himself or others. Proving a negative is nearly impossible. Adding insult to injury, the bill even authorizes local law enforcement to charge the gun owner a storage fee for confiscating and storing his guns.The implementation of “red flag” laws (at any level) is unconscionable and totally unacceptable. And I am here to warn you that there are millions of Americans who will never submit to such oppression. None of us wants to see acts of violence committed against law enforcement personnel in America, but when law enforcers begin carrying out these draconian “red flag” laws, they will begin lighting the matches of resistance in the hearts of freedom-loving people in this country like hasn’t been seen in over 150 years.

We have already heard about Gary Willis, the Maryland man who was killed by police officers in his own home as they attempted to carry out a “red flag” order to seize his guns. This man had committed no crime; he had not been accused of committing a crime; he was given no hearing and no due process. Mr. Willis did not attempt to harm the officers; he merely resisted their efforts to disarm him, and he was killed on the spot—in his own home—by police officers who had taken an oath to protect the liberties of this poor innocent man.

I assure you, Mr. Willis will not be the last American to resist the attempted confiscation of his firearms.

Do you legislators, judges, county sheriffs, chiefs of police, sheriff’s deputies and city policemen not realize that “red flag” laws are tantamount to a declaration of war against the American people? Are you so far removed from “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God” that you cannot see this? Do you not realize that in spite of all of Great Britain’s abuses of power, our colonist forebears did not openly rebel against the Crown until King George sent troops to Lexington and Concord to confiscate the colonists’ firearms? You do understand that, right? And you do understand, do you not, that the blood of the colonists flows in the veins of we Americans?

At what point do the American people come to believe that you truly do NOT wish to honor your oath to the Constitution or behave in a manner that truly honors America’s Second Amendment and the heritage of liberty that we all share as Americans? At what point do we Americans lose all respect for our civil magistrates and peace officers? For many Americans, that point will come when policemen bang on their doors at 5am and attempt to seize their guns.

Do you not realize that every single instance of an innocent person being subjected to a “red flag” gun confiscation order will only magnify and strengthen the resentment and animosity in the hearts of the community against these laws—and against the ones who are creating and implementing them? Do you not understand that this is a powder keg that could explode into all-out rebellion at any time? Do you want that? I don’t want that! I don’t want that for my wife and me, my children and grandchildren, my friends or my community.

Why would you legislators, judges and policemen even think about doing such a thing?

In the name of all that we hold dear, in the name of the brave men at Lexington Green and Concord Bridge, in the name of every American who has given his life in defense of the principles contained in our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and our Bill of Rights—including many of our brave police officers and sheriff’s deputies—and in the name of the Natural Laws of our Creator, please STOP this madness before you literally tear our communities and our country apart.

As a legislator, you must not pass any semblance of a “red flag” law; as a judge, you must not issue a gun confiscation warrant on the basis of a “red flag” law; as a sheriff or chief of police, you must not order your officers to confiscate a citizen’s guns on the basis of a “red flag” warrant; and if you are a sheriff’s deputy or city policeman, you must not obey an order to confiscate your fellow citizens’ guns on the basis of a “red flag” law.

I beg you to realize what you are doing. I beg you to refuse to participate in this madness. I beg you to join your fellow churchmen, clubmen, neighbors, friends and townsmen and help us turn back this dastardly attempt to transform our constitutional republic into another repressive regime that, in the end, would require The People to tear it down.

“Red flag” laws are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of our Constitution, the wrong side of liberty and on the wrong side of the laws of God.

Again, I beg you to think about what you are doing, about the pain you are causing, about the lives you are ruining and about the potential harm you are inflicting on our country. Please think this through.
-------------
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. Download free computerized mp3 audio file of this column.

---

Tags: Chuck Baldwin, Open Letter, To Our Legislators, Judges, Lawmen, Constitution, “red flag” laws To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Our Globalist Nation Building – Results In Our Having Awful, Corrupt Bedfellows

Let’s Leave the Middle East Corruption - 

To the Middle Easterners

by Seton Motley, Contributing Author: We less government types – want less government everywhere.

By that we mean – we want our government to do less everywhere.

If other nations want to be stupid and have their governments do more – that is their problem. Unless or until it affects us. Prior to that – it is not our responsibility to attempt to solve their stupidities.

Because no matter how noble our nation-building intentions – our executions have always stunk on ice. (See: Afghanistan. See also: Iraq, Egypt, Libya,….)

And no matter how noble our intentions – the people we’re “helping” – rarely view us as helping.

Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre knew this:

“The most extravagant idea that can be born in the head of a political thinker is to believe that it suffices for people to enter, weapons in hand, among a foreign people and expect to have its laws and constitution embraced. No one loves armed missionaries; the first lesson of nature and prudence is to repulse them as enemies.”

Once this Original Sin is committed – invading a nation to “fix” it – your subsequent choices devolve into being ever less and less attractive.

This less-attractive-options truism – is true even if we haven’t invaded a nation. Being invited to be in places in which we shouldn’t be – creates these problems.

Until we ultimately end up over a barrel like this one – over which we’ve been for at least a decade.

Behold Kuwait corrupt contractor Agility. With whom our Defense Department (DoD) has had corruption problems for at least a decade.

This from 2009:

U.S. Slaps New Fraud Indictment on Kuwait’s Agility:

“U.S. authorities filed a new indictment on Monday against Kuwaiti logistics firm Agility, which is accused of defrauding the U.S. military in the Middle East on multibillion-dollar supply contracts.

“The new indictment contained no new charges against Agility, the Gulf’s biggest logistics firm and the main food supplier to the U.S. military in Iraq and Kuwait.

“Instead, it extended existing charges to include two company affiliates: U.S.-based Agility DGS Holdings Inc and Agility DGS Logistics Services K.S.C., which is based in Kuwait.”

As a May 2017 final result of these 2009 charges:

Defense Contractor Resolves Criminal, Civil and Administrative Liability:

“Agility pays $95 million and gives up $249 million in claims to DOD.”

Which means Agility was charged at the very beginning of the Barack Obama Administration. But spent the entirety of the Barack Obama Administration with charges pending – and We the People only received justice when the Donald Trump Administration took things over.

Because we have engaged in overseas missionary wars in the Middle East for decades – we have opened ourselves up to getting screwed like this for decades.

But the number of companies who can do the kind of work we need done when engaged in overseas missionary wars – is sorely limited. Se have to keep using the same corrupt companies over and over and over again – even though we know they keep screwing us.

It also helps when you have a corrupt man inside the DC government. Or a corrupt woman.

Kuwait Called on Hillary Clinton to Nix Criminal Fraud Case Against Defense Contractor Agility:

“In 2009, Kuwait called on then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to intervene with the Justice Department and help nix a criminal fraud case against a Kuwait defense contractor Agility Public Warehousing Company….

“In a letter to Clinton dated December 5, 2009, then Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Mohammed Al-Sabah writes that ‘in consideration of the special relations between our two friendly countries, we ask that this dispute be settled amicably without having to resort to criminal adjudication.’

“Kuwait has donated between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.”

Aha – there it is. In the Clinton State Department’s pay-to-play operational model – $5 to $10 million talks and walks huge.

DoD rules state that while a contractor is charged as Agility was – they are ineligible for future contract consideration.

Thanks to Agility and Kuwait greasing the Clinton skids, Agility spent the entirety of the Obama Administration – receiving a grand total of FIFTEEN waivers from said ineligibility.

Since 2009, the DoD issued a total of 24 waivers. Agility all by its onesies – received 71% of them.

Which means the Obama Administration time and again allowed the corrupt Agility – to time and again rip off We the People.

In part, again, because by engaging in overseas missionary wars – we set ourselves up to be repeatedly screwed. Because there just aren’t that many contractors with which to deal.

As the Obama DoD admitted – when issuing its very first Agility waiver:

“Insufficient time exists to mobilize another contractor to replace Agility….”

As the Obama DoD repeatedly admitted – while repeatedly issuing Agility waivers in Pez-dispenser fashion. They time and again stressed the potential damage to military operations if they were forced to enlist a new contractor.

As the Trump DoD also just tacitly admitted. Having just finally adjudicated Agility’s corruption case – they last July gave Agility yet another DoD contract.

The short term solution:

Get the Congressional Armed Services Committees to finally apply some oversight to what we keep doing with Agility – and what Agility keeps doing to us.

That means you, Senators Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and Jack Reed (D-RI) – and all your Committee members.

That means you, Representatives Adam Smith (D-WA) and Mac Thornberry (R-TX) – and all your Committee members.

The long term solution:

Get the US to stop engaging in overseas missionary wars.

Thereby mostly limiting our exposure to corrupt crony contractors – to just the domestic variety.
----------------
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, Our Globalist Nation Building, Results In, Having Awful, Corrupt Bedfellows To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Colorado Lawmakers Take a Step to End the Electoral College

Editor’s note: On Tuesday, the Colorado Senate passed legislation that would award the state’s Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. If the legislation becomes law, Colorado would join 11 states and the District of Columbia as part of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which will only take effect when the states in the compact have 270 or more electoral votes. The following article defending the Electoral College was written just prior to the 2016 election.

Founding Father Alexander Hamilton
supported the Electoral  College.
(Photo: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom)

by Jarrett Stepman: The Electoral College remains in place over two centuries after the framers of the Constitution empowered it to select presidents. Though occasionally maligned, this system of electing a chief executive has been incredibly successful for the American people.

Many modern voters might be surprised to learn that when they step into a ballot box to select their candidate for president, they actually are casting a vote for fellow Americans called electors. These electors, appointed by the states, are pledged to support the presidential candidate the voters have supported. The Electoral College holds its vote the Monday after the second Wednesday in December following the election.

The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College after much debate and compromise, but it has provided stability to the process of picking presidents. Though the winner of the national popular vote typically takes the presidency, that vote failed to determine the winner in four elections: 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.

Some see the Electoral College as a peculiar and mystifying institution that ensures only a few, select individuals will ever cast a direct vote for president in the United States. Others complain that the system rewards smaller states with more proportional power than the large ones.

Every four years, around election time, there are murmurs about revamping the system and moving toward a direct, national popular vote.

The Founders’ College
As one of The Heritage Foundations legal experts, Hans von Spakovsky, noted in a paper on the Electoral College: “In creating the basic architecture of the American government, the Founders struggled to satisfy each state’s demand for greater representation while attempting to balance popular sovereignty against the risk posed to the minority from majoritarian rule.”

Some elements of the Electoral College, such as the indirect vote through intermediaries, were hotly debated at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. It was eventually justified in part as a stopgap to potentially reverse the vote if the people elected a criminal, traitor, or similar kind of heinous person. The Founders wanted to empower democratic elements in the American system, but they feared a kind of pure, unrestrained democracy that had brought down great republics of the past.

The product of the Founders’ compromise has been well balanced and enduring, and we would be wise to leave it intact.

Alexander Hamilton defended the Electoral College in Federalist 68. He argued that it was important for the people as a whole to have a great deal of power in choosing their president, but it was also “desirable” that “the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

Hamilton also wrote that this system of intermediaries would produce a greater amount of stability, and that an “ … intermediate body of electors will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.”

As students of ancient history, the Founders feared the destructive passions of direct democracy, and as recent subjects of an overreaching monarch, they equally feared the rule of an elite unresponsive to the will of the people. The Electoral College was a compromise, neither fully democratic nor aristocratic.

The Constitution states:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress.In addition to balancing the protection of individual rights and majority rule, the Founding Fathers attempted to create a “federalist” system that would keep most of policymaking power reserved to states and localities. America’s presidential election system also was designed to empower the states, not just the American people as an undifferentiated mass.

The total number of electors and thus electoral votes across all states and the District of Columbia—included after the passage of the 23rd Amendment—adds up to 538. The winner must receive a majority, or 270, of these votes to become president.

The system empowers states, especially smaller ones, because it incentivizes presidential candidates to appeal to places that may be far away from population centers. Farmers in Iowa may have very different concerns than bankers in New York. A more federalist system of electing presidents takes that into account.

The states are free to select the method in which they choose their electors. In the early days of the republic, most states chose to have their legislatures pick electors, rather than the people. But, over time, the states shifted to choosing electors via the state’s popular vote instead. Every state has opted for popular election at least since the Civil War.

Calls to Abolish
Modern opponents of the Electoral College argue against what they call antidemocratic aspects of the institution, criticizing both the intermediary electors and the state-by-state system of voting.

Calls to fundamentally change the Electoral College reached a peak after Republican George W. Bush defeated Democrat Al Gore in the tightly contested 2000 election. Gore narrowly won the national popular vote, and many of his supporters howled that the system—even without the Supreme Court stepping in—was unfair.

One organization, National Popular Vote, has worked toward eliminating the Electoral College through an amendment to the Constitution or a state compact. National Popular Vote argues that the current system encourages presidential candidates to spend most of their time in “swing states” rather than campaigning for votes across the entire country.

This plan for a national popular vote has received a moderate level of support, but Heritage’s von Spakovsky has called it bad policy, based on mistaken assumptions. Swing states, he wrote, “can change from election to election, and many states that are today considered to be reliably ‘blue’ or ‘red’ in the presidential race were recently unpredictable.”

Many states have signed on to a bill that essentially would tie a state’s electoral votes to the national popular vote. Those states will pledge to swing all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national vote.

But this is because the incentives would be to appeal only to the biggest population centers. Swing states change over time, and the 2016 election could be a prime example of swing-state unpredictability and erosion of the traditional partisan political map.

Additionally, if the president were elected by unfiltered national vote, small and rural states would become irrelevant, and campaigns would spend their time in large, populous districts.

Over 200 Years of Success
Unneeded tinkering with a process that is over two centuries old could destabilize one on the steadiest political systems in the world.

As author and Texas lawyer Tara Ross wrote in a Heritage Foundation memorandum:
America’s election systems have operated smoothly for more than 200 years because the Electoral College accomplishes its intended purposes. America’s presidential election process preserves federalism, prevents chaos, grants definitive electoral outcomes, and prevents tyrannical or unreasonable rule. The Founding Fathers created a stable, well-planned, and carefully designed system—and it works.On Election Day, Americans should appreciate the great and long-lasting constitutional tradition bequeathed to them—including the quirky Electoral College system created by the nation’s Founders.
-------------------------
Jarrett Stepman (@JarrettStepman) is an editor of The Daily Signal.

---

Tags: Colorado, Lawmakers, Take a Step to End, Electoral College To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Pelosi & Schumer Security? Trust Us!

Editorial Cartoon by Gary Varvel

-------------
Gary Varvel is a national conservative cartoonist.

---

Tags: Gary Varvel, editorial cartoon, Pelosi, Schumer, Security. Trust Us To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Coddling and Emotions

by Kerby Anderson, Contributing Author: Yesterday I talked about the book, The Coddling of the American Mind written by Jonathan Haidt. He and his co-author set forth three foundational untruths. One of those is the “Untruth of Emotional Reasoning: Always Trust Your Feelings.”

You can get yourself in some difficult circumstances quickly if you always trust your emotions. It is easy in this world to get frustrated, discouraged, and even depressed. Psychologists have found that certain patients got themselves caught in a feedback loop in which irrational negative beliefs cause powerful negative feelings. We are seeing that on college campuses today.

In a college classroom, students are apt to make some sweeping generalizations and engage in simplistic labeling of the lecture or reading material. In that case, we would hope that a professor would move the discussion by asking questions or even challenging the assertion.

Instead, many professors and colleges go along with the student comments. In fact, many even argue that any perceived slight adds up to what today are called “microaggressions.” In many cases, slights may be unintentional and actually wholly formed from the listener’s interpretation.

It is an easy step from not allowing certain topics to be discussed to not allowing speakers on campus who might present a perspective that aggrieved students believe should not be discussed. In the book is a chart illustrating how many speakers have been disinvited from universities. Five years ago, the line jumps significantly.

In previous commentaries, I have documented what has been happening on campuses like Middlebury College, Evergreen College, and the University of California at Berkeley. When emotions and emotional reasoning become the only way to judge ideas and speakers, you end up with the closed campuses of today.
------------
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, Coddling, Emotions To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Hot Mess . . .

. . . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claims that we will not be here in 12 years due to climate change (Global Warming). That was before the latest record cold snap spreading across America.

Editorial Cartoon by AF Branco

---

Tags: AF Branco, Editorial cartoon, Hot Mess, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, claims, we will not be here, in 12 years, due to climate change, Global Warming, before latest record cold snap, spreading across America To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Rep. Peter DeFazio - January 2019 Porker of the Month

Peter DeFazio (D-OR)
Porker of the Month
Jan. 2019

(Washington, D.C.) – Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) named House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) January 2019 Porker of the Month for making ill-advised and irresponsible comments in support of pork-barrel earmarks.

At an event in Washington, D.C. on December 5, 2018, Chairman DeFazio called the congressional moratorium on earmarks, “nonsensical” and predicted that if the wasteful practice was resurrected, “you might get some projects done that [the Department of Transportation] is ignoring.”

Chairman DeFazio conveniently overlooks the process for approving transportation projects, which is based on merit and need. A 2007 Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General report stated that, “earmarked projects considered by the agencies as low priority are being funded over higher priority, non-earmarked projects,” and, “some earmarks are providing funds for projects that would otherwise be ineligible.” Like most pork-pushing politicians, Chairman DeFazio intends to circumvent the approval process in just this way and spend taxpayer dollars on his preferred local special interests.
The infamous earmark era was chock full of waste and corruption in connection with the practice. The earmark moratorium in 2011 was implemented after a decade of high-profile boondoggles such as the Bridge to Nowhere, the Teapot Museum, and the indoor rainforest in Iowa; and scandals that resulted in jail terms for Reps. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.) and Bob Ney (R-Ohio), and lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The 2018 Congressional Pig Book exposed 232 earmarks in FY 2018 costing taxpayers $14.7 billion. Since 1991, Congress has approved 110,861 earmarks costing $344.5 billion. The last major infrastructure bill contained nearly 3,700 pet projects costing taxpayers $24 billion.

CAGW President Tom Schatz said, “Chairman DeFazio’s reckless comments do not portend good news for his chairmanship of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. By expressing such a zealous defense of earmarks, he will not have taxpayers’ best interests at heart.”

For defending the most wasteful and corruptive practice in congressional history, CAGW names Rep. Peter DeFazio it’s January 2019 Porker of the Month.
------------------
Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government. Porker of the Month is a dubious honor given to lawmakers, government officials, and political candidates who have shown a blatant disregard for the interests of taxpayers.

---

Tags: Citizens Against Government Waste, CAGW, Rep. Peter DeFazio, porker of the month,  January 2019, defending, the most wasteful, corruptive practice, in congressional history To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Evergreen State Blues

by Paul Jacob, Contributing Author: One of the things many people no longer understand about these United States is its — their — peculiar genius: decentralism.

The extreme of this is that contentious notion of state nullification of federal law, which most “smart” people deride (contra Jefferson and Madison) as itself made null and void by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

And yet even nullification skeptics often support some form of nullification, like fighting marijuana prohibition or ObamaCare at the state level. State initiatives, especially, have driven much of this resistance to centralist, top-down regulation.

But a state initiative in Washington State, I-1639, passed last year, has devolved the nullification idea to where it gets even trickier. The gun control measure passed last year 60-40, but residents of rural counties are none too pleased. As reported in The Guardian, many of the sheriffs in the 27 counties that voted against the measure are not enforcing the law, which they see as unconstitutional.

“The refusal of law enforcement officers to enforce the new restrictions plays into a longer history of so-called ‘constitutional’ sheriffs resisting the gradual tightening of gun laws,” says The Guardian, which goes on to mention “the doctrine of ‘county supremacy,’ long nursed on the constitutionalist far right, which holds that county sheriffs are the highest constitutional authority in the country.”

Whatever its legal merits, this form of resistance to state law enjoys a deep American tradition.

As regular readers know, I am a big proponent of initiative and referendum rights. And one reason to support them is to add a countervailing power against central authorities dominated by special interests and political elites.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
------------------
Paul Jacob is author of Common Sense which provides daily commentary about the issues impacting America and about the citizens who are doing something about them. He is also President of the Liberty Initiative Fund (LIFe) as well as Citizens in Charge Foundation. Jacob is a contributing author on the ARRA News Service.

---

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

Fed Pauses Rate Hikes Amid Stable Inflation For 2018

by Robert Romano: With a steady 1.9 percent unadjusted inflation rate for 2018 on the books, the Federal Reserve has paused interest rate hikes in its Jan. 30 meeting, and put future rate hikes in doubt with a call for “patience.”

“In light of global economic and financial developments and muted inflation pressures, the Committee will be patient as it determines what future adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate may be appropriate to support these outcomes,” the central bank wrote.

The Fed kept the target federal funds rate at 2.25 percent to 2.5 percent and looking forward to 2019 said it expected “sustained expansion of economic activity, strong labor market conditions, and inflation near the Committee’s symmetric 2 percent objective as the most likely outcomes.”

That is surely good news for President Donald Trump, who has been critical of the Fed’s rate hikes over 2018. On July 19, 2018, Trump told CNBC, “I don’t like all of this work that we’re putting into the economy and then I see rates going up.”

A day later on Twitter, Trump said, “The United States should not be penalized because we are doing so well. Tightening now hurts all that we have done.”

On Sept. 26, Trump blasted the Fed after another rate hike, saying, “Unfortunately they just raised interest rates a little bit because we are doing so well. I am not happy about that.” By Oct. 10, Trump had declared, “they’re so tight. I think the Fed has gone crazy.”

Since the Fed began its policy normalization program in Sept. 2017, it has dumped more than $388 billion of U.S. treasuries and mortgage-backed securities. $161 billion of that has been since Sept. 2018 as the Fed accelerated the program to dumping about $50 billion a month.

Almost immediately following that acceleration, equities markets found themselves in a major correction, beginning in October and continuing through December. On Nov. 26, Trump commented again to the Wall Street Journal, “I think the Fed right now is a much bigger problem than China. I think it’s — I think it’s incorrect what they’re doing. I don’t like what they’re doing.”

Trump added, commenting on the Fed’s policy to begin drawing down its assets accumulated during the past decade of quantitative easing: “I don’t like the $50 billion. I don’t like what they’re doing in terms of interest rates. And they’re not being accommodative at all. And I’m doing trade deals, and they’re great trade deals, but the Fed is not helping.”

During quantitative easing, the Fed accumulated an additional $3.5 trillion of securities going back to Aug. 2007 when the financial crisis began, bringing it to a peak of $4.3 trillion at the end of 2014. At some point, it was going to have to start to normalize monetary policy, such that there would never seem to be a good time to do it from an economic perspective.

That is has chosen to do so now in some ways is a testament to the strength of the U.S. economy — and even the wisdom of the Trump trade policy. Analysts had warned that the tariffs would lead to an inflation spike that simply has not materialized. The strong economy gives the Fed some room to maneuver in terms of normalization — but it could come at a cost to growth.

That said, even with the rate hikes and balance sheet drawdown, the 10-year, 2-year treasuries spread remains positive at about 0.16 percent, indicating there is still some life left in the economic expansion.

So, even with his differences with Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, Trump perhaps can take the Fed’s strong dollar stance as a compliment, even if it did hike rates too fast. The Trump economy can take it — at least, for now.
----------------
Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government.

---

Tags: Robert Romano, Americans for Limited Government, Fed Pauses Rate Hikes, Amid Stable Inflation, For 2018 To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Mayors of Worst Cities In America Are Running for President

. . . Does anyone really want America to be more like Tallahassee, South Bend or Newark?

by Daniel Greenfield: Newark is the most dangerous city in New Jersey, Tallahassee is the most dangerous city in Florida, and South Bend is the most dangerous city in Indiana. But instead of fixing their failed cities, the current mayor of South Bend, and the former mayors of Newark and Tallahassee want to run for president.

Mayor Peter Buttigieg has announced that he’s forming an exploratory committee for a 2020 run. Media reports have focused on the possibility that he might become America’s first gay millennial president, instead of on the fact that he’s headed a city since 2011 which has double the national and statewide violent crime rates. And a city where Hispanic poverty rates are 10% higher than the national average, African-American households have double the poverty rate, and Asian-American incomes are halved.

South Bend was recently rated one of the “worst cities” to live in. The unemployment rates are higher than average, the property values are lower, and even the water quality is below average.

Gushing media reports about the gay millennial mayor, a Harvard grad and a Rhodes scholar, overlook South Bend’s poverty rate of 24.7% and that 45% of households are living near the poverty level.

South Bend has a little over 100,000 residents, but there were over 100 criminal shootings in 2017 in the failed city which hosts murderous gangs such as the Latin Kings and Gangster Disciples.

In January 2019, just as Buttigieg was prepping his presidential run, three shootings in one week killed two teens and left a woman paralyzed from the waist down. In one summer week, the casualties included a 12 and a 13-year-old. In March, 6 people were hurt in one shooting spree.

“It is a season for boldness and it is time to focus on the future,” Mayor Buttigieg declared in his presidential debut video. “Are you ready to walk away from the politics of the past?”

Buttigieg’s past is a poverty-stricken murder capital so it’s understandable that he would want to walk away from its blighted streets, wrecked industry and general misery to focus on his political future.

And he’s not alone.

Andrew Gillum, the former Tallahassee mayor, coming off a humiliating defeat in the Florida gubernatorial race and still struggling with an ethics complaint tangled in an FBI investigation, also wants to throw his tattered hat into the 2020 ring.

Tallahassee’s murder rate tops bigger cities in Florida. And Leon County’s murder rate rose 83% in 2017.

“Tallahassee had the highest number of murders in history last year and we top the state for the highest crime rate,” his former chief of staff warned in his own campaign.

The poverty rate in Tallahassee is at 28.4%. That’s even worse than South Bend. One single zip code in Tallahassee has the highest concentration of poverty in Florida. 1 in 5 adults in Leon County have trouble reading. And even Florida State University had more violent crimes on campus than any other state school.

That’s another reason why the Florida city was also ranked as one of the worst places to live in America.

There’s no conceivable reason why running South Bend or Tallahassee would qualify you for higher office, lower office or even any office at all. But Cory Booker exploited his tenure running the worst city in New Jersey to represent the entire state in the United States Senate. Booker has also joined the dozens of candidates vying for the opportunity to be the Democrat nominee for the White House.

Booker first became a national figure as Newark’s mayor. The charismatic politician got famous by promising to turn the troubled city around using a Twitter account and viral stunts that got him national headlines, but did nothing for the city he was running into the ground. And then, as Buttigieg is trying to do, he got out of there as soon as he could, using his new celebrity as a springboard to higher office.

Like Tallahassee and South Bend, Newark is one of the country’s murder capitals. And it’s been listed as the most violent city in its respective state. It’s also one of the worst cities in the country to live in.

That’s why the majority of people who work in Newark actually live away from the troubled city.

Like South Bend and Tallahassee, around 1 in 4 Newark residents live in poverty. A report this year listed Newark as the 3rd neediest city in America. A year after Booker jumped ship to become a senator, a report found that 18% of children in Newark were living in “extreme poverty”.

The adult literacy rate in Newark is 52% making it the city with the fifth highest illiteracy rate in America.

How does the mayor of a city with the 5th highest illiteracy rate and the 3rd neediest residents actually aspire to higher office with that miserable track record of failure and human wreckage?

Mayor Booker based his claim of having turned Newark around on all the outside money he brought in. Where all that money went is an intriguing question that will gain urgency if he becomes the nominee.

In a typical viral stunt, Booker had appeared with Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg and Governor Chris Christie on Oprah where the dot com billionaire announced that he was donating $100 million to Newark’s public schools. That gift was supposed to be matched by another $200 million in donations.

Where did all that money go?

Millions were spent on $1,000 a day consultants. Union fat cats got fatter. The Foundation for Newark's Future squandered the money. And Booker was one of the five trustees of the Foundation.

In the summer of 2016, Booker positioned himself for a presidential run with a rousing DNC speech. But a few months earlier, the water in half of Newark public schools was found to be contaminated with dangerous levels of lead.

Newark already had more children suffering from dangerous levels than Flint. But, unlike Flint, the media refused to hold Booker, his predecessor or his radical successor, accountable for the horror.

South Bend, Tallahassee and Newark are tragic case studies of how the media’s appetite for charismatic minority politicians playing savior to troubled cities ignores the suffering of the people living there.

It is hard to see how anyone can look at Newark, South Bend or Tallahassee as success stories. And it’s even more unimaginable that the politicians tasked with turning them around should actually claim that walking away from cities with some of the highest poverty, murder and illiteracy rates in the country should qualify them to run the entire nation. They failed to turn around broken cities with populations between 100,000 and 250,000 people. Now they want to be in charge of a nation of over 300 million.

The mayors of the worst cities in America want to run America. Their cities have been rated as the worst places to live. Do Americans really want the country to be more like Tallahassee, South Bend or Newark?
--------------
Daniel Greenfield is Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and a New York writer focuses on radical Islam and the radical left. David Horowitz is a Contributing Author of the ARRA News Service

---

Tags: Daniel Greenfield, FrontPage Mag, Mayors, Worst Cities, America, Running For President To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

Democrats Think a Border Wall is Immoral and Infanticide is a Right

by Erick Erickson: This is the state of play into 2020. Democrats have decided to blast through their own historic norms and go straight to radical socialism on the economic front and nihilist social policy. They are, in multiple states, rushing to expand abortion laws to include infanticide immediately after birth while declaring a border wall immoral.

They are championing wealth confiscation and massive income taxes, which would actually be paid by upper income professionals, not the billionaires the left claims. Why? Billionaires mostly play the capital gains tax rate, not the income tax rate.

Howard Schultz, the leftwing billionaire running for President, has some pretty convincing polling that a significant portion of Democrats would rather go with an independent centrist than a progressive Democrat like Elizabeth Warren or Kamal Harris. From radical social policy to radical economics, Americans are not as quite ready for the revolution as the left thinks.

The Democrats’ twisting of morality to oppose a secure border while supporting infanticide is a disgusting turn of events. But it also shows a path forward — federalism. The Democrats are doing what they are doing because they are increasingly convinced the GOP is going to lock in a long term conservative majority. So they are laying state level ground work for abortion rights.

We can be outraged by what they are doing and how they are doing it, but we should at least be willing to encourage their embrace of federalism and we should at least be optimistic the left foresees a continued, if not strengthened, conservative coalition on the Supreme Court.
---------------
Erick Woods Erickson (@EWErickson) is a politically conservative American blogger who hosts the radio show Atlanta's Evening News with Erick Erickson, broadcast on 750 WSB (AM). Erickson blogs at The Resurgent.

---

Tags: Erick Erickson, The Resurgent, Democrats Think, Border Wall is Immoral, Infanticide is a Right To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

In Rejecting the Pledge of Allegiance, the Left Is Rejecting Nationhood

by Jarrett Stepman: Devotion to and love of flag and country is now considered hateful.

At least that was the message given by Santa Barbara City College Board of Trustees President Robert Miller when, according to a report by Campus Reform, he sent an email calling the Pledge of Allegiance “steeped in expressions of nativism and white nationalism” after the board announced it would stop saying it before meetings.

While a seemingly small matter at a small school in California, it is emblematic of a larger debate that rages in America today.

In a public comment by at the board of trustees’ Jan. 24 meeting, Celeste Barber, a proponent of keeping the pledge, was interrupted and shouted at by protesters while making her case.

In the video of the meeting, one can hear the protesters shout things like “racist” and “slavery” while she defends the pledge.

The school later announced on Facebook that it would restore the Pledge of Allegiance for the time being until “a future date when the matter can be considered by the board.”

The Daily Signal sought comment from Santa Barbara City College and was directed to a Facebook post about the pledge’s reinstatement.

The Pledge of Allegiance itself has a long and complicated history. The modern pledge is attributed to Francis Bellamy, a Christian socialist who wrote it in 1892 for a celebration of the 400-year anniversary of the voyage of Christopher Columbus.

Congress added the words “under God” in 1952, after a public campaign from the Knights of Columbus.

But the Pledge of Allegiance actually has an older antecedent.

Col. George Balch, a Union Army veteran, developed a pledge for the poor and immigrant schoolchildren he taught in New York, which became the basis for Bellamy’s pledge.

Balch, who, along with most of his generation, knew the value and price of freedom—and of his nation—crafted a pledge to the flag in the late 1880s.

He intended this simple declaration of patriotism to deliver a “sign” to the world that “every child and teacher under its roof is a true-hearted, earnest-minded, loyal-spirited American, well understanding the great responsibility which citizenship confers, and fully prepared to assume that responsibility when the time is at hand.”

Those whose parents and ancestors had been treated as serfs in their home countries would be expected to be citizens in their new one.

Quoting famed abolitionist activist Henry Ward Beecher, Balch noted in his book “Methods of Teaching Patriotism in the Public Schools” that a pledge to the flag was a demonstration of devotion to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Balch intended it to be a way to show immigrants that they were welcome in their new country as well as provide a reminder that they inherited from others a great tradition of freedom that often came with a steep price. He wanted these new Americans to have an intellectual and emotional attachment to their new country.

Contra the Santa Barbara City College president, and the angry activists at the school, Balch initially created a pledge of allegiance as an antidote to nativism and racism. And as a man who fought in the Union Army and quoted abolitionists, he could hardly be defined as pro-slavery.

While many early proponents of the pledge undoubtedly had racial views that would not be in accordance with what we believe today, nothing about the current recitation highlights that or means that we must also adopt those ideas.

If that was the case, it would be doubly problematic for American progressives. After all, the progressive movement of the early 20th century was steeped in eugenics and “scientific” racism.

Perhaps it’s OK to glean the best aspects of the past rather than every aspect. Most Americans understand this, but the militant modern left insists on zealously purging any figure or concept from history that does not conform to its ever-evolving and impossible to define standards.

Plus, it’s rich to hear blistering critiques of the racism of people in earlier times when, for instance, little is said to condemn the bigots and anti-Semites that infect the far-left today.

In the face of these attacks on our history and reason for being, Americans must take a concerted stand against efforts to undermine public displays of patriotism, which are under assault by those who, wrongly, see attachment to country as hateful or racist.

At one time, it was just the opposite. Expressing devotion to country demonstrated loyalty beyond one’s tribe or ethnic group. If America, a massive and ethnically diverse country, abandons this principle—as it is doing—our country will only face more racism, more group antipathy, and more tribalism.

Are our colleges and universities, funded and supported by the American people, really doing a good job of producing able and productive American citizens?

One would hope, but the fact is that many of these public institutions are fostering neither critical thought nor a patriotic citizenry. Instead, they often give free rein to radicals who violate the First Amendment rights of others with little consequence, who shout down those who disagree with them and actively suppress debate.

This needs to be countered ferociously, and it can be, by citizens who have had enough of these egregious assaults on free speech.

Unfortunately, many of our schools also seem to be ground zero for the effort to delegitimize patriotism and assimilation.

The only “assimilation” taking place in that environment is in bludgeoning students into becoming progressives, not Americans.

It is notable that the modern American “elite”—those who work in media, in corporate boardrooms, and run for office—come from institutions that have become hostile to the very idea of patriotism that is anything other than adherence to left-wing social and political views.

Banishing the Pledge of Allegiance is emblematic of what is happening in schools around the country, not just Santa Barbara City College.

This is folly, and will only serve to create more hate and division among Americans

If anything, Americans need the Pledge of Allegiance now more than ever.

Moreover, we need to reject the mistaken notion that love of country comes with a hatred of others.
-------------------------
Jarrett Stepman (@JarrettStepman) is an editor of The Daily Signal.

---

Tags: Jarrett Stepman, Rejecting. Pledge of Allegiance, Left Is Rejecting Nationhood To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!