| Radio America News |
|---|
| Ward Seeks to Retire McCain in Arizona Primary |
| Fri, 19 Aug 2016 16:21:31 EST A conservative challenger to Arizona Sen. John McCain says the time has come to retire the five-term Republican both for his "dismal record" and simply for being in Washington too long. Former GOP State Senator Dr. Kelli Ward is mounting a spirited challenge to McCain leading up to Arizona's U.S. Senate primary on August 30, just one day after McCain turns 80 years old. Polling is sparse on this race and Ward says it's close but it's anybody's guess who is ahead. "The polling is very difficult because there are so many new voters. There are people who are inspired to vote because of the changes at the presidential level," said Ward. "I think it's neck-and-neck. I think it's very telling that here now 10-11 days before the primary, John McCain is now suddenly scrambling to buy ads to attack me himself, not just through his SuperPAC, but his own campaign," said Ward. While at least one poll over the past couple of months suggest a race within the margin of error, a new poll conducted by the firm of a former Arizona Republican Party official has McCain comfortably ahead, 50-29 percent. Ward says McCain's own actions prove those numbers are wrong. "One of the polls out recently I think is completely bogus. If he were that far ahead of me, why would he be spending hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, to attack me here in the homestretch," said Ward. Ward has two major reasons for trying to #RetireMcCain as her campaign's hashtag proclaims: the senator's record and his entrenched position in Washington's political class. However, she makes clear McCain's record frustrates her most. "Most importantly is his dismal record of voting for tax hikes and bailouts, massive spending, amnesty, liberal judges, and the fact he's been in Washington for almost 40 years," said Ward. McCain won a House seat in 1982 and was first elected to the Senate four years later. Ward says over three decades in Washington is more than enough. "Our country was never designed to have a political ruling class that stayed in power for decades. So it's time to pass that torch and I want to give him the best eightieth birthday present ever - the gift of retirement," said Ward. The 47-year-old Ward says Arizona voters will not have to worry about chasing her out of Washington in 30 years. "I am running on the term limits pledge. I will not stay in Washington longer than two terms. I think 12 years in Washington, D.C., is probably more than enough time for anyone to start an agenda, accomplish a lot of it and pave the way for the next generation to take the torch," said Ward. Ward is especially critical of McCain on border security. When running for re-election in 2010, McCain aired an ad touting himself as committed to border security and stopping the flow of criminals and smugglers into the state. The ad became famous for McCain saying, 'Complete the danged fence.'" Ward says McCain is a failure on the issue. "We're still having the drug trafficking, the home invasions, the illegal people flooding in and effecting every aspect of society, from healthcare to education to public safety and correction to our economy to our very American culture. It's all under assault because of our open border," said Ward. After winning his fifth term, McCain played a leading role the Senate bill to reform immigration policy. Ward says that action proves McCain cannot be trusted with securing our borders. "The comprehensive immigration reform bill they tried to pass of with the Gang of Eight was an amnesty bill. People aren't going to stand for that. We need a clean bill about border security first and foremost. Then we will worry about cleaning up the mess that decades of an open border have left us with here in our country," said Ward. She says their positions going forward are also very different. "John McCain is a big fan of open borders. He wants to pull the wool over the eyes of the Republican voter and the voter in general, Republican and Democrat, to make them think he's trying to keep them safe. We all know that border security is national security and I'm ready to mix the mortar to fix the border," said Ward. Ward also contends that she would be a more effective voice in Washington to strengthen the military and provide better care for our veterans. How does she make that case against the sitting chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee? She says the world is not safer as a result of John McCain's 34 years in Washington, especially in light of his support for numerous overseas interventions. She believes McCain has more in common with Hillary Clinton on foreign policy. "They share the foreign policy of invade the world, invite the world. Invade the world through nation building and expensive occupation, invite the world through opening our borders and bring people into our country. That policy has led to terrorist attacks across this world. There are piles of bodies from Benghazi to Orlando. That's why we've got to change Washington, D.C. by sending the people we send there," said Ward. As voters in the Grand Canyon State make up their minds heading into the August 30 primary, Ward has a final message for them. "I want them to know I'm going to mix the mortar to fix the border. I'm going to heal the VA. I will be a conservative champion for Arizona and for America in the United States Senate," she said. |
| Mac Donald Rips Media, Obama, BLM in Wake of Milwaukee |
| Thu, 18 Aug 2016 16:29:16 EST The recent violence and property destruction in Milwaukee is the result of of a false ideology embraced by President Obama and Hillary Clinton and this episode also further exposed the extent of media bias on this charged issue, according to best-selling author Heather Mac Donald. Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and is author of the New York Times best-seller "The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe." On Saturday, violent protests broke out after a Milwaukee police officer shot and killed 23-year-old Sylville Smith. Smith was running from a traffic stop and in possession of a stolen gun. He was deemed a threat to the officer's life and the officer opened fire. Multiple businesses in Milwaukee were set on fire by angry protesters and several police vehicles were also damaged. More violence took place on Sunday night, yet all of this warranted far less coverage than the national media devoted to police-involved shootings in Ferguson, Baton Rouge or Minneapolis. Mac Donald thinks she knows why. "I think the media is simply starting to cover up the effects of the Black Lives Matter movement," she said. "I think the media now is looking the other way and is almost trying to normalize that level of violence." When the media did cover the story, some of the reporting was discovered to be altering the facts. CNN received intense criticism for selectively editing comments from Smith's sister, Sherelle. The CNN story depicted her as calling for peace, leaving out her plea Saturday night to burn down the suburbs. "It's appalling. It makes it perfectly clear what their agenda is, and that is to promote a one-sided story that white racism is the biggest force affecting social relations today," said Mac Donald. "I think the whitewashing of this woman's statements is an absolutely illuminating example of what is the reality of the media and their one-sided view of American society," she added. She says what's even more alarming is that the actions of Black Lives Matter demonstrators and the media only make additional violence more likely. "What we're going through now is an ideological war on the cops. Unless that rhetoric changes, you're going to see more black lives lost because cops are backing off proactive policing under this non-stop assault that they're racist," said Mac Donald. "These riots are, along with the assassination of police officers, the results of this campaign of hatred that has been launched against the police by Black Lives Matter activists and, sadly, by President Obama and by Hillary Clinton," said Mac Donald. Another divergence from past incidents is how prominent politicians responded to the violence. President Obama and Hillary Clinton have said and written nothing while Donald Trump went to Milwaukee and delivered a law and order address in support of police that also blamed failed liberal policies for the crushing poverty in many black neighborhoods. "I thought the speech was powerful, especially his acknowledgement that there is a false narrative about policing and his recognition that that narrative itself has consequences," said Mac Donald. Meanwhile, she is horrified by the silence from Obama and Clinton. "This is anarchy. It cannot go uncondemned by the political leaders. For Hillary Clinton and President Obama to stay silent about this is just a complete dereliction of their responsibilities towards this country," said Mac Donald. She says it's also hypocritical, as evidenced by no one getting violent in the wake of four homicides in Milwaukee in the 48 hours before the Smith shooting. "The Black Lives Matter activists could not care less about the dozens of black children gunned down in drive-by shootings last year by black thugs. The only time they move themselves to take over intersections, scream at cops, hurl invectives, is in those rare instances when a police officer shoots somebody who's black, overwhelmingly when confronted by someone who is armed and dangerous," said Mac Donald. She says the statistics bear this out. She says a much higher percentage of black Americans die by gunfire than whites or Hispanics but only four percent of them die from a police shooting. In comparison, she says 12 percent of whites and Hispanics die from police shootings. |
| 'One is Talk, One is Action' |
| Wed, 17 Aug 2016 16:35:56 EST Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton both say they are committed to the destruction of ISIS and use similar language to detail their plans, but retired U.S. Air Force Lt. General Tom McInerney says there is a world of difference in what they mean. "My Administration will aggressively pursue joint and coalition military operations to crush and destroy ISIS, international cooperation to cut- off their funding, expanded intelligence sharing, and cyberwarfare to disrupt and disable their propaganda and recruiting. We cannot allow the internet to be used as a recruiting tool, and for other purposes, by our enemy 13 we must shut down their access to this form of communication, and we must do so immediately," said Trump earlier this week during a major national security address in Ohio. Those words don't sound much different than Hillary Clinton's prescription for ISIS that she offered in her speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination. "We will strike their sanctuaries from the air and support local forces taking them out on the ground. We will surge our intelligence so we detect and prevent attacks before they happen. We will disrupt their efforts online to reach and radicalize young people in our country," said Clinton in that speech. McInerney says the similar words to not signify a similar agenda. "Unfortunately, Mrs. Clinton means the same thing that President Obama has done. We're now at two years that ISIS has had a caliphate in Iraq and Syria," said McInerney. The general says one obvious difference in thwarting ISIS can be found in the candidates' approach to the refugee crisis afflicting Europe. Clinton wants to exponentially increase the rate the U.S. accepts refugees while Trump this week called for "extreme vetting" to ensure anyone entering this country pledges allegiance to our Constitution. But he says the biggest difference can be seen in how the two candidates approach the roots of radical Islam. "We must use ideological warfare as well. Just as we won the Cold War, in part, by exposing the evils of communism and the virtues of free markets, so too must we take on the ideology of Radical Islam," said Trump on Monday. "Islam is not our adversary," Clinton said in November 2015 in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. 1cMuslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing to do whatsoever with terrorism. 1d McInerney says the divide could be more stark on this point. "You've got to identify it. It is radical Islam. It is not violent extremism. I know not the ideology of violent extremism, but I do know the ideology of radical Islam: that is the Quran, the Hadith, the sayings of the prophet, and Sharia law. Those three things are the pillars that drive their rules of engagement and their brutal, autocratic way of governing people," said McInerney. He says Hillary Clinton still won't admit what makes our enemies tick. "Mrs. Clinton and President Obama have not yet identified it. She was secretary of state for four years and she still does not know the ideology. As Sun Tzu said, 'Know thy enemy,'" said McInerney. On top of the Democrats' failure to identify our enemy, McInerney is deeply frustrated by their refusal to kill the enemy. "The air campaign for the last two years has been pathetic. We have not destroyed ISIS. When ISIS fled from a small town near the Turkish border in Syria, they were coming out by the hundreds. We did not strike them because we were worried about collateral damage, meaning civilians. Well, the laws of land warfare allow you to do that," said McInerney. "Our humanity to them has caused the inhumanity toward the genocide on Christians, on Yazidis and even on Muslims," said McInerney. In the end McInerney says he isn't worried about Trump's demeanor in comparison to Clinton's record. "His language and demeanor don't worry me as much as Mrs. Clinton's demeanor or actions," said McInerney, referencing Benghazi, the civil war in Syria, the rise of ISIS in Libya and beginning the process that led to the nuclear deal with Iran. "They are completely different," he said. "One is talk and one is action." |
| Has The Obamacare Death Spiral Begun? |
| Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:22:50 EST As another major health insurance company exits the vast majority of Obamacare exchanges and many U.S. states are forecasting massive premium increases later this year, a leading health care expert says the Obamacare death spiral is already beginning. Late Monday, Aetna announced it was pulling out of Obamacare exchanges in all but four U.S. states as a result of large financial losses. The company reported $200 in pre-tax losses in the second quarter of 2016 alone. "As a strong supporter of public exchanges as a means to meet the needs of the uninsured, we regret having to make this decision," said Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini in a written statement. Galen Institute President Grace-Marie Turner says Aetna's decision to largely abandon the exchanges is a huge development. "Aetna was all-in in not only trying to get the law passed but also to try to make this work. So with Aetna throwing in the towel, I think it really shows the way this law is structured, and particularly the way it's been implemented, just does not work," said Turner. Turner says Aetna is hardly an outlier. She says health insurers are getting crushed with financial losses from the health care law. "[Aetna] estimates they've lost $400 million through their exchange business. United Healthcare reported a week or two ago that they had lost $300 million. The estimates are that altogether insurance companies lost four billion dollars in both 2014 and 2015," said Turner. She says numbers like that leave insurance executives no choice but to get out. "They are very likely losing the same amount in 2016. They are basically saying we can no longer justify to our shareholders participation in these failing exchanges," said Turner. The Aetna announcement also convinces Turner that we have now begun the Obamacare "death spiral." "That really is an indication we are in the death spiral. That means you wind up with fewer and fewer healthy people in the pools and more and more sick people. When that happens the premiums have to go up and up and up. We're seeing that already in the requests for premium increases next year - in some cases 40, 50 or 60 percent increases," said Turner. As distressing as this is, Turner says the frustration is far deeper when realizing she and other Obamacare opponents predicted this exact scenario. "In our book, "Why Obamacare is Wrong for America," we said this is what was going to happen because we could see that the law itself and particularly the regulations that have been developed since then were designed to destabilize the functional mechanisms of insurance markets. That's exactly what's happening now," said Turner. And how did insurance companies go from being giddy about a law that required every adult to purchase health insurance to losing money by the hundreds of millions. Turner says ill-conceived ideas like letting young adults stay on their parents' polices until age 26 robbed the market place of the young, healthy people needed to balance out the many sick people flooding the system. "That meant that you were going to have older, sicker pools. Then they said you can buy health insurance basically at any time during the year with any of 30 different explanations and get in and out of the pool when you're sick," said Turner. She says the law allows people to game the system in a very destructive way. "People were going into the exchanges, purchasing coverage, getting this expensive treatment, dropping their insurance and then, if they felt like it, they'd get in the same pool the next year without having to pay any penalty," said Turner. Critics of Obamacare fear this predictable outcome will be used by big government proponents to contend private coverage cannot meet the health care needs of the American public and that a public option or even single-payer healthcare is the solution. Turner says so long as Republicans control at least one chamber in Congress none of that will happen. But she says the public, which has never liked or wanted Obamacare, is not about to endorse more government control of their health care. "People have had just about enough government with Obamacare. They realize that Washington is making the rules, taking away choices from individuals and doctors so that bureaucrats are making decisions, not only about what kind of health insurance they can have but what health insurance they must buy," said Turner. She says the American public will see the dire condition of the health care system at a very interesting time this year. "This is really going to come home just before the November election, when people start to see their premium increases for next year," said Turner. "People are going to see it when they see that their premiums have gone from $500 a month to $800 a month. That's going to happen just before the election." |
| 'Politics Got Way Too Involved' |
| Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:35:14 EST One of the U.S. military's most accomplished snipers says politics got in the way of a successful conclusion to our mission in Iraq, leaving ISIS to gobble up territory American heroes tied to bring under control from Islamic radicals. Nicholas Irving served six years in uniform. most of them as a U.S. Army Ranger demolition assaulter and sniper. Over a four-month stretch in 2009, Irving recorded 33 enemy kills, a record for a single deployment. He is also the author of "Way of the Reaper: My Greatest Untold Missions and the Art of Being a Sniper." Irving left uniformed service in 2010 but was back in Iraq as a private contractor in 2011 as the full withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq was unfolding. He says the rise of ISIS is proof that politics trumped mission success. "I think politics got way too involved with this whole global war on terrorism and didn't allow us to do our jobs effectively. We lost a lot of lives and things got out of hand. We look at ISIS today. They've gotten out of hand because we didn't stop them when we had the opportunity," said Irving. He says seeing the unimpeded advance of ISIS in 2013-2014 was tough to watch for service members who gave so much taking that land away from terrorists. "All of the places that ISIS controls right now in Iraq are the same exact places I was deployed to . You have to ask sometimes, what was it for? Was it worth it? It's a weird, weird struggle and question I often ask myself. We all do," said Irving. Regardless of who is elected president in November, Irving has one urgent plea for our next commander-in-chief. "Let the guys do their job. That's all we ask. Just let the guys do their job," said Irving, referring to increasingly restrictive rules of engagement in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It's those guys and the sacrifices so many made during combat in Iraq and Afghanistan that Irving thinks of most. "They're my blood brothers is what it feels like and that's how I relate to them," said Irving. The feeling is mutual for the men Irving and his fellow snipers protected in combat. "A few years later, I got an email from a guy and he just wanted to thank me for being his guardian angel. I never looked at it like that and I don't really take compliments too well. I did a job and did what I had to do. If I was a guardian angel then so be it," said Irving. When the box office smash "American Sniper" hit theaters in early 2015, some liberals recoiled at the idea that snipers were hero. Activist filmmaker Michael Moore created the most headlines with his slam at the late Chris Kyle and other snipers. "My uncle killed by sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards. Will shoot u in the back. Snipers aren't heroes. And invaders r worse," tweeted Moore. "But if you're on the roof of your home defending it from invaders who've come 7K miles, you are not a sniper, u are brave, u are a neighbor." Moore received immense backlash at the time. Irving has a much more succinct response to the suggestion he and his brothers in arms were cowards. "I have a one-way ticket with his name on it to Afghanistan. I want to see if he changes his opinion on using the word coward. Cowards are what the terrorists are," said Irving. For Irving, his job was a childhood dream come true. "It's one of those things I always wanted to do. I set my mind to it. It was a goal that I had, and I definitely loved the job," he said. He says most people can be taught to shoot with precision and survey a combat zone, but he believes there is in innate quality that all snipers have. "I think you're born with some of the traits of being a sniper. The mental aptitude tests and some of the psychological evaluations we take, you have to be born with a certain thing. I'm not sure what it is," said Irving. "I guess the separation of watching a target and then taking that target out, maybe that's what they're looking for." Irving says 90 percent of sniper work is watching and communicating and "only ten percent is being a surgeon with bullets." He says he and his men didn't want to shoot unless they had to, which usually meant the enemy was trying to kill them or their friends. He says he wrote the book to honor those who served alongside him and to let all Americans know what life is like for those who go to fight for us on the other side of the world. "Supermen. That's how I described all my guys. They were like supermen. Having the chance to see that sacrifice these guys make day in and day out, the superheroes they are and having the chance to serve with them and how regular we all are," said Irving. |
| Gen. Flynn on Defeating Radical Islam, Backing Trump |
| Thu, 11 Aug 2016 16:19:54 EST The former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency says the United States has to get serious about defeating radical Islam and is laying out a plan to do it - a plan he says is dependent upon Donald Trump winning the White House in November. Retired U.S. Army Lt. General Michael T. Flynn is a frequent cable news contributor and spoke on behalf of Trump last month at the Republican National Convention. He is also the author of "The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War on Radical Islam and Its Allies." In his book, Flynn it's long past time for the U.S. to stop "participating" in the war against radical Islam and start winning it. He believes we're just spinning our wheels while ISIS and other enemies pursue an announced, strategic campaign against the West. "We totally have lacked imagination and we've forgotten how to win, actually," said Flynn. "And we have to stop being politically correct about this enemy and we have to clearly define it." He says that's something President Obama and subordinates like Hillary Clinton refuse to do. "Number one is to clearly define the enemy and that's something our current government and current president does not allow us to do," said Flynn. But what needs to be done to define our radical Islamic enemies that has not already been done? "We have to discredit this ideology, this radical Islamist ideology, for what it is. We have to call it what it is and we have to begin to come up with a very imaginative, very creative information campaign to discredit it," said Flynn. Flynn says it must be a consistent, sustained effort, just as the U.S. labored for decades to attack the ideology of Soviet communism, its ideological flaws and its destructive results. The general also says the U.S. cannot abandon the founding principles that make us strong. "We have to get our own strategic house in order. We have to decide how we're going to organize as the United States to begin to protect our way of life and not fear what our country was built upon, which is a set of Judeo-Christian values and principles," said Flynn. He says the Obama administration is taking exactly the wrong course. "Instead, we have this politically correct nonsense. We spent 40 years calling the communists communists. When we talk about radical Islamists, you get chastised for being racist. We have to stop that. That's unfair to the American public and it's definitely not going to help us defeat this enemy," said Flynn. Although Flynn says the 2016 presidential race is one America cannot afford to get wrong, he believes it is essential to rein in the role the president plays on national security. "The decision-making apparatus has been built up around the President of the United States is out of control. It doesn't have the strategic flexibility. It doesn't have the adaptability. It doesn't have the speed and, frankly, it does not have the maturity to make the kind of decisions nor to even think clearly," said Flynn. "That's why we get involved in places like Libya and we have poor decisions like getting out of Iraq in 2011. That's why we see the messes that we see around the world right now in our foreign policy. I'm very concerned about that," said Flynn. Flynn is a registered Democrat but is outspoken in his support for Trump. He adds that his endorsement is almost entirely based on what he sees in Trump and is not simply a reaction to his opposition to Clinton. Flynn says Trump is running for the right reasons. "He's not doing this for Donald Trump. He's doing this for the people of this country and for America. That's the purpose. That's why he dove head-first into the political cesspool that we have in this country to try to fix what we can to make this country great again," said Flynn. The criticisms of Trump on national security are legion: from his border security and deportation proposals to a temporary ban on immigration from nations with terrorist infestations. Others slam the GOP nominee for seeming to lack understanding of key global challenges and having no intellectual curiosity to learn about them. Flynn says that is not the Trump he sees in private. "He's a great listener. He's a rapid learner. He's somebody who's able to absorb lots of information quickly. He's an exceptional decision-maker and problem solver. And he has great instincts for the types of people he has around them," said Flynn. Flynn asserts that Hillary Clinton's honesty issues show she cannot be trusted as the next Commander-in-Chief. He says growing up as a military kid hammered the importance of honesty into his bones, a lesson he says the Democratic nominee has not learned. "You told the truth - good, bad, ugly or indifferent. You accepted the responsibility and your punishment. She does none of that. I think we're in a real world of hurt if the people of this country don't get this election right," said Flynn. |
| 'This Is an Attempt to Silence Christians in the Legal Profession' |
| Wed, 10 Aug 2016 16:20:05 EST The American Bar Association has adopted a new rule it says will crack down on discriminatory conduct in the legal profession, but conservative critics warn the real goal is to silence views contrary to the group's liberal orthodoxy on gender identity and sexual orientation and drum attorneys who hold those views out of business. Rule 8.4 of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct was amended this week. In addition to existing rules like not engaging in criminal actively, blatant dishonesty or attempting to influence government officials, a new section enters into brand new territory. "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (g) "Engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment of discrimination harass or discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law. This paragraph does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline, or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16. This paragraph does not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with these rules." Supporters of the change say this is mostly about putting an end to insulting behavior such as calling a female attorney "honey", but others see a far more sinister agenda. "This is an attempt to silence Christians in the legal profession. The main drivers of it are LGBT activists trying to eliminate religious liberty defenses on matters pertaining to same-sex marriage and also transgenderism, to purge observant Christians from the legal profession," said Ken Klukowski, senior counsel and director of strategic affairs at the First Liberty Institute. Former Attorney General Edwin Meese III and First Liberty Institute President and CEO Kelly Shackleford wrote a blistering letter to the ABA, calling the proposal fascist and imploring members not to approve it. Klukowski believes the ABA's goal is to scrub the the legal voice of Christians and people of other faiths from the courtroom. "[The rule] would apply to all lawyers of conservative faiths in that it would also, for everyone still left in the legal profession, render people and institutions of faith radioactive as clients," said Klukowski. ABA members overwhelmingly adopted the new rule and say critics like Klukowski are reading things in the new rule that simply are not there. Klukowski says you need to understand the language of the ABA to see where the threat lies. "When it speaks about 'related to the practice of law,' that includes not just your conduct but your verbal conduct and your business or social activity," said Klukowski. "It applies to lawyers 24 hours a day, seven days a week in every aspect of their life." And he says the ABA was well aware of the scope of this language when it debated and approved the amended rule on misconduct. He says anyone can read the deliberations for themselves at the First Liberty Institute's website. "They'll be shocked to find statements from the ABA president and from committee members when they were debating all this showing they knew exactly what all this was going to lead to. Some of them deliberately intended it, spoke about the need to root out discrimination that they say people might not know that their thoughts on these matters have anything wrong with them," said Klukowski. He says this is nothing more than a blatant assault on the first amendment freedoms of speech and free exercise of religion. "It is a completely unprecedented censorship regime in that it is limiting the ability of lawyers to be able to engage in all sorts of political conversation," said Klukowski. He says lawyers could face severe punishment while off the clock for activities most people wouldn't think twice about, including sharing the view over dinner at a restaurant that marriage ought to be the union of one man and one woman. "Anyone sitting at that dinner table or even sitting at the next table could file an ethics complaint with the state bar, seeking to have that lawyer's law license revoked because he engaged in verbal conduct at a social activity," said Klukowski. The scenarios only snowball from there, according to Klukowski. He says attorneys could face trouble for denouncing Black Lives Matter or publicly opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants. In addition, a lawyer teaching a Sunday School class could be targeted for expressing the biblical view on sexuality or marriage. In fact, simply being a member of a church with views opposed by the ABA could put a lawyer's career in jeopardy. "The fact that you're an observant Roman Catholic could be cited as a social activity, as an affiliation, that is evidence of a discriminatory bias on behalf of that Catholic lawyer," said Klukowski. However, Klukowski is quick to point out that it's not just lawyers of faith who could lose their careers. He says unbelieving attorneys could be in trouble if they take on clients who assert conscience rights, such as the bakers, florists and photographers who refuse to work at same-sex weddings. "Even if you're a liberal atheist lawyer, you're going to be scared to take their case, because anything you say about your client's case outside of the courtroom is not an essential aspect of representing them in court. Anything you say to the media, anything you say to a gathering could be used against you as verbal conduct reflecting a bias against LGBT people and you could lose your career," said Klukowski. A casual reader of the new rule might ask why the language stating the policy "does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline, or withdraw from a representation" doesn't protect the ethical conduct of lawyers. Klukowski says that only protects attorneys in consultations with prospective clients, in filing briefs and arguing the case in court. All other conduct is left unprotected. But do the ABA's rules have any bearing on state laws? Klukowski says they most certainly do. "Most state supreme courts adopt, word for word, any ABA model ethics rules. Those that don't, use ABA rules as a starting point for developing their own ethics rules," said Klukowski. He says any complaint would likely trigger a state bar investigation involving a formal hearing before a court, and that will be a stain on the record of those lawyers regardless of the outcome. "When someone's looking around for a lawyer and you have ten choices, you're less likely to go with the guy who was officially investigated by the state supreme court for potential unethical conduct, even if ultimately the vote comes down at the end of the day that you're okay," said Klukowski. Finally, he says the new rule will be used to shape future generations of law students because most states will not let anyone take the bar unless they have graduated from an ABA-accredited law school. And those law schools will be teaching this new policy. "You're going to have tens of thousands of law students every year being indoctrinated by their professor. 'Okay, now let's turn to Rule 8.4,' and it's going to be taught right alongside all the other ethical requirements," said Klukowski. "All of them now will be taught Model Rule 8.4 as just certain speech and conduct that you cannot be associated with if you want a career in law," said Klukowski. |
| Taxpayer Watchdog Gives Trump Mixed Reviews |
| Tue, 9 Aug 2016 16:23:54 EST The largest grassroots taxpayer organization in the United States is lauding the tax reform proposals of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump but sees little commitment to rein in runaway federal spending or even get specific about big ticket policy goals. Trump addressed the Detroit Economic Club on Monday, calling for across the board tax cuts for individuals, huge cuts in the corporate tax rate and bringing simplicity to the tax code by eliminating loopholes and reducing the number of tax brackets from seven to three. "The heart of his plan is tax simplification, which is very important . The IRS has estimated that its entire paperwork burden for all of its forms and requirements will amount to about nine billion hours. That represents a huge economic dead weight loss of people spending time on their tax forms, instead of doing more productive things with their money," said National Taxpayers Union Research Director Demian Brady. The centerpiece of Trump's tax plan is lowering the corporate tax rate from nearly 40 percent down to 15 percent. Brady notes that reduction is even bigger than congressional Republicans are advocating and he says the impact of that would be felt in every American family. "This would be just a great boon to the economy. It's not the businesses that pay these taxes. It's the consumer that pays them through higher prices, so across the board this will help people," said Brady, who is also excited that Trump wants to eliminate the estate tax, known derisively on the right as the death tax. "He's proposed to eliminate the death tax, which is just a huge waste of time. The people who have money that fall under this spend so much time and money on tax avoidance that this death tax is not worth the money that it raises. Let people do what they want to do with their money and they've already been taxed on it when it was originally earned," said Brady. Trump says his tax plan is aimed at boosting the middle class, but Brady warns middle class investors might not be too happy with the nominee's approach to capital gains taxes. "It's basically a tax on investment through carried interest and capital gains. What this does is raise the cost of investment, which will be bad for mutual funds and for pension plans around the country. They're trying to tax the income of the people who are going out and making these investment decisions, but they're going to pass along their costs to their customers," said Brady. While is largely bullish on Trump's approach to tax policy, he is far from impressed about Trump's refusal to articulate a plan to get federal spending under control. "One problem that you typically run into with Donald Trump is just a lack of specifics," said Brady. "He needs to provide more details on some of the things he'd like to do, particularly when it comes to long-term budget reforms." Trump frequently mentions getting rid of waste, fraud and abuse throughout the government, but Brady warns that alone won't make much of dent in the effort to balance the federal books. However, he says both major party nominees have no answers for bringing spending under control. "We really want to hear spending reform ideas from these candidates. Unfortunately, we're getting a lot more information from the candidates on how they would increase spending , rather than putting in some sort of budgetary restraint," said Brady. As of now, Brady says Trump's spending plans would add billions to the deficit, but he says those plans are shifting all the time. "Last week we had Trump as a net cutter. His net plans that we're able to score with specificity, would have reduced spending by about $56 billion a year," said Brady. "Then last week, he said he would double Hillary Clinton's infrastructure spending. So that jumps his spending up to $22 billion in new spending per year," said Brady. But Brady says even that number fails to account for other areas where Trump won't offer details. "He has called for the largest increases of the military in history, but he hasn't said what that would be. He has other areas where he hasn't been too specific . In the speech, he called, perhaps, for new spending on law enforcement, but we're not exactly sure what that might be," said Brady. But as concerned as Brady is about what the final price tag for the Trump agenda might be, he says Hillary Clinton's agenda carries much more red ink. "Her spending proposals would increase spending by about $175 billion annually, so it's a much more aggressive big government agenda than we see from Donald Trump," said Brady. |
| 'They'd Rather Kill Babies Than Mosquitoes' |
| Mon, 8 Aug 2016 16:21:12 EST Nearly 60 percent of Americans favor allowing late-term abortions for babies believed to be at strong risk for Zika-related conditions, and a leading pro-life activist is furious at the abortion lobby for advancing such an idea and urging expectant mothers not to go down that path. The survey from Harvard University's T.H. Chan School of Public Health shows 59 percent of Americans "favor a woman being allowed to obtain a legal abortion" if her unborn child is like to have microcephaly or some other "severe" condition related to Zika. That 59 percent is a huge jump from just 23 percent of Americans who favor allowing late-term abortions in healthy pregnancies. The jump is remarkable among both Democrats and Republicans. The poll shows 72 percent of Democrats favor late-term abortions for Zika-related pregnancies compared to just 34 in healthy patients. In addition, 48 percent of Republicans are on board with late-term abortions in Zika cases as opposed to 12 percent in normal circumstances. Susan B. Anthony National Campaign Chair Jill Stanek is appalled. "It's horrifying that people of both parties do not respect the rights of children with disabilities," said Stanek. "The real culprits here are the abortion lobby, who would rather kill babies than mosquitoes. They are fomenting panic for their own personal benefit and gain, rather than promoting the best course of action, which would be to eliminate the mosquitoes carrying the virus and then, long-term, develop a vaccine," said Stanek. She is mystified as to why so many Americans suddenly believe some patients are not worthy of quality health care. "We find the abortion lobby promoting abortion for disabilities across the spectrum, but the pro-life community believes that adult victims, child victims and pre-born children who are victims of the Zika virus deserve the same standard of care. With what other illness do we end the lives of the afflicted, rather than try to heal them?" said Stanek. Stanek says the unborn babies impacted by Zika not only have a right to life but could be very important in developing treatments or a cure for Zika. "Killing the patient is not medical treatment. Furthermore, how are we going to make advances in medicine if we destroy the patient before we find treatments and cures for them?" she asked. Stanek is also livid with Senate Democrats for bogging down the effort to pass Zika response funding. "Democrat senators are blocking approval of funding of their own bill. They've blocked votes twice because they want Planned Parenthood to get funding in this, which is ridiculous," said Stanek. However, it's not just Zika. Abortion rates also skyrocket for pregnancies involving Down Syndrome, cystic fibrosis and other conditions. While the estimates vary, anywhere from 67-85 percent of babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome are aborted. Some studies in recent years put the number as high as 90 percent. Stanek says there is a disconnect in America between the opinion people have on the right to life in general and their attitudes when challenging circumstances arise. "There's a schizophrenic breakdown in thinking because you would never think to recommend that a child be killed who has Down Syndrome or cystic fibrosis or any number of maladies. Why would you automatically jump to killing a pre-born baby who might suffer maladies?" said Stanek. This is not an abstract concept for Stanek, who was a delivery nurse for years before becoming a pro-life activist. In fact, one episode in her life actually triggered her activism. "I held a baby who had been aborted because he had Down Syndrome. He survived his abortion for 45 minutes. He was a 21 weeks. I've also had a lot of dealings since then with mothers who aborted their pr-born babies, who had something wrong with their babies and also mothers who didn't," said Stanek. "I have never met a mother who regretted carrying her baby to term if her baby had challenges or only if her baby was going to live for only a couple of minutes," said Stanek. "But I have met many mothers who have had to live a life of regret for knowing that they killed their baby rather than carry their baby to term and care for their baby as a mother should." Stanek has also seen the fulfillment and joy of welcoming such children into her own family. Two of her ten grandsons are dealing with health challenges diagnosed in the womb, one with cystic fibrosis and another with cerebral palsy. She says life is infinitely richer with those boys around her. "Taking care of people who have challenges brings out the best in us," said Stanek. "Having those boys in my life has made me a better person and they are both certainly happy to be here as well." |
| 'It's A Scarcity Agenda' |
| Fri, 5 Aug 2016 16:30:13 EST Just two weeks after Secretary of State John Kerry claimed the coolants used in air conditioners and refrigerators were as great a threat to human life as ISIS, the nation and the world have moved on but the toll of human life exacted by the climate agenda rises without restraint. Kerry made his comments in Vienna last month as he attended meetings to update the Montreal Protocol, an agreement from the 1980's that was originally designed to combat the hole in the ozone layer but is now being re-purposed to achieve other priorities in the fight against climate change - including the targeting of products that replaced the products (chlorofluorocarbons) accused of depleting the ozone, specifically hydrofluorocarbons that are often often used as refrigerants. To highlight the urgency of the alleged problem, Kerry used an analogy that raised many eyebrows. "Yesterday, in Washington, I met with 45 nations, defense ministers and foreign ministers, as we were working together on the challenge of Daesh, ISIL, and terrorism. It's hard for some people to grasp it, but what you are doing here right now is of equal importance because it has the ability to literally save life on the planet itself," said Kerry. He then removed any doubt that he misspoke or wasn't clear in what he meant. "Measured against the global array of threats we face today, and there are many: terrorism, extremism, epidemics, poverty, nuclear proliferation, all challenges that respect no borders, climate change belongs on that very same list," said Kerry. Kerry's comments drew derision from political critics in the U.S. and quite a bit of derision. "This truly was, while consistent with Sec. Kerry particularly but also the global warming alarmist movement, an hysterical moment," said Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Christopher C. Horner. However, Horner says the real agenda behind Kerry's remarks is not funny at all. "It's a scarcity agenda. They're not against everything. They're enthusiastically in favor of scarcity. That is imposed by by making things like automobility, indoor climate control to make things more comfortable, and other modern conveniences much more expensive to purchase and to use," said Horner. "They want to make energy much more expensive so you use less of it because we have so much of it. So now we've moved on to that it causes the seas to boil, the skies turn blood red, dogs and cats living together, etc. Therefore, you must drastically change your lifestyle," he said. Another reason the agenda is no joke is because jacking up the cost of energy kills people when the weather gets very hot or very cold. He says high energy prices indirectly led to thousands of deaths in a brutal heat wave in Paris last decade. "So 20,000 of the most vulnerable died. They're living in a society where they could afford the $150 unit. They just can't afford to run it. It's seniors and the poor. That's who dies when weather happens," said Horner. The same horrors are true in cold weather, as England learned the hard way. "In the winters now, energy poverty deaths have skyrocketed from something like 12,000 to 17 to 31 to 40,000 excess a year, year over year coincidental with imposing these energy scarcity policies," said Horner. Horner says it's ludicrous for Kerry to suggest climate change is as great a threat as terrorist groups like ISIS. He won't say climate change policies are a greater threat than ISIS, but he does say they kill more people every year. "Thanks to energy poverty, you can now point to more deaths from these policies than terrorism. That's not to say that one is worse than the other, but please keep in mind the tremendous costs of an agenda that, by the way, nobody claims would actually impact the climate," said Horner. Instead, he says the left has resorted to distracting people from the ineffectiveness of their big government policies by linking every natural disaster to man-made climate change. "Everything is being targeted for global warming. Global warming is the reason for everything. It's the cause for everything, and addressing it is the cure for everything," said Horner. But he says a simple conversation with a climate activist shows just how insincere they really are. Horner offered an example: Activist: "Well. this is the greatest threat facing mankind." Horner: "Okay, so we should build lots of nuclear power then?" Activist: "Oh, no!" Horner: "So global warming is the greatest threat facing mankind, except for nuclear power. How about dams?" Activist: "No, those are mean to fish. Can't do that." Horner: "How about frack for more gas instead of coal?" Activist: "No, no, no. We can't do that." Horner: "So global warming, the greatest threat facing mankind, is a lesser threat than nuclear power, hydropower, hydrofracking." Horner says the greatest threat to mankind also takes a backseat to climate control at town halls for President Obama and a comfortable climate at the Democratic National Convention. He says the alarmism offered by Kerry is ridiculous and people who know better need to speak out forcefully when they happen. "It is a great shame that we don't take these moments to say, 'You know what? We're living in dangerous times in a serious world and you have a position of responsibility and authority. Cut it out. Get serious. Stop this. Focus on what's important,'" said Horner. |
| Is Ryan Really in Trouble? |
| Thu, 4 Aug 2016 16:07:49 EST Critics of House Speaker Paul Ryan believe he may be vulnerable in next week's Wisconsin congressional primary, but the man who pulled off one of the biggest political upsets in U.S. history says whoever wins better be ready to turn their campaign promises into action. Ryan is seeking a tenth term in the U.S. House of Representatives. He won re-election in 2014 with 63 percent of the vote. However, GOP primary challenger Paul Nehlen is taking a Donald Trump-like approach to the campaign, calling Ryan out of touch with his district and weak on critical issues like border security and stemming the tide of illegal immigrants. That's pretty much the same approach that Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., used to score a stunning upset over then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a 2014 congressional primary, and with this election season in far more upheaval than the one two years ago, Ryan critics believe a replay of the Brat-Cantor race is possible. For his part Brat is staying out of the Ryan-Nehlen battle, just as he stays out of every primary fight. "I don't get in the endorsement business. I don't endorse at the federal, state or local [level] because I don't like elites picking winners. I want to pick the winners on their own," said Brat, who is also the author of "American Underdog: Proof that Principles Matter." But does he see Ryan as being in the same position as Cantor was in 2014? Brat says Ryan is much better than Cantor about getting back home and being around the people in his community and he's very approachable for other Republicans in the House. He says Ryan is rock solid on his economic theory but has been underwhelming in putting those ideas into policy. "On the principles, Paul and I are very similar. He likes Hayek, and Von Mises and Milton Friedman and is a policy wonk," said Brat. "The challenge for our side is to do better and follow our rhetoric." Brat says the frustration of American voters of all political stripes is boiling over this year because both parties have failed at their most important jobs. "The whole Trump phenomenon is related to about 20 years of Democrats and Republicans' failure to solve fiscal matters. We've racked up $19 trillion in debt and $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities," said Brat. The congressman says there is a similarity to Nehlen in that both of them made immigration major issues in their campaigns. Only Brat says the issue is far worse now than it was just two years ago. "I ran on just illegal immigration. Now it's morphed into the refugee crisis. We've had terrible reports of infiltration into the Washington, D.C. (transit) police department. We're beyond the talking points. The newspapers are full of hard data," said Brat. But when given a chance to address the immigration problem just last year, Brat says House Republican leaders not only failed to act but actually made things far worse. "In the omnibus, they not only skipped all the immigration moves, instead they increased HB2 visas by 400 percent. That's a diametric move in the wrong direction, when Americans do have real concerns and they know we have big problems," said Brat. And he says immigration wasn't the only maddening move by leadership against conservative efforts. "We tried to save $30 billion out of a $535 billion deficit this year alone. We couldn't make any headway. We're called the right-wingers and the knuckle-draggers for trying to save $30 billion. That's a teaspoonful of fiscal savings," said Brat. In reflecting on Brat's campaign, it appears he used a milder form of populism than Nehlen is employing to attack Speaker Ryan, whereas Brat spoke more to core conservative principles. However, Brat says you don't have to choose between those strategies. "They don't have to be divorced. There's a populist urge for us to execute on what we run on," said Brat. He says the reason populist messages are resonating on both sides of the political aisle is because politicians on both sides never seem to do what they promise. "There's a populist surge because people know that we're not being honest, we're not following through on these promises. We're going to get rid of Obamacare, we all say. Then we really don't fight. I cam in two years ago and Obama did the unconstitutional amnesty. (Former House Speaker John) Boehner said we're going to fight tooth and nail and we didn't fight," said Brat. He says voters are begging Republicans to fight for them in issues that are impacting their lives and crippling their livelihoods. "I've got horror stories about the Department of Labor. The overtime rule is putting people out of business. The fiduciary rule of clobbering people. These are major issues our leadership needs to fight on and the American people don't think we're fighting," said Brat. Most experts expect Ryan to win his primary on August 9, perhaps quite comfortably. Brat says that may well be the case but he cautions that the experts are not exactly on a winning streak, including his own race and the result of the Republican presidential race. "They had [Cantor] up 30 and I ended up winning by ten. Same thing this year on the Trump phenomenon. All the experts it turns out aren't too much of experts on anything. They own the microphones, I guess, but that's about it. They've been wrong on everything," said Brat. |
| 'Absolutely It's a Ransom Payment' |
| Wed, 3 Aug 2016 16:22:02 EST The Obama administration is vigorously denying that the shipment if $400 million to Iran was a ransom payment for the release of American hostages earlier this year, but the former chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence says the timing and the secrecy make it clear the U.S. clearly bought off the Iranian captors. The Wall Street Journal broke the story Tuesday, detailing what happened back in January while most Americans were focused on the release of the prisoners. "The Obama administration secretly organized an airlift of $400 million worth of cash to Iran that coincided with the January release of four Americans detained in Tehran, according to U.S. and European officials and congressional staff briefed on the operation afterward," the story reads. "Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies were flown into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane, according to these officials. The U.S. procured the money from the central banks of the Netherlands and Switzerland," wrote reporters Jay Solomon and Carol E. Lee. "The money represented the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement the Obama administration reached with Iran to resolve a decades-old dispute over a failed arms deal signed just before the 1979 fall of Iran 19s last monarch, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi," they wrote. Early Tuesday morning, State Department spokesman, John Kirby denied any connection between the massive money transfer and the freeing of the hostages. "We just don't pay ransom. It is our policy. This was not ransom. Any suggestion that it had anything to do with ransom is absolutely and utterly false. These were two separate processes run by two separate teams. Yes, they were done simultaneously, so I understand the coincidental nature of the timing. But it had absolutely nothing to do with ransom. We do not and will not pay ransom," said Kirby on the Fox news Channel. Former House Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., isn't buying that explanation one bit. "Absolutely it's a ransom payment," said Hoekstra. "This is a president that has all along been willing to negotiate and make a deal, and if the deal included ransom he has been open to it." "If it walks like a duck, if it talks like a duck, it's a duck. This is a ransom payment," said Hoekstra. Hoekstra says the idea that the Obama administration is horrified by the suggestion it paid ransom for hostages doesn't even square with U.S. policy on the issue, a policy Obama unilaterally changed. "He made it very, very clear this summer that if families wanted to pursue paying ransom for family members or friends who were being held hostage, the U.S. government would assist them in that process and would never, ever prosecute them," said Hoekstra. Prior to the policy change, the U.S. government forbade families of hostages from negotiating financial terms for the release of their loved ones and did threaten federal prosecution. As a result of the policy shift and this report, Hoekstra fears terrorists will declare open season on Americans abroad. "This now clearly sets the precedent that if Iran, ISIS or other groups hold Americans hostage that they can now expect that the United States will negotiate with them and will pay them a ransom. Not always, but that option now exists where previously it did not," said Hoekstra. Even more, Hoekstra says Obama undercut the efforts of Americans to claim some of that $1.7 billion from Iran due to damages caused by Iranian-backed terrorism. "They were going after the Iranians in U.S. courts to collect damages that the Iranians had imposed on these individuals. It's not like they were only litigating whether this was Iranian money or not. There were also U.S. citizens who were attempting to litigate and get settlements for the damages that they received from Iran," said Hoekstra. In addition to the convenient timing of the money transfer, Hoekstra says if there was no connection to the hostage release, why are we only learning about this now? "If it's purely a coincidence, then why all the secrecy? Why pallets of money coming from the Hague on an unmarked plane flying out of Switzerland? Why no transparency to Congress? Why no transparency to the American people as this was being negotiated?" asked Hoekstra. "If it's all above board, then give us the transparency up front," added Hoekstra. Hoekstra is a fierce opponent of the Iranian nuclear deal but says at the very least the U.S. should have insisted upon the hostages being released as part of the deal. But the former chairman says it's just another example of Obama giving away the store to our adversaries and getting almost nothing in return. While pleased the hostages are free, he says Obama has a record of making poor deals. "They have fundamentally turned America's foreign policy head over heels, now negotiating ransom payments for hostages, embracing the Muslim Brotherhood, embracing the regime in Iran, embracing Cuba. The list goes on and on," said Hoekstra. "In almost all of those negotiations, America has gotten very little benefit from massive changes in our foreign policy," said Hoekstra. |
| 'Wake Up America' Takes Fight to PC Culture |
| Tue, 2 Aug 2016 16:26:05 EST Eight years of Barack Obama and the relentless tide of political correctness have weakened America, and Fox News host Eric Bolling says a return to nine core American virtues is critical for America before election day and in the years to come. Bolling, who is best known as co-host of "The Five" And "Cashin In" on the Fox News Channel, is also the author of the New York Times bestseller "Wake Up America: The Nine Virtues that Made our Nation Great - And Why We Need Them More Than Ever." Bolling dedicates his book to Obama, but it's not exactly a sincere tribute. "The country has been pulled so far left for so many years. Even before he was President Obama, Senator Obama said we needed to fundamentally change America and we elected him anyway. He's done that. He's tried to and he's succeeded in pulling us very far left," said Bolling, who says the book is a guide for leading America back to where it was meant to be. "I needed to get some roadmap back to the center, back to the center-right where the country was founded and has done very well for 240 years," said Bolling. Bolling describes his book as a "push back against the PC culture" and says the reason it's become a best-seller is the same reason Donald Trump is the Republican presidential nominee. "I think that's where Trump's base is coming from. In general, the people coming out to see Donald Trump are tired of being told they can't say this. They can't say that. It's offensive to hold the door open for a woman. They're tired of it," said Bolling. "The book was written before Trump ever jumped into the race, but he's tapping into the same thing I was tapping into." The nine virtues described in "Wake Up America," include: grit, profit, manliness, thrift, individuality, dominion, merit, pride. and providence. Bolling insists there is no particular order in which he addresses them, except for the first and last virtues. He says grit is the story of America and our founding fathers. "They weathered some massive, massive winters. They were gritty and determined to carve out America in the landscape and they did that," said Bolling. He says grit also personified his own life - even in his mother's final moments. "Her final words on her deathbed - I was standing right next to her and she pulled me close. Her last two words on earth were, 'Never Quit,'" said Bolling. It was a memory of his mother much earlier in Bolling's life when which he realized the virtues he would need to pull himself and his family out of poverty. It was a simple shopping trip to a discount retailer that made him realize just how dire his family's finances were. "My mom said, 'Go grab a pair of sneakers over there.' I brought back some Pro-Keds. The look on her face when she had to tell me that we couldn't afford the sneakers, I'll never forget it. That was my realization that there were haves and have nots in the world and we were the have nots. I just wanted to get out of that situation and help my family," said Bolling. "I think it's a lot of the reason I went from that life to being very blessed to sit in the middle seat on 'The Five' on Fox News every day and sitting in for Bill O-Reilly when he wants to take a vacation. It's a blessed life and it certainly wouldn't have happened without these values," said Bolling. He specifically listed providence last on his list of virtues to express how much he thanks God for his accomplishments. "I'm very fortunate to get where I am, but I don't believe that's from hard work alone. It's a lot of it, but I go to church every day and I thank the good Lord for the success I've had," he said. Bolling is especially concerned about the political correctness running wild on college campuses, especially as his son prepares to leave home this fall. "I have an 18-year-old son going to college for the first time. He's off to this liberal academia. I'm very concerned he'll turn into a left-wing zealot," said Bolling. He says his son has a good head start but knows many sensible kids have been derailed at college. "He's leaving with at least a fair and balanced idea of what's right and what's wrong. what's good government and what's bad. Hopefully, he comes back the same, but I'm concerned he won't because of the complete liberal slant in academia," said Bolling. In the introduction to the book, Bolling describes the stage of Hillary Clinton's inauguration, complete with prominent roles for Bernie Sanders, Al Gore and Al Sharpton, as a vision of what's to come soon for America if the nation does not snap back to its moorings. It's a picture that has many of his readers terrified. "As they're waiting in line for the signing and they get through the introduction, they'll be like, 'I'm scared to death. How are we going to handle this?' I said, 'Don't worry. Just keep reading. The book is a manual to fix it so this doesn't have to be permanent. It can be just a temporary phase we went through," said Bolling. |
| Hillary's Russian Reset a Crony-Laden Disaster |
| Mon, 1 Aug 2016 16:21:58 EST Hillary Clinton and her supporters openly suggest collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign is responsible for the hacking of various Democratic Party websites, but a closer look at Clinton's time as secretary of state not only reveals a cozy relationship but actions that damage U.S. national security and may have even led to her own emails being hacked. The revelations come in a new report from "Clinton Cash" author Peter Schweizer, who made headlines last year by outlining several examples of Clinton allegedly using her office at the State Department to benefit big Clinton Foundation donors and those who paid massive sums for Bill Clinton to speak at various events. Schweizer says his least discoveries paint a very troubling picture. "It has that reeking of kind of an insider cronyism deal, not to mention what we would soon learn about the national security implications of this project," said Schweizer. At issue is a massive high-tech project called Skolkovo. "It was an initiative to get U.S. tech companies to invest both money and technology into a Russian version of Silicon Valley," said Schweizer. "That version of Silicon Valley was of course a government-directed one, not like the Silicon Valley we have in the United States." Why was the Obama administration interested in laying our technological advancements bare for Russia to see? Schweizer says it's the latest version of detente, the Nixon-Kissinger strategy of thawing relations through collaborative efforts. "The idea is that by helping Russia develop its version of Silicon Valley, we would make them more prosperous and supposedly more stable and more cooperative. They would be tied to us economically so it would make them less aggressive. That was the theory," said Schweizer. As with the previous allegations of pay-to-play, Schweizer says the money trail here is also very curious. "Many of them had close Clinton links financially. Of the 28 American companies that were invited to participate, 17 of them were major Clinton Foundation donors," said Schweizer. "On the Russian side, the Russian official directing it was a major Clinton Foundation donor, as were some of the participants." However, the Clintons have been very prominent figures for many years. Is it possible they simply have good relationships with the firms most likely to take part in the Skolkovo project? "It might explain part of the American participation, but it does not mention the Russian participation. There's no reason why a guy named Viktor Vekselberg, who is the Russian overseeing this intiative, who is a Putin oligarch, there's reason for him to be a Clinton Foundation donor - or a gentleman who was in charge of the nuclear cluster at Skolkovo," said Schweizer. "There's no reason for him to donate to the Clinton Foundation absent the fact that she is the secretary of state steering this technology project," said Schweizer. Schweizer says it took about two years for the U.S. Army to figure out what Russia was really doing through this program designed to build trust and cooperation between the two nations. "In 2011-2012, the U.S. Army does a study and comes to the conclusion that a lot of what's going on in Skolkovo has military application, that in fact there's a hyper-sonic cruise missile and other weapons being developed at what is supposed to be a civilian technology city," said Schweizer. It didn't stop there. "Then you had the FBI come a year later, which sends a letter to companies involved in this and said you should know that the ultimate purpose of this is for them to get access to classified technologies that can be applied for military purposes," said Schweizer. Schweizer says he less concerned about Russia directly using our own technology against us than he is about the Russians being willing to sell what they have to rogue nations and terrorist groups, just as it has assisted Iran and North Korea with their nuclear programs. In addition to the military intelligence gathered, Schweizer says Skolkovo has developed a sinister reputation for something else. "Skolkovo was identified, beginning back in 2011 by cyber security experts as a main area of cyber attack by Russia, that they were launching cyber attacks and engaging in cyber crimes directed at Ukraine and other targets," said Schweizer. He says if Russia is involved in the hacking of Democratic Party institutions, it's possible it's origins lie in Hillary Clinton's reset strategy. "It is not inconceivable at all that a tech initiative that Hillary Clinton launched and oversaw as secretary of state is now the location of hackers who are hacking into sites in the United States," said Schweizer. |
| GOP Aims to Sink Conservative Rep. |
| Fri, 29 Jul 2016 15:38:58 EST A conservative Republican congressman is once again fighting to save his political career while leaders in his own party try to oust him for what he says is simply honoring his promises to the voters. Four states head to the polls in congressional primaries on August 2, but the most intriguing - and expensive - of those races is in the first congressional district of Kansas. Known as "The Big First," the sprawling district takes up a majority of the land in the state. Rep. Tim Huelskamp is seeking a fourth term in the House but is facing a well-funded challenge from hospital executive Dr. Roger Marshall. The congressman says his internal polling is encouraging but that the infusion of money and messages in the home stretch of this primary campaign shows nothing should be taken for granted. "Since then the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has jumped in. This Super PAC out of Chicago owned by uber billionaires has jumped in as well. This could be the most expensive primary in the country when it's all done," said Huelskamp, noting the money is coming from New York and New Jersey as well but apparently not from Kansas. "Why would folks in Chicago be pumping money into Kansas, or folks in New Jersey or folks in London. One guy wrote a $100,000 check with a corporate office in London. They're trying to buy this election," he added. The people of the first district may soon be dizzy from all the attention. Huelskamp says supporters of Marshall have spent over a million dollars in just the past three weeks. And he has a pretty good idea why some of those people and groups don't want him back in Congress. "I think the U.S. Chamber is in for one reason: because I won't vote for amnesty. I won't vote to raise the debt ceiling. Some of these Super PACs want to borrow more money and spend more money," said Huelskamp. Huelskamp says the mailers and other ads he's seen from the outside groups are trying to deceive people about his record, especially the Chicago-based group that the congressman says also supported Hillary Clinton in Iowa earlier this year. Marshall also leads the campaign fundraising race. "They've done at least 33 different mailers in different parts of the district just slamming us and lying about us. That's actually a good sign because they understand that if you want to win in America as a Republican, you at least have to claim you're a conservative," said Huelskamp. He says it's governing as a conservative that too many in the party cannot tolerate. "They like to campaign as conservatives but when you actually vote that way and fight that way and try to do what we promised to do as Republicans, it upsets the insiders," said Huelskamp. Huelskamp says the past few years of GOP control in the House is proof the party has not kept its campaign promises. "Under John Boehner, they added five trillion dollars of new debt. You can't blame it all on Obama because that all went through the U.S. House. In many cases under John Boehner, a minority of Republicans teamed up with Nancy Pelosi to pass increases in the debt ceiling and massive increases in spending but not do anything about Obamacare," said Huelskamp, who labels himself a "proven conservative." The congressman says his defeat would not only please party leaders but also serve as a warning to other conservatives. "If they can take out a conservative in the heartland of America, then they send a message to my 40 or 50 or 60 conservative colleagues in the House and say it's time to do exactly what leadership tells them to do," said Huelskamp. Huelskamp became headline news in late 2012, when he and two other GOP members were stripped of their top committee assignments for bucking leadership too much. Huelskamp lost his seat on the House Agriculture Committee, a hugely important position for his rural farm district. He survived a tough primary fight in 2014 but he's facing even more ammunition now. Marshall and some of the outside groups have said Huelskamp needs to go because the first district in Kansas needs their congressman on the House Agriculture Committee and having Huelskamp banned deprives the region of power and influence on policies vital to the area. The congressman says that line of attack is no longer relevant thanks to new rules in the House. "When we got rid of John Boehner, we got rid of rules in the House so one speaker couldn't run everything. Paul Ryan agreed we were going to diffuse power and take it out of the speaker's hands and distribute it," said Huelskamp. "I was elected to the Steering Committee that makes those decisions as a representative of conservatives in the House." "We're going to get back on the ag committee after we win this race," he added. Huelskamp says he is the true conservative in the race, while Marshall has is a center-left Republican. He cites his pro-life record as being much stronger than Marshall's and touts his endorsements from multiple gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America. He also has the backing of Sen. Pat Roberts, and the conservative free-market Club for Growth is now on the air in the district with ads designed to boost Huelskamp. In addition to the politics of the race, he identifies much better with the people of "The Big First" because he's one of them. "Most importantly, I'm a fifth-generation farmer. I go back and forth to Washington every week. I go to church in Kansas. My kids go to school in Kansas. Our farm is in Kansas," said Huelskamp. "The last thing we need is more insiders who are going to make a home in Washington instead of a home back in their district," said Huelskamp. |
| 'Partners in Crime' |
| Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:14:24 EST As Hillary Clinton heads out of the Democratic National Convention to hit the general election campaign trail, allegations of Clinton Foundation corruption are alive and well and one writer is urging Americans across the country to help hold the Clintons accountable. Dr. Jerome Corsi is an investigative reporter for WND.com and the author, most recently, of "Partners in Crime: The Clintons' Scheme to Monetize the White House for Personal Profit." His book comes more than a year after Peter Schweizer's "Clinton Cash" detailed alleged State Department favors Hillary Clinton performed for nations and individuals that donated to the Clinton Foundation or paid Bill Clinton hundreds of thousands of dollars for a speech. Corsi says his efforts to shut down the Clinton Foundation have a much simpler focus. "What I'm maintaining is there is a much easier offense to go after and that's what's called inurement. Inurement is a criminal offense and it means yourun a charity for your own benefit," said Corsi. He says that is much easier to prove than the kind of corruption alleged by Schweizer. "You don't need a quid pro quo. You just show the financial reporting is so apparently fraudulent and so masking of money that you know went through the corporation because the United Nations reports more that they gave to the Clinton Foundation reports they got. Where did the additional missing money go?" asked Corsi. Corsi says the Clinton Foundation inurement began after the Clintons turned a foundation designed to raise money for Bill Clinton's presidential library. After leaving the White House, the Clintons used the foundation for disaster relief in placed like India and Haiti. Corsi says Bill Clinton would travel to the scenes of disaster, pose with the survivors, raise hundreds of millions of dollars for the relief effort and then spend just a tiny fraction on the stated mission. "Money gets ripped off in this grifter scheme and enriches the Clintons. You have to ask yourself. They have these $100 million net worths and they've never held a job except for the Clinton Foundation. Where did they get all this money except to rip it out of the foundation?" asked Corsi, who refers to the Clinton Foundation as a "vast criminal enterprise." The instinctive response to that question is that the Clintons have raked in millions of dollars for their speaking engagements. But Corsi says the money trail there is very murky as well. "You can't tell where the speaking fees went. Were they foundation related? Bill Clinton sets up a dummy corporation, WJC LLC," said Corsi. "He has a pass through account in it, where he is able to take the money through various accounts that he passes it through, comes through this WJC pass through, goes out to other nominal accounts. This is the type of thing drug cartels or terrorists do. It's classic money laundering." Corsi says the Clinton Foundation cannot be confronted through the federal government, because we've seen that Uncle Sam will not punish Democrats when Democrats are in power. "Every criminal in the world knows that this scheme is underway. The only people being fooled by it are the citizens of the United States, who are still under the illusion the Department of Justice, the FBI or the IRS operates for equal justice under the law. It doesn't, not under the Democrats," said Corsi. As a result, Corsi says the path to holding the Clintons accountable must begin in the states. "Any one state can shut down the Clinton Foundation. A person who's given a dollar to the foundation says, 'I've been defrauded.' A state attorney general can call for a criminal investigtation and suspend the activities of the Clinton Foundation internationally until the determination is made as to whether it's a legitimate charity," said Corsi. Corsi is urging Americans to bombard the attorney general in their state to demand answers. He says without such scrutiny, a Hillary Clinton presidency would make past Clinton Foundation abuses pale in comparison. "If Hillary Clinton gets in the White House, it'll be a grifter's wet dream. You'll have Bill Clinton at the foundation and Hillary as head of state. No grifter ever fell more into the lap of luxury," said Corsi. |
| Clinton Friend Laughs Off Bill's Romantic Tale |
| Wed, 27 Jul 2016 16:12:25 EST Former President Bill Clinton told Americans Tuesday night about Hillary Clinton's lifetime of fighting for people in the context of a 45-year love story, but the account fails to ring true for Dolly Kyle. Kyle was a childhood friend of Bill Clinton and later carried on a years-long affair with him after Clinton was engaged and married to Hillary. Kyle is also the author of recently published book, "Hillary: The Other Woman." Kyle and Clinton remained intimate until Clinton's 1992 White House bid, at which point he cut off contact when he mistakenly thought she was about to go public with their affair. On Tuesday, the former president began his speech with a description of how he and Hillary met at Yale Law School. "In the spring of 1971, I met a girl," said Clinton, noting that they were both taking a political and civil rights class together. "After the class, I followed her out, intending to introduce myself. I got close enough to touch her back, but I couldn't do it. Somehow I knew this would not be just another tap on the shoulder and I might be starting something I couldn't stop," added Clinton. Kyle could not believe Clinton used that terminology. "The first thing I thought when he thought about touching a female in front of him was the number of women he's raped and sexually assaulted," said Kyle. Clinton went on to explain he finally met Hillary in the law library at Yale because she made the long walk over to him and said they might as well know each other's names if they going to keep staring at each other. "I've heard the story repeated ad nauseum about how they met in the law library and the law library got bigger and the stairs became greater and there became more and more of a romantic element the more times they told the story. However, considering that Billy and Hillary are both pathological liars, it's hard to say how much of that story is true," said Kyle. Bill Clinton told his friend about meeting Hillary but her version of the story is a bit different. "Oh sure, he told me about Hillary. And he told me in the fall of 1972 that he was moving in with her at Yale. He made it sound like it was no big deal, which apparently to him it wasn't because he was seeing plenty of other women at the time as he always did, including throughout their engagement and their marriage," said Kyle. According to Kyle, Hillary was well aware of Bill infidelities even then. "He was dating women - and me - at the University of Arkansas in 1974. Hillary knew that. She sent her father and one of her brothers to Arkansas to spy on him while she was still in Washington trying to establish herself on her own. She realized with her personality and all that she couldn't possibly (do it) so she had to ride his coattails," said Kyle. In his speech, Clinton also described how the birth of Chelsea in 1980 transformed their lives for the better and how after his failed bid for re-election as governor of Arkansas in 1982 that they could focus all of their attention on their young daughter. Kyle says Americans shouldn't believe that either. She contends Chelsea's exists because of political calculations. "The whole idea of having that baby was a political ploy to take attention away from what Billy called 'the warden's' lifestyle' and to make them appear to be a normal couple," said Kyle, referring to the name Clinton allegedly used to refer to his wife. "Every single thing they've done has had a political agenda attached to it, including the birth of Chelsea," said Kyle. Despite her many frustrations with the Clintons, Kyle insists there's nothing bitter about her criticism of them. "This is not a scorned woman or, 'Gee, he's the one who got away.' Thank God I wasn't married to a rapist," she said. In his speech Tuesday, Clinton also referred to Hillary as the greatest "change-maker" he's ever seen. Kyle begs to differ. "Talk about fighting for women and children. She doesn't talk about representing a rapist who raped a 12-year-old girl and Hillary lied about the girl and made up stories. The man deserved a constitutional defense but he did not deserve someone lying about the victim," said Kyle. Kyle says there was nothing in Bill Clinton's speech that surprised her and probably could have written much of it herself. However, she says voters need to think long and hard before casting a ballot for Hillary Clinton. "I don't think anyone can have information and integrity and support Hillary Clinton. You just can't. There's something wrong if you know about her and can vote for her," said Kyle. |
| 'It Should Never Have Been Filed in the First Place' |
| Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:21:09 EST Pro-life activists are cheering the decision of Texas prosecutors to drop felony charges against two reporters who exposed the practices of Planned Parenthood in undercover videos last year, but the attorney for one says the only reason they ever faced criminal allegations was due to politics. On Tuesday, Harris County, Texas, prosecutors dismissed one felony count against Center for Medical Progress Founder David Daleiden and his colleague, Sandra Merritt. The felony charge was for "tampering with a government record for using false identification." Daleiden and Merritt each faced up to 20 years in prison if convicted. Earlier this year, a judge threw out misdemeanor charges against the pair. Merritt attorney Mathew Staver says the decision was a relief and brings an end to a very frustrating case. "Sandra's pleased that this is now behind her, but it never should have been filed in the first place," said Staver, who is founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. The Center for Medical Progress produced a series of videos showing top Planned Parenthood officials casually discussing the killing of unborn children in ways that best preserved the body parts that were most valuable to reasearchers. Staver says the grand jury that indicted Daleiden and Merritt was tasked with investigating possible crimes by Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast. Instead politics rendered a different decision. "They never should have indicted them. They didn't do anything wrong. There was no criminal activity or criminal intent in this case. There is, I think, a real target that they ought to go after. That's Planned Parenthood," said Staver. There are two issues of legal malpractice in this case, according to Staver. First, prosecutors kept the grand jury impaneled longer than expected in order to pursue the charges. Second, one of the top lawyers in the district attorney's office sits on the Planned Parenthood Board in the Houston area. Without Liberty Counsel's help, Staver says his client would be financially ruined. "We provided our legal counsel at no cost, but had we not been there, Sandra would have had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for this kind of representation over a bogus indictment to begin with. That's the problem when the system becomes politically charged and politically motivated as in this particular case," said Staver. Harris County prosecutors began offering the defendants deals even before the first hearing in the case, which Daleiden and Merritt instantly rejected. Staver says that was another glaring sign that the case had no legs. "They've got to be held accountable. I think there has to be some sort of investigation of the district attorney's office for what went on when they exceeded their authority in bringing these charges in the first place," said Staver. He says there have to be consequences for reckless prosecutions given the upheaval the experience brings to innocent people. "They can do a lot of abuse. While the person who's being indicted can ultimately be victorious at the end of the day, look what they have been drug through: financial ruin, financial harm, and harm to their well being and reputation," said Staver. While he and Merritt were always confident no crime was committed, Staver says facing a felony indictment, especially in a high-profile case, is very stressful. "It is quite startling to wake up and find out the rest of the country is now reading about you. Your name's plastered everywhere. People want to get to your house. They want to photograph you. You lose some of your privacy, because now you are indicted as a criminal. Think of that. That is the startling reality of what Sandra had to face," said Staver. Staver, who also represented Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis in her fight against having to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in her name, says he has been very impressed at how his high-profile clients handle this sort of challenge. "They are both amazing people. They both love the Lord. That's where they got their strength. This is a time where lots of people would buckle, but Sandra and Kim, never once thought about buckling. They never once thought they should do something else. They knew they were doing the right thing," said Staver. "It was their faith in Jesus Christ that got them through these situations. Both of them have that in common and both of them have in common that they have out the other side victorious," he added. The legal battles are not quite over for Merritt. While the criminal charges are a thing of the past, Planned Parenthood is suing her in federal court on racketeering charges, in a move that Staver says could bankrupt Merritt if she loses. He says the fact that Daleiden and Merritt are somehow perceived as villains for exposing the for-profit harvesting of baby parts during and after abortions shows America is in a bad place. "I think it shows how messed up this nation is right now and how much we need to get back to Jesus, get grounded and understand that our rights come from God, not from government," said Staver. "Instead of indicting the criminal enterprise that is killing babies, hurting people, and selling baby body parts, they went after the person who was exercising their first amendment right to freedom of speech to get this information out to the rest of the public," he added. |
| Dems Open Convention in Mass Chaos |
| Tue, 26 Jul 2016 12:44:29 EST Democrats planned to make this week a show of strong unity in contrast to the divisions that appeared among Republicans last week, but instead they opened their national convention Monday afternoon with their national chairwoman resigning in scandal, Bernie Sanders supporters refusing to back the nominee and a litany of embarrassing correspondence. The upheaval stems from from nearly 20,000 emails from the Democratic National Committee that were hacked and released Friday by Wikileaks. While the emails are being examined, the exchanges already reveal the DNC actively supporting Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primaries and even hiring young people to argue with Bernie Sanders supporters on social media. The emails also show the DNC demanding things from liberal media outlets and personalities, referring to Latino outreach as "taco bowl outreach", belittling donors behind their backs and orchestrating anti-Trump protests. In response, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced she would step down after the convention, but that timing got moved up after she was roundly booed by her own Florida delegation Monday morning in Philadelphia. It's exactly the start to the convention that the Democrats didn't want. "Given the cracks that appeared in the Republican convention last week, one of the things that the Democrats wanted to do in Philadelphia would be to contrast what they would say was Republican disarray with a smooth-running convention in Philadelphia," said former Republican National Committee Deputy Chairman Frank Donatelli, who also served as political director in the Reagan administration. "What we've seen is, before the convention actually begins is that that has not occurred," he said. Donatelli says this is a massive setback for Hillary Clinton after working feverishly to secure a Sanders endorsement and reach out to his voters. "The Clinton folks have worked very, very hard to get the Sanders people in the tent. They finally get Sanders' endorsement, so they thought that everything was put to bed. Low and behold, this comes up and inflames all the Sanders delegates," said Donatelli. Other than Wasserman Schultz falling on her sword, Democrats have tried to deflect from the scandal by blaming Russia for the hacking and that it was done to help Donald Trump. Donatelli says damage control for the Democrats will be very difficult. "You just don't know what's coming. Normally, you can try to inoculate against bad stories by leaking them yourself and explaining them and trying to get ahead of the story. You don't know what that's going to be right now because you don't know what the Wikileaks people have," said Donatelli. Donatelli admits one benefit for Democrats might ridding itself of Wasserman Schultz at a critical time. "You ask virtually any Democrat in the know and they will tell you the DNC has been vastly under-performing for five or six years now, the time she's been chairman of the DNC. She's not been an effective chairman of the DNC. The Obama folks didn't want to fire her so they basically went around her," said Donatelli. But the changes at the national party level are peanuts compared to the problem the Clinton campaign now has to reach out to Sanders supporters who are so angry they booed Sanders Monday when he told his delegates to back Clinton and Kaine. "The much bigger problem they have is the Bernie Sanders left-leaning Democrats, who were suspicious of Hillary Clinton. Now that she's picked another moderate within the Democratic context in Tim Kaine, they're doubly suspicious of her," said Donatelli. Donatelli says there should be no surprise that Republicans immediately seized on the story as a way to revive Clinton's email and server scandal. "If they could hack the Democratic National Committee, why couldn't they hack her server. There is no real answer to that but it does put the issue back front and center," said Donatelli. |
| Did Cruz Commit Political Suicide? |
| Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:29:19 EST The Republican Party found itself in turmoil following Sen. Ted Cruz's refusal to endorse Donald Trump and instead telling voters to vote their conscience, a move that longtime conservative activist Richard Viguerie says amounted to a political suicide on national television. There had been reports ahead of the Cruz speech that the GOP presidential runner-up would not publicly support Trump and the Trump campaign approved the speech. Near the conclusion of the address to the Republican National Convention, Cruz gave delegates hope that he would back the nominee but ultimately did not. "To those listening. Please don't stay home in November," said Cruz. But he didn't follow that with the words many delegates expected and wanted. "If you love our country and love your children as much as you know that I do, stand and speak and vote your conscience. Vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom and be faithful to the Constitution," said Cruz to a growing cascade of boos. Thursday morning Cruz said he ended his pledge to back Trump after his rival retweeted an unflattering photo of Heidi Cruz and repeatedly suggested the senator's father had ties to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Nonetheless, Viguerie says Cruz's actions on a national stage were disgraceful. "It was a serious, serious, huge mistake for him. It hurt Ted Cruz. It hurt the conservative movement. It hurt the Republican Party. It hurt America," said Viguerie. Viguerie says the mood swing in the convention hall told him all he needed to know. "When Cruz was introduced, he got a thunderous ovation. If they had taken a vote right then, he would have got a majority of the votes for the nomination. When he left the stage after his speech, he widely booed. He didn't have a lot of support after he left the stage," said Viguerie, who says Cruz hurt himself the most through his own tactics. "It does a great deal more harm to Ted Cruz than it does to Donald Trump," said Vigurie. "He made a mistake that may be difficult to overcome for the rest of his life." So was the better move for Cruz to stay home if he couldn't bring himself to endorse Trump or perhaps not mention voting if he wasn't going to recommend the GOP nominee? Viguerie says neither of those would have been the right move. He says Cruz had a responsibility to suck it up and back Trump for the good of the nation. "He has to be a bigger man than to hold these grudges. We're talking about America. We're talking about western civilization. We're talking about our freedoms here. This is not a city council race. This is not a House race or a Senate or governor's race. This is for leadership of the free world," said Viguerie. "Trump wasn't most of our number one, number two or number three choice. Now we have a binary choice. Either Hillary Clinton's going to lead America or Donald Trump. It's not a close call," said Viguerie. He says whether right-leaning voters disgusted by Trump of not, the facts are clear heading into the general election. "Those people who do not support Trump are supporting Hillary. They may deny it, but there's no honest way to say anything other than to say if you are not supporting Trump, you are supporting Hillary Clinton," said Viguerie. But beyond the choice between Trump vs. Clinton, Viguerie says he is increasingly optimistic that a Trump presidency would advance some conservative principles. "With Mike Pence's selection, who is a movement conservative, with Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama playing a major role, with people like Art Laffer and Stephen Moore and other important conservatives playing an important role in this campaign, I have every expectation that this will definitely be a right-of-center administration," said Viguerie. |
| RNC Rules 'Trampling the Grassroots' |
| Wed, 20 Jul 2016 17:01:56 EST Donald Trump is officially the Republican nominee for president but some conservatives say the process that got the party to this point was another example of the Republican National Committee flouting their own rules in a grab for even more power. Three major moments frustrated these conservatives, led by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. First, the RNC rules committee rejected an amendment to the convention rules to allow delegates to vote their conscience. Next, came Monday's floor showdown, when the majorities of well more than the needed seven states demanded a roll call vote on the final rules package. That request was ignored and the presiding officer passed the rules on a simple voice vote. Cuccinelli is incensed. "If you look back to 2012, they did the same thing, They broke their own rules to trample the grassroots," said Cuccinelli, referring to a rule change at the convention that made Ron Paul ineligible to be nominated. "The divisiveness they introduced was tremendous. Here they go and do it again." The official RNC explanation was that lobbying by GOP leaders and the Trump campaign convinced enough states to withdraw their push for a roll call vote so that there was not enough support to proceed. Cuccinelli says that's patently false. "What they said from the stage was not accurate in terms of the number of states that filed petitions. Ten filed petitions. You only need seven," said Cuccinelli. "Ten were filed. Eleven were brought up, but the gentleman from Alaska , Fred Brown, was physically blocked by security from turning in Alaska's petitions," said Cuccinelli. Cuccinelli stresses that the work in the rules committee and pushing for a roll call vote was not part of some Never Trump effort. He says some Trump supporters were with them. "It wasn't just Cruz delegates. We had Kasich and Trump representation in the coalition and we had people who hadn't endorsed anybody in the primary. We were all working together to put together a package of conservative grassroots rules that would decentralize power in the Republican Party, empower the grassroots and fix some of the things that Donald Trump himself said were rigged parts of the system that he was right about," said Cuccinelli. Ultimately, the Trump campaign sided with RNC leaders to quash the conscience amendment. The next flap occurred during the nomination vote on Tuesday as delegates committed to other candidates were frustrated their votes were being assigned to Trump. The RNC ruled that once all other candidates are out, bound delegates are automatically counted in the tally for the remaining candidate. Cuccinelli says while some state rules do have that provision, that decision was also wrong for other states. "Utah didn't have a rule like that. I'm not aware of Alaska having a rule like that. so they inappropriately moved votes from one candidate to another," he said. Cuccinelli calls the heavy-handed rules plays "dumb" because the pro-Trump forces would have won all the votes anyway. He calls these moments an "embarrasment" for RNC chairman Reince Priebus. "It's really petty, tyrannical, vindictive leadership from Priebus and the RNC. It's just more establishment power-grabbing at the expense of the RNC," said Cuccinelli. While he will vote for Trump, Cuccinelli says the RNC is not helping efforts to unify the party by regularly thumbing its nose at the grassroots. He also says it turns the GOP into hypocrites when attacking Hillary Clinton. "This is the party that is out there publicly prosecuting Hillary Clinton for being above the law and they're above their own rules," said Cuccinelli. |
| 'His Heart's Not in This' |
| Fri, 15 Jul 2016 16:33:13 EST Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is blasting President Obama for offering nothing new in the fight against radical Islamic terrorism and stubbornly sticking to a weak policy policy that isn't getting the job done. On Friday, Obama spoke in response to the Bastille Day terrorist attack in Nice, France, where 31-year-old Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel drove a delivery truck down a crowded pedestrian avenue, killing at least 84 people and wounding as many as 200 others. Obama's initial statement Thursday evening referred to the atrocity as a "horrific terrorist attack" but the bulk of the message promised assistance to the French government and vowing that France would remain strong in the wake of the attack. Bolton says Obama once again offered "nothing new." "His heart's not in this. He talked about development assistance to alleviate poverty, as if there's the slightest correlation at all between poverty and radical Islamic ideology or the terrorists," said Bolton. "In fact, the correlation goes the other way. It's some of the wealthier, better educated people who turn into terrorists," added Bolton. He says Obama simply refuses to see the extent of the threat. "The president doesn't believe in this struggle. He doesn't believe the terrorists are waging a war against the U.S. and the rest of the West. He thinks it's a law enforcement matter. I can predict with confidence, although with sadness, he will not do a single thing differently," said Bolton. "It's not something that can be responded to after the terrorists have struck by prosecutions as if they're just jumped up versions of robbing the local Starbucks. This president's never going to understand that. Hopefully a new president will," said Bolton. Obama and Secretary of State Kerry contend the increase in deadly attacks is a result of desperation on the part of ISIS, as it's territory shrinks in Iraq and Syria. Even if the restrained air campaign against ISIS is gaining some ground, Bolton says the time it's taking to accomplish gives ISIS and other radical groups a major advantage. "One of the things that is the unfortunate result of the president's bad strategy is that he's giving ISIS time to redeploy to completely broken countries like Libya if they're forced out of Iraq and Syria," said Bolton. And he says the lack of urgency increases the likelihood of more attacks. "The idea that we can slow roll the defeat of ISIS just means that ISIS and other terrorists can plot more attacks like the one like we've just seen in Nice, France," said Bolton. Bolton fiercely disagrees with Obama's degrade and destroy strategy. He says the second part is the only policy we need. "The strategy should be one word: destroy ISIS and implicit in that is to destroy it immediately. Every day that goes by allows them to continue to fight," said Bolton. He is also taking aim at another frequent Obama talking point - that the U.S. will defeat terrorism because of our values and because we're on the right side of history. Bolton says that sort of talk is very harmful. "Those are death warrants for innocent civilians, because both statements imply an inevitability to the outcome of this conflict," he said. Bolton says Hillary Clinton would be nothing but another four years of the Obama foreign policy and he is hopeful a Donald Trump policy of a smarter, tougher approach to terrorism would mean a coherent military strategy. He says an effective plan to defeat ISIS and other Islamic radicals involves denying bases of operation, stopping the training of terrorists and rooting out the social media and internet recruitment efforts of our enemies. He believes the American people are disgusted that our national leadership has failed in it's most basic task. "The American people are way out in front of their political leaders on this. They expect the government in Washington, at an absolute minimum, to protect the country, which it is not doing now. If the people were given a chance to speak, there wouldn't be any ambiguity in what they said," stated Bolton. |
| House Conservatives Force IRS Impeachment Vote |
| Thu, 14 Jul 2016 16:13:46 EST House conservatives are forcing a vote on the fate of IRS Commissioner John Koskinen after GOP leaders refused to pursue the issue. On Thursday, Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kansas, and Rep. John Fleming, R-Louisiana, offered a privileged resolution demanding a vote to impeach Koskinen for multiple crimes he allegedly committed while covering up the IRS abuse of conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status. Huelskamp says he and other members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus had no other choice. "This has been sitting out there for months and months. Leadership has refused to act, but it's very clear. Mr. Koskinen engaged in a pattern of conduct incompatible with his office. He deceived Congress. He lied. He perjured himself. He deleted records. He covered it all up. At the end of the day, those are all impeachable offenses. We need to have a vote on that in the U.S. House," said Huelskamp. The congressman also explained the significance of the "privileged resolution." "Most resolutions the speaker can see fit to send them to committee, table them and do nothing. But with a privileged resolution, it forces the House to take some vote on this action. We have two days to take a vote on that. We could do it later today, but more likely after the long recess. We would vote on that the first day back," said Huelskamp. Huelskamp actually prefers waiting so lawmakers, including leaders, can hear from their constituents on this. "I'd like to see a vote the first day back. Let members of Congress go home and ask their constituents, 'What do you think about the IRS? Should they be above the law? Do you think anybody should be held accountable in the Obama administration?' I think most Americans say, enough is enough. After all these years, it's time to hold at least one person responsible," said Huelskamp. While Koskinen was not at the IRS at the time the harassment of conservative organizations was uncovered, Huelskamp says the commissioner's actions since taking office are deplorable, particularly the destruction of some 50,000 emails that he was ordered to preserve. "There were protective orders in the IRS not to delete emails. He knew that. He actually lied to Congress saying he protected all those emails. We found out they literally deleted thousands of emails and didn't disclose those to Congress. They impeded a congressional investigation. So he came in to supposedly clean it up and make it whole. But he continued with the cover-u-," said Huelskamp. Huelskamp says lawmakers would be derelict not to pursue impeachment. "It is so distressing that we have a Republican majority in the House and we can't actually use our constitutional authority to hold someone accountable. So we're going to start with the IRS commissioner. If there's an agency that Americans fear the most, maybe after the EPA or close to it, that's the IRS," said Huelskamp. "They can make or break a business. They can destroy lives. They can harass you. They can threaten you. They can intimidate you," added Huelskamp. So why has leadership refused to pursue impeachment of Koskinen under regular order? "Far too often, what I've seen in my five years in Washington is our leadership shying away from a real battle," said Huelskamp. He says the case of former Attorney General Eric Holder is the most glaring example. "They censured him. He covered up the Fast & Furious investigation, covered up the fact of dozens and dozens of American deaths because of their failed policy and refused to come clean to Congress, so we censured him. I thought we should have impeached him. (Former House Speaker) John Boehner says no, he's not going to let us vote on that," said Huelskamp. He says the same goes for Hillary Clinton. "We let her ride for far too long and then the administration shockingly had a non-indictment of her after the the FBI director says clearly she committed criminal offenses," said Huelskamp. Huelskamp says if the public give their representatives an earful, he knows how the vote will go on the privileged resolution in a few weeks. "We're giving them a chance to actually go home and talk with their constituents and see what they think. At the end of the day, if they vote the way Americans want to vote, we will impeach John Koskinen," said Huelskamp. |
| Obama Policies 'Devastating' to Military Readiness |
| Fri, 1 Jul 2016 16:20:33 EST One of the nation's leading experts on military experts calls the Obama administration's policy of allowing transgender troops to serve openly "more than irresponsible" and says the impact of the administration's fiscal and social policies on the nation's armed forces is "devastating." On Thursday, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced he was changing Pentagon policy. "I'm announcing today that we're ending the ban on transgender Americans in the United States military," said Carter. "Effective immediately, transgender Americans may serve openly and they can no longer be discharged or otherwise separated from the military just for being transgender." "Additionally, I have directed that the gender identity of an otherwise qualified individual will not bar them from military service or from any accession program," he said. Center for Military Readiness President Elaine Donnelly says this is a terrible decision for military readiness. "For the Department of Defense to focus on a tiny, tiny, minority and disregard the concerns of the majority of people in the armed forces is more than irresponsible," said Donnelly. "The secretary of defense is instituting a policy that will encourage indiscipline and sexual tension and a range of problems that have nothing to do with strengthening the armed forces. There's no excuse for it." "The military exists to defend the country. It is there to have certain qualities that are unlike the civilian world: honor courage, commitment, certainly integrity and honesty. You cannot ask military leaders to deny reality and teach their subordinates to deny reality without having consequences, especially when dealing with an issue of sexual privacy," said Donnelly. Carter gave multiple reasons for making this decision after a year-long review, starting with giving the military the opportunity to find the best people. "The first and fundamental reason is that the Defense Department and the military need to avail ourselves of all talent possible in order to remain what we are now, the finest fighting force the world has ever known," said Carter, who also says the RAND Corporation estimates that 2,500 of the 1.3 million personnel on active duty are transgender. Donnelly says the year-long study is nothing but smoke and mirrors. "It's not about having the finest force in the world. The so-called study was consultation with LGBT activist groups, including RAND Corporation, which does nothing but polemics whenever they're asked to issue a report on military social issues. Every time the DoD asks for something like this, the DoD gets what they want," said Donnelly. She believes this is all about President Obama rewarding his political allies. "It is a political payoff to LGBT activist groups. It's the final gift of this administration in the final LGBT Equality Month to top off a series of things that the administration has delivered to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activist groups," said Donnelly. In addition to focusing on a social agenda instead of combat readiness, Donnelly fears indoctrination will run rampant through the entire military community. "Military leaders are being ordered to adopt this policy, to promote it, to conduct education classes, even down to the Department of Defense elementary schools - the largest school system in the world. Everybody in the armed forces will be indoctrinated to talk about gender dysphoria as if it is a normal condition and as if they are a civil rights group," said Donnelly. Secretary Carter says he also made the decision because all Americans deserve a chance to serve. "Americans who want to serve and can meet our standards should be afforded the opportunity to compete to do so. After all, our all-volunteer force is built upon having the most qualified Americans, and the profession of arms is based on honor and trust," said Carter. Donnelly firmly rejects that, saying the policy change carries even more of a political taste given existing policy rejecting applicants on psychological grounds. "We have, in military regulation, a list of conditions that disqualify you for military service. Among them are psychological disorders, such as anorexia nervosa," said Donnelly, describing the condition as thin people convinced in their minds that they are really overweight and effectively starve themselves. She says Carter himself doesn't seem to grasp the magnitude of what he's doing. "At the news briefing, he was not even aware that this change that he just put his hand to will put into the Military Equal Opportunity non-discrimination policies, sexual minorities including transgenders, as if they were a special class," said Donnelly. Donnelly says she has no animosity towards transgenders but they should not be in the military. "Your heart goes out to these people, but this is not the responsibility of the armed forces of the United States," said Donnelly. From this policy to Obama allowing homosexuals to serve openly to the Pentagon backing women serving in ground combat and even being forced to register for the draft, Donnelly says the Obama years have had a profound impact on the military. "(It's) devastating. What's harming our military is not just the resources being taken away, but the social burdens being loaded on," said Donnelly. She is disappointed more commanders have not spoken up or resigned in protest to the administration's social policies and suspects the lack of objection from top uniformed officers is because they know the deck is stacked against them. "They are demoralized. I think the military is holding on by a thread," said Donnelly. Donnelly says the military may not recover from a Hillary Clinton presidency because she is likely to continue the same policies. She says we need a president and Congress that will review and overhaul much of what has been done to the military over the past eight years. "It's the only military we have. It's up to us as civilians to guard its real principles and its core values," said Donnelly. |
| Benghazi Response Boils Down to 'Politics' |
| Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:47:53 EST The Obama administration told two completely different versions of the Benghazi terrorist attack for the sake of political expediency and even began spreading the story of a video triggering the violence while Americans were still fighting for their lives. That's the main takeaway of Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, after the special, months-long investigation into Benghazi by a select committee concluded this week. On September 11. 2012, terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, murdering U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and his subordinate, Sean Smith. Hours later, two former Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed by terrorist mortars at the CIA Annex near the consulate. On Tuesday, the Republicans on the committee, led by chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., released its official report, detailing the Obama administration's failure to provide appropriate security for the U.S. consulate in Benghazi for months before the attack, its failure to launch any response to the attack and its willful deception in blaming the attack on a You Tube video. But Rep. Jordan and Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kansas, issued a supplemental report on their own. Jordan says the official account adds great clarity and more information into what happened, where it happened and when. He says the additional report explains why it happened and he says the answer is simple. "Politics. They were 56 days before an election, eight weeks out from an election. Libya was supposed to be their legacy," said Jordan. He says the administration's actions during and after the attack betray its real priorities. "What was the motive to stay (in Benghazi) when everyone else was leaving? What was the motive to be talking about whether military should go in military or civilian clothes and making them change clothes? What was the motive for talking about going in unmarked vehicles? And what was the motive to mislead the American people and blame it on a film when everyone knew right from the start, the film had nothing to do with it and there never was a protest?" said Jordan. Jordan says the troubling answer to all of those questions is the same. "The evidence clearly shows the motive was political concerns that outweighed everything else, including getting planes off the ground in a timely fashion to maybe get there in time to help Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty," said Jordan. Jordan says while the Obama administration ignored multiple warning signs to either pull out or beef up security, the attack itself threatened one of the Obama-Biden campaign's top talking points, that the U.S. had Al Qaeda on the run. "(Hillary Clinton) was the one who pushed for Ghaddafi's ouster a year before. They're doing victory laps. They're saying this is how foreign policy works. No boots on the ground. You can oust a dictator as part of the Arab Spring. Then they have 13 months of all kinds of violence, all kinds of dangerous situations, assassination attempts on the British ambassador, the security situation deteriorates and we stay when almost everyone else leaves. And then it happened," said Jordan. Most galling for Jordan is the intentional duplicity from Obama, Clinton and other administration officials. He points to a statement issued at 10:08 ET the night of the attack, blaming the mayhem on a protest over a YouTube video defaming Mohammed. Yet an hour later, Clinton emailed her daughter, Chelsea, to say it was a terrorist attack. The next day, Clinton told the Egyptian prime minister via email that the video had nothing to do with it. Three days later, then-White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was continuing to publicly attribute the attack to the video even though State Department officials in the region were saying exactly the opposite. "They were consistent. Privately, they would tell the truth. Publicly, they would mislead. Privately, it was a terrorist attack and publicly a video-inspired protest that leads to this attack. Every step of the way it was done for political concern," said Jordan. He says that mentality left Woods and Doherty to fend for themselves. "At 10:18, when she issues that statement, Tyrone Woods is still on the roof of the annex fighting for his life. It's not until an hour and ten minutes later, approximately 11:15, when the mortars hit the CIA Annex building and take the lives of Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.," said Jordan. "He's still fighting. At 10:08, she's already blaming a video in the official statement from our government that evening," said Jordan. "They started the political spin right from the get-go." Jordan says there are still questions that remain unanswered thanks to constant obstruction of the committee's work, namely whether there were weapons being funneled from Libya to Syrian rebels and what the president was doing throughout the evening. "You had Democrats on the committee who really didn't want to help it and you had an administration that did everything it could to put up impediments and road blocks, blocking us from getting access to certain witnesses and documents and information," he said. |
| Hillary 'Motivated By Her Power Addiction' |
| Wed, 29 Jun 2016 16:55:18 EST Hillary Clinton is seeking the presidency because of her insatiable quest for power but his both ethically and medically unfit for office, according to Bill Clinton's former lover who is now the author of a new book urging America to defeat Sec. Clinton at the ballot box. Dolly Kyle is a former attorney who dated Bill Clinton in high school and carried on an affair with the future president both before and after Clinton married Hillary Rodham and until Clinton ran for president in 1992. Kyle says she has since repented of her actions with Clinton, but she says her experience with Hillary convinces her America cannot afford to choose her in November. "She is motivated by her power addiction. She has always wanted to be the first woman president. It really doesn't matter to her how she gets there," said Kyle, who is author of the new book, "Hillary: The Other Woman." Kyle says she had no intention of becoming a figure in the 2016 campaign but Hillary Clinton forced her hand late last year. "I did not want to write this book but the last straw was watching Hillary on television last December, looking into the camera and saying very sincerely that women who claimed to be raped and sexually assaulted deserve to be believe," said Kyle. "I thought, 'You lying hypocrite!' Yeah, sure. We need to support them unless it was your husband who raped them and it was your husband who sexually assaulted them," added Kyle. Kyle says Hillary embodies everything we don't want in our next president. "This is a very angry, mean. lying, vindictive woman, who is temperamentally unstable. This is why she can't have a press conference. Have we heard anything from her in more than six months? No. Everything has to be scripted and controlled," said Kyle, who said Bill and Hillary Clinton are at polar opposites of the charisma scale. Major media have largely ignored Kyle's book, but one account from it is gaining some traction: then-Arkansas First Lady Hillary Clinton's reaction to developmentally challenged children taking part in an Easter egg hunt at the governor's mansion in Little Rock. Kyle was there. "Those children were having a fabulous time but they were moving very, very slowly and it was annoying the Me-First Lady. She went up and [spoke] to one of the troopers. The story diverges as to whether the mike was open or whether she was yelling so loud it was heard everywhere. She said, 'When are they going to get these f---ing retards out of here,'" said Kyle. Kyle's relationship with Bill Clinton ended abruptly when scandal began to engulf his presidential campaign. "The same reporter who had just published the story about Gennifer Flowers contacted me and left a message on my answering machine. He said they had researched my story and they were going to go with it. I called Billy to warn him," said Kyle. "Instead of taking that for the straight-up truth of I was just calling to warn him this was happening, he took it as some sort of a threat and retaliated with, 'If you cooperate with the media, we will destroy you.' That pretty much ended our relationship," said Kyle. In addition to being deeply wary of Hillary Clinton's character, Kyle says she also sincerely believes the former Secretary of State is mentally unfit for office. "Hillary is cognitively impaired. I set forth some of the symptoms of cognitive impairment as laid out on the website of the Centers for Disease control. Then I show how Hillary fits into this. People, pay attention. We have someone who is mentally incapable of running her own household, much less running the White House," said Kyle. Of course, critics of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump also assert that his character, including a philandering past and many questions about his truthfulness, is disqualifying. Kyle isn't a Trump fan but she is having no problem deciding who to vote for. "Donald Trump was not my first choice, but I do believe he is our last hope," said Kyle. Should Hillary become the 45th president, Kyle says the first thing she will expect is an IRS audit. Beyond that, she says the Clintons' improper possession of FBI files during Bill Clinton presidency has career politicians shaking in their boots. "That's how she has intimidated all those people in Washington. They don't know if they're of the 900 whose files she had. Anyone in Washington who is a longtime career politician and has a secret is scared to death of her. And it's not going to get any better if she has more power," said Kyle. |
| Supremes Won't Hear Religious Freedom Case on Abortion |
| Tue, 28 Jun 2016 16:20:20 EST One day after the Supreme Court struck down abortion clinic regulations in Texas, the justices now refuse to hear a case challenging a Washington state law mandating that pharmacies dispense abortion-inducing drugs, a move that one pro-life leader says is the latest efforts by liberals to criminalize opposition to their agenda. On Tuesday, the court announced it would not hear an appeal in the case of Stormans Inc v. Wiesman. A district court struck down the Washington regulations but the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling and law will now stand indefinitely as a result of the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case. Stormans Inc. refers to the Christian family that operates Ralph's Thriftway, a grocery store and pharmacy in the state capital of Olympia. The Stormans refuse to sell abortion-inducing drugs, commonly referred to as the morning after pill or even some that are taken a longer time after possible conception. Reports say the Stormans are willing to refer customers to other pharmacies for the drugs and there are dozens of other pharmacies within five miles of Ralph's Thriftway. Usually the court makes no comment in deciding whether to accept or reject cases. The five justices refusing the appeal made no statement, but Justice Samuel Alito released a blistering 15-page dissent. Justices Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the dissent. "If this is a sign of how our religious liberty claims will be treated in the years again, those who value religious liberty have cause for great concern," wrote Alito. Alito also suggested the Washington statute and the enforcement of it "reflect antipathy toward religious beliefs that do not accord with the views of those holding the levers of government power." Pro-life leaders in Washington agree. What this indicates is that the ruling class, and the other members of the Supreme Court in particular, are willing to allow the conscience rights of Americans to be violated and obliterated when they don't fit in with their particular political cup of tea," said Americans United for Life Spokeswoman Kristi Hamrick. She says enforcing this Washington state regulation in the face of exercise of conscience is much more severe than enforcing other laws. "It's not merely that they didn't want to sell these drugs. They're going to be forced to facilitate ending human life through the sale of these drugs. This has implications for medical personnel and nurses who do not want to perform abortions," said Hamrick. Hamrick says Americans should not be distracted by the wording that the media and abortion supporters use about these drugs. She says the result of taking them is well documented. "It's not just that they felt that these drugs end life. They do end life. It is medically accurate to say that these drugs work together to destroy potentially unborn human life. If a child has been conceived, this will end that child's life. So it's not speculation. It's true," said Hamrick. Tuesday's news follow's Monday's 5-3 ruling striking down abortion clinic regulations in Texas, including the requirement that abortion providers have admitting privileges at a local hospital and that clinics meet the same standards as outpatient surgical centers. Hamrick says the court's actions this week show liberals are in attack mode on abortion. "What we are seeing is the abortion industry moving from choice to coercion. They are going to force you to end life and force you to pay for the ending of life," said Hamrick. "What they want now is full funding of abortion. It won't be enough to make you do it. It won't be enough to make you comply with it. It won't be enough to have it in your health care. Now we are going to have to pay for it and provide it an export it. These are chilling days indeed," said Hamrick. And she says they won't stop there. "I suspect they're going to reach into houses of worship directly. Up to this point, there has been a separation from attacks against actual houses of worship. (They'll target) the Catholic Church head-on, maybe the Baptist Conference head-on. It is their desire to make it illegal for us to hold a different point of view," said Hamrick. "Up to this point, they've been dancing around the edges around the world of Christians and people of faith who are involved in charitable efforts and trying to make them pay (such as Little Sisters of the Poor). Or in the world of Christians like Hobby Lobby, who have a business but they happen to be Christians, such as these pharmacists. With this kind of momentum, I would expect them to go after houses of worship directly," said Hamrick. |
| 'No Rational, Legal Basis for This Decision' |
| Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:30:50 EST The U.S. Supreme Court struck down abortion clinic restrictions in Texas Monday, arguing that regulations such as requiring abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges is an undue burden on women seeking an abortion. The decision in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt came on a 5-3 ruling with Justice Stephen Breyer writing the majority opinion. He was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Justice Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito both wrote dissenting opinions. Chief Justice John Roberts joined Alito's dissent, as did Thomas. ""We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes," wrote Breyer, referring to the admitting privileges and the regulation requiring abortion clinics to meet the same standards as outpatient surgical centers. ""Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access ... and each violates the federal Constitution," added Breyer. The pro-life community is appalled. "There's just no rational, legal basis for this decision today other than radical abortion advocacy," said Susan B. Anthony List National Campaign Chair Jill Stanek, a former nurse who became a pro-life activist after holding a baby who died after a botched abortion because the provider refused to offer life-saving measures. "This is the most consequential decision in a quarter of a century and it did not go our way," said Stanek, referring to the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade on a 5-4 ruling. Stanek referred to both dissenting opinions in explaining how she believes the majority got it wrong. "As Justice Alito said in his dissent, 'The court's patent refusal to apply well-established in a neutral way is indefensible and will undermine public confidence in the court as a fair, neutral arbiter,'" said Stanek. She also cited Justice Thomas. "Justice Thomas called this judicial fiat. he said, 'As the court applies whatever standard it likes to any given case, nothing but empty words separates our Constitutional decisions from judicial fiat.' That's just what this was today," said Stanek. In addition to the legal arguments. Stanek says the biggest losers in this case are the women of Texas. "Texas women are not going to be protected from unsanitary conditions and even Gosnell-like horrors that permeate the abortion industry," said Stanek. Dr. Kermit Gosnell is the Philadelphia-based abortion provider serving a life sentence for killing babies that survived abortions and for the death of a woman under his care at a filthy clinic. Stanek says 26 abortion clinics have been shut down nationwide for failing to maintain the sanitary conditions required by those states. She says the list of violations should make any stomach turn. "They had unsterile instruments, spattered dried blood on exam tables, spattered blood on the walls and the floors, expired medication, incompetent administration of anesthesia by workers off the streets with no medical background, faulty defibrillators," said Stanek. "(They were also) throwing fetal remains and patient records away in the regular trash, putting infants' remains down garbage disposals, staff including doctors admitting they didn't wash hands between patients, dead insects, locked doors and blocked emergency exits," said Stanek. She says the potential for even worse horrors exists in many states, including her own. "In Illinois and many other states, abortion clinics are less regulated that veterinary clinics, roofers and nail salons. How can this be good for the health and safety of women," said Stanek. She says the bottom line is that abortion proponents do not have the interests of patients first and foremost. "We know the abortion industry cannot be trusted to regulate itself and they know it. The mere fact they strongly opposed this reasonable, common sense safeguard for women just reveals the true nature of it as a pro-profit business model. The industry would rather tolerate conditions reminiscent of back-alley abortions than invest in upgrading their facilities," said Stanek. In his majority opinion, Breyer cited the Gosnell case in a way that stunned Stanek. "There's no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have effected that behavior. Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by new overlay of regulations," wrote Breyer. Stanek says that logic is very dangerous. "If that's the standard then there should be no rule of law in the U.S.," said Stanek. |
| EU, Not Britain, the 'Biggest Loser' in Brexit Vote |
| Fri, 24 Jun 2016 16:24:01 EST British voters triggered a geopolitical earthquake Thursday, as a fed up majority stunned politicians and the media by choosing to leave the European Union in a move commonly referred to as Brexit. Meanwhile, a top U.S. economist says the move exposes the deep flaws of the EU, positions the British economy well in the near future and will likely encourage other nations to follow suit. Polls suggested the referendum would be a close vote and Thursday's results reflected that. Investors clearly did not believe voters would cut ties to the EU, as the Dow Jones Industrial Average plummeted 611 points on Friday and other world markets did much the same. While politicians and economists were wringing their hands about the economic impact on the UK and world markets over the short and long term, a top American economist believes voters did the right thing. "The biggest loser from Brexit is not Britain. It is the European Union. Once Britain declares independence, then other countries are going to want to declare independence too. They don't like being governed by Brussels either," said Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a former chief economist for the U.S. Department of Labor who is now a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Brussels, Belgium, is the headquarters of the European Union. Furchgott-Roth says the EU is a proven failure. "I think the whole system, where you have unelected bureaucrats in Brussels controlling the individual countries, clearly is not working. Rather than pointing just to the structure, just look at the EU growth rate. It has some of the most educated people in the world and it is growing at about one percent," she said. Youth unemployment is especially bad, with some nations seeing rates as high as 50 percxent. Furchtgott-Roth says the EU is in rough shape. "By many, many measures it is worse off than the United States or other countries or even Britain," said Furchgott-Roth. She says the EU started off fine but eventually began imposing far too much on member nations. "It started off as a free trade zone. I think that was fine. When it gets into regulatory harmonization and tax harmonization, countries think that is too invasive. It really needs to rethink how it operates in order to make itself more attractive to it's members," said Furchtgott-Roth. Economics wasn't the only issue. Legislation passed by member nations has to receive approval from the EU before taking effect, which many see as an erosion to national sovereignty. There are also major concerns in Britain and beyond about the EU's ability to put forth a counter-terrorism strategy or stem the tide of Middle East refugees. Many liberals see the Brexit as especially damaging to British trade. Furchgott-Roth says it's exactly the opposite. "China is apparently very happy with Brexit. They want to sign deals with the United Kingdom. Different former commonwealth countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, also want to be signing deals. People are going to be waiting in line. They are waiting in line to sign trade deals - to have the advantage of Britain as a market for their products," said Furchtgott-Roth. If this is so good, why did the markets recoil in horror on Friday? Furchtgott-Roth says the reaction of investors was expected because the election results were not. "Investors don't like uncertainty. They didn't see this coming. They were brainwashed by the more socialist elements in Europe and in Britain, saying that this could not occur and that the British would vote to stay in the EU. Now they're surprised. No one likes uncertainty or surprises. Hence, the falling market," said Furchtgott-Roth. She adds that the biggest mistake Britain can make now is waiting for new leadership elections before embarking on new trade deals, believing the sooner those are established the better so certainty can emerge again. |
| 'We Should Be A Color-Blind Society' |
| Thu, 23 Jun 2016 16:36:00 EST A closely divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that race can be a factor in college admissions as justices ruled against a woman alleging the University of Texas rejected her application because she is white. Many court watchers were surprised at the 4-3 decision in favor of the policy and rejecting the complaint brought by Abigail Fisher. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case. Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. 1cA university is in large part defined by those intangible 18qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness, 19 1d wrote Kennedy. 1cConsiderable deference is owed to a university in defining those intangible characteristics, like student body diversity, that are central to its identity and educational mission. 1d While the University of Texas is the winner in the case, Justice Kennedy made it clear the ruling did not give a pass to all race-based admissions policies. 1cBut still, 1d Justice Kennedy added, 1cit remains an enduring challenge to our nation 19s education system to reconcile the pursuit of diversity with the constitutional promise of equal treatment and dignity. 1d The attempted compromise is not satisfying to affirmative action opponents, including leaders of Project 21, a network of black conservative leaders. "The truth of the matter is the Constitution never contemplated the government being allowed to use race, pro or con, as a basis for offering any government service," said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, who is also a constitutional attorney. "This is the 21st century and we should be a color-blind-society." Cooper says the court would correctly recoil at the idea of a college or university using race to weed out minority students so he believes it's wrong to give special consideration to minorities for the same reason. "Their position appears to be where you try really, really hard, we're going to say it's okay for you to let race be a factor in admissions," said Cooper. "Our position is the abuse and the history of abuse of using race as a basis for government services shows there isn't any reason for this." Cooper believes Kennedy and the other justices in the majority are reaching a telling conclusion. "What Justice Kennedy suggested was that there's somehow a value to the State of Texas, to the university, just in diversity itself," said Cooper, who notes that the University of Texas did not follow the normal policy of automatically accepting anyone in the state who finishes in the top ten percent of their class. He says that policy would be a huge boon to diversity. But he says the decision leads to two major problems. He says the greatest concern is how this policy could actually make racial stereotypes and division worse. "Students are going to be sitting in the classroom, students who were admitted even though they didn't meet traditional admissions criteria. They will be competing against students who were admitted under traditional admissions criteria," said Cooper. "The competition is going to result in our youngest and brightest concluding that you can in fact look at the race of a person and predict academic performance," he added. The other problem, he says, is the court is all over the map on affirmative action after a series of conflicting decisions on various cases. "The court has created a jumble of its own making, when the more natural principle ought to be government should not predicate the provisioning of services on anyone's race," said Cooper. |
| Obama-Appointed Judge Smack Down Executive Power Grab |
| Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:08:15 EST House Republicans are cheering a federal court judge appointed by President Obama after a ruling that not only concluded the federal government cannot regulate hydraulic fracturing but cannot regulate anything without the legislative permission of Congress. The decision from Judge Scott Skavdahl comes in a case brought by the states of Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota and Utah plus two energy companies against Interior Secretary Sally Jewell. Instead of ruling strictly on the merits of the case, Skavdahl vigorously argued for the respective branches to honor their limitations as outlined in the Constitution. "The issue before this Court is not whether hydraulic fracturing is good or bad for the environment or the citizens of the United States," he wrote. The question, instead, is "whether Congress has delegated to the Department of Interior legal authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing. It has not." "Congress' inability or unwillingness to pass a law desired by the executive branch does not default authority to the executive branch to act independently, regardless of whether hydraulic fracturing is good or bad for the environment or the Citizens of the United States," added Skavdahl. "'[The Supreme] Court consistently has given voice to, and has reaffirmed, the central judgment of the Framers of the Constitution that, within our political scheme, the separation of governmental powers into three coordinate Branches is essential to the preservation of liberty.'" Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 380 (1989). 19 For lawmakers concerned about the Obama administration's effort to rein in the fracking boom, Judge Skavdahl's opinion came as a pleasantly stunning surprise. "He sets up the restatement of our founding principles that there's got to be a balance of powers and that some powers are given to the administrative branch of government, i.e. the agencies, and some powers aren't. Unless it's specifically in the Constitution, which obviously this is not, then it has to come directly from Congress," said Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va, who represents coal country in southwestern Virginia and is a member of the House Energy & Commerce Committee. As thrilled as Griffith is with the ruling, he's especially encouraged by who rendered it. "I think momentum is starting to head back in the direction of the legislative branch. We're seeing more judges pushing back on agencies that take on powers that they don't have. I think it's important to note that this particular judge is an Obama appointee. It's not just former Bush appointees making these decisions," said Griffith. Of course a district court judge will most likely not have the final say on this matter or on the larger battle between the executive and legislative branches. Griffith hopes other courts follow the Constitution like Skavdahl did. "I hope that the other courts will agree with this judge and understand that this is a debate for Congress to have," said Griffith. But while Griffith like's the court decision, he says Congress must do more to stand up for itself. "I think we have to be more aggressive on the funding side," he said, alluding to Congress having the power to withhold funding from any area where it believes the executive branch has exceeding it's authority. "I think we have to hope that the judiciary will recognize that the executive is getting too powerful and overstepping its bounds, gettin' too big for its britches as my mama would say." Outside of the separation of powers issue, Griffith is also pleased at the impact this ruling will have on American energy exploration. "Fracking does give us more natural gas. It gives us the ability to get more oil. I think it's huge for the American domestic supply. We don't want to be dependent for our energy on foreign sources. I think this is a huge issue," said Griffith. He says fracking and unleashing other traditional energy sources is the only plan that accepts reality. |
| Trump and Evangelicals: Needs to be A Pattern, Not Just A Meeting |
| Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:42:50 EST Donald Trump reached out to a large group of evangelical figures on Tuesday, vowing to be a voice for their concerns if elected president, but one of the leaders at the front lines of the culture wars says Trump needs to demonstrate a pattern of consistency if he hopes to win the vast majority of Christian conservatives to his side in November. The meeting in New York City Tuesday drew the likes of former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., Liberty University President Jerry Falwell, Dr. James Dobson and dozens more figures ranging from traditional Christian pastors to political activists to prosperity gospel proponents. While the early reviews from those in attendance appear to be very positive, Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver says it's only one step. "At the end of the day, it's not one meeting. It's a pattern of activity in which you develop a trust or you develop a suspicion on how a particular candidate is going to act," said Staver. "The main problem with Donald Trump is nobody really, really knows what he is going to do." Staver says Trump needs to starting winning the confidence of social conservatives now. "After the primary season has completed, is he going to gave a more consistent message? I think that's going to be very critical as we move into the general election, that he has a very consistent message that resonates with the people and that gives a level of confidence among Christians and other conservative voters," said Staver. According to Staver it is up to Trump to prove he is someone evangelicals and other cultural conservatives can count on, not the other way around. "Is he going to be able to be consistent enough to win over some of the skeptical people, me included, with regards to where he stands on these very critical issues," said Staver. Perhaps the most telling moment for Trump will be his choice of a running mate. He says a good pick will greatly boost Trump. "That's a good sign for the future. but if he doesn't bring the right people around him, then those individuals will be in the White House and they'll lead us in a direction we don't want to go," said Staver. One thing that is perfectly clear to Staver is where Hillary Clinton stands on all the major social issues, such as abortion, marriage and religious liberty. "What we do know is what Hillary Clinton said she was going to do. Everything she says she's going to do is contrary to our values with regards to marriage and issues such as abortion," said Staver, who also says Clinton is a lock to make the wrong decision on foreign policy and in confronting radical Islam. He also worries about Trump in foreign affairs, after the presumptive nominee said he would be completely neutral between Israel and the Palestinians and would shake things up at NATO. However, one area that encourages Staver is Trump's increasingly conservative position on the type of judges he would nominate for the Supreme Court, an issue taking on huge import after the death of Justice Scalia and the possible retirement of anywhere from two to four other justices in the coming years. "At least on that matter he seems to have gotten some consistency over the past several months. I think that is a big factor weighing among social conservatives and other religious leaders," said Staver. |
| 'Who Are They Exactly Trying to Foo?l' |
| Mon, 20 Jun 2016 16:32:18 EST Terrorism expert Brigitte Gabriel is blasting the Obama administration after the FBI released partial transcripts of the Orlando terrorist's 911 calls, transcripts that swap out 'Allah' for God and leave out his pledge of allegiance to ISIS. Multiple times in the transcript, terrorist Omar Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS. For example: Orlando Police Dispatcher (OD) Shooter (OM) OD: Emergency 911, this is being recorded. OM: In the name of God the Merciful, the beneficial [in Arabic] OD: What? OM: Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God [in Arabic]. I let you know, I 19m in Orlando and I did the shootings. OD: What 19s your name? OM: My name is I pledge of allegiance to [omitted]. OD: Ok, What 19s your name? OM: I pledge allegiance to [omitted] may God protect him [in Arabic], on behalf of [omitted]. Furthermore, Mateen did not say "God" in those quotations. He said "Allah," but the transcripts were changed. Act for America founder Brigitte Gabriel, who survived Islamic terrorism in her native Lebanon, says the conduct of the Obama administration is maddening. "They thought that if they can erase the most important part, which is his pledge to ISIS, that that will somehow make the Islamic problem disappear," said Gabriel. She says America's unwillingness to see the problem for what it is has hamstrung the U.S. since 9/11. "Under President Bush, they refused to acknowledge the problem - that Islam has anything to do with it. Under President Obama it has gotten even worse," said Gabriel. Gabriel believes this latest attempt to lead the public astray is the worst possible way to approach the threat. "It is shameful that our administration would delete an important part of the language, thinking that the problem is going to disappear. That's exactly why we're losing this war," said Gabriel. Even more mystifying to Gabriel is why the government went to such lengths when the remaining transcripts make Mateen motivation perfectly clear. "Even with all the purging they have done of the phone call, the transcript reads like an Islamic prayer. The guy started the call by saying, 'In the name of Allah the merciful, the beneficial,'which is like the opening prayer for Islamic prayer. Every other word had to do with Allah," said Gabriel. She was also struck by what was not in the transcripts. "Through the whole transcript, Omar Mateen never once refers to his hatred of gays, that he's attacking the club because of his gay bashing or disapproving of their lifestyle. Not once," said Gabriel. On Sunday's "Meet the Press," Attorney General Loretta Lynch explained by the references to ISIS were redacted. "What we're not going to do is further proclaim this individual's pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups and further his propaganda," said Lynch to NBC's Chuck Todd. That rationale leaves Gabriel almost speechless. "They are a little too late about that. ISIS already took credit. ISIS has been bragging about it on their social media and on the internet. ISIS is already proud of what he did. Those who are attracted to the ISIS message already know what this guy did. It's been all over television worldwide," said Gabriel. "So who are they exactly trying to fool? They live in a bubble, this administration and all his advisers. They are living in a bubble and they don't realize that our enemy and their sympathizers know exactly what is happening. Except in our own country, our government is trying to deceive its own people," said Gabriel. |
| Dem Gun Control Measures 'Very Un-American' |
| Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:21:10 EST A leading gun rights advocate says he is glad Senate leaders will allow votes on a pair of gun control measures in the wake of Sunday's terrorist attack in Orlando, so that all lawmakers can be put on the record for their votes and because it shows which politicians are willing to trash critical constitutional protections for the sake of their agendas. "A gun doesn't have a brain to hate with or a finger to pull it's own trigger, In this case it was done by a terrorist who committed mass murder," said Second Amendment Foundation Founder Alan Gottlieb. "The question we have here is how to we get those people off the streets without infringing on people's rights to own a firearm for legitimate lawful purposes, including the right to protect yourself from a terrorist." Gottlieb is also chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. On Thursday, Democrats, led by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., ended a 15-hour filibuster after Senate Republican leaders agreed to hold two gun control votes next week. While some second amendment defenders saw the GOP move as capitulation, Gottlieb welcomes it with open arms. "I'm glad, quite frankly, that they agreed to it because I'd like to see people put on the record for where they stand and who's going to support second amendment rights. Who's going to support just plain legal due process rights for all Americans in general. It's not just gun rights we're talking about here. You take people's due process rights away, you've got a tyrannical government," said Gottlieb. Gottlieb is referring to the Democratic proposal getting the most attention, the so-called 'No Fly-No Buy' legislation which would prohibit anyone on the terrorism watch list or the TSA's No Fly List from being able to purchase a firearm. Polls taken in the wake of the Orlando attack suggest the public is largely in favor of the idea. Gottlieb says he wants to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists as much as anyone, but not at the expense of our constitutional rights. "Without proper protections for people to find out if they're on the No Fly List and a quick way to get off it if they're wrongly put on it, it's hard to support this. As currently written, it is a civil rights nightmare," said Gottlieb, who elaborated on why he reached that conclusion. "It's an anti-second amendment bureaucrat's dream come true. There are thousands of people wrongly on the No Fly List who would lose their second amendment rights. President Obama, Hillary Clinton and the gun prohibition lobby that supports their anti-rights agenda cannot be trusted with that kind of power," said Gottlieb. He says right now it is very difficult for Americans to get off these lists once they discover they've been added. "It's not just putting more people on the list wrongly, it's getting people on the list wrongly now, getting them off the list," said Gottlieb. "We think there are ways to protect due process rights by allowing people to go to court to get their names off the list in quick fashion that doesn't cost them any money so they don't lose their second amendment rights." On Thursday, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that due process was a big problem in trying to stop terrorists and mass shooters. "The problem we have, and really the firewall we have right now is due process. It's all due process," said Manchin." "So we can all say we want the same thing, but how do we get there?" Gottlieb says due process must be cherished as much as any other right found in our Constitution. "You have no way of knowing you're on the No Fly-No Buy List. You go to purchase a firearm to protect your second amendment rights. All of a sudden you don't have that right anymore and you can't even figure out how your name got on the list and there's no legal way to get your name off the list. You lose your rights forever and you didn't even do anything. That's very un-American," said Gottlieb. Despite all the rhetoric, Gottlieb is confident No Fly-No Buy will be defeated. "When the Senate really gets to this and takes a look at it, they will not adopt anything without due process protections for American citizens," said Gottlieb. Gottlieb says the measure to expand background checks and mandate such checks for all gun sales commercial and private is also missing the mark. "Any licensed gun dealer who sells a gun at a gun show has to put a person through a background check before they buy a gun. However, if a private person selling or trading from their collection, they don't have to go through a background check under federal law. They do in many states, however," said Gottlieb, who is quick to point out that provision would not have stopped any of the recent terrorists. "The terrorist in Orlando went through a background check. The shooter in the San Bernardino terrorist attack went through a background check. So when they try to push an agenda that doesn't solve a particular problem at hand, they're being disingenuous about their proposals to start with," said Gottlieb. He says he's tired of of guns and the second amendment being blamed for the actions of people. "The terrorist in Orlando didn't swear allegiance to the second amendment. He swore allegiance to ISIS. We should be going after ISIS, not going after America's second amendment rights," said Gottlieb. |
| 'This Bill is A Solution in Search of A Problem' |
| Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:35 EST California state lawmakers are poised to advance legislation they say will promote greater equity at the state's colleges and universities but religious freedom advocates say it's just another attempt to advance the LGBT agenda by removing the ability of schools to determine their own criteria for selecting students and personnel and establishing codes of conduct. The legislation is known as SB 1146, which amends the California Equity in Higher Education Act, or EHEA. As it currently stands, the statute forbids discrimination based on religion, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. But it also contains a significant exemption for religious colleges and universities. SB 1146 would change that. "That state of affairs is unsatisfactory to the LGBT lobby in California. They want to dramatically restrict the scope of that exemption so that a liberal arts religious institution can no longer maintain, enforce and apply faith-based conduct standards for their students and employees," said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Gregory Baylor, who also directs the group's Religious Schools Team. He says the problems with this are obvious. "In essence, it restricts freedom of Christ-centered institutions of higher education in California that participate in the state tuition assistance program known as Cal Grants," he said. Given that countless other schools in California do not use religious criteria to evaluate applicants, staff and conduct, Baylor says there is no good reason to pursue this legislation. "The reality of the matter is that these schools that have more traditional stances on religious issues, on moral issues, on sexual issues, are in a very tiny minority," said Baylor. "This bill is a solution in search of a problem. There is no problem, except in the eyes of these legislators that these schools hold 'the wrong views' on these controversial issues. So it doesn't really accomplish anything but it does punish these schools for having these religious views," said Baylor. In addition, Baylor says removing the exemption could open Christian and other religious schools to a blizzard of lawsuits. "You can imagine what sort of things could be called 'religious discrimination' by opponents of these sorts of institutions: required prayer, required attendance at weekly chapel exercises, required taking of classes that address theological issues from the perspective of the school's faith," said Baylor. "That is a very serious problem for these religious institutions that want to maintain their religious character by what they do and who comprises their communities," said Baylor. Baylor says the Christian schools are fiercely opposed to such controls. "This is about student choice. Many of them would like to choose a faith-based environment. They shouldn't be disqualified from doing that simply because their school actually is religious and lives out its religious beliefs," said Baylor. SB 1146 has already passed in the California State Senate. Baylor says a series of committee meetings are scheduled in the State Assembly. Passage could come late this summer or early fall and head to the desk of Gov. Jerry Brown, who is very likely to sign it. Baylor says the fight goes on to change the minds of lawmakers but he knows the math is working against him as the Democrats dominate the legislature. "We think that if legislators in the assembly understand that this is really an assault on students, on low income and often minority populations of students, that that might motivate them to protect those students and protect those students that they have," said Baylor. "At the same time, there is a political reality, that's there's a two-thirds majority of Democrats and they tend to be more sympathetic to the gay rights agenda," said Baylor, noting the bill passed the senate largely along party lines. If SB 1146 does become law, Baylor expects legal challenges to follow soon after. "I do think the bill violates constitutional protections of religious freedom, of freedom of association, equal protection of the laws. It would be very unsurprising to me if some of these schools and the students who would be harmed would commence litigation if this bill becomes law," said Baylor. |
| Why It May Soon Get Much Worse Than Orlando |
| Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:05:29 EST A former FBI agent who created the bureau's first counter-terrorism training program says the FBI and many others in the federal government have lost their way and have no idea how to stop terrorism, a problem that he expects to get much worse in the coming months. In addition to his time at the bureau, John Guandolo is a U.S. Naval Academy graduate who served as a Marine Corps officer in the Gulf War. In contrast to President Obama's recent comments, Guandolo says the government's biggest mistake is failing to identify our enemy in any official capacity. He now works to train others in counter-terrorism through his website, "Understanding the Threat." "Since 9/11, we have actually failed to identify the threat in any professional manner at the national security level. We have yet to identify the threat, either in our strategic planning documents or our national security documents," said Guandolo. He says the consequences of failing to identify the threat have been ghastly. "What that leads to is what we've seen in the last 15 years. We lost Iraq and Afghanistan. We have an incoherent domestic counter-terrorism strategy and our foreign policy is upside-down to where we're literally, to the tune of more than $100 billion, the largest state sponsor of terrorism - Iran - on the planet," said Guandolo. And Guandolo says the problem is about to get a whole lot worse as the priorities of our enemies start shifting. "The global Islamic movement says that it's going to begin its turn from its total focus on the Islamic world, where it is seeking to impose Sharia law on the Muslim world first and then the non-Muslim world. That turn is going to begin this year," said Guandolo. What will that mean in the West? "That means instead of a couple of people in San Bernardino, several people in Brussels and lone shooter in Orlando, you're going to have dozens of jihadis doing multiple operations in conjunction with the Marxists and the socialists of groups like Black Lives Matter, which will be burning and looting cities like they did in Ferguson and Baltimore," said Guandolo. It's in this context that he fears jihadists will attempt to trigger a major chaotic event. "If those events are precipitated, which they likely will be, from a cyber attack, a power grid attack where power is lost in several states or something similar to that, then it's truly going to be much more horrific," said Guandolo. He says stopping something like that will require massive improvement from the FBI and other relevant agencies. Guandolo says reports that the FBI had multiple chances to screen Orlando terrorist Omar Mateen and then ignored a concern from Disney that Mateen and his wife were casing the theme park, are signs the feds are not ready for prime time. "There are a couple of problems here. The first is the total ignorance of the FBI leadership as to this problem. [FBI Director James Comey] said in his comments that they were still trying to confirm a motive. That should be a huge red flag for anybody listening to him or reading a transcript of the comments that he is clueless," said Guandolo. But Guandolo says the FBI wasn't always clueless, namely when he created the bureau's counter-terrorism training program in 2006. But it wasn't long until politics undermined his work. "Since then, programs like it that are run by people I trained have all been shut down because it's not politically correct," said Guandolo. "The Muslim community said this offended them. Of course it offends them, because it identifies the leadership of the Muslim community as being members of the Muslim Brotherhood network here whose stated goal is civilization jihad. Americans have got to wake up to this immediately, because this is going to go downhill rapidly in the next 12-16 months," said Guandolo. He says the Orlando case is a perfect example of how the government allows a terrorist to slip through its fingers. He says the FBI's interrogation policy is very weak. "If you had him sitting there and said, 'Are you a terrorist and do you know of any acts of terrorism that are being planned?' and he were on a polygraph and he said, 'No, I don't,' he would register as not being deceptive. That's because in Islam a terrorist is somebody who kills a Muslim without right," said Guandolo. He says a subtle change would make a huge difference. "If you asked the question, 'Are you a jihadi? Are you aware of any jihadi plots or actions to support the jihad in the immediate future?' and then he said no, he would register as deceptive. Something as simple as that 99.9 percent of law enforcement don't understand," said Guandolo. Another simple but significant improvement in training, says Guandolo, is to make law enforcement personnel understand what motivates terrorists. "One hundred percent (of captured terrorists) say they are jihadis waging jihad in the cause of Allah in order to impose Sharia and establish the Islamic State. Not only do they say the doctrine they are fighting for is Sharia, but their blueprint for everything they do is Sharia," said Guandolo. "The fact that we're not teaching our federal agents and our combat warriors about Sharia is one of the reasons that we're so catastrophically failing in identifying the threat. The threat doctrine is Sharia and anybody who subscribes to Sharia and seeks to impose it on others is the threat," said Guandolo. According to Guandolo, the bright spot in this frustration is the growing number of local law enforcement officials welcoming the basics of how to investigate possible threats. He says it's making a big difference in many communities. "Once you understand that, it changes how you do interviews, interrogations, basic investigations, when you do search warrants, when you stop somebody in a vehicle for a traffic violation. What you see and how they talk to you, you know how to interpret with the lens of somebody who actually understands the threat," said Guandolo. |
| Obama 'Radical Islam' Rant 'Counterproductive' |
| Tue, 14 Jun 2016 16:41:01 EST President Obama unloaded on Donald Trump and other Republicans for criticizing his refusal to label our enemy as "radical Islam," saying that changing the term wouldn't change anything other than giving more fuel to the propaganda from ISIS and other terrorist groups that the West really is at war with Islam. But a top Trump foreign policy adviser says Obama has it exactly backwards, insisting that identifying the enemy creates clarity to the public and our allies and not creating distinctions actually risks the alienation of all Muslims. On Tuesday, Obama made comments following his latest briefing in the wake of the horrific Orlando terrorist attack that left 49 dead and another 53 wounded. At the end of his comments, Obama unloaded on Trump and others who demand that Obama admit who we're fighting. "What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Would it bring in a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above," said Obama. Dr. Walid Phares is a top foreign policy adviser to Trump. He's also a longtime terrorism and Middle East scholar and author most recently of "The Lost Spring." He says Obama got it entirely wrong. "The president's statement is counter-productive to our counter-intelligence activity," said Phares. "Our analysts, at least since 2009, have been denied the perception that there is an ideology. They can use information about a specific jihadist ideology precisely because of what the president has said today. Therefore, we are missing an opportunity to detect a manifestation of that ideology which would allow us to stop the terrorists before they act," said Phares. He says accurately describing the enemy is imperative. He used World War II as an example. "What would be the profit of calling Nazis Nazis or during the Cold War calling the Bolsheviks or Communists Communists? This is the number one goal when you are in a confrontation, is to identify for your allies and for your people who you are fighting against," said Phares. He's says the importance begins in our own counter-terrorism efforts. "We need our experts within out own agencies to be able to make a distinction between those who are jihadists and those who are not. If we don't have this capacity, we're going to end up having a Major Hasan killing people in Fort Hood without us being able to detect him," said Phares. He also says the government can't expect the public to be an asset in the war against radical Islam if the government can't define our enemy. "You need to educate your public. If the public doesn't know who the enemy is, what the ideologies, narratives and words are, how will the citizens help you? How will they detect? How can they report if they see something, say something? What is that something they're going to see or hear about?" said Phares. He says clarity is also vital in building alliances to eradicate radical Islam. "President Obama is talking about the world looking at us if we use these words. Precisely. The French use Islamist. The British do the same. The Russians have the same terminology," said Phares, who reports even the Arab and Muslim world uses specific words to describe radicals. Even the grand imam of Egypt, whom Phares says is the equivalent of the Sunni pope, has no problem using clear terminology. "He calls them Islamists, takfiri, jihadists. So if the highest figure in the Arab and Muslim world and so many other figures do designate them with thee words, what is the president talking about?" said Phares, who met with the grand imam and the Egyptian president. So where does Obama get the idea that using terms like "radical Islam" would turn all Muslims against us? "That's exactly the platform of the Muslim Brotherhood. That's exactly what Muslim Brotherhood analysts and advisers are telling our government," said Phares. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are skewering Trump for insisting that the terrorists be labeled as radical Islam. As a result, Phares says voters have a clear choice in November "between one camp that is in denial" and Trump who is trying to specify who our enemy is. |
| Orlando Terrorism Linked to San Bernardino |
| Mon, 13 Jun 2016 16:54:12 EST A former Department of Homeland Security official says it took him only a few hours to connect Sunday's Islamic terrorist attack in Orlando to December's carnage in San Bernardino, and he says the federal government's active refusal to acknowledge reality is "handcuffing" efforts to keep the American people safe. Philip Haney served nearly a decade at the Department of Homeland Security after it's inception in 2003. His responsibilities there included investigations for Customs and Border Patrol through its National Targeting Center. While there he played a key role in vetting people connected to Tablighi Jamaat, an Islamic group with some 70 million members. He is the author of the new book "See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Excposes the Government's Submission to Jihad." In less than two days since the massacre at the Pulse club in Orlando, reports have surfaced that terrorist Omar Saddiqui Mateen was investigated multiple times by the FBI but was ultimately deemed not to be a threat, despite professing a link to the Boston Marathon bombers and the terrorist group Hezbollah. Haney says that should have raised innumerable red flags but he says the FBI's own training procedures, updates in 2012, stopped common sense from taking the probe any further. "Just because an individual is affiliated with a known terrorist organization, we can't automatically assume that individual is a terrorist," said Haney. "That's handcuffing. That is making it virtually impossible for basic law enforcement actions to be taken. How can you develop a case if you're trying to go to probable cause when you're prohibited from making an association between an individual and the organization that he may be affiliated with," said Haney. In addition to the stifling rules, Haney says one hand of government doesn't know what the other is doing. He says all relevant government entities are supposed to be coordinated by a joint terrorism task force, but the idea works better in concept than in reality. "The same thing happened with the Boston bombing. There was a disconnect in the transfer of information regarding the Tsarnaev brothers prior to that event. Apparently, there was a disconnect here as well," said Haney. Reports that former co-workers were alarmed at Mateen's angry rants are also chilling to Haney, especially the indications that the employer never followed up on the complaints with authorities out of fear of being politically incorrect. Haney says it's the same story we saw in San Bernardino, when a neighbor was suspicious of what was happening at the terrorists' home but did not report anything out of fear of being labeled Islamophobic. Haney says the ignored warnings from co-workers also reminds him of another horrific case. "The first thing that comes to mind when I hear about co-workers being concerned is exactly what happened with Nidal Hasan before the Ft. Hood shootings. It's like a tape recorder. We're listening to exactly the same comments from people who raised concerns," said Haney. So while FBI Director James Comey says there was no basis to continue the investigation after Mateen insisted his pro-terrorist statements were just angry falsehoods expressed in anger to his co-workers, Haney says a few hours of work on Sunday not only proved Mateen was not a lone wolf but his network of influence can be tied to the San Bernardino terrorists. After learning that Mateen was affiliated with the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce (Florida), Haney quickly discovered a statement from the center's imam confirming that Mateen worshiped at the mosque. He says that connection is important to establish before unraveling the rest of the thread. "I always follow the same process. There are individuals and there are organizations. They are inseparable and one always leads to the other," said Haney. Haney then discovered the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce is affiliated with the Sharia Board of America. "Then I find out that the Sharia Board of America is directly linked to an association called the Rahmat-e-Alam Foundation," said Haney, who then found the foundation was linked to a very familiar group. "I'm now realizing I'm about to touch a case that was related to the San Bernardino shootings, the case that the records were deleted from by my own government and a case that was related to the Tablighi Jamaat Initiative that I worked on at the National Targeting Center . Ultimately, the Tablighi Jamaat case was shut down by the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security out of concerns that the civil liberties of Muslims would be infringed. But Haney says the trail keeps going, as Rahmat-e-Alam is affiliated with the Darul Uloom Chicago. "Now we're overlapping with the San Bernardino case because the mosque in San Bernardino was called Darul Uloom Islammiya," said Haney. But there's more. "It turns out that the Darul Uloom Chicago organization, which is a madrassa, is directly related to the Islamic Institute of Education case that I worked on as active duty officer," said Haney. "All of it goes back to the Tablighi Jamaat case that I worked on at the National Targeting Center. There was only one degree of separation from the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce and that entire network that I worked on back in 2011," said Haney. If Haney could connect that many dots in an afternoon, why couldn't the federal government do the same? "Did the FBI have access to any of that information? I don't know. Did the [Customs and Border Patrol organization affiliates have access to this information? Yes, they did. Did anyone put the picture together? It doesn't look like it," said Haney. Haney stresses that these links are critical and meaningful because affiliation for Muslims is hugely important. "In Islam, there is really no such thing as a lone wolf individual. In Islam, the sense of community and family is an overriding awareness of everyone," said Haney. He says fidelity to the Quran and the Hadith are other pillars of Islamic life, but he says the Islamic approach to homosexuality also cannot be ignored here. "There is a fourth component and that the cultural, traditional world view, that is violently opposed to homosexuality throughout the Islamic world," said Haney. But none of that is enough for the government to remove its blinders with respect to radical Islam, according to Haney. He was investigated nine times while working at Homeland Security, eight times during the Obama administration. Three of those probes ran simultaneously. The government also refused to allow him to see the files relevant to his case and the shuttering of the Tablighi Jamaat investigation. He was forced to obtain them through Freedom of Information laws. He says emails among the State Department, Homeland Security and other agencies told the the real story. "They had concerns about civil rights and civil liberties of these individuals, by the way, who are foreign nationals," said Haney. How did the priorities get so mixed up? Haney says it all goes back to one moment. "Things really started going sideways after the Holy Land Foundation trial in November 2008, when it was irrefutably proven in federal court that groups like Council on American-Islamic Relations, Islamic Society of North America (and)the North American Islamic Trust were to support for Hamas. That point is the turning point in the history of counter-terrorism," said Haney. "At that point, the administration had to make a conscious decision, whether to act on that law enforcement-based evidence and go forward and shut those groups down or ignore it and create a new policy, And that's exactly what they did," said Haney. "So people like me, who focused on those groups, ran headlong into the administration's policy. Many of us suffered because of it." |
| 'We Were Glad to See Her Defeated on Tuesday' |
| Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:28:22 EST One of the nation's leading pro-life groups is celebrating its work towards toppling Republican Rep. Renee Ellmers this week and now the Susan B. Anthony List is preparing to stop Hillary Clinton from becoming the next president. On Tuesday, Ellmers became the first incumbent member of congress to lose in a 2016 primary. Ellmers was soundly defeated by fellow GOP Rep. George Holding as a redrawn district pitted two sitting members of the House. Holding scored 16,999 votes, while Ellmers received 7,527. Conservative and Republican opposition to Ellmers had been intensifying for years, as she routinely sided with Republican leaders and failed to fight President Obama's unilateral immigration action. But it was her actions in January 2015 that put her in the cross hairs of the Susan B. Anthony List and other pro-life activists. "Congresswoman Ellmers led the charge to derail the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This was common sense legislation to stop abortion after five months. It has majority support among Americans. Women support this bill in higher numbers than men. It was scheduled for a vote on the day of the March for Life 2015," said Susan B. Anthony List Communications Director Mallory Quigley. Quigley says Ellmers began undermining the bill weeks earlier. "Congresswoman Ellmers started to make a fuss in the media, saying that millennials don't support this issue. They don't support this legislation, and this shouldn't be among Republicans' top few legislative priorities," said Quigley. As the vote got closer, Ellmers then amended the basis of her opposition. She spoke out against an abortion exception beyond 20 weeks for rape victims because she did not want those patients to be required to show a police report alleging the rape prior to proceeding with the abortion. Backers of the provision pointed out that no such paperwork was required prior to 20 weeks of pregnancy. Quigley says Ellmers not only succeeded in scuttling the vote but triggered fierce media criticism of the bill. "She contributed to this media firestorm, taking attention away from the horrific reality we were trying to draw America's eyes to: the fact the U.S. is one of only seven nations to allow abortion on demand after five months," said Quigley. As a result, the Susan B. Anthony List, which works to elect pro-life women to public office, took an unprecedented step. "Because that betrayal was so profound, we had to take action and endorse against her. It was the first time in our history that we've endorsed a pro-life man over a pro-life woman in a Republican primary," said Quigley. It wasn't just an endorsement. The group also blitzed North Carolina's second congressional district, going door to door to tell thousands of GOP voters why Ellmers was unacceptable to them. Quigley says their work made a big difference. "Almost 40 percent of the people that originally said to the activists that they were supporting Renee Ellmers changed their minds and said they were less likely to vote for her after learning about her role in derailing the pain capable bill," said Quigley. She says taking the time to speak with voters is quickly becoming the most effective campaign tool. "You can't really measure what the impact of a TV ad is, especially in the age of NetFlix and DVR. For us to know that we actually reached 12,571 people by election day was a powerful statement for the pro-life movement. This is where we thrive, in person to person interaction," said Quigley. When Holding's overwhelming victory was secured, Quigley and her colleagues rejoiced. "We could not stand for what she did back in January (2015) and the damage she caused to the pro-life movement, so we were glad to see her defeated on Tuesday," said Quigley. Now the Susan B. Anthony List turns its attention to the general election, in races all over the nation and in the race for the White House. On Tuesday, Hillary Clinton secured the delegates needed to make her the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. In her speech, she claimed the legacy of the women who fought for women's suffrage, which, of course, includes Susan B. Anthony. "Susan B. Anthony, if she were alive today, would not recognize the position that Hillary Clinton has taken as being the pro-woman feminist," said Quigley, who says Clinton is not the pro-woman candidate because she couldn't care less about women who disagree with her on abortion. "Hillary is all about being her kind of woman. She does not leave open the possibility that there is a majority of women in America who think that it's not okay to build up their rights on the broken rights of their unborn children," said Quigley, During the Republican primaries, Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser joined several other pro-life leaders in denouncing Donald Trump as not a reliable pro-life candidate. But with Hillary Clinton and pro-choice Libertarian Gary Johnson as the only other options drawing any support, Quigley says the group's tune on Trump has changed. "Donald Trump has made very firm commitments to the pro-life movement that he has reiterated several times," said Quigley. "He said that will nominate justices to the Supreme Court who will be pro-life. He actually used the term pro-life, which is to go a step further than others who would just say a 'strong constitutionalist,'' said Quigley. She says he has also made commitments to support defunding Planned Parenthood and passage of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. While Trump was not the group's preference earlier this year, Quigley says the match-up with Clinton is a no-brainer. "Hes certainly said some things that were indefensible but I think ultimately what matters is policy and the court," said Quigley. "[Clinton] wants to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which would be the most pro-abortion position that any politician has ever taken, even to the left of Barack Obama, to force taxpayers to fund abortion on demand. There may be some questions about Donald Trump, but Hillary Clinton is a sure thing," said Quigley. |
| 'A Totalitarian Mindset' |
| Thu, 9 Jun 2016 16:40:06 EST A leading gun rights activist is blasting the liberal Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as demonstrating a "totalitarian mindset" after judges there ruled that Americans do not have a constitutional right to carry concealed firearms in public. The court issued the decision on a 7-4 vote. "The protection of the Second Amendment 14 whatever the scope of that protection may be 14 simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public," read the majority opinion. That's news to defenders of the second amendment. "I am really delighted to have been enlightened by the majority because I missed that part in the second amendment that says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Obviously, the copy of the Constitution I have left out that part about unless they're carrying it concealed in public," said Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt. He says the court's reasoning ought to alarm all citizens. "The Ninth Circuit is clearly showing the mentality of a totalitarian mindset. They were the very kind of people that our forefathers objected to and sent letters of remonstrance to King George saying, 'You got it wrong. Stop doing this.' King George was tone deaf and we know how that turned out," said Pratt. Pratt is also quick to note the same judges who want to restrict firearm possession in public don't have to worry about their own protection. "They all have security where they to to work. No problem. They're protected by folks with guns. It's just the rest of us that don't seem to matter. And that really sticks in our craw too," said Pratt. The case arrived at the appeals court after multiple California citizens challenged their local sheriffs over order to demonstrate "good cause" as to why they needed to carry a firearm in public. The same debate is playing out in city politics in Washington, D.C. and other jurisdictions. On Thursday, the court vigorously defended local authorities demanding "good cause" for gun owners to carry in public. "Because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public, any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry 14 including the requirement of 'good cause,' however defined 14 is necessary allowed by the Amendment," the ruling stated. Pratt find that unconstitutional and repulsive. "The good cause requirement is really the invitation that's been given by lawmakers for a long time to the bureaucrats to be as arbitrary as they wish," said Pratt, suggesting such latitude gives sheriffs and other government officials the ability to grant permission to friends and donors and stalling or refusing on the petitions of others. "Nobody has good cause in the minds of these bureaucrats because they just don't like the idea of people carrying guns. Of course, neither did George III," said Pratt. Gun Owners of America filed a brief in the case, pointing to data that strongly suggests allowing Americans to carry leads to less crime. Pratt says the evidence is clear. "In jurisdictions where people are able to carry concealed virtually without any limitation...those are the low crime areas of our country," said Pratt. He says where law-abiding people cannot carry firearms in public is where we find the daily carnage. "It's rules and laws like they're trying to uphold in San Diego that have produced such a wonderful, low-crime area like Chicago," said Pratt. Pratt worries that if this ruling were upheld by the Supreme Court that it would make criminals out of good people who would continue to carry guns to protect themselves and their families, regardless of what a court says. But he also says the issue makes the political fight over the complexion of the Supreme Court far more real. Pratt wrote weeks ago that while he has great reservations about Trump, he knows exactly what we will get with Hillary Clinton. He says this news crystallizes the issue even more. "We at least have the hope that Donald Trump might make appointments that are people somewhat respectful of the Constitution. If Hillary Clinton is president, we can pretty well guarantee that the jihad against the Constitution will continue and escalate as far as the courts are concerned," said Pratt. |
| 'If You're Not Supporting Trump, You're Supporting Hillary' |
| Wed, 8 Jun 2016 17:17:02 EST A key figure in the conservative movement who railed against Donald Trump in the Republican primaries now says any action by conservatives other than a vote for Trump is equivalent to a vote for Hillary Clinton and surrendering the Supreme Court to liberals for at least the next 30 years. But Richard Viguerie also has some tough love for Trump, saying the presumptive GOP nominee has hurt himself badly over the past month when he should have been using those weeks to consolidate support and convincing donors he's a serious candidate. Viguerie has been in the conservative movement for well over 50 years and pioneered the use of direct mail in political campaigns. He is now chairman at ConservativeHQ.com and author of "Takeover: The 100-Year War for the Soul of the GOP and How Conservatives Can Finally Win It." On Tuesday, Trump swept the final Republican contests and is now well beyond the 1,237 pledged delegates needed to secure the nomination. Clinton, meanwhile clinched the delegates needed for the Democratic nomination, although Bernie Sanders is staying in the race in hopes of convincing enough super-delegates to switch to his campaign. But barring a major surprise, the November race boils down to Trump vs. Clinton. As a result, Viguerie says conservatives have to pick one or the other. "If you're not supporting Trump, you're supporting Hillary. The idea of hiding behind euphemisms like being a spoiler, that means you're supporting Hillary," said Viguerie. He says there are enormous negative consequences for conservatives if Clinton is elected president. "Hillary's not the only one on the ballot this November. The Supreme Court for the next 30 years is on the ballot. The second amendment is on the ballot. Religious liberty is on the ballot. Open borders is on the ballot. It's either Donald Trump or all those things will happen and we probably will lose our country," said Viguerie. While Trump has succeeded in consolidating more than 80 percent of Republicans according to recent polls, many staunch conservatives are repulsed by Trump, for reasons ranging from his personal conduct, to his recent conversion from liberal position on a host of issues to concerns he doesn't understand many issues and has no interest in learning about them. Viguerie says those are not good enough reasons to resist Trump. "It's not a close call. I don't understand what they're talking about. Trump might be wrong 20 percent of the time or 30 percent of the time. He might be wrong 40 percent of the time. Hillary is going to be wrong 100 percent of the time," said Viguerie. Viguerie says he understands where those critics are coming from. He enthusiastically backed Ted Cruz and wrote several columns critical of Trump. But he says the circumstances are clear. "Donald Trump was not my first, second, third, fourth, fifth choice, but's he's now the only option that we have. Yes, he's going to make some wrong decisions. He's going to appoint some people we're unhappy with. But he's not going to be wrong 100 percent of the time," said Viguerie. He believes the next four years will be a nightmare for Republicans personally if Hillary Clinton wins. "Hillary and the Democrats will try their best to destroy Republicans in the coming four years. They will use the police power of government to do that," said Viguerie. But while Viguerie implores conservatives to get behind Trump, he says the GOP standard bearer has been a huge disappointment since clearing the field over a month ago. "He's probably lost ground in the month since we last talked. He's had a big, open window here of about five weeks head start on Hillary and it looks like he's pretty much blown it. He's probably gone backwards even more than standing still," said Viguerie, who says Trump needs to take the lead in uniting the party. "It's not really up to everybody else to come together. It's really up to him to lead, and we haven't seen much leadership in that area quite frankly," added Viguerie. Viguerie wants to see progress in two key areas, beginning with Trump upping his game to convince donors, who will be necessary, that his campaign is worth the investment. "The people who will be contributing that money need to see that he is a serious person, that he's going to run a serious campaign. By his antics so far, he hasn't indicated that he's really serious about running a serious campaign," said Viguerie. He also says Trump needs to unveil more people who will hold prominent positions in a Trump administration. "As I'm fond of saying, personnel is policy. You can promise the sun, the moon, the stars and believe it, but if you only appoint big government-type Republicans, Wall Street types, big business types, our issues are over. We'll have lost," said Viguerie. Viguerie believes the race is winnable for Trump given his proven ability to connect with voters and Hillary Clinton's political baggage. He says a critical step will be for Trump to choose a running mate that Republicans across the board can applaud. "That's kind of the ballgame. If he muffs this one, if he makes a mistake on the VP choice, I'm not sure he can unite the party. Uniting the party is the number one ingredient necessary to win in November," said Viguerie. At ConservativeHQ.com, Viguerie is in the midst of a multi-part series on prospective running mates that would be good choices for Trump. The list includes the likes of Newt Gingrich and Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., but Viguerie says he will reveal his game-changing recommendation in his Friday column. |
| 'The American People Should Be Up in Arms' |
| Tue, 7 Jun 2016 16:51:15 EST A retired U.S. Army officer says the Obama administration is engaging in rampant "hypocrisy" as it trumpets the drone killing of terrorist targets while also releasing some of the worst terrorists from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis is now an adviser to the Pentagon and the author of the new book "Never Submit: Will the Extermination of Christians Get Worse Before it Gets Better." Maginnis told the Washington Times on Sunday that Obama's schizophrenic policy on terrorists is mind-boggling. "The hypocrisy of the Obama administration knows no limit," said Maginnis in a comment to the Times. "On one hand, they boast about bagging al Qaeda bomb makers, and on the other, they are releasing known bomb makers from Gitmo." Maginnis says Obama's goal of emptying Guantanamo as quickly as possible is especially infuriating. "We spent a lot of blood, sweat and tears and certainly a lot of money to try to incarcerate and detain known terrorists from Al Qaeda or battlefields in Iraq or elsewhere in the world. The Obama administration is dead set on letting them all go," said Maginnis. "The American people, I think, should be up in arms. Here we have a president that is releasing known killers," said Maginnis. Within the past several months, the Obama administration has publicly announced the drone killings of suspected terrorist bomb makers but four hard core bomb makers have been released during that same time, often to nations that have no interest in keeping tabs on them. "We're letting these people go to their homelands, where in many cases they aren't going to be detained very long and certainly aren't going to punished like I think they well deserve," said Maginnis. By the Pentagon's own calculations, roughly a third of released Guantanamo detainees are confirmed or are suspected to have returned to terrorist activities. While the paradox of drone killing some terrorists while releasing others seems to be a wash, Maginnis says the confusing policy actually means we're losing ground. "Drone killing it okay, but it compromised the necessary intelligence to break up networks and so instead of killing some of these folks, we ought to grab them, drain them of the information that we possibly can, and then shut down the networks rather than one here and one there and so forth," said Maginnis. Maginnis says releasing detainees only to pursue them again makes no sense to him and costs a lot of money. But he says Obama bears much responsibility, not only for this policy, but for the carnage seen in the Middle East over the past seven years. "He's the guy that in June of '09 went to Cairo and preached to the world saying the United States is a bad country because we're not treating Muslims the way we should. In the wake of that, we had the Arab Spring, we've had civil wars that have eviscerated much of that region and we've had a lot of terrorism that I think has come as a direct result," said Maginnis. |
| EPA Pushing Policy that Could Damage 90 Percent of U.S. Vehicles |
| Tue, 31 May 2016 16:32:50 EST The Environmental Protection Agency wants to raise the amount of biofuels in our gasoline once again, but an energy industry executive says the move could severely damage most of our vehicles, reduce the amount of energy per gallon and add to the national economic uncertainty. The Obama EPA recently unveiled its proposal for the 2017 Renewable Fuel Standard. The administration says the call for additional biofuels is part of its ongoing effort to reduce dependence upon fossil fuels and develop cleaner burning energy sources. But that's not how the energy industry sees it at all. "The new rule continues to push us toward breaching the blend wall. That is our big concern here and that is reaching above 10 percent ethanol in the fuel mix. ," said American Petroleum Institute Downstream Group Director Frank Macchiarola. He says on paper the new Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS, would still keep biofuels below the 10 percent threshold, but demand levels could actually drive the percentage above 10 percent. He says that could be a death sentence to the engines of most personal vehicles in the U.S. "What AAA has said is that up to 90 percent of the vehicles on the road are not compatible with higher-blended ethanols such as E15. The more you push toward that, the greater the potential threat is to your fuel system and to your engine," said Macchiarola. Far from embracing higher biofuel levels, the American Petroleum is asking Congress to significantly lower them or scrap the RFS altogether. Macchiarola says the original legislation came in response to conditions that no longer exist. "We're asking Congress to repeal or significantly reform the RFS. Our basic argument here is that when the RFS was passed ten years ago that the energy world looked very different here in the United States," said Macchiarola. He says the energy conditions in the U.S. have effectively made a 180 degree shift in the past decade, "We were a net importer of energy. We were increasing our dependence on foreign oil. Our production levels had flattened and were in decline," said Macchiarole. "Fast forward ten years, we've had this shale revolution in both oil and natural gas and we're the world's leading producers of energy." As if the potential damage caused by breaching the blend wall weren't concerning enough, Macchiarola says there's a deeper economic downside too. "The one thing about this mandate that is certain is the uncertainty every year. There's nothing more damaging to economic growth, in my judgment, than an uncertain business environment," said Macchiarola. He says the uncertainty will run from the refineries to automakers to "anybody who is looking at input costs." And consumers are not immune either. "On the consumer side it creates uncertainty at the pump," said Macchiarola, who points to a Congressional Budget Office report showing that higher biofuel content could lead to a 26-cent hike per gallon of gas. And all for less energy. "Those higher-blended ethanol fuels have less energy content. That means people are driving less between each stop at the gas station," said Macchiarola. There is legislation underway on Capitol Hill that would forbid the EPA from ever exceeding the blend wall. It's sponsored by Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, and Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vermont. Macchiarola anticipates a bipartisan consensus on the issue because interests on both sides see problems with the RFS proposal. "Environmental groups, both from an air emissions standpoint and a land use standpoint, are really concerned about a proliferation of corn-based ethanol," said Macchiarola. |
| 'Not Much Has Changed' |
| Thu, 26 May 2016 16:46:06 EST While Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald takes heat over his comparing of veteran wait times for health care to waiting in line at Disney parks, veterans groups say there hasn't been much progress since the wait time scandal first erupted two years ago. "Not much has changed," said Concerned Veterans of America Analyst Shaun Rieley, who served ten years in uniform and did tours in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. But Rieley says anyone looking for quick or easy fixes will be disappointed. "There's just real structural issues at the VA that can't really be fixed in a couple of years and can't really be fixed by just the changing of the secretary," said Rieley. "A lot of these problems are systemic to the VA system overall. There's a problem with VA being flexible enough to meet the demands of veterans as demographics change, as they move around, as they age and require more care," said Rieley. He says there are two major problems that endanger the health of veterans, starting with just getting into the system. "Delayed care is denied care and denied care is bad care," said Rieley. "It's disingenuous to say the care is really great if you can get it. Part of the meaning of great care is being able to have access to it," said Rieley. But is the care always great once you get access? Rieley says that's another problem. "Part of the problem is it's so inconsistent, whereas in one area the VA might be really, really great but in another area it might be really poor quality," said Rieley. He says the whole VA system stifles progress. "I think they are set up to fail. No matter how good their intentions are, the structure of the system too often undermines their ability to do their job," said Rieley. Concerned Veterans for America is encouraging presidential hopefuls and members of Congress to pursue restructuring of the VA. "We recommend VA be pulled out of the Office of Personnel Management system, a federal government-controlled system for civil service, and that the governance be put in the hands of a non-profit-style board of directors," said Rieley. "It would bring a lot more accountability to the employees. It would allow it to function as a health care system that is chartered by and funded by the federal government, rather than a bureaucracy that is attempting to give health care," said Rieley. |
| 'Enemies, Foreign and Domestic' |
| Thu, 26 May 2016 16:00:40 EST A former Navy SEAL says he is honored to have served with his elite unit but is incredibly frustrated by a military bureaucracy that ties the hands of service members, slapped him with trumped up charges and tried to sully his reputation after leaving the U.S. Navy. Carl Higbie is author of the brand new book, "Enemies, Foreign and Domestic: A SEAL's Story." Higbie served two tours in Iraq in a SEAL unit. He says the second tour aggravated him and his comrades because overly cautious commanders refused to let them go on any missions. "It was extremely frustrating. We were sitting over there as a SEAL fighting force. This is what we were designed to do. We weren't allowed to action missions," said Higbie. "The reason we weren't allowed to do anything was because the military at that time, because of Barack Obama had become so politicized and so top-heavy in their bureaucracy, they wanted to end the war, but they didn't want to end the war by actually fighting and winning it. They wanted to end the war simply by calling us the victors." Higbie says the civilian leaders and the top officers lost sight of what the military is for. "We're soldiers in the United States Military, the most lethal fighting force the world has ever known. We are there to put bullets in bad guys. We are not there to win hearts and minds. We are not there to rebuild schools, as we have been tasked to do recently. We are there to kill the bad guy," said Higbie. At the very end of that deployment, Higbie's and his fellow SEALs finally got a mission: to capture the high-value target known as Al-Isawi, otherwise known as the "Butcher of Baghdad." Al-Isawi was responsible for killing U.S. forces and hanging their corpses from a bridge in Fallujah years earlier. Thanks to elite skill and precise intelligence, the mission went splendidly. Al-Isawi was captured alive. Higbie says one SEAL mate deserves the most credit. "The hero of the mission is Matt McCabe. This guy tackled the butcher on target. [Al-Isawi] had a gun, so [McCabe] was within his legal authority to shoot him. But McCabe knew if he was to tackle this guy and bring him back that we'd be more likely to get good intelligence to potentially save American lives," said Higbie. But shortly after Al-Isawi was placed in custosy, the nightmare for the SEALs began. The prisoner showed officers blood on his clothes and Navy commanders decided the SEALs were to blame. They demanded to know who struck the prisoner. The entire team insisted none of them had. "I'm 240 pounds. This guy was six feet, 130 pounds. If I had hit him, he would have known about it. And we had an oral surgeon testify to the fact that there was no abuse here this was a self-inflicted bite wound. NCIS cleared us. Our SEAL leadership chain of command is the one that hung us out and it was a travesty," said Higbie. How much blood were we talking about? "Maybe a quarter of a teaspoon? Your gums bleed more when you brush your teeth," said Higbie. While defending themselves against false accusations, Higbie still wondered why anyone would really care if they had roughed up Al-Isawi. "Who cares anyway? Even if we did abuse this guy, who cares? That's the problem. We're developing into such a politically correct nature that our troops are getting sacrificed at the altar of political correctness," said Higbie, accusing bureaucrats of losing the war by being so careful as to avoid any bad press. Next, the Navy tried to get Higbie and his SEAL friends to turn on one another. It didn't work. "They thought they could break us by offering us plea deals or promotions if we ratted each other out. But nobody did anything here. That's the fundamental fact," said Higbie. All the SEALs were encouraged to subject themselves to a general's punishment to avoid courts martial. All the SEALs rejected the offer and they were all exonerated. After returning home, Higbie put his frustrations on paper, penning "Battle on the Home Front: A Navy SEAL's Mission to Save the American Dream." The military requires all such books to be submitted for review to make sure no classified material is included. The review is to last no more than 30 days. After two years of waiting, Higbie published the book anyway. At that time the government listed a number of possible violations in the manuscript, although not in writing. That resulted in another legal battle, which Higbie also won. Next came the Navy's treatment of Higbie's exit from the military. "They offered me an honorable discharge to get out early. I took it. Six weeks after leaving the military, they downgraded my discharge to a general (discharge), which is illegal. You have to attend a court martial or an Administrative Separation Board. Both of those are due process. They had the opportunity to do it. They didn't," said Higbie. Another fight was on. "After two years of fighting, we won with a 5-0 appellate court decision in my favor to overturn my discharge back to honorable," said Higbie. Higbie says he wrote the new book to prove you can challenge the government and win but that you must by very well prepared. As for the current state of the military, he says politicians who were elected by people who never served in the military need to let the military do the job it was meant to do. "Our military has been and always will be the most deadly fighting force the world has ever known, but you have to take the handcuffs off," said Higbie. "It is the command leadership that is unwilling to fight this war." "You need war fighters and door-kickers to make these decisions on site. And you need to let us do it," said Higbie. Despite the myriad battles with the Navy, Higbie cherishes the time he spent with his unit and says he will never stop fighting for what is right. "I was not the biggest, fastest, strongest, best, sharpest guy in my unit by any stretch of the imagination. There were a lot of guys that were better than me and guys I learned a lot from. To have the ability to serve with such a unit is such an incredible experience. That's why I fight for the principles I do in my books because I genuinely believe they're worth fighting for," said Higbie. |
| Heroes Helping Heroes |
| Wed, 25 May 2016 16:59:19 EST The nation will pause over the coming days to honor all Americans who have given their lives to defend the United States, and this year the National Memorial Day Concert will continue its legacy of saluting all who have worn the uniform with a special tribute to a man who still serves decades after losing a leg in Vietnam. The National Memorial Day Concert takes place Sunday, May 29 at 8 p.m. on the lawn of the U.S. Capitol. It airs on PBS. Actors Gary Sinise and Joe Mantegna will co-host the event, which will include acts such as the Beach Boys, Trace Adkins, two different American Idol performers and the National Symphony Orchestra. "I wouldn't be anywhere else this weekend," said Sinise. "It's become such a special way to highlight and honor the men and women who served our country and paid the ultimate price for our freedom." Sinise has strong family ties to veterans dating back to World War I. He became active in supporting Vietnam veterans in the 1980's and his involvement skyrocketed after playing "Lieutenant Dan" in "Forrest Gump." After 9/11, he devoted even more time to active duty forces and veterans. He now heads the Gary Sinise Foundation and heads up the Lt. Dan Band. Sinise says the National Memorial Day Concert is a terrific way of reminding Americans Memorial Day means more than a three-day weekend and the unofficial start of summer. "The freedom to enjoy the backyard and the barbeque and the ballgame and all of that cones with a cost. The men and women who are a part of this concert and the stories that we tell about those who have served over the years are very, very important," said Sinise. Memorial Day is set aside for those who lost their lives in service to America, but Sinise himself will be leading a tribute to a living hero at the concert. "I'm going to be doing a story about a Vietnam veteran who lost a leg and ended up giving back by going to Walter Reed and supporting the Afghan and Iraqi veterans who are coming back with injuries," said Sinise. That veteran is retired U.S. Army Captain Jack Farley. He was serving as a battery executive officer, overseeing six howitzers on January 10, 1969, when his life changed forever. "All of a sudden we came under very heavy mortar and rocket attack. When we were attacked, my wonderful troops shot back. My men were at the guns and I was out with them on the radio. All of a sudden, a mortar landed gimme distance from me. I remember flying through the air," said Farley. His time combat was over. "They took the leg off in Japan after gangrene set in and I was medevaced to Walter Reed. I spent a year-and-a-half learning how to use a new leg and then went about what I thought would be a normal life. Farley started a family, went to law school and was eventually nominated to be one of the original judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. But he later discovered his greatest gift was reaching out to those who found themselves where he was in 1969. "I got involved working with other amputees. When Iraq and Afghanistan started, I got called over to Walter Reed and really never left. I helped set up the amputee program. I was on the original board of directors. And I continue to train the amputee peer visitors at Walter Reed," said Farley. With more than 1,500 service members enduring amputations as a result of their service, Farley says he and his friends help shepherd the vets through the process of dealing with such a major change in their lives. He says there are critical stages they must go through. "In the beginning it's enduring, getting through it. You're all confused. You're wondering what's going on. You get into a stage of suffering. Gradually, you start to get into a stage of reckoning, becoming aware of this new reality. Then you reconcile. You put that loss into perspective. Finally, we hope that you're getting into a normalizing," said Farley. He says some amputees reach an even more optimum level of "thriving." "As they go through the process, often what we see, and I include myself in this group, is that having gone through this process you actually come out stronger. You can actually accomplish things that you might not have accomplished before," said Farley. Farley says he is deeply honored to be a part of the National Memorial Day Concert, although he admits he's a bit nervous about what Sinise might say since concert organizers will not let him read the script. The hero who continues to serve hopes the moment brings help to those who need it. "To the extent that any of my Vietnam colleagues can take any strength from it - just one of them - I'd be thrilled," said Farley. |
| 'Throwing Money Is Not the Solution' |
| Tue, 24 May 2016 16:20:35 EST Democrats are insisting that Congress give President Obama every penny he's asking for to effectively combat the Zika virus in the United States, congressional Republicans are pushing less costly legislation and a veterinarian-turned-congressman says education and common sense will do a lot more to protect women and children than more government spending. Even more, Democrats are being accused of instinctively pursuing higher spending and impeding an effective response due to their loyalties to the environmental lobby. Since the Zika threat emerged earlier this year, President Obama has asked for Congress to approve $1.9 billion in spending to assure an effective federal response. The GOP-controlled Senate approved a $1.1 billion package, while the House passed $622 million. The House total is on top of another half-billion dollars moved around to address Zika. "The White House, typically, wants to throw money at the situation as a knee-jerk reaction. We've already redirected over $500 million earlier this year. That wasn't new spending. It was redirecting money," said Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., who worked for many years as a veterinarian before coming to Congress. "Then we passed another bill of around $600 million as you pointed out. That's not new money. That's money coming out of the Ebola account. They have over a billion dollars left in that account," said Yoho. Congressional Democrats are unsatisfied, with some insisting they will oppose any amount of money short of what Obama is requesting. "I would not support inadequate funding to deal with the healthcare catastrophe that could develop if we do not tackle the Zika virus in the right way," said Rep. Xavier Becerra, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus to reporters. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also rejects the lower amounts being offered by Republicans. "They said it's half a loaf. No, it's half a shoe. You cannot get to where you need to be with half a shoe," she said in comments recorded by The Hill. Yoho says Democrats are locked into a number instead of what will actually reduce the Zika threat. "To get into an argument of, 'The president wants to spend more money so that's right,' vs. just doing a controlled response to this I think would be the more prudent thing to do, and I think you'll get as good if not better results," said Yoho. "Throwing money is not the solution. What you have to do is. What you have to do is look at vector control, which would be the mosquito and do the proper type of sprayings at the right time of year, have mosquito repellents that are safe and non-toxic for pregnant mothers, and just use the common sense approaches they we do in any kind of an outbreak," said Yoho. In addition to believing Democrats reflexively believe more spending is the best solution to the problem, Yoho says many have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to Zika. "I've heard congressmen say we've got to eliminate that type of mosquito. The family it belongs to is called Aedes. They want to eliminate it. It's impossible. You're never going to eliminate that," said Yoho. But beyond a lack of understanding, Yoho says Democrats are actively undermining the most logical approach to Zika as a result of political loyalties. "One of the things is to use the insecticides that we know are safe. They've been out there, but the Democrats up here don't want to use that because of the environmental concerns. These are mosquito repellents and pesticides that have been used and approved by our EPA as safe and environmentally friendly," said Yoho. He says Democrats have concerns about the chemicals hurting the environment, but reiterates our own government disagrees with them. "They're claiming there's toxic environmental effects from that but again the EPA has signed off on this. The USDA has signed off on this. These are chemicals that have been used for years," said Yoho. He says the public need to realize there will not be a vaccine available anytime this summer and that common sense provisions like spraying, wearing insect repellent and removing standing water are all ways every American can help reduce the threat. Yoho says we should also be aware that the vast majority of American Zika cases have something in common. "The majority of those have been to another country. I think only a handful of people have been infected in this country," he said. "Do people need to be screened before they come into this country? Or if they go to another country, do they need to go into a quarantine?" Yoho also explained what we are likely to see in terms of Zika cases as weather gets warmer. "Everybody in America's virtually susceptible. In the beginning of an exposure like we're seeing now, you'll see numbers shoot up. Then they'll taper off rather quickly. The majority of the people who will be bitten and exposed to this virus, will never have a reaction," said Yoho. |
| 'Nobody Died Waiting in Line at Disney' |
| Mon, 23 May 2016 16:46:36 EST Members of Congress are blasting Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald after the man charged with radically improving health care for America's veterans said it was unfair to evaluate the VA based on the length of time a veteran registers and actually sees a doctor. McDonald made the comments Monday morning at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast with reporters. "When you got to Disney, do they measure the number of hours you wait in line? Or what's important? What's important is, what's your satisfaction with the experience?" said McDonald. Multiple members of the House Veterans Affairs Committee are horrified by McDonald's comments. "I think his choice of analogies was just atrocious," said Rep. Phil Roe, a four-term congressman who spent 31 years practicing medicine prior to running for Congress in 2008. "The VA is an organization that is there to provide health care for our nation's heroes and veterans. To compare waiting for a doctor's appointment, where your life may be in balance to a ride at a theme park - at Disneyland, or Dollywood in my district - is ridiculous," said Roe. Rep. Dan Benishek, R-Mich., also spent decades in medicine, including many years at a VA medical center in his district. "Nobody died waiting in line at Disney. There's pretty strong evidence that veterans have actually died waiting to be seen at the VA," said Benishek. "This is health care we're talking about, not entertainment." McDonald claims it is wrong to judge the VA by counting the days between the "create date" when a veteran first seeks an appointment to the time they actually see a doctor. Benishek isn't buying it, noting the VA knows exactly how important that waiting time is. "The previous secretary (Ge. Eric Shinseki) lost his job over falsification of records. Why were they keeping track of this if it's not important," said Benishek. "I'm afraid that it speaks to his mindset, that he doesn't take it as seriously as I do." McDonald argues that the a veteran's "experience" with the VA should matter more than the statistics. Both lawmakers pointed out it's hard to have an experience until you can get an appointment. "The easiest thing I ever did in 30-plus years of practicing medicine was make somebody an appointment. That's not real hard. You don't have to go to school to do that," said Roe, who also points out that more timely appointment often catch medical problems earlier and lead to more effective treatment. He says the delays are not due to the lack of manpower. "I found out at a hearing the other day that they have 32,000 people scheduling patients, not seeing patients but scheduling patients. They can't even get that done," said Roe. Roe observes that the VA budget has also grown immensely since he came to Washington seven years ago, up from $97 billion in 2009 to $180 billion now. "It's almost double since I've been in the Congress. The money is there. There's enough money to meet the needs of the veterans seeking care. It's how you manage it," added Roe. And both Benishek and Roe have serious questions about that management. "If a veteran calls the VA, they can dial '1' for the pharmacy, dial '2' for the clinic but if you want to talk with a mental health specialist because it's an emergency and you're thinking of harming yourself, you've got to hang up and dial a ten-digit number. And they can't fix that," said Benishek. Benishek held a conference call with veterans in his district just last week and he says the ongoing complaints prove the problems have not been solved. He says it should come as no surprise given the immense bureaucracy and the fact very few people lost their jobs over the initial scandal. Roe has discovered the very same thing with respect to the red tape enforced by the VA, including the treatment of veterans with new choice cards. "When the doctor decided you needed an appointment, you had to go out front and meet with somebody there. They then sent that information to Washington, which then sent it to Tri-West, which is out in Arizona. If there was any misinformation along the way, the process started all over again. It was ridiculous," said Roe. Both Roe and Benishek say their interactions with McDonald suggest that the secretary is committed to seeing our veterans receive care they deserve, but Benishek says comments like the ones McDonald offered Monday morning need to stop. "They should be concentrating on the nuts and bolts of solving the problems that they have at the VA, not making excuses and comparing it to Disneyland," said Benishek. |
| Ex-Commerce Secretary: Free Trade Good, We Need More Growth |
| Fri, 20 May 2016 16:06:28 EST Former U.S. Commerce Secretary Barbara Franklin says free trade is good for the United States and for job creation, but she says anemic economic growth and the failure to provide for workers who lose their jobs as a result of trade deals need to be addressed immediately. Trade is becoming a much bigger issue in 2016 than in most presidential campaign years. Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump frequently criticizes America's existing trade arrangements with the likes of China, Japan and Mexico and vows to renegotiate them. Independent-turned-Democrat candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders is often very critical of free trade in general. Even Hillary Clinton, who has long been a free trade advocate, now opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. But what is the view from someone who has been in high-level trade talks? Franklin says trade policy may need improving but she insists it's only part of the overall economic problem. "I think it's not one simple thing here," said Franklin, who served as U.S. Commerce Secretary from 1992-1993 in the final year of the George H.W. Bush administration. "I think it's a mix of things. It's trade, but it's economic growth. It's whether we have too much regulation. We have a tax code that's outdated. We've got a bunch of things here that I really think need to be looked at afresh," said Franklin. She says weak economic expansion is a major hindrance to job creation. "Part of the problem when you come to job loss has to do with our economy and the fact that it has been growing quite sluggishly," said Franklin. "We really do need stronger growth in the U.S., at least three percent GDP growth and hopefully more. We're not getting it and I think some of that reflects governmental policies or lack of policies that would be meant to stimulate economic growth." While free trade has taken some hard punches in this campaign, Franklin says trade is still a big positive for the U.S. "I'm very concerned that trade has got such a black eye in this campaign and that we have just lost the idea that started centuries ago that blossoming trade really does help economic growth," said Franklin. But she fully acknowledges the frustration that voters are expressing over trade. "What we're hearing now has to do with job loss and that's the part of this I think we really need to address," said Franklin. She says the government is supposed to be there for people whose jobs are eliminated by free trade deals. "So what do we do about the jobs issue? There are trade assistance programs that are typically federally funded but administered by the state that are meant to help those who are dislocated by trade," said Franklin. However, she says multiple problems with those programs need to be resolved, starting with where exactly people ought to go for assistance. "For those who have been dislocated by trade and have lost a job, they've first got to find the right place in the state bureaucracy to go and make the claim," said Franklin. But was the job lost directly as a result of trade? "I think it's hard to tell whether the trade agreements did actually lose all of the jobs that those candidates are talking about," said Franklin. She says that is often a stumbling block for those suddenly out of work. "What is happening here is that those programs that were meant to help those who have lost jobs because of a trade agreement just aren't working. That's my bottom line here," said Franklin. Franklin hopes the next president takes the time to focus on people impacted negatively by trade deals and cleans up the system. She also says the next president has the opportunity to take a different approach to trade policy. She says that will really be determined by presidential appointees, who will do the real work of establishing trade policy. Will they be able to renegotiate some of the high-profile deals that Trump often mentions? "I would have a question as to whether we could go back and renegotiate that and whether the other countries in the mix would agree with that. I don't know. I suppose the new president might want to do that. I don't know what the answer would be," said Franklin. She says the answer to that question from our key trading partners may determine many things. "If the answer is no and we really can't renegotiate, then I think [TPP] should be passed by our Congress. We should think ahead to what might be the next such agreement and make sure that if we're changing our mindset, and we want to be a little stiffer in one place or another, that those messages are handled by our negotiators," said Franklin, who notes that a major deal with European nations, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is also being negotiated right now. One idea Franklin rejects outright is Trump's suggestion that tariffs be applied against nations taking advantage of the U.S. on trade policy. "There would just be confusion and concern and I just don't think that's a very practical thing to be doing and I'm hopeful that the rhetoric about doing things like that will quiet down," said Franklin. Instead, she wants to hear how the remaining candidates plan to revitalize our economy. "Some of the job creation issue comes right back to economic growth. How would those candidates work to accelerate economic growth so that there would be the opportunity for more job creation," said Franklin. |
| 'Women Like Me Will Become Obsolete' |
| Thu, 19 May 2016 16:08:13 EST Congress appears unlikely to require women to register with Selective Service as part of new defense legislation, but the idea is quickly gaining in popularity in both parties and a retired female U.S. Marine Corps gunnery sergeant says it's because lawmakers and policy don't know what they're talking about. Late last year, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced all ground combat roles in the military were open to women. Multiple service chiefs subsequently stated they believe the new policy ought to require women to register with Selective Service, meaning they could be conscripted into ground combat roles if the U.S. ever brought back the draft. To the surprise of many, multiple Republican presidential candidates indicated they would back the the idea. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., then proposed an amendment to the current defense bill. The amendment passed, even though Hunter opposed it. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., then added the provision to the Senate defense bill. The issue was put on the back burner, however, when the House Rules Committee stripped the Hunter amendment from the final version. But the momentum of the idea of requiring women to register for the draft is unmistakable. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says he supports the idea. "We 19re talking here about registration for Selective Service, should we ever go back to a draft. And given where we are today, with women in the military performing virtually all kinds of functions, I personally think it would be appropriate for them to register just like men do," McConnell stated on May 17. McConnell was quick to add he does not think the draft needs to be re-instated. The fact Congress came so close to the new requirement is appalling to retired U.S. Marine Corps Gunnery Sgt. Jessie Jane Duff, who is now a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research. She says lawmakers failed to oversee the Obama administration's policy move. "I actually don't think Republicans even understand the issue. There was a nine-month study done by the Marine Corps and the study results were not even reviewed by the [Senate] or House. They were not even reviewed by Congress," said Duff. She says there is plenty of blame to go around when it comes to people in power who dropped the ball. "The letter from Gen. (Joseph) Dunford that actually stated the key points of why they were seeking an exemption from putting women in ground forces was ignored by Sec. Ash Carter, was ignored by the Secretary of the Navy. And the House and Senate never challenged the Pentagon for changing the policy," said Duff. Duff says while few in Washington failed to protest the Obama administration decision, the public was left in the dark. "Meanwhile, the American public was sitting at home eating dinner, not even realizing that their daughters, who are on active duty right now can now involuntarily be assigned to the infantry," said Duff. She says politicians are more concerned about appearances of equality than remembering the purpose of ground combat. "They're looking at it as, 'Oh, women are so capable. They're performing in all jobs. What they're failing to understand is that the draft is to replace combat roles, not support roles. It is to replace your infantry and ground units. And the whole purpose of our infantry and our ground units is to literally cut the throats or shoot the heads off of your enemy," said Duff. "Women overall are not capable of performing to the same levels as men are. It's been proven time and time again," said Duff. "We obviously, genetically are designed completely differently. We have roughly 40-45 percent less muscle mass. We have 20 percent less lung capacity," said Duff. Duff stresses that only women who have been anywhere close to front line combat can assess whether women should be in those roles at the "tip of the spear," rejecting support for women in combat from the likes of female veterans Rep. Martha McSally, R-Ariz., and Rep. Tammy Duckworth, R-Ill., who served in the air. "I did go on the humps with the men. I did do the marches. I did wear those packs. I understand that over long, sustained periods of time, the female body breaks down faster," said Duff. "Why would you want your daughters, your sisters, your mothers in hand-to-hand combat with ISIS? That's what it's going to boil down to," said Duff. "Why are you setting women up for failure instead of success. Women like me will become obsolete," added Duff. Duff uses athletics as an example of why this is a terrible policy, pointing out that colleges have both men's and women's teams in most sports. She says there's also a reason there are no women in the major professional sports. "Why aren't women in the NFL? Because we want to win. If anyone thinks that running around with 120 pounds of gear in ground combat for six to seven months at a time because they're doing forward operations, long-term operations on the ground, kicking down doors, seeking out the enemy," said Duff. "Do we want an NFL team that wins or do we want to start having quotas for the most important measures of our life - our national security, combat readiness. This is not an equal opportunity issue. This is a combat readiness issue," said Duff. She says the Marine Corps, the only branch to oppose the move to insert women into direct ground combat roles, is also the only branch to research the issue. "Four hundred women went through infantry training on the enlisted side. Only 35 percent of them graduated, whereas 98 percent of the males graduated. What happened to that other 65 percent. Women get injured at a six to ten times higher rate more than men," said Duff. Other service leaders, including Navy Sec. Ray Mabus, dismissed the study as flawed and supported the Obama administration move. "People tried to say these studies are flawed. Then show me the evidence that they can do it. We have no substantiating evidence that demonstrates that the women can sustain themselves with those packs, with that gear, with those weapons. We have none," said Duff. So why were the Marines the only branch to oppose the change? "The Marines are the least of the politically correct people and not afraid to tell you what reality is," said Duff. Duff says 92.5 percent of women currently in uniform do not want to be engaged on the front line. And she says she would have a very difficult time urging any young woman to join the military now. "Honestly, how could I look a young lady in the eye and say, 'Go in the Marines or Go in the Army now,' because she could, if she's one of those top physical performers, could be assigned involuntarily to one of these units," said Duff. |
| Christian Artists Fight Law Demanding They Serve Same-Sex Weddings |
| Wed, 18 May 2016 17:28:29 EST Two Christian artists are launching a preemptive challenge to a Phoenix, Arizona, ordinance, requiring all expressive businesses to service same-sex weddings and refrain from publicizing any beliefs that could be deemed offensive to protected classes of people. Breanna Koski and Joanna Duka own Brush & Nib, a business that specializes in hand-painting, hand-lettering and calligraphy. The business provides wedding services ranging from invitations to all sorts of wedding day decor, along with services for many other special events. But as a result of their Christian beliefs, Koski and Duka will not accept work for same-sex weddings. As a result, the women fear they will soon be cited by Phoenix authorities under § 18.4(B) of the city code. The ordinance, as admitted in Koski and Duka's motion, "bars public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of a person's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability and from making any communication implying people will be discriminated against or are objectionable because of these protected traits." Koski and Duka are largely fine with that language, but their motion, filed by their attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom, says the city's interpretation of the ordinance is very troubling. "The ordinance bans 'discrimination' against various protected classes and also prevents businesses from any communication which implies someone of a protected class is unwelcome or objectionable," said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel John Scruggs, who is directly involved in this case. "That basically means because our clients create art for opposite-sex wedding ceremonies, they have to do so for same-sex wedding ceremonies, so really compelling them to create artwork that is against their artistic and religious beliefs," added Scruggs. Beyond that, Scruggs says the city interpretation won't even allow expressive professionals from explaining their beliefs due to the possibility of someone in a protected class could construe the message as discrimination. "[The ordinance] says that any business cannot issue 'any communication that implies someone is unwelcome or objectionable or not solicited.' If our clients wanted to express their religious beliefs about one-man, one-woman marriage, that could certainly imply that someone who is seeking a same-sex marriage is objectionable," said Scruggs. He says the penalties for violating the ordinance are very severe. "If our clients violate the law, they could suffer up to $2,500 (in fines) for each day they violate the law and also six months in jail for each day they violate the law," said Scruggs. The City of Phoenix has not cited Brush & Nib for violating the ordinance, so Koski and Duka are filing a 'pre-enforcement' suit against the city. "The city has not attempted to force a lawsuit against us yet. But it clearly does apply to our clients. In fact, the city has already interpreted and essentially enforced the law against similar entities," said Scruggs. So why go to court when he city hasn't pointed the finger at Brush & Nib? Scruggs says Koski and Duka don't want to be looking over their shoulders every day to see if the government is after them. "Obviously, when you hear, 'If you violate this law, you're going to go to jail for a long time and you're going to suffer these severe financial penalties,' (this is) the only sane thing a person would do in that situation. They wouldn't violate the law. They wouldn't wait around to go to jail. They would challenge the law and ask the court to declare this unconstitutional," said Scruggs. Scruggs says the Constitution is clearly on the side of his clients. "The government makes a bad art critic. It really infringes on artists' rights and the rights of all citizens," said Scruggs. "It's really an egregious form of regulation on speech and that's why it's really important to stress this case is really about artistic freedom: the freedom of artists to create in accordance with their beliefs and to express and explain their art on their website," added Scruggs. Scruggs points out Koski and Duka are not opposed to welcoming gay and lesbian customers, it's attaching their abilities to a particular event that troubles their consciences. "Our clients willingly will serve people of all different sexual orientations, races, religions, whatever. It's not about the person, it's about the message that their art is promoting," said Scruggs. "That shows this isn't about discrimination. It's about creating art that only promotes certain beliefs." Phoenix officials have yet to respond to Koski and Duka's challenge but vow to do so. Scruggs expects this all to be handled by the court within the next few weeks, and he is looking forward to the fight. "We welcome that challenge. We want to get before a court as soon as we can to make our legal arguments. We feel very confident that the right of free speech prevents the government from telling artists what they should and shouldn't create," said Scruggs. |
| Bureaucratic, Inefficient TSA Causing Security Delays |
| Tue, 17 May 2016 16:46:20 EST Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson warns air travelers to prepare for much longer than usual airport security lines, but a Transportation Security Administration watchdog says this mess is simply a matter of the government failing to manage its resources responsibly. On Monday, Johnson stood at Ronald Reagan National Airport just outside Washington and told passengers to expect longer than expected wait times as the Transportation Security Administration, or TSA, expedites hundreds of new personnel into service to speed up the security process. In Chicago, passengers were told to arrive three hours prior to departure, The TSA claims that congressional action has led to the elimination of some 4,500 personnel over the past few years and the agency simply doesn't have the manpower to keep up, but that's just spin according to Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute. He also run Cato's "Downsizing Government" blog. Edwards says the TSA is littered with problems, starting with its existing personnel. "Annual surveys of federal government employees find that the TSA and the broader Homeland Security Department have some of the poorest morale in the federal government. The TSA has a high turnover rate for their screeners, which is not good for morale and is not good for security," said Edwards. But perhaps even worse is TSA's penchant for directing its ever-increasing budget into the wrong areas. "TSA has spent many billions of dollars on things that don't work. As a result, they've starved their budget from hiring more screeners to reduce congestion," said Edwards. He says the most glaring example is one of TSA's most controversial projects. "Remember those full-body scanning machines that were in airports for years that essentially showed nude pictures of passengers as they got screened?" asked Edwards. "Those things were eventually withdrawn because of civil liberties concerns. People didn't want to see their nude bodies when they went to the airport. But those things have been found to not really work at all. It's fairly easy to slip guns and plastic explosives through those machines," said Edwards. Another major problem, says Edwards, is the inability of such a large bureaucracy to adapt to differing needs at different airports. "As a government bureaucracy, the TSA has a very inflexible workforce. Unlike a private company, where if they saw one of their facilities or one of their cities get a lot more business and a lot more demand, they'd move workers over there. They'd hire more part-time workers to fill surges in demand. Government bureaucracies don't do that. They have fixed numbers of people at these airports and they don't adjust them like any normal private business would," said Edwards. He says airports do have the option to boot the TSA and go with private security. He says only 15-20 airports do that and actually perform better when secret tests are conducted to see whether weapons or explosive materials get past security. "Airports are allowed to opt out of TSA screening and some of them have been looking at that recently because of the huge congestion at the airports," said Edwards. He says things work much more smoothly north of the border. "In Canada, all major airports have private screening. There's a number of different expert companies that specialize in airport screening. They get three-year contracts to do particular airports. If they don't do a good job, if they don't have high security, they get fired. The next time around, a different company gets the contract," said Edwards. While U.S. airports do have the ability to ditch the TSA and hire private security, Edwards says the Obama administration is making it much tougher to do that. "Congress has had to slap down the administration a few times to get them to allow airports to go private. In the original legislation that created TSA, House Republicans slipped in this provision that airports could petition the Department of Transportation to go private, but the Obama administration has made that very difficult," said Edwards. |
| Little Sisters See Supreme Court Ruling as 'Win-Win' |
| Mon, 16 May 2016 16:29:53 EST The Supreme Court rules 8-0 on Monday that it is sending the legal cases involving religious organizations and the Obamacare contraception mandate back to lower courts for resolution, a decision that an attorney for the Little Sisters of the Poor calls a "win-win." The case, Zubik v. Burwell, is a legal battle over whether the government can force religious organizations to provide contraception coverage in their health plans if that coverage violates sincerely-held beliefs. The justices ruled they would not be ruling on the merits of the case at this time. "In particular, the Court does not decide whether petitioners' religious exercise has been substantially burdened, whether the Government has a compelling interest, or whether the current regulations are the least restrictive means of serving that interest," the court stated in an opinion that was not ascribed to a specific justice. While the Obama administration says it is "gratified" by the decision, most court watchers summarized the ruling as the justices punting the issue back to the lower courts. But the Little Sisters don't see it that way at all. "To the extent that this is a punt, this is a punt that gives the Little Sisters great field position," said Daniel Blomberg, an attorney with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents the Little Sisters. "It puts them in a place that we can get to a solution that frankly isn't a win-loss, it's a win- win." "Today was a big win. It was the unanimous decision that we've been hoping for and it protects the Little Sisters of the Poor from having to violate their religious beliefs or pay massive fines," said Blomberg. While the court did not rule on the merits, Blomberg says its actions demonstrate the justices are not okay with with groups like the Little Sisters being in the government's cross hairs. "Several lower court decisions had gone the wrong way and they were forcing the Little Sisters to choose between their faith and fines and they were massive, crushing fines. The Supreme Court today said, 'No, we're not going to do that. We're going to send this back down to get reconsidered because the government has admitted it has other ways of accomplishing its mission without forcing the sisters to violate their beliefs," said Blomberg. Blomberg says the court also played a pivotal role in the early stages on this case. "[The Little Sisters] had to run to the Supreme Court because the government was so aggressively pursuing them and requiring them to violate their faith or pay massive fines. Justice (Sonia) Sotomayor issued an opinion saying, 'No, let's put the brakes on this. Let's give more time to think about it.' Then the full court said you can't fine them while this case is proceeding," said Blomberg. Despite its recent reputation, Bloomberg says the Supreme Court has ruled on the side of liberty on this issue several times in recent years. "We've had several other decisions since that time and they've all gone the same way. They've all rejected the government's arguments and they've all provided protection for the Little Sisters and other religious ministries," said Blomberg. So why is the White House welcoming this decision? "Of course the government's spinning," said Blomberg. "You can read the clear text of the Supreme Court's order yourself. It says you don't get to fine the sisters to make them do what you want. It does say that you have to find a solution that actually accommodates their religious beliefs," said Blomberg. He also says the Obama administration is constantly changing it's position in this case. "The administration hasn't changed its views in this matter just once, not just twice, not just three times and not just four times. They have changed their position ten times in the course of this litigation. Every time they've changed their position, they've still managed to say, 'Whatever else we do, we want to force the sisters to pay millions of dollars in fines if they don't do what we want,'" said Blomberg. But given the lower courts siding with the government most of the time, why is Blomberg so confident the decisions would be different this time around? "Every one of those decisions have been erased. They're gone. The court sent a very clear signal that those decisions were going down the wrong path," said Blomberg, who points out the government also confessed to the justices that it could apply the mandate without impacting the Little Sisters. While the legal battle continues, Blomberg says he remains deeply impressed by the Little Sisters themselves. "They are amazing human beings. It's been a pleasure and an honor to work with them. We've gotten to know them on a personal level and . They couldn't be more sincere," said Blomberg. |
| Obama Bathroom Action 'Unconstitutional,' Part of Bigger Goal |
| Fri, 13 May 2016 15:50:35 EST The Obama administration launched another offensive in the battle over public accommodation Friday, telling all public schools to allow students to use facilities based on their gender identity instead of their biological sex, a directive that Liberty Counsel President Mathew Staver says is blatantly unconstitutional and part of a larger Obama goal of rubbing God out of the public square. Officials at the Justice and Education departments released a letter providing "guidance" as to how school districts should comply with the policy. The letter also made it clear that states or schools that did not fall in line could face federal lawsuits or a denial of federal education funds. "Under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, schools receiving federal money may not discriminate based on a student 19s sex, including a student 19s transgender status. The guidance makes clear that both federal agencies treat a student 19s gender identity as the student 19s sex for purposes of enforcing Title IX," stated the latter. Staver says the idea that lawmakers considered gender identity in the context of sex discrimination 44 years ago is absurd. "Common sense says that in 1972, no one was thinking that 'sex' included somebody's fictitious mind games of thinking they are the opposite gender," said Staver. Not only does he believe Congress did not intend the expanded definition of sex, but Staver points out that lawmakers have repeatedly defeated attempts to make such a change to Title IX. "(The Obama administration demand) eviscerates the statute and has nothing to do with its intent. In fact, Congress, multiple times over the past 10-15 years, has rejected attempts to include sexual orientation or gender identity in any of the federal laws. They've specifically rejected those attempts," said Staver. He also urges parents and all citizens to carefully watch how local officials react to the government's demands. "If any school buckles to this nonsense, we encourage families and communities to hold those school officials and those school boards accountable for the sexual assaults that no doubt will come in light of these policies and agendas," said Staver. While many conservatives fear another long court fight will result in another disappointing decision from the Supreme Court, Staver is confident the administration will lose this battle. "It absolutely is contrary to the law. They're making it up as they go. They're going to lose this in a legal challenge," said Staver. Nonetheless, Staver is alarmed by the impact of the government pushing this agenda on the nation. "It shows how radical this agenda is, to accommodate a sexual, evolutionary, anarchist kind of agenda that you can think, therefore you are something that you're really not, over the well being and interest of students, over the well being, interest and protection of religious freedom. They really couldn't care less," said Staver. In some states, the threat of withholding federal aid is primarily a hit to programs providing meals to underprivileged students. Staver says holding that funding as a bargaining chip is especially galling. "It is the top priority agenda for this administration. They don't care whether little boys are girls have their school lunches. 'Fine, they're not going to eat but we're going to allow boys to go into the girls' restroom, shower rooms and locker rooms.' That's their agenda. It's actually very perverted and, frankly, dangerous," said Staver. As troubled as he is by this policy effort, Staver says the larger goal of Obama and his allies is even more frightening. "They want to abolish the concept of gender, so there is no male and there is no female. It's all a product of your mind," said Staver. "Whatever you want to be then you ought to be treated that way. That's Never Never Land. That's George Orwell's '1984.' This is turning reality into some kind of fiction-based living situation," said Staver. Ultimately, he says the left is trying to scrub God and morality from American life. "The reason they want to abolish gender is because they also want to remove any kind of moral construct regarding human sexuality. Ultimately they want to abolish gender so they can abolish the very notion of the creator God himself, who created you and I in His image. Male and female, God created you and I, distinctly different yet complementary," said Staver. The Justice Department order says any student can identify as the opposite gender of their biological sex with consent from his or her parents and the school must comply. In addition, the school is not allowed to seek any sort of verification. "A school may not require transgender students to have a medical diagnosis, undergo any medical treatment, or produce a birth certificate or other identification document before treating them consistent with their gender identity," the letter reads. Staver says the government is effectively cheering people on in their mental illness. "Let's just be frank. This is not normal. This is a mental disorder, just as much as anorexia or bulimia, or even much worse, apotemnophilia, someone who thinks that they are a disabled person inhabiting an able body. Yes there are people who think that way. Those are not normal," said Staver. He says catering to people struggling with their gender is the same as enabling those other disorders. "It certainly doesn't help to suggest that it's normal. It's not, any more than it would be suggestive that, 'Even though you want to regurgitate your food even though you're not overweight, that's okay. We're going to do something that protects that.' That just doesn't help the individual," said Staver. |
| The Challenging GOP Path to Unity |
| Thu, 12 May 2016 14:39:52 EST Donald Trump's meeting with House Speaker Paul Ryan was the talk of Washington Thursday, but a former top Republican official says party unity will only come when Trump reaches out to skeptical Republicans, those same Republicans give him a fair evaluation and party leaders are comfortable with his tone. The build-up to Thursday's meeting began days ago, when Ryan told CNN's Jake Tapper, "I'm not there yet," when it comes to endorsing Trump. Following Thursday's encounter, both Trump and Ryan called the encounter a positive step. Ryan suggested they agreed on core principles and didn't talk much about specific issues. He also said 45 minutes was not enough time to make him ready to formally back Trump but looked forward to future conversations. Former Republican National Committee Chairman Frank Donatelli, who also served as political director in the Reagan White House, said party unity is a must if the GOP hopes to win in November. "It's very, very important. The parties are very polarized these days and, typically, each party gets 90 percent of the party members that vote in that election. Anything that falls off even slightly from that is a real problem as far as the nominee is concerned," said Donatelli. "It's not enough for the Republican nominee to have overwhelming support. They have to have almost unanimous support in order to have enough votes to compete for independents and win the presidential election," said Donatelli. Recent polls suggest Trump is improving in his efforts to consolidate GOP support, although he won Tuesday's Nebraska primary with about 61 percent of the vote despite having no real opposition. Donatelli says winning over Ryan, who sees himself as an heir to the sunny, free market Reagan legacy would help Trump because a lot of Republicans agree with Ryan on most issues. Donatelli thinks Ryan approached the meeting well, both in what was discussed and in how he sees the relationship going forward. "I think Ryan is right to talk about general principles rather than specific proposals. At least let's get agreement on general principles as a way of moving forward," said Donatelli. " It would not be credible for these men to have one meeting and say, 'Oh look, we've agreed on everything.' That is not going to satisfy anybody. It's the idea of baby steps here. You have one meeting and narrow the differences. Then there's another meeting and maybe there's a meeting of the minds here where eventually they can all get on board. It's not going to happen right away," added Donatelli. The greatest galvanizing force for the right is the desire to stop Hillary Clinton from winning the White House. But Donatelli says that alone won't bring Republicans together. "That goes a part of the way but obviously it doesn't go far enough with Ryan or (Arizona Sen.) Jeff Flake or Mitt Romney or a lot of other Republicans that still have doubts," said Donatelli. Donatelli says both sides of the GOP divide need to make overtures to the other, starting with Trump. "I think it's up to the nominee and the campaign to unify the party. Hopefully, that means the candidate and his team is on the phone, calling Republicans, talking to them, encouraging them to be part of the team, not threatening them but trying to build a common set of principles that all Republicans can run on," said Donatelli. But he also says the Republicans currently stiff-arming Trump, also need to take action. "Conversely, it's up to all Republicans to take a look at the candidate, what his principles are and the tone of his campaign and make an honest judgment as to whether or not they want to be part of that effort," said Donatelli. But ultimately Donatelli says Republicans need to follow their conscience, and he says some Republicans are reluctant to formally back a wild card like Trump. "I think it disturbs him and it disturbs a lot of Republicans if we have a nominee that's constantly combative and belittling and just not speaking or acting the way a president should act, with grace and with measure and always thinking before they are saying something," said Donatelli. He says that issue more than any policy positions are holding back more endorsements, especially from down ballot candidates who aren't sure how close they should get to Trump. "On the one hand, they want to be true to the Republican Party and the nominee. On the other hand, they have their own coalition they have to put together to win, especially in swing states and so-called purple states. You're going to see candidates come up with different formulations as to how they try to balance those two objectives," said Donatelli. The good news for all sides, according to Donatelli, is that there's ample time to coalesce. "We have plenty of time down the road. The convention's not for a couple of months. Let's keep talking and let's see if we can get on the same page," said Donatelli. While the outcome of the convention in Cleveland is no longer in doubt, Donatelli says that week could still spawn some fierce debates. "The fact that this is not going to be a contested convention, in the sense that we know who the nominee is going to be, that doesn't mean there aren't going to be a lot of controversies at the convention. There are a lot of platform issues that need to be worked out, probably some credentials fights, some rules fights," said Donatelli. Another major issue is who will speak at the convention and trying to nail down what other speakers will say, particularly figures like Sen. Ted Cruz, who spent months locked in a bitter fight with Trump. "All these issues are still to be negotiated and determined, so I think that the RNC chair and his staff's work has just begun in this regard," said Donatelli. |
| Obama 'Holding North Carolina Children Hostage' |
| Wed, 11 May 2016 16:20:41 EST North Carolina Lt. Gov. Dan Forest is firing back at the Obama administration for what he says is the federal government trying to make states conform to its cultural agenda, threatening "extortion" to compel his state to abandon its new public accommodation law and comparing the debate over transgender access to the civil rights movement. The debate expanded in two major ways this week after Gov. Pat McCrory rejected the Obama administration's assertion that North Carolina was in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. McCrory also announced he was asking the federal courts to define what is meant by the discrimination based on sex in the law. The same day, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced the Justice Department was bringing action against the state for denying civil rights to transgenders by requiring them to use facilities based on their sex at birth. But Lynch didn't stop there. She also said the state could be losing considerable amounts of federal assistance if it did not back down. "We retain the option of curtailing federal funding to the North Carolina Department of Public Safety and the University of North Carolina as this case proceeds," said Lynch. Forest is appalled. "We sued first because they came through the Justice Department and said, 'Unless you do what we say and repeal this law, we're going to take away four billion dollars of tax dollars from North Carolina. We're going to take away your education Title IX funding. We're going to take away your [Housing and Urban Development] funding. We're going to take away your transportation funding because we don't agree with your law,' even though it's the same law the federal government has, along with 28 states," said Forest. He says he is used to strong arm tactics from the Obama administration, but this reaches a new level. "For the federal government to tell us now that they think that should be the law of the land, this is really going too far. Using extortion to do that is a pretty extreme measure, even from this administration," said Forest. Forest says schoolkids will suffer the most if Obama and Lynch make good on that promise. "The Obama administration right now is holding North Carolina children hostage by trying to take away their education funding from the federal level to push a radical, extreme agenda of this administration," said Forest, who wants Congress to probe assert control over the spending of the agencies the government is using to pressure North Carolina. While the federal government, many liberal interest groups and the media are hostile toward the North Carolina law, Forest says the vast majority of the people in North Carolina agree with Gov. McCrory and the legislature. He is also quick to point out that liberals on the Charlotte City Council started this fight, not Republicans in Raleigh. "Nobody, prior to Charlotte's ordinance, was worried about a transgender person going in the bathroom. It was probably happening, people were okay with it and they probably didn't even notce it. Charlotte brought up the law. (The Charlotte ordinance) is unconstitutional and very extreme, so we had to address that," said Forest. Most reports contend the Charlotte city ordinance allowed transgenders to use the men's or women's facilities based on their gender identity. Forest says it went much further than that. "What this Charlotte ordinance actually said is that you would have to take the male and female bathroom signs off the bathroom. You couldn't have male and female signs anymore. Those would have to come down. They'd all have to be (gender) neutral signs, not just for the government, but for all of the business community as well," said Forest. In addition to announcing the lawsuit against North Carolina and threatening to withhold federal funds, Lynch compared the new public accommodation law with the segregation era. "This is not the first time we have seen discriminatory responses to historic moments of progress for our nation. We saw it in the Jim Crow laws that followed the Emancipation Proclamation. We saw it in the fierce and widespread resistance to Brown v. Board of Education," said Lynch. 1cIt was not so very long ago that states, including North Carolina, has other signs above restrooms, water fountains and on public accommodations, keeping people out based on a distinction without a difference, 1d added Lynch. Forest is disgusted by the assertion. "Absolutely shameful is what it is," said Forest. "These are completely different things. For her to bring this up as if it's some great civil rights case in America today is really shameful. To be painting that picture on the South or on North Carolina or anybody else just shows she doesn't understand this issue." Forest contends a person's race should never have been used to determine who could use drinking fountains, rest rooms or lunch counters or where people could sit on a bus. He's says that's the opposite of what is happening in North Carolina now. "That is absolute discrimination and never should have taken place in America," said Forest of the civil rights era. "But what bathroom a biological male or female uses in going into a bathroom that has a sign that has male or female on it has everything to do with biological sex." While the federal government contends the 1964 law meant to include sexual orientation in it's references to sex discrimination, Forest says the courts have said North Carolina's position in correct. "That's just not the case. There are plenty of lawsuits out there in the federal courts that say that is not the case. The Supreme Court has decided not to rule on that because they don't believe that's the case either. That's why it's going to the federal courts now for a decision," said Forest. Forest says blurring the lines between the sexes not only infringes on the expectation of privacy, but gives a green light to sexual predators who will use looser standards to their advantage. "There's a bunch of nefarious characters out there. We have 24,000 registered sex offenders in North Carolina. Don't give them a loophole. Don't give them an opening to walk into a bathroom or a shower or anything like that. You don't want to do that. It defies logic. It defies common sense," said Forest. If North Carolina were to capitulate to the Obama administration or the courts ultimately rule against his state, Forest says there will be far more discrimination then than there is now when it comes to public accommodation in the Tar Heel State. "What we don't talk about is who is really being discriminated against. That's women and children, who haven't had a voice in this, the 99 percent of the population of women and children who don't want a biological male walking into a place where they should have the most security and privacy of all, and that's in a bathroom, a shower or a changing facility," said Forest. |
| Obama's Gift to Abortion Industry |
| Mon, 9 May 2016 16:27:56 EST One of the leading pro-life organizations is fighting back against the Obama administration's approval for expanded use of the controversial abortion drug combination known as RU-486, calling the government's decision harmful for women and babies and nothing put a political "thank you" from Obama to his allies in the abortion industry. The Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, which recently clamped down on e-cigarettes and some tobacco products in order to protect the health of children, is allowing women seeking abortions to take the RU-486 regimen until the tenth week of pregnancy. Previously, the limit was seven weeks. RU-486 is a two-drug regimen. The first starves the unborn baby of nutrients, leading the child to die. Live Action Founder and President Lila Rose says at 10 weeks, that baby is further developed than many realize. "The heart is beating. The brain is forming, leg and arm buds. By the end of the first trimester, the child has all his internal organs and body parts. He just needs time and nourishment to grow. You're talking about a fairly developed pre-born child," said Rose. The second drug is even more powerful. "The second drug induces labor," said Rose. "It makes a woman bleed out her entire pregnancy as well as the pre-born child. That process can take up to two days," said Rose. In addition to the FDA giving its approval for RU-486 for an additional three weeks, Rose says it also allows abortion providers to provide less medical supervision. She says that is a recipe for disaster. "A teen girl could get these drugs, self-administer the pills and without any parent's knowledge or consent in many states, be bleeding out her pregnancy in a forced miscarriage without a doctor involved," said Rose. According to Rose, the later the drugs are taken in a pregnancy the less likely the second drug is to actually trigger a miscarriage. In that situation, the patient is then forced to seek a surgical abortion in order to remove the dead child. Rose says this has nothing to do with health care. She alleges it's the Obama administration helping abortion providers line their pockets. "They were elected in part by Planned Parenthood dollars. The abortion industry has interests on Capitol Hill. They have friends at the FDA and they stand to profit. The later term they can do medical abortion, the less supervision is necessary," said Rose. "They can profit more by having fewer nurses, fewer doctors and just hand out pills and then maybe profit again on the other side because if the procedure fails, the women comes back for a second abortion. All in all, this is a good moneymaker for the abortion industry," said Rose. Unsurprisingly, there is fierce debate over safety of RU-486. When the FDA policy was announced, the American Council of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated it was 1cpleased that the updated F.D.A.-approved regimen for mifepristone reflects the current available scientific evidence and best practices. 1d Rose points out there is great debate within the council, also known as ACOG, and that the group does not speak speak for OB/GYN's en masse. "Many doctors disagree. That's why many doctors won't perform abortions. A lot of doctors don't like that FDA is loosening up standards," said Rose. "There's a lot of disagreement in the medical community but unfortunately the pro-abortion interests have a powerful grip over at ACOG," said Rose. Members of Congress, particularly Republicans investigation Planned Parenthood and the sale of aborted baby body parts, are demanding more paperwork explaining how the FDA came to this conclusion, but Rose says Congress can't turn this tide by itself. "I think a lot hinges on the 2016 election this year," said Rose, referring to the power government regulators have outside of Congress. "Ultimately, we really need to look at the presidency and the White House. We need to get someone in there who cares for women and children and who are not in the pocket of Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry," said Rose. |
| Bolton: Hillary Just Four More Years of Obama |
| Fri, 6 May 2016 16:05:50 EST Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton says he is now backing Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential race and warns voters that electing Hillary Clinton will just mean another four years of President Obama's foreign policy. After briefly considering a White House bid of his own, Bolton refused to endorse while the GOP nomination was still in doubt but said he would back the eventual nominee. Recent campaign suspensions by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Gov. John Kasich, R-Ohio, leave Trump as the only active Republican candidate on well on his way to clinching a majority of pledged delegates. Bolton is urging party unity because he believes the U.S. national security cannot afford Clinton as president. "Hillary is extremely happy with the Obama foreign policy. It's almost an urban legend now that somehow she would be tougher, more hawkish (than Obama). I really don't see that," said Bolton, who says Clinton admits as much in her most recent book, "Hard Choices." "It's very hard, if not impossible, to find any real differences between what Hillary Clinton writes and what the Obama policy was," said Bolton. "The idea somehow that Hillary would be preferable because she would be an improvement on the Obama foreign policy is badly misguided." Bolton said Trump's foreign policy speech in Washington just prior to becoming the presumptive nominee was a "good start" in laying out his vision that America's national security interests must take top priority in the next administration. But Trump may still have a steep learning curve on national security, evidenced most publicly by his December debate performance in wich he appeared to have no familiarity with the nuclear triad. Bolton admits Trump still has to prove he is ready for the job. "It's also important to demonstrate that Trump can can fulfill the most important job of the presidency, which is keeping the country safe. Obviously, the economy's important. There's a lot of important issues, but if the country's not safe, everything else is secondary," said Bolton. Both Trump and Clinton plan to make economic issues central to their campaigns, but Bolton believes Trump's business track record will lead Hillary to look for an advantage on international affairs and point to her time as secretary of state to show she has a much better handle on America's national security challenges. Bolton says Trump has to be ready to use Clinton's record against her. "Trump needs to demonstrate that her record at State, which is the same as the first four years under Obama, was a series of failures. To do that is going to require talking more about the subject," said Bolton. Still, Bolton has no doubt Trump would be better than Clinton and urges conservatives and Republicans to stop seeking further alternatives to Trump. "I believe this is a binary choice. The next president will either be Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, unless Hillary gets indicted. Talk about a third party candidate I think is badly misplaced. The idea of not voting at all is no better because functionally that's a vote for Hillary. And it may have a really harmful effect on Senate and House races where Republicans are going to be fighting hard to maintain control," said Bolton. Another major concern for Bolton is that the world will be far less stable by January 2017 because he expects our adversaries to take aggressive steps in the coming months because they don't expect President Obama to resist them. "The continuing deterioration of the Middle East and all across North Africa as well is going to accelerate and I think we're going to see Iran challenge us on a variety of points. I think they're going to press the outer limits of the Vienna deal on their nuclear weapons program. Recently, the head to the Revolutionary Guards Corps threatened yet again to close the Straits of Hormuz. I think threatening moves against friendly Arab states are all in the offing," said Bolton. Iraq is another hornet's nest, with U.S. forces engaging in direct combat with ISIS in recent days and protests in and around Baghdad and even parliament leading to questions about whether the Iraqi government can survive. Bolton says the next president will deal with an irreparable Iraq. "The violence in parliament is really a demonstration that what's left of the government in Iraq really is on the verge of collapse. Iraq has functionally disappeared as a state. The Kurds are functionally independent. ISIS has carved out primarily the Sunni areas. The Shia areas of Iraq are dominated by the ayatollahs in Tehran," said Bolton. He says the top goal in the midst of that mess is rooting out ISIS and he believes the promise of a homeland for anti-ISIS Sunnis is much better incentive than a return to the status quo of living under the retribution of the Shia majority. "We have to give the Sunni Arabs of western Iraq and eastern Syria an incentive to leave ISIS and join us. I think creating a new state out of what used to be Syria and Iraq makes sense. they're not going to fight ISIS so they can come back under the domination of the ayatollahs in Iraq or the Assad regime in eastern Syria," said Bolton. He says Iraq is a good example of how the next president needs to approach the world's challenges as they exist now how they wish things were. "In foreign policy, if you're not dealing with reality, you're going to fail," said Bolton. |
| FDA's E-Cigarette Crackdown Actually Endangers Health |
| Thu, 5 May 2016 16:47:41 EST The Food and Drug Administration is enacting "historic" regulations aimed at e-cigarettes aimed at further reducing youth nicotine consumption but a top regulatory expert says the government is needlessly meddling and actually making Americans less healthy. On Thursday, Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell announced that e-cigarette makers would be subject to the same standards as traditional tobacco firms, including marketing bans, warning labels on packages and requiring purchasers to be 18 years or older. But perhaps the most significant part of the rule is that any product brought to market since February 15, 2007, will be subject to rigorous clearance procedures by the government just to stay in business. Hand-rolled cigars, hookahs and pipe tobacco are also under the same rule, which stems from the Tobacco Control Act of 2009. "It's actually a lot worse than they make it sound," said Jeff Stier, director of the Risk Analysis Division at the National Center for Public Policy Research. "They're actually holding them to a dramatically higher standard." "What the FDA did is so troubling because it will have the effect of taking almost all of the products, e-cigarettes, off the market because it's holding these products to a pre-marketing approval requirement that even the FDA acknowledges may cost up to a million dollars each and will hold it to a standard that is so far very hard to prove," said Stier. Stier finds that especially frustrating because he says research shows e-cigarettes are demonstrably healthier for smokers than standard cigarettes. "The Royal College of Physicians just a week-and-a-half ago released its own historic report and recommended in England that doctors recommend that patients who smoke switch to e-cigarettes because they are so much less harmful. They call it nicotine without the smoke. It's the smoke that's dangerous," said Stier. So why the FDA dropping the hammer in e-cigarettes? "Because it's the government. Seriously, this is an opportunity that the FDA has to regulate a new product and they are basically drooling over it." said Stier, who points out tobacco firms aren't facing standards anywhere near as high as e-cigarette makers. Stier says the Tobacco Control Act requires any product in this area to be proven safer than traditional tobacco products and also be safer for the general public. But he also says Congress can take an important step in making this new FDA rules less burdensome. There is an amendment to an upcoming appropriations bill that would essentially grandfather e-cigarettes into the marketplace by moving the deadline from 2007 to the present day. "The clock is ticking and Congress needs to pass amendment through the entire appropriations bill now because otherwise cigarette smokers' lives are at risk because the FDA will be taking awaya much less harmful alternative to smoking," said Stier. If you're wondering why e-cigarettes are being regulated under the Tobacco Control Act when they contain no tobacco, Stier says it's part of the Obama FDA's legacy of redefining what words mean - from tobacco products to using 300 words to define what a menu is so calorie counts have to be published on every thing from ads to coupons. "In the Obama administration regulatory world, the legacy is that reality is irrelevant and the rules that we make up will govern your lives. Unfortunately, they're making our food more expensive and they're making it harder for smokers to quit. That's bad for public health," said Stier. |
| GOP Unity? 'It's Pretty Much Up to Trump' |
| Wed, 4 May 2016 17:13:14 EST Donald Trump is now the presumptive presidential nominee for the Republican Party, and a longtime conservative leader says whether Trump can unify the party or win in November is almost entirely up to him. Richard Viguerie has been a prominent figure in the conservative movement for almost 60 years. He is chairman of ConservativeHQ.com and the author most recently of "Takeover: The 100-year Fight for the Soul of the GOP and How Conservatives Can Win It." Viguerie was an active Ted Cruz supporter but says Trump won the Republican field by acknowledging and responding to the deep frustration Americans have towards Washington. "How he did it was to ride the anger that a high percent of Americans feel towards the political establishment, Republicans and Democrats," said Viguerie. He says that anger burned especially hot among Republican primary voters. There is white hot anger among conservatives at the grassroots level towards Republican leaders who have lied to them and betrayed them for too many years. This campaign was an opportunity to send them a message," said Viguerie. But now that Trump has a clear path to a first-ballot nomination, Viguerie says the first and most important priority is to unite the party, which he says has not truly happened since 1988. Fifty-one percent of Indiana primary voters who did not back Trump told exit pollsters they would never vote for him. Polls in other states have shown similar numbers, and the #NeverTrump movement vows to oppose the presumptive nominee throughout the campaign. Can the GOP come together? "The most important moves coming up here in the period between now and the Republican convention is pretty much up to Trump," said Viguerie. "If Trump takes the moves to unite the Republican Party, and it's pretty much up to him to do that, I think he stands a strong chance of being elected president. We have to see if he's serious about being the leader of a united party." Those unknowns, says Viguerie could be the difference between a landslide win or a crushing loss. "I can believe that Trump could get 40 percent of the vote and I believe he could get 60 percent of the vote. It largely depends on him. If he runs a good campaign and campaigns on issues that conservatives and Middle America is concerned about and he has articulated very well in this campaign, he could have a blowout election," said Viguerie. For those insistent that Trump is unacceptable on ideological or personal grounds, regardless of whether he wins, Viguerie says the impact of a President Trump on the future of conservatism is also a blank slate. "If he governs as a principled conservative, he has the ability to set the left back 50 or 100 years here. He really has the ability to do serious damage to the progressives," said Viguerie. "But he could also do serious damage to the conservative cause. It's very, very much up in the air right now." Viguerie says the first and most important step towards bringing the GOP together is the selection of a running mate. "It's less important what certain conservative leaders say or do. The real test is how the grassroots respond to it. We saw in this election that the grassroots had a mind of their own," said Viguerie. That being said, Viguerie does have a name at the top of his running mate wish list. "On that short list should be Newt Gingrich. I think Newt Gingrich is an intriguing idea. There are others who should be on that list, including Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, but I'm particularly intrigued with the idea of Newt Gingrich," said Viguerie. But he warns Trump that the wrong pick could be devastating. "If he goes to the Republican establishment, a Paul Ryan type or Kasich, I think it's going to be very, very difficult to have a united party and without a united party they lose," said Viguerie. In addition to the selection of a running mate, Viguerie says Trump needs to prove to conservatives that he will pick the right kind of judges for all levels of the federal judiciary. He says the people Trump chooses to flesh out policy will also be telling. "Personnel is policy and that's the ballgame as far as conservatives are concerned. Any candidate can promise the sun, the moon, the stars and believe it, but if they bring in big government establishment types, moderate types, we've lost," said Viguerie. While Viguerie believes unity is indispensable to winning, he says another quality is needed that he believes Trump has in abundance. "He must be a fighter and he must have a vice president who is also a fighter. If you bring the fight to the Democrats, this election is eminently winnable," said Viguerie, who believes Hillary Clinton is a ripe target given her current strategy. "Hillary is running as the third term of Barack Obama and I don't think he's going to be very popular by November of this year after the Republicans load up on him," said Viguerie. |
| McInerney: U.S. on Verge of Completely Losing Iraq to Iran |
| Tue, 3 May 2016 16:21:25 EST Escalating protests in Baghdad threaten the Iraqi government as Shia Muslim factions battle for control for the country and retired U.S. Air Force Lt. General Tom McInerney says Iran could soon wield all the power in Iraq unless the U.S. changes course in significant ways. He is also reacting to ISIS killing a U.S. Navy SEAL, who was assisting the Kurdish Peshmerga against ISIS. In recent days, demonstrators have stormed government buildings, protesting Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi's decision to replace members of his cabinet. Al-Abadi said the move was to root out corruption and bring in reformers. The protesters believe it was designed to lessen the influence of different ethnic and sectarian factions. And an old U.S. nemesis is right in the middle of it. "What you're seeing right now is that (radical Shia cleric) Moqtada al-Sadr is responsible for creating a greater wedge when the current Iraq prime minister wanted to make Iraq more independent from Iran," said McInerney. "You have a combination of Iranian Shia and Iraqi Shia competing as to who controls the government and who controls Iraq. That's the bottom line of what's going on over there right now," he added. Al-Sadr is loyal to Iran. he and is forces are responsible for the deaths of many American troops during the sectarian uprising in Iraq in 2005 and 2006. Al-Sadr then fled to Iran when U.S. forces gained a decisive edge. McInerney says all of this upheaval can be traced to the Obama administration's decision to wash its hands of Iraq. "When we pulled out, this administration fundamentally gave Iraq to Iran," said McInerney. Now the Iraqi government is feeling much greater heat from Shia factions more loyal to Tehran than to Baghdad in addition to the threat posed by ISIS in the north. ISIS still controls Mosul and other swaths of territory in Iraq and is still within striking distance of the capital. "Unless we have strong allied and U.S. leadership over there, then we are in danger of clearly losing Iraq completely to Iran," said McInerney. McInerney is not in favor of bringing huge contingents of ground forces back to Iraq, but he says the U.S. could end the ISIS threat very quickly if it would just use it's overwhelming and largely unchallenged air power. "I would have a very aggressive air campaign. Not eight (sorties) a day. I'd have hundreds a day. I would take out ISIS right away. I would absolutely destroy them and everything around them, and I would accept the collateral damage that goes with it because it would be a very short and intensive air campaign. That would show our strength," said McInerney. His air campaign would include decimating ISIS headquarters and other critical infrastructure in Syria as well as spotting and eliminating weapons and fighters in the desert. He says crushing ISIS would end the dream of the caliphate and stop the flow of radical ideologues to the area. "Only then can we start reasserting our strength and position in the region," said McInerney. On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced the death of a U.S. service member as a "combat death" in Iraq. Later identified as a Navy SEAL, the American was officially "assisting" Kurdish forces. According to Fox News, ISIS was breaking through the Kurdish line when about 20 SEALs swooped in to "heroically" beat back the ISIS forces. McInerney is not at all surprised that American "advisers" are engaging in direct combat with the enemy. "Although the administration does not want to admit it, I think it's obvious when you're putting those kinds of numbers and those kinds of forces in there as advisers, particularly at the battalion level, that you're going to have these kinds of incidents, particularly if you get a breakthrough," said McInerney. But he says it never should have come to that sort of ground action. "Where was the air power to stop that effort. Why didn't we know what was going on down there. That's my concern. We should have planes airborne 24/7 that could immediately respond to these kinds of attacks," said McInerney. |
| 'They Have No Objectivity' |
| Mon, 2 May 2016 16:21:38 EST A leading conservative media watchdog is blasting President Obama and the White House press corps for collaborating on a liberal agenda while Obama tells reporters he admires their commitment to facts and objectivity. Media Research Center Vice President of Business and Culture Dan Gainor also reacted to reports that CNN is suddenly beating Fox News in prime time among a key demographic. But the issue that really has Gainor fired up is Obama's speech to the annual White House Correspondents Dinner on Saturday. After several minutes of cracking jokes at the expense of the press and political figures, Obama concluded by thanking the media for helping him make our country better. "I'm very proud of what you've done. It has been an honor and a privilege to work side by side with you to strengthen our democracy," said Obama. Just prior to that statement, Obama lauded the mainstream press for shedding ideology and only reporting where the facts and the truth lead. "The only way we can build consensus, the only way we can move forward as a country, the only way we can help the world mend itself is by agreeing on a baseline of facts when it comes to the challenges that confront us all," said Obama. Those words left Gainor shaking his head. "The president was standing in the middle of perhaps the metaphor for Washington corruption. You've got the intersection of entertainment media, news media, politics and money, at an event where they have a red carpet where professional journalists are walking into an event on a red carpet," said Gainor. "And he's talking about journalists taking a stand for what is true does not require you shedding your objectivity. They have no objectivity," Gainor added. "For him to come out there and say he's working side by side, what it means is they were working for him. Absolutely, this is a telling quote." Gainor says journalists are even twisting basic facts into a political advantage for their allies. "The media have all these fact-check things now. 'Oh, we're going to check the facts.' Then they turn it into propaganda," said Gainor. He says Sunday's 'Meet the Press' provided another example. "To really show that they're being objective is to not do what Chuck Todd did with Ted Cruz at 'Meet the Press,' said Gainor. "Getting offended that Ted Cruz is calling out the leaders of NBC as being partisan. Of course they're partisan. Who is Washington journalism is not partisan?" Also odd to Gainor is how much the media follow Obama's lead while the president restricts access to the press more than any other president in decades. He says it started even before Obama was elected. "If you remember going all the way back to when a couple of newspapers endorsed John McCain, their political reporters were kicked off the campaign planes," said Gainor. He says the Obama White House and the press corps both have a vested interest in stifling transparency and pursuit of the truth. "They don't want to change it. They don't want to be transparent because to be transparent, they actually have to tell people what's really going on," said Gainor. "The media also don't want it either because then they would really have to after the Obama administration. They don't want that." So what would be signs that reporters are interested in fair play? Gainor says this campaign season would be a good place to start. "A telling sign that they were committed to truth would be doing the same due diligence that they seem intent on doing to Cruz or Trump or anybody who is running against Hillary Clinton, to Hillary Clinton," he said. He says journalists could also correct a glaring double standard that was on display again this weekend. "There were people attacked at a Donald Trump rally over the weekend. Do you see journalists running out and asking every major Democrat in the country to disavow those kinds of riots and those kinds of thuggish behaviors? No. But when something happens at a conservative event, they immediately demand that Republicans or conservatives disavow that," said Gainor. On the cable news front, CNN is now happily reporting that it beat Fox News in prime time among adults aged 25-54 in five of the past eight months. It's the first such stretch since late 2001, which came just before Fox started dominating the ratings. So why the sudden shift? Gainor chalks it up to the campaign and the raw emotions that are coming to the surface. "I think this is the most emotionally volatile election year that I ever remember, even going back into 1968," said Gainor. "Voters are very concerned we're not at the point we need to be. Whether you look left or right, both parties are sharply divided right now." Gainor says there are more "talking head" shos on Fox and with so many strong opinions, some viewers are turning away from those they don't like. But he says CNN's return to competitiveness, won't last long. "Going by the history of how CNN tends to treat conservatives, I don't think they'll be staying for very long," said Gainor. |
| Jackson Urges GOP Unity If Trump Gets Close |
| Fri, 29 Apr 2016 16:18:44 EST Bishop E.W. Jackson, the former Republican nominee for lieutenant governor in Virginia and fervent Ted Cruz supporter, says the GOP must unite around its presidential nominee, even if it's Donald Trump, in order to stop Hillary Clinton from returning to the White House. Jackson, who still holds out hope for Cruz at the moment, wrote an open letter to all Republicans, urging them to stop the personal bickering over their preferred candidates and prepare to confront Clinton in the general election. "I'm profoundly concerned about the stark and mean-spirited differences that are emerging between these candidates that are by and large personal, not always policy, and that this is going to interfere with their ability to mend fences and come together," said Jackson in an interview conducted in response to his letter. "I've heard them make statements that they'll never support each other. That's terrible for the party. That's terrible for the general election. I decided I'd had enough of it," he said. "We need to call for unity and we need to prepare to defeat Hillary Clinton." Exit polls in various states show anywhere from 25-40 percent of non-Trump voters in Republican contests plan will not vote for Trump if he is the nominee. The #NeverTrump campaign among many grassroots activists is also vowing to hold firm. Jackson strongly disagrees. "Would they prefer Hillary Clinton?" laughed Jackson. "It's very simple. Would they prefer Hillary Clinton. She is the alternative. We're not dealing with this in a vacuum. It's not wither Trump or Jesus. It's Trump or Hillary Clinton," said Jackson. Reiterating that he thinks Cruz would be a better president than Trump, Jackson says Trump's stand on several issues convince him it is worth the effort to help the front-runner defeat Clinton if Trump emerges as the nominee. "Trump does espouse pro-life positions. Trump does espouse the importance of the free market and creating jobs. Trump does express his concern about the erosion of religious liberty in our country," said Jackson. "He has said some things that give me hope. I have absolutely no hope with Hillary Clinton." "Some of the other issues we may not always agree on, but my goodness, I have far more agreement with him than I do with her," said Jackson. Jackson then rattled off several issues that terrify him if Clinton is elected. "Hillary Clinton was a Saul Alinsky devotee. She was discipled by him. She clearly uses the free market when she wants to but I have no doubt that she sees the free market as the enemy of equality and the enemy of fairness and will do the same thing that Barack Obama has done," said Jackson. Trump has offered kind words about Planned Parenthood in this campaign but has also denounced its abortion practices. Jackson says Hillary is far more cozy with the nation's largest abortion provider. "Hillary Clinton is clearly a major supporter of Planned Parenthood. She thinks it's just the greatest thing since Carter's Little Liver Pills were invented. She's going to do everything in her power, not only to preserve, but to expand the power of Planned Parenthood. And Hillary Clinton has not even once spoken about any threat to religious liberty," said Jackson. In his letter, Jackson says he's personally experienced the disastrous effects of a fractured party. In 2013, Jackson was the Republican nominee for lieutenant governor in Virginia on the ticket that included gubernatorial nominee Ken Cuccinelli and attorney general candidate Mark Obenshain. All three lost. In our interview, Jackson elaborated on why the lack of unity was lethal for the GOP in a tight race. "Very prominent Republicans who, for personal reasons perhaps and maybe reasons I don't fully understand, decided they were going to do everything in their power to undermine the ticket. In effect, for a short time there, we didn't really have a party," said Jackson. "It was just a gang of individuals who were divided against each other and didn't care whether the party won or not. They just cared that the people they didn't like lost. And of couurse, they got their wish," said Jackson. Democrat Terry McAuliffe was elected governor and Democrats Ralph Northam and Mark Herring won the lieutenant governor and attorney general races respectively. "The commonwealth has suffered as a result. I don't want our country to suffer as a result of the same kind of behavior at the national level," said Jackson. Jackson stated that if Trump gets within 100 delegates of the 1,237 he needs for a majority, then it's in the GOP's best interest to choose Trump as the nominee. "I think to deny Donald Trump the nomination (if he is within 100 delegates) is going to fracture the party, perhaps irreparably. At that point, I would really have some soul-searching to do," said Jackson. As much as he prefers Cruz, Jackson says he may well back Trump on the convention floor for the sake of the party. "I might just have to say, 'It's time to wait. Ted Cruz is young enough that he can come back, young enough that maybe we'll see him as president of the United States one day. Maybe this is not his time,'" said Jackson. "Now we're not there yet, but we may come to that point," he added. |
| Boehner's 'Lucifer' Quip A 'Badge of Honor' for Cruz |
| Thu, 28 Apr 2016 16:22:06 EST A top Ted Cruz supporter says former House Speaker John Boehner's characterization of Cruz as "Lucifer in the flesh" is a "badge of honor" for the campaign, as he denounced Boehner, touted Carly Fiorina and vowed the race for the GOP nomination is far from over. Largely absent from public since stepping down as speaker last October, Boehner slammed Cruz during an appearance Wednesday at Stanford University. When asked to offer thoughts on Cruz, Boehner considered the Texas senator "Lucifer in the flesh." But he wasn't done. 1cI have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life," said Boehner, according to the Stanford Daily. At a campaign stop in Indiana, Cruz said Boehner seemed to be "channeling his inner Trump." Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a top Cruz surrogate, was even more blunt. "John Boehner has been part of the problem for a long time. When he opposes somebody because they fight him at every turn, that person who is fighting him is well worthy of every American's consideration. In this case, that happens to be Ted Cruz. That's a badge of honor for us," said Cuccinelli. Cuccinelli says Boehner deserves a good share of the blame for the nation's current condition. "The people that John Boehner is happy to see move forward are exactly the people that are miring America in debt and less freedom and dragging us down into nothing much more than another European-like welfare state," said Cuccinelli. The Stanford Daily reported Boehner as saying he had a high-maintenance relationship with John Kasich but loves him nonetheless. Boehner also revealed he was "texting buddies" with Donald Trump. The former speaker said he would back Trump as the nominee but would not vote for Cruz. Cuccinelli is not surprised. "He and people like him in Washington would be perfectly happy to work with Donald Trump. 'Hey, let's just make more deals.' Doesn't matter what the basis of the deal is. Doesn't matter that the American people get the short end of the stick, that our children have more debt and less freedom or that we're less secure. But all the power people will continue to be happy. God forbid, we wouldn't want to make John Boehner cry," said Cuccinelli. The Boehner comments came just hours after Cruz, who trails Trump by more than 400 delegates, announced former GOP rival Carly Fiorina as his running mate if Cruz is able to beat out Trump at a contested convention. Cuccinelli says Fiorina is a nightmare for Democrats and Hillary Clinton in paritcular. "She has been one of the best and most articulate messengers against the Democrats during this whole presidential race. I think she's proven over the past two months while she's been campaigning on Senator Cruz's behalf what a real asset she is to the team," said Cuccinelli. Cuccinelli says Fiorina was chosen by Cruz on the merits and that Cruz thinks she could be a fine president if necessary. However, Cuccinelli admits Trump's huge unfavorable numbers with women also played a factor. Cruz scored a big win over Trump in Wisconsin April 5, but Trump has dominated the past six contests, easily winning a majority in all of the eastern states, in some cases eclipsing 60 percent of the vote and hauling many more delegates than expected. Next up is Indiana on May 3. Cuccinelli says it is not a must win, but the campaign is expecting a very strong showing. "We'd like to see a performance like Wisconsin. We're working for that. Carly is helping us do that on the ticket. We have high hopes for Indiana. Ted has been very warmly received there. We think that's going to turn out very well for us," said Cuccinelli. He is also rejecting the media narrative that Trump's domination over the past two weeks essentially wraps up the nomination for the front-runner. "The media have signed Ted Cruz's death certificate on more than one occasion. So this is just one more added to the heap. It doesn't really matter what network you're talking about. Fox does this just as badly and horrifically and inaccurately as anyone else," said Cuccinelli. He says the press want to declare Trump the nominee because he is ratings gold. "The media would love to see Donald Trump for six months. He's an entertainer. He wouldn't be much of a president. But let's face it, from a media perspective, they'd love to have him for six months for just pure entertainment value and ratings," said Cuccinelli. Cuccinelli is also swinging back against the Trump narrative, which many in the media have joined after the past two weeks, that even if Trump fails to clinch a majority of pledged delegates, the party will have no choice but to nominate him if he's anywhere close to the magic number of 1,237. "These are the same people who think you should give a trophy to every kid who plays. This kind of whining, let's roll over and not compete attitude is gutting America and Donald Trump fits very nicely in there. All talk, no action," said Cuccinelli. He says the campaign itself proves Trump doesn't have what it takes to be a good president. "We're killing him on the ground," said Cuccinelli. "When it comes to the actual mechanics of running a campaign, he doesn't know what he's doing. I don't know why anybody thinks someone who can't get through that process competently can be president of the United States competently," said Cuccinelli. Cuccinelli says if Trump has 1,237 delegates or more come convention time, the nomination is all his. But if Trump has 1,236 or fewer, delegates, Cruz plans to fight it out in Cleveland. |
| Religious Freedom at Stake? |
| Wed, 27 Apr 2016 16:33:30 EST Five military judges heard oral arguments Wednesday in the appeal of a U.S. Marine punished through a court-martial for refusing to remove bible verses from her workstation, and a retired general says the case could determine whether there really is religious freedom in the U.S. military. Lance Corporal Monifa Sterling lost her original court case, as the court ruled the Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not apply to the the type of religious expression she was displaying and did not protect her from punishment for refusing to remove the verses. A decision is expected this summer. Retired U.S. Army Lt. General William "Jerry" Boykin was in the United State Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces for Wednesday's oral arguments before the five-judge panel. Boykin says it's likely to be a 3-2 decision. "Two of them were supporting the actions of the Marine Corps. Two of them were supporting the defendant, Monifa Sterling. The chief judge held his cards very close to his chest. We came out thinking the decisive vote will be the chief judge," said Boykin. However the court rules, Boykin says it will reverberate throughout the military. "If they uphold her appeal and she is exonerated on this, it's a strong, strong message to all of the military that you must protect the religious rights of service members. On the other hand, if it is upheld and her special court-martial stands, I think it portends the situation in the military with regards to religious freedom is going to decline," said Boykin. In recent weeks, the military has shown a tendency to accommodate religious freedom. The U.S. Army is now permitting hijabs and turbans to be worn by service members. Boykin says that ruling shows the punishment aimed at Sterling shows selective application of religious freedom rights. "I think it's selective. I think if she had been anything other than a Christian this would have been one of those situations in which political correctness would have been the dominant factor. Because she's a Christian, I think they feel very comfortable infringing on her first amendment rights," said Boykin. He points out service members do give up a few rights when joining the military, like the right to publicly identify with political candidates or publicly criticize the commander-in-chief. But he says the Bill of Rights is fully intact for everyone in uniform. "What it does not require you to do is sacrifice your first amendment right to the freedom of religion. You are supposed to be able to exercise your religion. That's the most fundamental of all our rights. Remember, that's the first freedom articulated in the first amendment. That is not to be sacrificed as a member of our military," said Boykin. Boykin believes Sterling should never have been ordered to remove the verses, but is mystified at how intense the punishment was when she refused to take them down. "I had 36 years in the Army. I've seen it all. I have never seen anybody go to a bad conduct special court martial for something like this. Normally, you handle this with non-judicial punishment," he said, noting typical penalties would have included docked pay or some time restricted to barracks. He says the Marine Corps dropped the hammer for a bigger purpose. "Frankly, I think the leaders in the Marine Corps, certainly those who were dealing with her situation were trying to send a message to the other Marines," said Boykin. While noting the refusal of military leaders to stand up for religious freedom for several years, Boykin says he didn't see this case coming. "Actually it did surprise me from the Corps. The Corps is our smallest branch but, as I think we all know, the Corps has historically maintained some rock-solid leadership, leaders that were willing to stand up and leaders that have shown a lot of moral courage," said Boykin. Boykin says military leaders in all branches are forgetting where their true loyalty belongs. "What's happened to all our military? What's happened to the leadership of our military and why are they so willing to compromise on such fundamental things. Remember this: every member of the military takes an oath to the Constitution, not to the president. They take an oath to the Constitution," said Boykin. So why won't military leaders stand up for religious freedom? "America is becoming a Marxist nation. I say that and get criticized, but how many people are supporting Bernie Sanders? What's the enthusiasm level for Bernie Sanders? America is becoming a Marxist nation," said Boykin. "Karl Marx said, 'My objective is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism.' He also said religion is the opiate of the masses. You cannot move through the socialist pathway to full Marxism unless you destroy this idea of unalienable rights, rights that come from God. You do that by destroying people's ability to openly worship their God," said Boykin. Boykin says the far left knows that engineering that change first in the military is the key to eradicating it from the public as a whole. "You've got to change the military or you can't change society. That's what this administration is all about," said Boykin. |
| CDC Drops Ball on Zika, Time to Downsize |
| Tue, 26 Apr 2016 16:23:48 EST Just two years after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scrambled to respond to cases of Ebola in the United States, the federal organization is now admitting it initially underestimated the threat posed by the Zika virus in the United States, leaving one expert to call for a major restructuring of the organization. News of the Zika virus emerged earlier this year, when cases in Brazil, particularly among pregnant women, were reported in increasing numbers. While the impact of Zika on adults and children is still being studied, medical experts have concluded the virus causes shrinking of the skulls in unborn babies, which leads to other serious health challenges. At the start of the year, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, implored everyone to remain calm, stressing that mosquitoes carrying Zika could appear in the U.S. but the threat here is much lower than in Latin America. Now, as the Obama administration presses for a $1.9 billion emergency response to Zika, the CDC's Zika preview is much more serious. "Everything we look at with this virus seems to be a bit scarier than we initially thought," said CDC Principal Deputy Director Dr. Anne Schuchat. For experts, that big of s shift is unacceptable. "That's not the kind of quote that you want from a government agency that is charged with protecting the citizens from infectious diseases," said Dr. Tom Borelli, who earned degrees in microbiology and biochemistry and frequently writes on the impact of a bloated federal government and is now calling for Congress to restructure the CDC. He says getting caught unprepared is becoming routine for the CDC. "The CDC should not be surprised about epidemics. First it was Ebola in 2014. Now in 2016 we have the Zika virus. Who knows what's next?" said Borelli, who says the CDC has evidence as early as 2008 that Zika could be transmitted through sexual activity. Borelli says the CDC started giving a more sober assessment of the Zika threat when new studies showed the mosquitoes carrying the disease could migrate to 40 of the 50 states. He says a more focused agency would have been on top of this but the CDC has too many unnecessary irons in the fire. "The CDC has been suffering its own disease of mission creep. They've gotten into everything from salt, e-cigarettes, alcohol, guns, football injuries. You name it, they're doing it. But they forgot about one of founding principles on which they were created, which is to protect us from infectious diseases. They took the eye off the ball," said Borelli, who notes the CDC receives about seven billion dollars a year from taxpayers. So what would have been a competent response? "First of all, they would have known that it would represent a public health risk if it did get to the United States," said Borelli. "Then, kind of like Ebola, what you do is make sure you can keep it contained and help Brazil out to keep the disease contained there. And you implement procedures and methodologies to contain the mosquitoes. But they didn't." He says the same unpreparedness is seen in other health concerns. "A recent document came out that showed that the CDC sent a memo to their staff that some of these kids coming over the border through Mexico are carrying tuberculosis. here's another infectious disease that we used to have a handle on. Yet the CDC has its own private emails warning its staff but not the rest of the United States about what's going on," said Borelli. Borelli says Congress needs to force the CDC to get back to its original mission through the power of the purse. "You cut the budget and you have them focus on infectious diseases. They've gotten a little bit lazy. Once upon a time, we had really controlled infectious diseases. But now we're getting these exotic diseases from Africa just because of worldwide travel. This is the focus that they really should be on," said Borelli. He fully expects any effort to shrink the CDC back down to size to be met with fierce protest from Democrats and the media as well as Democratic demands that the solution to CDC ineptness is to provide more taxpayer funding. "That's how we got into this mess. Every issue they throw money at it to distract it from its core mission," said Borelli. Borelli does believe the CDC should continue to exist as way to keep an eye on national and global trends regarding infectious diseases. But he says that's all it should do. "If that's all they did, they'd be a lot better at it," said Borelli. |
| Winning Women to Conservatism |
| Mon, 25 Apr 2016 16:25:50 EST The president and CEO of the largest public policy women's organization says conservative women have to make a commitment to get engaged in political and policy debates if they want to see the United States turn in a more favorable direction. Penny Young Nance is also the author of "Feisty and Feminine: A Rallying Cry for Conservative Women." The book provides facts and ways to engage friends and neighbors on key issues while also explaining why Nance believes women are being sold destructive lies about policy and our culture as a whole. The book comes as America moves closer to the first woman being nominated for president by a major political party, and Hillary Clinton has even suggested at times that her being a woman ought to be a reason women support her. Nance says another female White House hopeful was much closer to the truth. "Carly Fiorina said, and I thought it was so wise, 'Don't vote for me just because I'm a woman. Vote for me because you think I'm the most qualified. It is demeaning to suggest the only reason I deserve your vote is because I'm a woman,'" said Nance. The fact remains that women tend to vote Democratic, especially in presidential elections. But the problem for conservatives and Republicans is more specific. While married women tend to vote their way, the ever-growing population of single women overwhelmingly back Democrats. Nance says the reasons for that divide are easy to see but the instinct to look for the government to help needs to be confronted. "We know if you're a single mom, you're much more likely to live in poverty and so are your children. We also want to make sure that we're securing a future for our kids so that they can do better. When we settle for socialism, we are consigning them to a life no better than the one that they have," said Nance. Pointing out that there are many opportunities for finding well-paying careers outside of the traditional four-year college plan, such as vocational school and other educational opportunities, Nance says education is the key to success and to converting voters. "The way for these kids to get out of poverty is for them to not be consigned and sent to these substandard schools, trapped in these schools. We need to have school choice for these kids so that they can do better than the generation before them," said Nance. "When you talk to a mom on that level about opportunities for her children, she hears you," said Nance. In "Feisty and Feminine," Nance says America is facing an Esther-like moment, referring to the biblical queen who risked her own life to expose a plot to exterminate Jews in Persia. She says Christian and conservative women need to speak up. "I believe we are called to be salt and light in our culture. Part of that responsibility, when we're caught in these moments, when people feel perfectly comfortable denigrating our beliefs right to our face, we need to be prepared with an answer. We need to be able to clear our throats and lean in and be part of the conversation," said Nance. Nance says many people feel intimidated to speak out if they are outnumbered or believe they don't have a strong enough command of the facts. She says conservatives need to be well armed, both with scripture and other evidence. "There are situations you are in where you can quote scripture, but you will not bring anyone to your side because they don't believe scripture. So we also need to be prepared with the facts and the stats and a story or science that can also help them understand why we believe what we believe," said Nance. In addition to the political debates. Nance is on a mission to help women reject lies that she says liberals have tried to force upon them, starting with her controversial claim that women are contributing to their own degrading. "At some point we developed Stockholm Syndrome. We started to cooperate with our captors. There was a day when we believed that pornography objectified and hurt women. Now the conventional wisdom, particularly among radical feminism, is that somehow it's empowering," said Nance. Nance says she regularly speaks with young women and implores them to reject what society tells them they should want in favor of what God wants for them. "Listen, forget '50 Shades of Gray.' You deserve 50 years from a man who loves you, who will support you, who will respect you, who will be your life partner and loves you and will be faithful. Stop settling for pig slop when God has a banquet of filet mignon for you," said Nance. |
| Top NC Official Defends Law, Rebuffs Trump |
| Thu, 21 Apr 2016 16:12:33 EST North Carolina Lt. Gov. Dan Forest is vigorously defending his state's new law on public accommodation in schools and government buildings, blasting Donald Trump's assertions that the law was a mistake and that transgenders should be allowed to use whatever bathrooms they wanted. Originally known as House Bill 2, the law came in response to a Charlotte City Council ordinance mandating that all public facilities should allow people to use the bathroom or locker room corresponding to their gender identity. The North Carolina statute overturned the rule, stating that public accommodation policy can only be established at the state level. It also said usage of bathrooms and other vulnerable areas in public schools and government buildings must be done according to the sex on a person's birth certificate. It made no demands of businesses and allows them to adopt their own policies. Since Gov. Pat McCrory signed the bill March 25, liberal activist groups have protested the law as bigotry, businesses have threatened to pull out of North Carolina or scrap plans to come. Some musicians have canceled concerts and the NBA is debating whether to pull the 2017 All-Star Game from Charlotte. The issue got even more explosive on Thursday. When asked about the law on NBC's "Today Show," Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump, surprised many by lining up in favor of the LGBT argument on the issue by suggesting "you leave it the way it is." "People go, they use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate. There is so little trouble. And the problem with what happened in North Carolina is the strife and the economic punishment that they're taking," said Trump. "Today" host Matt Lauer got even more specific. "If Caitlyn Jenner were to walk into Trump Tower and use the bathroom, you would be fine with her using any bathroom she chooses?" asked Lauer. "That is correct," answered Trump. He wasn't done, offering an unprompted condemnation of public facilities having single occupancy bathrooms. "There's a big move to create new bathrooms. First of all, I think that would be discriminatory in a certain way," said Trump, who also said the cost of creating all new facilities would be very expensive. Lt. Gov. Forest says Trump has no idea what he's talking about. "He doesn't know what's going on. You can't leave it the way it is. We didn't do anything. The governor and the general assembly didn't do anything except to strike down the Charlotte ordinance. Charlotte didn't leave it the way it was. To his point, Charlotte should have left it the way it was," says Forest. "[Trump] running off the Human Rights Campaign narrative here. He just doesn't know what's happened in North Carolina. We couldn't leave it the way it was because Charlotte didn't leave it the way it was. We had to fix what they broke," said Forest. Saying you will never be wrong when doing the right thing, Forest says lawmakers and McCrory had to stop what Charlotte was implementing. "They did something against the law, unconstitutional, opened up all women's bathrooms, shower rooms, changing facilities to men, to anybody who wanted to walk in. We had to protect women and children," said Forest. GOP presidential hopeful Ted Cruz denounced Trump's comments at an event in Maryland and in a statement. "Donald Trump is no different from politically correct leftist elites. Today, he joined them in calling for grown men to be allowed to use little girls 19 public restrooms. As the dad of young daughters, I dread what this will mean for our daughters - and for our sisters and our wives. It is a reckless policy that will endanger our loved ones," said Cruz in a statement. "This is not real tolerance. The Left wants to force its belief system onto Americans across the country and silence people of faith in the public square. Unsurprisingly, Donald Trump is all too eager to join them. This simply confirms that the same man who favored partial-birth abortion and still supports public funding for Planned Parenthood will sacrifice principle on the altar of political correctness. Trump will not defeat political correctness. Today he bowed to it, concluded Cruz." The Trump comments came just two days after a three-judge panel of the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a high school girl identifying as a boy could sue Gloucester County, Virginia, schools for discrimination since the U.S. Department of Education instructs students to be allowed to use facilities consistent with their gender identity and not necessarily their biological sex. Refusal to accommodate that request is considered a violation of Title IX. The 4th Circuit also covers North Carolina, but while LGBT activists are hailing the decision as a death blow against the North Carolina law, Forest says it's no such thing. "It really wasn't necessarily a ruling. This is one of those places where the ACLU and the Human Rights Campaign and the other leftists out there are claiming victory on something that's not a complete victory yet. What they did was send that back down to the lower court again to make a decision on it," said Forest. He says running to a cherry-picked panel of liberal judges is standard operation procedure for liberals. "The left can't win going through the legislative process and having the legislature vote on things and have a representative republic the way we're supposed to. They went to the courts," said Forest. Forest also has no confidence in winning in the courts, citing the Supreme Court's flip-flop on marriage. In 2013, the high court struck down parts of the Defense of Marriage Act, saying marriage should be defined by the states. Two years later, the justices ruled a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and state laws were unconstitutional. Also of great frustration to Forest is the complete rejection of "reasonable accommodation" provisions for people identifying as transgendered. He says the legislation specifically calls for individual occupancy restrooms so anyone can feel at ease there. But activists and even candidates like Trump reject that as another form of discrimination. "The left and these folks with the Human Rights Campaign, they're like a bunch of playground bullies They don't want reasonable accommodation. They want a winner-takes-all approach. The winner-takes-all approach says this small minority of folks better win or we're coming after you," said Forest. Forest says the Human Rights Campaign in particular looks to start fights in these situations. He says they look for "radical" mayors like Jennifer Roberts and urge them to take action on LGBT issues, vowing to back them up and relentlessly attack any opponents. Forest says the bullying also extends to businesses, who don't even know what's in the law but they're afraid to challenge the Human Rights Campaign. |
| 'The Only Hope for This Country is God' |
| Wed, 20 Apr 2016 16:57:55 EST While the remaining presidential candidates plot strategy, Rev. Franklin Graham is going state to state to urge Americans to pray for their state and their nation and for Christians to seek public office or least get actively engaged in steering the U.S. in a more godly direction. Graham, who heads the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and the Christian relief organization Samaritan's Purse, is leading the Decision America Tour, which is in the process of visiting the state capitals of all 50 states and meets on the steps of the State Capitol building in each of those cities. Graham says his desire to reverse the moral slide of the United States inspired this project. "The country I grew up in is not the same country my grandchildren will have. They won't have the same opportunities. Our country is changing so quickly. We have turned our back on God, and we are beginning to celebrate and flaunt sin," said Graham. While he is encouraging active political engagement by Christians, Graham says the solutions America truly needs aren't found in any political party. "The only hope for this country is God. We need to go from state capital to state capital and give people an opportunity to come and join me on the steps of their capitol to pray for their state and to pray for this nation. Then maybe God will hear our prayers and maybe He'll give us a man or woman to lead this nation back to Him," said Graham. While many Christians and cultural conservatives are alarmed by how quickly liberal priorities are advancing, Graham says they were always creeping forward but were overshadowed by other threats. "When I was growing up, we were afraid of the red threat. The commies were coming," said Graham. "We built up our Army, our Air Force, our Navy to protect ourselves. When the Berlin Wall came down, everybody signed a sigh of relief, 'We won that one.'" "While we were relaxing, secularism, which is exactly the same as communism - they're both godless, slowly over the last 40 years has taken this country. It's gone into Washington. It's gone into our state capitals. It's gone into our local offices. It's in our schools. What godless communism could not do, godless secularism has done," said Graham. Graham points to the fierce backlash that he and other believers receive for defending a biblical position in a political or policy debate. He says that hostility demands committed action now. "We're going to lose our voice. We're going to lose the opportunity, not only to spread the gospel, but we're going to lose our religious freedoms to even live out our faith," said Graham. He says Christian voices must be willing to defy those who insist they keep silent. "It's one thing to practice our faith. It's another thing to live our faith. As a Christian, not only am I to practice my faith but I'm to live it every day," said Graham. "The secularists want us to stop living it. They want us to hide in a closet. Well, I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to back up and I'm not going to shut up." Graham says the state of the culture demands Christians take a stand. "I'm going to fight and I'm asking Christians to join me in this fight. It's to fight through the word of God. It's to fight through prayer, but it's also to fight by standing up and going to the polls and voting, not staying home. Twenty to thirty million Christians stayed home in the last presidential election. Let's take our country back," said Graham. The Decision America Tour has already been to several state capitals but the vast majority of events are still to come and will take place until October. Graham says prayer is at the heart of the gatherings. "We start with prayer. I ask the persons standing there to take the hands of the person next to them and hold their hands and start off by confessing the sins of our nation. I ask people to pray out loud. We stand on those steps and we pray out loud, confessing the sins of our nation, asking God for forgiveness," said Graham. Like every Graham project, Decision America also includes a gospel presentation. Graham says hundreds of people have accepted Christ as their savior at each stop along the tour. "This is who we are. It's what we do. Regardless of what audience I'm speaking to, I'm always going to give an invitation. So people come to faith in Christ as we go from capital to capital," said Graham. Graham is also quick to point out that he is not trying to launch any sort political effort for himself. "People ask me if I'm running for office. I say, 'No, but I am running a campaign for God and that is to put God back into the political process here in the United States of America," said Graham. He says the race for the White House is obviously very important but he says there are offices much closer to home that also matter a great deal. "If we can get Christians to run for mayors, if we can get Christians to run for city council, if we can get Christians to run for school boards, if we can get Christians to run for the state house, we can win this thing. It doesn't matter who the presidents are. We can win at home and we can win big," said Graham. He implores believers not to conclude that Christians aren't meant to be politically active. "As Christians, our voice needs to be heard. We're not to be silent. God has not called us to be quiet and to sit on a pew like a church mouse. No, we're to speak out. We're to be the salt and light. Our voice should be heard and we need to let God's word be heard," said Graham. Graham asserts that many churches have been derelict by not engaging in important public debates. "So many churches now are more concerned about political correctness than they are about God's word and His righteousness. I would encourage Christians and churches to take a bold stand and not be afraid," said Graham. "The world says if you get involved in politics than you're being intolerant. Oh really? Well, then let's be intolerant. We should be intolerant. We should not tolerate sin and we should not tolerate sinful behavior. Absolutely we should be intolerant, not of the individual but of the sin they represent," said Graham. Graham says truly loving one's neighbor means having the courage to tell them the truth. "We need to warn people that God is going to judge sin. Sinners are going to be plunged into darkness and God is going to judge it one day. We need to warn them that this is a time to repent and turn from their sin and to believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ," said Graham. |
| House Conservatives Demand Impeachment of IRS Commissioner |
| Tue, 19 Apr 2016 16:21:52 EST Conservative House members are demanding the impeachment of IRS Commissioner John Koskinen over his repeated failures to preserve and present evidence and deceiving lawmakers in testimony before Congress. The accusations stem from the ongoing investigation into the IRS targeting of conservative organizations applying for tax-exempt status. However, members of the House Freedom Caucus separately asserts the IRS is blatantly guilty of violating the fourth amendment rights of Americans. The push for Koskinen's impeachment began months ago but Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and some of his House Freedom Caucus colleagues brought the issue to the House floor last week in conjunction with the federal income tax filing deadline. Jordan says Koskinen has a consistent pattern of obstruction and lying. Most frustrating is the destruction of up to 24,000 emails on Koskinen's watch that may well have been critical to the congressional investigation into the IRS. "On his watch, 400 back-up tapes are destroyed," said Jordan. "He had the duty to preserve the documents with preservation orders put in place. He had a duty to produce them with two subpoenas asking for the documents." "He had a duty to testify accurately, which he did not. He had the duty to correct the record when he testified in an inaccurate fashion and he had a duty to tell us in a timely manner when in fact they had destroyed the documents and lost the documents. He failed every single duty he had and it seems to me, when you put all that record together, he should be impeached," said Jordan. Jordan says Koskinen has offered plenty of reasons for not complying with Congress, but none of them are any good. "'Bureaucratic snafu. We just didn't quite get it done right. It wasn't my fault. It was all the people down here. Oh, by the way, you didn't send us enough money,'" Jordan recounted Koskinen as saying. Jordan says the IRS itself would never be OK with the kind of excuses its leader is offering. "If you were a taxpayer being audited and you allowed documents to be destroyed and you said, 'I'm going to wait four months before I tell the IRS,' do you think you could just behave that way. There is no way the average citizen could do that, but yet if you're the big-shot commissioner that the president brought in to 'clean up the IRS,' you get away with it," said Jordan. While Jordan and his allies do not expect much greater cooperation from any other Obama appointees if Koskinen were to be impeached, Jordan says Koskinen's conduct demands decisive action and he says the legislative branch is long overdue in sending a clear message to President Obama. "Right now the executive branch is trampling all over the legislative branch. The founders, in their wisdom, wanted the legislative branch to be that part of our separate but equal branches of government that exercise the power of the purse and was the body closer to the people. The executive branch is trampling over the natural checks and balances," said Jordan. But while the House Freedom Caucus is bent on holding Koskinen accountable, House GOP leaders have yet to back the effort. "We keep pushing but we're not hearing the right things yet," said Jordan. In addition to Koskinen's actions that include failure to preserve evidence and possibly destroying it, Jordan says it's vital to remember this all happened because the former IRS director for non-profits, Lois Lerner, lied about what happened and invoked her fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination, refusing to testify before Congress. "It puts a premium on the documents, the emails, the actual record," said Jordan. "They were going after people's most cherished right - the right to speak in a political nature against the policies of your government. You shouldn't be harassed for doing so. Yet that's what the IRS did." Jordan says the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, discovered the IRS falls $385 billion short of collecting all the revenue it should. The GAO offered 112 recommendations to close the gap, but less than half have been implemented. But while the IRS ignores its main job, Jordan offered a new bombshell, that the IRS has been tracking people through their cell phones through stingray technology without proper authorization. He says the IRS is known to have used the technology on at least 37 occasions. "They come into an area. The stingray device mimics a cell phone tower. So all cell phones in that area don't run to the cell phone tower. They now bounce into the stingray and the IRS has the ability to get your number and your location," said Jordan. "They are using this technology without getting a probable cause warrant." "So they're engaging in this type of behavior as well, which shouldn't surprise us. If they're willing to go after your first amendment liberties, they're probably not concerned about your fourth amendment rights either," he said, noting wryly that the stingray was not one of the 112 recommendations suggested by the GAO report. |
| Obamacare's Weak Vitals |
| Mon, 18 Apr 2016 16:19:37 EST Health insurance companies are sounding the alarm that they will have to drastically hike premiums in the coming year or consider exiting the individual health care marketplace in the wake of massive losses sustained over the first couple of years under the rules of President Obama's signature health care law. A report in The Hill newspaper quotes Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini as well as multiple policy experts concluding the current track is unsustainable for the private sector insurance. Furthermore, a report from McKinsey & Company shows insurers lost money in the individual market in 41 of 50 states in 2014. Galen Institute President Grace-Marie Turner says she hears the very same thing from health insurance providers. "I have talked with insurance company CEO's. I've talked with people in professional associations. They're very worried because they were virtually assured by the Obama administration that the market would have stabilized by now," said Turner. She says this is not only a distress call to policy makers but a warning to consumers that much higher premiums are on the horizon. "These reports and these announcements and these news stories are really warnings from the insurance industry, 'Get ready because our premiums are going to have to be much higher if we're going to continue to participate in the market. And if you tell us that you're not going to approve those premium increases, we will drop out,'" said Turner. Turner says insurance companies bought the Obama promise "that there would be enough young, healthy people in the markets to be able to offset the sicker, older people." But something happened on the way to huge profits guaranteed through the individual mandate. "The escape hatches [the health care law] created, the weakness of the individual mandate has meant that they wind up with many more people who are sicker and using many more health care services than anticipated and the premiums were not set to adjust to that," said Turner. She says the bad financial ideas underpinning the law are being exposed. "They also thought they were going to get this other money through a lot of risk corridor reinsurance payments as well as the tax credits that people get to purchase premiums. So they thought all of those were going to make this a stable market. It's only a stable market in the sense that the government is propping it up artificially with all these other funds and it's not enough," said Turner. Turner says insurance companies are also getting crushed by people gaming the system. She says people sign up for coverage, get a lot of expensive health care right away and then cancel their coverage, only to sign up at the same government-guaranteed rate in the next open enrollment period. She says this whole sea of red ink exposes the fundamental flaws with the law. "It's not a sustainable market. You cannot have government dictating how a market works. Only the market can do that and we're seeing the failure of government-controlled health care," said Turner. The insurance industry is likely to elicit few tears from opponents of the Obama health care law as conservative activists implored companies not to get on board the Obama bandwagon. The industry didn't listen, but Turner says watching them leave the marketplace is not an option either. "We need the private health insurance companies to continue to participate and to offer insurance if we are going to have a private market. You don't want them to fail," said Turner. Turner is hopeful that the issue will get a lot of attention in the 2016 election season. She is confident that despite the rhetoric of some Democratic candidates, the American people do not want government-run health care. "The support for single payer among the American people is as low now as it has ever been in decades," said Turner, who advocates health competition in the private sector regulated by the states. |
| Obama's War on Coal Killing Jobs, Devastating Communities |
| Fri, 15 Apr 2016 16:51:00 EST The U.S. coal industry is reeling again as the nation's largest coal mining company filed for bankruptcy in recent days, and a congressman representing coal country says Obama administration regulations are the main killer of jobs that could lead to the loss of entire communities. On April 13, St. Louis-based Peabody Energy filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, joining at least four other major coal mining companies headed down that same path. The news has many Obama administration critics remembering his 2008 campaign promise to bankrupt the coal industry for emitting greenhouse gases. "The industry is under severe stress. They're upside down in terms of their ability to meet their debt obligations," said Rep. Bill Johnson, R-Ohio, who represents the eastern part of his state, which is a key part of coal country in the U.S. He is also a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. There's no doubt in Johnson's mind where the bulk of the blame belongs for the problems of the coal industry. "That is largely the result of downward pressure from the Obama administration in regulations, going after both the consumption of coal that's used to produce electricity an the production of coal through regulations from agencies like the EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers and [the Interior Department's] Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation," said Johnson. For over five years, Johnson says he and other lawmakers have had a tough time getting Obama to understand how important the coal industry is to the nation. Does Johnson think Obama and his allies want to understand? "No, I don't think they do. I don't think that's in their DNA," said Johnson. Johnson says workers in the coal industry have been devastated, but so have entire communities. He says every coal mining job in communities based on the industry creates anywhere from five to nine other jobs elsewhere in those towns. He says closing up shop can literally make a community extinct and leave people ruined. "Those communities were built around those coal mines. It's not like they can just pick up and move somewhere else. Who's going to come in and buy their homes if they're rolling up the sidewalks in those communities because there are no jobs and no industries there," said Johnson. He says the job killing is not over since Obama is still pushing to implement the stream protection rule and other regulations that could claim thousands more jobs. Some energy industry analysts and government officials say the advancement of fracking and the low price of natural gas is also a major punch in the gut to the coal industry. Johnson says it is a challenge but he sees it as far less damaging than government intrusion. "I'm all about letting our free enterprise market drive solutions to our energy needs, rather than having Washington pick the winners and the losers," said Johnson. The congressman doesn't believe that the nation must choose between coal and natural gas given the needs of our economy. "We're going to continue to need low-cost, affordable energy. There is plenty of room in the mix for coal and oil and gas," said Johnson. Another infuriating aspect for Johnson is that Obama seems ready to wipe out the coal industry without admitting that his preferred successors - wind, solar and biofuels - are incapable of filling the void. "The technology has not gotten to the point yet where you can store up the sun's energy and then dribble it out to provide the base load. Nor can you do that with wind energy. You get energy from the sun and the wind when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. Once either of those stop, then the energy source stops," said Johnson. Johnson also urges Obama to look at new developments in Europe. Several nations made major efforts to ditch traditional energy sources in favor of renewable options in recent years. On a visit last year, officials in many European nations told him they were going back to coal for a very simple reason. "I asked them how they could justify that and they said, 'Congressman, we've just reached the point in Europe where our rate payers, businesses and residential customers, are no longer willing to pay exorbitant high prices for alternative energy forms," said Johnson. He hopes Obama will learn from Europe's painful lesson so the U.S. doesn't have to repeat it. "Why do we want to have to do that here in America when we've already got a robust coal industry that's been providing our energy for generations and we have enough resources to do it for generations more," said Johnson. |
| 'Putin is Trying to Take Down NATO Without Firing a Shot' |
| Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:27:10 EST Retired U.S. Navy Captain Chuck Nash says Russian President Vladimir Putin is using the recent provocation in the Baltic Sea and other incidents to prove the United States will not stand up to aggression and won't do anything to stop Russia's efforts to gobble up its former republics. Nash, who served 25 years in uniform as a U.S. Naval aviator, was responding to reports that Russian jets repeatedly buzzed the U.S.S. Donald Cook in the Baltic Sea more than 30 times and even simulated attack maneuvers. He says Putin's calculation is clear. "Putin is trying to take down NATO without firing a shot. His message to NATO is clear. His message to the Baltic States of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania is very clear. And that is, 'The United States will not react, even when their nose is rubbed in it. So what makes you think they're going to come to your defense if shooting starts or if we really start posturing heavily,'" said Nash. "That message has been transmitted and that message, trust me, has been received," said Nash. Nash says Putin views the U.S. as weak and has ever since Obama began his presidency by bowing to multiple heads of states in other countries. He says Obama further proved Putin right by not enforcing the red line in Syria and doing nothing in response to the Russian annexation of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine. He says Putin is licking his chops over what the final nine months of Obama's time in office may let him get away with. "He has no idea who's coming in in January, but he knows who he's got right now and he's going to exploit that. My concern is that something really significant is going to happen in the nine months. His strategic goal is to take down NATO and to rebuild imperial Russia," said Nash. Nash expects Russia to call the West's bluff on the most important component of the NATO alliance. "To take down NATO, all he's got to do is get somebody to try to invoke Article 5, which is the mutual defense provision of the NATO treaty. All of a sudden, he's going to see who in NATO stands up to that Article 5 call. If countries balk, NATO is done," warned Nash. Where could this major flashpoint occur in the next nine months? Nash suspects it will be along the Baltic coast, namely a small piece of Russian land known as the Kaliningrad Oblast. It strategically borders Belarus and Poland and is south of the Baltic States. "He could use an incident there to where he says it's being threatened. He makes a move and puts troops up against the borders of some of the Baltic States and essentially tries to precipitate a reaction by those countries whereby he can do what he did in Ukraine," said said Nash. Nash says Putin got his message across to the Baltic States through the buzzing of the U.S.S. Cook but once again elicited a very weak response from the Obama administration. Having flown these sorts of missions in the vicinity of Soviet and Russian ships during his time in the service, Nash says pilots are required to fly parallel to the ships, stay a minimum of 1,000 feet above the water and give 1,500 feet of space on the side. The Russian planes came as close as 30 feet and zoomed perpendicular across the vessel. Furthermore, the U.S.S. Cook was clearly in international waters and the Russian pilots did not return messages sent by the ship. Nash also points out that Russia conducted similar harassment of the U.S.S. Cook in the Black Sea not long ago. The main response came in the form of White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest calmly reciting the protocol that should have been followed by Russian pilots. "It is entirely inconsistent with the professional norms of militaries operating in proximity to each other in international waters and international airspace. Any peacetime military activity must be consistent with international law and conducted with due regard for the rights of other nations and the safety of other aircraft and other vessels," said Earnest on Wednesday. Nash is unimpressed. "What he was saying was, 'This is the way things should be.' Well Josh, they're not. What are you and the administration going to do about it? If you continue to roll over, Putin is going to take more and more," said Nash. So what would have been the proper response? Nash immediately explained what he believes the U.S. should do. "The answer is you flood the zone. You want to play games? Fine. You don't like ships in the Baltic? Get over it. We're going to flood the zone. Every ship leaving Norfolk that's headed east is going to come through the Baltics before it goes through the Straits of Gibraltar," said Nash. "We're going to set up multinational, unilateral, and bilateral exercises with the countries in the Baltics. Get used to seeing American ships. We're going to be here and they're not going to be oilers. They're going to be combatants," he said. |
| 'There's No One Waiting in the Wings to Defend Freedom' |
| Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:53:13 EST A longtime Democratic foreign policy expert says the Obama administration is proving that the world is a much more dangerous place when the United States fails to lead and he says it's time for Republicans and Democrats to follow the examples of two critical figures in history and galvanize to confront major threats to American national security. Lawrence J. Haas served as communications director for Vice President Al Gore. He is now a columnist and a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council. His latest book is "Harry and Arthur" Truman, Vandenberg, and the Partnership That Created the Free World." President Harry Truman and Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, R-Mich., famously collaborated on the Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine and other major projects after World War II to blunt the advance of Soviet aggression in Europe. Vandenberg served as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the critical stretch between 1947-1949. So how does that story impact today's world? Haas says the same tension exists now as it did after World War II between America embracing a role of global leadership and dialing back our involvement on the world stage. "Historians are inspired to write about history based on current events," said Haas. "We Americans have been doubting what we can do around the world in recent years. We've been rethinking our global role." But Haas says the lesson both then and after seven years of President Obama is essentially the same. "The lesson is there's no one waiting in the wings to defend freedom," said Haas. "If we step back, there is no great power in the West to defend freedom. There are great threats to freedom out there right now. If not us, then who? That's the main question that I'm trying to raise for people to ponder." In the book, Haas pushes hard against the notion that there was an instinctive consensus in the United States after World War II to lead the fight against Soviet expansion. "We Americans have this sense that there was this inevitability to America's rise to global leadership right after World War II but there was really nothing inevitable about it at all," said Haas. But he says the circumstances forced leaders in both parties to conclude that active engagement in the world was the only option. "World War II is ending. The Soviets were still technically an ally but they were quickly turning into an adversary because it was clear they were breaking all their promises to allow for free elections in Poland and across eastern Europe," said Haas. "Someone is going to need to step up to ensure global security and defend freedom. There's nothing inevitable about America stepping in to do this. It takes two men: an enlightened, brand new Democratic president and an enlightened Senate Republican leader by the name of Arthur Vandenberg," said Haas. Haas says Truman was a consistent advocate for U.S. leadership in world affairs. Vandenberg on the other hand backed U.S. entry into World War I but later concluded it had been a mistake manipulated by bankers and weapons makers. By the late 1930's he was one of the leading isolationists in Washington. The Japanese attacks at Pearl Harbor changed that. "[The United States] couldn't wall itself off because, if nothing else, weapons are becoming so sophisticated that there's no such thing as safety by having an ocean to the east and an ocean to the left. We needed to play a role because otherwise we would be increasingly vulnerable," said Haas. He says we're learning the same lesson the hard way as a result of the Obama administration's approach to national security threats. "We have seen an experiment in recent years in American retreat, the president spending the last seven years reducing the American footprint around the world, particularly in the greater Middle East but not only there, in an effort to share global burdens with not only allies but adversaries," said Haas. While the parties remain fiercely at odds on some key security issues, Haas believes the people are once again realizing the role the U.S. must play in the world. "I think that there is growing recognition that American retreat does not lead to a safer world. It leads to a more dangerous world. We face right now, probably, the greatest combination of threats to U.S. national security that we have faced since the time of Truman and Vandenberg," said Haas. Haas believes the obvious threat posed by the Soviet Union helped Republicans and Democrats find some critical common ground in the wake of World War II. He says it will be harder to find that consensus again. He ought to know. Haas has publicly ripped the Obama administration and other members of his own party for their approach to the Iran nuclear agreement and other key issues. Nonethless, he believes focusing on the greatest threats to U.S. security can forge some common ground again. He sees multiple areas this could happen, most notably with respect to radical Islam. While distinguishing between what he calls Islam and radical Islam, Haas says the latter must be dealt with - including calling it what it is. "Radical Islam, and there's nothing wrong with talking about it that way, is a political and a militant movement. It's a global movement and it threatens people not just in the Middle East, not just in Europe but here in the United States," said Haas. Haas considers the Iran nuclear deal a separate, urgent threat. "I think there's great controversy about whether it was wise to cut this nuclear deal with Iran and provide them with all this sanctions relief, billions and billions of dollars to the world's greatest state sponsor of terrorism," he said. Finally, Haas sees some major threats emerging from more traditional sources. "There is a sense of fear, I believe, about the rise of authoritarian powers around the world, whether it's China in the Pacific or it's Russia near Europe," he said. "I think there are three or four very prominent threats that are beginning to galvanize people toward a more robust U.S. role around the world to protect itself, to protect its allies and to defend freedom," said Haas. |
| Transgender Debate Flares in Michigan |
| Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:46:57 EST Michigan is the latest state bracing for a debate over transgender accommodation in public schools, as a Republican lawmaker is confronting a sweeping State Board of Education policy about to take effect and crafting legislation designed to empower parents and protect the privacy of all students. In February, the Michigan State Board of Education quietly passed a new transgender policy for K-12 public schools. "When we found out about it, it was almost down to the end as far as time for public comment," said State Senator Tom Casperson, who is drafting legislation to address the policy. "They had set this policy and put it in motion back in February. In February, they said they would take public comment until April 11th." Only discovering the proposed policy change in recent days, Casperson said he had no choice but to take the lead publicly on the issue. "We were getting very close to April 11th, so that's why we jumped on it. More so to get the public aware of the policy so that they had some honest input on it. That's why we did what we did and when we announced we were going to have legislation drafted pertaining to it, then the media picked up on it immediately and now the parents have picked up on immediately," said Casperson. As a result, public comment has been extended to May 11, and Casperson says the parents he's heard from have been sounding a consistent message. "I'm hearing overwhelmingly a problem with the breadth and the scope of the policy," said Casperson, who points out the policy would have otherwise taken effect and school districts statewide would be required to follow the guidelines of the State Board of Education. The board's policy would allow students to use bathrooms according to the gender with which they identify. However, it doesn't stop there. "The bathroom is one component but they've gone so far as to say they're going to allow the kids to blend together even in locker room settings. So you're going to put a young boy in with the young girls, as if somehow that's acceptable," said Casperson, a father of four. However, the aspect of the policy that may bother Casperson most is language that would keep parents in the dark about the gender identity struggle of their children. "They also have a policy that they put in place that would allow for the school to let the child recommend they want to change their gender and they want to change their name but they don't want their parents involved. This policy says then that the school then must not let the parents know about what's going on," said Casperson. He says that will effectively lead to chaos. "For parent-teacher conferences, the teacher would have to change back and identify the child by their biological name for the parent-teacher conference but then go back and let the child be identified with the other gender," said Casperson. "That is unacceptable," he added. "To exclude the parents and almost be deceptive to the parents about what's going on when their child is going to school like that is out of bounds." Casperson is hoping to avoid the fierce backlash seen in other states over this issue by taking a more limited approach. On the bathroom and locker room front, he's seeking accommodation for all. "We're suggesting through the legislation that they make accommodations for kids that are struggling with their gender identity and they they not be forced to go into either [bathroom], but at the end of the day they have an option to go somewhere, probably more like a private situation, a singular bathroom," said Casperson. But he says the State Board of Education recommendation is a non-starter with him. "It seems like the Board of Education is just suggesting it's absolutely no big deal to send what would be a little boy into a girls' bathroom because they've identified themselves through their gender as a girl," said Casperson. As for the policy that would potentially keep parents in the dark about their child adopting a a different gender while at school, Casperson says his legislation would allow any suspicion of abuse in the home to be reported to authorities and figured out in court. Outside of such accusations, he says parents must be involved. "If there's none of that known or nothing is identified as wrong at home, parents have to be proactive with the child to make the request. The request can still be made. The child can change the identity, but it needs to be done with the parents," said Casperson. Michigan House Speaker Kevin Cotter is strongly supportive of the bill and Republican State Rep. Ed McBroom is drafting similar legislation in the Michigan House of Representatives. But the pushback is already brewing. State Board of Education President John Austin says the legislation could put Michigan in violation of federal civil rights laws. He also says it would be "damaging for young students" and put those at issue in a position for bullying, depression or suicide. Austin says he doesn't want Michigan to follow the path of North Carolina. Casperson defends his bill against both arguments. First, he says every provision is designed to protect the rights of all students. "There's been accusations made towards myself and what the bill does and it's not accurate at all. We are recognizing the need and that there are things that need to be set in place to protect these children. We're simply saying the policy should be looking at all children and making sure all children are protected and safe and that all children certainly have a right to privacy," said Casperson. Furthermore, he says the Michigan bill differs considerably from the new law in North Carolina. "I'm not going as far-reaching as what they are. I'm simply dealing with K-12 education in the State of Michigan. When it comes to the private sector and business community, if they want to set policies for restrooms inside their facilities in their businesses, I'm not dealing with that," said Casperson. With just a few weeks until the public comment comes to a close, Casperson says he will be ready for whatever moves the State Board of Education tries to make. "We don't have that far to go before the Department of Education gets final with their weigh-in period, so they're all coming together pretty quick here," said Casperson. "I suspect they'll have a chance to change it. If they don't want to change it, then I'll make an attempt to run the legislation," said Casperson. |
| 'Doesn't this Former Constitutional Law Professor Know the Law?' |
| Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:23:03 EST President Obama tried to downplay the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private server for handling some of the government's most sensitive information, but a former top Justice Department official says Obama's comments ignore the law and are an obvious attempt to convince the FBI not to recommend charges against Clinton. On Fox News Sunday, anchor Chris Wallace asked Obama if he was convinced that national security was not compromised by Clinton's handling of sensitive information. "Here's what I know. Hillary Clinton was an outstanding secretary of state. She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy," said Obama. Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Victoria Toensing is appalled by that explanation. "Doesn't this former constitutional law professor know the law?" she asked. Beyond trying to downplay Clinton's actions, Toensing believes Obama's comments are meant as a message to the FBI. She compared it to the impact of Obama scolding the Supreme Court at a State of the Union address over it's ruling in the Citizens United v. FEC decision. "He wanted to get rid of what he called the benefactors of that opinion. The IRS heard that message and they started a war against conservative groups, not letting them get their tax-exempt status," said Toensing. "[Obama's statement on Hillary Clinton] was a message to the FBI and to the Department of Justice." Toensing says "intent" works against Clinton in two different ways. She says the first federal statute in question is 18 U.S.C 1924. "The only conduct one has to intend in that statute is to take classified information and put it in an 'unauthorized location.' Those are the exact words of the statute," said Toensing. "She had to intend to have classified information in an unauthorized location and the statute doesn't say diddly squat about whether the information had to be marked classified." She says 18 U.S.C. 793(f) is even more dire for Clinton. "In that statute it talks about grossly negligently handling classified information. That's a felony. There's no intent in that. It just had to be grossly negligent," said Toensing. Obama then tried to reassure Americans that no top secret information was in danger of being compromised. "There's classified and then there's classified. There's stuff that is really top secret and there is information that is being presented to the president or the secretary of state that you might not want on the transom or going out over the wire but is basically stuff you could get in open source," said Obama to Fox News Sunday. Toensing agrees that classified information comes on several different levels and some is far more sensitive than other pieces. But she says that distinction doesn't help Clinton either. "Hillary Clinton's emails have been deemed in that very top category. This was not stuff that was just information from public sources. This was not the lowest level. She had the top, top level on her server. In fact, it's so top level that, guess what, they won't release it," said Toensing. Toensing is also livid at the mainstream media for failing to challenge erroneous assertions made by Clinton and her supporters. "On George Stephanopoulos yesterday, Tony Podesta said, 'Well, we now found out that Colin Powell did it. Condi Rice did it.' No, neither one of them had a private server for all of their government business," said Toensing. She admits other officials may have sent or received private emails that contained classified information but that is far different than what Clinton did. "They didn't purposefully have every single bit of government business in a personal server," said Toensing. Obama also told Fox News Sunday that he never discusses an active investigation with his attorney general but insisted that politics would never influence decisions over whether to bring charges against someone. Toensing finds that absurd. "Let's go back to Lois Lerner. Do you doubt for one second that she broke the law in what she did to conservative organizations by holding them up? And who at the Justice Department investigated Lois Lerner? Someone who had contributed $8,000 to the Obama campaign," said Toensing. She that is another example of the media double standard. "Can you imagine George Bush handing someone who had donated thousands of dollars to his campaign, putting them on an investigation of someone in his administration. The press would have gone crazy," said Toensing. Toensing says no one knows when or if the FBI will recommend charges but did note that FBI Director James Comey recently said there is no timetable for finishing the investigation. "I guess that should worry you if you're Hillary Clinton," said Toensing. |
| 'One More Nail in the Coffin of the Great Deception' |
| Thu, 7 Apr 2016 16:04:38 EST A new, exhaustive study on precipitation levels over more than a thousand years shows the assumptions made by the United Nations and other climate change activists are badly flawed, suggesting that human activity may not be having the impact on our climate that so many insist to be true. The report from Stockholm University in Sweden examined Northern Hemisphere rainfall statistics over a 1,200 year period. Researchers concluded that extremes between heavy rainfall totals and droughts were more severe centuries ago, before the fossil fuel-based economy ever existed. "Hopefully this will be one more nail in the coffin of the great deception that is the global warming deception," said Dr. Tim Ball, a former climatologist at the University of Winnipeg, who taught classes on global precipitation for some 25 years. Ball is also the author of multiple books, including "The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science." He says this report comes as no shock to him. In fact, he wrote about the very same issue just five months ago. Ball says the problem is amounts in part to willful ignorance on the part of climate change proponents. "They list three major greenhouse gases: water vapor, CO2, and methane. They then ignore water vapor. They just say the amount humans produce is of no significant so they just assume it's constant. That's a problem," said Ball. "The second problem is there is inadequate temperature data to build their computer models. The weather data covers only about 25 percent of the world's surface. How do you build your models on that? The answer is you don't," said Ball. He says reality has proven the experts wrong at every turn. "Every single prediction they've made with temperature, starting in 1990, has been wrong. Every one has been wrong. One simple word definition of science is prediction. If you can't predict, you haven't got science," said Ball. But as lacking as the data is on temperature levels, Ball says the scientists are even further behind on precipitation. "The data for precipitation is even worse. Measuring rainfall and measuring the water content of snow are some of the most difficult things to do in the weather and climate business," said Ball. Ball says a perfect example of the weak precipitation data could be seen five years ago when scientists tried to predict the impact of monsoons upon Africa during the growing season. Half the models predicted a wetter season and the other half concluded it would be drier. "Their conclusion was that there weren't enough precipitation data stations to even meet the minimum requirement of the World Meteorological Association. So the lack of data is the serious problem that supports what these people (in Stockholm) are finding," said Ball. According to Ball, this new study also puts the lie to the climate change premise that temperature is the most important factor when examining where our climate is trending. Temperature variation is an issue but it has to change quite a bit before it comes difficult. For example, they talk about a two-degree celsius warming. All you've got to do is look at a city that's just south of you that's two degrees warmer and they get along very nicely, thank you," said Ball. He says precipitation is far more important. "But when you get precipitation change, that impacts flora and fauna and humans tremendously," said Ball. Ball says 200 climatologists were surveyed in the year 2000 to select the 20 worst natural disasters in the 20th Century. Of those 20, scientists picked 11 droughts and five floods. "So the knowledge of precipitation and it's impact is actually more important," he said. Ball the Stockholm report also erodes the credibility of climate change scientists on another front, namely their contention that rising global temperatures lead to more and more severe droughts. "They said with global warming, there'll be more droughts but that's counter-intuitive. If you've got warmer temperatures, you've got more evaporation, more water in the air, therefore fewer droughts. Again that illustrates how wrong their thinking is," said Ball. Scientists who believe in human-triggered climate change admit the Stockholm study will intensify the existing debate. "Do their results invalidate current predictive models? Certainly not. But they do highlight a big challenge for climate modelers, and present major research opportunities both for modelers and climate scientists," wrote Matthew Kirby of California State University's Department of Geological Sciences in response to the study. Another researcher, James Renwick of the Victoria University of Wellington, stated the new data suggests the wet-dry extremes will come this century instead of the last one. That leaves Ball shaking his head. "They will look for some way around the evidence. They'll say this is wrong, that's wrong and so on," said Ball. "They've done that every time. They had a hypothesis and they accepted it as proven right from the start. Every time evidence came out that contradicted it, they found ways of blunting that." He says the most egregious example was after 1998, when temperatures began leveling off but carbon dioxide levels kept rising, in contrast to the belief that the two factors were linked. "Instead of correcting their science, they changed from global warming to climate change. This is what they constantly do. They try to blunt the evidence and deflect the evidence because it's not fitting with their political agenda," said Ball. Or their financial agenda. Ball contends so many scientists swear by man-caused climate change simply to keep the research dollars pouring in. "These people, I guarantee you will find out, are very heavily funded by government in this research. Of course, if you look at Paris and how much money was put into the Green Climate Fund. It's all driven by money, not by science and the truth," said Ball. He says this was proven by the Australian government in recent years. "What the Australian government said was, 'You're telling us the science is settled. Well fine. We'll cut off all the funding to the research." Of course everybody scrambled, 'Oh, no no no. Hold on a minute here,'" said Ball. |
| No Substitute for Tax Reform |
| Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:35:34 EST National Taxpayers Union President Pete Sepp says new rules designed to stop American companies from setting up shop on foreign soil may work to keep some firms in the U.S. but he says the only thing that is going to allow businesses to stay and thrive is a tax code overhaul featuring lower rates and a much simpler code. On Tuesday, President Obama announced the Treasury Department is implementing new rules designed to make it more painful for American firms to purchase a smaller, foreign business and use it as an offshore hub to avoid American taxes. It's a concept known as an inversion. While watching American corporations avoid paying U.S. taxes is infuriating to many, Sepp says there are bigger problems. "President Obama calls this practice 'insidious' but what's really insidious is our failure to keep up with the rest of the world in terms of reforming our business tax systems. We have not had major tax reform in this country for individuals or businesses since 1986," said Sepp. Among the new Treasury Department rules are a policy putting a three-year limit on companies outside the U.S. adding American assets so as not to dodge ownership requirements for future inversions. Treasury is also planning to put a stop to earnings stripping after inversions. Some experts believe the new policies had an instant impact as Pfizer and Irish drugmaker Allergan walked away from their $160 billion merger. Whether that's the main reason or not, Sepp says a few new policies don't solve the larger problems. "Ultimately, it won't effect the problem a great deal because the problem is rooted in other parts of our tax system: High rates, twice as high as many of our economic competitors. High effective rates, whereby even after deductions and credits, the tax burdens are too heavy for our companies to bear," said Sepp, who then listed even more problems. "Shareholders demand that companies limit their tax liabilities and maximize returns. Other countries are not standing in place. They are reforming their tax systems constantly," said Sepp, nothing that Canada and the United Kingdom have been aggressively cutting rates and rooting out tax code complexities. The bottom line, says Sepp, is nothing can replace what needs to be done. "Whatever minor rule makings that the United States Treasury issues, or even laws Congress might make to create new clampdowns on inversions are no substitute for doing the heavy lifting of comprehensive tax reform," said Sepp. The problems are clear. Sepp says our rates are simply not competitive, noting our corporate tax rates are north of 39 percent while the average of OECD nations stand near 25 percent. He says Canada's rate is now around 15 percent. On top of that, the U.S. also imposes the highly unusual worldwide tax, meaning American firms pay taxes to the U.S. Treasury on profits earned in other nations. Most other nations require companies only to pay taxes where the money was made. On the complexity front, Sepp says the situation is borderline hopeless. He says businesses spend six billion hours poring over the tax laws to make sure they are in compliance. By the time they are done, the time and cost for properly filing taxes amounts to firms spending an additional $960 per employee. And that's before the the actual tax payments are made. Sepp says he wants to hear more specifics from all presidential candidates. As for the Republican hopefuls, he says each have their strong and weak points. He says Donald Trump has perhaps the most aggressive plan. "Trump's tax plan, both for individuals and businesses is very ambitious in terms of the amount of tax relief it would grant. But Trump's system would preserve many of the inequities in the current tax code and would target a few industries, for example, in finance with higher tax rates. That's probably the opposite direction we want to take," said Sepp. He also sees Ted Cruz as a mixed bag. "Cruz has proposed a flat-rate income tax for individuals and something like a value added tax for companies. That's raised a different type of concern as to whether we could control a system like that and prevent the rate from becoming terribly punitive, the way it has in many European countries," said Sepp. Sepp describes John Kasich's plan as a hybrid, offering fewer tax rates and more simplicity. He says both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders would impose "terribly punitive" tax penalties on businesses. But he says everyone needs to get more specific. "It's one thing to say you will lower rates. It's another thing to say how you're going to make the process of filing taxes easier for businesses. And that's on the minds of business owners large and small," said Sepp. |
| Frontrunners Stumble on Abortion |
| Tue, 5 Apr 2016 16:07:03 EST Pro-life activists are openly frustrated with the leading candidates for both the Democratic and Republican nominations, scolding Hillary Clinton for saying the unborn have no rights and slamming Donald Trump for offering a variety of positions in recent days. Clinton is under fire for her Sunday "Meet the Press" appearance. Moderator Chuck Todd asked if or when the unborn have constitutional rights. Clinton flatly said she believes they have no rights. "Under our laws currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn't have constitutional rights," said Clinton. Susan B. Anthony List National Campaign Chair Jill Stanek says Clinton managed to get herself in trouble with advocates on both sides of the issue. "The key word there, of course, was person. She called a pre-born baby a person. Since then, she's been under fire from both sides for saying this. The abortion lobby is furious with her because she used the word person, saying that it further stigmatizes abortion. Pro-lifers are saying, 'If you acknowledge the baby is a person, then why does not this person have rights?" said Stanek. Stanek is a former nurse who held an aborted baby until it died because the medical team refused to provide life-saving treatment. She became a pro-life advocate and confronted then-Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama over his opposition to a bill that would require doctors to treat babies who survive abortions. In 2015, she was among the leaders of a Capitol Hill sit-in, demanding House action on a bill to ban most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. In her "Meet the Press" interview, Clinton stated that she would be open to "reasonable restrictions" to abortion as president. Stanek says that's nonsense because the rest of her answer proves she will do the bidding of the abortion lobby. Specifically, she cited Clinton's regard for "health of the mother." "Health of the mother is a huge loophole. She's signaling to the pro-abortion lobby. She's wink-winking with them. She's still with them on everything," said Stanek. So why is "health of the mother" such a loaded term in Stanek's estimation? "When the Doe v. Bolton decision was decided on the same day as Roe v. Wade, they defined health of the mother as all factors, 'physical, emotional, psychological, familial and women's age.' That is basically abortion on demand and she knows it," said Stanek. Stanek says the media constantly fail to press Clinton on her pro-choice position. "The press really needs to ask her to name a circumstance in which she would protect the life of a pre-born child because she hasn't and she can't," said Stanek. As for Trump, it was a recent interview with MSNBC's Chris Matthews that put the GOP delegate leader on the defensive. One exchange in particular drew headlines, as Matthews asked Trump what the consequence for abortion should be for women if abortion were made illegal in the U.S.: Matthews: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no, as a principle? Trump: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment. Matthews: For the woman. Trump. Yeah, there has to be some form. Earlier in that same discussion of what banning abortion would look like, Trump indicated that a sizable portion of the GOP electorate would favor punishing the woman. "People in certain parts of the Republican Party and conservative Republicans would say, 'Yes, they should be punished,'" said Trump. Stanek says abortion is hurting Trump because his answers do not assure activists he is truly pro-life, which Trump emphatically insists that he is. "We know he says he is a pro-life convert. If that's true, he doesn't know very much about the pro-life issue. So he definitely needs to take counsel from pro-lifers. What he said is that women should be punished, which is not the pro-life position. It has never been the pro-life position," said Stanek. The Trump campaign followed up the MSNBC appearance with multiple statements, retracting Trump's contention that women would hypothetically be punished if abortion were made illegal. But the campaign also seemed content to leave abortion laws as they are. "I would 19ve preferred states 19 rights, 1d he added. 1cI think it would 19ve been better if it were up to the states. But right now, the laws are set 26.At this moment, the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way," said Trump to John Dickerson of 'Face the Nation.' However, Trump also said he considers abortion to be murder. Following that appearance, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said Trump only meant the laws are set until he becomes president. "Mr. Trump gave an accurate account of the law as it is today and made clear it must stay that way now 13until he is President, 1d said Hicks in the statement. 1cThen he will change the law through his judicial appointments and allow the states to protect the unborn. There is nothing new or different here. 1d The whole sequence leaves Stanek dazed. "Forty-three years ago, when abortion was illegal, women were not punished for abortion and they won't be punished when it's made illegal again. Then he said it was a state's decision. That would mean that he was violating his oath to sign the 20-week abortion ban if he became president," said Stanek. "Then he said it wasn't a states' decision after all. Then most recently, within the last couple days he said abortion is the law of the land and that's the way it should be," said Stanek. Stanek says if Trump sticks to the latter position, Susan B. Anthony List will consider him disqualified for the presidency. Another Matthews-Trump exchange discussed what options women would have to terminate their pregnancies if abortion were to be made illegal. "You'll go back to a position like they had where people will perhaps go to illegal places, but you have to ban it," said Trump. Stanek says it's not a choice between legal abortions and back-alley abortions. "There's no excuse to say because we think somebody's going to break a law that we shouldn't pass a law. Our focus should be on not allowing women to be exploited, who find themselves in crisis pregnancies and helping them. The answer is not to get a back-alley abortion for a front-alley abortion," said Stanek. She says the pro-choice hypocrisy is on full display when it comes to abortion clinics as activists angrily fight against clinics having the same cleanliness standards as surgical facilities or requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at hospitals. So how should a solidly pro-life candidate answer these key questions according to Stanek? Should abortion be illegal? "Yes, abortion should be illegal," she said. Stanek's only exception would be to save the life of the mother but she says those circumstances are extremely rare and that doctors had the freedom to make that decision even before Roe v. Wade. Do unborn children have rights? "The unborn have full constitutional rights that all people in the United States have from conception on," stated Stanek. And if abortion is made illegal, who should be punished if one occurs? "The abortionist should be punished and the abortionist should be punished for murder, whatever the laws are for murder in those particular states. Women should not be prosecuted. Women have always been considered victims and exploited by abortion," said Stanek. She says not prosecuting women will also help law enforcement to track down those responsible for performing abortions, whereas women would be far less likely to cooperate if they fear prosecution. |
| Socialism Would 'Undermine,' 'Destroy' Civil Society |
| Mon, 4 Apr 2016 16:28:30 EST A 1981 New York Times item quotes Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders as saying he doesn't "believe in charities," an outlook that one expert says is common in socialism and would destroy civil society. In September 1981, the Times reported on comments then-Burlington Mayor Sanders made at a charity event: "For the kickoff of the 40th annual Chittenden County United Way fund-raising drive in Burlington, Vt., the sponsors considered themselves fortunate to have as guests Mayor Bernard Sanders of Burlington and Gov. Richard Snelling of Vermont," reported the Times. "But the charity workers heard the sort of things they wanted to hear from only one of their guests. "'I don't believe in charities,'' said Mayor Sanders, bringing a shocked silence to a packed hotel banquet room. The Mayor, who is a Socialist, went on to question the ''fundamental concepts on which charities are based'' and contended that government, rather than charity organizations, should take over responsibility for social programs,'" the article stated. Joe Loconte fiercely disagrees. Loconte teaches Western Civilization and American Foreign Policy at The King's College in New York City. He has also held positions with the Heritage Foundation and the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington. From 2001-2003, he was also an informal adviser to the George W. Bush administration's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. "It's no surprise that Bernie Sanders then, and I think even now, really has no real respect or regard for civil society. This is the problem with socialism. It sees such an overwhelming, intrusive role for the state at all levels, there's no room left for the voluntary society," said Loconte. He says the history of America shows civil society as a indispensable part of what makes America great. "Those associations, those charities, those faith-based organizations that have always been the lifeblood of American democracy have always contributed to this truth as we describe the United States. It's exceptionalism. Near the heart of American exceptionalism is this vibrant, independent civil society," said Loconte. Loconte says Americans have always understood instinctively that neighbor helping neighbor builds better communities than relying on the government to solve problems. He says Europe is learning this hard lesson right now. "The overweening state cannot meet human needs, cannot address our deepest moral and social problems. It just can't do it and Bernie Sanders, apparently, has just not learned a thing from American history, from European history and not even the present crisis," said Loconte. From the very start of America, private charity and a vibrant civil society set us apart from the world, according to Loconte. He says Alexis de Tocqueville rightly observed this in his famous "Democracy in America." "He sees something in America that he doesn't see in Europe. What he sees is individuals coming together in associations to tackle problems together, common problems. So he sees a moral energy, civic energy, religious energy used to try to produce a more just and humane society," said Loconte. He says socialism threatens every bit of that American fabric. "That's the genius of a vibrant, independent civil society. It's something that socialists like Bernie Sanders cannot and will not understand. Not only will they not promote it if they get into real positions of power and responsibility in government. They will hinder it. They will undermine it. Ultimately, they'll destroy it," said Loconte. Loconte says it's all about socialists devaluing the individual. "At the end of the day there's this logical and even theological problem. Bernie Sanders is not just a proclaimed socialist. He's an atheist, a secularist. It seems to me the history of ideologies rooted in secularism shows at the end of the day there'll be a distrust and even contempt for the individual," said Loconte. "Individual freedom, individual responsibility and human rights. That's where it's going. Basic human rights will always be compromised under a socialist regime. That's the historical record. It's not even debatable," said Loconte. He says civil society and personal charity will plummet the more government gets involved and determines right and wrong. "The larger government gets in terms of regulations, its intrusiveness, its attempt to have one-size-fits-all imposed on groups and organizations, to force people into its militantly secular way of thinking: That's simply going to undermine and weaken civil society. We can't afford that now when we think about our great social problems, where the breakdown of the family is so near the heart of all of them," said Loconte. |
| ISIS Poised for Major Advances |
| Fri, 1 Apr 2016 16:15:36 EST Former House Select Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra says evidence suggests radical Islamist groups, including ISIS, are on the brink of posing a far greater threat to part of Africa and the Middle East and the resulting chaos could add even more upheaval to western Europe and the United States. Hoekstra, R-Mich., is now affiliated with the Investigative Project on Terrorism, or IPT. On Friday, he and IPT Executive Director Steve Emerson authored an opinion piece at FoxNews.com, pointing out the increased terrorist carnage and where we can expect ISIS and other radical groups to apply pressure. They suggest without a major shift in strategy, Islamist groups will burrow farther into Africa, bringing misery to countless more people. Emerson and Hoekstra also believe ISIS could soon apply enough instability to threaten regimes like Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Hoekstra says sheer statistics over the last decade suggest such calamities could be in the offing. "From 2006-2011, there were roughly 3,300 people who were losing their lives each year as a result of radical jihadist attacks. By 2014-2015, that number has grown to roughly 28 or 29,000 people per year. The numbers don't lie. We're losing this war," said Hoekstra. Hoekstra also says the amassing of land, which the radicals consider caliphates, is another major concern. "A terrorist organization is actually controlling a fairly large piece of geography. In the Middle East, they control the geography of large parts of Syria and Iraq. In northern Africa, they control a large part of Libya," said Hoekstra. He says control of those areas means a much greater threat for people everywhere. "They're using these bases to expand their reach in the Middle East, into northern Africa. More frightening is they're using these locations to plan, prepare and train and export jihadist ideology and fighters and weapons into western Europe," said Hoekstra. Unsurprisingly, Hoekstra is not impressed with the Obama strategy against ISIS. He says it must be much more direct and much more aggressive. "Number one, we need to recognize the threat for what it is. It's radical jihadism. We need to put a full military force. This is not a relentless military campaign against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. It's a half-hearted effort to confront a very, very deadly threat," said Hoekstra. On the tactical side, Hoekstra advocates much more assistance in arming the Kurdish fighters clashing with ISIS as well as the Sunni tribes inside Iraq. But he says real progress won;t come until the U.S. declares radical Islam the problem instead of cozying up to it. "This is an administration that has embraced the radical jihadist movement, at least front groups for them. They embraced the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. They embraced the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya, in both cases with disastrous results," said Hoesktra, noting Obama has endorsed radical to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria as well. He says it is critical for the U.S. and out allies to understand the central role of the Muslim Brotherhood in fomenting unrest and terrorism. "We need to confront this enemy and recognize that the Muslim Brotherhood is the organization that all these organizations come from. It's kind of like the breeding ground for all these other organizations," said Hoekstra. "Believing you can engage with radical jihadist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and that they will then change their behavior is very much a flawed strategy." Following the ISIS attacks in Brussels, President Obama reiterated that Americans should not view ISIS as an existential threat. Hoekstra says that's wrong and not at all helpful. "It may not be an existential threat to the United States today, but those are the same kind of things that the people in Europe were saying 10-15 years ago," said Hoekstra. "There's a lot of people in Europe right now who are believing it is an existential threat to their way of life." Hoekstra says the U.S. is careening down the same road. "We're headed down the same path that Europe is if we don't change our behaviors and our strategy relatively soon," added Hoekstra. So which of the remaining presidential hopefuls had the best grasp on confronting the the threat of radical Islam? Hoekstra says the worst choice is the woman who helped create the mess we're seeing in the world right now. "You've got Hillary Clinton, who is the architect of engaging with the Muslim Brotherhood and would in many ways continue the same policies and strategies that this president has in place. We can't have four more years of this strategy if we want to protect America," said Hoekstra. What about the top two candidates on the GOP side? "You've got Donald Trump that you're not sure exactly what's going to happen. I think Ted Cruz clearly sees radical jihadism as a threat but I'm not sure that he's got the depth and the background to articulate an effective strategy," said Hoekstra. Hoekstra backs John Kasich for president and believes he would be strongest on this issue as well. "I think John's got the depth of background and experience and he recognizes the threat. I think he's most prepared to deal with the threat that is out there on day one," said Hoekstra. |
| Dithering VA Slams Door on More Vets |
| Thu, 31 Mar 2016 16:25:49 EST Nearly two years after the veterans' health care scandal broke, hardly any meaningful change has occurred and now reports suggest a growing number of vets aren't just having to wait for care but are being told they are ineligible. The latest black eye for the Department of Veterans Affairs is a new report from the veterans group Swords to Plowshares, showing that more and more vets are being denied access to the VA system because of "bad papers," the military term for anything less than an honorable discharge. The report indicates that veterans since 2001 are more than twice as likely to be denied medical benefits for an "other than honorable" discharge than their counterparts from the Vietnam era and four times as likely as those who served in World War II. All told 10 percent of Marines have been denied under these circumstances while the rate across all branches stands at 6.5 percent. In real numbers, 125,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are being denied care due to "bad papers." Even those who regularly advocate for veterans admit this can be a thorny issue for the military. "You can understand why the Pentagon and the VA would have to draw a distinction between the nature of the service and the nature of the benefits, so if you were kicked out of the military for terrible conduct, there's a consequence potentially on the backside with your VA benefits," said Pete Hegseth, a veterans advocate, who served both in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is now a Fox News Channel contributor. At the same time, Hegseth says the government's policy punishes a lot of veterans for conduct that stems from their service to the United States. "The problem becomes maybe you went to Afghanistan, suffer from post-traumatic stress and act out when you come home, which leads to a dishonorable discharge. Now you're barred from VA benefits, but you're the very person that needs those VA benefits. A lot of those people are falling through the cracks," said Hegseth. And sometimes the lesser status on a discharge is just bureaucratic. "In some cases, we see 'other than honorables' given out much more quickly because a medical discharge or another form of discharge is either lengthier or more costly for the military," said Hegseth. He explained some of the red tape games that get played. "Sometimes the military's taking the easy way out. They're just pushing people out the door because they don't want to have to deal with it. And maybe there's a cost trail they don't want to deal with," said Hegseth. "You also have the the other side of the coin, where a veteran may be at the end of their service. They're given an option to say, 'Hey, you can either go down the medical discharge route and it might take a couple years because of all the paperwork and all the things that come with it. Or you can just jump out right now and get an 'other than honorable' and maybe you'll get access to VA benefits," said Hegseth. He says many who took that gamble are now really hung out to dry. "The problem is that line has shifted, so people who thought they qualified for benefits no longer do. As a result, they're caught in the middle," said Hegseth. This would be enough of a headache for the VA, Hegseth says, but it still has a mountain of reforms to implement following the waiting time and falsified records scandal that rocked the department in May of 2014. "Layer on top of all that the utter dysfunction of the VA, which can't even care for the honorably discharged in a timely manner. Now they're trying to deal with folks who have a questionable paperwork trail, maybe some barriers to entry because of their service and the nature of their discharge. It leads to them waiting longer with more uncertainty," said Hegseth. Has any progress been made at the VA in two years? "Very little, unfortunately," said Hegseth. "Veterans now have a choice card but they still can't use it as widely or as rapidly as they would want. There's been almost no accountability for those responsible for the wait list manipulation scandal. Veterans continue to wait for a long time," said Hegseth. "All the while, Congress has been incapable of the larger, deeper reforms that are ultimately necessary," said Hegseth, who says there is hope for some legislation to pass this year. "If it doesn't happen in this Congress, it means more vets waiting for a longer time at a dysfunctional VA that hasn't changed." Why isn't is happening? "Mostly a combination of government unions, the AFGE, that want nothing to change and lobby very hard and are very powerful inside certain quarters in the halls of Congress. They're blocking this. The VA bureaucracy is ferocious in trying to stifle anything that looks like change," said Hegseth, who also says even some veterans groups are afraid to alter the status quo. "There's just powerful special interests like in any other area who want things not to change," said Hegseth. |
| Fact vs. Fiction in NC Bathroom Battle |
| Wed, 30 Mar 2016 16:50:03 EST A week after North Carolina lawmakers passed legislation defining who can use which bathrooms on government property, Lt. Gov. Dan Forest is vigorously defending the law against fierce criticism from LGBT activists and some businesses by saying it protects women and girls and actually grants new accommodation to transgenders. Widely known now as House Bill 2, or HB 2, the legislation was approved 82-26 in the North Carolina General Assembly. State senators approved it 32-0, although 11 Democrats decided not to vote and another six lawmakers were absent. Republican Gov. Pat McCrory signed the bill on March 25. Lt. Gov. Forest said the city of Charlotte left lawmakers no choice but to act. "This isn't something the General Assembly brought up brought up. The city council in Charlotte brought this up, against legal counsel's advice and against the advice of a lot of folks. They went beyond their constitutional authority and tried to create a public accommodation law in the city of Charlotte," said Forest. "That is expressly a responsibility of the state. The city of Charlotte and municipalities don't have the legal authority, based on our constitution, to establish public accommodation law," said Forest. In addition to overstepping it's legal authority, Forest says the Charlotte council pursued a very troubling policy. "The Charlotte ordinance said that the business community had to to comply with this ordinance. They said it was sex discrimination to have men's room and women's room labels on your doors," said Forest. When state officials started hearing from sexual assault victims, the effort to reverse the Charlotte ordinance picked up far more steam. "We have had multiple calls from women who had been sexually abused in a bathroom in a facility like that, who were literally being traumatized by even the thought of that going into law in North Carolina. We stepped up to address it because it was going to go into effect and become the law in Charlotte on April 1. That's why we had to go into special session," said Forest. Conservative lawmakers and family organizations became even more alarmed after discovering that one of the leading advocates for the Charlotte ordinance is a registered sex offender. At the time, Chad Sevearance-Turner was president of the Charlotte LGBT Chamber of Commerce. The Charlotte Observer, citing a story in the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, reports Sevearance-Turner was convicted by a jury for fondling a 15-year-old boy while he slept in 1998. Seaverance-Turner was serving as youth minister in Gaffney, South Carolina, at the time. The boy was a church member. The actual text of the Charlotte ordinance only made things worse for concerned citizens. Forest says the language made bathrooms and changing areas open to virtually anyone. "The giant loophole they created was that this ordinance would then allow any person to enter any bathroom at any time. A man can enter a women's bathroom, a women's locker room, a shower facility. They could enter a girls' bathroom, a girls' locker room. A sexual predator could enter in there, somebody that is a pedophile could go into a girls' or women's bathroom" said Forest. Forest says the ordinance only required the person to identify as a member of a particular gender, and to have completed or be in the process of gender reassignment. He says despite the protests, HB 2 does a few very simple things, starting with who can use which bathrooms. "What HB 2 did was say that men have to use men's rooms and women have to use women's rooms in the state of North Carolina," said Forest. At the same time, he says people identifying as transgender benefit too. "What this bill did is it created accommodation for people that are transgender, for people that view their gender differently than other folks," said Forest. "It also provides the opportunity for single-stall unisex bathrooms. Anywhere that you want to place them." Forest says unlike Charlotte, the HB 2 only applies to government buildings and schools. Business owners are free to make their own decisions. And he says that's not all. "If you go fully through the process of being a transsexual, then go get your birth certificate changed and you go to whatever bathroom you are assigned at that point based on your birth certificate," said Forest. As for the critics alleging discrimination and bigotry and businesses threatening to leave the state, Forest says there's nothing new about this firestorm. "This is the same cast of characters that we've seen before. We saw this same cast of characters in Houston, when Houston dealt with this problem and had to turn down the same kind of ordinance a year or so ago. Same cast of characters we saw during our marriage amendment battle here in North Carolina," said Forest. Forest contends the businesses were pressured to get on board through aggressive tactics from the most powerful lobbying arm of the LGBT agenda. "It's being driven by folks like the Human Rights Campaign, which has a significant in with human resources departments in these companies, who then have an in with their diversity team at these companies as well. They write a letter and they give it to a CEO or an executive and that executive signs it and sends it out to their employees," said Forest. He says a little prodding reveals the "activist" business leaders don't really have a firm understanding of the legislation. "I called them up and I said, 'Have you even read the bill?' And they said no, they hadn't read the bill but they were handed this to send out to their employees. It's a shame that's the way it works, but that is the way it works," said Forest. The most famous corporate blowback came from the NBA. Charlotte is slated to host the 2017 NBA All-Star Game, but the league says this law may impact those plans. Forest finds the NBA's protest especially odd. "The irony of that is that there is the NBA and the WNBA. They don't allow men to play in the WNBA and I'm sure they don't allow men to go into the women's locker room after the games either. But they somehow think North Carolina is discriminatory because we want to protect women and children from predators in the bathroom," said Forest. He says the protests reveal who is truly intolerant. "Really, what this leftist ideology and this leftist agenda says is, 'You better subscribe to our way of thinking or we are going to come after you.' They don't let up. They keep on coming. That's really unfortunate that people can't sit down in a room and figure out how to get along," said Forest. Social conservatives have been plenty frustrated with Republicans in recent years for not standing as firmly as promised on issues ranging from marriage to religious freedom. Forest says even with the heat from opponents and the media, there was no thought of backing down from this effort. "You will never go wrong by doing the right thing. There may be consequences to pay for doing the right thing. Those consequences may be political and there may be a group of people who say, 'We don't want you to be their lieutenant governor again.' I'm fine with that. If I do the right thing, I really don't care about the blowback or whether I get elected again," said Forest. He says the most disappointing part of this fight has been the reckless disregard for the truth from the left. "The real shame of it is people don't care about the truth anymore. The truth doesn't matter in America anymore. That's really unfortunate because all of the debate that's coming against HB 2 in North Carolina is based on a bunch of fictitious matter," said Forest. |
| 'It's Open Season on People of Faith' |
| Tue, 29 Mar 2016 16:28:31 EST The sponsor of the Georgia religious freedom legislation vetoed by Gov. Nathan Deal says he is "extremely disappointed" in Deal after lawmakers bent over backwards to craft a bill to satisfy the governor and the business community and protect limited freedoms for clergy and institutions of faith. "I think the message the governor sent with the veto is that it's open season on people of faith in Georgia," said State Senator Josh McKoon, sponsor of Georgia's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. He says the veto especially stung after the governor's office had been directly involved in the crafting of the bill. "This bill was the result of a lot of negotiation between house and senate leadership. The governor's office was involved, as was he business community. We certainly felt like we had a achieved a compromise that was acceptable to all sides," said McKoon. After the bill passed easily in both chambers of the Georgia legislature, a fierce public relations campaign rose up to oppose the bill, especially among big businesses. Movie studios threatened to stop filming in the state if the act became law and the NFL said it could negatively impact Atlanta's chances of hosting the Superbowl in a few years. "I think the governor caved to pressure from the business community, from largely empty threats from out-of-state companies that were suggesting that they would withdraw or reduce their business in the state if the legislation passed," said McKoon. Most baffling to McKoon is how much he and his allies "watered down" the original bill to appease Gov. Deal and businesses. "We had done everything we'd been asked to do to just try to get a modest protection for houses of worship, religious schools and religious non-profits. If we can't protect those in a state that's run by the Republican Party, it was was a very bad day for people of faith in Georgia," said McKoon. The original bill had protections for vendors like photographers, florists and cake bakers who believe serving a specific event would violate their consciences. But that was stripped to win the backing of Gov. Deal and business leaders. McKoon and other sponsors also agreed to allow the law to be trumped by any federal or state law addressing discrimination. McKoon says the original bill was much stronger. "We really narrowed the focus of the bill in terms of who would be protected. We sort of went from a wide-open person definition that would apply to any flesh and blood individual, any for-profit business, really any entity at all to a very narrow definition that was just primarily limited to house of worship, religious schools and religious nonprofits," said McKoon. The fight is not over. Given the lopsided majorities in the Georgia legislature, supporters of the bill are trying to override Deal's veto. "People are continuing to work on that issue to see if there's the necessary support to override the governor's veto. I think we've got the numbers in the state senate to do it," said McKoon. However, 120 votes are needed to override a veto in the Georgia House of Representatives. Republicans hold 118 seats, so at least some Democratic support would be needed. Gov. Deal's office has not been in touch with McKoon since the veto was announced. But McKoon says Deal's reasoning given at his press conference was weak. "The governor said he didn't think this law was necessary and suggested people of faith were inappropriate to seek government relief for protection of the right of free exercise. I just shook my head at that. I don't understand the rationale at all," said McKoon. "He made a reference to the founders in that the founders left this issue alone. Obviously the founders thought it was important to attach the first amendment to the Constitution, which explicitly protects the right of free exercise," said McKoon. McKoon calls a lack of protection for free exercise of religion "unhealthy for our state" and says Deal is caving to the insatiable demands of the far left. "He talked about [his veto] coming from a place of wanting to welcome people. I think what's he's done is he's welcomed radical, far-left activists that want to establish a religion. The religion they want to establish is one of atheistic secular humanism," said McKoon. McKoon says he will also be pushing for a strong statement of support for religious freedom legislation at the Georgia Republican convention in June. |
| GOP Shelves Legislation Calling Abortion Murder |
| Mon, 28 Mar 2016 15:30:52 EST Republican Oklahoma State Senator Joseph Silk is sponsor of a bill calling for abortion providers to be viewed as murderers under state law but the legislation is now in limbo after his own party's leaders refused to let it come to the floor. Silk is sponsor of Senate Bill 1118. It includes very direct language. "A person commits murder in the first degree when that person performs an abortion," the bill states. It defines abortion as "the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug or any other substance, or device to intentionally kill an unborn human being." Silk says it's time for pro-life leaders to go after what they really want. "We need to call it what it is, which is murder, the pre-meditated intentional killing of a human being, and then treat it as such. We're trying to change the conversation from the typical pro-life rhetoric to actually being pro-life and getting justice for all these murdered children," said Silk. He believes pro-life lawmakers have spent way too long fighting at the margins in this debate. "We're essentially regulating abortion. Your typical pro-life bill, and I say pro-life in quotes, is 'Hey, you can't kill your baby with this instrument, but you can with this.' If we as pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder, then those pro-life bills aren't actually pro-life," said Silk. Silk says the public reaction in Oklahoma was overwhelmingly supportive. "The vast majority of Oklahomans who heard about the bill and were active in contacting legislators and the Senate in particular were very, very excited about the bill because people are tired of hearing the pro-life rhetoric. Candidates say, 'Yeah, I'm pro-life. We're going to do what we can do.' They don't ever do anything," said Silk. He says the people loved the direct language. "We have the most severe wording and the truth in that wording. People were excited to see that coming from the state government. We got huge public support for that bill," said Silk. But Senate Bill 1118 was blocked from state senate consideration earlier this month and will not be brought up again until next year at the earliest. "Two members of leadership decided to block the bill and they did succeed in that despite my best efforts and some of my colleagues and other citizens of Oklahoma," said Silk. "They blocked it and it did not get a hearing on the senate floor." Republicans control the Oklahoma state senate by a 39-9 margin, meaning GOP brass scuttled the bill. Silk says thus far he is not satisfied with the explanations given by party leaders. "They never could give me an answer why they were blocking it. They just kept saying, 'It's a dangerous vote. It's going to put members in a hard place. It goes too far.' Things like that," said Silk. Silk's appeal to their pro-life position also fell on deaf ears and muted voices. "Then I would ask them, 'You believe that life begins at conception?' They would obviously say, 'Absolutely.' I said, 'Well, that's what this bill says,' and then there'd just be blank stares," said Silk. Silk plans to re-introduce the bill in the 2017 session and knows it could face the same fate. He admits the language to Senate Bill 1118 was changed somewhat to accommodate issues raised in a committee hearing. Silk hopes lawmakers will look at it differently once they've had time to soak in the language. Another argument against the bill was that the courts will strike it down and the U.S. Supreme Court is very unlikely to overturn Roe v. Wade under its current leadership. That doesn't deter Silk at all. In fact, he relishes a legal fight at the heart of the abortion debate. "We need to attack the issue directly. Life begins at conception and abortion is murder. Until we start doing that, [the Supreme Court is] never going to be forced to overturn that ruling," said Silk. He says activists have changed court precedent many times in the past, most notably with respect to slavery. He also says the Supreme Court defied it's own logic on the definition of marriage in just two years. "Just three years ago, they said marriage shall be defined by the states. After continuous pounding, what did they do this last year? They defined it for us," said Silk. "Sure, some bills may get struck down, but eventually you're going to push the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade," said Silk. |
| Phares Talks Radicalization of Europe, Advising Trump |
| Thu, 24 Mar 2016 16:28:09 EST Terrorism expert Dr. Walid Phares says Belgian authorities are making some of the same mistakes as other European nations in the wake of a major terrorist attack, and the new foreign policy adviser to Donald Trump is also explaining what Americans could expect on this front if Trump becomes president. Phares is a longtime Middle East and terrorism scholar, a Fox News terrorism analyst, a lecturer at National Defense University and an adviser to the U.S. Congress. In recent days, he was announced as one of Trump's five top advisers on matters of foreign policy and national security. In the wake of major terrorist attacks earlier this week, Belgian authorities are actively conducting raids and chasing down leads to find the perpetrators of the airport and subway bombings. Phares says those operations are being run with some competence but don't get at the bigger issue plaguing Europe and other parts of the world. "My worry is not about the tactical investigation. It is really about the strategic investigation with regard to who planted that cell initially. What kind of communication does it have with ISIS, meaning the metropolitan ISIS back in Iraq and Syria, and the possibility of other networks, not just in Belgium and France, but also on the rest of the continent?" said Phares. He says the fight to stop the spread of radical Islamic terrorism needs to be at the ideological level, not just in aggressive law enforcement. "Yes, [the Belgian authorities] could have done a little better on the technological level, but the real battle will always be how to disconnect the radicalization and indoctrination networks," said Phares. "We're doing everything but that." For his part, Trump responded to the attacks by targeting immigration policy, a move Phares says is being very responsive to his base. "He says, 'We don't know what's happening.' So now the answer to that is his administration, his task forces that he will be forming will have to answer one question, in cooperation with Congress of course. 'How do we vet?' The answers to all the questions about the jihadists is, 'How do we vet them?'" said Phares. He says the answer on vetting immigrants lies in digging much deeper into applicants' connections with those driving a radical ideology. "You have to create the proper institution that is concentrating on the vetting, meaning, number one, determine what the ideology is, who is circulating the ideology, who is actually creating those madrassas, meaning ideological schools online and offline. Start to work a bit deeper than just a tactical investigation. It's a whole change of policy," said Phares. He says that is the polar opposite of what President Obama and Hillary Clinton want to do. "The problem is that the Obama administration and maybe a Clinton administration won't be inclined to do so. They have always been remote from dealing with anything related to the jihadi ideology," said Phares. As for Trump's general foreign policy and national security philosophy, Phares says it's a work in progress. "Mr. Trump is coming from a different field than the other public policy politicians. he's a very successful businessman. He is arriving to the scene with that huge experience in terms of economics and finances and deals and what have you," said Phares. "He is now in the process of forming his strategic thinking with the help of reading a lot, he observes a lot and with the help of the task forces he establishes," said Phares. For those looking for detailed Trump plans soon, Phares says they are coming, but not in time for primary voters to evaluate them. "I think the major activity is going to come hopefully after the nomination," said Phares. |
| Chang: North Korean Nukes Real Threat to the U.S. |
| Thu, 24 Mar 2016 15:16:38 EST With the world focused on a major terrorist attack in Belgium and the intensifying presidential race, a renowned expert on the Far East says North Korean missile tests and their detention of an American college student ought to be very concerning to the Obama administration and other world leaders. In recent days, North Korea test-fired numerous ballistic missiles in a manner designed to menace its neighbors and also sentenced University of Virginia student Otto Warmbier to 15 years of hard labor for tearing down a poster of the late Kim Jong-Il inside a North Korean hotel. The missile tests followed a statement from dictator Kim Jong-Un that he wanted the military to have nuclear weapons ready for use "at any time." Columnist and author Gordon Chang has studied China and North Korea up close for years and is author of "Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes on the World." He says the communist regime has reasons for doing what it's doing. "North Korea will continue to test short and intermediate-range missiles. They want to show their customers that these things work. Also they want to rattle the international community," said Chang. But he says the U.S. better be paying attention too. "What we're concerned about, however, is their testing of long-range missiles. They do have two launchers that can reach 48 states. Therefore, we've got to be concerned because eventually, if not now, they'll be able to put nuclear warheads on those missiles and therefore threaten America," said Chang. Chang says much of what we're seeing from North Korea in recent weeks is out of fear of the world cracking down on it's behavior. "We see a number of sanctions that have been imposed on North Korea, not only by the UN but unilaterally by South Korea, Japan and the United States. North Korea's got to be concerned that these are actually going to throttle its economy, especially the economy as it relates to the regime members," said Chang. Instead of Kim acting more responsibly to ease sanctions, he expects the dictator to antagonize the world even more. "Kim Jong-Un, the ruler, is going to continue to do these things, including making threats about incinerating Manhattan, which he did about four or five days ago, as he tries to change the status quo," said Chang. All of this leads back to the question the United States and the world have been trying to answer for decades: What is the most effective response? Chang says it should start with being serious about the new sanctions. "What we need to do is not only impose sanctions but, more important, to enforce them. There's a pretty heavy set of sanctions already in place before this year, when there was the nuke and missile test," said Chang. "If we actually started to enforce these sanctions, we might get the attention of China, especially if we impose sanctions on Chinese banks doing business with North Korea." He says getting China on the right side of the North Korea problem is pivotal. "We haven't been willing to do that for various reasons, neither this administration nor the prior one. We've got to look at North Korea in a very new light and understand we have very little time to solve this problem," said Chang. In addition to the ominous aspects of the North Korean threat, Chang says the United States should also be taking advantage of the dysfunction in Pyongyang. "This administration really has yet to come to grips with one fact and that is that inside the regime in North Korea, there seems to be a lot of intense infighting, especially Kim Jong-Un struggling with his four-star officers. He's killed at least two of them in the last 13 months and a third one has recently disappeared," said Chang. Chang implores leaders to see the challenges posed by North Korea with clarity. "We can talk all we want about what North Korea should do, but the issue is what North Korea is going to do. I don't think the policy community in Washington and in other capitals has really understood the dynamic, the very dangerous dynamic, in the Kim regime," said Chang. The Warmbier case presents a very different headache for U.S. officials, but it's one they've faced several times before. Chang says North Korea relishes having American citizens in custody to use as "bargaining chips." He believes Warmbier made a mistake even travelling to North Korea and should have known better than to pull down the poster, but the punishment grossly exceeds the offense. "I don't think he should have gone to North Korea. Americans should not do that. It is extraordinarily dangerous. Now that he has done it, we need to continue to put pressure on North Korea to release him because obviously this sentence is way out of bounds for what anyone would expect for something like this. This was a prank. It doesn't deserve 15 years hard labor," said Chang. Chang says the U.S. cannot reward North Korea by making concessions in exchange for Warmbier. "We should not reward the regime for taking Americans because all that does is give them incentive to take more. We sent President Carter, President Clinton, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence. These are big propaganda coups for North Korea, so they get something when we take Americans back who have been released from captivity," said Chang. He says a smarter analysis reveals the U.S. has more leverage in these situations than it realizes. "The regime has an incentive to let these people go anyway. They do not want to hold them. So we should play a little tougher with them on this because we need to stop this dynamic. It's great to get Warmbier out, but we've got to worry about the next Warmbier and the one after that," said Chang. |
| 'It Is A Drastic, Drastic, Drastic Mistake' |
| Wed, 23 Mar 2016 16:31:03 EST The father of Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz escaped the horrors of Cuba during the communist revolution there and says the U.S. is making a huge error by re-engaging the Castro regime without any concessions and that President Obama's actions there amount to treason. "It is a drastic, drastic, drastic mistake," said Rafael Cruz, who fled Cuba in 1957. Cruz is now an ordained minister and the author of "A Time for Action: Empowering the Faithful to Reclaim America." As a teenager, he intensely resisted the brutal rule of dictator Fulgencio Batista, and initially aligned himself with Fidel Castro, who led the revolution under false pretenses. "I was involved in the revolution with Castro, thinking that he was a freedom fighter. I was imprisoned and tortured (by the Batista regime) as a result. I came to the States in '57," said Cruz. He says he still didn't realize Castro's true agenda until returning shortly after the revolution. "In '59, when I went back, something didn't look right. They were starting to talk about how the rich were evil, how they oppressed the poor, about the need to redistribute the wealth. Soon thereafter, he called himself a Marxist-Leninist and began confiscating private property, freedom of religion (and) freedom of the press," said Cruz. "I felt like I was duped, like many of us kids. We were high school kids when we were involved and we didn't know any better," added Cruz. "Thinking about what Obama is doing nowadays, trying to extend the lifeline to Cuba is really a horrible situation." Cruz says the most alarming aspect of Obama's olive branch to the Castros is that the regime is not changing it's behavior one iota. He says the legacy is clear of Cuba pouring 25,000 troops into Angola in 1979 to assist in a communist revolution and to this day training the terrorists of FARC to destabilize Columbia. Even in the lead-up to Obama's initial announcement that he would pursue normal relations with Cuba, Cruz says Cuba was still fostering terrorism. "A year before Obama approached Cuba about normalizing relations, there was a merchant ship from North Korea leaving Cuba. It was stopped in Panama, sacks of sugar on top, thousands of tons of weapons in the bottom manufactured in Cuba and going to North Korea. Cuba is still exporting terrorism and insurrection throughout the world," said Cruz. Cruz also slammed Obama for severely damaging national security, both in restoring ties with the regime in Havana and for releasing as many detainees from Guantanamo Bay as possible. He didn't hold back in his characterization of the president's actions. "Today, Obama is bent on releasing all of those terrorists from Guantanamo Bay. Every time he releases some of those, they go join ISIS or join Al Qaeda to kill more Americans. That's treason," said Cruz. "Beyond that, he wants to empty Guantanamo Bay and I'm sure that after that, he will want to give that base back to Cuba," said Cruz. He explained his greatest fears if the U.S. relinquishes control of our naval base at Guantanamo Bay. "Think about this for a moment. Suppose Cuba decides to put that base up for bids, maybe to Russia, maybe to China, maybe to North Korea, maybe to Iran. This could be disastrous. This is a matter of national security," said Cruz. Cruz says he does not know exactly what his son's policy would be towards Cuba if elected president but assures voters a President Cruz would chart a very different course. President Obama believes lifting the trade embargo would be a win-win for the American and Cuban peoples given the greater demand for goods and the new jobs needed to meet it. But Cruz says there is no good news here for the Cuban people. "Raul Castro made a statement, saying that if an American company hired a Cuban worker, that salary had to be paid to the Cuban government. The Cuban government would retain 92 percent of that money and pay the worker the other eight percent. So all it would do is fatten the fat cats while they continue to exploit the Cuban people," said Cruz. Finally, Cruz is unimpressed by Obama's appeal for Cuba to embrace religious freedom. He says Obama's own actions and policies show the president believes in a freedom to worship, rather than the freedom of religion. He says there's a huge difference. "What he wants to promote is, 'You keep your religion inside the four walls (of the church), but the moment you step outside that church this is a secular society.' He wants to promote that the religion of America is secular humanism. That means there are no more values, no more absolutes," said Cruz. He says the consequences of that in society are devastating and we are already seeing them. "What we see as a result of that is a total decay on our moral values. We see chaos. We see immorality. We see a society that is crumbling, even a direct attack on the traditional family," said Cruz. "The natural consequence of that is the destruction of society as we know it." |
| 'They Let the Tiger Out of the Cage' |
| Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:24:33 EST ISIS is claiming responsibility for multiple bombings in Brussels, Belgium, that left dozens dead and hundreds injured and terrorism expert Richard Miniter says the attacks were a direct message to the United States and we need to be much more effective at fighting back. Miniter also panned President Obama's brief reaction to the bombings and critiqued the responses of the top Republican presidential candidates as well. Tuesday morning, bombings ripped through the terminal in Brussels, near the American Airlines ticket counter. Another device blew up in a crowded subway station during morning rush hour. Estimates of deaths and injuries vary, but all accounts have at least 28 dead and over 200 injured. In a column written shortly after the attack, Miniter says the specific location of the airport bombing was deliberate. "I don't think it was any accident that the bombers chose to blow up the American Airlines check-in desk. Not only that, of the three American Airlines check-in desks, they close the one closest to the Starbucks. They were trying to kill Americans, not just Europeans," said Miniter, who believes the attack was also a message to the U.S. government. "I think this attack in Brussels was also a message to the White House. 'If you step up air attacks and ground attacks against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, we will retaliate with terrorist attacks like this one and bring down your presidency, Mr. Obama,'" said Miniter. Miniter is also quite certain ISIS plans to do a lot more than kill Americans abroad. He says the San Bernardino terrorist attack in December taught the Islamic radicals a lot. "There are a lot of soft targets in America, not just public schools but also shopping malls and other unguarded, unpatrolled areas. They see a target-rich environment in the United States," said Miniter. President Obama offered a brief statement on the attacks prior to a high-profile address in Cuba. Obama denounced the attacks, pledged to stand with our Belgian friends, urged global unity against the terrorists and expressed his determination to bring the perpetrators to justice. Miniter found two glaring problems with Obama's remarks, starting with the call for unity. "Human nature divides people and that's an aspect of human nature that can't be changed. So the idea that the solution to terror is unity is a bizarre, theoretical, abstract way of dealing with a very real-world problem," said Miniter. He also didn't care for Obama's end game for dealing with those responsible for Tuesday's atrocities. "Obama says he wants to bring the perpetrators to justice, which suggests to me that he means a civilian trial either in the United States or in a European country. The terrorists would have defense attorneys and rights to cross-examine, rights to exclude evidence and all of the other usual criminal protections," said Miniter. Miniter says Obama's response needs to be much tougher. "It would be far stronger if the president had said that they would go to the ends of the earth and would kill or capture those responsible. Those are the words of George Bush. Those are not the words of Barack Obama. We've seen a different philosophical change from the Bush years to the Obama years and that it had a different result in the world," said Miniter. He says Obama has learned nothing from his predecessor. "As a result of the Obama foreign policy, we see Syria has collapsed. more than three million people have fled. Human rights abuses have occurred. ISIS has risen from a small faction of Al Qaeda in Iraq to a deadly global force. The world has become much more dangerous for Americans under the Obama approach," said Miniter. Miniter says Bush was successful in stopping terrorist attacks from 2002-2008 because of a a robust intelligence-sharing network of 107 nations that kept track of terrorists no matter where they fled. He says there needs to be a greater effort to target and kill ISIS leaders through missile strikes. And he says the Bush team aggressively targeted bank accounts and even whole banks to dry up terrorist resources. "What the Obama people have to do is go back to the Bush playbook. I know they got elected saying how wrong Bush was, but Bush was so successful that the issue of terrorism was a bore. Now it's a live issue and that's because they threw away the playbook and let the tiger out of the cage," said Miniter. As for the current presidential candidates, Donald Trump is calling for a pause to immigration until the terrorism threat is under control. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, argues that altering immigration policy is not who we are as a people. Miniter says the U.S. has paused immigration in the past, but he's quick to add that shutting things down won't be a cure-all. "The whole system needs to be tightened up and reformed. The idea that you can just turn a switch tomorrow and make it stop? It's a much bigger problem than that, unfortunately," said Miniter. He also says there are many loopholes in other programs such as student visas, where the federal government often doesn't even check if an applicant graduated from high school. Miniter says students and tourists alike often overstay their visas as well. Trump is also locked in a debate with GOP rival Ted Cruz over the proper U.S. role in NATO. Trump believes the U.S. should step back and stop footing the bill for the security of the western world. Cruz says U.S. leadership is more vital than ever in NATO. Miniter says Trump is right in that we are paying two-thirds of security operations for all of NATO. As a result, he says the militaries of European nations are a "joke" with German coast guard vessels having to share radios because there aren't enough and the UK sporting only one aircraft carrier, unless you count the one that can only carry helicopters. In the end, he sees the Cruz approach as better. "Trump is certainly right that we pay far too much for an alliance that doesn't give us a whole lot. On the other hand, I think Cruz has the smarter of the two approaches," said Miniter. "Pulling out suddenly would not accomplish anything except terrorize the Europeans and drive them into the arms of Russia. That would be very unwise to turn western Europe over to Russia." Miniter does think the U.S. could leverage it's standing as the muscle for NATO to demand stricter immigration policies and other measure to mitigate the radical Islamic threat to the west. |
| 'Nothing Has Changed' |
| Mon, 21 Mar 2016 15:49:46 EST President Obama visited Cuba with much pomp and fanfare over the past two days, but critics say Obama's efforts to thaw nearly six decades of severed ties with the communist regime there gives cover to the brutal repression of political dissidents and rewards the Castro brothers for doing nothing to clean up its human rights record. On Sunday, Obama touched in Havana, becoming the first sitting U.S. president to visit Cuba since 1928. On Monday, Obama drew controversy by standing at attention in Revolution Square in front of a giant mural of murderous Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara. He later held a joint press conference with Cuban dictator Raul Castro, who blasted the U.S. for its record on race and poverty, demanded the return of the Guantanamo Bay naval base and insisted Cuba held no political prisoners. Obama has asserted for months that normalizing relations with Cuba is a better way to effect human rights changes, rather than continuing a policy of isolation. But one of the leading voices against communism says Obama is simply giving cover to the Castros. "Nothing has changed since Fidel Castro came to power with Raul almost 60 years ago now," said Lee Edwards, chairman of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation and a distingushed fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Edwards says the facts on the Castro regime are clear and brutal. "We've had 100,000 Cubans that have been arrested and imprisoned in the most terrible of conditions. Some 20,000 have been executed, according to the "Black Book of Communism," said Edwards. Edwards says those numbers often get downplayed by the left under the assumption that the vast majority of those atrocities were conducted during and shortly after the revolution in the late 1950's. He says that's simply not true. "Since recognition of last year, 8,000 Cubans have been detained for political reasons. Just in January of this year, 1,474 were detained for political reasons. So nothing has changed," said Edwards. The New York Times confirms the increase in political detentions, noting more than a thousand arrests each in January February and over 500 in the first half of this month. Other reporters witnessed the arrest of dissidents in advance of Obama's arrival Sunday. The photo of Obama and his delegation standing in attention with the mural of Che Guevara behind them is stirring fierce reaction among his critics. Edwards says Guevara may be a cult hero among some, but his true record is nothing more than being Fidel Castro's personal hit man. "In point of fact, he was a cold-blooded murderer and was Fidel Castro's personally appointed executioner. He would just say, 'Take care of him, Che.' And Che would go out and shoot him," said Edwards. Monday's press conference also worried Edwards, as a result of Obama being very careful not to offend his host while Castro offered a stream of criticisms against the U.S. "Obviously, the president has chosen a policy of accommodation and detente, rather than a policy of peace through strength, which is what Ronald Reagan initiated and successfully implemented during the Cold War," said Edwards. "With ideological opponents like the Castro brothers, you've got to be firm and strong and deal from strength." He says any instinct Obama may have to see the Castros as honest brokers is a huge mistake. "As an old, expert anti-communist used to say, 'You can trust the communists to be communists.' That is to say that they will lie and they will cheat and they will steal if you let them do so," said Edwards. Edwards also believes this visit and acknowledgement of the Castro regime will have other chilling effects, starting with the Cuban dissidents. "They must be distraught. The must be discouraged. Fifty of them were arrested today prior to to meeting," said Edwards. He also says other communist and authoritarian leaders see Obama's actions as their green light for mischief. "They're saying, 'Ah, this is just what we hoped and expected. If we take the strong position then the Americans will kowtow.' If I were China right now, I'd be saying, 'What can I do to test Americans in the South China Sea,'" said Edwards. And he says China is not alone. "If I'm (Russian President Vladimir) Putin I'm saying, 'What can I do to test the resolve of the U.S. in places like the Baltic countries and Poland,'" said Edwards. "I'm sure they must really be toasting each other and toasting Raul for being able to show up the United States." But why would Obama continue to honor his side of the effort to normalize relations if Cuba is making no progress on its human rights record. Edwards believes it's part gamble and part ego. "They're just hoping and praying and maybe they've go tone eye on Mr. Obama's legacy as well, thinking things are going to get better," said Edwards, who says that's a prescription for failure. "As (George) Santayana said, 'If you don't study the past, you're condemned to repeat it. Here we are, not realizing that we're dealing not with a political party or with a couple of politicians down there. We're dealing with communists. We're dealing with Marxist Leninists, who have an ideology that motivates all of their actions. Unless you understand that and begin with that, you're not going to be able to make any progress," said Edwards. The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is committed to making all Americans aware of what the spread of communism brings: misery and death on a grand scale. "People do not know that nearly 100 million people - men, woman and children - died in the twentieth century and they're still dying in places like North Korea and Vietnam as a result of standing up against communism. That record must be maintained. Those people must be remembered. They must not be forgotten. We intend to make certain that they're not," said Edwards. |
| Dither, Delay and Cover-Up: The Obama Human Rights Record |
| Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:22:12 EST One of the top human rights advocates in Congress is applauding the Secretary of State John Kerry for labeling ISIS atrocities as genocide, but he says the designation should have come much sooner and there is evidence the Obama administration is deliberately concealing the horrific human rights records of other nations in order to advance other priorities. This week, the House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution declaring ISIS guilty of genocide. Kerry followed on Thursday by delivering the genocide verdict that some have been begging for for years. "I and others have been asking for almost three years that such a designation be made. It was very clear right from the start. I had a hearing back in 2013 and made it clear that Christians especially are being targeted for forced conversion. If they don't convert to Islam they are killed, raped, beheaded and have other atrocities committed upon them," said Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., a top member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and chairman of its human rights subcommittee. He says the genocide has been obvious a long time. "It absolutely fits the genocide convention definition. What was the delay?" asked Smith. Smith is now demanding to know what the administration plans to do about the genocide. But he worries that the existing Obama track record on human rights abuses elsewhere around the world is proof that it's just not a high priority. Next week, Smith will hold hearings into allegations the U.S. is not only failing to act against human rights violators but is actually helping them cover up their deeds. "I have a big hearing next Tuesday on how Obama has falsified the analysis of fourteen countries when it comes to human rights and this terrible modern-day slavery of sex and labor trafficking in order to curry favor with those countries," said Smith, listing China, India, Oman, Cuba and Malaysia as examples. He says it may well get even more disturbing. "The Reuters wire service Friday, in an incisive investigative report, showed that they did it deliberately in order to achieve some other goal totally unconnected to just speaking truth to power about their despicable human rights records," said Smith. It's that track record that has Smith doubtful that Obama will do much of anything to follow up on the ISIS genocide declaration. "Fast forward to what's happening right now, delay is denial again and I'm very, very concerned they're likely to dither and not do something that would have a meaningful impact," said Smith. Specifically, Smith is asking the U.S. to lead an effort to create a special war crimes tribunal through the United Nations Security Council. He says such tribunals have proven most effective in war-torn places like Rwanda, Sierra Leone and the former Yugoslavia. "We need to build a pressure to say no more impunity (for ISIS perpetrators) and we need to hold these people to account," said Smith. "This doesn't guarantee an end to the war or anything like that, but it brings accountability to the process. It starts putting people behind bars, hopefully for the rest of their lives," said Smith. Smith firmly believes that establishing tribunals would not only bring punishments to those apprehended but also act as a deterrent for other ISIS terrorists. "What has happened with those tribunals especially is that individuals never thought they would be caught. They thought they could act with impunity. This gives us the opportunity to be turning lower level people on bigger fish who are committing these horrific crimes," said Smith. He says David Crane, the lead prosecutor at the Sierra Leone tribunals, is already collecting evidence of which ISIS members are responsible for specific acts. Smith says the U.S. should steer far and wide of leaving this matter in the hands of the International Criminal Court. "Crane gave expert insights and testimony about how flexible, aggressive and how capable these ad hoc regional tribunals are. The International Criminal Court, which has been up and running for 14 years, has two convictions. The three regional courts have had well over a hundred convictions," said Smith. |
| 'It's Gonna Be '68 on Steroids' |
| Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:20:11 EST Longtime pollster and strategist Pat Caddell says we may not only be headed towards a contentious Republican convention but that fed up voters in both parties and beyond are so furious we may soon see a dramatic and permanent shift in the political landscape. "As I predicted a year ago, I said this was going to be 1968 on steroids in terms of surprises, hopefully not the deaths. And I think it's lived up to that," said Caddell, who was one of the young advisers that helped propel Jimmy Carter to an unlikely victory in 1976. Despite firmly remaining a Democrat, Caddell has also been a withering critic of his own party, including President Obama and Hillary Clinton. The rise of Donald Trump to clear front-runner status in the GOP field is the biggest surprise in the 2016 campaign, but Caddell says it's symptomatic of something even bigger. "We are entering a new political paradigm and the political class and the media just don't understand or recognize it," said Caddell. "There may be a third party coming, a major one before this is over." Caddell's analysis comes as a group of grassroots conservative met Thursday to discuss how to prevent Trump from securing the Republican nomination, either at the ballot box or at a contested convention. Trump has said that if he has a commanding lead in delegates, even if he doesn't have the majority, there should be no question he should be the nominee. He predicted "riots" if he were denied While Caddell didn't address the potential for chaos, he largely agrees with Trump's analysis. "I think if they try to have a convention where they try to take the nomination away from a clear front-runner, it will blow the Republican Party up," said Caddell. But what is meant by a clear front-runner? Trump used a 600-700 delegate lead as a an example when warning the GOP against denying him the nomination, but how close does it need to be for Caddell to consider Ted Cruz a viable option at a contested convention? "They would need to be fairly close to him," said Caddell, declining to give a specific margin. While Caddell believes choosing a candidate who does not lead the delegate race would stir major controversy, he is especially appalled at the suggestion of the GOP choosing a non-candidate as a consensus choice. Earlier this week, former House Speaker John Boehner said current Speaker Paul Ryan would be a good nominee if no one could win a majority of delegates. "The notion I most think is ridiculous is somehow you're going to take the nomination away and give it to someone who didn't run this year," said Caddell. "The notion you're going to use the fact a lot of delegates are chosen by state committees and whatever, to change the rules and have someone parachute into this race is an insanity." He says there is no doubt that Trump has the political establishment very concerned. "A lot of the opposition to Trump is that he is a standing threat to the old order, to the corrupt arrangements and other things. That is at the heart of the opposition here," said Caddell, who says while Trump is a larger-than-life personality, it's the voters who are perpetuating this movement. "Donald Trump hasn't created this situation. The voters have created this situation. They created it because they are angry at the broad establishment, as is most of the country," said Caddell. The establishment is certainly not friendly towards Trump, but many grassroots conservatives recoil from him as well, due to what they consider his sudden conversion on a host of core issues and what they consider a coarse and crass personality. Caddell says neither group opposed to Trump has really figured out why he's so popular. "They don't understand what he is motivating and what there is in the country. That's why I think they've been losing," said Caddell. "He speaks to the things they're concerned about: a country in decline, the trade deals," said Caddell, who says Trump's repeated assertions that he is beholden to no special interests is extremely effective right now. But while the GOP is in turmoil, Caddell says his fellow Democrats aren't faring much better. "This is a party that's playing with it's own version of suicide. They have a candidate (Hillary Clinton) who may well be knocked out of this race by her legal problems. If not, they're going to haunt her and they're only the beginning of the problems she's got," said Caddell. Clinton beats Trump in most head-to-head polls and both have immense unfavorable ratings. However, Caddell says Democrats should not expect to coast to victory if Trump is in fact the nominee. "She keeps changing her positions. She looks desperate," he said. "I don't think they're in for a treat either. Democrats have got to ask themselves, 'Why are you nominating somebody with this kind of baggage?'" |
| 'A Standard Liberal of High Ability' |
| Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:34:15 EST President Obama nominated appeals court judge Merrick B. Garland to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, and a conservative legal expert says Garland is about as good of a a choice as Republicans could hope for but should still decline to consider any nominee until after the November elections. Wednesday morning, Obama introduced Garland as his nominee in a Rose Garden ceremony. The 63-yearold Garland is the chief judge on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Obama's choice caught many people by surprise. "I think it's deeply political," said Ethics and Public Policy Center President Ed Whelan, who clerked for Scalia and later held prominent posts on Capitol Hill and in the Justice Department. "The White House, if it had its druthers, if it had a Senate Democratic majority, would have gone with someone who is much more aggressively left-wing to excite the base among other things," said Whelan. Garland was believed to be on Obama's short list in 2010, when the president ultimately nominated Elena Kagan to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens. While not at all urging Senate action, Whelan says Garland does have some strong qualities. "At the risk of engaging in the soft bigotry of low expectations, I do think that Judge Garland is about the best one could hope for from this president. That doesn't mean that Republicans should act at all, much less confirm," he said. "Merrick Garland is a remarkably intelligent, very decent man. He deserves to be treated with respect in the process," said Whelan. "I think in all respects he comes across as a very standard liberal, again one of very high ability." Democrats and the mainstream media instantly labeled Garland a moderate who is unquestionably qualified for the high court. Observers say his opinions on the appeal court show he is generally tough on criminals and defers frequently to police and to the executive branch on matters of expanded power. Gun rights advocates are not at all happy with the idea of Garland on the Supreme Court. In 2007, a three-judge panel of the D.C court of appeals voted to overturn the ban on handguns in the District of Columbia. Garland subsequently voted to send the case to the full appeals court. In a statement, Gun Owners of America Executive Director Erich Pratt says that vote alone should disqualify Garland. "He supported the DC gun ban in 2007, voting to reconsider the Heller case after a three judge panel had ruled against the ban. 1cHence, we don 19t have to speculate as to how Garland would vote on Heller if confirmed to the Supreme Court. He 19s already voted against Heller once before, thereby showing he 19d effectively rip the Second Amendment from the Constitution," said Pratt. While experts debate Garland's record in nearly two decades on the appeals court, Whelan says that paper trail is largely irrelevant. "The particular cases that come up before any lower court, with Supreme Court precedent guiding them, are not going to provide the clearest indication of anything really. The New York Times has an interesting graphic today, predicting that Merrick Garland would end up slightly to the left of Elena Kagan and would consolidate a five-justice liberal majority to make the court more liberal than it's been in 50 years," said Whelan. Bottom line, says Whelan, beware of anyone labeled a moderate. "Anyone who is presented as a moderate, as Ruth Bader Ginsberg was back in 1993, ends up becoming a solid member of a liberal majority. I see nothing in Judge Garland's record that would make me think it would be any different with him," said Whelan. But all assessment of Garland's record for the next seven-and-a-half months is sheer academics for Whelan. He says Republican senators are taking exactly the right approach. "I think this is a seat that needs to remain vacant through the election. I think Senate Republicans have drawn entirely the right line. If the American people choose to ratify the direction in which Merrick Garland would take the court, they have the opportunity to do that in November. The Senate could act on his nomination afterwards if it chose to," said Whelan. On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, reaffirmed that their refusal to consider the nomination had nothing to do with the person chosen by Obama but was simply a matter of giving Americans a voice on this critical issue through the ballot box. A few GOP senators struck a different tone, with Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., saying he is ready to give the nomination his consideration. A handful of other Republicans said they would be willing to meet with Garland. Whelan is not worried about Republicans keeping a united front. "I think it will be difficult to keep together. Meeting with a judge is a trivial step for an individual senator to take. I don't think that's going to reflect any cracking of the coalition," said Whelan. One unexpected wrinkle in the plans of Senate Republicans wanting to wait for a president of their own party to win the White House is the emergence of Donald Trump as the most likely nominee at this point. Whelan says that shouldn't alter GOP strategy at all. "I have no particular confidence that Donald Trump would make strong nominations to the Supreme Court. But the chance that he would support a conservative is far higher than the chance that President Obama or a President Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would," said Whelan. "There's no significant downside to letting this play out," he added. |
| 'It Is the Exception When He Keeps His Word' |
| Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:29:50 EST Republicans are fuming after President Obama reversed his position on offshore oil and gas exploration and will now refuse to allow the sale of leases to energy companies to work off the Atlantic coast from Florida to Virginia. Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, is a member of the House Natural Resources Committee. He says this is par fro the course from President Obama. "Once again, he has shown that it is the exception when he keeps his word, rather than the rule," said Gohmert, who offered examples of a longstanding pattern of broken Obama promises. 'If you like your insurance you can keep it. If you like your doctor you can keep it. For me, marriage is between a man and a woman.'" Gohmert also cited a famous movie to scold anyone who thought Obama would keep his word on allowing offshore drilling. "I'm constantly reminded of that scene in 'Animal House,' where the older fraternity brother puts his arm around Flounder after they've just demolished his brother's car. He basically says, 'Hey, you messed up. You trusted us,'" said Gohmert. "President Obama has just good-naturedly said, 'Oh, you actually thought I was going to keep that promise and let you drill out there because that would make us energy independent. You fools. Don't you realize I just gave Iran a hundred billion dollars. Do you think I'm really going to be serious about becoming energy independent?'" said Gohmert. Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana, is the former chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. He says the administration is deliberately trying to deny revenue to the states. 1cKeeping the Atlantic off-limits basically establishes a second moratorium, which has been an objective of the Obama administration for years now, despite the significant economic contributions of the oil and gas industry, 1d said Vitter in a statement to us. "I will continue fighting the Obama administration 19s anti-energy and anti-jobs agenda. 1d While energy companies are crying foul in the wake of the Obama policy reversal, environmental groups are rejoicing because they see offshore oil and gas drilling as a threat to the environment both in general and in the event of a disaster like the 2010 Deepwater Horizon episode in the Gulf of Mexico. Gohmert says ecological fears over offshore exploration have persisted for years and his state is proof those concerns are unwarranted. "I remember when I was people said, 'No, if you let them drill off the coast, it'll kill off all the fishing,'" said Gohmert. "They started drilling and nowadays, most everybody on the coast knows that the drilling platforms have been a haven and have been a real boon to fishing," said Gohmert. The congressman says fish and other aquatic life enjoy the drilling rigs so much, old platforms are being converted into artificial reefs. Beyond that, he says there wouldn't be any eyesores at the beaches since the policy on the Atlantic coast was for all exploration to occur at least 50 miles away from shore. Vitter says the Obama policy actually hurts environmental efforts. He sponsors legislation that would allow states to gain more revenue from drilling and using the money to preserve the environment. "We in Louisiana put our offshore oil revenue directly into coastal restoration, which is absolutely vital since we 19re losing the size of a football field of land every hour," said Vitter. So what can proponents of offshore drilling do? Gohmert says to go after the money. "We have the power of the purse to force him to do what he should do," said Gohmert. "The only way we hold his feet to the fire is to get both houses that will protect our roles under the Constitution." Gohmert says lawmakers need to target whatever funding Obama care about most, from appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency to taxpayer payments for Obama's vacations and golf outings. He believes House Republicans have the votes to force Obama's hand, but he says Senate GOP leaders need to be ready for a fight. "It's going to take Republican leaders in the Senate to be a leader and say, 'I'm reclaiming majority leader status that I've had for over a year. I just haven't used it. We're going to use it now and we're going to stop the president from violating the law,'" said Gohmert. |
| 'The War on Cops' |
| Mon, 14 Mar 2016 16:30:09 EST Political protests leading to violence against police and the murder of yet another officer show violence against law enforcement reaching a fevered pitch, and Manhattan Institute expert Heather MacDonald says politicians and the media are ignoring the statistics and giving credence for increased hatred against the men and women in blue. On Friday, protesters forced the cancellation of a Donald Trump rally at the University of Illinois-Chicago and then spilled into the streets where they confronted police, resulting in injury to two officers. Sunday, a young police officer was ambushed and murdered in Prince George's County, Maryland. MacDonald, who is author of "The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe," says we are not seeing some statistical anomaly. She says we're in the midst of a troubling cultural slide when it comes to respect for those in authority. "Cops are certainly seeing greater hostility growing towards them. When you have not just President Obama but now the two Democratic contenders for the presidency routinely saying that cops think that black lives are cheap and we have a racist criminal justice system, what cops are seeing on the streets is more resistance to their lawful authority," said MacDonald. She says routine stops are now fraught with danger in many parts of the country. "It's a real breakdown of law and order in the inner city now. When cops go to make an arrest, they find themselves routinely surrounded by people, cursing at them, throwing things at them, throwing diapers, throwing ice-hardened bottles, brick," said MacDonald. "It's not surprising that that kind of hostility is going to result sometimes in even more lethal use of force," said MacDonald. She adds such behavior is only going to result in more tragedy. "The resistance to arrest that is happening now at such high levels and such dangerous levels in the inner city is wrong and it's going to lead to an escalation of force on the part of the officers and possibly putting innocent bystanders' lives at risk," said MacDonald. In addition to slamming politicians for fanning the impression that police are hostile to people of color, MacDonald says the media are also doing the public a major disservice. "There's always a mysterious jump between public rhetoric and an act to that degree of heinousness," said MacDonald, in reference to the Maryland murder of 28-year-old officer Jacai Colson. "We have a media culture now that actively encourages the Black Lives Matter movement, which is based on complete lies about shootings. The media buy into the narrative about this being a fundamentally racist society and police sort of as the vanguard of that racism," she added. MacDonald says the facts shatter the narrative, including the notion that police are killing black people at alarming rates. "Police officers are two-and-a-half times more likely to be killed by a black person than a black male is to be killed by a police officer," said MacDonald. She says additional research shows whites and Hispanics are more likely to be killed by police than blacks. Her data show 12 percent of murders among whites and Hispanics come from police. That number is four percent among black homicides, which are overwhelming committed by other black civilians. MacDonald says the current or the next president could accomplish a great deal of healing by helping all Americans see the truth. She says for now, the political left sees an advantage in perpetuating the narrative and inciting violence at places like Trump rallies. "I think there's a desire to try to incite violence at these rallies," said MacDonald. |
| Bolton Urges Greater Focus on Security, Slams Hillary and Sanders |
| Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:26:07 EST Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton says there needs to be much for focus on national security issues by Republican presidential candidates to convince voters they are ready to be commander-in-chief and would be far better than Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Virtually all of the Democratic debates have focused heavily on domestic issues, with the exception of the event that came just one day after the November terrorist attacks in Paris. Republicans had one debate devoted to national security, but most of the other encounters have also spent less time on foreign policy. Bolton says that's a disservice to voters. "There still hasn't been enough discussion of the issue. There has been intermittently. I think consideration of terrorism, how to deal with ISIS and the expanding threat of radical Islam (has been discussed at length)," said Bolton. "I don't really consider these debates. I consider them serial press conferences," he added, in reference to the brief time given to answer questions and contrast positions. He says the media should be doing a better job. "The moderators should be asking more questions about it because the most important job of the president is to keep the country safe internationally. We need to hear what the various candidates' views are," said Bolton. Bolton says Republicans could build a big advantage by discussing national security issues more because Democrats are largely ignoring them. "The people are going to be deprived of a real opportunity to judge among the candidates. That's why I have long argued that the Republican Party is, of the two parties, it's the only one that's the party of national security. If there's no debate in the Republican Party, there's not going to be a debate at all. I think that's very dangerous for the country," said Bolton. While the position of the candidates is important, Bolton believes voters can get an important glimpse into how candidates approach a national security crisis by hearing them discuss issues now. "It's not just their views on what China's doing in the South China Sea that threatens us or what Russia's doing in eastern Europe that threatens us. It's how people think about these issues. The next president is going to face threats and challenges that we can't even predict at the moment," said Bolton. "It's critical people have a way of judging their character, their integrity and their ability to deal with problems," said Bolton. On top of that, Bolton stresses there are many critical issues facing the next president in addition to the fight against radical Islamic terrorism. "Terrorism is the most imminent threat we face. But there are larger strategic threats from China in East Asia, from Russia in East Europe and others in this hemisphere, the Castro brothers and the mistakes President Obama has made opening relations with them, possibly giving the Guantanamo naval facility back to Cuba. There's a long list," he said. In Thursday's debate, the biggest international flashpoint was over how the president should approach the Middle East peace process. Donald Trump said he is very pro-Israel but would approach talks in an impartial way. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio say they would stand with Israel and John Kasich believes the peace process is largely a waste of time right now. Bolton says the U.S. must stand with Israel or else no one else will, although he says given all the other problems in the Middle East, he does not expect the next president to address the Israeli-Palestinian question anytime soon. Bolton briefly flirted a 2016 bid of his own in order to keep the focus on foreign policy. Instead he says he is in communication with multiple candidates and provides feedback on their ideas for a wide range of issues. He is not endorsing anyone at this time, but Bolton is perfectly willing to sound the alarm as to why Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders should not be commander-in-chief. When it comes to Clinton, he says her entire at the State Department is a red flag to the nation, especially after the disastrous response in Benghazi. "It's just a dereliction of duty, really, to see your people in danger, not just in Libya but potentially all around the Middle East, and to go home. It sends a signal within the bureaucracy that the secretary doesn't care enough to stay at her desk, late at night if need be, until all Americans are accounted for," said Bolton. He also says Hillary's handling of State Department email on an unsecured, private server also depicts a troubling lack of judgment. In Wednesday's Democratic debate, Bernie Sanders came under fire for comments he made in 1985, suggesting the Cuban people weren't all that upset with the Castro regime. When asked to clarify his current position, Sanders lamented that Cuba remains an authoritarian state but also lauded it's work in education and health care. Bolton was horrified. "It shows what an astoundingly left-wing radical this man still is at an age when common sense normally begins to descend on people," said Bolton, while slamming the Obama administration for getting nothing in exchange for opening diplomatic relations with Cuba. |
| What Now After Alabama Defies Supremes on Marriage? |
| Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:09:22 EST The Alabama Supreme Court upheld an earlier decision banning state officials from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples last week, and while the legal road is far from over for traditional marriage supporters, they believe the facts of the case and the Constitution are on their side. The fight stems from early 2015, when Alabama justices ruled early in 2015 that probate judges should not obey federal court orders striking down the state's laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2015 that the Constitution contains the right to same-sex marriage, offices of probate judges began issuing licenses again. That policy was challenged by Liberty Counsel, leading to the most recent ruling on March 3. "They put their stamp of approval on what they had previously done. The net result is they are reaffirming that marriage in Alabama is the union of a man and a woman and that the probate judges are barred from issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples. That is the net result and that is a huge victory," said Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver. But it's not the end of the fight. Staver believes the actions of probate judges on marriage licenses will thrust the issue back into the courts one way or another. "One option is that the probate judges will not issue the same-sex marriage licenses. They might be sued to try to get them to comply to issue the license," said Staver. "On the other hand, there are other probate judges who are issuing the licenses. they might be sued because they are in contempt of the Alabama Supreme Court opinion." Staver elaborated on the latter issue and why refusing the Alabama Supreme Court decision could mean big trouble for probate judges in the state. "They are governed by the Alabama Supreme Court, in particular the chief justice as the chief administrative officer of the judiciary. And they have to abide by what the supreme court says. If they do not, they can be found in contempt of court. They can even be removed from office," said Staver. But does the Alabama Supreme Court have a chance of winning this fight in the long term given the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last year? Staver believes it can. First, he says the flimsy rationale for the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges is critical. "The Supreme Court's 5-4 opinion is just that. It's an opinion and it doesn't represent the rule of law. It's illegitimate. It's not founded in the Constitution or in any of the court's precedents. And it is simply contrary to millennia of human history," said Staver. But he also argues Obergefell only applies to a few states since the court ruled on a case coming from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which covers Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. "It doesn't apply to Alabama even if in fact it was the rule of law because it only applies to the parties in that particular case. None of the people in Alabama, none of the probate judges were parties of that U.S. Supreme Court decision," said Staver. Does this mean U.S. Supreme Court decisions do not have to be followed if opponents believe there is no constitutional basis for the decision? Will there be an endless ping pong of cases between the state and federal systems when states decide to defy a court ruling? Staver says the precedent is still for U.S. Supreme Court decisions to be followed but there are exceptions and we see them in history, including the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, in which the high court upheld the Fugitive Slave Act, denying equal rights for black citizens. "That case came out of Wisconsin. When it went back to Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Supreme Court said, 'We're not going to abide by that. We refuse to implement that rule.' They continued to insist they would not follow the U.S. Supreme Court," said Staver. "To this day, they pride themselves that they were on the right side of the Constitution," he added. Staver says presidents have ignored Supreme Court decisions too. "Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln (and) Andrew Jackson resisted unlawful, illegitimate legal actions. In the case of Abraham Lincoln, he famously advocated that the Dred Scott decision was illegitimate and did not represent the rule of law," said Staver. He says the bottom line is no branch of the federal government is all-powerful, including the Supreme Court. "The Supreme Court has gotten way beyond its original authority, way beyond the Constitution. It doesn't have unlimited power any more than the president or the Congress. It has certain prescribed powers," said Staver. "When they walk outside of those powers, outside of that authority, they are on their own. We cannot and should not, because to do so is literally unconstitutional. It's lawless and it undermines the very republic that we love," said Staver. He says an overreaching, activist judiciary is one of the greatest threats facing the United States. "What we have right now is a cancer, a cancer that will eat up the republic, a cancer that will undermine our freedom, a cancer that replaces 'We the People' with five individuals who are unelected at the Supreme Court," said Staver. "We need to excise out the cancer. The judiciary, starting with the U.S. Supreme Court, has become the cancer of our basic liberties. We need to bring it back into check." |
| 'We're Not Going to Do Anything' |
| Wed, 9 Mar 2016 16:29:50 EST Vice President Joe Biden told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the United States "will act" if Iran's test firing of ballistic missiles is proven to violate the terms of the nuclear agreement the U.S. and five other nations struck with Iran last year, but a congressional leader on the issue says we shouldn't hold out breath. On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that Iran's Revolutionary Guard test-fired multiple missiles. Later reports indicated the missiles contained a message written in Hebrew. "Israel should be wiped off the Earth" was the purported message. Vice President Joe Biden was in Israel at the time. At a joint press conference Biden stressed America's commitment to Israel's security and said the U.S. will act if Iran's activities did in fact breach the nuclear agreement. 1cAll their conventional activity outside the deal, which is still beyond the deal, we will and are attempting to act wherever we can find it, 1d said Biden. Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, is chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade. He suspects Biden's vow is just empty rhetoric. "We're not going to do anything," said Poe, in reference to the Obama administration. Biden's wording about the nuclear agreement could be telling, because Poe says Iran's missile tests didn't violate that deal. "The nuclear agreement with Iran does not include the testing or not testing of missiles. There's a UN resolution prohibiting Iran from testing intercontinental ballistic missiles, but it is not part of the Iranian deal," said Poe. So while Iran is violating a United Nations Security Council resolution, Poe suspects the most we'll see is ineffective bluster. "What is the UN going to do? They're not going to do anything," said Poe. "We should have the capability, and we do, to interpose our own unilateral sanctions against the ballistic missile testing. But we've backed away from the sanctions. I don't see anything happening on this at all," said Poe. He says the Obama administration was tacitly admitting in the nuclear agreement, that Iran would ultimately end up with the very weapons we don't want them to have. "We as a country have made it our policy to allow them to get nuclear weapons within ten years from the deal. Exactly where they are right now I cannot say," said Poe. However, the congressman stresses that Americans need to see these missile tests as an overt step towards developing and deploying nuclear weapons. "The ayatollah has made it clear that he wants to develop nuclear weapons and he needs a delivery system. That system is intercontinental ballistic missiles," said Poe. What remains unclear about the recent tests is exactly what type of missiles these were. "The question is are they capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. We don't know that they are or are not," said Poe. It is already known that Iran has missiles with a 1,400-mile range. Poe says that's enough to imperil many of our friends. "I do believe that their development is of course to make those missiles not only go to Israel but to go to western Europe," said Poe, who reminds Americans that we are Tehran's ultimate target. "It's always been the foreign policy of the ayatollah and of Iran to eliminate Israel and also to eliminate the United States. That policy has never changed. It hasn't changed during the nuclear agreement. I think people in Washington, the administration especially, need to understand that the goal of the ayatollah is to destroy us and Israel," said Poe. Poe also outlined what he thinks the U.S. response ought to be. "We have the authority and the ability to impose greater sanctions through the Treasury Department on the money and the companies that are actually working to develop these intercontinental ballistic missiles," said Poe. "Immediately, the (UN) security council should impose greater sanctions to prevent them from developing the intercontinental ballistic missiles," he added. "Rather than just talking about it and telling them we don't like what they're doing, we should actually do something. They're not going to stop unless they're forced to stop." Poe says Congress may act on its own accord but members realize the odds are stacked against them in actually getting the sanctions implemented. "Congress should weigh in on the sanctions. We would have to pass legislation and get the president to sign it. There lies the rub," said Poe. |
| 'It's Chamberlain All Over Again' |
| Tue, 8 Mar 2016 16:24:44 EST Iran has recently test-fired ballistic missiles and is treating last year's nuclear deal as a joke, and retired U.S. Navy Captain Chuck Nash says the Obama administration simply doesn't care anymore. Within the past two days, new revelations about Iran's actions and the contents of the nuclear agreement have national security experts howling mad. On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that Iran had test-fired multiple ballistic missiles. While such missiles have little use except to carry warheads, the testing is permitted under the deal hammered out between western nations and Iran last summer. That news follows on the heels of Monday's revelations that the deal prohibits the United Nations' nuclear inspectors from publicly announcing any violations Iran has committed. That admission from the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, followed protests that it's February reports on Iran's activities offered little transparency. Captain Nash is an Iran expert. While not surprised at the apparent gaping loopholes in the enforcement mechanism of the nuclear deal, Nash says it is further proof that the agreement doesn't make anyone safer. "The nuclear deal was only a deal for Iran. It was not a deal for any of the other participants," said Nash, in reference to the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany, which all signed on to the agreement. The group is often referred to as the P5 Plus One. "Our verbiage and everything from that deal going forward is just a big joke. If it weren't so dangerous, it would be funny. We were just absolutely skunked. We went into it with the intention of getting a deal just to get a deal. Now we're living with the fruits of that," said Nash. Nash says the actions of Iran since the deal are also concrete evidence that it knows it fleeced the world at the negotiating table because everything we've seen from Iran shows that it's agenda is moving ahead at full speed. "They have clearly not been humbled. They have won. They held out and they got the P5 Plus One to give them exactly what they wanted to placate the politicians in the West so they could go back to their constituents and say peace is at hand," said Nash. "It;s Chamberlain all over again," said Nash, alluding to then-British Prime Minister assuring his people Europe would be at peace after surrendering the Sudetenland to Adolf Hitler at talks in Munich in 1938. Hitler invaded Poland the next year. Not only has Iran been brazen in its missile testing, it also played an aggressive role in the detention of U.S. Navy personnel in January, forcing Americans to their knees at gunpoint and forcing one of the sailors to make a statement admitting blame for the incident. That incensed Nash. "The way you do that is you hail or contact the other vessel and you let them know they are entering waters. Then you make sure that they stay out. What they did to our sailors was they treated them as if they were bringing in a boatload of cocaine into Key West," said Nash. Nash is borderline speechless that the U.S. agreed to prevent the IAEA from publicly revealing any Iranian nuclear violations, especially after the Obama administration insisted that would not be the case. "You can't make this stuff up. nobody would believe it. Yet, that's what these great negotiators have signed. Of course we're the only ones, in the West, who are going to abide by the agreement. The Iranians are not and they have not since this thing was signed," said Nash. He says the bottom line is that the Obama administration is fine with the provision because it means it won't have to answer for the ineffectiveness of the deal. "Even if we did find something wrong, we're not going to divulge it, not only the IAEA but the United States because it would prove that the critics of this stupid deal were right all along and they will not do it. They would rather hide that from the American people," said Nash. He says Iran has carte blanche in the Persian Gulf for now. "They are not stopping doing what they are doing. They are setting out to be the regional hegemon in the gulf and that's it. Period. End of statement. And no piece of paper is going to stop them," said Nash. He says Obama got his deal and has no further plans to check Iranian ambitions. "They got an Iran deal. That's in the wake. That's going to be listed as one of the great achievements of this administration. They're looking for a legacy," said Nash. "[Iran is] developing these missiles. They don't care what the UN says. They don't care what the U.S. says. Unfortunately, the U.S. doesn't care either," said Nash. He says the development of the Iranian missile program is already an imminent threat to Israel. "Just wait until the Iranians continue down the path and demonstrate the capability to not only develop a nuclear weapon, but to have the delivery system in place that can reach Israel," said Nash. |
| 'Best Possible Helpmate, Best Possible Representative of the U.S.' |
| Mon, 7 Mar 2016 16:18:33 EST Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III is remembering the late former First Lady Nancy Reagan as "gracious," and "supportive" and a woman whose twin goals were to help her husband and reflect the very best of the United States. Mrs. Reagan died Sunday from congestive heart failure at age 94. She lived nearly 12 years after former President Reagan died in 2004 and lived longer than all but one of her predecessors. Meese, who served as counselor to the president and later as attorney general, was also chief of staff to Reagan for much of Reagan's time as governor in California. He first joined the Reagan team in 1967, just as Reagan's term in Sacramento was beginning. "It wasn't long after that that I met Nancy and did a lot of traveling in which she was part of the group. I've been at the house in California many times and of course were very close in the White House as well," said Meese. He says Nancy was very much the same in private as she was in public. "She was a very gracious person. She was a great hostess. She was always looking out for the people that were around the president and for the president himself," said Meese. He says their legendary affection for one another was always obvious. "They were very much in love with each other and she was certainly a great source of strength and support throughout his entire political career, and I'm sure before that," said Meese. Even amidst the daily rigors of the presidency, President Reagan's mind was never far from the woman he loved. "They did everything possible together. They were together every minute of the time that they could be. Ronald Reagan's idea of a good evening was to come home to Nancy, to have dinner together. Then he would work a little bit in the evening. It was just the idea of being with her that was so important to him," said Meese. When it came to politics, Meese says Nancy Reagan believed fervently in her husband but also in his ideas. "She was staunch in her belief in him and I think, in a sense, reflected his own views. She was interested in supporting him and similar views to him on most topics," said Meese, while noting they sometimes disagreed on the right path to achieving various goals. "I would say they were very much on the same wavelength on virtually everything." During the White House years, Mrs. Reagan drew some headlines for friction with various staff members, most famously Donald Regan, who served as chief of staff for much of Reagan's second term. Meese says in all his years with Reagan in California and Washington, he never had a problem with the first lady. "I always had a great relationship with her, both in the governor's office and the White House and in the presidency when I was at [the Justice Department," said Meese. However, he says she did take interest in day-to-day activities with her husband's best interests in mind. "Nancy Reagan did not interfere with policy. I've never had a situation where that was true. What she was interested in was making sure that the governor, and then later on the president, got enough rest, that the travel arrangements were able to afford him the chance to be at his best," said Meese, who says Mrs. Reagan did take greater interest in presidential security following the 1981 assassination attempt that nearly claimed Reagan's life. As for her own work, Nancy Reagan's years in Washington were most closely tied to her efforts to convince Americans, and especially children, to stay away from drugs through the "Just Say No" campaign. "That's an illustration of how much she cared, not only about the president but also about the people of the country and about the direction in which our nation was going. That's why when Ronald Reagan took on the effort against drugs in the 1980's, which was one of our most serious domestic problems, she wholeheartedly assisted in that with her 'Just Say No' program," said Meese. Mocked by some as overly simplistic, Meese says the effort clearly worked. "It really made an impact. The President and Nancy and those of us who were involved really had tremendous success in reducing drug abuse in the United States by over 50 percent in a ten year period from 1982-1992," said Meese. Meese says Nancy Reagan also shined on the international stage, by connecting with world leaders and their spouses as well as the people of those nations. &ququot;Her desire was to be the best possible helpmate, but also the best possible example of the United States in whatever she did," said Meese. Mrs. Reagan perhaps attracted the most admiration for her faithful care of President Reagan, following his 1994 diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease. For ten years she cared for him privately and publicly championed greater research into the disease. "What it showed us was a continuation of what a tremendous person, how much she loved her husband and the fact that she totally devoted every minute of her life to taking care of the president during that period of time. Also, she was very instrumental in making sure the president's legacy was followed," said Meese, referring to her active work at the Reagan Library and in ensuring their beloved ranch was sold to a conservative group. Nearly 40 years after first signing on with then-Gov. Reagan, Meese refelected on what Ronald and Nancy Reagan meant in his life. "Obviously we miss them both, but I think the nice thing about it is to have recollections of how much they both did for our country and also great memories of the opportunity to have been with them," said Meese. |
| 'Their Country Would be Vaporized' |
| Fri, 4 Mar 2016 16:07:16 EST North Korean Dictator Kim Jong-Un is ordering his military to have the rogue nation's nuclear weapons ready to launch, and while a former Pentagon official believes the communist nation may start a war down the road, he does not see this latest action as more than an empty threat. Jed Babbin served as a deputy undersecretary of defense for President George H.W. Bush and believes Kim's actions are merely in response to the United Nations Security Council unanimously approving new sanctions against his regime. He says an attempt to nuke South Korea, Japan or any other nation would be met with a devastating, immediate response. "Their country would be vaporized immediately and, quite frankly, there ain't much to vaporize. That place is in the stone age. The only place that's even lit at night is the capital city of Pyongyang. one decent nuke over there and the country is just gone," said Babbin. There's another reason Babbin thinks this is a bluff. He believes that, despite aggressive testing, North Korea is not yet ready to launch a nuclear missile. "It's a big deal to develop a nuclear weapon. It's a big deal to develop an ICBM. However, to get an ICBM mated with a small enough nuclear weapon that will survive the G-forces in the takeoff of a missile and actually be able to re-enter the atmosphere and successfully detonate a nuclear weapon. That's probably several years beyond what these guys can do," said Babbin. Babbin says this is clearly Kim's way of protesting the new UN sanctions, which are aimed restricting North Korea's ability to import weapons or build them. "They've got some bigger restrictions now. Ships going into and out of North Korea are going to be stopped and inspected. At least that's the theory. They've lost the opposition of the Chinese to those sorts of sanctions. The Chinese went along with it and the UN Security Council was unanimous in putting these sanctions in," said Babbin. Babbin says China has a vested interest in making sure Kim's erratic behavior does not lead to a humanitarian crisis. "A great, great fear in the Chinese regime is for North Korea to fall for some reason and for millions of North Koreans to go fleeing across the border with China," he said. He says North Korea has a long history of bad behavior when it wants to attract attention. "I think they want more money. They want to get bribed to keep quiet for awhile again. They're going to be doing the things that they always do, which is run around and scream and shout," said Babbin. While firmly convinced this episode is no real threat, Babbin says North Korea does have plans to take hostile action. "The real issue is when do they actually get hot enough to try to do something? That's the unknowable. Someday, sometime, whether it's tomorrow or 25 years from now, those are going to start another war. We're just going to have to be prepared for it," said Babbin. In Thursday's Republican debate, Sen. Ted Cruz reacted to the story by outlining his plan to protect against a North Korean attack and also blaming the Clinton administration for weak negotiating that allowed the North Koreans to pursue nuclear weapons. Babbin says that's exactly what happened. "Cruz was right," said Babbin. "(Former Defense Secretary) Bill Perry went over there and negotiated a big agreement with North Korea that provided them with oil and more as a bribe to not develop nuclear weapons. Of course, they used the oil to power their society for a little while and built the nukes anyway," said Babbin. So what is the right policy now? "Right now, I think the sanctions are the right approach. I think there's not much else you can do there," said Babbin. He says ground action should not be considered. "I don't see that us invading North Korea is in any way a good idea, and I don't think anybody else is going to. The only thing we could do, which of course President Obama will never do, is to pressure the Chinese more to bring these guys to heel," said Babbin. Babbin applauds the recent UN action, but has doubts about the implementation of the new sanctions. "I do think it's going to be helpful if the sanctions are going to be enforced and that's the big if," said Babbin. "Who is going to stop all of those ships coming in and out of North Korea? Are people really going to follow the ban on selling them even small arms? I don't know that that's going to happen. There's a lot of other rogue regimes in the world," said Babbin. He fears bankrupt Venezuela, which is a prolific producer of AK-47 assault rifles, is more than desperate and willing to violate sanctions to make money. "That's just one example. There's probably at least a dozen other countries that'll do that sort of thing," said Babbin. |
| 'This Is A Responsible Start to a Market-Based Health Plan' |
| Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:23:40 EST Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump is putting forward a more detailed health care reform plan, that one leading policy expert says has many strong free market features but needs amending in two critical areas. Trump has long mentioned his desire for a full repeal of Obamacare and remove barriers so patients can shop for health plans across state lines. Those are the first two parts of Trump's new seven-point plan. It also includes allowing individuals to fully deduct their health care premiums from their annual tax returns and championing Health Savings Accounts that would be tax-free for the individual and estate tax-free for their heirs. The Trump plan would also call for price transparency from doctors and hospitals, block grant Medicaid to the states and "remove barriers to entry" for drug companies who can offer quality medications at lower prices. Galen Institute President Grace-Marie Turner, an ardent opponent of Obamacare and the Clinton administration's attempts to increase the government's role in health care, is largely impressed. "Many pillars of his plan are very familiar to free market advocates. The giving people help in purchasing their premiums through tax breaks is important. Price transparency, block granting Medicaid to the states so the states can have more control over Medicaid dollars without jumping through so many of Washington's hoops and following so much of its red tape," said Turner. The additional detail came hours before Thursday's GOP debate in Detroit and nearly a week after Sen. Marco Rubio pressed Trump to offer specific details on his plan besides a full repeal of Obamacare. "It was obviously precipitated by the debate, when he really got backed into a corner when he didn't have other ideas. Most of these ideas are pretty solid ideas but they need to be developed some more," said Turner. But while Turner applauds tax breaks to help defray the cost of health insurance, Turner says Trump is going about it the wrong way. "The problem with a deduction, which is what he is advocating, is that it's worth very little to people at the bottom end of the income scale. If you are in the 10 percent tax bracket, and you basically get a 10 percent cut in your premium, that's very regressive," said Turner. "Somebody who's in the 40-50 percent tax bracket, counting federal income taxes and state and payroll taxes, they may get a tax cut of 50 percent of the cost of their premium," she added. "A tax credit really can help those at the lower end of the income scale, who most need help in purchasing health insurance." The other area that concerns her is the removal of barriers in the pharmaceutical industry. "Basically, he's calling for price controls on prescription drugs. he's been very much of a populist. 'Drug prices are too high. If we let people import drugs from abroad or let the government negotiate prices for prescription drugs, we could save $300 billion a year. That's absolutely not true. What he's advocating with those two policies is importing price controls on prescription drugs," said Turner. Not only does Turner believe Trump's math is off, she says it would stifle development of new drugs. "There is a reason that the United States is the leader in the development and introduction of new drugs into the market. We don't have price controls. If we do and dry up the research budget, like so many European and other developed countries have done, then we will not have the new drugs of tomorrow," said Turner. Trump defenders say their candidate is referring to negotiating prices and not mandating them. Turner says that's not how it works. "Government doesn't negotiate. It dictates prices," she said. Overall, however, Turner is pleased with the plan. But she hopes this represents a serious shift toward a free market approach to health care from a candidate who has had good things to say about single payer health care in Canada and Scotland as recently as the first GOP debate. "What worries me is that in the past, he really has been all over the map, from supporting an individual mandate to now saying he does not support the individual mandate, and everything from talking about single payer to talking about free markets and Health Savings Accounts. The question is does he really have ownership of this health care plan or is this something his campaign put out," said Turner. "What really matters is whether there's going to be some consistency in allowing this to become the basis for what could be a credible health reform plan," said Turner. |
| 'The Hero of the Story is Jesus Christ' |
| Wed, 2 Mar 2016 17:12:17 EST Persecution of Christians is intensifying around the world, possibly at its worst since the early days of the church, but the courage and steadfastness of believers in these hostile areas are a great testament to their Savior and of immense encouragement to believers around the world, according to the editor of a new devotional from Voice of the Martyrs. Voice of the Martyrs is one of the leading organizations assisting the persecuted Christian church. The devotional is entitled "I am n," with the "n" referring to the symbol ISIS and other radical Islamic groups have used to designate "nazarenes" or followers of Christ. It contains 90 days worth of devotions. Each day's selection includes a gripping story of a Christian refusing to renounce their faith or insisting on sharing their faith, regardless of the cost. That is followed by commentary to help Christians apply the lessons to their own and then a prayer. Examples of stories include Abu, a Christian in Mosul, who refused to deny Jesus, even when threatened with death and Kazim, a believer in Pakistan, who was severely beaten and stripped of his home and family but refused to stop preaching the gospel. While the acts of courage and faith are gripping, Voice of the Martyrs Associate Vice President Dr. Jason Peters hopes readers focus on the most important takeaway. "The hero of the story is Jesus Christ. He gives grace in these situations that we just can't explain from an earthly perspective," said Peters, who adds that believers are able to endure torture and heartache because their hope is not in this world. "That's the heart of it. The key to all of this is eternal perspective. These brothers and sisters have got an eternal perspective in ways that we can't even begin to imagine," he added. While the symbol used by ISIS to identify Christians is on the cover, the devotional shares accounts from many different countries where proclaiming Christ can put one's life in danger. But he says those places have one thing in common. "There are really nine Islamic hot spots around the world. These are areas where Christians face Islamic extremists and many of them have been severely persecuted. So we wanted to tell their stories. That's what we've been doing since 1967," said Peters. "We're in the field. We're working all the time, meeting with brothers and sisters, hearing their stories. Then we put 48 of those stories into a book, which I think people will find very helpful," said Peters. Peters says reading and understanding what Christians go through in many parts of the world will serve as a humbling, eye-opening experience for western Christians who never experience such persecution and give all believers an additional glimpse of the God they serve. "Somehow [God] gives them grace which is really remarkable. Some of the themes that come out from these stories are themes like sacrifice, courage, faithfulness. Some of the stories and themes are shocking really. Some stories about forgiveness and joy," said Peters. "When you think about what it would take to forgive somebody who raped your daughter or killed your husband or burned your house down. It's incredible," added Peters. He says it may be hard to for western believers to relate at first. "They don't have a comfortable existence. Many have been minorities their entire lives. Many of them live in difficult circumstances. In one sense they've just trained themselves to focus on their eternal reward. In the United States, we get a bit comfortable and it's easy for us not to have an eternal perspective because we're pretty comfortable here," said Peters. Some stories of Muslims converting to Christianity may seem unusual, particularly the frequent testimonies of vivid dreams in which Christ appears to them. An Afghan man named John was on his pilgrimage to Mecca when he says Jesus appeared to him in a dream. Peters admits that will strike some as odd, but he says the evidence is very strong for these accounts being true. "It's incredibly frequent. We hear about dreams and visions all the time. I'll be honest with you. I've never had a dream or a vision personally, but I've met those who have. When you hear these stories, it's really hard to deny the fact that it happened," said Peters. Peters says Tom Doyle, a fellow Dallas Theological Seminary graduate, has chronicled some of these accounts in his book, "Dreams and Visions." He shared one in particular. "I remember the story of one guy who said, 'I had a dream. I started to take notes when I would wake up. I make a note of what I heard from this man in white." And he said, 'Interestingly, I found out later when I ran into a Christian and I shared my notes that it was literally the gospel of John, almost word for word,'" Peters shared. He believes there's a good reason accounts of dreams and visions are much more common among the persecuted. "In many of the 68 countries we work in, the bible is in chains. The bible is not accessible. We have bibles everywhere. But when you don't have access to God's word, I believe he works in some miraculous ways," said Peters. The devotional also makes it clear that whether the story ends happily, miraculously or in death, God is always sovereign. Peters says there are always times he and other believers don't understand why God lets things happen but he says scripture provides encouragement on that front as well, in the Genesis account of Joseph's brothers wanting him dead and selling him into slavery. Ultimately, God uses those circumstances to elevate Joseph to prominence in Egypt and save God's people. Peters says God is working in the midst of heavy persecution and is even changing some hearts among the terrorists themselves. "There was a guy who was coming through Lebanon recently. He was actually teaching jihad to ISIS. He came back transiting through Lebanon. He asked his taxi driver, 'Do you know where I can find a bible,'" said Peters. "[The taxi driver] was obviously a little concerned. This fully-bearded, rogue teacher of jihad is asking him for a bible. He said, 'I'm sick of the killing,'" shared Peters. "In the midst of all this evil, everything horrific that ISIS has done, God is drawing people to himself and we're actually seeing many Muslims come to Christ after seeing some of these horrific activities and these brutal actions that ISIS is prosecuting right now," said Peters. Peters says persecuted believers want all other Christians to know they are prayed for, even in the midst of terrible suffering. "They want us to pray for them. They'll often follow that up with, 'And by the way, we're praying for you because we know that you're facing challenges too in your culture," said Peters. |
| 'I'm the Only Proven Change Agent' |
| Tue, 1 Mar 2016 16:23:41 EST Calling the upheaval in the Republican presidential race the "canary in the coal mine," Rep. John Fleming says he is the conservative candidate in the Louisiana U.S. Senate race who can bring about real change. Republicans hold a 54-46 majority in the Senate but are defending 24 of the 34 seats on the ballot this year as a result of big gains six years ago during the tea party wave. Louisiana's seat is expected to remain in GOP hands. It is an open seat, since two-term incumbent David Vitter is not seeking re-election. In Louisiana, all candidates from all parties will be on the ballot on Nov. 8. If no candidate wins a majority, the top two finishers will advance to a run-off. That seems likely just given the number of Republicans already in the race. In addition to Fleming, the field includes Rep. Charles Boustany, retired Air Force Col. Rob Maness and State Treasurer John Kennedy. The 2016 presidential race has proven this is not a typical campaign, and Fleming believes that bodes very well for him. "I really believe the presidential race in its current state is the canary in the coal mine," said Fleming, noting that "outsiders" like Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and Ben Carson consistently combine for 60 percent of the vote or more. Fleming says voters in his state are fed up with business as usual too and he promises to change that. "I want to go to the United States Senate because I want to bring Louisiana conservative values to the United States Senate and, frankly, to Washington," said Fleming. "[Louisiana voters] are so frustrated with Washington, so it's time we made a huge drastic change in the right direction." Fleming is completing his fourth term in the House and his incumbent status might seem like a vulnerability this year. He says it would be if his conservative record wasn't so strong. Fleming boasts a life time 97 percent rating from the American Conservative Union. He scores 88 percent with Heritage Action and 86 percent with Conservative Review. Beyond that, he says he's strong on the core issues Louisiana voters care about most. "People tell me they want somebody who understands the economy, who's made a payroll, who's signed the front of a check. I'm the only candidate in this race that has done that," said Fleming, noting that he still employs over 500 people. He also points to a consistent pro-life voting record and what he calls a "perennial A rating from the NRA." As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, Fleming says he is also ready to tackle all national security challenges. "I'm a strong defender of the nation. I believe in secure voters and a strong national defense. There's many examples of where I've stood up for that," said Fleming. But does that consistent voting record equal bold leadership at a tumultuous time in American history. Col. Maness told us recently that it doesn't. 1cThey 19re not leaders," Maness said of Fleming and his other GOP rivals. "They 19re not proven leaders that are going to go up and lead." Fleming strongly rejects allegations that he's not driving change in Washington. "I'm the only proven change agent, the only one who's really proven to have leadership as an outsider against what's happening in Washington today," said Fleming. He says he's never been a go along to get along guy in Congress. "Look I'm an outsider. (Former House Speaker) John Boehner put me on his black list in the House of Representatives. He tried to stop me from raising money to support my campaign. And why? Because I didn't go along with his go along to get along ideas in Washington. As a result of that, I co-founded the House Freedom Caucus," said Fleming. He says the House Freedom Caucus initially succeeded in stopping some bad legislation but it soon became obvious that more had to be done. "Eventually, we forced Speaker Boehner to leave office in mid-term, the first time that's ever happened without death, health problems or scandal. We even blocked the second-in-command (House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy) from taking over," said Fleming. Fleming says this wasn't a rash decision but one that Republican leadership forced upon conservatives. "We tried to move leadership in the right direction. When my colleagues and I could not get them to move in the right direction and stand up against the Obama agenda: repeal Obamacare, defund Obamacare, defund Planned Parenthood, defund the Syrian refugee influx. We just had to make a change," said Fleming. "No one in this race and, in fact, very few people in history have brought about the leadership for change in Washington than I have and I want to continue that in the United States Senate," said Fleming. If elected, Fleming already has plans to make sure Senate Republican leaders hear conservatives loudly and clearly. "We need to create a House Freedom Caucus in the United States Senate as well. Two of my Freedom Caucus colleagues are also running for the Senate. The three of us will join together with the likes of Mike Lee and others and we'll be a force for change in the Senate," said Fleming. "The Senate needs to do its work. We've sent a number of bills from the House, which have been ignored by the Senate," he added. "We will change that. We will change that once and for all." Calling the upheaval in the Republican presidential race the "canary in the coal mine," Rep. John Fleming says he is the conservative candidate in the Louisiana U.S. Senate race who can bring about real change. Republicans hold a 54-46 majority in the Senate but are defending 24 of the 34 seats on the ballot this year as a result of big gains six years ago during the tea party wave. Louisiana's seat is expected to remain in GOP hands. It is an open seat, since two-term incumbent David Vitter is not seeking re-election. In Louisiana, all candidates from all parties will be on the ballot on Nov. 8. If no candidate wins a majority, the top two finishers will advance to a run-off. That seems likely just given the number of Republicans already in the race. In addition to Fleming, the field includes Rep. Charles Boustany, retired Air Force Col. Rob Maness and State Treasurer John Kennedy. The 2016 presidential race has proven this is not a typical campaign, and Fleming believes that bodes very well for him. "I really believe the presidential race in its current state is the canary in the coal mine," said Fleming, noting that "outsiders" like Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and Ben Carson consistently combine for 60 percent of the vote or more. Fleming says voters in his state are fed up with business as usual too and he promises to change that. "I want to go to the United States Senate because I want to bring Louisiana conservative values to the United States Senate and, frankly, to Washington," said Fleming. "[Louisiana voters] are so frustrated with Washington, so it's time we made a huge drastic change in the right direction." Fleming is completing his fourth term in the House and his incumbent status might seem like a vulnerability this year. He says it would be if his conservative record wasn't so strong. Fleming boasts a life time 97 percent rating from the American Conservative Union. He scores 88 percent with Heritage Action and 86 percent with Conservative Review. Beyond that, he says he's strong on the core issues Louisiana voters care about most. "People tell me they want somebody who understands the economy, who's made a payroll, who's signed the front of a check. I'm the only candidate in this race that has done that," said Fleming, noting that he still employs over 500 people. He also points to a consistent pro-life voting record and what he calls a "perennial A rating from the NRA." As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, Fleming says he is also ready to tackle all national security challenges. "I'm a strong defender of the nation. I believe in secure voters and a strong national defense. There's many examples of where I've stood up for that," said Fleming. But does that consistent voting record equal bold leadership at a tumultuous time in American history. Col. Maness told us recently that it doesn't. 1cThey 19re not leaders," Maness said of Fleming and his other GOP rivals. "They 19re not proven leaders that are going to go up and lead." Fleming strongly rejects allegations that he's not driving change in Washington. "I'm the only proven change agent, the only one who's really proven to have leadership as an outsider against what's happening in Washington today," said Fleming. He says he's never been a go along to get along guy in Congress. "Look I'm an outsider. (Former House Speaker) John Boehner put me on his black list in the House of Representatives. He tried to stop me from raising money to support my campaign. And why? Because I didn't go along with his go along to get along ideas in Washington. As a result of that, I co-founded the House Freedom Caucus," said Fleming. He says the House Freedom Caucus initially succeeded in stopping some bad legislation but it soon became obvious that more had to be done. "Eventually, we forced Speaker Boehner to leave office in mid-term, the first time that's ever happened without death, health problems or scandal. We even blocked the second-in-command (House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy) from taking over," said Fleming. Fleming says this wasn't a rash decision but one that Republican leadership forced upon conservatives. "We tried to move leadership in the right direction. When my colleagues and I could not get them to move in the right direction and stand up against the Obama agenda: repeal Obamacare, defund Obamacare, defund Planned Parenthood, defund the Syrian refugee influx. We just had to make a change," said Fleming. "No one in this race and, in fact, very few people in history have brought about the leadership for change in Washington than I have and I want to continue that in the United States Senate," said Fleming. If elected, Fleming already has plans to make sure Senate Republican leaders hear conservatives loudly and clearly. "We need to create a House Freedom Caucus in the United States Senate as well. Two of my Freedom Caucus colleagues are also running for the Senate. The three of us will join together with the likes of Mike Lee and others and we'll be a force for change in the Senate," said Fleming. "The Senate needs to do its work. We've sent a number of bills from the House, which have been ignored by the Senate," he added. "We will change that. We will change that once and for all." |
| Only Trump or Conservatives Can Stop Trump |
| Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:29:42 EST Longtime conservative activist Richard Viguerie says the window of opportunity is closing fast to stop a narcissist from winning the Republican nomination and he has says only determined conservatives or Donald Trump himself can stop it from happening. Viguerie has been a movement conservative for well over 50 years. He pioneered the use of direct mail in political campaigning. He is now chairman of Conservative HQ and is author most recently of "Takeover: The 100-Year War for the Soul of the GOP and How Conservatives Can Finally Win It." As voters in more than a dozen states prepare to vote on Super Tuesday, says the non-Trump candidates are losing a game of catch-up because they let refuse to define Trump much earlier. "They did not define Trump until the last few weeks. The law of the jungle is to eat or be eaten. The law of politics is define or be defined. Republicans and conservatives failed, quite frankly, failed to do a proper job of defining Donald Trump," said Viguerie. In last week's debate, both Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz went after Trump and that has spilled over onto the campaign trail. Rubio is getting more attention as he uses some of Trump's own tactics against him while Cruz has stuck largely to policy differences. Viguerie says jokes about Trump's tan and other characteristics is not the kind of defining that needs to be done. "That's irrelevant. What does that have to do with anything. We're talking about electing a man (Trump) who has potentially may have serious psychological problems. I think he's a serious narcissist. That should be frightening to America to put a narcissistic person in charge of our nuclear arsenal," said Viguerie. "I'm just very concerned about his mental stability and his moral background or lack thereof, which he brags about. He has no grounds that drive him morally," said Viguerie. But while Viguerie believes Trump is definitely the wrong choice for president, he says the voter passion that is driving Trump's success is intense and legitimate. "They are white hot with anger at our leaders in this country, particularly Washington Republican leaders. The Republican primary voters are just furious," he said. "They're angry at the lies, the betrayal of the Republican leaders. They're the ones that created Donald Trump. They can't do anything about it now. Only the conservatives [can]." In addition to labeling Trump a narcissist, Viguerie also calls the front-runner a "pro-business liberal Democrat" and encourages conservative candidates and activists to do the same. Viguerie says of the three best-performing GOP candidates, Trump is obviously in the best position to win, followed by Cruz. Viguerie says Rubio is longest shot of the three. "Trump's base is his dollars, his billfold of $10 billion. Rubio is the establishment candidate and he didn't have that base until recently. He's been going up in the polls because the Washington establishment Republicans are moving his direction and Cruz's base, of course, is the conservative movement," said Viguerie. "That's what makes Cruz such a formidable opponent for Trump because conservatives make up the vast majority of primary voters," said Viguerie. Viguerie not only admits Trump is a heavy favorite right now but that the options moving forward look bleak for grassroots conservatives. He says even if Republicans can somehow stop Trump at a brokered convention, Trump's supporters would be so disillusioned that Democrats would have a big edge heading into the fall. But not as big of an advantage, he says, if Trump is the nominee. He says the recent David Duke flap is an example of controversies that would doom Trump in the general election. And that's not all. "When the Democrat machine spends a billion dollars on defining him if he were to be the nominee, he would be hard-pressed to get 40 percent of the vote in November. There's no way Donald Trump can be elected after the Democrats get through defining him," said Viguerie. |
| 'Blustery Liberal Republicans Flock Together' |
| Fri, 26 Feb 2016 16:26:43 EST Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who backs Ted Cruz for the Republican nomination, is slamming Chris Christie for his surprise endorsement of Donald Trump and praising Cruz and Marco Rubio for exposing Trump's weaknesses in Thursday's debate. The Christie news dominated political coverage Friday afternoon, shifting the attention of analysts and partisans from the dissecting the debate to interpreting what Christie's move means for the GOP race. Just weeks ago, Christie was slamming Trump for his call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration and not having the temperament to be president. Trump responded in kind, by saying Christie acted like a "little boy" when he enthusiastically embraced President Obama after Hurricane Sandy hit New Jersey just days before the 2012 elections. So why are the two aligning forces now? "I guess blustery liberal Republicans flock together. In that sense, I can't say that I'm altogether surprised," said Cuccinelli, although he says Christie decision flies in the face of the argument he made for months on the campaign trail. "I'm a little surprised that the guy who said, 'Governors, governors, governors must be president, governors, governors, only governors,' endorses someone never elected to anything or responsible for anything in government ever, while there's a governor still in the race," said Cuccinelli. As much as the Christie endorsement puzzled Cuccinelli, the media's treatment of the story nauseated him. "The media is really failing the American people. I sat at CNN with Wolf Blitzer for an hour today, with someone for Rubio and someone for Trump," said Cuccinelli. "We all sat there while they just played the Christie-Trump press conference." The same was true when Trump and Christie moved to a rally and it wasn't just CNN. "All the networks, droolingly and slobberingly covered this event live, all of them," said Cuccinelli, specifically mentioned the Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Network. He says no other GOP candidate gets that kind of exposure, including Rubio, whom Cuccinelli believes to be favored by the mainstream press. But Cuccinelli was a big fan of Thursday's debate on CNN, as Cruz and Rubio took every opportunity to level attacks on Trump on issue ranging from the hiring of illegal aliens to specifics on Obamacare to Trump's ongoing praise for Planned Parenthood and his history of donating to Democrats. "Trump had no substantive answer to any of this," said Cuccinelli. "Think about this the next time you're watching the guy. Listen for anything specific." Cuccinelli says besides Trump's vow to build a wall along our border with Mexico, he rarely offers specifics but does promise to provide health care for anyone who cannot afford insurance, with would cost taxpayers an additional $300 billion per year. Trump was also asked about releasing his tax returns and said he would once he is done being audited. Cuccinelli says Trump's reluctance shows he's the worst possible candidate to face Hillary Clinton, who Republicans constantly pressure to release speech transcripts and emails kept on her private server. "Openness is going to be absolutely critical. Our nominee needs to be 100 percent totally open to prosecute the case of dishonesty and deception by Hillary Clinton. Ted Cruz made the case last night that he can do that and Donald Trump cannot," said Cuccinelli. While backing Cruz, Cuccinelli says he enjoyed watching how much Rubio enjoyed taking it to Trump. But in the wake of the debate, he says both candidates are acting juvenile. "Their back and forth has been so childish. 'Oh, look how he sweats at the debate. He's so nervous behind the curtain' and 'Look at this, he can't even spell right in his tweets," said Cuccinelli, who says Cruz relentlessly went after Trump, but always on substance. He says Rubio and Trump are "doing nothing to advance the cause of liberty" with their current attacks. But only one other candidate will likely have the chance to emerge from the rest of the pack to face Trump for the nomination. Cuccinelli says he thinks Cruz in the best position. "One of them has to break away in the delegate count. I think you're going to see that happen for Ted on Tuesday. Ted is better positioned in more states than Rubio," said Cuccinelli. |
| 'Do We Want Volume or Do We Want Values?' |
| Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:23:08 EST The Ben Carson presidential campaign is deflecting calls from the media and other Republicans for the retired neurosurgeon to get out of the 2016 race, saying the voters will make that decision and hoping they will choose values over volume. Retired U.S. Army Maj. General Bob Dees is chairman of the Carson campaign. He says there's no reason to demand any candidates to get out of the race after only four contests. "There's a lot of pundits who say, 'John Kasich ought to get out or Ben Carson ought to get out or Ted Cruz ought to get out of the race so that my guy can win.' We've got a democratic political process and we ought to follow it, rather than preordain who's going to survive the gauntlet," said Dees, who also serves as a top foreign policy adviser to Carson. Dees says this is not some quixotic effort after four disappointing performances. He says the supporters are there but there are challenges in turning that into electoral success. "There's a lot of pent-up enthusiasm out there. Folks are voting with their feet everywhere but the polls. We're hopeful it'll reflect in the polls as well. We recognize that needs to happen sooner rather than later. As Dr. Carson will tell his supporters, 'If not now, then when and if not us, then who?'" said Dees. He says the same obstacles apply in the scramble for delegates. "The good news about Dr. Carson's grassroots support is that it's really across the country. Sometimes we wish it were concentrated in one state so you win that state and you get all those delegates at once. The reality is that's not the way a grassroots movement of 'We the People' works," said Dees. While Dees is optimistic for better results soon, he's not expecting any shockers on Super Tuesday, when voters in 14 states head to the polls. "I don't know where we might compete for the victory. That's hard to project," said Dees, who believes Carson is gaining strength in Texas and other southern states leading up to Tuesday. In the primaries and caucuses already concluded, analysts often break down the vote by tallying support for Carson, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz as the outsider vote and everyone else as the mainstream or establishment vote. Dees rejects that classification. "[Carson] is the only true outsider. To suggest that Donald Trump is an outsider is a bit duplicitous because inside politically and inside with buying influence in that and that. That's just a matter of record," said Dees. He wasn't done contrasting his candidate with Trump. "The questions we have to ask the American people are, 'Do we want volume or do we want values? Do we want wisecracks or do we want wisdom? Do we want wild proclamations or do we want common sense solutions with Dr. Ben Carson?' That's been his hallmark, including standing in front of President Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast," said Dees. Carson has been stung by a few different developments in recent months. One is his reluctance to join the rhetorical fray in the debates unless called upon or referenced. Dees says Carson is happy to contrast himself with his opponents but will never get down into the mud. "Dr. Carson will never change his character because that's who he is. He will never make personal attacks. At the debates, I would not expect him to attack anyone, but if there's a lot of gladiator jousts, it might become obvious to the American people who the real adult in the room is," said Dees. Another common analysis is that when the focal point of the campaign turned to ISIS late last year after attacks in Paris and California, that Carson was not up to speed on foreign policy. Dees says that is completely untrue and that Carson has shown great instincts and common sense in their foreign policy sessions. And he says Carson's leadership skills are well established. "Who's had more 2 a.m. calls than Dr. Ben Carson? Just consider who's dealt with more life or death scenarios. Consider who is truly steady in a crisis," said Dees. For him personally, Dees says it was easy for him to sign on to the Carson campaign at the very beginning, noting Carson's honesty, integrity and faith. "It's who he is a as a person. You can do a lot of things and he's done a lot of things. You can know a lot of things and he knows a lot of things but ultimately who is a person internally? What is their internal moral compass?" asked Dees. "Ben Carson is as steady as they come." |
| Trump Has Momentum, Crunch Time Still to Come |
| Wed, 24 Feb 2016 16:16:37 EST A top Reagan administration official says Donald Trump is in the driver's seat in the race for the Republican nomination and is successfully confounding his opponents, but he cautions that the contests with the highest stakes are still to come. Trump has scored dominating wins in the past three contests, most recently a blowout win over Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz Tuesday in the Nevada caucuses. In a record Nevada turnout, Trump collected almost 46 percent of the vote in a five-candidate race. Rubio was a distant second at just under 24 percent. Cruz finished with more than 21 percent, while Ben Carson and John Kasich managed only single digits. "The current environment favors Mr. Trump. The foremost factor advantaging his candidacy is the split field," said Frank Donatelli, who worked on three presidential campaigns for Reagan and later served as the administration's political director. "As long as the field is split the way it is with so many candidates, Trump, with his hardcore supporters will continue to win caucuses and primaries," he said. In addition to the logistics of the campaign favoring Trump, Donatelli says the GOP front-runner brings a new dimension to this year's race that many struggle to comprehend. "The Trump campaign is clearly not a campaign motivated by ideology. It's motivated by an attitude and a persona of a candidate that's larger than life. There's been a lot written about public affairs and entertainment coming together and you see that in the Trump campaign," said Donatelli. As a result, Trump's past positions on issues or policy changes within the campaign are tough for his rivals to attack effectively. "He does not have a clear set of positions. The positions clash sometimes and sometimes he changes the position from speech to speech, but it doesn't seem to bother his supporters because they're not motivated by his views on specific issues. They're motivated by what they think he stands for," said Donatelli. So what can other candidates do to blunt the momentum of Trump's string of wins and a rock-solid base that is not swayed by some evolving policy positions. "How do you attack it? Probably the best way to do it start beating him. I think a big part of his appeal is that he appears to be inevitable," said Donatelli. "The way you handle that is to show that it's not inevitable and that means who've got to come close or start winning." That may be tough to do. Trump's 46 percent showing in Nevada may be evidence that reducing the field to two or three candidates may not be enough to stop him, but Donatelli says that is the only hope Rubio, Cruz and the others have at this point. "If one of the candidates is able to maneuver the situation so the field can be whittled down to three or ideally two candidates, then, depending on how many delegates remain to be selected, that is the time I think that candidate would have the advantage," said Donatelli. For that to happen, two or three other candidates will have to admit they need to quit in order to help another rival stop Trump. Donatelli says all of the remaining rivals have too much invested to get out right away. "These are candidates that have given years of their lives preparing for this time to run. They also know this is an historical opportunity for the Republican nominee. This should be a Republican year, given that they are the out party after eight years. They're going to want to hang in there until the very last minute before they decide to pack it in," said Donatelli. Donatelli says if the field can be winnowed in relatively short order, the remaining rival to Trump could have some additional advantages going forward, starting with the chasm in how GOP voters look at Trump. "He does have passionate supporters but he's got a very, very high negative, even among Republicans. A lot of Republicans saying they just won't support him. He has a pretty high threshold but I still do think he has a low ceiling," said Donatelli. Another possible edge for the non-Trump candidate in a two-man race is the shifting primary calendar when it comes to delegate math. "After March 15, the delegate selection rules change, so you go from proportional awarding of delegates to a winner-take-all by congressional district with some bonus delegates for state wins being thrown in," said Donatelli. "That's the time when a candidate would have an opportunity to play catch-up if he could get Trump in that kind of race." Whether it's four Republicans going after Trump or just one in the weeks ahead, what strategy would work? Candidates who heavily criticized Trump, like Rick Perry, Rand Paul and Jeb Bush, are all on the sidelines now. And, as Donatelli points out, the hands-off approach of waiting for Trump to self-destruct as been a bust as well. "Cruz thought that if he played buddy-buddy with Trump that when Trump began to descend that he would pick up that support. He's sort of boxed in on that side now. And not only Rubio but all the other so-called mainstream candidates spent a lot of time attacking each other, because they felt if they were the last man standing, they could be the one to get Trump one-on-one and it still hasn't happened," said Donatelli. "Those are the strategic decisions you make in a presidential year. Sometimes they work out, sometimes not," said Donatelli. |
| Obama's Gitmo Move 'Aiding and Abetting the Enemy' |
| Tue, 23 Feb 2016 16:16:38 EST President Obama is urging Congress to approve the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, allow for the transfer of remaining detainees to the U.S. and try them in U.S. courts. In calling for the policy change, Obama said the move would save taxpayers money without compromising security. In fact, Obama argues that America is less safe because of the facility. "For many years, it's been clear that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay does not advance our national security. It undermines it," said Obama Tuesday. "This is not just my opinion. This is the opinion of many in our military. It's counterproductive to our fight against terrorists because they use it as propaganda in their efforts to recruit." Retired three-star U.S. Air Force Gen. Tom McInerney isn't buying it. "That absolutely false. It's like, 'If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan.' There is no truth to that whatsoever," said McInerney. McInerney, who rose to the third highest position in the Air Force, is also a Fox News military analyst. He says we can't be safer when 30 percent of the detainees released return to radical groups and continue their efforts to kill Americans and other enemies. He says the existence of the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay doesn't change the terrorists' game plan one iota. "They're beheading people because of their radical ideology of radical Islam; the Koran, the Hadith and Sharia Law. That's what motivates those people, not because they've got people in Gitmo," said McInerney. The general sees countless downsides to Obama trying to shutter the camp but is struggling to see any good reasons to do it. "Why would we do this and encourage other future radical Islamists to think, 'Well, it doesn't matter if I'm captured, they're not going to do anything to me?" said McInerney. When asked to answer his own question, McInerney says Obama has committed a series of national security blunders that make the U.S. more vulnerable. "I do not know why he did all the things he does. Why did he exchange Sgt. (Bowe) Bergdahl for five four-star general equivalents? Why did he not respond in Benghazi and send reinforcements?" said McInerney. "Why did he flip to supporting radical Islamists in 2012? I don't have those answers except every one of them ends up with aiding and abetting the enemy." McInerney also referenced the Obama administration releasing more than $100 billion in frozen Iranian assets as part of the Iran nuclear deal, even as Secretary of State John Kerry admitted some of that money would likely sponsor terrorism. Obama says the American people should be reassured that federal courts can handle most of the remaining cases originating from Guantanamo, but McInerney is outraged that Obama would extend the constitutional protections enjoyed by all citizens to our enemies. "Why would we give them the rights of every American citizen? That makes no sense. What kind of president do we have that is basically aiding and abetting the enemy," said McInerney. Obama says access to American courts did not stop the convictions of would-be terrorists such as attempted shoe bomber Richard Reid, attempted Christmas Day underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and attempted Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad. He says they were found guilty and pose no threat to the U.S. even though they remain on our soil. Does that assuage McInerney's concerns? "They were not caught on the battlefield. If you're caught on the battlefield then you should be treated appropriately. We didn't let the German and Japanese POW's go before the end of World War II, did we?" asked McInerney. He says closing Guantanamo would be a huge mistake. "Who knows? We may have to put a lot more in there depending how the situation goes in the Middle East. We ought to keep them there for the rest of their lives until the war is over. We should not be releasing any of them," said McInerney. Obama will travel to Cuba in March to highlight the restoration of diplomatic relations between the long-estranged countries. One of the conditions the U.S. imposed for improved ties was for Cuba to radically improve its human rights record. That has not happened and Cuba now says it not only wants the detention camp shut down but that it wants the U.S. Navy to abandon Guantanamo Bay altogether. While the administration has said that's not on the table, McInerney fears Obama may be open to that. "I do believe he is and that's why he's trying to get that number (of detainees) down. We don not want to give Guantanamo back. That is a valuable piece of real estate, even if it isn't a prison. It was a very important naval gunnery range that we had for many years. So we should not want to give that back," said McInerney. |
| 'They Want Someone Who is Ruthlessly Honest' |
| Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:08:05 EST Donald Trump romped to an easy win in the South Carolina primary by being "ruthlessly honest" and reassembling the coalition of voters that gave Ronald Reagan two landslide presidential wins. That's the analysis of former South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Van Hipp, who is also the author of "The New Terrorism: How to Fight It and Defeat It." On Saturday, Trump claimed all 50 Republican delegates at stake by winning statewide and in each of the Palmetto State's congressional districts. Trump scored more than 32 percent of the vote. Marco Rubio edged Ted Cruz for second, but both were ten points behind Trump. The rest of the field finished much lower, leading Jeb Bush to end his campaign after coming in a distant fourth place. Trump defied expectations through the campaign in South Carolina, even winning a plurality of the evangelical vote. The state is staunchly conservative and Trump's conservative bona fides are regularly questioned. So how did he win so convincingly? "He won it not only with evangelicals but with national security conservatives and with economic conservatives. These folks may have been angry but it looks a whole lot like the old Reagan coalition," said Hipp. "He's connecting with these people and, whether you agree with him or not, regardless of whether you're for someone else, you've got to look at how he did it. He's bringing new people into the Republican Party. He's bringing in the old independents and the Reagan Democrats," said Hipp. Cruz was banking heavily on not only winning but dominating the evangelical vote. Instead, more than 30 percent went with Trump, who has publicly stated he has never asked God for forgiveness. Hipp says it's not that evangelicals think Trump is the strongest Christian in the GOP field, but that he is the one who is resonating with the voters over their greatest concerns. "One very prominent Southern Baptist minister who endorsed him last week said it best, that he is ruthlessly honest. People want someone (like that) right now. They're fed up with the government. They're fed up with politicians. They want someone who is ruthlessly honest," said Hipp. Another minister echoed a similar sentiment in a conversation with Hipp. "He said, 'Look, I may not want the guy to be my pastor. There are other people who would be a better Sunday School teacher. But right now, we don't need someone who will just slow down the death of America. We need someone who's going to make the tough decisions and call it like it is and show us some tough love and save this country,'" recounted Hipp. Beyond Trump's ability to win over voters thought to be more aligned with other candidates, Hipp says the campaign was well organized in all parts of the state and seemed to top notch in its voter data efforts. "I think we can learn a whole lot, whether you're a grassroots conservative activist or an establishment Republican. Mitt Romney sure could have used this kind of advice in 2012, because we had so many people who didn't turn out to vote who were conservatives," said Hipp. He says tactics like Trump organizers getting as many people as possible to vote via absentee ballots showed a level of sophistication many had not expected. "We didn't do that in 2012. Obama did that in 2012. I think he's looked at how Obama did it, using technology, how he connects to the iPhone, how he built up a huge lead withe absentees. That's how you're going to beat Hillary Clinton," said Hipp. He also credited Trump for getting his team into South Carolina very early and organizing well. Where does that leave the rest of the field? Hipp says Saturday's results "wounded" Cruz, who seemed to be a good ideological fit for the state and kept lofty expectations all the way to election day. "It's tough to spin a third place finish when the day before you were saying, 'This is going to look a lot like Iowa.' It did not look a lot like Iowa. South Carolina is different. It is much more representative of the Republican and conservative electorate nationwide because you've got social conservatives, economic and national security conservatives," said Hipp, noting the primary winner is almost always the eventual GOP nominee. As for Rubio, Hipp says finishing second is a boost but it doesn't change the most glaring statistic facing the senator's campaign. "He gets a boost but at some point he's got to start winning. I think they felt they had an outside chance to win in South Carolina," said Hipp. Hipp believes Rubio got a boost from the endorsement of Gov. Nikki Haley but he believes another endorsement made an even bigger difference. "She definitely helped but let's face it. The most popular conservative in any red state in America is Sen. Tim Scott. He made a big difference. I think he gave him a lot of momentum going into Saturday," said Hipp. Nevada Republicans will weigh in on the 2016 race Tuesday and then Super Tuesday on March 1 could be decisive factor in the fate of the Cruz campaign. Hipp sees another nomination-defining race just two weeks later. "Florida's going to be a defining moment. That's Rubio's home state. Trump has done very well there in the polls. I think the winner in Florida is going to tell us an awful lot," said Hipp. Republican voters who don't like Trump are increasingly anxious to winnow the field down to one strong alternative who can defeat the front-runner and the Democrats in November. But would that strategy work and can the field shrink in time for that candidate to make up ground on Trump? Hipp thinks it's possible but warns the opportunity is quickly fading for someone to dent Trump's momentum. If Trump is the nominee, Hipp believes Trump will have an easier time uniting Republicans towards November than his critics suggest. "If you look at the fact he's getting out Reagan Democrats and independents that we need to win and he's getting social conservatives, economic conservatives and national security conservatives, that sounds an awful lot to me like Ronald Reagan's winning coalition," said Hipp. "But I do think it's going to be important for him to have someone on the ticket. If he were the nominee, he's going to need somebody like a Rubio or a (Ohio Gov. John) Kasich as his vice president," said Hipp. |
| Rafael Cruz Talks Negative Campaigning, Ted's Conservative Roots, Keys to Winning |
| Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:07:07 EST The father of 2016 Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz says they both get 'energized' by political attacks and he believes motivated Christian voters will be the deciding factor in this campaign. In a wide-ranging interview, Rafael Cruz also explained his son's path to becoming a staunch conservative and what separates the senator from his GOP rivals. Mr. Cruz is an ordained minister and is the author of "A Time for Action: Empowering the Faithful to Reclaim America." Leading up to Saturday's South Carolina primary, the rhetoric got very heated among the the three most prominent candidates. Donald Trump called Cruz a "total liar" and threatened to bring a defamation lawsuit over a Cruz ad showing 1999 interview in which Trump calls himself "very pro-choice." Trump insists that does not represent his current opinion. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., has also labeled Cruz a liar for misrepresenting both of their positions on immigration in recent years, on social issues and for not coming clean on an obviously doctored photo showing Rubio and President Obama shaking hands, among other issues. Former President George H.W. Bush said it was much tougher to watch his sons endure political attacks than to go through them himself, but Rafael Cruz loves it. "Both Ted and I get energized by the attacks," said Cruz. "If you're not making an impact, nobody's going to attack you. They are attacking because he is making a difference and because they fear him." He sees the scorn of both parties aimed at his son and they also see that as a badge of honor. "The reason why you see the Republican establishment so much against my son is because my son is against preserving the status quo, against what he calls the 'Washington Cartel,' corrupt career politicians in both parties," said Cruz. And Cruz says the more nasty the label opponents throw at his son, the Cruz team knows they're on the right path. "He has conducted a campaign of absolute integrity. Unfortunately, you hear a couple of politicians talking about lies and lies and lies. When they claim lies, it's because Ted is pointing out things in their campaign that they don't want to come to the forefront, so they deflect," said Cruz. In analysis that echoes what Sen. Cruz frequently says on the campaign trail, his father says some political figures talk the talk and others walk the walk. "Don't listen to what these candidates say. Look at what they do and what they have done. If they tell you they're pro-life but they've been promoting abortion for decades, don't believe them," said Cruz, in a reference to Trump. "If they tell you they are against amnesty but they have been promoting amnesty for years, don't believe them," said Cruz, alluding to Rubio. Protecting the traditional family and religious freedom are among the highest priorities for Mr. Cruz. He says the reaction among GOP candidates after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in 2015, should serve as a stark contrast. "When the June 26th decision came out of the Supreme Court, everyone on that stage except Ted Cruz said, 'It's the law of the land. Let's move on.' Ted was the only one who said, 'No, it's not the law of the land. This is an unconstitutional, unlawful decision,'" said Cruz. Speaking of the high court, the elder Cruz also believes his son is the best candidate to trust to pick conservative justices for the high court. "With one more liberal justice on the Supreme Court, it will take 30 years to correct that mistake. A lot of our freedoms will disappear with five liberals on the Supreme Court," said Cruz. He believes his son has experience no else in the race can match on this front, including clerking for the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist and arguing nine cases before the justices. Ted Cruz is only 45 years old, but his father says the senator has been immersed in conservative thought since he was a small boy, thanks in large part to Rafael Cruz being very active in the 1980 campaign through a group known as the Religious Roundtable. "When Ted was nine years old, every day for a year, we talked around the dinner table as to why we had to get rid of this socialist progressive, Jimmy Carter, and replace him with a constitutional conservative like Ronald Reagan. So he got a dose of conservative politics from a Christian worldview every day for a year when he was nine years old," said Cruz. From there, the young Ted Cruz immersed himself in the writings of Adam Smith, John Locke, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and others. When he turned 13, the future senator was chosen for a prestigious project for the Free Enterprise Institute. "This organization created a group of five kids. They called them the 'Constitutional Corroborators.' Ted was one of those five. They hired a memory expert and taught these five kids to memorize the U.S. Constitution," said Cruz. "During the next four years, my son, Ted, gave approximately 80 speeches on free market economics and the Constitution," said Cruz. Rafael Cruz says his son was passionate as a teenager about the founding principles of limited government, the rule of law and free markets. He says Sen. Cruz has that same "fire in his bones." Ted Cruz won in Iowa and finished in a better-than-expected third place in New Hampshire. But the road ahead looks challenging as Trump holds commanding leads in many of the upcoming states. His father is confident the votes will be there for his son when it matters. "The body of Christ if going to rise up. Believers are coalescing around Ted Cruz. I think the people of God realize that we need a man of faith, a man of integrity and that you can trust his word," said Cruz. "So I encourage each and every one of your listeners to stand behind Ted Cruz and let's together again make America that shining city on a hill to the glory of God," said Cruz. |
| Conservative Challenger Looks to Unseat McCain |
| Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:51:44 EST In order to win a sixth term in the U.S. Senate, John McCain faces the gauntlet of battling a feisty conservative challenger just to get to a November showdown with the Democrats' top recruit for the race. McCain, who will turn 80 the day before the Aug. 30 primary, was first elected in 1986. But while he is among the best known senators and a one-time Republican presidential nominee, the senator may no longer be the toast of his own constituents. "Arizona deserves to have a Republican senator who represents their values. We aren't getting that right now," said Dr. Kelli Ward, an osteopathic physician and a former Arizona state senator, who says the disgust voters are expressing for Washington on the presidential campaign trail is also palpable in her state. "They're looking to change the status quo in Washington, D.C. Truly the only way we can do that is by changing the people we send there. We can't keep sending the same people back and expect a different result," said Ward. The 47-year-old Ward won a special election to the state senate in 2012. She won re-election unopposed in 2014, but resigned the seat in December to focus on the U.S. Senate race. She says the list of reasons McCain needs to be retired is long and clear. "Just in the last few years, he voted for tax hikes, he voted for bailouts, he voted for massive new spending. He voted for amnesty. He voted for liberal judges. That's on everyone's mind right now. He mocked the conservatives who wanted to stop Obamacare, calling Sen. Cruz, Sen. Paul and Sen. Lee 'wacko birds.' He's voted 15 times to increase the debt ceiling," said Ward. She wasn't done. "He's supported the Democrats' efforts to infringe on our second amendment rights. He's been willing to bend the Constitution regarding our fourth amendment privacy rights. The list goes on and on and on," she said. How would Ward be different? "I'm a small government Republican. I want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, a strong defense and a strong military. I want personal responsibility across the board and I want us to get back to following our Constitution," said Ward. Ward says her brief time in the state senate is proof that she's not just talk on these issues. "Last year I was able to get 19 bills signed into law, common sense bills that did shrink the size of government, that lowered our taxes, that took the heavy hand of government off the heads of small businesses and let them thrive," said Ward. "I worked on welfare reform, health care reform, education reform, all of those things I want to take to Washington. I also stood up to my party at times and to the executive branch at other times," said Ward. She offered a recent example of how she rebuffed GOP Gov. Doug Ducey. "He sent me some nominees for the state board of education when I was the education chair. They were unacceptable to me and to the people I represented because they were pro-Common Core," said Ward, vowing to bring that same level of scrutiny to federal nominations if elected to the U.S. Senate. Whether Ward has a decent shot of beating McCain depends upon which poll you look at. Late last summer, a Gravis Marketing survey showed Ward leading McCain 45-36 percent and both of them ahead of likely Democratic nominee, Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick. In that poll, McCain led Kirkpatrick 48-35 percent, while Ward held a 43-38 percent edge. However, a new Rocky Mountain Poll has McCain with a commanding 47-11 lead over Ward. It also shows him in a statistical dead heat with Kirkpatrick with just a 38-37 margin. The Rocky Mountain Poll did not ask about a potential Ward-Kirkpatrick match-up. Many more polls will emerge in the coming months to flesh out the state of the race. For her part, Ward believes she presents unique problems for McCain. "Senator McCain has never faced a well-educated, well-spoken, down-to-earth, Constitution-loving woman. It is going to be very difficult for him, especially in this time of upset with career politicians and the political elite ruling over us, rather than allowing us to have government of, by, and for the people," said Ward. But this is not just about unseating McCain. Ward is also confident she could keep the seat in GOP hands if she advances to face Kirkpatrick in November. "She votes with Barack Obama nearly 100 percent of the time. Arizona is still a conservative state, so I don't think Ann Kirkpatrick will fare very well against me, a constitutional female," said Ward. |
| Rafael Cruz to Pastors: Be Biblically Correct, Not Politically Correct |
| Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:15:39 EST The father of presidential hopeful Ted Cruz says our most fundamental freedoms are under assault and pastors need to engage believers to fight for our most cherished rights, including the freedom to preach the gospel. Rafael Cruz, an ordained minister, is also author of "A Time for Action: Empowering the Faithful to Reclaim America." The story of the elder Cruz is one that his son has told many times on the campaign trail: how he escaped from Batista-ruled Cuba in the 1950's with just $100 and the clothes on his back and worked as a dishwasher until he could go to school and start a better job. He says even as a teenager, he knew America was a "bastion of freedom." "Horatio Alger stories were things that everybody read. They were very inspirational because in many countries of the world those things are impossible. To think that anyone could achieve their dreams is not something that people in the majority of countries of the world see as remotely possible," said Cruz. Since he knows what life is like without the freedoms we enjoy, Cruz says it is vital that Americans understand they are at risk. "Too many people in America think that we could never lose our freedoms. The reality is we're losing our freedoms more and more every day. I must have told my son a dozen times when he was a kid, 'You know, Ted, when I lost my freedom in Cuba, I had a place to come to. If we lose our freedoms here, where are we going to go?'" said Cruz. Which freedoms are under assault? Cruz starts with the Obama approach to the second amendment. "Every time there is any kind of massacre or any kind of a shooting, immediately the first thing that comes out of their mouths is gun control. We saw it after Newtown. We saw it after San Bernardino. The second amendment right to keep and bear arms is to protect us from excesses by the government," said Cruz. He says the history of gun control in authoritarian regimes is a bloody and tragic tale. "You look at every tin horn dictator, whether it was Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot or Castro, every time a dictator has taken the guns from the population, then they have used the guns against the population," said Cruz. Another major concern for Cruz is the left's use of the phrase "freedom of worship." "It sounds okay but we need to realize that freedom of worship is not the same as freedom of religion. The way socialists or communists define worship is that's what you do inside a house of worship," said Cruz. He says history is a stark guide on this issue too. "In Cuba and other communist countries, you have freedom of worship. You can worship inside the four walls of a church. You can even preach the gospel. You have spies there, but you can do it inside the four walls of the church. If you do it out on the street, you're put in jail," said Cruz. He says to pay close attention because slick language can lead to repressive policies. "When they replace 'freedom of religion' with 'freedom of worship,' they're basically saying you keep your religion inside your church. But once you step out the door, you're coming into a 100 percent secular country," said Cruz. As a result, Cruz says Christians and all people of faith need to stand up to defend their rights and pastors need to lead the way. "It is time they become biblically correct instead of politically correct," said Cruz. He point to a study from Barna Group, showing 90 percent of pastors believe the Bible addresses all of the problems addressing society but only 10 percent say they preach on those things. "We can't divorce ourselves from what's happening in the civic society. If we do not bring the moral fiber and the moral character of America to the forefront, America's going to crumble," said Cruz. Some pastors don't want to get mixed up in the sordid arena of politics, while others insist their mission is not to influence elections but to build believers to the glory of God and to reach unbelievers with the gospel of Christ. While he applauds the latter stand in part, Cruz says those pastors need to consider the impact of losing core freedoms. "For pastors that say, 'My greatest responsibility is to preach the gospel,' I agree with that. But the second greatest responsibility is to preserve the freedom to do the most important thing. Our freedoms are getting to the point if we do not have a change of course, it will become impossible to preach the gospel," said Cruz. He says there is historic evidence to back up his position, nothing that the preaching of Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield in the Great Awakening heavily influenced the American founders decades later. He also points out that colonial preachers were railing against the very same grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence as much as a decade earlier. Cruz says believers are looking to pastors to provide guidance and will look elsewhere if they don't get it from the pulpit. He says if pastors and believers cede the political stage to those hostile towards them, the eradication of rights will come as no surprise. "If those people are not running for office, are not even voting, what is left? What is left is those who trample those principles are voting for those who trample those principles. So we get what we deserve," said Cruz. |
| 'On Any List of the Top Five, He's on the List' |
| Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:45:46 EST A former law clerk for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia remembers his friend and boss as legally brilliant, unfailingly gracious and a man who will be regarded as one of the very best justices in U.S. history. "I think on any list of the top five, he's on the list," said Ethics and Public Policy Center President Ed Whelan, who clerked for Scalia during the 1991-92 court session. "People may have different lists depending on what their criteria are, but in terms of brilliant legal analysis, Justice Scalia ranks right at the top." Scalia was nominated for the high court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 and confirmed 98-0 by the U.S. Senate. He served more than 29 years on the Supreme Court and was the longest-serving among the nine justices at the time of his death on Saturday. In interview after interview, Scalia referred to himself as a textualist and an originalist. And what exactly is a textualist? "Textualism is so common sense that it might puzzle people that there could be anything else. What a textualist does is look at the text of the law to determine what the law means," said Whelan. "The judge's obligation is to construe the meaning of a legal provision as it was understood at the time it was adopted, focusing on text and of course context too. This isn't hyper-literalism. We look to the actual law and not some presumed intent that we can concoct to lie behind the law," said Whelan. While Whelan says textualism should seem like common sense, Scalia's approach actually seems radical after decades of liberals pushing their agenda through the courts. "Somehow in the 1950's and 1960's and 1970's the left, not liking what the law actually said because it didn't sufficiently promote it's own agenda, started reading all sorts of purposes into the law and adopted an approach that looked heavily to legislative history so it could manipulate the law to reach whatever result it wanted," said Whelan. As Scalia evaluated laws and the Constitution to determine which way to vote on a given case, Whelan says the justice would engage his clerks in a vigorous, "nerve-wracking" discussion to test their skills and sharpen his arguments. "We learned on that he loved vigorous debate. He really wanted to make sure he got things right and the only way to do that was to test them. Some of that was done orally. A lot, obviously, was done in writing," said Whelan. He was also fascinated watching Scalia wrestle towards and reach his conclusion on a case. "You could just see him as he worked his way through problems. You could see the muscles of his face move as his brain exercised. And then the wonderful 'a ha' moment when he reached clarity on a difficult legal issue," said Whelan. Once Scalia reached an opinion, he often expressed it with far more color than justices before or since. Scalia was known to use colorful phrases or stinging rebukes to his colleagues on the other side of the ruling. "He loved language. He particularly loved using figures of speech or phrases that would really distill or capture exactly the point he was making. His colorful language isn't just excess but it really focuses the mind on exactly what he's saying," said Whelan. Whelan says that approach often confounded those embracing the opposing opinion. "You read so many of his dissents and look back and see, 'What did the majority have to say in response to that?' You discover it said nothing because it had nothing to say and it ended up being the brute power of five justices, or more, deciding a case without engaging his counter-arguments. That was very frustrating at times but he was writing for the ages," said Whelan. As a result, Whelan says Scalia's writings will be textbook material for generations of students. "Generations from now, if we're lucky to have this republic survive that long, so long as people are reading Supreme Court decisions, they will savor Justice Scalia's opinions, both his majority opinions and his dissents," said Whelan. And which cases over nearly 30 years stand out strongest for Scalia? Whelan cited three, starting with a landmark second amendment case. "The majority opinion in the second amendment case in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller is a model of originalism. Justice Scalia got a majority on board for his originalist approach there. Of course, some of them have wandered off on other cases when they haven't wanted to go where originalism would take them. [But this was] a very very powerful reading of the second amendment," said Whelan. Two dissents also stand out to Whelan, including Morrison v. Olson in 1988, which dealt with the independent counsel statute. "He was alone in dissent, saying that that statute violated separation of powers. Years later, virtually everyone agrees with the wisdom of his dissent," said Whelan. The third case referenced by Whelan is Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a critical abortion case decided while Whelan clerked for Scalia in which the court effectively upheld it's rulings in the 1970's. "He said this is a matter that the Constitution leaves to the political processes to decide through the democratic processes in each state. By taking this away from the people, by making this judicial power grab, you are corrupting the whole political process and extending the agony here," said Whelan. Whelan says Scalia has been proven right. "Justice (Anthony) Kennedy and the others in the majority pretended that they were resolving the issue for good. I think history has already shown that judicial power grab hasn't silenced the defense of the unborn and it won't. He's been proven right although the majority hasn't yet accepted his wisdom," said Whelan. In recent days, scores of personal stories have emerged about how Scalia easily made friends from across the ideological spectrum, was big-hearted and unfailingly kind. That was certainly Whelan's experience. "Sorry I'm pausing. It's a question that causes me to reflect on his many kindnesses to me," said Whelan, fighting back tears. "He was present at my wedding. I'm very grateful for that. He was just a generous mentor throughout my career." "Whenever I needed sage advice, he was there. I'm just deeply grateful to him," said Whelan. |
| Feds Whiff on Cyber Security Despite Big Spending |
| Mon, 15 Feb 2016 11:54:54 EST The latest round of embarrassing federal data breaches struck the very agencies charged with protecting us, evidence one leading member of Congress believes is proof that throwing money at a problem doesn't solve much unless there's accountability to go with it. Last week, the personal data of some 20,000 FBI employees and more than 9,000 Department of Homeland Security workers was released. Days later the story took on additional embarrassment when authorities arrested the perpetrator, a 16-year-old boy in Great Britain. The teen said he gained access to the information through weak security in the Department of Justice email system. House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Operations Chairman Mark Meadows, R-N.C., says this case offers another sobering national security reminder. "It shows two things. One is that no agency is immune from the attacks. But, more specifically, in spite of spending some $80 billion a year in IT provisions, that that money is not necessarily directed towards not only the most up-to-date encryption but cyber defenses," said Meadows. As the details of the attacks on the FBI and Homeland Security emerged, President Obama spelled out his prescription for shoring up U.S. cyber security efforts. "I 19m announcing our new Cybersecurity National Action Plan, backed by my proposal to increase federal cybersecurity funding by more than a third, to over $19 billion. This plan will address both short-term and long-term threats, with the goal of providing every American a basic level of online security," wrote Obama in the Wall Street Journal. "First, I 19m proposing a $3 billion fund to kick-start an overhaul of federal computer systems. It is no secret that too often government IT is like an Atari game in an Xbox world. The Social Security Administration uses systems and code from the 1960s. No successful business could operate this way," he added. Meadows agrees that U.S. infrastructure is badly in need up an upgrade and that will cost money, but he says just spending more money isn't going to solve the problem. "Some $80 billion is spent annually on IT. That doesn't include some of those offline budget items that some would suggest is another 20 billion. A hundred billion spent and yet what we're seeing is the resources that could be deployed have not been," said Meadows. "We found that tools were available for use yet weren't turned on," said Meadows, who will be holding hearings on the subject soon. "It's time that we not only get serious about it but we have to be more prudent in where we put our resources." Meadows believes the president is serious about beefing up our cyber defenses but two major problems are impeding any progress. The first is simply the realities of Washington. "Obviously, bureaucracy and politics get in the way of almost everything in Washington, D.C. So to suggest that did not have a role would be disingenuous," said Meadows. But he says there are some more deliberate sticks in the mud too. "Where we have a real breakdown is with some of our CIO's, our chief information officers," said Meadows, noting he was particularly unimpressed with testimony following the massive breach at the Office of Personnel Management in 2015. He says across the government the performance levels are very poor. "We give them a grade and most agencies got an 'F' initially. So we're not only going to be tracking this on a quarterly basis but holding hearings every sixth months to make sure that we make progress," said Meadows. The congressman says achieving results all comes down to a simple concept. "It's really more accountability from an oversight standpoint, but also making sure those doing a good job are rewarded and those who don't actually are held accountable," said Meadows. And improving competence and performance, says Meadows, starts with appreciating the scope of the threat. "My trouble with so much of this is that the attacks continue to come on a daily and hourly and minute-by-minute basis. Yet, what we're doing is assuming we're immune to those attacks from our foreign enemies," said Meadows. If the federal government, at all levels, truly committed to addressing the cyber threat, Meadows believes it wouldn't take long to put us on much more solid footing. "There's enough, not only financial resources, but commitment there that we could see drastic improvement in a very short window, six to nine months," said Meadows. Meadows says the FBI and Homeland Security breaches only intensify an existing commitment from congressional Republicans to protect the American people and their information. "Chairman (Jason) Chaffetz and myself are committed, both at the subcommittee level and the full committee, to continue to keep the pressure on until we get this problem resolved so that all Americans and our federal records can rest assured that we're being vigilant about it," said Meadows. |
| 'Thank Goodness It's His Last Budget' |
| Fri, 12 Feb 2016 15:43:45 EST House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price is defending his decision to dismiss President Obama's final budget proposal without a hearing because it spends too much, taxes too much and never balances. Price, R-Ga., says instead Republicans will focus on crafting a budget that balances in the coming years and addresses Social Security and Medicare, which are careening towards disaster. He's also optimistic federal spending will not end up in a bloated omnibus package at the end of the year. On Tuesday, Obama unveiled a $4.1 trillion budget that Price finds completely unacceptable. "Thank goodness it's his last budget because we can't stand many more," said Price. "This is the first budget any president's proposed that spends over $4 trillion in a year. He continues to be married to an incredible degree to raising taxes. He wants to raise taxes by $3.4 trillion, including putting a ten dollar per barrel tax on oil. That is one of the most regressive taxes he could come up with." He says the bad new doesn't end there. "(It's) continuing to increase the deficit, continuing to increase the debt. It never, ever, ever balances. As such, it doesn't address the challenges that this country faces," said Price. Price and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi, R-Wyoming, made headlines even before the Obama budget was unveiled by announcing their committees would not hold hearings on it. While Democrats and many media outlets cried foul, Price says his critics have short memories. "This is pretty curious. The president has been ignoring Congress for seven years so one time when we stipulate that his budget has no chance of proceeding, they get all excited and exorcised," said Price. How did he know the budget wouldn't worth the time to consider it? "The president has introduced budgets before. We've heard them before. In fact, we've had votes on the floor of the House. The last two times they voted on the president's budget when it came of the floor of the House, it received a grand total of two (votes) out of 435 members," said Price. He says the GOP priorities will be clear in drafting a budget blueprint. "We will be addressing our concerns to strengthen and save Medicare and Medicaid, to make sure we provide appropriate resources for our men and women in uniform. This is a very dangerous world and we need to make sure they have the resources they need to protect us. Then get us on the path to balance so we can get to a balanced budget and getting on that path to paying off the debt," said Price. Price says getting the spending under control will require two paths. First, he says Congress needs to reign in discretionary spending and points out current discretionary levels are lower than what was spent from 2008-2010. The much bigger, more complicated obstacle is mandatory spending, but Price says not much can happen until there's a president concerned about the spiraling debt of entitlement programs. "If nothing is done right now, which apparently is the president's plan because they haven't proposed anything. If nothing is done to save and secure and strengthen those programs, those programs go broke," said Price. Republicans won control of Capitol Hill in 2014 and vowed to restore "regular order" last year, by which spending bills individually rather than rolling them into one giant bill offered at the deadline for averting a government shutdown. That didn't happen. Individual bills started moving through the House but went nowhere in the Senate after Obama insisted on higher spending across the board and Democrats filibustered the GOP legislation. Ultimately, an omnibus bill was easily approved in both the House and Senate that funded Obama priorities from Planned Parenthood to sanctuary cities to the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal. In exchange, Republicans were able to end the export ban on crude oil and make many tax breaks permanent. Despite the same president and the same margins in the Senate, Price is crossing his fingers that regular order can proceed this year and save taxpayers money by bringing transparency and scrutiny to every bill. "Speaker (Paul) Ryan has had exactly those conversations with not just Mitch McConnell, the majority leader in the Senate, but with Harry Reid, the minority leader in the Senate. In fact, the president has committed to beginning to move the appropriations process in through regular order," said Price. |
| New Hampshire Vote is Washington Wake-Up Call |
| Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:15:45 EST The results of the Republican and Democratic primaries in New Hampshire set the stage for a showdown in South Carolina but also send an unmistakable "wake-up call" to to the political establishment in both parties. The outsiders had a very good night Tuesday. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, and Donald Trump scored landslide wins respectively and Sen. Ted. Cruz, R-Texas, defied expectations by finishing in third place. While getting less than a third of Trump's vote total, Cruz still edged Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who had been expected to finish second in New Hampshire. He also bested Jeb Bush, despite being outspent $36 million to $800,000. As the race shifts to the Palmetto State, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., says the voting thus far shows people in both parties are fed up with business as usual. "Not only Trump's victory but Bernie Sanders' victory underscores the frustration that most Americans have with Washington, D.C. They know our country is headed in the wrong direction, that Washington, D.C. is broke. They're just desperate to find someone who's saying, 'Let's turn over the apple cart and start all over again,'" said Meadows. "People want straight talk. They want somebody to be able to tell it like it is. Even if they don't agree on some of the issues, they're going to reward those who call it like it is. That's why we're seeing Donald and Bernie and Ted Cruz perform so well," said Meadows. While those three candidates may be light years apart ideologically, Meadows says they are tapping into the same disgust. "When you calculate all of their votes, it ought to give Washington, D.C., a real wake-up call in terms of the job that they're doing," said Meadows. Meadows is the second-term lawmaker who filed the motion to vacate the speaker's chair in the House of Representatives last year, a move that ultimately triggered the resignation of House Speaker John Boehner. Meadows is endorsing Cruz in the 2016 campaign. As the remaining Republicans tangle vie for the nomination, Meadows says the outsiders have a distinct advantage over the candidates considered more acceptable to party leaders. "It's important for us to return the government to the people and to the will of the people and restore that confidence and trust. It's going to be difficult for anybody who is running in the establishment lane to accomplish that," said Meadows, referring to Rubio, Bush and Gov. John Kasich, R-Ohio. Some advocates for the likes of Trump and Cruz believe that the jumble in the middle of the GOP pack in New Hampshire is good for the outsiders because it will now be weeks or longer before the top establishment candidate emerges. Meadows disagrees. "I look at it very differently. The quicker we can get down to two or three candidates and look at each one of them on their own merits, the easier it is to focus on the strengths and weaknesses of each potential presidential nominee," said Meadows. But just as one establishment candidate may ultimately emerge, either Cruz or Trump has to eventually elbow the other out of the race. Meadows says Cruz is the right choice. "It's one thing to talk the talk. It's another to walk the walk," said Meadows. "He's been in the fight. He's not only willing to say it on the campaign trail, but I've seen him actually do it here in Washington, D.C., and has come under tremendous ridicule. Whether it's in front of a camera or behind the scenes in a private office, Ted Cruz is the same guy." "He's someone who's willing to fight to restore our constitutional principles and, with that, make sure the voice of the American people is the number one priority here in Washington, D.C.," said Meadows. South Carolina polls conducted in January suggest Trump had a sizable lead at the time. More polls will come soon, but Meadows is confident Cruz will do well. "I know Sen. Cruz has a great ground game there that has been in place for many many months and has been reaching out on a one-on-one basis all over the state," said Meadows, who will work on behalf of Cruz in South Carolina. As for the general election, Meadows is again defying conventional wisdom by rejecting the nation that Sanders would be easier for the Republican nominee to beat given his open embrace of "Democratic socialism." He believes Hillary Clinton is very vulnerable. "I think if Hillary is the nominee, the baggage that she brings makes her a greater drag on that Democratic side of the aisle than anybody else," said Meadows. |
| Female Voters Reject Hillary, Embrace Sanders and Trump |
| Wed, 10 Feb 2016 16:20:37 EST Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders crushed their opponents and conventional wisdom Tuesday night in New Hampshire, as Democratic female voters abandoned Hillary Clinton in favor of Sanders and Trump easily won the women's vote despite his reputation for being crude towards them. On Tuesday, Trump took 35 percent of the Republican vote. Gov. John Kasich, R-Ohio, was a distant second at 16 percent, with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, finishing third. Exit polls show Trump dominated among all demographics, including women. Trump won 33 percent of the female vote in a nine-candidate race. Kasich had 16 percent, followed by Jeb Bush with 12 percent. Those numbers follow Trump's famous feud with Fox News Channel anchorMegyn Kelly over Trump's derogatory statements about various women over the years and over Kelly herself. Women in New Hampshire didn't care. "They're not taking to the fainting couches and I think that's one of two reasons why Trump is doing okay with women," said Independent Women's Forum Senior Fellow Gayle Trotter, who attracted national attention in 2013 for her passionate defense of the second amendment before the U.S. Senate. "Women are tough and they understand that politics is not beanbag. They're maybe slightly offended by some of things that he's said, but they really care that he is tapping into these issues that seem to be pressing on our nation right now." Trotter says Trump also scores points with women for another unspoken reason. "His other secret weapon are the women who are very successful and accomplished, who are going on the campaign trail for him. Exhibit A is his daughter, Ivanka," said Trotter, noting Ivanka is over eight months pregnant. "He particularly noted Ivanka and said that she had been to seven events politicking for him. She is a great ambassador for him." So will Trump's reputation ever catch up with him? Trotter doubts it. "It's hard to imagine. This is the only politician I've ever seen who uses a media firestorm as a campaign strategy. Not only does he say all of these kind of outrageous things, he embraces them. He is excited and proud of saying them," said Trotter. She says Trump appears immune to the controversies that normally sink campaigns. "It's hard to believe that he could really say anything worse than he's already said or if he did that it would have any kind of backlash on him. All the political pundits and prognosticators said there's no way he could recover from any of these comments. He's proven them wrong time and time again," said Trotter. On the Democratic side, observers assumed Hillary Clinton would cruise to the nomination thanks to a stranglehold on the women's vote. She did score a 55-44 margin among Democratic women in Iowa, but Sanders won a majority of female voters in New Hampshire by the very same margin. Trotter says Hillary's blatant and repeated playing of the gender card is turning women off. "I think she really feels this nomination is owed to her for all of the time she has put in. Every time she goes out on the campaign trail, she's talking about how hard she has worked. That does not seem to be resonating with Democratic voters who want to be inspired," said Trotter. She says Sanders is hitting that note with the Democratic base. "Bernie Sanders is something very different than what we've seen in Washington. He is connecting with voters across the country. On top of that, he is offering something very, very different than what Hillary Clinton is," said Trotter. Sensing that female support was slipping, Clinton told a debate audience last week that Sanders could not label her as "establishment" because she was a woman and a woman has never been president. Trotter says that was a telling moment. "That's such a silly statement. That was, I think, the most defining moment of that debate. She's a woman who has been in the corridors of power for decades," said Trotter. She says that line is in complete contradiction to the rest of Clinton's case to Democratic voters. "She is also trying to run on the idea that she'll be a third term of President Barack Obama. She's trying to have it both ways and I think the young women who are dissatisfied with the establishment are dissatisfied with that answer. It doesn't answer's Bernie Sanders' criticism," said Trotter. Trotter says another colossal mistake was Hillary and her surrogates trying to shame women away from Sanders. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told supporters there was a special place in hell for women who don't support each other. Feminist Gloria Steinem told HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" that young women backed Sanders because young men did. "Those comments do not help Hillary Clinton. There are a lot of young women who expect there will be a woman president one day in their lifetimes, but Hillary Clinton is not the women they want to be commander-in-chief," said Trotter. On Wednesday afternoon, Republican Carly Fiorina suspended her campaign after poor showings in Iowa and New Hampshire. In her Facebook announcement, Fiorina offered a very different vision of feminism than the one pitched by Clinton. "To young girls and women across the country, I say: do not let others define you. Do not listen to anyone who says you have to vote a certain way or for a certain candidate because you're a woman. That is not feminism. Feminism doesn't shut down conversations or threaten women. It is not about ideology," wrote Fiorina. "It is not a weapon to wield against your political opponent. A feminist is a woman who lives the life she chooses and uses all her God-given gifts," Fiorina added. Trotter says Fiorina should be commended for her campaign. "I think it's great that she participated. I think she had a great message and a lot of really strong policy proposals. But I think not being on that debate stage really killed her campaign," said Trotter. She says the contrast between Clinton and Fiorina shows the hypocrisy of the liberals. "Maybe if Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright had really put into practice their own philosophy of standing up for women and campaign for Carly Fiorina, we might have seen some difference," said Trotter. "Of course they were never going to do that, because it's never about being a woman. It's about having the proper ideology. That's the key for leftist feminists," said Trotter. |
| Zika Mosquito Threat Likely to be Limited in U.S. |
| Tue, 9 Feb 2016 16:21:15 EST The World Health Organization calls the Zika virus a global health emergency, but entomologist Joe Ballenger says the U.S. is very unlikely to see much of an outbreak while more tropical climates ought to be more concerned. Joe Ballenger operates the Ask an Entomologist website. He holds a Master's degree in entomology and now utilizes his expertise in the private sector. Ballenger says there are two types of mosquitoes responsible for transmitting the Zika virus to humans, but the yellow fever mosquito, or Aedes aegypti, is the primary culprit. "The yellow fever mosquito is restricted to the southeastern portion of the U.S.. It ranges upward to South Carolina and west to southeast Texas. Then there's some populations in south central Arizona and some in California," said Ballenger. The other mosquito involved is known as the Asian Tiger mosquito. It has a greater presence in the U.S., going as far north as Iowa, but Ballenger says it's a much less effective vector for Zika than the yellow fever mosquito. "Large scale viral outbreaks are really only seen in areas with yellow fever mosquito populations," said Ballenger. While that may sound ominous for the areas of the U.S. where the yellow fever mosquito is present, Ballenger says there is no reason for alarm. First, he says mosquitoes are not a threat at all right now. "Mosquitoes in the U.S. are very much a seasonal thing. Right now it's winter and transmission is impossible in most of the U.S. because the mosquitoes aren't out," said Ballenger. But even when things warm up, Ballenger says the track record of mosquitoes infecting people in America with other diseases is quite limited. "With dengue (fever) and yellow fever, they tend not to stick around too long in the U.S. Transmission hasn't happened in the U.S., at least in the lower 48, in a very long time," said Ballenger. Ballenger recommends being vigilant but calm. "Be on the lookout but there's no reason to panic. There's a lot of differences between the U.S. and Brazil in terms of how mosquitoes encounter people and where they bite," said Ballenger. His advice for reducing exposure to the Zika virus sounds similar to the mosquito advice we get every summer. "Keep mosquitoes outside by repairing window screens and using air conditioning. Mosquitoes like it warm so they don't like to go into warm houses. Wear long sleeves and pants during summer and avoid dark colors. Wear insect repellent, specifically Deet, Picaridin or something called IR 3535, which is found in Avon skin so soft lotion," said Ballenger. "Use reasonable amounts," he said. "You don't need to bathe in the stuff." He also says to dump out sources of standing water like bird baths and flower pots since they are a breeding ground for mosquitoes. Ballenger also dismisses the contention that genetically modified mosquitoes are to blame. He says that experimentation in South America was over before any Zika outbreak was detected. "There was an experiment releasing mosquitoes in Brazil two or three years ago but those releases stopped well before this epidemic. So the notion that the mosquitoes are genetically modified in order to carry this virus is not true," said Ballenger. From a scientific perspective, Ballenger is hoping scientists can glean more insights into the impact Zika has on the human body. He says reports of problems of fetal brain development are very likely linked but that hasn't been proven yet. |
| 'They're Being Betrayed By Their Own President' |
| Fri, 5 Feb 2016 16:08:46 EST The Obama administration is ordering border patrol agents to release illegal immigrants without making them appear in court or keeping track of their whereabouts and it's also dramatically rolling back aerial surveillance along the southern border, leading a senior congressman to suggest the public is unaware it is being "betrayed" by our commander-in-chief. What's sad is the people of the United States don't recognize that they're being betrayed by their own president and also betrayed by those people in the Congress and the Senate who have been going along with this amnesty program," said Rep. Dana Rohrbacher, R-California, a leading voice against amnesty and for border enforcement. On Thursday, reports emerged that the Obama administration was effectively telling U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents to stand down and not process people entering the United States illegally. They further state that agents are told not to order illegals to appear at a deportation hearing and not make efforts to track them down inside the U.S. "We might as well abolish our immigration laws altogether," said National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd. In addition, Gov. Greg Abbott, R-Texas, and Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, are imploring the Department of Homeland Security for an explanation for a 50 percent rollback in aerial surveillance of the Texas-Mexico border. Rohrabacher says he and fellow critics of Obama's immigration policies are well past the point of outrage. "This president has done so many things that are contrary to the interests of the safety and security and prosperity of the people of the United States that this is no surprise, especially in dealing with foreign entities, whether it's Muslims overseas or whether it's illegal immigrants coming in here from various countries. This is nothing new for this administration," said Rohrabacher. One of Rohrabacher's top concerns is how Obama's open door policy could further weaken national security. "He's opening the door. There's not even going to be a guard on the door to watch who's coming in. Do you think the radical Islamist terrorists that have declared war on our country and murder us at any chance, you think they don't see this? They've already got a lot of people here," said Rohrabacher. "What the president is doing is going to increase the level of criminals that are coming here from other countries and terrorists who come here specifically to hurt Americans and kill Americans," he added. While Rohrabacher is clearly disgusted with Obama on this issue, he is adamant that blame can be spread throughout the two parties. "Our president is supposed to be watching out for the people of the United States. Our president has decided that he will not do so. The Democratic Party needs to be held accountable for this. And the people in the Republican Party that have been going along with this open borders, amnesty approach to immigration deserve to be held accountable as well," said Rohrabacher. The congressman says he understands that people are desperate to escape crippling poverty and other problems in their native countries and even admires their determination to make a better life for their families, but he says compassion for their circumstances cannot supersede the well being of the American people. "That doesn't mean we're going to bring people in who will take jobs away from Americans, will consume the health care and the education dollars that we have for Americans. We don't need that," said Rohrabacher. He encourages voters to find out what their congressmen and senators have really been doing on these issues. "Hold people accountable in public office for the stands they have taken. Our country is in grave jeopardy because of it," said Rohrabacher. He offers a couple of tips. "Look and see where your elected officials stand on amnesty. That's a tip-off as to whether they are secretly going along with the president," said Rohrabacher. Rohrabacher says one issue in particular gets twisted beyond recognition. "How about those people who say we have to take care of the 'Dreamers? Oh, we have to take care of the Dreamers.' What they're talking about is giving benefits to young people who are here illegally when those education benefits should be going to our own people. Our own kids are saddled with debt and we're going to give education benefits to people who have come here illegally?" asked Rohrabacher. Since January 2015, Republicans have controlled both the House of Representatives and the Senate. So why can't the GOP do something to to curb Obama's alleged recklessness on the border? "Controlling Capitol Hill doesn't mean anything unless you have a two-thirds vote against a president who veto anything he doesn't like. It takes a two-thirds vote to override the veto so we haven't been in control of Capitol Hill enough to be in control of a legislative agenda," said Rohrabacher. Rohrabacher has endorsed Ted Cruz for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, in what seems like a process of elimination among the major candidates. He says Rubio is simply all over the map on this issue. "The people of Florida elected him when he pledged not to support amnesty, pledged to fight this idea of open borders. As soon as he got elected to the United States Senate, he flipped over and became a major force for amnesty. Now he wants to flip again and wants us to forget that lie," said Rohrabacher. The congressman simply doesn't believe Donald Trump is serious about the issue. "Trump is talking off the top of his head and quite often he says things that are contradictory," said Rohrabacher. "He says we're going to deport the people here illegally. Then he says once they can get home they can immediately come back if they want to. This is nonsense. So the only one who makes any sense to me is Ted Cruz," said Rohrabacher. |
| Two Military Chiefs Call for Women to Register for Draft |
| Thu, 4 Feb 2016 15:57:07 EST Less than two months after the Obama administration ordered women to be eligible for ground combat, the chiefs of two military branches say it's time for women to register for Selective Service, meaning civilian women could find themselves assigned to the front lines if a national emergency requires the reinstating of the military draft. The issue arose this week at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing as Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., asked the service chiefs to share their thoughts about gender-integrated basic training. As the discussion ensued, the top-ranking leaders of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps openly endorsed requiring women to register. "I think that all eligible and qualified men and women should register for the draft," said Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley. "Every American who's physically qualified should register for the draft," echoed Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Robert Neller. "This is a logical conclusion that is likely to be imposed by a federal court because the administration has unilaterally changed the rules. Congress has not been involved with this, except to say, 'Well, what are you going to decide executive branch, Mr. President, Mr. Secretary of Defense?' They've got it backwards. Congress should decide this issue," said Donnelly. The United States has not had a military draft since the early 1970's, so how significant is this push for women to start registering for it? "If we get into a national emergency, requiring a re-institution of a draft, women will be involved in it," said Donnelly, noting the purpose of a draft is to procure "combat replacements." The comment from Gen. Neller surprised some since the Marine Corps vigorously opposed the Obama administration decision to make women eligible for ground combat. Donnelly thinks Neller's response was a missed opportunity. "I expected Gen. Neller to give a solid explanation of the rationale for the disagreement between the Marine Corps and the Secretary of the Navy on that point. I realize his boss is sitting right next to him, but he missed the opportunity to put on the record why the Marines have always had separate gender training, why it is superior and why it should not be changed," said Donnelly. Donnelly says the Marines separate men and women during basic training so as to eliminate all possible distractions while "making Marines." After basic training, the sexes do go through many training programs together. The Marine Corps also conducted an exhaustive scientific study to quantify the toll of combat on men and women. It was the centerpiece of its case against putting women into ground combat. However, the administration overruled the Marines. As the implementation of the Obama administration policy proceeds, Donnelly says it important for everyone to know what it does and what it doesn't do. "The executive branch announced women would be subject to direct ground combat assignments, including the infantry, on an involuntary basis. This is very important. It's not a matter of being allowed into combat or permitted as a career opportunity. Once you sign up, you're subject to the same orders as the men," said Donnelly. Donnelly believes adding women to any potential draft to be "militarily disastrous and administratively unworkable. She says only a "tiny minority" of women would meet the physical requirements for combat and the military would have to spend huge amounts of time and money to weed out those who are unfit. She says the data compiled by the Marines proves what everyone knows but no one wants to admit. "Women and men are not physical equals in direct ground combat. Physical differences matter: Speed, the ability to carry heavy loads, to march long distances, to have accurate marksmanship at the end of that march. Fatigue matters," said Donnelly. "All these issues and realities were scientifically measured by the Marine Corps in field exercises over nine months. The truth that came out of those exercises remains. The truth always remains the truth, but the administration is trying to sweep all of that under the rug," said Donnelly. Ultimately, Donnelly fears involving women in fierce ground combat is a disservice to them and those around them. "It's really not a fair thing to do. It may be equal but it's not fair because in direct ground combat, women do not have the physical capability and equal opportunity to survive or to help fellow soldiers to survive. I hope we never have to reinstate the draft, but if we do, young men are better equipped to deal with that than young women are," said Donnelly. The Center for Military Readiness is asking 2016 presidential candidates to commit to reconsidering this policy. The questionnaire also asks if hopefuls will push back against the LGBT agenda in the military and fight to uphold the religious liberties of service members, among other issues. So far the response has been sparse, with only one active candidate responding. "We received responses from Sen. (Ted) Cruz. His answers were right down the line and he added additional comments about women in land combat. We're still waiting to hear from Donald Trump, from Sen. (Marco) Rubio, from several of the other candidates. We're going to keep asking because it's up to the next president of the United States to deal with these issues," said Donnelly. Former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn., also returned the survey with the same answers as Cruz. Santorum left the 2016 race on Wednesday. Donnelly has a final message for early state voters. "You need to look at that survey and your favorite candidate has not responded yet, you need to ask that candidate, 'Where do you stand on women being ordered into the infantry, co-ed basic training being changed into the version where sexual misconduct increases? Where do stand on Selective Service and drafting young women in a future national emergency?'" said Donnelly. |
| Pro-Life Leader Responds to Violence |
| Wed, 3 Feb 2016 17:35:58 EST Pro-life activist Jill Stanek is speaking out after her home appeared to be vandalized by political opponents, saying violence is a hallmark of the abortion movement and a sign of a major momentum shift in the debate over unborn lives. "We were on vacation last week and got home Sunday night. Our front window was broken in our living room. Then we found a package that had been caught up in our curtains," said Stanek, who serves as national campaign chair for the Susan B. Anthony List, which works to elect pro-life women to office. "We opened the package. Inside was a big piece of cinder block and a note that included an expletive I won't mention," said Stanek. The message read, "Quit the Pro-Life Bulls--t." Stanek has been very active in pro-life circles for many years. She famously confronted then-State Senator Barack Obama over his opposition to to legislation that would require life-saving treatment for babies who survive abortions. She was also among the leaders of a Capitol Hill sit-in last year demanding congressional action on the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which bans the vast majority of abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Although she is quick to put the act in perspective, Stanek admits this was a new experience for her. "In the scheme of things, it's not a big deal, especially when you compare it to what pre-born babies go through, but it's the first time I've been the subject of vandalism since I've been in the pro-life movement," said Stanek. Hers may not be an isolated case. "I was asked not to speak publicly about this but there is another activist in the Chicago area who had a cinder block thrown through his window Wednesday or Thursday but there was no note, so they're not sure if it was related or not," said Stanek. In the bigger picture, Stanek also says pro-life students around the country are frequently attacked. "On college campuses, a pro-life group cannot erect a display these days without it being vandalized. That's just the way it is. We're seeing attacks like this as the other side realizes it's losing and resorting to what it knows best - violence," said Stanek. On one hand, Stanek says the timing is odd because she has been keeping an unusually low profile in recent months as she goes about her work for the Susan B. Anthony List. But on another level, she is not surprised at all. "We know that the foundation of the pro-abortion movement is violence. Their modus operandi is to kill pre-born innocent babies, defenseless babies. So that's their starting point," said Stanek. But she also sees specific reasons why the pro-choice movement feels threatened right now. In addition to a litany of pro-life laws being passed in states with Republican governors and legislatures, she says there is one flashpoint of the national abortion debate that has abortion advocates very nervous. "There is a big front that we are very close to a breakthrough on and that's defunding Planned Parenthood," said Stanek. Earlier this year, Congress approved a defunding bill. It was vetoed by President Obama, but Stanek says opponents are alarmed at how close this is to happening. "We are talking about defunding Planned Parenthood to the tune of almost $500 million, half a billion dollars a year. The only thing standing in the way is a pro-abortion president. If we elect a pro-life president, (by) this time in 2017 Planned Parenthood will be defunded," said Stanek. She says the impact of that would be huge. "The Democrat Party knows that if Planned Parenthood goes down, which it would if it lost half of its funding, it would be almost a fatal blow to the Democrat Party and the pro-abortion agenda. They consider Planned Parenthood an organization that's too big to fail," said Stanek. She says that fear may be leading to more extreme tactics like she endured. "We're not just talking about greed. We're talking about ideology and we're also talking about politics. Those three together are definitely fodder for an uptick in violence," she said. "We are definitely on the offense right now and they feel it," said Stanek. |
| 'It's an Earthquake' |
| Tue, 2 Feb 2016 16:17:50 EST Sen. Ted Cruz won the Iowa caucuses thanks to an unparalleled turnout machine and an adherence to principle that won over voters in a state reliant on big government programs, according to former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a fierce Cruz ally. On Tuesday, Cruz defied the final polls and won the GOP caucuses with 28 percent. Previous front-runner Donald Trump finished second at 24 percent and Sen. Marco Rubio finished a close third at 22 percent. All other candidates failed to reach double digits. Cruz leaves Iowa with eight delegates. Trump and Rubio won seven each. Ben Carson earned three and Rand Paul and Jeb Bush each secured one. Heading into the caucuses, all of the final polls showed Trump with a lead of five to seven points. Even the entrance polls at the caucuses predicted a narrow Trump win. Cuccinelli was in Iowa making calls and knocking on doors to get Cruz backers to the polls. He says the pollsters and the pundits got schooled by the people. "Going into Iowa, every single pundit I saw on CNN and Fox, every single one was wrong. Every single one. Everybody hearing that clearly? Every single one," said Cuccinelli, who says the political "experts" suffer from group think and reinforce each other's conventional wisdom. "They don't know any more about this than you or I or anybody else do. Most of them have never worked on a campaign. They just get caught up in the same narrative and they spit it back out," said Cuccinelli. He's also stunned by the overthinking among the pundits, particularly the narrative that Marco Rubio is somehow the big winner for coming in third as opposed to Cruz who won. "What you're hearing with the Rubio piece after the fact is just more media narrative. They all say it to each other and then they turn to the camera and say it. Ted Cruz won last night," said Cuccinelli. "When Marco Rubio wins a state somewhere, then we'll have something to talk about." So how did Cruz not only win but win comfortably when record turnout was supposed to spell victory for Trump? Cuccinelli says it all came down to the grassroots. "I am a grassroots guy and I can tell you, they had a well-oiled machine running there in Iowa. They did a great job," said Cuccinelli, noting the Cruz campaign spent weeks and months building relationships with voters. What encourages Cuccinelli even more is that Cruz has the same approach in all of the upcoming states. "No other campaign on the Republican side can match that kind of institutional infrastructure, and Ted has been building it all the way into the March states. So this is not, like for (Rick) Santorum and (Mike) Huckabee a one-shot wonder where they put all their chips on Iowa and weren't ready for anything beyond that. Ted is ready," said Cuccinelli. Cuccinelli believes Cruz ought to be commended for other aspects of the campaign as well, most notably refusing to embrace ethanol mandates and subsidies. "Ted Cruz is the first candidate in the history of the world for either party to oppose ethanol subsidies and win the Iowa caucuses," said Cuccinelli. Instead of pandering, Cruz called for an end to all government favors in the energy sector. "His explanation of no mandates, no picking of winners and losers by Washington, really resonated with Iowans. Of course, corn is a big deal to them but they understand that Washington is broken and that if you're going to give goodies away, like sugar subsidies in Florida for instance, then you're never going to fox the problem. It's got to be all or nothing," said Cuccinelli. In visiting with Iowa voters over the weekend, Cuccinelli says even the people who didn't Cruz respected his stand. He used the story of a Jeb Bush supporter as an example. "She said, without me prompting her, 'I'll tell you what I like about Ted Cruz is he does what he says he's gonna do and he sticks to his principles,'" said Cuccinelli. Now that Cruz and Rubio are getting the post-Iowa buzz, voters will be looking even more closely at both of them. Other than their high-profile battles over immigration, what are the major differences between two candidates who describe themselves as constitutional conservatives. Cuccinelli sees a couple major differences, starting with the people who surround the two senators. "[Rubio] doesn't have movement conservative staff when you compare it to Senator Cruz, who has wall-to-wall movement conservatives in his office. Personnel is policy," said Cuccinelli, who also sees differences in how passionately the two candidates pursue the issues they ran on. "Of all the other things Marco talked about on entitlements and everything else when he was running for the Senate, it was all so inspirational but he hasn't tried to do any of it. Ted, running for the Senate, addressed a number of issues. He has followed up with those positions and pursued them aggressively, even when it cost him, even when it made him unpopular with the leadership," said Cuccinelli. |
| 'I Have Zero Confidence in This President' |
| Mon, 1 Feb 2016 16:29:26 EST The World Health Organization now calls the Zika virus a global emergency and a 30-year immigration official says the U.S. response should be obvious but he suspects President Obama will do virtually nothing to stop the virus from entering the U.S. On Monday, World Health Organization Director-General Margaret Chan referred to Zika as an "extraordinary event." "I am now declaring that the recent cluster of microcephaly and other neurological abnormalities reported in Latin America following a similar cluster in French Polynesia in 2014 constitutes a public health emergency of international concern, said Chan. The emergency declaration now puts Zika in the same category as Ebola. It also frees up research and aid to tackle the problem. Most cases of Zika are believed to be transmitted by mosquito. Adults seem to handle the symptoms without many problems, but pregnant women are at great risk of passing it along to their unborn children. That can trigger microcephaly, which means babies have small heads and underdeveloped brains. But there's still a lot we don't know, according to Michael Cutler, who served 30 years with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the forerunner to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In fact, he says there's no guarantee that mosquitoes are the only way to transmit the virus. "I don't know that that's accurate. I don't know that the scientific community knows that that's the sole way for the transmission of this disease," said Cutler. He said we need answers and we need them soon. "We need to know how it's transmitted. If it doesn't ever get transmitted person-to-person, that's one thing. But if there's potential that humans can pass the virus, whether it's through intimate contact, not-so-intimate contact, whatever the problem is, then we need to understand that we have got to be careful as to who we let into the United States," said Cutler. Cutler says the the safest way to proceed while those questions are answered is to give blood tests to everyone entering the United States at every airport, seaport and border crossing. He admits it would be a huge logistical undertaking, but U.S. immigration has a history of investigating and quarantining people entering the U.S. if they are suspected of carrying a serious disease. He flagged such cases decades ago while processing incoming passengers at John F. Kennedy International Airport. "If we saw somebody showing obvious signs of illness, they were immediately referred to public health. They would them make the call about whether the person should be put into quarantine," said Cutler. "It's very difficult to set up and then you've got the additional aliens who run the border. For all the talk we've heard about not vetting the Syrian refugees, let's remember that aliens who evade the inspections process are not being vetted at all," said Cutler. He says beyond answering the scientific questions, government policy also needs to be set. "I would hope our officials move swiftly to determine just how easily the Zika virus can be transmitted and if in fact it can be transmitted person-to-person. Between now and that determination, it's up to the administration, it's up the president to determine the policies," said Cutler, who made it clear he expects Obama to look the other way. "I have zero confidence in this president, this administration to do anything that might impede the flow of foreign nationals into the United States," said Cutler. He says the past seven years make previous administrations that were weak on immigration enforcement pale by comparison. "Everything this administration has done has been to basically dismantle our immigration system, our laws and our borders. This isn't the first administration to do it. I wasn't happy with the Bush administration either. But this administration has absolutely taken the door off the hinges," said Cutler. |
| 'Nobody Is Pure on This Issue' |
| Fri, 29 Jan 2016 16:50:10 EST Several Republican presidential candidates were bloodied over their shifting positions on immigration reform in Thursday's debate, but a key voice in the debate says all of the candidates seem to be edging to a more conservative position on border security and what to do about people in the U.S. Illegally. In the debate, candidates Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were confronted with montages of their own statements that seemed to contradict what they're saying now. Rubio was quoted from 2010 saying that an earned pathway to citizenship was code for amnesty yet he backed such a pathway in the 2013 Senate immigration bill. Cruz was asked to explain statements from 2013, when he tried to amend the immigration bill by banning citizenship for people in the U.S. illegally but allowing them to become legalized. Cruz insists that was a poison pill designed to show how unreasonable Rubio and the other sponsors were and that he has never really backed a path to legalization. Center for Immigration Studies Executive Director Mark Krikorian says everyone has blemishes on this issue. "Nobody is pure on this issue. not Trump, not Cruz, not Rubio, not Jeb. They've all shifted their positions," said Krikorian. But he says they are are all flip-flopping in an encouraging way to him. "They've all shifted their positions in the right direction. They've all become more hawkish on immigration as the public concern over the issue has become clearer and harder and harder to deny," said Krikorian. But not all flip-flopping is created equal. Krikorian says Jeb Bush is the least credible on the issue but doesn't see Bush as still having a shot at the nomination. Among the top tier of candidates, he says Rubio has the most to answer for because of his involvement in the Gang of Eight legislation. "I'm not sure that people are going to forgive and forget that and I'm not sure that they should. In a sense, no matter what he says, it's important that somebody who does the kind of thing Rubio did be punished politically no matter what he thinks now. In other words, that there be a price exacted so that other people in the future will think twice about doing what Rubio did to help Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama," said Krikorian. Krikorian is also thrilled the issue is getting so much attention in this campaign. He says Donald Trump deserves credit for pushing the issue to the forefront but not as much credit as Trump gives himself. "Even if he weren't in the race, not just Republicans but independents and even lots of Reagan Democrats, are really concerned about this immigration issue. It would be coming up. There's no question about it but Trump is right. He has gotten so much traction talking about this that the other candidates have been scrambling more than they would have been scrambling otherwise," said Krikorian. While voters must determine the sincerity of the candidates, Krikorian says Americans have made it clear what they want on immigration. "The only way the public would ever accept amnesty would be if we fixed the problem first," said Krikorian. "Plug the hole in your boat first before you talk about how you're going to bail it out." But Krikorian says candidates and the media have missed the most critical immigration issue - defining the extent of legal immigration. "The more important issue is how much legal immigration do you think the United States wants to have. We have tens of millions of Americans who want to work and can't find work," said Krikorian. |
| 'This Is Very Telling' |
| Fri, 29 Jan 2016 16:19:42 EST Just three days before the first votes are cast in the 2016 presidential campaign, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is on defense again after the State Department refused to release 22 emails kept on her unsecured server because they contain highly sensitive information. State Department sources says the 37 pages of emails contain Special Access Program information, some of the most closely guarded secrets in our government. "This is very telling," said former U.S. Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy, who is now with National Review and is the author most recently of "Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama's Impeachment." McCarthy says this doesn't radically change the scope of the FBI investigation into Clinton's server since we already know more than 1,300 emails contained classified information and have been released with the sensitive parts redacted. Still he believes this highlights the seriousness of Clinton's actions. "With respect to these 22 (emails), there is actually a blanket prohibition on disclosure and the reason is that they fear there are other copies of these emails out there," said McCarthy. "If they release any part of them, whoever may have those emails will have it confirmed to them that you're dealing with a Special Access Program national security intelligence matter," said McCarthy. He says tipping anyone off to such information could have horrific consequences. "When that kind of stuff gets revealed and people work backwards or go to school on the information that's out there, that can result not only in the compromise of important sources of intelligence but also potentially in the killing of people who are spies or covert informants," said McCarthy. The Clinton campaign calls the State Department decision "overclassification run amok" and insists bureaucratic infighting over what qualifies as classified is all that's happening in this story. McCarthy dismisses that assessment and says this is the latest evidence that ought to give voters great pause this year. "As a candidate, I think it makes even less appropriate for her to be given an even higher position of public trust," said McCarthy. The Obama White House also waded into the Clinton investigation on Friday, with Press Secretary Josh Earnest downplaying the likelihood that Clinton will face any legal trouble for her actions over the server. "That's not something I'm worried about," said Earnest. "Some officials have said she is not the target of the investigation and it does not seem to be the direction in which it is trending." McCarthy finds that statement puzzling. "The political parts of the government, including the White House and the White House staff, shouldn't know what's going on in the Justice Department's investigation," said McCarthy. McCarthy also says Earnest is using slippery language by saying Clinton is not the "target" of the investigation. He says in the legal community the term "target" or "subject" is reserved only for situations when a grand jury has begun to investigate a specific person. Since there is no grand jury, McCarthy says Earnest's statement is meaningless. He says the FBI should not be rushed by the political calendar but he also says this probe really shouldn't take that long. "A classified information case is easier to investigate than other kinds of cases in the sense that the arguments either where they belong or they're not. They were either transmitted to people who shouldn't have had them transmitted to them or they weren't," said McCarthy. |
| 'Yeah, That's the Point' |
| Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:19:39 EST Senator Mike Lee, R-Utah, is leading the charge to pass legislation to make it harder for the government to see your emails. Lee is championing S. 356, also known as the Electronic Communications Privacy Amendments Act, which would require officials to get a warrant or court order to gain access to emails just as they currently do to search our mail or enter our homes. He says there are no restrictions on the government searching our emails. "Nothing. All the government has to do is have is the thought, 'I want to go after so-and-so's email. They don't have to go get a court order. They don't have to get a warrant. They just have to decide they want it. As long as the email is at least 180 days old they can get it," said Lee. "That's wrong. That violates the spirit, certainly, and also probably the letter of the fourth amendment. Yet this has been in law, in statute, since 1986," said Lee. Therein lies the problem. The law has not been updated in 30 years. Lee says lawmakers had no way of knowing how pervasive email would become or even conceiving of cloud-based technology. But he says that's no excuse for not updating the law. He says what the House and Senate legislation calls for is very simple. "You would have to get a court order. You would have to have access to some type of official process in order to gain access to somebody's emails. It's not enough that it would simply need to be 180 days old," said Lee. The legislation is getting blowback from some government agencies, mainly the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. Lee says their argument is pretty straightforward and so is his response. "The objection is this could make it more difficult for government to gain access to documents that it wants. And my response to that is yeah, that's the whole point," said Lee. "That's also the whole point of the fourth amendment. For that matter, that's the whole point of having a constitution at all. You want to make things more difficult for the government to do. That's what we call rights. That's the whole reason why we have a constitution in the first place," said Lee. Lee says it's time for the government to honor all aspects of the Constitution, in this case protections against unreasonable search and seizure. "The fourth amendment's not just a good idea. It's also the law. It's there for a reason and it's there because governments tend to abuse too much power when they have access to it," said Lee. Lee says the SEC has been leading the opposition to the bill while intelligence agencies have not been as active as they have in other privacy debates. "They've been less vocal on this issue, in part because they've got other tools that they can use to gain access to what they need. The Securities and Exchange Commission has been the most vocal of the agencies on this one. But again, I just don't think that their argument carries the day," said Lee. The House version of the bill, HR 699, has more co-sponsors than any other piece of legislation. The Senate bill is also popular and petitions from the public have more than 110,000 people demanding passage. However, the two lawmakers that matter most have no inclination to take action. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Virginia, have not even marked up the bills much less tried to move them out of committee. "This does not appear to have been a priority for them so far. I'm trying to change that," said Lee, who says Grassley and Goodlatte harbor the same reservations as officials at the SEC. "They have some concerns because some of the things that some government agencies, especially and including the SEC have expressed. I understand that concern. I get it, but in my mind that doesn't obviate the need for the legislation, far from it.. It actually highlights the need from it," said Lee. Lee says it is vital for Congress to act rapidly on the legislation for multiple reasons. First, he says Americans deserve these fourth amendment protections as soon as possible. Second, he insists there is enthusiasm in both parties in both chambers to get this done and President Obama is likely to sign it. Finally, he does not want to have to start over on this in the next Congress when there is no guarantee on what the balance of power will be. He encourages concerned Americans to demand action from their senators and members of Congress. |
| Attorney for Indicted Pro-Life Reporter: 'Obviously It's Outrageous' |
| Wed, 27 Jan 2016 16:07:05 EST The lead attorney for one of the undercover pro-life reporters indicted this week in the aftermath of last year's exposing of Planned Parenthood says prosecutors are pursuing bogus charges, Planned Parenthood officials are the obvious criminals and we're reaching a "scary" point where politics determine the outcome of the justice system On Monday, a Harris County, Texas, grand jury elected not to indict Planned Parenthood for allegedly selling organs and other body parts of aborted babies. Instead, the members returned a felony indictment of tampering with a government record against Center for Medical Press President David Daleiden and his colleague, Sandra S. Merritt. If convicted, they could each spend as much as 20 years in prison. "These two individuals will be exonerated. There's no question about that," said Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver, who is lead counsel for Merritt. "They'll have their day in court. We look forward to that." Daleiden was charged with an addition misdemeanor of trying to purchase organs from aborted babies. According to the indictment, the felony tampering charge accuses Daleiden and Merritt of fabricating California driver's licenses to gain entry to the Houston Planned Parenthood facility. Staver says the statute is being badly misapplied in this case. "They were using journalistic tactics like lots of journalists do. It's not just David and Sandra. This is something that has been done by journalists for a long time," said Staver. In addition, he says there is an explicit exception to the law. "If you take a driver's license and you tamper with it and make it look like it's valid for you because you have had your driver's license revoked for a DUI or whatever, and you then present that as your driver's license to the police officer knowing that you really have no driver's license, that is what's covered by this situation," said Staver. As a result, Staver is supremely confident both defendants will be cleared. "This indictment really goes beyond what the statute words say, and certainly the intent of the statute. That's why I think this will be thrown out at the end of the day," said Staver. Staver says the misdemeanor charge against Daleiden may be even more bogus. "That's even more outrageous because he's purchasing what from whom and the seller doesn't get anything to that effect? If someone's going to purchase something, you have to have a seller selling something, and it's illegal to sell body parts," said Staver. He says Daleiden has even stronger ground in that he had no intent to actually buy any body parts from aborted babies. He says no one would videotape their activities and then disseminate it far and wide if they believed it was criminal. Staver believes the absence of charges against Planned Parenthood is the greatest travesty of all in this case. "It's obvious what they're doing. They're on video. It's multiple times, multiple people, high-ranking Planned Parenthood individuals. They're talking callously about aborting baby body parts. They're talking about preserving certain fetal organs intact because they can get higher prices for them. Then they're talking about selling these body parts, so it's pretty obvious," said Staver. "Planned Parenthood is the one that has committed criminal acts here. They're the ones that should be indicted and having to reveal to the rest of the public the inner workings of Planned Parenthood, this brutal, barbarous kind of activity that Planned Parenthood is doing and being funded by state and federal tax dollars in the process," said Staver. So how did this happen? Staver sees two potential issues, beginning with the grand jury process itself. "[A grand jury] is basically giving one side of a story without the other side represented. Certainly we need to respect the grand jury's process but I do know there are situations where grand juries don't get all the information and they are going on information that is being presented to them, which is a very narrow slice of the pie. That's why prosecutors need to be so ethically above board," said Staver. That last point leads to Staver's second major concern. While Harris County District Attorney Davon Anderson is a Republican who calls herself pro-life, one of her assistant prosecutors most certainly is not. LifeNews revealed that Lauren Reeder, a prosecutor in Anderson's office, is listed as an unpaid director for the Houston Planned Parenthood clinic in question on the facility's most recent 990 tax form from 2014. "The district attorney or the assistant district attorney has a lot of power in either giving evidence to give one side or withholding evidence to not give the other side," said Staver. In the big picture, Staver fears we are entering a "very scary" phase in which politics and ideology seem to matter more than the law in resolving hot-button cases. "When you get into two different particular areas, abortion and the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, it seems all the common sense, all the logic, all the rules of procedure, frankly the rule of law just gets tossed to the side and you have these outrageous, shocking situations," said Staver. "What's driving it? It's not the rule of law. It's ideology and it's politics and it should have nothing to do with judicial proceedings. When you ultimately mix ideology and politics with the judiciary, you're really messing up the system that the founders envisioned. All of us should be concerned about that because all of lose our liberty," said Staver, noting that those who cheer today's decisions could find the winds blowing against them soon. |
| Gohmert Still Fighting to Sink Iran 'Treaty' |
| Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:24:20 EST The Iran nuclear deal is signed, it survived a congressional hurdle and now even the sanctions are being removed, but Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, is now looking to the courts to stop the deal in its tracks. Gohmert says this is the last chance to derail what he insists is a treaty while Barack Obama is in the White House. Despite the fact the deal is already being implemented in multiple ways, Gohmert insists the law is on his side. "It alters the Non-Proliferation Treaty in a number of respects. You can't alter a treaty with something that isn't a treaty. It gets into weapons. It gets into a number of things that can only be done with a treaty," said Gohmert, a former judge who now sits on the House Judiciary Committee. He says President Obama's ongoing actions also add to the case. "There is a decent shot in court because the president has continued to act under this deal as if it were affirmed. It is a treaty and he's acting like it was ratified and it simply has not been. Never mind that Iran continues to violate the terms and continues to say 'Death to America,'" said Gohmert. But there is also a major problem. Congress never declared the agreement a treaty. Instead, Republicans adopted the Corker-Cardin bill. Concerned in early 2015 that Congress would have no say on any deal, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., authored legislation that would require a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate to reject the deal. It failed in the Senate. Had the Senate declared it a treaty, a two-thirds majority could have been needed to ratify it. "The Senate should have had the guts to treat it as a treaty, not bring it up under the Corker bill because the Corker bill did not apply to a treaty. Bring it up for a ratification vote that requires two-thirds. It wouldn't have gotten anything close. Then it would have been a lot easier to go to court and establish that the administration could not act in accordance with a treaty that had not been ratified," said Gohmert. "Since the Senate didn't have the courage to stand by the Constitution and do what was needed - at least their leaders didn't - then that is going to make the court challenge a little more difficult," said Gohmert. While the Senate tactics are a major setback, Gohmert says a court case can still proceed. "[Congress] can still go to court. They can still get a court to rule and a judge in his right mind should say, 'Yeah, this is a treaty and it didn't get ratified. So no, you can't act under this treaty and give the largest supporters of terrorism in the world $100-150 billion so they can kill more Americans,'" said Gohmert. He says the case does not need any congressional vote, although a subsequent Senate vote on ratification would be a big help. Nonetheless, he says the House never voted on Corker-Cardin and that should bolster the case. "It was clear from our vote, which the appellate court can take judicial note of, that we didn't recognize it as being in compliance with Corker-Cardin so it would have been perfectly understandable for the Senate to then take it up as a treaty and vote it down. Unfortunately they did not," said Gohmert. Gohmert says it is vital to keep up this fight because Obama is already stiff-arming Congress on new issues, including the lifting of U.S. sanctions. "Keep in mind the existing law says the president cannot release the sanctions to Congress for a vote," said Gohmert. |
| How to Fight the Hackers |
| Mon, 25 Jan 2016 14:33:15 EST A new report shows business and organization leaders are less confident about protecting vital information from cyber criminals but they are more committed than ever to making life difficult for hackers. Cisco's 2016 Annual Security Report offers some troubling and statistics. It shows only 46 percent of leaders are confident in their security posture, up-to-date infrastructure dropped 10 percent compared to the 2015 report. In addition, 92 percent of internet devices were running known vulnerabilities. Cisco Principal Engineer Jason Brvenik says confidence is a key issue. "We see about a 50-50 split in leader confidence in their overall cyber security. Trending-wise, it's dipped a little bit, five percent down in confidence in having the latest technology, for example, since last year's report," said Brvenik. That lack of confidence is troubling but Brvenik says it does come with a silver lining. "The good is while folks have reduced confidence, they seem to be increasing their action. We're seeing increased investment in technologies and processes. We saw that 90 percent of organizations now have security awareness and training programs, which is a great number to see," said Brvenik, who says business and organization leaders are also actively testing their security for potential weak spots. But if you haven't been breached, how do you gauge your vulnerability? "The best way to take inventory is to go and actively search out compromise within an organization. Many have technologies that monitor," said Brvenik. "What we find in every one of these cases is that the indication that they'd been hacked was already there. They had to go look for it. Start reviewing your logs. Start looking at your security technologies. Start investigating what they show you." Brvenik says the public sector is also taking the issue more seriously following several high-profile breaches in recent years, most notably the 2015 hack of millions of records at the federal Office of Personnel Management, or OPM. Brvenik says the federal government appears to be making more strides than state and local efforts. He also says greater vigilance is making life harder for the hackers, but that's not entirely good news. "It's kind of a double-edged sword. In some respects, defenders are having great success, which is forcing the attackers to innovate and change the way they do their business. The bad is news is the attackers are happy to do so," said Brvenik. "They're being pretty innovative, not being constrained by some of the challenges that we have in organizations. They don't have regulatory barriers. They don't have any of the compliance or change control issues we do, so they can move pretty quickly," said Brvenik. The biggest advantage for the hackers, says Brvenik, is that they can focus on one job while the good guys have to wear many hats. "Your core competency is running a business, so you have to keep running your business and you need to shore up things along the way. You can't just shut everything down and replace it with magically secure stuff," he said. So what are the greatest takeaways from this report? Brvenik says there are two major areas, improving the speed at which you learn of a breach and updating infrastructure to help accomplish that. "Everybody patches servers. Everybody patches desktops. That's certainly very important. We need to put more focus there, but don't forget about infrastructure," said Brvenik. The time to detection is a major concern in the report. Right now, the average organization first learns of a breach 100-200 days after the fact. Cisco says its infrastructure allows intrusions to be detected as quickly as 20 hours later. "We took a different approach in some of our latest technologies. We're constantly monitoring what's going on, instead of just looking for discreet attacks. That's helped to significantly reduce time to detection," said Brvenik. While many of the security protocols are best left in the hands of technology experts working at the behest of leaders who understand the threat, Brvenik says there are simple steps everyone can take, especially when it comes to updates. "We saw a 221 percent increase of leveraging of aged infrastructure to launch attacks. If you have a blog that you haven't updated, if you have a web server that you created, make sure that it gets updated. Make sure that it's not an easy target for attackers to launch attacks against new people," said Brvenik. |
| Why the Establishment Hates Cruz |
| Fri, 22 Jan 2016 11:45:05 EST It's well known that man Republicans in Washington do not like Sen. Ted Cruz, but the full extent of that antipathy is coming to light this week as several current and former lawmakers say they prefer Donald Trump as the GOP nominee, although they have little regard for either man. Some GOP consultants and strategists started the rumblings in recent days. Then Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad told Republicans in his state to oppose Cruz because of the senator's opposition to ethanol subsidies. But the story broke wide open on Wednesday when former Senate Majority Leader and 1996 Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole said he would choose Trump over Cruz, going so far as to say a Cruz nomination would be "cataclysmic" for the Republican Party. Another former GOP Senate leader, Trent Lott, has said the same. But Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Tex., a Cruz supporter, is not swayed. While honoring Dole for his heroism in World War II, Gohmert says many mainstream Republicans are worried about what a President Cruz would mean for them. "You don't get any more establishment than Bob Dole and Trent Lott," said Gohmert. "So they're going to be an indication of where the establishment will go. They have more belief that Trump will make deals with them and that Ted Cruz will continue to stand on principle as he has been." Current officeholders are joining the chorus, including Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Dan Coats, R-Ind. "An awful lot of us really didn't like to be targeted as corrupt, establishment bought by the lobby establishment," Coats added. "It sure looks like someone was using it as a way to gain notoriety as the only true conservative in Washington," Coats told CNN. Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., went a step further, reportedly telling donors that he would vote for Bernie Sanders before he'd back Cruz. Burr later asked for a retraction, but the Associated Press is standing by the story. Gohmert believes the venom in the GOP is a result of Ted Cruz doing something most other politicians don't. "If you're a person that's interested in lying or you're interested in twisting the truth or you're interested in breaking your promises that you made to get elected, then you're not going to care for Ted Cruz," said Gohmert. But the congressman also says the notion that Capitol Hill is a wasteland of Cruz supporters is dead wrong. "Ted Cruz has got a bunch of members of Congress, solid conservatives, a whole bunch of them that have come out and endorsed Ted. I'm not aware of anybody in the House that has endorsed Trump," said Gohmert. Gohmert says moderate Republicans and the mainstream media are aligning with Trump based on a major assumption. "They think he'll be more of a deal maker. They're probably figuring, 'You know, Trump is a winner. He says what he has to to win. He'll say what he has to to win the Republican primary.' And so they're probably thinking, 'So then he'll go back and agree with Democrats to say what he needs to to win the general election,'" said Gohmert. Gohmert says the Republicans are doomed in that scenario. "If that were to happen, as has happened before, then so many in the base of the Republicans would have nowhere else to go but third party. That assures the Democrat wins," said Gohmert. But can Cruz work with people in Congress? Gohmert says yes. "He can compromise. He has compromised on issues but when it comes to matters of principle, you shouldn't be compromising on matters of principle and he doesn't," said Gohmert. |
| Pro-Lifers Ready to March, Defeat Hillary |
| Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:44:07 EST While most people in Washington will spend Friday hunkering down for the east coast blizzard, hundreds of thousands of pro-life activists will take part in the annual March for Life, calling for respect for both women and babies and vowing to stop Hillary Clinton from becoming the next president. The March for Life marks 43 years since the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions that legalized abortion in the United States. Estimates show 58 million unborn children have been killed by abortion since that day. With this year's march coming in a presidential election year, pro-life groups say defeating Clinton is at the very top of this year's agenda. Not only do they want a pro-life president but they say Clinton is promising to be even more aggressive as a pro-choice president. That's because after being endorsed by Planned Parenthood, Clinton vowed to take aim at a pro-life law on the book since the 1970's. "She said she would move to end the Hyde Amendment, which is longstanding bipartisan legislation that stops our taxpayer dollars from going to pay for abortion on demand," said Susan B. Anthony List Communications Director Mallory Quigley. "This is really quite a radical move. She's moving to the left even of President Obama on this." While Quigley is horrified at the idea of Clinton taking aim at the Hyde Amendment, she thinks it could be a political advantage for the pro-life side. "If she wants to use her presidential campaign to go to war with these common ground policies like Hyde, that's really at her own risk. We're confident that voters are going to reject that level of abortion extremism at the ballot box," said Quigley. She says recent poll numbers bear that out. "A majority of Americans support the legislative initiatives that the pro-life movement is pushing, including keeping taxpayer dollars out of the abortion business, protecting babies and moms at five months, right to know legislation for women so that they understand the health risks of abortion," said Quigley. "The groundswell of support that we're seeing for out legislative initiatives really don't bode well for any candidate that's going to be vocally pro-abortion and sees that as a key to winning their campaign," said Quigley. The March for Life itself stands as a strong contrast to the message Clinton has been espousing on abortion. The theme this year is "Pro-Life and Pro-Woman Go Hand in Hand." "That is highlighting an element of the pro-life movement that has always been there and that's the acknowledgement that women and children are inextricably linked and that abortion harms them both. To solve this problem of abortion in our country, it needs to start with loving both the mother and the child," said Quigley. She says it's a direct refutation of the pro-choice argument that to be pro-woman requires embracing abortion rights. "This is a mistake that the other side makes thinking that in order to build up the rights of women, you need to accept a violent act like abortion and you need to pit women against their children. This is really a false choice," said Quigley. To illustrate the point, the march will mention the women's suffrage movement and link it to the efforts of pro-life women today. The march goes from the White House to the Supreme Court. One of the most emotional moments each year is when women who have had abortions stand up in front of the court and discuss the pain and regret they feel even years later. "When you hear those women and the suffering they have gone through, and the firm desire that they have that they had chosen life instead of abortion. It really changes your perspective," said Quigley. Quigley says 2015 was a year of progress for pro-lifers, getting further than ever before on an abortion ban after 20 weeks and getting a bill to President Obama's desk that would have defunded Planned Parenthood. The 20-week ban died in the Senate and Obama vetoed the defunding effort, but Quigley says the template is there for major success if 2016 turns out the way she hopes. "That was a huge breakthrough in terms of creating a pathway to when we have a pro-life president, hopefully in January 2017. Top of mind for 2016, of course, is electing a pro-life president," said Quigley. |
| 'You're Enemy's Enemy is Not Necessarily Your Friend' |
| Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:06:51 EST When the story of the 2016 Republican presidential race is written, January 19 might emerge as a critical turning point, as two major moments triggered seismic shifts in the campaign and the state of conservatism and the GOP itsel. Those moments occured with hours of one another as tea party favorite Sarah Palin endorsed the White House bid of Donald Trump and Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad told Republicans not to support Ted Cruz because of his opposition to ethanol subsidies. They are also moments that longtime conservative activist Richard Viguerie believes help to crystallize the differences between Trump and Cruz. Viguerie gained fame in the 1960's as the first man to use direct mail in political campaigning. He is now chairman of conservativehq.com and the author of "Takedown: The 100-Year War for the Soul of the GOP and How Conservatives Can Finally Win It." He recently endorsed Cruz for the Republican nomination. The first critical moment Tuesday came when Gov. Branstad told reporters in Iowa that Republicans in his state should reject Cruz over his stand on renewable fuels. "He is the biggest opponent of renewable fuels and he actually introduced a bill in 2013 to immediately eliminate the Renewable Fuel Standard. He is heavily financed by big oil," said Branstad. "We think once Iowans realize that fact, they might find other things about him attractive but I think it would be very damaging to our state," added Branstad. "He hasn't supported renewable fuels and I believe that would be a big mistake for Iowa to support him." Viguerie says Branstad, in addition to touting big government, was deliberately disingenuous. He says this issue is anything but a reason for voters to punish Cruz. "I think the person who should be punished is Gov. Terry Branstad. He's the one who just lied. He said that Ted Cruz opposes renewable fuel. No. He does not oppose renewable fuels. He opposes subsidized, taxpayer-subsidized renewable fuel. Big, big difference and he knows that. He just flat out lied," said Viguerie. In fact, Viguerie applauds Cruz for not groveling to Iowa voters over ethanol. "This is just an example of how Ted Cruz is the limited government, constitutional, principled conservative in the race, the only one at a top tier level," said Viguerie. So Viguerie was less than enthused to see tea party favorite and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin endorse Trump on Tuesday. "I'm sorry to see it. I think it's a big mistake. I think it will have limited value," said Viguerie. Why is it a mistake? After taking a hands-off approach to Trump for months, Viguerie says he now sees Trump acting more like a typical politician, even vowing to increase ethanol subsidies if elected. But there's something even more fundamental at work. "He is in no way a conservative. He's got a lifetime record, 40 years plus of being a political liberal person," said Viguerie. He says Trump's record of supporting eminent domain against private property owners, backing abortion at all stages of development, endorsing same-sex marriage and donating to many prominent liberal politicians proves he's no tried and tested conservative. Viguerie also says voters should not be swayed just because the GOP figures who frustrate them are also critical of Trump. "Your enemy's enemy is not necessarily your friend. Because the establishment in this country is so opposed to Donald Trump does not mean that he's our friend. He has a 40-year record of espousing big government solutions to the problems," said Viguerie. He also says the most important ingredient in a Republican win come November is party unity. Viguerie says Trump's record of being socially liberal means he cannot bring the GOP together and he will face the same results as Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Curiously, Viguerie believes Cruz is the only Republican candidate capable of uniting the party. That assessment is likely to cause many Republicans to spit out their coffee. After all, Cruz is detested by GOP leaders for repeatedly and publicly defying them. Nearly all of his Senate colleagues have endorsed someone else. And lately, even names synonymous with the Republican establishment, such as Bob Dole, are starting to prefer Trump to Cruz. So how does Cruz ever emerge as a unifying figure? Viguerie says Cruz fits five of the six requirements to unite the party, such as being conservative on economics, social issues and national security. He also believes Cruz would be appealing to tea party members and libertarians. That leaves the moderates. "Since Cruz checks all five of those first boxes, with his vice presidential choice he can bring the establishment moderate Republicans and have a united ticket. With his vice presidential choice and other appointments, he has an opportunity to unite the party in a way that no other candidate does," said Viguerie. |
| 'People Have Been Prosecuted for Far Less' |
| Tue, 19 Jan 2016 16:11:21 EST On Sunday, Hillary Clinton said there should be "no individual too powerful to jail" and the author of the explosive book alleging Clinton used the State Department for favors to Clinton Foundation donors says that rule should apply to the Democratic front-runner as well. "Clinton Cash" author Peter Schweizer says the Clintons are also still profiting off the pardon of Marc Rich, one of the ugliest - and last - acts of President Bill Clinton in 2001. In a debate hosted by NBC and the Congressional Black Caucus Institute, the Democratic White House hopefuls were asked about their differences in reforming Wall Street. Sec. Clinton scolded Sen. Bernie Sanders for being critical of her and President Obama for accepting campaign donations from Wall Street, but he also highlighted where their positions are similar. "There is no daylight on the basic premise that there should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too powerful to jail. We agree on that," said Clinton. Clinton is under FBI investigation for conducting all of her State Department business through a home server and possibly breaking the law for how she handled classified and top secret information. Last week, reports revealed that the FBI expanded its probe of Clinton into whether she used the State Department to reward donors to the Clinton Foundation. Schweizer says as long as everyone seems interested in punishing corruption in the markets, in politics and elsewhere, Clinton ought to be closely investigated as well. "If you look at recent prosecutions for political corruption, whether that's Gov. (Bob) McDonnell in Virginia, whether that's Sen. (Rober) Menendez in New Jersey or a former governor down in Alabama, people have been prosecuted on far less developed patterns of taking payments and doing favors than in the case of Hillary Clinton," said Schweizer. While Schweizer's book contends there is a pattern of corruption from Hillary Clinton at the State Department, he says the Clintons were clever in how they constructed their charitable organization. "They basically circumvented laws that say you can't take money from foreigners in a way that will influence a political campaign. So they take it instead as speaking fees and as donations to the Clinton Foundation," said Schweizer. But he says they still have huge legal problems. "The international anti-bribery standards, which Hillary Clinton endorsed as secretary of state says that bribery can include donations going to a charity run by a politician. So the fact the Clinton Foundation does charitable work really does not let them off the hook," said Schweizer. So what will come of the FBI investigation? "We want to believe and think that decisions to prosecute for criminal conduct are just going to be based on the facts and there's not going to be a political component to it, but I think very few of us are naive enough to think that's the way the world actually works," said Schweizer. "I would say the odds of a criminal referral from the FBI are fairly high but I think the Department of Justice actually acting on that I would say is fairly low," said Schweizer. He also believes if there are any charges they will be minor ones related to the server and classified information and Clinton will face no charges on corruption. The probe into classified information got another jolt on Tuesday when a letter from the inspector general for the intelligence community was released that showed even more highly sensitive material was discovered on Clinton's unsecure server. But Schweizer says there is much more on the corruption front as well. A case in point he says, is the ongoing windfall the Clinton Foundation appears to be getting 15 years after Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich. Schweizer detailed the money chain recently in the New York Post. The pardon came on January 20, 2001, Clinton's final day in office. "Marc Rich was an international fugitive. He was on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List. He made a lot of money by trading with rogue regimes like the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, apartheid South Africa, North Korea. He basically acted as an oil middle man for these roguish governments," explained Schweizer. At the time, even many liberal voices like the New York Times and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., slammed Clinton for the pardon. Clinton himself later said it was one of his biggest political mistakes. But Schweizer says the shady details didn't end in 2001. "A lot of people were shocked and then when they found out Denise Rich, Marc Rich's ex-wife, had donated $450,000 to the Clinton Foundation and another million to the Democratic Party right before that pardon took place, people immediately drew those connections. I think those connections are real but that's not the end of the story," said Schweizer. Namely that the pardon is still paying dividends. "If you look at some of the biggest donors to the Clinton Foundation, you will find that these are individuals who were longtime business partners with Marc Rich, that they were his personal attorneys, that they were his media people. There's a collection of individuals that have poured tens of millions of dollars into the Clinton Foundation that are directly tied to Marc Rich," said Schweizer. It will ultimately be into the billions because Schweizer says Gilbert Chagoury has promised to donate a billion dollars by himself to the Clinton Foundation. He says Rich and Chagoury smuggled oil out of Nigeria and sold it on the black market. But the real total of Rich-related donations remains a mystery. "The Clinton Foundation, contrary to their promises, has actually not even disclosed all of its contributors. We know there are at least a thousand, based on some of their fundraisers, that were never disclosed and those donors were people that were precisely in Marc Rich's industry," said Schweizer. Rich died in 2013 and the pardon was 15 years ago, but Schweizer says if the money coming in is directly the result of that action, a crime is still being committed. He says McDonnell was convicted and Menendez charged with corruption based on much more speculation than is taking place with the Clintons. "It behooves us, I think, to get an explanation from prosecutors as to why these individuals get prosecuted but the Clintons don't," said Schweizer. |
| Why Jefferson Still Matters |
| Mon, 18 Jan 2016 16:13:35 EST The author of a controversial book debunking common beliefs about Thomas Jefferson says the man constantly cited for erecting a wall separating church and state would be appalled at the restricting of religious expression done in his name by American courts. Wallbuilders Founder and President David Barton says getting Jefferson wrong on religious liberty and other issues has a profound impact on our nation and he contends that his critics are trying to undermine his work in order to facilitate the secularizing of our society. Barton is author of "The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You've Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson," which is now available in paperback. While Jefferson is best known for serving as principal author of the Declaration of Independence and as our third president, he was a passionate defender of religious liberty. Barton says Jefferson would not recognize the current government efforts to stifle speech critical of alternative lifestyles or punish business owners for refusing to participate in same-sex weddings. "Where we are today, Jefferson would be the first guy popping up on the other side saying what we are doing is wrong," said Barton, who says the record is clear. "He is so clear that the number one unalienable right government is to protect is the right of conscience. That is something he repeats over and over. He said it's inconsistent with our constitutional laws to force tender consciences," said Barton. Barton uses the case of the Quakers as an example. Even after the Quakers opposed the revolution, Jefferson insisted on their right of conscience to be protected. Social liberals often cite Jefferson for trying to remove religious expression from the public square, but Barton says the reins Jefferson wanted on the state were focused in a different direction. "What we've had in Europe and Great Britain is a state-established denomination that tells what we have to be and it persecuted everyone that doesn't agree and believe with the state. In those situations, you had no religious toleration, you had no freedom of conscience and you did have coercion," said Barton. Jefferson's own experience with state established religion led to his authoring of the groundbreaking Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. "Virginia has one state-established denomination, the Anglican denomination. He watched his friends who were Presbyterians and Quakers and Baptists and Methodists get fined and thrown in jail, beat and sometimes killed because the state-established denomination told them what they had to believe and how they had to practice their faith," said Barton. "The statute disestablishes the Anglican Church and puts everybody on equal footing," said Barton. That history runs contrary to the conventional wisdom that Jefferson is the inspiration for the "wall of separation of church and state" in his letter to baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, in 1802. But Barton says liberal historians and and judges have blatantly miscontrued Jefferson's message. "That means the government is never going to get involved in stopping religious activities or beliefs," said Barton. "Prior to 1947, the Supreme Court would quote all of that letter or large segments of it. After 1947, they've never quoted more than eight words out of that letter." He says the stunning history of court decisions involving Jefferson's letter doesn't stop there. "Since [1947], there have been 4,000 cases go to the courts on first amendment religious expression. All 4,000 have quoted Jefferson but only 3,000 have actually quoted the first amendment. So Jefferson is quoted as an authority more often than the Constitution is on what you can and can't do with religious expressions," said Barton. "As courts do not quote Jefferson's full letter or his activities. They just use him as an authority and say, 'Jefferson said there is s wall of separation so we can't let a kid say 'God' at graduation.' Jefferson would say, 'What? Not in my name.'" said Barton. The irony, says Barton, is that liberal court decisions have established a state religion in their efforts to make sure there isn't one. "There is no doubt the government has state-established religion on things like homosexual marriage, on things like abortion, because it does not allow any kind of religious toleration for beliefs other than its own," said Barton. In addition to separating fact from fiction about Jefferson, Barton has also been in the midst of a fierce debate about the merits of his book. In 2012, the hardcover version of "The Jefferson Lies" came under fire by critics identifying as conservatives. They claimed Barton falsely tried to paint Jefferson as a conventional Christian contrary to his usual portrayal as a deist who edited the bible to remove supernatural references. Barton says the critics were way off and still are. "In a long chapter, we show Jefferson was not in any way, shape, fashion or form an orthodox Christian. He questioned the divinity. He questioned the inspiration of scriptures, etc. But what we showed is that he was never anti-Christian, anti-Jesus or anti-religion," said Barton. Barton says his book is based on more than 10,000 original documents dated prior to 1812. He says it's clear from Jefferson's writings and actions that he was unwavering in his defense of religious freedom. "Jefferson in office was not even close to a secularist. He's the guy who helped facilitate church services starting every Sunday in the U.S. Capitol. He went there as president, eight years as president. He invited preachers to preach at the Capitol. By 1854, the largest church in the United States was the one that Jefferson helped facilitate in the U.S. Capitol," said Barton. Critics of Barton say their arguments were proven when publisher Thomas Nelson pulled "The Jefferson Lies" from its lineup. But Barton says that decision had nothing to do with which side was telling the truth. "I had provided the publisher with two boxes of documentation of every claim we had in the book. The publisher never opened the documentation at all, never even called me. They just said they didn't want the controversy. We're bailing," said Barton, who believes there's a troubling premise behind the attacks on his scholarship. "When a lot of these academics support the secularization of church and state we say, 'Hey, you're citing Jefferson on that. You can't do that. Jefferson's not the guy who secularized this. He's the guy who put religious activities in so many public places. Then what you have to do is go after the person who makes Jefferson look different from what they portray him as," said Barton. Barton says this debate is about a whole lot more than his book and setting the record straight about the late 1800's. "Jefferson is the go-to guy on public policy today. If I can take Jefferson away from them, policy changes," said Barton. |
| Lawmaker Details Bill Classifying Sex with Lobbyists as Gift |
| Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:57:46 EST Politicians are often accused of being in bed with the special interests, but in Missouri, a lobbyist who literally hits the sheets with a lawmaker would have to report the liaison as a gift if a new bill makes it into law. The legislation sponsored by Republican State Rep. Bart Korman would require lobbyists to report any sexual encounter with a member of the legislature as a gift with the state ethics commission. Korman says recent indiscretions in the Show Me State prompted his effort to clean up the system. Last year, two sex scandals involving lawmakers and interns rocked Jefferson City. In May, Republican State House Speaker John Diehl stepped down after sexually charged texts with an intern were discovered. Two months later, Democratic State Sen. Paul LeVota resigned in response to allegations he sexually harassed two interns. "I looked at the law and there's really no statute against that type of relationship. After some of the allegations against some of the members of the General Assembly last year and a priority of ethics reform after having discussion this year, I put the two subjects together and put this bill forward," said Korman. Korman doesn't believe sexual relationships between politicians and lobbyists are rampant in Missouri, but he says there is enough chatter around the capitol to make his plan necessary. "I don't think there's very much of that activity but you always hear of a situation or two out there of rumors that you don't know exist or not. After last year's situation, I figured maybe it's time to put something like this forth," said Korman. While the argument will likely emerge that the state has no right to know about the personal affairs of lawmakers, Korman says the people they serve certainly do. "One, I think if a relationship like that occurs, the citizens of Missouri should know that it's going on," said Korman. "Two, hopefully with the reporting process, it would deter that type of activity altogether which would probably be the best thing for everybody." He explained what his bill would require in terms of transparency. "Lobbyists are required to report any gift activity on a monthly basis," said Korman. "I put it so it's zero value and I put it into the current ethics reporting system because I didn't want to create a bigger bureaucracy here in Missouri." While Korman is intent on raising ethical standards in the Missouri government, he does not demonize lobbyists in general. He says they perform an important function. "Lawmaking is probably different than any other process out there. It's one that is interactive and lobbyists are just as much a part of the process as citizens because a lot of citizens have an organization that hires lobbyists to watch what's going on here on a daily basis," said Korman. There is no precedent for the legislation anywhere in the U.S. Korman says the closest they came was some confusion over the law in North Carolina. Korman introduced the bill Jan. 6. He says the response from his colleagues gives him tentative hope the bill has a chance to pass. "A lot of members think it's a good bill, however I've got no co-sponsorships on it so we'll see how that changes in time. There's a few snickers here and there as well," said Korman. Even he has no formal allies yet for the bill, it's already in the legislative pipeline. "The more co-sponsors you get, the more the speaker and the chairman that has the bill would know that there's support for it. The speaker did refer it to committee, so now it will be up to the committee chairman to see if he wants to have a hearing on the bill or not," said Korman. |
| Iran Provoked, U.S. Appeased |
| Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:19:04 EST The Obama administration says it was excellent diplomacy that led to Iran releasing ten U.S. sailors who were taken into detention on Tuesday, but former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton says it was another example of Obama appeasing Iran after a belligerent act and encourages other adversaries and enemies to follow suit. Two U.S. Navy patrol boats were intercepted on Tuesday. Video shot by the Iranian government depicted Americans on their knees and holding their hands on their heads. Later, the female sailor was shown wearing a hijab and another sailor apologized on camera for the "mistake" of entering Iranian waters. Obama drew criticism for not mentioning the incident on his State of the Union message Tuesday night. By Wednesday morning, however, Iran released the U.S. service members. That same morning, Secretary of State John Kerry hailed their release and even thanked the Iranians. "I want to thank the Iranian authorities for their cooperation and quick response. These are always situations which, as everybody here knows, have an ability, if not properly guided, to get out of control," said Kerry. "All indications suggest or tell us that our sailors were well taken care of, provided with blankets and food and assisted with their return to the fleet earlier today," added Kerry. Bolton says the praise for the Iranians is completely unwarranted because Tehran's actions in interdicting the boats were unwarranted. "There was no reason for the Iranians to bring them to Farsi Island, to take them off the two ships. If they were inadvertently in Iranian territorial waters, the standard procedure is just to warn them off, make them identify themselves and tell them to shove off back into international waters," said Bolton. Bolton believes the Iranians had a clear reason for detaining the sailors. "I think what may really have been at stake here was the boats themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if they contained sensing equipment and advanced communications equipment," said Bolton. He says it is vital for the government to investigate what the Iranians learned from those boats. "It's very important that Congress find out what, if anything, was compromised in terms of our sensitive intelligence gathering capabilities, weapons systems, communications on those boats that the Iranians had a day and a half to search," said Bolton. Bolton is also unimpressed with the release of the sailors within hours. "Why did they release the American crewmen after 18 hours? Because they had everything they needed. They gained propaganda benefit inside Iran because this was depicted as aggressive Americans being stopped by the Revolutionary Guard and arrested and humiliated. They gained propaganda value in the rest of the world because everybody says, 'Oh, those wonderful Iranians, releasing the people in less than a day,'" said Bolton. Bolton believes the proper U.S. response would have been for Obama to condemn the detention of the sailors in his State of the Union speech. He would have also suggested ripping up the Iran nuclear deal, but Bolton says preserving that was one of Obama's top goals as this played out. "All he wanted to do was get the people out with a minimum of fuss and to save the nuclear deal," said Bolton. Just like the nuclear deal, Bolton sees this as another episode of Iran testing Obama and Obama failing the test. "This is another example of provocative action on the part of the Iranian government, followed by appeasement on the part of the United States," said Bolton. He says the U.S. response will only trigger more trouble. "Having gotten away with this it would be perfectly logical for them to take it up a notch and try an even more provocative action," said Bolton. Bolton fears Iran won't be the only one to learn that lesson. "Our enemies don't know who's going to win the November election any better than we do but they know one thing for sure. They've got Barack Obama in office for another year and whatever steps they want to take to advance their agenda against the United States, this is the time to do it," said Bolton. "I'm very worried over the course of the next year that we're going to have a series of provocations in diverse parts of the world that the administration's simply not going to be able to handle," said Bolton, who noted terrorist attacks in Turkey, Iraq and Indonesia just the past few days. Bolton also rejected some of the key points from Obama's speech Tuesday night, starting with the president's attempt to reassure Americans that ISIS is not a threat to the existence of the U.S. "This is actually a very important insight into what's wrong with the Obama administration's foreign policy. It may be the case today that ISIS is not an existential threat to the United States. Although I might note it's an existential threat to the people that ISIS terrorists have killed," said Bolton. "While it may not be the country as a whole that's at risk, my minimum standard is this: no American should be killed by terrorists and that should be the president's standard as well," said Bolton. Bolton says Obama simply doesn't understand the job of a commander-in-chief. "The job of the president is not simply to get up every morning and look around the world and say, 'Well, they're not an existential threat today.' Real statesmen look five or ten years out or even further into the future and say, 'What incipient problems around the world today can threaten us down the road and what are we going to do today to keep those problems from metastasizing,'" said Bolton. |
| Christian Persecution 'Escalating to an Unprecedented Rate' |
| Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:28:21 EST The persecution of Christians is getting worse all around the world and the Open Doors USA CEO Dr. David Curry says it could well be the most severe since the early church was under assault by the Roman Empire. On Wednesday, Open Doors USA released its 2016 World Watch List, an annual report listing the 50 most repressive nations for Christians. "This past year saw the persecution of Christians escalating to an unprecedented rate. We think that perhaps not since the the first century church have we seen such an unrelenting and spreading threat against the Christian faith," said Curry. While there were some changes in the ranking of the 50 worst nations, Curry says there's so much persecution around that countries making the list are far more aggressive in targeting believers than even just a few years ago. "One of the things that made this the most difficult time in the modern era is that it's more difficult to get on the list. Every continent is more difficult so unfortunately there aren't a lot of bright spots," said Curry. Once again, North Korea tops the World Watch List for the most brutal repression of Christians. "Tens of thousands of Christians are imprisoned for their faith, some even executed for things just as simple as owning a bible," said Curry, who says three other elements factor into Pyongyang's depravity. "First of all, you have a cult like system that sees Christianity as a threat to the worship of the leader there and his ancestors. They also have the ability to control the police system and the judicial system, if you can call it that, to use all the means of government to suppress freedom of religious expression," said Curry, who says believers are very fearful of being discovered by the government or its spies. "The community itself is now so paranoid that it's making it difficult for the Christian faith in North Korea," said Curry. Iraq is second on the list as a result of both government oppression of Christians and the terrorist tactics of ISIS. In fact, the nations ranked ranked two through nine on the list are dominated by Muslims. In addition to Iraq, they include Eritrea, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Iran and Libya. Curry says the threat posed to Christians in Islamic nations is intensifying greatly. "Extremists are solidifying and spreading their caliphate. That's true in the Islamic State sense. It's now bleeding into Libya and some of these areas. but it's also true in Africa. Boko Haram is spreading into Niger from Nigeria and hoping to solidify into Chad," said Curry. Curry says Eritrea has shot up the list because the formal government there is forcing Sharia law throughout the country and cracking down mercilessly on Christians. He says prison condition there are so horrific that many prisoners die after a short while. Praying for persecuted Christians and their situations is the first recommendation from Open Doors USA, But Curry is also urging people to sign a petition at the opendoorsusa.org site to urge President Obama to fight for persecuted believers. Curry is hopeful that America's relationship with the likes of Iraq, Pakistan and Eritrea can foster pressure for reforms. "People can sign this petition to encourage President Obama to make this a priority in his final year," said Curry. |
| Congressman Says Obama Foreign Policy is 'B.S.', Calls for Censure |
| Wed, 13 Jan 2016 16:06:50 EST The congressman who first challenged John Boehner as Speaker of the House is now spearheading an effort to censure President Obama over his handling of national security. Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., says it's time for Congress to hold Obama accountable for acts that repeatedly weaken our security and embolden our enemies. He officially filed the legislation Wednesday afternoon. "We've entered this resolution of censure and condemning his lack of energy and strategy strictly on national security. This is going to be a significant thing because at the very end it says Congress will act if the president doesn't change course," said Yoho. The resolution is just four pages. In addition to making general accusations, including Obama contributing to global instability and failing to enforce laws and honor his constitutional oath, several items get more specific. "Whereas President Obama has willfully failed to follow the counsel and expert advice provided by United States military and intelligence advisors by prematurely with-drawing troops from Iraq, thus leading to further destabilization of the Middle East and increased threats to national and global security," reads one charge. "Whereas the dereliction of duty and miscalculations of President Barack Obama have allowed the combined terrorist organizations of the world to control more land, and increase membership, armament, and resources more than during any other time in history," states another in reference to ISIS and the Taliban. "Whereas President Barack Obama has failed to instruct the Department of Justice to take action to end the practices of certain State and local governments that refuse to abide by standing immigration laws," adds another in light of Obama defending the concept of sanctuary cities.. The resolution also condemns Obama for failing to halt the Iran nuclear deal after Iran violated the terms through multiple ballistic missile tests and for lacking any discernible strategy in Libya. It culminates by asking lawmakers to formally rebuke Obama for his failure to act in the best interests of national security. "Resolved, That the House of Representatives (1) does hereby censure and condemn President Barack Obama for having willfully disregarded the President 19s constitutional responsibilities as Commander in Chief of the United States through his continued failed lack of foreign affairs strategy, failure to follow the advice of military and intelligence advisors, and failed national security policy; and (2) does hereby put President Barack Obama on notice and strongly urges the President to reverse course and begin fulfilling his constitutional responsibilities," concludes the resolution. The allegations contained in the censure resolution paint a very different picture from the one Obama offered Tuesday in his final State of the Union message. In discussing ISIS, Obama urged everyone to take the long view. "They have to be stopped but they do not threaten our national existence. That is the story ISIL wants to tell. That's the kind of propaganda they use to recruit. We don't need to build them up to show that we're serious. And sure don't need to push away vital allies in this fight by echoing the lie that ISIL is somehow representative of one of the world's largest religions," said Obama Tuesday. Yoho says Obama offered nothing new. "He's been saying that since the beginning. It's his failed policies in Afghanistan and Iraq, where he announced troop withdrawals and he pulled out with a date. That has led to the creation of ISIS. They didn't pay attention to them. They allowed for a foothold to get started," said Yoho. He says the results of Obama's weakness are obvious. "Today, under this president and this administration, the Taliban controls more land mass than they've ever controlled in history. Number two, ISIS came out of our dropping the ball, not paying attention to the insurgency that was arising," said Yoho. Yoho says Obama has misplayed ISIS every step of the way, from dismissing it as the "jayvee team" to running a handful of sorties against the terrorists for months while they established their foothold and gained land and resources in Iraq and Syria. "It was his miscalculations, his missteps and his lack of a strategy that has allowed ISIS to become the terrorists with the largest, most well organized, most well armed and the largest membership in the world," said Yoho. In first announcing U.S. policy against ISIS in September 2014, Obama cited Yemen and Somalia as examples of how the U.S. can influence major results with a light military footprint. Yoho says Yemen is now another depressing example of Obama's foreign policy. "Yemen is a perfect example of our intervention. Yemen is a disaster. He can tout some of the things he wants to about his accomplishments, but the one thing he can't talk about are his accomplishments in foreign affairs and it's made not just our country but the Middle East and the world less safe," said Yoho. While Yoho and others, including several GOP presidential candidates, urge a tougher ISIS policy from the military and through diplomacy and public statements, Obama insisted Tuesday he's on the right course. "Fortunately there is a smarter approach, a patient and disciplined strategy that uses every element of our national power. It says America will always act, alone if necessary, to protect our people and our allies. but on issues of global concern, we will mobilize the world to work with us and make sure other countries pull their own weight," said Obama in his address. Yoho pulled no punches in response. "I think it's BS. He doesn't have a strategy," said Yoho, who says military leaders he's spoken with reach the same conclusion. "I've sat with these guys. I sit on foreign affairs. There is no strategy to defeat ISIS." he added. "He can say all those things like, 'Oh, we have a smarter strategy. We built a coalition.' We had no coalition. So what he's talking about is pure, simple sophistry, concocting a story to make it sound good but underneath it's a lie." The congressman says proof of Obama's toothless approach includes dropping leaflets to let ISIS convoy drivers know we will drop bombs soon, clearing out the Guantanamo Bay detention center as quickly as possible and showing common cause with cities that refuse to hold criminal aliens so the federal government can deport them.. Yoho says the censure resolution is a warning to Obama that he needs to reverse course because Congress has only one more penalty to pursue but he insists impeachment is not something he wants to pursue now. For now, Yoho says he needs the public to rally behind the censure resolution. It needs a simple majority to pass the House and would likely have to meet a 60-vote threshold in the Senate. He is asking citizens to apply pressure to every member to get on board. "Members have a decision to make. They either get on this, condemning the president's lack of a foreign policy that's jeopardized not only us here domestically but around the world. Your constituents are going to put pressure on their members of Congress, whether House or Senate, to support this resolution," said Yoho. "If not, they say they agree with the president's action and they think he's doing a fine job. We all know that's not true," he said. |
| 'This Is Felony Corruption' |
| Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:22:58 EST The FBI is expanding its investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email server to examine whether Clinton used her office in a way that benefited the Clinton Foundation. The story was first reported Monday by Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne of Fox News. "The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton 19s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible 1cintersection 1d of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws, three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News," wrote Herridge and Brown. "This new investigative track is in addition to the focus on classified material found on Clinton 19s personal server," they added. The news greatly ratchets up the legal risk for Clinton. "This is felony corruption. Is there a connection, the FBI says, between the government of whatever country giving Bill Clinton a million dollar speech fee and then the Secretary of States, who happens to be his spouse, making a decision that benefits that country," said former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Victoria Toensing, for is also a former assistant U.S. attorney. Toensing believes the probe was expanded a while ago and the rest of us are only finding out about it now. She also suspects that while the rest of Washington was waiting for Benghazi-related emails, the FBI was able to recover additional messages that led their work in this direction. "I'm sure when they got into her server and saw all the emails they saw all kinds of back and forth between Bill Clinton getting paid and her making decisions at the State Department," said Toensing. She says it doesn't take much to widen an FBI investigation. "You'd be looking at certain emails, whether they're classified or not, and all of a sudden you might come across these that are talking about the quid pro quo of the speech payments and Hillary's decision. You wouldn't need more than a couple of those," said Toensing, who says corruption charges aren't that hard to prove. "You just need something in a reasonable period of time frame. The issue comes up, Bill's giving a speech, there's a decision pending and that happens within the next two or three months. That's all you need," said Toensing. "There are a number of those that have been alleged in newspaper accounts. He comes in, gives a speech for them. He gets a lot of money and then she gives them favorable decisions at the State Department. It's like the State Department is a RICO organization under the Clintons," said Toensing. Toensing says Clinton ought to be big trouble given the precedent already set by the Obama Justice Department. "This Justice Department under this administration prosecuted and convicted Gov. (Bob) McDonnell of Virginia for just making a few phone calls for somebody he had known for several years," said Toensing. "This is far beyond what McDonnell did. He made a few phone calls which never amounted to anything. If Bill Clinton got paid for a speech...and Hillary Clinton made decisions favorable to that entity, business or country in a reasonable time frame, that is per se a violation of law," added Toensing. The expanded FBI investigation into Clinton's activities comes on the heels of a potentially damaging email in which Clinton appears to instruct a top aide to send a secure message through non-secure means and without markings that the information was classified. In June 2011, State Department official Jacob Sullivan was attempting to send Secretary Clinton some talking points but ran into technical problems. "They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it," emailed Sullivan. "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure," replied Clinton. On Sunday, "Face the Nation" host John Dickerson asked Clinton whether she broke the law. "No. And it wasn 19t sent. So I think this is another instance where what is common practice, namely, look, I need information, I had some points I had to make and I was waiting for a secure fax that could give me the whole picture, but often times there 19s a lot of information that isn 19t at all classified so whatever information can be appropriately transmitted unclassified often was 13 that 19s true for every agency in the government and anyone who does business with the government," said Clinton on Sunday. Toensing says that answer makes her gag and says it runs counter to what her sources in the State Department have told her. "I have been told by people that the word in the State Department was that she had instructed people to take the markings off of classified material," said Toensing. She says this is the latest twist in the ever-evolving Clinton explanation of her server and her handling of classified materials. "First of all, remember the line was every secretary of state had their own personal email account. But we're not talking about the email account, we're talking about the server. It's the server, stupid. When people started talking about that, she said, 'Well I didn't receive classified information on it,'" said Toensing. "That got to be a problem when all of a sudden people were finding classified information. Then she said, 'I didn't receive anything that was marked classified,'" said Toensing. Toensing says Clinton has two problems on this front: that she kept classified information on an unauthorized server and that she had a responsibility to know what information is classified whether it is marked or not. She says the law in 18 U.S.C. §1924 is crystal clear. "It says it is a crime to put classified information in 'an unauthorized location.' It's as simple as that," said Toensing. The statute does say the person must knowingly engage in the behavior. Toensing says the email to Sullivan shows willful intent. "That would show that she had knowledge that she was getting information that was classified and that it was coming into the server in the bathroom," said Toensing. While the FBI has announced no timetable for making any recommendations to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Toensing is uncertain whether the Obama Justice Department would ever charge Clinton, she says the political realities require something to happen soon on this case, probably in the next 60-90 days. "Although the government is never supposed to take politics into account, it would not be a good thing to allow a political party to nominate somebody and then the next day indict them," said Toensing. Toensing and her husband, former U.S. Attorney Joe diGenova, have both stated multiple times that they believe large portions of the FBI will revolt if Lynch fails to indict Clinton and would make it their mission to get their findings to the public. She says Lynch is feeling immense pressure from both sides. "I think there will be a recommendation from the FBI to the Justice Department. Maybe the Clinton people will get to Loretta Lynch. Maybe people will tell her she'll never eat lunch in this town again. But I think if she doesn't go along with the FBI recommendation, she won't eat lunch in this town again anyway," said Toensing. |
| Lieberman: American People 'Mad As Hell' |
| Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:16:31 EST Former Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman says the American people are "mad as hell" about a political culture that divides the nation and makes problems worse instead of rallying the nations behind common goals. Lieberman served four terms in the U.S. Senate, three as a Democrat and one as an independent, although he still caucused with Democrats. He was the vice presidential nominee for the Democrats in 2000 and ran unsuccessfully for the presidential nomination in 2004. In 2008, he angered many Democrats by endorsing and campaigning for GOP nominee John McCain. Lieberman is now affiliated with the No Labels movement, which on Monday announced that six presidential candidates had endorsed the group's four major goals: creating 25 million jobs in 10 years, balancing the budget by 2030, preserving Social Security and Medicare for the next 75 years and making America energy independent by 2024. Republicans Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Rand Paul and John Kasich endorsed the No Labels agenda, as did Democrat Martin O' Malley. However, the No Labels announcement also came on a day when a new Gallup survey showed only 29 percent of Americans identify as Democrats and just 26 percent identify as Republicans. "These are numbers that politicians better read and listen to because 'the answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,'" said Lieberman, quoting the song made famous by Bob Dylan and Peter, Paul and Mary. He says the public is disgusted with both parties in Washington and that is made obvious by the campaign success of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. "The American people are fed up with the political status quo because they rightly believe it's not uniting the country but dividing the country. It's not solving their problems. It's making them worse. They're pulling away from the two major parties. Within those parties, more and more are turning toward unconventional candidates," said Lieberman. Lieberman says No Labels is trying to channel those frustrations toward specific goals. "We're mad as hell too but we're trying to create pressure to disrupt the current system so that people get back to the days when they would compromise. Reagan compromised with O'Neill, Clinton with Gingrich and they got some big things done. We need to do that again," said Lieberman. The No Labels goals were taken from exhaustive polling done on a variety of issues, but Lieberman says recent events suggest national security ought to be added to the list. "I bet if we polled today, one of the top four or five would be to protect us, support our national security and because of the threat of radical Islamist terrorism," said Lieberman. "We're going to add a fifth goal, which we're working on now that would deal with national security and terrorism." Known for his support for the Iraq War that cost him his party's U.S. Senate nomination in 2006, Lieberman sees two major priorities for the next president. One is a restoration of America's position on the global stage. "In a dangerous world, which this is, there is no substitute for American strength and American leadership to protect American security," said Lieberman, who also wants a much more united front when it comes to confronting threats around the world. "What I'm looking for personally in the next president is somebody who will try to restore the old traditional notion that partisan politics in America ends at the water's edge. In other words, we can disagree on foreign policy or national security, but when we're facing a foreign challenge or even allies, we've got to pull together as Americans," said Lieberman. When discussing the No Labels goals on jobs, fiscal discipline, entitlements and energy, Lieberman says Americans support those pursuits by a wide margin and No Labels is not stating any preferences on how those objectives ought to be achieved. But he says for anything substantial to get done, the next president will have to cooperate with the opposition party. "We're asking the presidential candidates and, over the next couple of months, congressional candidates to make a promise, which is about as good as we can do at this point, that they will work together across party lines to get something done on the big goals," said Lieberman. "There's got to be bipartisan cooperation, which hasn't happened much in recent years." |
| Congressman Takes Aim at Gun Show Fears |
| Thu, 7 Jan 2016 16:03:41 EST While President Obama and other gun control activists repeatedly take aim at the so-called gun show loophole as a dangerous gap in the effort to prevent criminals from obtaining deadly weapons, a decorated war veteran now serving in Congress says that narrative is almost entirely baseless. The narrative against gun shows suggests that dealers and other sellers can much more easily transfer weapons without the proper background checks being performed. Pro-second amendment voices often point out that none of the mass shootings in recent years featured weapons purchased at a gun show. But it goes even further than that, according to Rep. Steve Russell, R-Okla. Russell is best known for leading the U.S. Army unit that discovered Saddam Hussein hiding in a spider hole near Tikrit in late 2003. After retiring, he entered politics. Russell was elected to Congress in 2014. He says the idea of gun shows being some oasis that ignores gun laws is complete fiction. "Here's the law: If you are a business with a license and you are vending at a gun show and you sell a firearm, it must be done on a 4473 form with complete information by the buyer and a background check. If you sell a firearm under your license without doing that process, you have committed a felony," said Russell. "This notion that people think that vendors and licensees that go to gun shows are somehow circumventing the law by not doing any background checks because they're simply set up at a gun show rather than a brick and mortar is just false," said Russell. Russell says the Constitution does allow for gun owners to sell individual firearms. "That is your right as an American citizen to sell a firearm. If you know [the buyer] is a convicted felon and you sell that to him, then you've broken the law. You don't have to be a licensee to dispose of your personal property. That's a fourth amendment protection," said Russell. Gun shows vary from state to state as to whether someone needs to be a licensed dealer to sell a gun at a gun show, but Russell says the vast majority of transactions involving non-licensed sellers still involve background checks. "In a show, they say if you're going to conduct a sale under this roof then we have people that will call in checks and they will do that for free under their license and then you can make those purchases. If you suspect that you want to sell something but you're not sure, you can walk into any gun dealer and the two individuals can do that under their license and they will do that next check for you," said Russell. Russell says the Obama executive orders would involve the feds intruding into harmless transactions. "They would prohibit you, as an American citizen, from disposing personal property when you've broken no law. If you want to sell something to a neighbor or you want to pass something down to one of your kids that's of legal age, they would prohibit that and that's against our constitutional rights," said Russell. While Russell sees Obama's actions as unconstitutional both in terms of content and in his unilateral action, he believes the president could find common ground with Republicans on gun laws if he's really interested in addressing the problem. Specifically, he says they could tackle illegal ownership of firearms. "If (FBI) Director Comey comes to Congress or the president and says, 'We really need help with the national instant check system or workers authorized or we need more funds so we can do this,' we can have those discussions. Let's do that. Let's target the crime," said Russell. He says the recent terrorist attack in California is a prime example of where cooperation should be possible. "If you sell to a felon and you know that and you've done that like this guy we saw in the San Bernardino shooting, he did what they call shill buys. He knew he was breaking the law. He provided firearms to somebody that should not have had them," said Russell. "Let's target the lawbreakers. Let's not take away our constitutional rights," said Russell. As for addressing Obama's executive orders, Russell sees two avenues for congressional Republicans. "One, we can prohibit any funding to implement these measures through the ATF. We can do that in legislation that prohibits, by line item, any funds. We did that with DACA on the immigration issue," said Russell, who believes funding is the quickest way to cut off Obama's alleged overreach. "The other thing we can do is we can challenge it in the courts. It takes longer but in each case we've seen with courts, the Heller and McDonald cases in D.C. and Chicago, American citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. Period," said Russell. |
| Obamacare Repeal Clears Congress, Stage Being Set for 2017 |
| Wed, 6 Jan 2016 16:22:12 EST Repeals for major parts of Obamacare cleared Congress for the first time on Wednesday, and while Obama is sure to veto the package, one of the most powerful House Republicans says the move shows voters who is on their side and what could actually be done come 2017. The legislation would wipe away the individual and employer mandates, the co-called "Cadillac Tax" and other provisions. Congressional Republicans used a parliamentary procedure known as reconciliation to move the repeals through the U.S. Senate late last year with just a simple majority. Wednesday's vote in the House marks the first time Democrats have failed to block the plan on Capitol Hill. Obama will veto the bill and Republicans do not have the votes to override it. Nonetheless, the GOP sees this as a key victory. "The American people by a real majority are opposed to this law. What they will see is that there are folks standing up here in Washington, fighting as hard as we can for them," said House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, R-Ga. "If there's some epiphany and the president were to actually sign this repeal, it would be a wonderful thing. But if or when he vetoes it, the American people will know who is standing in the way of real progress. That's an important distinction," said Price. Price says some Democrats actually support individual components contained within the repeals, but even before the vote he did not expect many crossover votes. "We don't anticipate any Democrat to support this. They tend to represent their politics instead of the appropriate policy and their constituents when it comes to this kind of issue. But there are a number of bipartisan portions of this bill that could be supported if they were to look at it objectively," said Price. Supports of repealing the mandates and other Obamacare components received a hot in the arm in recent days when the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office concluded this bill would slice half a trillion dollars off the deficit over the next ten years. "That's real money," said Price, who says Obamacare is hurting America in multiple ways. "We know that Obamacare does real harm to the health and wellness of the American people, but it also does real harm to our economy in decreasing economic activity, decreasing economic growth and increasing the deficits," said Price. In addition to the Democratic opposition, some conservative activists have argued that this legislative effort may do more than good by removing some of the most odious Obamacare provisions that could hasten its implosion if left in place. Price isn't buying it. First, he says many of those same people thought the system would already have imploded. Second, he believes this is a much smarter approach to making meaningful change. "I think it's incredibly important that we as responsible representatives of the people stand up and say, 'This is what our constituents believe is the most appropriate thing to do, that is to repeal this bill and then move forward.' This is just the next step in the process because, following this, is moving forward with an appropriate, positive, common sense solution to the challenges in our health care arena," said Price. He says Republicans are also clear that they do not want to go back to way things were before Obamacare. "We don't want to go back to the status quo ante, where we were before, because there were problems then. The problem is Obamacare made things wore, not better," said Price. As a result, Price says Republicans are gearing up to craft replacement health care legislation and he believes House Speaker Paul Ryan is pursuing change in the best possible way. "What he has done is charge all of us with real, positive solutions, legislative solutions to the problems we face. Health care is right at the top of those challenges," said Price. He also says this will not be done in any way like the Obamacare bill was crafted. "This isn't going to a top-down model, like was done when Obamacare passed when people were dictated to and told what they've got to vote for and don't even worry about reading it. This is going to be a bottom-up process through the committees that deal with health care," said Price. That prospect is especially exciting to Price, who has offered his bill for patient-centered solutions ever since the Obamacare debate began. "I can't tell you how excited I am about being able to be involved in that process and representing our constituents and moving in a direction that they know needs to occur in our health care arena," said Price. |
| 105 Lawmakers: Freeze Iran Nuke Deal |
| Mon, 4 Jan 2016 16:12:02 EST A bipartisan group over more than 100 U.S. lawmakers is urging President Obama to block further implementation of the Iran nuclear deal since the Iranians have already violated critical provisions on multiple occasions just months into the agreement. House Foreign Affairs Committee member Ted Yoho, R-Fla, spearheaded a letter, which was sent to the White House just as members of Congress were wrapping up business before Christmas. He says 105 members, both Democrats and Republicans , have signed on. At issue, according to the letter, is Iran's conducting of ballistic missile tests on Oct. 10 and Nov. 21 in 2015. Such tests are specifically forbidden in the nuclear deal, which is formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA. Yoho says the Iranian violations are obvious. "Iran has broken the deal already, a minimum of two times, by test-firing the ballistic missiles. This is just a blatant breach of that agreement," said Yoho, who then elaborated on why the tests were a direct violation of Iran's vow not to acquire nuclear weapons. "The only reason you need a medium-range or intercontinental ballistic missile is for the delivery of a nuclear warhead. There is no other reason to have that," said Yoho. For close to three months, there has been virtually no response to the missile tests from the Obama administration. Yoho says that is not what Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry said would happen if Iran was caught cheating. "The president and John Kerry said that if they breached the agreement, there would be immediate snapback and sanctions would be put in place," said Yoho. "We had over 105 congressional representatives, both Republicans and Democrats that signed on to that because it is such a blatant breach of this contract or this agreement." Yoho says Obama's failure to make good on his word is yet another major blow to U.S. credibility around the world, after drawing the famous "red line" in response to Syrian use of chemical weapons only to back away. He also cited the former Obama demand for the ousting of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Last month, during a visit to Russia, Kerry announced that was no longer the U.S. goal. "Here again, they've drawn a line or set a line in the sand and said that this would not be tolerated and they're walking away from it. This is why our foreign policy has failed so miserably. We don't back up our words with actions,"said Yoho. The congressman says Obama's reluctance to follow through on his promise in this case is likely due to Obama's quixotic approach towards the mullahs in Tehran. "I think you're trying to see the president bend over backwards to do whatever he can to get Iran on our side. It's not going to happen. Iran will never be a friend of the United States," said Yoho. Yoho says there appeared to be an initial instinct for the administration to drop the sanctions hammer on the Iranians and some 12 companies connected with the ballistic missile program, but that's since been pushed to the back burner. "They announced, I think it was Wednesday of last week, that sanctions were going to be talked about at 10:30 in the morning. Then they retracted that and said that they're going to have to reconsider that," said Yoho. The administration has a history of not responding to letters from members of Congress, but Yoho says this is only the start of the effort. "Our goal is to keep putting more pressure on this administration to hold Iran accountable. If we don't Iran is going to run amok and they're going to walk away from this deal and they're going to be legally allowed to develop their nuclear arsenal," said Yoho. But while Yoho and at least 104 of his colleagues call for a freeze on JCPOA, what exactly is left to implement? Yoho says it's the money, some $100 billion in frozen assets and oil revenues and other funds that is still yet to be delivered. He says we can take it to the bank that a lot of that money will be spent making our national security weaker and even targeting American lives, a conclusion he says has been proven by the Iranians taking and maiming U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Seventy percent of those were done by IED's. Ninety percent of those were funded by the state of Iran. Iran funds Hezbollah and they fund Hamas, two proxy groups that do nothing but acts of terrorism around the world. So if they get access to that [money], you think they're going to be playing nicer with the United States?" said Yoho. |
| Legends Lost in Arts and Entertainment in 2015 |
| Wed, 23 Dec 2015 18:23:22 EST The entertainment world lost some of its brightest stars in 2015, from the big screen to television to music and beyond. Omar Sharif landed two of the most iconic roles of the 1960s, first as Sharif Ali in 1cLawrence of Arabia, 1d and then in the title role of 1cDoctor Zhivago. 1d Later a world-class bridge player and columnist, Sharif was 83. Maureen O 19Hara was one of the last leading ladies of Hollywood 19s Golden Age. Known for roles in 1cHow Green Was My Valley 1d and the Christmas classic 1cMiracle on 34th Street, 1d O 19 Hara was 95 when she died in October. Christopher Lee enjoyed was a successful actor over a nearly 70 year career after serving with distinction in the Royal Air Force in World War II. However it was in his later years that Lee landed his most commercially successful roles, as Saruman in the 1cLord of the Rings 1d trilogy and Count Dooku in Star Wars Episodes II and III. Sir Christopher Lee was 91. Anita Ekberg was a Swedish beauty queen who became a screen siren in the 1950s and 60s. Best known for her star turn in 1cLa Dolce Vita, 1d Ekberg was 83. Rod Taylor came from Australia to strive for his Hollywood dream. Known for his leading roles in 1cThe Time Machine, 1d 1cThe Birds 1d and 1cThe Train Robbers, 1d Taylor was 84. Alex Rocco enjoyed many roles during a long Hollywood career, but it was his role as casino operator Moe Green in 1cThe Godfather 1d for which he will always be remembered. Rocco was 79. Robert Loggia was a successful character actor for decades. Known for his memorable roles in 1cScarface, 1d 1cPrizzi 19s Honor, 1d 1cIndependence Day 1d and 1cBig, 1d Loggia snagged an Oscar nomination for his work in 1cThe Jagged Edge. 1d Loggia later suffered from Alzheimer 19s Disease and passed away in December. The man with one of the great voices in Hollywood was 85. Generation X moviegoers remember actress Amanda Peterson for her role in 1cCan 19t Buy Me Love, 1d opposite Patrick Dempsey. Peterson died of an accidental drug overdose in June. She was 43. Betsy Palmer was known for two very different things - being a famed panelist on the TV game show 1cI 19ve Got A Secret 1d and for being the killer in the original 1cFriday the 13th 1d film. Palmer was 88. Behind the camera, few names are more closely associated with horror flicks than director Wes Craven. Craven created the 1cNightmare on Elm Street 1d series and also directed all of the 1cScream 1d movies, among many others. Craven was 76. Jerry Weintraub was one of the most accomplished producers in Hollywood, putting together classics like 1cThe Karate Kid 1d and 1cOceans 11 1d and its sequels. Weintraub was 77. In television, Mr. Spock was one of the most unforgettable characters in history on the sci-fi favorite 1cStar Trek. 1d The Vulcan first officer on the USS Enterprise relied on logic over emotion for the duration of the series and then numerous hit movies. Spock was the work of the great Leonard Nimoy, who died in February. He was 83. It would be hard to find a more different character from Spock than Ellie May Clampett of the 1cBeverly Hillbillies. 1d The bubbly was blonde played by Donna Douglas. Later a gospel singer, Douglas was 81. Marjorie Lord was active in the acting world for more than 70 years but she will always be remembered as Clancy Williams opposite Danny Thomas on 1cMake Room for Daddy. 1d Lord was 97. On Batman, Yvonne Craig brought the character of Batgirl to life on the original 1cBatman 1d series. Craig was 78 when she died in August. Martin Milner starred in two popular series in the 1960s and 70s, first as Tod Stiles on 1cRoute 66 1d and later as Pete Malloy on 1cAdam-12. 1d Milner was 83. The police work was a little more suspect on the 1cDukes of Hazzard. 1d One of the most memorable characters was the bumbling, corrupt yet somehow endearing Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane. Coltrane was the work of actor James Best. Best died in April at age 88. In the early 1970s, one of the happiest shows on TV was the 1cPartridge Family. 1d Fans of the how will remember little Tracy Partridge, played by Suzanne Crough. Crough died in April at age 52. Al Molinaro played key supporting roles on two of the most beloved comedies of the 1970s, first as Murray the cop on 1cThe Odd Couple 1d and then as Al Delvecchio, owner and operator of Arnold 19s on 1cHappy Days. 1d Molinaro was 96. The most groundbreaking show of the 70s was 1cAll in the Family. 1d It was the brainchild of Norman Lear, but producer, writer and director Bud Yorkin was critical to making it a major hit. Yorkin died in August. he was 89. 1cAll in the Family 1d later spun off into 1cArchie Bunker 19s Place. 1d Anne Meara played cook Veronica Rooney on the show. However, Meara was best known for her successful comedy act with husband Jerry Stiller, known as Stiller and Meara. She died in May at age 85. The longest-running comedy in television history is 1cThe Simpsons. 1d One of the brilliant creators of the series was Sam Simon. He succumbed to cancer in March. He was 59. It seems Jayne Meadows was always on television. A frequent game show panelist on 1cWhat 19s My Line? 1d and 1cI 19ve Got A Secret, 1d ever-present figure alongside husband Steve Allen, Meadows died in April. She was 95. In music, few were better known or more beloved than legendary blues guitarist and singer B.B. King. Never far from his beloved guitar 1cLucille, 1d King was 89 when he died in May. One of the most iconic songs of the 1960s was 1cStand By Me 1d by Ben E. King and it enjoyed a resurgence in the 80s thanks to a movie by the same name. King was 76. Percy Sledge also died this year. Best known for 1cWhen A Man Loves A Woman, 1d Sledge was 73. Lesley Gore wasn 19t crying too much in the 60s, scoring big on hits like 1cIt 19s My Party, 1d 1cJudy 19s Turn to Cry, 1d and others. Lesley Gore was 68. Lynn Anderson was a country star in three different decades. Best known for 1c(I Never Promised You) A Rose Garden, 1d Anderson died in July. She was 67. Most country music fans can 19t remember a time when Little Jimmy Dickens wasn 19t on stage. Performing since the 1930s and a member of the Grand Ole Opry since 1948, Dickens was known for his short stature, big heart and rhinestone jackets. Dickens was 94. We still don 19t really know what the song was about but everyone loves 1cLouie Louie 1d by the Kingsmen. Lead singer Jack Ely died in April. He was 71. One of the favorite rock and roll groups in the late 60s and early 70s was Three Dog Night. Lead singer Cory Wells left us in October. He was 74. Few gospel singers were as talented or beloved as Andrae Crouch. Remembered for 1cThe Blood Will Never Lose Its Power 1d and 1cMy Tribute (To God Be the Glory), 1dCrouch died in January. He was 72. The Stone Temple Pilots were at the leading edge of grunge music. Lead singer Scott Weiland had that unmistakable gravelly voice. He died of a drug overdose this month. He was just 48. There are several other famous figures from many walks of life who left us in 2015. There are now just two remaining Doolittle Raiders from the 80 courageous men who attacked Japan in April of 1942. That 19s because two others died this year. Edward Saylor was 94 when he died in January. Robert Hite died in March. He was 95. Ben Kuroki was of Japanese descent but his service as a combat pilot in Europe led to him becoming the only Japanese-American to fly missions against Japan. Serving in 58 missions overall, Kuroki was 98 when he died in September. Some of most grisly crimes of the 20th century were the Manson family murders, including the killing of actress Sharon Tate. Vincent Bugliosi is the man who put Charles Manson behind bars. The famed prosecutor died in June at the age of 80. In religion, Edward Egan had the unenviable task of following John O 19Connor as archbishop of New York. But Egan also held a prominent role in the church during the sex abuse scandal and emerged with his reputation intact while other bishops did not. Egan died of cardiac arrest in March. He was 82. Robert Schuller tried to mix Christianity and self-help. Best known for his Crystal Cathedral, Schuller 19s ministry later fell on very hard times. He died in April. He was 88. When it came to motivational speaking, Wayne Dyer was among the most successful. Dyer died in August at age 75. John Nash had a beautiful mind. The brilliant mathematician who was later the subject of a feature film, died in a car accident in May. He was 86. Romance novelist Jackie Collins also died this year. A prolific author, Collins was 77. And celebrity chef Paul Prudhomme died in October. Best known for his Cajun creations, Prudhomme was 77. |
| Remembering the Political, Media and Sports Figures Who Died in 2015 |
| Wed, 23 Dec 2015 17:42:12 EST As 2015 draws to a close, we once again pause to remember the lives lost over the past 12 months. For all of us there are family and friends we mourn and memories we cherish. As a nation, there are also the famous and infamous faces who left us. We will spend two segments remembering those figures 13 from the arenas of politics to media to sports and from the big screen to television and music. Fred Thompson found his way into our lives in a number of different ways. He first gained fame as the Republican counsel in the Watergate hearings. He then embarked on a successful acting career that included roles in such films as 1cThe Hunt for Red October 1d and 1cIn the Line of Fire. 1d In 1994, Thompson jumped into the special Tennessee U.S. Senate election to replace then-Vice President Al Gore. Thompson won that race and one other election before retiring in 2002. Thompson then made a star turn as district attorney Arthur Branch on Law and Order. He left that show to run for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. After that, it was on to radio and more acting. Fred Thompson died after a lengthy battle with cancer in November. He was 73. While Fred Thompson portrayed a fictional prosecutor in New York City, Mario Cuomo was the real-life governor of the Empire State for 12 years. Cuomo first won in 1982 and, after a rousing speech at the 1984 Democratic convention, was thought to be a future nominee. But Cuomo never ran for president. He lost the governorship in a stunning upset to George Pataki in 1994. Mario Cuomo was 82. She was once a heartbeat away from being first lady of the United States, but most New Yorkers remember her as the first lady of their state. Margaretta 1cHappy 1d Rockefeller, wife of former governor and vice president Nelson Rockefeller, was 88. The family of Vice President Joe Biden faced the devastation of losing his son, Beau. An Iraq War veteran and a former attorney general in Delaware, Beau Biden died of brain cancer in June. He was 46. Up on Capitol Hill, Jim Wright was a passionate Democratic House member for over 34 years and, in 1987, ascended to Speaker of the House. An ethics scandal prompted his resignation less than three years later. Wright was 92. Mississippi congressman Alan Nunnelee died in February, also of brain cancer. He was 56. Edward Brooke made history as the first black senator from Massachusetts. A Republican, Brooke served two terms in the upper chamber in the 1960 19s and 1970 19s. He died in January at age 95. Wendell Ford served four terms in the U.S. Senate from Kentucky, rising to the second highest leadership post on the Democratic side. Ford was 90 when he died in January. On the foreign stage, Saudi King Abdullah died in January at age 90. Abdullah served in his own right for several years and often acted in the king 19s capacity while his brother, King Fahd, was in ill health before him. Abdullah was in close consultation with the U.S. during both the Gulf War and the Iraq War. Across the border in Iraq, one of the key figures in those conflicts was Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz, who was often the mouthpiece for Saddam Hussein. A rare Christian in the Hussein regime, Aziz died in June. He was 79. One of the key figures calling for the deposing of Saddam Hussein and insisting Hussein still had an active weapons of mass destruction program was Ahmed Chalabi. He became a controversial figure after the Bush administration stated it did not find the amount of WMD it expected in Iraq. Chalabi later returned to serve in the new Iraqi government. He was 71. In between the two Bush administrations, one of the people that advised President Clinton on Iraq and other hot spots was national security adviser Sandy Berger. Berger later wound up in legal trouble after attempting to leave the National Archives with classified documents stuffed in his pant and socks as he prepared to testify before the 9/11 commission. Sandy Berger was 70. Sarah Brady never held public office. But after her husband, former Reagan press secretary James Brady, was nearly killed in the attempt on Reagan 19s life, she became an outspoken gun control advocate and founding Handgun Control, Inc. Sarah Brady was 73. Two other people close to Reagan died this year. On the policy side, few had the president 19s ear more than trusted aide Martin Anderson. Also the author of multiple books about Reagan, Anderson was 78 when he died in January. Before getting to Washington, Reagan relied on the exquisite writing and keen insights of Peter Hannaford. Hannaford died in September. He was 82. Pollsters are a dime a dozen in Washington but none was more respected than the Pew Center 19s Andrew Kohut. He was 73. The media world was stunned in February when highly respected 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon died in a New York City car accident. The CBS fixture was 73. Arnaud de Borchgrave was born into Belgian nobility but in fleeing the Nazis wound up serving in the British Navy. After coming to the U.S. after the war, de Borchgrave served many years with Newsweek before heading up the editorial page of the Washington Times among many other roles. One of the most knowledgeable journalists on foreign affairs in the world, he was 88 when he died in February. M. Stanton Evans was a fixture in the conservative movement for 60 years and was known for his fierce intellect and disarming humor. Evans became the youngest editor of a major newspaper in the nation when he assumed the helm of the Indianapolis Star at just 26 years old. Later he founded the National Journalism Center and for the next quarter century trained aspiring journalists on how to craft a story and understand basic economic and the principles of the American founding. I am a proud alumnus of the NJC. Evans trained interns here at Radio America until falling ill with cancer. He died in March. He was 80. Another critical figure in the history of Radio America and in my development as a reporter was former network news director Dave Teeuwen. He later moved on to USA TODAY and played a vital role in the paper 19s digital transformation. Eventually rising to managing editor for the paper, Teeuwen died after a long battle with cancer in November. He was 45. On the funny pages, few one-panel comics had the endurance of Marmaduke. Brad Anderson relayed the antics of America 19s favorite Great Dane for decades. He was 91. The sports world lost several critical media figures in 2015. Stuart Scott revolutionized sports highlights by bringing his own lingo and brand of fun to the daily scores and news. Scott was 49 when he died of cancer in January. Ray Gandolf was a very different type of sports commentator for CBS and ABC in an earlier generation. Known for always finding the human angle to sports coverage, Gandolf was 85 when he died in December. One the many strokes of genius of the National Football League was to market it to many more fans through the iconic NFL films. The genius behind the videos was Ed Sabol. The hall of famer died in February at the age of 98. But Sabol might not have been able to create the brand he did without the innovation of Tony Verna. Verna invented instant replay, which has now become an integral part of the game. Verna was 81. As for those who took the field, none was more beloved than legendary Yankees catcher Yogi Berra. Known for his endearing personality and bewildering statements, Berra was also one of the greatest catchers of all time, both at the plate and behind it. He has still been to more World Series - and won more - than anyone in Major League history. Also a World War II veteran who saw action on D-Day in the U.S. Navy, Berra was 90 when he died in September. Along with Berra, perhaps no one was a better ambassador for the game than Chicago Cubs legend Ernie Banks. Starring both at shortstop and first base, Banks clubbed 512 home runs in his career. His Cubs never reached the World Series, of course, but Banks and his 1clet 19s play two 1d attitude endeared him to generations of fans. Ernie Banks was 83. Lennie Merullo did play shortstop for the Cubs in the World Series - in 1945, the last time the team reached the fall classic. In fact, Merullo was the last man alive to have played for the Cubs in the World Series, until he died in May at the age of 98. Minnie Minoso was one of the first Cuban stars in professional baseball, finding success first with the Cleveland Indians, but he will always be connected with the Chicago White Sox. A nine-time all-star and three-time Gold Glove winner, Minoso also made history by playing in five different decades. Minoso was 90. Joaquin Andujar was a very talented and very combustible star pitcher for the St. Louis Cardinals. His excellence helped the team win the 1982 World Series. His epic meltdown became one of the lingering images of the Cardinals blowing a commanding lead in the 1985 series. Andujar was 62. On the hardwood, few college basketball coaches were more respected or more successful than North Carolina 19s Dean Smith. Once college 19s all-time leader in wins, Smith won two national championships and made 11 trips to the Final Four. Also a trailblazer in breaking the color barrier in his conference, Smith was 83 when he died in February. When Smith retired in 1997, he handed the reins to longtime assistant Bill Guthridge. He coached just three seasons, but made two trips to the Final Four. Guthridge was 77 when he died this year. Another college coaching legend died the same week as Smith. Jerry Tarkanian led previously unknown UNLV to four Final Four appearances and the 1990 national championship. His tenure was marked by strong teams that emphasized smothering defense and fast-break offense and by an endless battle with the NCAA over alleged violations. Tark the Shark was 84. In pro hoops, Flip Saunders turned the moribund Minnesota Timberwolves into contenders. Also making stops in Detroit and Washington before returning to Minnesota, Saunders was 60. As for the players, one of the most dominant big men in history was Moses Malone. Coming from high school straight to pro basketball, Malone dominated with the Houston Rockets and Philadelphia 76 19ers. Malone won three NBA most valuable player awards and was the key ingredient to the 76 19ers sweeping to the 1983 title. Malone was 60. Malone replaced another dominant big man in Philadelphia. Darryl Dawkins also made the jump from high school to the NBA. Known for his shot blocking and backboard shattering dunks, Dawkins, nicknamed Chocolate Thunder, enjoyed a 25 year pro career. He was 58. Jerome Kersey was one of the best defending small forwards of his era and was a critical factor in the Portland Trailblazers reaching the NBA Finals in 1990 and 1992. Kersey was 52. Roy Tarpley was a can 19t-miss prospect at the University of Michigan...but he missed anyway after constantly battling drug and alcohol addiction. Tarpley lasted just five NBA seasons but did enjoy a long career in Europe. He was 50. One of the early stars in the NBA was Dolph Schayes. A dominant big man, who was a 12-time All-Star, Schayes led the Syracuse Nationals to the 1955 title. Later a successful coach, Schayes died in December at age 87. On the gridiron and in the broadcast booth, few did it better than Frank Gifford. Known as a great running back and receiver, Gifford constantly helped lead the Giants into title contention. After retiring, Gifford became a mainstay as a broadcaster, most famously as a longtime announcer on Monday Night Football - sharing the booth with the irrepressible Howard Cosell and Don Meredith. All three are gone now. Gifford was 84 when he died suddenly in August. Gifford 19s coach at the tail end of his career was Allie Sherman. Sherman led the Giants to three straight title games but came up short each time. Later a successful broadcaster in his own right, Sherman was 91. Chuck Bednarik was the last of the two-way stars in the NFL. A solid offensive lineman and a dominant defender for the Philadelphia Eagles, Bednarik is also known for the clothesline that shortened Gifford 19s career. A leader on the 1960 Eagles - the last Philadelphia to win a title - Bednarik was 89. In the 1970s, few quarterbacks were tougher than Oakland 19s Ken Stabler. The Snake perennially had the Raiders in title contention but they were often foiled by the Steelers. In 1976, the Raiders put it all together and crushed the Vikings to win Superbowl XI. Stabler was 69. Stabler was one of the legendary quarterbacks at Alabama for coach Bear Bryant. But Bryant had only one Heisman Trophy winner in his career, running back John David Crow at Texas A&M. Crow was 79. In the 1960s and 70s, the Dallas Cowboys were one of the most dominant teams in the league, thanks in large part to their stifling defense. Jethro Pugh was one of the anchors of that devastating defensive line that contributed to two Superbowl wins and three other trips to the big game. Pugh was 70 when he died in January. One of the greatest defensive minds in history was that of Bill Arnsparger. Credited with the building the Miami Dolphin defense that won back to back Superbowls, including a perfect season, Arnsparger was 88 when he died in July. Lindy Infante enjoyed success calling plays for the high-octane Cleveland Browns offense in the late 1980s. That success led to the top job in Green Bay, where he had one successful season but never made the playoffs. Later he got another chance in Indianapolis, but lasted just two years, one of them resulting in a playoff appearance. Infante was 75. Al Arbour was a winner, both as a hockey player and as a coach. Arbour took home the Stanley Cup playing for the Red Wings, Blackhawks and Maple Leafs. He later coached the New York Islanders for 13 years, winning four straight cups from 1980 through 1983. Arbour was 81. In golf, Billy Casper was a winner - even in an era dominated by Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus. Casper was an outstanding ball striker and putter, so good that he won two U.S.Opens and the 1970 Masters. Casper was 83. Calvin Peete was a solid tour pro for years. He was 71 when he died April. In NASCAR, Buddy Baker was a constant threat to take the checkered flag for more than 20 years. Baker won each of the sport 19s four big races, including the 1980 Daytona 500. Later a successful analyst, Baker was 74. Justin Wilson was a young star on the Indy Car circuit. Just 37, Wilson was fatally injured when a piece of debris from another car struck him. In pro wrestling, few personalities were as memorable as Rowdy Roddy Piper. Known for his trash talking and his Piper 19s Pit segments even more than his performances in the ring, Piper died of heart failure in July. He was 61. Dusty Rhodes did not have the physique of today 19s chiseled pro wrestlers, but no one had more fun. The American Dream was 69. Long before pro wrestling was big business, it featured pioneers who toiled in pain and anonymity for little pay. One of those who paved the way was the legendary Verne Gagne. He was 89. Sports are certainly a big business, and some of the biggest names in business also died in 2015. Kirk Kerkorian became a multimillionaire by building an airline bringing gamblers to Las Vegas. He was also a critical figure in the development of Las Vegas and a major player in the auto industry. Kerkorian was 98 when he died in June. Ralph Roberts founded the cable television behemoth known as Comcast. Roberts was 95. Douglas Tompkins established the popular outdoor apparel company North Face. He died after a kayaking mishap at the age of 72. Chuck Williams created Williams-Sonoma. He was 100, when he died earlier this month. That 19s a look at the names and faces who left us from politics, media, sports and business. Be sure to find the second half of our special, as we remember those from film, television, music and more who took their final bows in 2015. |
| 2015 in Culture: 'Clash of Unprecedented Proportions' |
| Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:34:44 EST 2015 witnessed a Supreme Court decision ruling there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, a federal judge jailing a county clerk for refusing to issue licenses to gay couples and the public explosion of the transgender movement, but one of the key figures in the culture wars says 2016 could well be a year of Americans pushing back against the liberal agenda. In June, years worth of political and legal battles found their way to the Supreme Court. By a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court ruled that the equal protections offered in the Constitution ought to establish a right to same-sex marriage. The decision was not surprising given previous rulings by the same justices, but Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver says it was disgraceful nonetheless. "Frankly, I don't think it deserves any respect as the rule of law. It's just the opinion of five justices. However, some people are playing the games of masquerade and assuming this is what the Constitution says. That will have a culture-changing impact at every level," said Staver. Although he refuses to honor the court ruling, Staver knows it is a huge moment in the battle over American morality. He says we have arrived at a major cultural crossroads. "This is a culture clash of unprecedented proportions that we've now entered into. This will continue as we move into the new year," he said. "It's going to come up in every conceivable context" private schools, churches, universities, colleges, you name it. Every institution, every person of faith will have to address this issue." Staver would know. Weeks after the Supreme Court decision, he became counsel for Kim Davis, the clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky. Davis, a born-again Christian refused to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples, citing her freedom of conscience and free religious expression. The federal courts disagreed. "Two months after this 5-4 opinion, the first Christian went to jail for her sincerely held religious beliefs," said Staver. "Although she was the first, she certainly won't be the last. It will not involve only public employees or public elected officials but certainly the private sector as well." Staver says the entire Davis saga could easily have been avoided, but the Democratic governor refused to take action to protect the rights of conscience. "There was no accommodation that was given by the former governor, Steven Beshear, who is no longer in office. He refused to accommodate her so she made her own accommodation. When she returned to work, she refused to violate her conscience, so she removed her name and title from the license," said Staver. Beshear was replaced by tea party Republican Matt Bevin, who scored a large upset victory over Democrat Jack Conway. "He became elected in large part because of the marriage issue and Kim Davis. He took the side of natural marriage and supports Kim Davis. He's now been sworn into office and he's already [issued] an executive order to protect the religious freedom of Kim Davis and other clerks like her," said Staver. On Dec. 23, Bevin ordered the removal of clerks' names from marriage licenses throughout the commonwealth, the very same decision Davis made unilaterally earlier in the year. Staver says the story of Gov. Bevin ought to be a lesson to national candidates as well. "The candidates will have to address this issue. The voters will require that they address this issue," said Staver, who believes pushing back is a winning issue for the GOP. "The more and more the issue of same-sex marriage and the radical, so-called LGBT agenda moves forward, the more people will see how intolerant it is, how coercive it is. Kim Davis is just Exhibit A in that situation. I think most people will say, 'This is not the kind of America we want to live in. This is not what we bargained for,' and they're going to push back," said Staver. Staver also believes the reputation of the nation's courts is in peril. He says an upcoming ruling in high-profile abortion cases will be critical to how Americans view the courts. "I think it's pushing itself into the realm of illegitimacy. I think the same-sex marriage case pushed it across the line. I think if it goes the wrong way on the abortion or the contraception and the abortion-inducing drug mandate, I think that will finish off this court and people will just simply say, 'We're not going to obey people who just invent the law as they go,'" said Staver. As the gay marriage debate reached a critical moment at the Supreme Court, the transgender movement also emerged much more publicly in 2015, led by Olympic decathlon champion Bruce Jenner announcing he identified as a woman named Caitlyn. Multiple television programs emerged to highlight the stories of Jenner and others. "It is part of their whole movement to bring out this bizarre 'I think, therefore I am' concept. We always saw that in philosophy but now they're actually trying to make that a reality, that if you think you're a woman then you ought to be legally recognized and treated as a woman? It's absolutely absurd," said Staver. Staver says it doesn't take a deep faith to understand the deep flaws in embracing the movement. "You cannot get used to something that pushes in your face and is a direct collision with your sincerely held religious beliefs and, frankly, objective, observable reality," said Staver. Staver admits 2015 was a difficult year for cultural conservatives but he says there is much more reason for hope than despair. "We haven't even begun to see this battle. This battle is far from over and, for me, I ultimately believe we will win this battle going forward," said Staver. |
| 2015 in Politics: Trumping the Opposition |
| Wed, 23 Dec 2015 11:44:14 EST Donald Trump's meteoric rise to Republican front-runner, Hillary Clinton's strategic minefield and President Obama's long-term impact on the executive branch are among the biggest political stories heading into what promises to be an election year unlike any we've seen in the past. That's the analysis of Larry Sabato, professor of political science at the University of Virginia, where he also directs the Center for Politics and operates Sabato's Crystal Ball. The latter has proven to be one of the most accurate predictors of political races around the country. Without question, the biggest political development of the year is the highly successful insurgent White House bid of billionaire real estate developer Donald Trump. After surprising most pundits by even getting in the race for the Republican nomination, Trump's poll numbers soared. Each controversy that experts said would derail his bid only improved his standing among GOP voters. Sabato says he's never seen anything like it. "Everybody compares him to (former independent presidential candidate H. Ross) Perot or this one or that one or the other one. No, he is his own man. He is unique. I don't think we've ever had one like him and I'll be surprised if we ever have another one like him," said Sabato. So why is Trump defying conventional wisdom and continuing to lead the crowded Republican field? Sabato says conventional is the last thing many voters in the GOP want in 2016. "This past year was the first time Republicans were in control totally in Congress since 2006. Yet, the Republican base felt that very little got done. They didn't think that their leaders had met the promises that they made during the campaign in 2014. That's exactly what Trump was saying," said Sabato. "There's a sizable portion of that base that likes Trump's approach and, more than that, likes the way he approaches things. It's his positions but it's his style. They like his toughness," said Sabato. Sabato says events have also boosted Trump. "It's the man meeting the moment. What is the moment? Now it's terrorism, so people are looking for a tough-minded candidate who will defend national interests and try to destroy ISIS and not contain ISIS or stop some of the homegrown terrorism here," said Sabato. Bottom line, says Sabato, Trump supporters are disgusted by what they've seen from Obama in the past seven years and don't see the Republicans in Washington fighting hard enough to stop him. "It's anger within the base at their own leaders. It's anger within the base at immigration. It's anger within the base at terrorism, wanting a tough guy to handle it. Who steps forward? Trump is nothing if not tough," said Sabato. On the Democratic side, Sabato says Hillary Clinton is the obvious favorite for the nomination but he says the rise of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is the most interesting development of the year. "Bernie Sanders turned out to be much more significant than anybody thought he would be. I wouldn't be shocked, even in his weakened state, if he won either Iowa or New Hampshire or both," said Sabato. Sabato sees two major challenges for Clinton's road to the White House. The first is the same high expectations that ultimately shattered her aura of invincibility against Obama in 2008. "How does Hillary Clinton win? Does she win cleanly? Does she put this away early? Does she stop all the questions about the emails and this scandal and what happened in the 1990's and the queries about Bill? Is she going to stop that? Is it possible to stop that?" asked Sabato. The other key factor is largely out of Clinton's control. Sabato says Clinton could ultimately rise or fall based on what the nation thinks of Obama next November. "Watch that almost more than anything else come fall. If President Obama is unpopular and has a low approval rating. I don't think he can get Hillary Clinton elected. I don't think she could get elected independent of him. If he moves back up somewhere around 50, then the prospect of a third consecutive term for the Democrats becomes possible again," said Sabato. Despite the sometimes frosty relationship between Obama and Clinton, Sabato says the president badly wants her to win. "His goal, ultimately, has to be to direct the Democratic nominee, presumably Hillary Clinton. Otherwise, his legacy items for the most part are going to be repealed or greatly reduced," said Sabato. As for Obama, Sabato says the president is definitely a lame duck, especially with a Republican Congress unlikely to pursue much of anything on the White House agenda. Still, he says, Obama could still make things interesting given his penchant for pushing policy changes through executive order. In fact, Sabato believes rolling back the executive branch power grab in recent years ought to be a major priority for the other branches of government. "Presidents seem to use every opportunity available to expand the powers of the presidency at the expense of the other branches. At some point, I think there'll be a rebellion in the courts rather than in the legislature given the numbers. But it't probably going to come," said Sabato. "Give Obama points for expanding the power of the executive if you wish but the founders did establish a separation of powers and a balance between and among the powers. We have to make sure that that's preserved," said Sabato. |
| The 2015 Economy: Omnibus Betrayal and the Business Exodus |
| Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:52:53 EST Respected conservative economist Stephen Moore says our nation's fiscal health was damaged by two terrible developments in 2015: the Republican "betrayal" on federal spending and the ongoing exodus of American companies that refuse to keep paying the highest business taxes in the industrialized world. Moore is a senior economic contributor at FreedomWorks and is a distinguished visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation. This past year he also advised multiple presidential candidates on their tax reform plans and was the principle author of the flat tax proposal offered by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. For Moore, the worst economic development of the year is also the most recent. He is appalled that Republican majorities in the House and Senate allowed the $1.1 trillion omnibus to pass easily. "It was a betrayal. The Republicans won the House and won the Senate promising voters they would get control of the budget, that they would be fiscally responsible, that they would help balance the budget and that they believed in limited government. We got none of that," said Moore. While House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., characterized the omnibus as a compromise that scored wins for Republicans on lifting the crude oil export ban, tightening rules in the visa waiver program and strengthening the military, Moore says there's no question Democrats won this fight. "This was a huge, huge win for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Barack Obama. They got all their social programs, the climate change agenda, the green energy stuff, Planned Parenthood. All of that stuff was funded. They laughed all the way to the bank," said Moore. He says Republicans even rubber stamped Obama initiatives they had earlier branded as unconstitutional. "All the executive actions that he's taken on immigration, sanctuary cities, on health care on labor issues and I could go down the line, all these things the Republicans have been complaining about quite rightly about Obama being an imperial president and walking all over the Congress, now Congress turns around and funds all that stuff," said Moore. "Shame on Republicans who control the purse strings, for agreeing to something that busts our budget at a time when we have an $18.5 trillion national debt," said Moore, who believes GOP leaders simply tried to avoid a fight near a budget deadline. "I think they were terrified of a government shutdown so they negotiated very poorly. They told Barack Obama in effect, 'Please President Obama, don't shut down the government. We'll give you anything that you want. You can spend whatever you want. Just don't shut down the government and make us look bad. Of course, Obama then walked all over them," said Moore. Republicans across the board were quick to point out that Ryan had little choice but to cut a bad deal because most of the process had been conducted while former Speaker John Boehner was still in office. Both Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., vow to follow regular order next year and pass 12 separate appropriations bills that will adhere to GOP principle. Moore, noting that he is a Cubs fan who hopes for a championship year after year, isn't holding his breath on the vow of upcoming spending discipline. "I've been hearing the same thing for the last 20 years from Republicans. 'Next year we're going to get the budget under control. Next year we're going to go back to regular order. Next year we're going to balance the budget.' Excuse me if I'm not to persuaded by that after all these years. If they were going to be so fiscally conscientious, why didn't they do that this year rather than next year," said Moore. However, Moore says all of Washington is responsible for the emerging crisis in our economy of big businesses heading to the exits over high tax rates. Citing Burger King and Pfizer already moving headquarters out of the U.S. and Apple threatening to do the same, Moore says lawmakers have to address the business tax issue. "We've got to do something about this now. This is an urgent problem. The alarms should be going off. We have to cut our corporate tax rate from 35 percent down to 20 or 15 or lower. We've got to make the tax system simpler. We've got to cut our capital gains and dividend tax on investment and we have to do it to make America more competitive and to create jobs," said Moore. He says the impact of inaction is obvious. "We're not going to have any Fortune 500 companies left in the United States. They're going to go to Canada. They're going to go to China. They're going to go to India. They're going to go to Mexico. They're not going to be in the United States if we have the highest tax rate in the world. It's that simple," said Moore. Moore says this is an issue where Republicans are infinitely superior to Democrats, stating that Obama has proven to be no friend to business and that Hillary Clinton is touting redistribution instead of growth. He believes many of the GOP candidates have good tax plans but will not endorse at this time. While very unlikely to back Donald Trump, Moore says he does enjoy one aspect of the front-runner's campaign. "I don't agree with Donald Trump on a lot of issues, but I have to say the thing I love about him is that all my liberal friends hate him," laughed Moore. Another economic headline from recent days suggests interest rate hikes will be a part of the calculation in 2016. Moore says it matters but not nearly as much as other issues. "The problem with our economy right now is not our monetary policy. The problem with our economy is the tax system, it's the regulatory choke hold on our businesses. It's Obamacare. It's the fact we don't have someone in the White House who is pro-business and wants our businesses to succeed," said Moore. He's not optimistic about making much progress in 2016, but Moore believes the right president could steer things in a much better direction in 2017. "We have to have a pro-America energy policy. We have to have a new tax system that's competitive. We've got to fix our health care system in a way that uses free enterprise. If we do those things in 2017 with a new president, I think this economy could really soar," said Moore. "I think we could see enormous growth in the economy because American companies are the best companies in the world today," he said. |
| Film Alleges Hollywood Child Sex Abuse, Cover Up |
| Tue, 22 Dec 2015 16:17:25 EST A new, highly acclaimed documentary purports to blow the lid off rampant sex abuse of child actors in Hollywood and the stunning lack of consequences in an industry that consistently gives offenders more work - even if they've been convicted. Titled "An Open Secret," the film examines accounts of sexual abuse over the past few decades. It features former child stars Todd Bridges and Corey Feldman among many others, but producer Gabe Hoffman says the problem is much deeper than a couple of famous names. "It continues to be a problem. We have a number of much more contemporary cases. One in particular, "Evan H.," which was only just a couple of years ago. In "An Open Secret," we tend to focus on cases where there are actual convictions or lawsuits that were won," said Hoffman. "This is incredibly documented stuff." Hoffman says the investigation into the scourge of sex abuse of children in Hollywood was never meant to spawn a documentary. "We didn't set out to make a film. This initially started as a research project with a film company. We looked at the evidence that was gathered and were absolutely compelled to make sure that "An Open Secret" became a film. Just in our possession, we had five to ten times as much credible evidence as you'll see in "An Open Secret." The depth and breadth is truly astonishing," said Hoffman. But the alleged horrors don't end there. Hoffman says the second layer of the scandal is that Hollywood continues to provide work for the offenders. "What is truly amazing is the common sense, simple, good citizen steps that Hollywood studios can take right now to get the pedophiles off sets," said Hoffman. "Just like any small business, why can't a Hollywood studio type in someone's name and say, 'Gosh, I don't want this convicted pedophile in the building, on the set where children might be. Our laws say that kids are protected from convicted offenders. They can't be within a couple thousand feet of a school, let alone in the building. In Hollywood, it's okay, as long as they're not one-on-one," said Hoffman. The documentary names many figures in the entertainment industry who have admitted or been convicted of sexual abuse of children. Hoffman shared a few for this interview, including actor Brian Peck. "He's ingrained in the Hollywood elite and even after his conviction for child sex abuse, Brian Peck worked as recently as 2013 on the hit TV show "Anger Management," the one that starred Charlie Sheen," said Hoffman. "Victor Salva is the director of the "Jeepers Creepers" franchise, of which there are several. He also filmed "Powder." In 1989, Victor Salva was convicted of child sexual abuse with a 12-year-old boy, served time and now he's a major director and hardly anybody talks about him," said Hoffman. Even those charged with protecting kids have been part of the problem. "We had an example in "An Open Secret" where a very prominent member of one of the largest Hollywood unions, who was serving on the committee to protect children, we exposed him as a pedophile," said Hoffman. He says there are many more horror stories. "We don't even address the huge number of cases that we know of that get settled privately. In "An Open Secret," we don't wish to engage in innuendo and we stick with where there are convictions or lawsuits that are won. But as we say in the film, we only show the tip of the iceberg," said Hoffman. When seeking to get a response from Hollywood studios to what the film uncovered, Hoffman and his team were met with hostility. "There's been a very strong backlash. The largest union in Hollywood threatened to sue us for merely identifying a member who admitted to this. The studios refused to work with us or distribute the film," said Hoffman. While focusing on the molestation of kids in the entertainment industry, Hoffman says the film also examines child sexual abuse in general and gives warnings to parents about how their kids could be vulnerable. "When a child spends a lot more time away from home (where they're safe), and that could be competitive sports and travel teams - we've seen that recently with AAU girls volleyball and a host of others just this year - a child is vulnerable. You have an adult who is in a position of power, and again it could be a coach. It could be a teacher. In this case it's in the acting world," said Hoffman. "So an adult in a position of power over a child, a lot of time away from home, that's a vulnerability that parents should pay attention to," he said. Hoffman says it often takes years for kids to come forward and report the abuse but he says it is vital for multiple reasons. First, he says the victims are often able to recover and cope better by revealing what happened. Second, he says going public with such assaults could encourage others to come forward if they've been victims of the same perpetrator. Communities interested in a screening of "An Open Secret" can go to anopensecretfilm.com or the website for Gathr Films. |
| 'He Fundamentally Misunderstands the Nature of the Threat' |
| Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:09:28 EST President Obama is coming under fire from a respected terrorism expert after Obama said the public needs to keep in mind that while ISIS can kill Americans, it cannot bring down our nation. In an interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep conducted before Obama left for his vacation in Hawaii, Obama said the U.S. needs to remain vigilant to stop ISIS-inspired attacks on our own soil, but he also urged people to take a larger view. "It's also important for us to keep things in perspective," said Obama. "This is not an organization that can destroy the United States. This is not a huge industrial power that can pose great risks to us institutionally or in a systematic way. But they can hurt us and they can hurt our people are our families, so I understand why people are worried," said Obama, who says the most important thing we can do is not change "who we are." Erick Stakelbeck is terrorism analyst for the Christian Broadcasting Network and the author of "ISIS Exposed: Beheadings, Slavery and the Hellish Reality of Radical Islam." He says Obama's implication is troubling. "He fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the threat. He does not understand terrorism, especially of the Islamic variety. He doesn't get it," said Stakelbeck. "The Islamic terror threat threat has already changed our way of life. If you don't believe me, just go to an airport." And while Obama may be right that ISIS cannot topple our government, Stakelbeck says it could do a whole lot of damage. "If ISIS or another Islamic terror group gets their hands on a weapon of mass destruction, which they are working diligently to acquire, they might not be able to take down the whole country, but they can take out New York, Washington, Chicago (or) L.A. That's not alarmism. That's not fear tactics. That's a fact," said Stakelbeck. In the same NPR interview, Obama also chided the media for what he suggested was excessive coverage of ISIS in the wake of the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino. "ISIL combines viciousness with very savvy media operations. As a consequence, if you've been watching television for the past month, all you've been seeing, all you've been hearing about, is these guys with masks or black flags who are potentially coming to get you," said Obama in the interview. Stakelbeck the concern among Americans is not from too much reporting but from what Obama's own subordinates are admitting. "The FBI director is saying that ISIS has a network of supporters and sympathizers in every state in the union," said Stakelbeck, noting FBI Director James Comey admitting the government is watching some 1,000 possible threats throughout all 50 states. "Then you have the House Homeland Security Committee that back in September released a report saying 250 U.S. citizens have left their comfortable homes here, traveled to Iraq and Syria to join ISIS, and dozens of them have already returned. These are government officials saying it. It's not just cable news saying it," said Stakelbeck. One of the great frustrations for Obama and politicians of all stripes is the absence of a strategy to identify individuals or small groups who wish to kill Americans, much like Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik in San Bernardino. Stakelbeck says winning this fight all starts at knowing who our enemy is. "Let's identify the ideology. Terrorism is only a tactic. It is driven by an ideology. It is Islamic jihadist ideology. President Obama refuses to admit or acknowledge that ideology exists," said Stakelbeck. "But if you name it ans start to battle back against that ideology at least you have a fighting chance." Obama and others reluctant to name the enemy as radical Islamists say such rhetoric does more harm than good because it paints all of Islam with the terrorist brush and could alienate the people most likely to help us root out the enemy. Stakelbeck says Obama is way off base. "It's intellectually dishonest in my view. He knows when people say radical Islam jihadist, they aren't talking about all Muslims. Obviously, every Muslim isn't a terrorist. We know that and he knows that. It's a straw man when he says it to quiet his critics," said Stakelbeck. Moreover, Stakelbeck says there should be no controversy over the terminology among peaceful Muslims. "If you are truly a moderate, peace-loving Muslim who wants no part of jihad and wants no part of Sharia, you should have no problem at all with the term radical Islam. If that does not apply to you, why would you have a problem with it? If you are a truly moderate Muslim, you should be outraged by what ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda and all the rest are doing," said Stakelbeck. He says that's an especially important point given the rise in sympathy for radical Islam. "We have to acknowledge there is a significant and growing strain of the Muslim world that, yes, does support ISIS and subscribe to that worldview," said Stakelbeck, who says the approach to defeating Soviet communism ought to be dusted off for this fight. "Think back to the Cold War. Think to the Solidarity Movement in Poland, Radio Free Europe, where we had a concerted effort by the U.S. government to battle against communist ideology and prove that it's bankrupt. We need the same kind of all hands on deck effort today against Islamist ideology, a full-court press to discredit it and neutralize it," said Stakelbeck, who says discrediting can also take on a military dimension. "Another thing that would help to discredit is to destroy this mini-caliphate that ISIS has declared in Iraq and Syria. If you do that, you hopefully demoralize the global movement and put a dent in that ideology," said Stakelbeck. Beyond properly identifying the threat, Stakelbeck says there are some other dimensions to reducing the threat here at home, starting with knowing who might be whipping up jihadist motivations on American soil. "Many mosques in the United States have ties to the global Muslim Brotherhood movement and subscribe to that ideology. That's a dangerous thing. If we have mosques in our country where there's radical preaching and they're turning out young jihadis, we should shut those radical mosques down without a doubt, just as France did last month," said Stakelbeck. Finally, he would also temporarily pull up the drawbridge to the United States and halt immigration from nations infested with radicals. "I believe right now we need a timeout on immigration from countries like Yemen, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq. I think that's just common sense until we can get this thing under some kind of handle," said Stakelbeck. |
| Law Professor Says Trump Plan 'Completely Constitutional' |
| Fri, 18 Dec 2015 16:17:06 EST Donald Trump raised his biggest protests yet last week when he proposed a temporary ban on all Muslim immigration until the nation can be assured our system can weed out the ones who pose a threat to national security, and while many condemned the proposal as a violation of various constitutional principles, a prominent conservative law professor says the plan is undoubtedly legal. Trump issued the plan on December 7, while reading his own proclamation. "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on," read Trump. "We have no choice. We have no choice." After his campaign initially indicated the plan meant Muslims who are American citizens could not return to the U.S., Trump later said that would be permitted. His policy drew immediate, fierce criticism from all all political corners and all other GOP presidential candidate rejected it. No lawmakers support either, including prominent border security leaders like Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. Polls show a majority of Republican voters back the plan but a strong majority of all voters reject it. A CBS poll shows 56 percent of Americans opposed and just 38 percent support it. Arguments against the plan run the gamut, from allegations that it is unconstitutional to have a religious test for who enters the the country or even an infringement on the free exercise of religion. Others say it is counterproductive to treat every Muslim like a suspect and that it's impossible to tell who is a Muslim if the applicant does not reveal it. But Temple University School of Law Professor Jan C. Ting says while the merits of the Trump plan ought to be fully debated, there's no doubt that the Constitution permits it. "The proposed temporary suspension would be completely legal and completely constitutional, and if that's the case then it's reduced to a policy dispute," said Ting, who served as deputy commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service at the Justice Department in the George H.W. Bush administration. "There's a statute that makes clear that the president has the authority to exclude any alien or any class of aliens, any group of aliens. Congress has delegated that power to the president. President Obama or President Trump could do that," said Ting. Ting also emphasized that critics who believe prospective immigrants are having their right infringed are forgetting something. "In this case we're talking about people outside the United States who want to come into the United States. They're outside knocking on our door. The Supreme Court has clearly said, 'You know what? We can use any criteria we want in letting people in or out,'" said Ting. "The people outside the United States do not have any constitutional right to come into the United States if the government of the United States doesn't want them too," said Ting. In addition to existing statute, Ting says Trump has ample constitutional precedent on his side. "The Supreme Court has really taken a hands-off position with regard to immigration. As anyone who studied immigration law in law school knows, immigration is different from all other areas of U.S. law. And as the Supreme Court has clearly said, we routinely do things in immigration that would not be permissible if we were dealing with American citizens," said Ting. He says the landmark case on immigration came in the late 19th century with respect to the Chinese Exclusion Act, which became law in 1882. "The Supreme Court unanimously held at the end of the 19th century that the United States could exclude people if it wanted to on the basis of race or ethnicity," said Ting, noting the decision was never overturned. "I call it the fountainhead of immigration law. If we can exclude people on the basis of race or ethnicity, and the Supreme Court unanimously says we can, is there any ground on which we can't exclude people?" asked Ting. The professor says it is legal for the U.S. to ban immigration to individuals or groups based on secret information, meaning no public reason ever need to be given. He also says current immigration law openly discriminates in that people from friendly western nations can come to the U.S. without a visa, while people from developing nations must apply for one. He also pointed to the green card lottery, which offers legal entry to the U.S. but bars people from Mexico or the Philippines from winning any spots. For Ting, the legal debate is simple and says that should narrow the debate to whether it's a good idea. "It is a policy dispute and ought to be debated as such and not pretend there is some big legal or constitutional impediment to what is being proposed," said Ting. |
| Battle Over Life in Texas |
| Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:09:35 EST A Texas mother and pro-life activists are fighting a Houston hospital in court after the facility cited a state law in its decision to refuse treatment for a 46-year-old man, despite the patient 19s wishes and those of his family. Houston Methodist Hospital is standing behind the decision of an administrative panel that ruled it was best to remove life-sustaining care for Chris Dunn, a former sheriff 19s deputy who also worked for the Department of Homeland Security. He did not have insurance at the time of his health crisis. The hospital 19s decision is final according to the Texas Advanced Directive Act, which has been on the books since 1999. Dunn suffers from an apparent non-cancerous mass on his pancreas that impact the connection of his small intestine to the pancreas. His liver and kidneys are also negatively impacted, increasingly so after eight weeks of this fight between the hospital and Dunn 19s mother, Evelyn. The decision by Houston Methodist triggered a 10-day notice before life-sustaining care was to be removed. The removal has been delayed twice by the courts while the constitutionality of the Texas Advanced Directive Act is challenged. Nonetheless, the pro-life community is appalled by the hospital 19s actions and is acting by calling attention to Dunn 19s case and petitioning the hospital to change course. 1cAt this hospital and hospitals around the state, we see that they have a different philosophy. They 19re using this law to cover up that anti-life ethic and actually to make these decisions against the wishes of the patient, 1d said Texas Right to Life Legislative Director John Seago. But in addition to denying treatment, Seago says the hospital is also refusing Dunn to get treatment anywhere else. 1cThe law only gives you 10 days, so if an ethics committee decides they want to take away the treatment, they only give the family 10 days to transfer to another facility. That is extremely difficult because the hospital decided they don 19t want to treat the hospital anymore. However, you can 19t transfer without their help, 1d said Seago. Seago says the hospital 19s attitude towards Dunn was exactly the same since he first arrived. 1cChris showed up in the hospital and instead of figuring out what was wrong with him, instead of doing the biopsies and the tests, it looked like he was in pretty bad condition and the hospital began to have conversations with the family that indicated the hospital was ready to give up, that the hospital did not think it was worth fighting, 1d said Seago, noting that doctors consulted through Texas Right to Life say Dunn 19s case is not hopeless. 1cThere is a long list of things that physicians who are dedicated to keeping Chris alive and healing him could do a lot of the biopsies that need to be done and treatments that some of the medical experts we went to recommended if he was in a facility that was actually dedicated to keeping him alive, 1d said Seago. He says the implied message from the hospital is chilling. 1cThey said there were a lot of complications in his health and they didn 19t think that his life was going to be worth living by the time he gets to the other side of this medical condition, 1d said Seago. While Dunn 19s family succeeded in winning a couple of court-ordered delays against the hospital, Seago says hospital tried to play some stunning hardball of its own, by requesting that Evelyn Dunn be stripped of medical power of attorney for her son. 1cThe hospital is actually trying to take that right away from her. She has the medical power of attorney and we see that the hospital wants someone else to be the medical guardian and to make medical decisions for Chris. We know that the first medical decision that they 19ll make, if they get it, is to withdraw his ventilator, which will occasion his death, 1d said Seago. 1cIt 19s very disturbing that Houston Methodist Hospital is not just trying to use this unethical law, but they 19re actually going above and beyond, to take the decision making authority out of the hands of Chris 19s mother, 1d said Seago. He says it 19s even more baffling when considering Evelyn Dunn is merely enforcing the decisions Chris himself is making. 1cHe is capable of making his own medical decisions, but because he has a tube, he can 19t verbally say them. He can indicate with his head. He shakes his head yes or no. He uses his hands to indicate whether he wants something or not. He is communicative but because he can 19t speak verbally, he has to have a surrogate speak on his behalf, 1d said Seago. In addition to championing Dunn 19s case, Seago says Texas Right to Life is getting ready to fight for a repeal of the Texas Advanced Directive Act. 1cThis hospital is using a legal process that we have to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, even if the patient and family are asking for it, 1d said Seago. 1cAt Texas Right to Life, we consider this Texas Advanced Directive Act to be the black spot on our state 19s pro-life record, 1d said Seago. |
| 'We've Been Down this Road Many Times Before' |
| Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:36:08 EST The president of the nation's largest grassroots taxpayer organization says we're seeing more of the same from Congress on the issues of spending and debt and that lawmakers are even breaking their earlier promises to tackle the nation's red ink. This week, lawmakers are passing a very short term spending extension to avoid a partial government shutdown. The extension will only last for a few days, but it means that more than two months after the start of the new fiscal year, the federal government will temporarily continue to spend at levels negotiated when Democrats controlled the U.S. Senate in 2014. "We've been down this road many times before with Congress, not only on budget issues but on tax extender issues as well. The key to the budget fight this time is that Congress, unwisely in the opinion of my organization, decided to lift caps on discretionary spending that were enacted in 2011 and were working to drive down federal deficits," said National Taxpayers Union President Pete Sepp. "Members of Congress, for the second time in four years, decided they couldn't live under those caps so they decided to raise them," said Sepp, noting that discretionary budget items are those which must be approved on an annual basis. To Sepp's frustration, Republican control of Congress has not yet translated into the fiscal discipline needed to restore order to the nation's balance sheet. "Unfortunately, we have yet to see the kind of commitment that's really going to keep the debt as well as annual deficits under some kind of control," said Sepp. He says avoiding the looming issue of American debt is only going to put a greater squeeze on our government and on taxpayers. "Just servicing our national debt in the next decade will run about a trillion dollars a year, one trillion dollars spent just on paying the interest on the entire national debt. That is not fiscal responsibility and Congress has compounded the problem by failing to keep even part of the federal budget, the so-called discretionary part, under control," said Sepp. Sepp offered multiple examples of what he would classify as a commitment to reining in spending, starting with discretionary spending. "Congress needs to go and reset the needle entirely and say we are going to assume that every single federal program does not deserve re-authorization unless we can prove it does. That is a smart approach to budgeting," said Sepp, who also wants to target savings in the entitlement programs. "We need to do the same with entitlement programs, figuring out how to curb federal benefits in a way that is fair to recipients and fair to taxpayers. We've only begun to have that very, very small debate over the Federal Disability Insurance Program," said Sepp. He says the program is on the brink of disaster and no one seems to be acting with much urgency. "That's going broke in 2016, next year, and Congress has yet to decide how they're going to address that, much less the Social Security retirement program or Medicare," said Sepp. Finally, Sepp urges Congress to get serious very soon about passing tax extenders on several key provisions. He says putting it off so close to the end of the year is flirting with chaos. "They've already expired. Congress needs to act to restore them before people start filing their returns. Otherwise, we're going to have a mess on our hands," said Sepp. While some tax cuts Sepp wants extended are very specialized for specific businesses, he says others could have a more wide-ranging impact. "There are other provisions, like expensing for small business or the deduction for state or local sales taxes, that could effect hundreds of thousands or even millions of people. If those go away, we're going to see a very large increase in tax bills," said Sepp. Sepp is encouraged that the House legislation contains permanent extenders, but he is also firing back at Democrats and others who oppose extenders in order to grow the government coffers. "There are many folks saying that the extenders bill that would pass Congress would cost the U.S. Treasury a lot of money. Well, the treasury has never had this money in the first place. These are tax relief provisions that have expired. What we're talking about here is that the treasury would gain a windfall if the extenders are not passed," said Sepp. |
| Hillary Should Face Charges, Probably Won't |
| Tue, 8 Dec 2015 16:04:25 EST A former Justice Department official says there is no doubt former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton broke federal laws by exclusively hosting all of her official emails on a home server and possibly compromising national security, but she says the political nature of Barack Obama's Justice Department makes an indictment very unlikely. Victoria Toensing is a former deputy assistant attorney general and also served as an assistant U.S. attorney. Since her time in government, Toensing has represented many high-profile clients on issues ranging from terrorism to political corruption to the 2012 attack in Benghazi. She says this case should be simple for the FBI and federal prosecutors just based on what has already been revealed. "18 USC 1924 makes it a crime to have classified information at an unauthorized location," said Toensing. Clinton's defenders say several of her predecessors used private email accounts while heading the State Department. Toensing says that's true, and it's completely irrelevant. "It's the server stupid. That's the line. Don't let them mislead you by saying, 'Oh, it's a private email account. Colin Powell had one.' Yeah, he did. Everyone does. What she was not supposed to do was have a server taking classified information when that server was not a protected server under the government's auspices. That is the issue," said Toensing. The FBI investigation of the Clinton server comes at a politically sensitive time. Clinton is the clear favorite for the Democratic nomination in an otherwise weak field and the first votes are less than two months away. Toensing says that should not matter when it comes to enforcing the law but she says that may be hoping for too much. "This has been the most political Justice Department that I have ever, ever seen, and I go back a long way, back to (Carter administration Attorney General) Griffin Bell, who was just a great attorney general. It wouldn't have bothered him one way or the other. It wouldn't have bothered Democratic or Republican administrations," said Toensing. However, she says the track record of the Obama Justice Department should lead us to expect no legal trouble for Clinton in the coming weeks or months. "We all know Lois Lerner is being told she has no prosecution concerns. Nobody at the IRS has prosecution concerns. Nobody from Fast & Furious has any prosecution concerns. So why would we think this would be any different?" said Toensing. But while Toensing does not expect Attorney General Loretta Lynch to indict Clinton regardless of what the FBI may or may not recommend, she says the probe may still lead to serious political damage for Clinton. "I think that you'll find a lot of leaks if it doesn't happen. If they find criminal conduct and recommend criminal prosecution and it's quashed, I think people in the press will start getting a dime dropped on them," said Toensing. For Toensing, however, there is no doubt there was criminal conduct. In addition to Clinton doing all of her work email through a private, unsecure server, there are now more than a thousand released emails containing classified information. Clinton often says that those emails were never marked classified. Again, Toensing says that defense is "silly" "Is that silly now? Of course it wasn't marked classified at the time because it's supposed to go through a classification process when it comes to the State Department. Her people took raw information and didn't put any classification markings on it, or they took them off, which is another one of the allegations, and sent them to her," said Toensing. Additionally, Toensing says it is the duty of the secretary to know what constitutes classified material and what does not. "The secretary of state is supposed to know when something is classified and certainly things such as the overhead pictures and so forth that has been described. Those are classified and anybody on the bottom-most level of the State Department should know that," said Toensing. Toensing is also dumping cold water on another Clinton excuse, namely that there is considerable debate over what was classified and was not and that the State Department is still sorting through it. She says that's all a smokescreen. "No, here is the rule," said Toensing. "If the CIA creates the document, the CIA and only the CIA gets to say whether it's classified. There can be no dispute by any other agency. The State Department cannot refute a classification that the CIA put on a document," said Toensing. She says several documents kept on Clinton's server break the law for that very reason. "There's already been several classified documents that the CIA has said, 'These were classified at birth.' Then they went to her private server," said Toensing. Further damaging to Clinton is her inability to cite where she got permission to have the home server. "I think one reporter asked her, hardly anyone else does, 'Well, who authorized it at the State Department? Who was the person?'" recounted Toensing. Hillary's answer was weak. "'Well no one had to. It was just known that it was okay,'" said Toensing in summing up Clinton's response. There is also evidence that Clinton obstructed justice during the course of the investigation. "There is a possible obstruction of justice charge in that Sidney Blumenthal was also asked to turn over documents. He turned over emails back and forth to her that she never turned over. Prosecutors go after that all the time," said Toensing. |
| Obama Ignores Evidence, Orders Women Into Combat |
| Fri, 4 Dec 2015 16:29:06 EST On Thursday, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced the Obama administration is opening all combat roles to women, but a readiness expert says this is a disaster in the making as women will be forced into combat and all forces will be weaker as training standards are lowered so women can meet the administration's quotas. Secretary Carter's announcement that women can serve in any unit also defies a strong protest from the United State Marine Corps, which argued that combat roles subject women to far higher odds of injury. 1cThere will be no exceptions, 1d Carter said. 1cThis means that, as long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before. 1d But while the move is being hailed as a milestone for equal rights for women, a leading female critic of the policy says a disaster is in the offing because of President Obama's social agenda. "The administration said it doesn't matter what the Marines have said. It doesn't matter what the research says. This is President Obama's order. That's why it's being done, because this president knows he can order the military to do whatever he wants," said Center for Military Readiness President Elaine Donnelly, who authored a scathing review of the policy change. Donnelly says this is all part of a social engineering effort designed to meet gender quotas. "The paramount goal of the administration is something called Gender Diversity Metrics, that's another name for quotas. The Navy has officially said they want 25 percent women, across the board on every Navy ship," said Donnelly. She says a key element to remember is that this policy does not simply permit women in the military to serve in combat roles if they wish, but that women will serve in those positions regardless of their wishes. "It's not allow, it's order. The secretary of defense made clear what we've been saying all along. If you want to join the military, you have to serve under the same rules men do. This is not a voluntary thing," she said. And there's more. "Selective Service very likely now will include women by court order because men and women are now similarly situated. That means they're going to be subject to the same orders involuntarily. If they join the military and they're used in direct ground combat, this takes away the rationale for exempting civilian women from Selective Service registration," said Donnelly. As Secretary Carter mentioned, women serving in combat will have to meet certain training standards, but Donnelly says former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey already said standards would be reviewed if women cannot meet them. Donnelly says we're already seeing the shifting standards, and that means lower levels of readiness. "Standards will not be the high standards for men. It will be minimum standards. At boot camp, the maximum for a man is to 20 pull-ups. The minimum is three. Henceforth, three will be the standard because that's the minimum standard," explained Donnelly. "They tried this experiment two years ago at Marine boot camp. Fifty-five percent of those women could not do the three pull-ups. Now what are they going to do?" she asked. Donnelly says the Marine Corps also raised major concerns over women being injured in training or combat. "Women are known to have risks of injury at least double those of men, higher in the combat arms," said Donnelly. In the few years since the Obama administration and Congress repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," Donnelly says virtually every concern of opponents, from an erosion of religious liberty to skyrocketing male-on-male sexual assaults have come true. She says the impact of this will be even greater. "The onset of LGBT law for the military has had negative effects, but it's effected a relatively small number of people compared to men and women in the military. That effects everybody," said Donnelly. She says more social engineering in the military is on the way from the administration, including demands on doctors to participate in therapies or even surgeries to accommodate transgender personnel. Donnelly says that could lead to an exodus of doctors. She also expects more restrictions on chaplains over LGBT issues. Donnelly says 2016 must bring the election of a president who will reverse course on military policy. "There needs to be a president who understands and respects the military enough to take these issues seriously. It's not an equal opportunity employer. Combat is not like any other job. Physical strength matters. Endurance matters," said Donnelly. |
| 'Stop Disarming the American People' |
| Fri, 4 Dec 2015 15:13:37 EST As another horrific mass shooting plays out, Democrats are insisting on immediate action on guns while one prominent second amendment advocate says best way to protect Americans is to abolish a misguided attempt to keep them safe. As the story unfolded Wednesday afternoon, Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton immediately demanded action. "I refuse to accept this as normal. We must take action to stop gun violence now," tweeted Clinton. "Horrifying news out of #SanBernardino Enough is enough: it's time to stand up to the @NRA and enact meaningful gun safety laws," added fellow 2016 hopeful Martin O'Malley, who passed major gun control legislation while governor of Maryland in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School killings. Clinton's closest rival for the Democratic nomination, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, also spoke via social media. "Mass shootings are becoming an almost-everyday occurrence in this country. This sickening and senseless gun violence must stop," tweeted Sanders. Meanwhile, reports from Capitol Hill suggest Democrats may move to add gun control amendments to must-pass spending legislation that will be voted on in the next nine days. There has been no explanation of what the amendments would entail, but tightening gun ownership eligibility and banning certain firearms are often among their priorities. They spoke out in the wake of Wednesday's mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, where people were killed by husband and wife terrorists who briefly escaped before dying in a shootout with police. Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt says he likes the idea of adding gun-related amendments to the legislation, just not the ones the Democrats have in mind. "Gun Owners of America has been seeking for some time for some measures of their own to pass. We'd like to see some amendments added to their list of amendments that would do away with gun free zones, which is where almost all of the victims of mass murder have occurred in our country," said Pratt. Pratt says those gun free zones seemed appealing in concept but serve as a target for those bent on taking lives. "Stop disarming the American people. We've simply got to do away with this dreadful statistic that tells us that if you're in a gun-free zone, you're in a very dangerous area," said Pratt. He says the track record over the past 65 years is stunning. "Since 1950, all but two of our mass murders have occurred in gun free zones. It seems to me that there's a lesson crying out to be learned there, but people like the president don't seem to be very apt pupils," said Pratt. While Pratt hopes the Republican majorities would consider his amendments and stand firm against attempts by Democrats to limit gun rights, he says the GOP could end up giving in if Democrats play hardball. "It's possible that the Republicans might cave if the Democrats set the stage in such a way that they could slow the government down, aka shut the government down over a budget measure, that if it doesn't have an amendment they want, they're not going to vote for it," said Pratt. He also fears Republicans might feel pressured to give ground if an ultimatum comes from the White House. "If the president simply were not going to sign [a funding bill] that didn't have what they wanted in it, if they could figure out how to blame Republicans for that, the Republicans would probably cry like little girls," said Pratt. However, Pratt warns that while Democrats try to squeeze out a legislative win, the party could suffer mightily at the ballot box. He says the 2000 primary battle between Democrats Al Gore and Bill Bradley is a good example. "They tried to out-anti-second amendment each other. Al Gore won that contest, but he went on to lose the election. If the past is prologue to the future, I would say what the Democrats are proposing is going to sink whatever chances they might have had for 2016. It's going to sink them pretty deep," said Pratt. Despite the spate of mass shootings this year, Pratt does not believe the American people are softening towards Obama's stance on guns. He says the facts suggest just the opposite. "For the past six, seven years, the president has been winning awards from the gun industry and I'm only being about 50 percent facetious because he has his likeness on walls of gun stores across America, with the caption 'Gun Salesman of the Year,'" said Pratt. He says Obama's disconnect with the facts was also on full display in Paris this week. "He recently went over to Paris, the scene of a horrendous mass murder and said we've got to put a stop to what's happening in the United States," said Pratt. "He said said this sort of thing doesn't happen over here. Huh?" Pratt is confident any congressional gun control push can be derailed, but he says lawmakers will be put on notice right away nonetheless. "We're going to do everything we can to remind all members of Congress that you're taking your political career and putting it at risk. If you try to blame gun owners for what bad guys do instead of looking at the mirror and say, 'What have I done as a member of Congress to facilitate what these people do?'" said Pratt. |
| Middle East 'Coming Apart' Under Obama |
| Thu, 3 Dec 2015 16:14:24 EST The United States is offering a very weak response to the ISIS threat and existing goals contradict one another and contribute to the most chaotic Middle East we've seen in a century, according to former United States Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton. Bolton is also blasting Obama for publicly suggesting that moving forward on a proposed climate change agreement is the strongest possible rebuke that civilized nations can issue towards ISIS. While the U.S., Russia, France and Turkey, among others, are involving themselves in Syria, their priorities are often in conflict. Russia's main goal is to shore up the Assad regime, Obama's number one priority is Assad's ouster, while Turkey is preoccupied with containing Kurdish strength. So where does that leave the region and the goal of eradicating ISIS? "The Middle East as we've known it since the end of World War I has basically come apart," said Bolton, who believes the U.S. policy is particularly baffling. "The biggest problem the United States faces is the confusion in the administration's own strategy that proposes different things that are simply contradictory to one another. Even when it thinks it has an objection, like getting rid of Assad or battling ISIS, it doesn't do anywhere near enough to accomplish any of the objectives," said Bolton. Bolton says the lack of American strength or clarity is opening doors for the likes of Russia and Iran to assume more influence in the Middle East. "They've seen this weakness and lack of American attention. That's why they've honed in to try to support the Assad regime and advance their own interests. I think in general you can say, across the Middle East, the chaos is spreading, which is not good for the United States," said Bolton. At the start of the weak, President Obama addressed the opening of COP21, the climate change conference in Paris that he hopes will result in a landmark deal. The president raised eyebrows by suggesting the conference served as a major blow to ISIS because Paris is bouncing back from the Nov. 13 terrorist attacks and because he believes addressing climate change wounds terrorists. "What greater rejection of those who would tear down our world than marshaling our best efforts to save it," said Obama on Monday. Bolton was stunned. "The president has said a lot of silly things in the last seven years, but this ranks right at the top," said Bolton. "It is a tribute to France and the city of Paris to hold the conference, but if it were a conference on Tiddlywinks, it would be just as significant." But will any nation soon be unleashing the type of military response needed to destroy ISIS? Bolton says it won't be the U.S., but Moscow will eventually target ISIS for bringing down a Russian airliner over the Sinai Peninsula. "At a time of Vladimir Putin's choosing, they will retaliate brutally against ISIS for that act of terrorism against civilians on that passenger airliner. I think if it would help Assad, they'll attack ISIS targets. They have already, although to a very limited extent," said Bolton. He says Putin is no hurry. "Putin has a very long game that he's playing here. He wants to replace the United States as the principal external power in the Middle East. He doesn't know who's going to win our election next year, but he knows he's got another year of Obama to take advantage of. That's what he's doing, not only in the conflict in Syria but in the broader Middle East as a whole," said Bolton. So how can ISIS be defeated? "The United States has got to mobilize a political alliance, including all of the gulf Arab monarchies, the oil producing states, Turkey, the Kurds, and Egypt for that matter. It's going to require American leadership because we're the only ones that can pull these disparate countries together. It's going to require American boots on the ground and it's going to require taking territory that ISIS now holds," said Bolton. "We can't even leave them with a small state because that, as it has been already, will be a magnet for terrorists from all over the world," added Bolton. Ultimately, he believes the map of that region will need to be redrawn to reflect the reality that Sunnis want nothing to do with Iraq or Syria in the long run. "We need something else for them. I think a new state's the answer. All of this is pure theory because for the next 13-plus months, Barack Obama isn't going to do anything like what we need to do to achieve the objectives that he himself has stated, which is the destruction of ISIS," said Bolton. |
| The $43 Million Gas Station...And Other Major Government Waste |
| Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:09:43 EST A $43 million dollar gas station that was hardly used, $375,000 to study the dating habits of senior citizens and a $2.6 million weight loss program for truck drivers are among the 100 spending projects and federal regulations that are emblematic of government activity that continues to send our national debt into the stratosphere, according to the research of Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla. Lankford is a the author of "Federal Fumbles: 100 Ways the Government Dropped the Ball." The report carries on the annual tradition established by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., whom Lankford succeeded in the U.S. Senate. The report lists 68 spending projects Lankford deems to be wasteful and 32 government regulations he says are bleeding taxpayers dry. With the federal budget now at $3.8 trillion, Lankford says there was no shortage of options to include in the list. "We picked 100 items from different agencies to kind of give a thumbnail of all we've seen. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but everything from Russian cigarette research to a national park study of what do bugs do in rural areas where there's no light. It was just on and on and on as we began to research and pull things out," said Lankford. Lankford says the spending items and regulations were chosen to show how widespread the waste is across the federal government and any taxpayer dollars wasted are too many. "Some of these were extremely large and expensive like [Earned Income Tax Credit] fraud, which is about $17.5 billion a year. And some things are fairly small, a $30,000 silent Shakespeare festival in Virginia. We tried to get a good perspective," said Lankford. In addition to bloated spending, like four million dollars for each successfully trained Syrian rebel or $283,500 to study the the small woodland bird known as the gnatcatcher, Lankford is also focusing in on burdensome regulations. In fact, the regulations listed in "Federal Fumbles" constitute $800 billion in lost taxpayer resources compared with $105 billion frittered away in frivolous spending. "It is costing the American consumer more money to be able to buy a good or service because of a federal regulation that is not their job, it's the job of a state, or they overreached and it's become a real issue and a real problem," said Lankford. He offered multiple examples, starting with the government making loans harder to get in some parts of the country. "It's become incredibly difficult to get a home loan in many rural areas of the country because of new qualified mortgage regulations that have come down and narrowed the number of banks that can actually do home loans and it's very difficult to do," said Lankford. Environmental regulations are also among the costliest headaches. "The Waters of the United States has been a much-disputed conversation, where even the (Army) Corps of Engineers, that is actually tapped with implementing it, is fighting the EPA to say, 'We shouldn't do this. We don't have the legal authority.' And courts have already stepped in to bar it. If that ever goes into effect, it will cost the American taxpayers a tremendous amount of money, just in day to day consumer costs," said Lankford. He wasn't finished. Lankford says contradictory federal programs cost taxpayers additional billions just on work benefits alone. "Right now, you're eligible for Social Security Disability, which by definition means you cannot work. At the same time you're eligible for unemployment insurance, which by definition means you can work. You should not be eligible for both programs at the same time. but we currently are. Even the president agrees on that," said Lankford, who says a Democratic colleague is looking to clean up another fraud risk due to bureaucratic nonsense. "Senator Tom Carper, who is a Democrat from Delaware, has a proposal dealing with something called the Death Master Files. The Social Security Administration has a list of all individuals that have passed away. That list is not shared with other entities like IRS. So we have these fake Social Security numbers floating around and the American taxpayers are ripped off because of it," said Lankford. In addition to listing the problems afflicting American taxpayers, "Federal Fumbles" also offers a solution to each issue. "We make sure we're not proposing anything and saying this is a big problem and saying it's too bad it's there but there's no way to solve it," said Lankford. "Each of these has a way to solve and we list with each one of them. Some of them are straightforward and simple like just end the program. Some of them will require legislation, but all of them can be fixed." One lawmaker's idea of waste may be another's essential government program. Lankford says he's trying to build a consensus on what gets hacked out of the budget. "We put a list of 100 out and we're encouraging every other office to create a list and be able to put their list out. Let's find common ground. You may not agree with all 100 of ours but I bet you can agree with 80 of them. Let;s get those done. And they may have others that they find and we can also agree on. The key thing is we start to go after it," said Lankford. The senator says lawmakers must come to grips with the need to get the nation's debt-ridden fiscal house in order - and soon. "If we balanced next year (current deficit is $450 billion) and then next year we had a $50 billion surplus, we would have to do that $50 billion surplus every year for 380 years in a row just to be able to pay off our debt. Our debt continues to skyrocket and there seems to be very little attention. What we're trying to do is redirect our attention back to the wasteful spending and the regulations that are slowing down our economy," said Lankford. As for him and his staff, Lankford says this report serves as their marching orders over the next 12 months. "We're taking them all one at a time and all at a time if that makes sense. This list of 100 becomes the list for our staff and our to-do list for the next year," said Lankford. For information on "Federal Fumbles," visit lankford, senate.gov. |
| Rev. Peterson Offers 'Antidote' to Hatred |
| Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:49:49 EST A black pastor and activist says the black community is careening towards disaster unless it stops seeing racism as the root of its problems and focuses on rebuilding the black family with God at the center of it. Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson is the founder of Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny, or BOND, and is author of "The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame and Victimhood." In the book, Peterson rips liberal activists and politicians for fanning the belief among many black Americans that ongoing racism is responsible for their economic and social conditions. He says it's something much simpler. "The worst thing that can happen to children is not to have a good father in the home, where while they're growing up they can look at and observe and see the right way to go, the right way to deal with life. Most of these children don't have fathers in their homes. Seventy-three percent of black babies are born out of wedlock today," said Peterson. He says the negative impact of fatherless homes runs very deep. "They're angry because in their souls, in themselves, they miss their father. There's a longing for their father. There's anger because most of the mothers are turning them away from their fathers by telling them their father's no good, that he doesn't love you. There's a void there and they're spoiled because their mothers are spoiling them," said Peterson. When those "angry" young people reach adulthood, Peterson says deceptive politicians and activists that he calls "alchemists" are ready to manipulate that frustration. "Instead of helping them to overcome their home life, they tell them that it's racism, that white people are against them and try to hold them back. Many blacks believe that because when you're angry, you can't believe the truth," he said. Peterson says to goal of the "alchemists" is not to improve lives but to exploit them for political purposes. "(Today's) civil rights movement, Barack Obama and liberal white are controlling black Americans for personal gain, to gain power and wealth and to really change America into a socialist society," said Peterson, who believes Obama feeds into the narrative because he's part of it after growing up in a broken home himself. "He doesn't have the same respect for God. He doesn't have respect for the country. He is in that same fallen state that these black radicals that you look at every day on TV running white people away from their jobs, accusing white people, cursing and carrying on. Obama has created that environment even more so because he's in the same state of mind," said Peterson. Peterson says the black family was already struggling to stay together when Lyndon Johnson's Great Society was introduced in the 1960's and government programs began sending checks to single mothers for food, welfare and other needs. "When the civil rights movement started, they took the fathers out and the government became the daddy," said Peterson. This is not theory to Peterson because he's lived it. He was born on a plantation in Jim Crow Alabama. His mother and birth father split and she married someone else by the time he was born. He says his mother, stepfather and grandparents instilled in him the values of hard work and the importance of not hating anyone because of their skin color. Despite having a more stable home life than many young black men, Peterson says he struggled mightily when he ventured to California to start his own life. "I grew up with a void. Even though I had a stable environment, I still had a yearning for my father. I wanted my earthly father. My mother would try to turn me away from him whenever I would ask for him. She was saying he's no good so I resented her for that," said Peterson. Then came the "alchemists." "I started listening to Jesse Jackson and others and they said that white people was my problem. Because they were in the forefront, were adults and popular, I thought they were telling the truth. I ended up, for the first time in my life, hating white people and my life went to hell in a handbasket. I ended up on welfare," said Peterson. Peterson says he still had white friends but would bristle over any sort of disagreement, particularly about race, and consider them racists. While he was still trying to cope with the absence of his earthly father, he turned to his heavenly Father. "I asked God to let me see what was wrong with me. He allowed me to see that the resentment that I had for not having my father and for my mother was holding me back in life, It separated me from God," said Peterson. "He also showed me that I needed to forgive so I went and forgave my father. When I forgave my father and mother, God forgave me. He took away all that anger, all the confusion, the doubt, the fear," said Peterson, who adds he now has an "excellent relationship" with his earthly father." Peterson admits a Herculean effort is required to turn conditions around. But he says it starts with simply saying no to people who believe their victimhood entitles them to whatever they want. "The first thing that white Americans need to say no to is this notion that you're a racist. Let them call you whatever they want but you speak the truth to the issue," said Peterson. Next, he says are the government programs that he believes makes millions willing to perpetuate their bleak condition. "We need to get away from Affirmative Action based on color. We need to stop giving these people free welfare, free Affirmative Action, free everything. You're corrupting their nature when you do that. They lose all sense of hope and the ability to do for themselves," said Peterson. From there, Peterson says we need to build the family back up again, starting with a right understanding of what a family looks like. "There's a spiritual order to life. That order is God in Christ, Christ in man, man over woman, women over the children. It's not a competition. It's just a spiritual order. When the wife and the children love the father who loves God, then life works well," said Peterson. A major priority is getting men to acknowledge and live up to their responsibilities as husbands and fathers, something BOND has been doing for years. "We are rebuilding the father by rebuilding the man. What we're doing is getting men to turn back to God, love Him with all their heart, soul and might, and then get married and start guiding their families in the right way to go," said Peterson. Peterson says this effort is of the utmost importance because a culture filled with hatred and division will not last very long. "Unless we muster up enough courage to tell the truth about this anger that starts in the home first and not with white people, there's no hope for this country. How can God help us when we refuse to speak the truth about what is wrong. The problem is the destruction of black families and not white racism. I guarantee you that," said Peterson. |
| Gen. McInerney's Prescription for ISIS Destruction |
| Wed, 18 Nov 2015 17:45:30 EST ISIS can be defeated but it will take much greater will on the part of President Obama, an exponentially more robust air campaign with more reasonable rules of engagement and Arab ground forces to get the job done, according to retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney. McInerney spent 35 years in uniform and rose to the role of assistant vice chief of staff, the number three position in the Air Force. He also served as a combat pilot in Vietnam and as vice commander of U.S. Air Forces Europe. He says the first step is for Obama to admit we currently have no strategy. "He doesn't have a strategy and that's why, 16 months after we started the air campaign, we're still at it," said McInerney, who compared our current policy of a few sorties a day to what was accomplished back in the Gulf War in 1991. "Desert Storm was 600,000 troops against Saddam Hussein's forces. We had a 43-day air campaign and a 100-hour ground campaign. I don't understand what the president's strategy is," said McInerney. "I don't know what the president's purpose is. He just has not exhibited any desire to take ISIS out." The U.S. campaign began after ISIS released videos showing the beheading of two American journalists. But even then, McInerney says Obama started our policy off on the wrong foot. "We are not trying to destroy ISIS. The president talks about degrade and destroy. No American president in our history has ever said degrade the enemy and then destroy them. It's always destroy them," said McInerney. So how can that be done? In the military realm, McInerney says it starts with a relentless air campaign of 500-1,000 sorties a day, compared with recent statistics showing the U.S. drops eighteen bombs per day. In comparison, the U.S. averaged 1,100 sorties per day during the Gulf War and 800 per day during major combat operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom. But the general says the targets are just as important as the intensity. "We need to have an air campaign that takes out all the lines of communication, meaning the highways. So Highway 47 from Raqqa, the capital of ISIS in Syria, to Mosul, nothing should move on that. Highway 1 from Mosul down to Baghdad, nothing should move on that. In other words, you start starving out everybody in Raqqa and in Mosul," said McInerney. He says there should be two other areas high on the hit list. "Number two, you want to get their command and control, headquarters, etc. which we know where they are. Number three, we want to take out the petroleum and the vehicles that ship the oil," said McInerney, who also listed the destruction of 60 terrorist training camps among the top priorities. McInerney says concentrating that much air power on those valued targets would make an immediate difference. "You'd see that their ability to move, to execute, to do anything, as the caliphate they can't even protect their own people," said McInerney. Since Friday's attacks in Paris, France has been launching highly publicized airstrikes on ISIS targets, but McInerney says that's barely a drop in the bucket compared to what's needed. "They're flying ten sorties a day. That's not the template for anything," he said, while admitting the French campaign is still more intense than the current U.S. effort. The proof of our ineffectiveness, says McInerney, can be seen in satellite images of Raqqa. "I'm looking at a [photo] right now of the city of Raqqa, the ISIS main headquarters, the Islamic court. All these buildings are standing. Why? The fact is we are not executing air power," said McInerney. The next change McInerney wants to see is a loosening of the rules of engagement which he believes are preventing any meaningful action because our leaders are trying to avoid civilian casualties at all costs. "Our humane rules of engagement are creating inhumane results. You've got 300,000 people almost that are now dead, killed, or wounded in Syria. You look at what's happened in Iraq. We're just dragging something out and making it agonizing," said McInerney. While the general believes intense, targeted air power is vital to putting ISIS in the edge of extinction, he says Arab ground forces are needed to finish the job. "People misunderstand. Only Arabs, the Muslims, can destroy this radical Islamic ideology. We're infidels (in the minds of Muslims). They won't accept that," said McInerney. "They'll have to do it and they'll have to justify why this is such a failed ideology." This is the element of the fight where McInerney believes Obama is most sorely lacking. But he says other important leaders are dropping the ball too. "You have a president who talks about violent extremists. I know not the ideology of violent extremists, but I know the ideology of radical Islam. It's the Quran. It's the Hadith, the sayings of the prophet and it's Shariah law. Those are their rules of engagement. Until we understand that, we'll not defeat this enemy," said McInerney. "They must defeat it themselves. Where are the Fatwas from Mecca and Medina chastising people for killing westerners," added McInerney. McInerney has one final job for Middle East nations - for them to take in the tens of thousands of refugees he suspects cannot be properly vetted by the U.S. or other western nations. "Saudi Arabia and the other Middle East countries ought to be taking them over there. They have the space for them. They have a whole host of things, and they can recycle them back into Syria when this is resolved. That's why I don't think that we need to take them here," said McInerney. |
| 'We Do Not Know Who These People Are' |
| Tue, 17 Nov 2015 16:19:55 EST A longtime federal immigration agent confirms there is no good way to vet tens of thousands of refugees effectively for possible admission to the United States and he says history proves being wrong about just a tiny fraction of them can lead to calamity. Michael Cutler served for 30 years with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS, the forerunner to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. During that time he worked as a senior special agent, and focused on matters ranging to refugee arrivals in New York City to combating narcotics trafficking. Over the weekend, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes repeatedly assured Americans there were guaranteed ways of separating genuine refugees from those who might try to exploit the crisis to slip into the U.S. and attack our country. President Obama echoed those comments on Monday at the G-20 Summit in Turkey. Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra told us Monday that Rhodes lied to the American people and that no such system was in place. Cutler says Hoekstra is exactly right. "We do not know who these people are and that's a big problem not only where the Syrian refugees are concerned. How many times can you get burned by the same match?" asked Cutler. He says the system is far from foolproof for a very simple reason. "We know that terrorists and criminals use fraud in their applications for visas, fraud in their applications for immigration benefits to enter the country and hide themselves," said Cutler. Beyond that, Cutler says the U.S. would need to have a cooperative relationship with the Assad regime in Syria. Not only do we not have that, he says Syria may not even have records on many of these refugee applicants. "This is a very real threat. We are in the middle of a war. If our government is going to make mistakes, it better make mistakes on the side of America," he added, suggesting our current policy would seem like lunacy in a previous generation. "This is as absurd as thinking back to the Second World War and imagining FDR calling up Adolf Hitler's people and asking if refugees coming to America through Germany posed a threat to our safety," said Cutler. What actually is happening is equally concerning, according to Cutler. He says the current immigration system is doing little to weed out potential threats. "The approval rate for the refugee applications from Syria by our government stands at more than 90 percent," he said. "It only takes minutes to approve an application but days or weeks to deny an application. The pressure is on to clear the backlog. Every time you hear people say, 'Yay, the government's going to work faster.' Don't get excited, folks. What it means is they're going to rubber-stamp approvals." Cutler says even a few mistakes in reviewing refugee applications could be disastrous for our country. "Let's say we admit 10,000 and only one percent are bad actors. We're talking about hundreds of terrorists potentially entering the United States," said Cutler. Cutler points out that 19 young terrorists killed more people on 9/11 than the Japanese Navy killed at Pearl Harbor. He says we see the carnage inflicted by just a few radicals on a regular basis. "Only 19 did what they did. It took eight terrorists to carry out the attacks in Paris. It took two terrorists to wreak havoc on the Boston Marathon just two years ago. How many times. How many times do we have to see history repeat itself and say there's something terribly wrong with what we're doing," said Cutler. He says the longer Obama insists there's no threat posed by refugees, the more his credibility suffers. "I am so tired of the misleading facts, if you want o call them facts, being paraded by this administration in particular. I'm old enough to remember the (Lyndon) Johnson administration and his credibility gap when he talked about Vietnam. Here we have more than a gap. This is a chasm and it's as big as the Grand Canyon," said Cutler, a registered Democrat. Cutler also pushed back against the notion that his opposition to refugee acceptance is rooted in xenophobia. He says his early days at the INS prove that's wrong as we welcomed refugees at JFK airport. "For me it was a privilege, an absolute joy, to admit refugees into the United States. These folks got off the airplane, walked into the international arrival building, fell to their knees and kissed the floor, I kid you not. They hugged me. They kissed me on the cheek. They cried. I cried with them," said Cutler. "I have nothing against refugees but if and only if it doesn't undermine national security and this would absolutely do inestimable damage to national security," added Cutler. |
| Obama Team 'Lied' About Refugee Vetting, Has No Coherent Strategy for ISIS |
| Mon, 16 Nov 2015 16:12:36 EST The former chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence says President Obama has no coherent strategy to defeat ISIS and alleges one of Obama's top advisers "lied to the American people" to perpetuate a misguided program allowing tens of thousands of refugees into the U.S. On Sunday, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes appeared on multiples Sunday morning news shows. When asked whether the news that one and possibly two of the Paris terrorists came to Europe as refugees would alter the Obama administration's plan to accept tens of thousands of refugees, Rhodes said there would be no re-evaluation. "No, Chuck," said Rhodes to "Meet the Press" moderator Chuck Todd. "We have very extensive screening procedures for all Syrian refugees who would come to the United States. There's a very careful vetting process that includes our intelligence community, our National Counterterrorism Center, the Department of Homeland Security. So we can make sure we're carefully screening anybody who comes to the United States." Peter Hoekstra spent 18 years in Congress and spent much of his time focused on intelligence matters. He is now with the Investigative Project on Terrorism and is the author of "Architects of Disaster," which outlines the failure of the Obama administration's policy in Libya. "I think (Rhodes) basically lied to the American people. He said we've got a good vetting process in place where we can vet those that are coming from Syria into the United States," said Hoekstra. "No we do not. The records don't exist in Syria, especially after you've had five years of civil war. We don't have a relationship with the regime. It's an ungoverned area. We don't know who these people are. Ben, shame on you for even implying that we've got a good vetting system. We're lucky if can get the names right," said Hoekstra. In fact, even before the terrorist attacks in Paris, Hoekstra says the idea of bringing in tens of thousands of refugees was a fool's errand. As such, he says the announcements from a growing number of governors that they won't accept refugees is a good sign. "I think it's a good decision. I wasn't quite sure why we were ever welcoming these folks in. We are a welcoming nation to refugees and to these kinds of individuals but only after they've been vetted," he said. Hoekstra says spreading all these refugees around the western world does nothing to solve the real problem. "This problem is not solved by accepting refugees into Europe and the United States. This problem is solved by eliminating ISIS and bringing some stability back into the Middle East. You've got to wipe ISIS out," said Hoekstra. The issue is taking on additional scrutiny after the European Union revealed only one fifth of the refugees it has accepted (or about 44,000 of some 213,000 total) are actually from Syria. But the refugee issue is just one element of the Obama administration's approach to ISIS that baffles Hoekstra. On Monday, Obama told reporters at the G-20 Summit in Turkey that the Paris attacks would not alter the U.S. strategy towards ISIS. Hoekstra says the existing strategy is a proven disaster, as evidenced by Yemen and Libya turning into lawless wastelands and both Syria and Iraq getting increasingly unstable and deadly to Christians, Yazidis and others. "I'm not sure what strategy this president is looking at that he believes it working. When you've got at least four countries that are no longer governed and are failed nation-states and are home for the planning and training and preparation for attacks against the West, that is not my view of success," said Hoekstra. Another statement from Obama in Turkey is getting even more attention. After announcing he was sticking with his existing strategy towards ISIS, Obama slammed those who want to America taking a more decisive role. "What I'm not interested in doing is posing, or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work," said Obama. Hoekstra was stunned. "This message is clear: when the president says, 'I have no intention of following or implementing a strategy about America leading or whatever slogan they may come up with, it is clear that this president does not have a strategy in place for America leading in Northern Africa, the Middle East or, for that matter, any other place in the world," said Hoekstra. And he says America's credibility is taking a beating as a result. "I hate to be that critical of this president, but America is at risk. We are in danger and we in danger of losing our influence in the world. We've been a voice of stability, security, democracy and human rights. We are just losing all credibility throughout significant portions of the world," said Hoekstra. In addition to his frustrations with the Obama administration, Hoekstra is alarmed at how unprepared the intelligence communities were for the Paris attacks. "What I'm hearing is that there was some general awareness that there were some attacks or an attack was imminent in Europe. That was out there, but again no tactical insight into exactly where the attack would take place or when it would take place," said Hoekstra. He says the truth is it's really hard to find these small plots before they happen. "It just tells you that ISIS and these radical jihadist groups in a country of 80 million people or in a country of 300-plus million people like the United States, it's not that hard to hide and organize and prepare to carry out an attack like this," said Hoekstra. So what can be done to improve our odds of stopping future attacks? "We need closer intelligence sharing between our agencies. We need to push the technology envelope as quickly as we can and we need to improve our human intelligence," said Hoekstra. Intelligence experts say efforts to infiltrate ISIS have essentially "gone dark," partly due to former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden exposing tactics for tracking terrorist suspects. Hoekstra says this confirms what we all should have known about Snowden from the outset. "As I said at the time, this was not an American hero protecting American liberties. This was an American traitor that was giving away some of America's secrets that would make us more vulnerable to these kinds of groups and these kinds of individuals and these kinds of attacks," said Hoekstra. |
| In the College Protest Cross Hairs |
| Fri, 13 Nov 2015 14:53:19 EST College students protesting alleged racism and hostile learning environments have no idea what hate or education even mean, according to a Vanderbilt professor who is herself the target of a petition from outraged students. Over the past week, Yale administrators apologized to students for not providing a safe enough environment and for not speaking out in condemnation of offensive Halloween costumes or a possible racial bias in a fraternity's invitation list. University of Missouri President Tim Wolfe resigned and the school's chancellor accepted a demotion after admitting they hadn't responded effectively in the wake of multiple racial allegations. The dean of Claremont-McKenna also resigned this week in the face of student protests. Those demonstrations were rampant this week, as students coast to coast demanded free public tuition, student debt forgiveness and a $15 minimum wage on campus. As administrators scramble, Dr. Carol Swain, professor of law and political science at Vanderbilt University, says those same officials only have themselves to blame for the students' behavior. "This is not my words. Someone else said it first, but they've created those little monsters and they can't control them. They make a serious mistake, I think, when they cave in," said Swain. "They need to stand and fight and the students need to realize not only that ideas have consequences but actions have consequences. They are adults and if they break the law, if they defame someone, if they slander someone or libel someone and it's done with malicious intent, then they ought to be held accountable," added Swain. In additional to the racial and financial issues raised on campuses this week, a fierce debate over free speech is raging as well. When MSNBC's Thomas Roberts asked whether the University of Missouri protesters were looking to make the school a place that censored or prohibited unpopular speech , Missouri Student Association Vice President Brenda Smith-Lezama stunned many first amendment advocates with her answer. "I, personally, am tired of hearing that first amendment rights protect students when they are creating a hostile and unsafe learning environment for myself and other students. I think it's important for us to create that distinction and create a space where we can all learn from one another and start to create a place of healing, rather than a place where we are experiencing a lot of hate like we have in the past," said Smith-Lezama. Swain is appalled. "That student has no idea what hate is. It's sad that they have been led to believe that that's what an education is about, helping them feel better and helping them heal. And as far as black students going to white schools and complaining that they feel uncomfortable, there's plenty of historically black schools," said Swain. "If you don't want to be around white people then, I don't know, move to Africa, and there are white people there. If you don't want to be educated around them then go to a black school," said Swain, who is black. Swain is not some distant observer to this debate. She is currently at the center of a firestorm at Vanderbilt, where students filled out a petition asking for her to be punished for views she expressed on radical Islam and same-sex marriage. In January, after the terrorist attack against the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris, Swain spoke out about the threat such actions and groups pose to western culture. "Islam is not like other religions in the United States, that it poses an absolute danger to us and our children unless it is monitored better than it has been under the Obama administration," wrote Swain at the time. Her thoughts were met with howls of protest at the time. "At that time the students protested me. The university sent out a campus-wide email through the dean of students office, telling them that they could have counseling services if they were injured by my speech," said Swain, who contends she suffered a "barrage of harassment" at the time. She is currently on a long-scheduled sabbatical but had been planning to return to the classroom next semester. But her status appears to be up in the air after students succeeded in gathering 1,000 signatures and turning the petition in to the chancellor's office. On Nov. 11, Chancellor Nicholas S. Zeppos issued a statement that largely seemed to sympathize with the students. "I firmly believe that every member of our community 14regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, religion, color, national or ethnic origin, age or disability 14has the same right to participate fully in the Vanderbilt community and have access to all of the benefits and opportunities that Vanderbilt offers," wrote Zappos. "I am saddened anytime I hear that any member of our community 14in this case, as highlighted in the petition, our LGBTQIA community and our Muslim students, faculty and staff 14feel excluded from our Vanderbilt community. This university is home to all of us, and all of us are entitled to feel at home here," he continued. Later in the statement, Zappos appeared to defend Swain's rights to speech and academic freedom but then took a sharp turn. "Vanderbilt also has a deep and longstanding commitment to freedom of speech and academic freedom, which are the foundations of our university 19s scholarly activities. Such freedoms necessarily allow for the expression of unpopular and offensive views. However, speech whose sole purpose or effect is to discriminate, stigmatize, retaliate, offend, foment hatred or violence, or cause harm has no place in this university," wrote Zappos. Swain is firing right back. "Did you notice what he left out, which would be political views, conservative views? That statement is not very accurate because Vanderbilt is the university that kicked about half of it's Christian groups off campus because they would not sign a statement that they would open their leadership positions to persons who didn't share their beliefs," said Swain. She says the more Vanderbilt scrutinizes her, the worse it looks. "This university that has been so open has been very hypocritical about the way they've handled me and they way they've handled Christian students. I was not happy with his statement because his statement implied that there was truth in that petition. The petition was full of lies," said Swain. One allegation was that Swain revealed a student's information. She says that's blatantly false, although she did share a nasty Facebook post someone made about her. In addition, Swain says no student who actually took her classes is involved in the petition drive and the one leading the effort has largely recanted. "The student who was the face of the petition has sent me a long letter apologizing and saying there were other people involved. He heard me on a local radio program and realized that there was another perspective. He had never thought of my perspective and what I had to say about the purpose of free speech and the university," said Swain. Swain says that student has also changed the demands on the petition multiple times. "That same student has gone from having the petition say they wanted me fired to saying they wanted me to have permanent suspension, then temporary suspension, mandatory sensitivity training and now they are not requiring that I have mandatory sensitivity training. Now they're saying that all faculty have mandatory sensitivity training," said Swain. Would she accept such punishment? "First I'm going to laugh and once I finish, once I get up off the floor, then I'll decide what to do," said Swain. While she waits for her own case to be resolved, Swain has advice for college administrators around the country. "You have to fight back. You can't just cave all the time," she said, while also giving a stern warning to students. "We hear a lot about diversity on campuses. Diversity of opinion should be important. Diversity of religion should be important. We shouldn't want an environment where there are bullies that are taking away everyone else's liberties. Somehow they think that what they feel matters more than other people's rights," said Swain. |
| Inside the Criminal Justice Reform Effort |
| Thu, 12 Nov 2015 16:18:50 EST One of the few issues drawing bipartisan collaboration in Congress is the pursuit of criminal justice reform and one of the leading advocates for change says the legislation seems to be developing along conservative principles. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, is teaming up with Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, to push the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act. Experts say the momentum at the federal level is due to successes witnessed in multiple states. "At the state level, we've seen this brewing for quite some time, starting with Texas in 2007. What was able to be accomplished there was simply improving public safety while also saving money. These types of reforms, with conservative principles at play here, are now being used in other states. You're looking at South Carolina and Georgia and several others. Folks in Washington have finally taken notice," said Joe Luppino-Esposito of Right on Crime and the Center for Effective Justice at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. He says federal lawmakers are smart to follow the lead of the states that are proving this type of reform can be done effectively. "It's very important we look at how things are done in the states. These are conservative states, red states, southern states that have been doing these reforms that really look at the whole system and don't just say we're going to move some numbers around and move some prisoners around," said Luppino-Esposito. Luppino-Esposito says effective reform must have a few key components. "We want to ensure that public safety is there. This is not just a release every other prisoner scheme and that's not what's been proposed luckily. We also want to make sure that victims are supported here as well, that they are not left out of the process. Finally, we want to make sure that there's clear fiscal responsibility," said Luppino-Esposito. Public safety is the top goal and Luppino-Esposito says that should give reformers incentive to do everything possible to prevent prisoners from committing crimes once they're free. "This (Senate) legislation specifically focuses on recidivism rates as what is really most important. We want to make sure people are doing their time for the crimes they've committed. Once they are released, because most people that are incarcerated are eventually released, there has to be a way to ensure that they do not go back to a criminal life," said Luppino-Esposito. He says there are three critical areas to make recidivism an ugly option for ex-convicts. First, he says the original sentencing process needs to be examined. "We're looking at people coming in and what they're being sentenced for and to what levels. What we're trying to do here is figure out what the good number is for what people should be put away in prison for. It's not going to be some indefinite period of time. It's going to be a set amount of time and we need to understand where they fall in the organization if it's a drug offense or whatever the case may be," said Luppino-Esposito. Next, he says, is making prisoners' time in custody lead to a better life once they're released. "Once they're behind the wall, they can earn good time credits, they can take GED classes, they can do things to help them not wind up committing crime again," said Luppino-Esposito. Then comes the all-important re-entry into public. "Finally, we want to talk about how they are eventually released back into society once they've done their time. Doing that, making sure there are halfway houses and proper programming for that will ensure public safety because we're not just going to take someone who might have been in a cell for several hours a day and release them back into a neighborhood," said Luppino-Esposito. Luppino-Esposito stresses this approach is far different than with President Obama and the Justice Department are doing through retroactive changes to sentencing guidelines for what they call non-violent drug offenders. He says that just amounts to shaving a couple of years off the average drug-related sentence. While he likes the bulk of the Senate bill, Luppino-Esposito would like to see more provisions that protect Americans who are innocent or have no criminal intent, namely crackdowns against civil asset forfeiture and application of mens rea, which requires evidence of criminal motives. Luppino-Esposito says civil asset forfeiture is a scourge against freedom. "Based simply on suspicion of some sort of criminal activity, your money and assets can be seized, your car can be seized. Mind you, this doesn't even mean you need to be charged with a crime," said Luppino-Esposito, who says that once police have your property it can be very expensive and time-consuming to get it back after being cleared. As for mens rea, he believes motive is a critical factor for police and prosecutors to consider since some people have no idea they are breaking the law. "You may be accused of a crime but you did not actually have the intent to commit a crime. With somewhere around 5,500 or more criminal statutory offenses on the books plus a completely incalculable number of federal regulations that go back to criminal penalties, this is a major, major problem for a lot of people," said Luppino-Esposito. "They're getting into the system for things other than drugs like fishing or some other quirks in the regulatory schemes. That is something I hope can get into the federal legislation and fix that for the future," he said. |
| Obamacare Triggering Mass Exodus of Doctors |
| Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:41:23 EST Mountains of Obamacare-related paperwork and the threats of severe fines for the slightest errors are forcing many doctors to retire and others to shut down their practices and work under the protection of hospitals, and all of it spells bad news for patients. Galen Institute President Grace-Marie Turner says the exodus is alarming, as evidenced by a Physicians Foundation report showing the number of doctors who say they run an independent practice has dropped from 62 percent in 2008 to 35 percent in 2014. The survey of 20,000 physicians also shows only 17 percent in solo practice. Eighty-one percent of doctors are at full capacity or even overextended. Forty-six percent grade Obamacare as a D or an F. Just 25 percent give the law an A or a B. For those greatly frustrated by the system, Turner says the government is making their lives miserable. "The doctors cannot navigate this incredible bureaucracy. They may see 40 patients during a day and then they have mountains of paperwork to fill out. If they slip up and say something in carelessness or not understanding the rules and make a mistake, they could be subject to tens of thousands of dollars in fines. They just cannot expose themselves to that kind of jeopardy," said Turner. Turner says there are two groups involved in shrinking the supply of doctors. First, she says experienced doctors are simply retiring rather than jumping through Obamacare's bureaucratic hoops. "Some of the more seasoned, experienced, established physicians are just taking down their shingle and saying, 'We have had it. We cannot deal with this cookbook medicine. We cannot fight the rules and regulations and legal jeopardy we're in,'" said Turner. She says the toll on health care quality is sobering. "They're leaving practice early. We're losing decades of experience and medical expertise when doctors would otherwise be at the prime of their practice, leaving because they cannot deal with the bureaucracy or afford it," she said. According to the Physicians Foundation study, doctors say they spend 20 percent of their time on non-clinical paperwork. Thirty-nine percent say they are accelerating retirement plans. The other trend is doctors merging with hospitals and leaving independent practice. "A number of physicians who are younger and still have bills to pay and families to support are selling their practices to hospitals, which mean that they basically become employees and have to do what the hospitals say," said Turner. The Physicians Foundation report finds that 53 percent of physicians describe themselves as hospital or medical group employees, up from 38 percent in 2008. Turner says their logic makes sense. "They really are buying the protection of these big hospital chains, which can hire an army of doctors and bureaucrats to try to help them navigate the bureaucracy. The bureaucratization of American medicine is well underway and that does not bode well for patients," said Turner. She says it's bad for patients in two ways, first because of the realities of being a doctor employed by a hospital. "Now they have to follow these very strict rules and regulations of these big hospital systems in order to treat a patient. If they don't, they may either not be paid but they also could be penalized," said Turner, who is also very worried that the notion of playing it safe is stifling innovation and preventing the development of better treatments. "Both the doctors who stay in practice, and even more the medical students who apply and are accepted, are people who want to work a 40-hour week. They're perfectly happy to follow this cookbook medicine standardization and to not rock the boat by trying to do something innovative that might actually teach us something," said Turner. Turner says increased government control of health care in other countries has consistently meant longer waiting times for treatment. She says cancer patients in Canada can wait up to 16 weeks or more for care after receiving a diagnosis, a span she acknowledges can be a "death sentence." In addition to losing good doctors, Turner says doctors are often brought in from other countries and that can prove very challenging for patients as well. "When you drive out the established physicians who are saying they are not willing to practice under these kinds of conditions, you still have to have physicians. We do have many foreign medical graduates in this country, and patients complain that they have a physician who they really can't communicate with," said Turner. But while excoriating the mountain of rules and regulations Washington is piling onto physicians and others in the medical community, Turner says Americans should never doubt how much doctors and nurses want to help people. "When you look at the nurses and the doctors that are still taking care of patients, it is so inspiring to see how much they continue to want to practice good medicine. They are devoted to their patients. But they are so stressed in many cases and so frustrated, saying, 'I got into this business to take care of patients, not to fill out all this paperwork and bureaucracy,'" said Turner. |
| 'They Are Operating Far More Like the Black Panthers' |
| Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:24:21 EST A prominent group of black conservatives is slamming University of Missouri students, faculty, coaches and administrators for facilitating the campus upheaval that unfolded there this week. Black students have been protesting what they consider administration indifference to alleged racial incidents, including a drunk student hurling racial epithets at black students and a fecal swastika smeared on a bathroom wall. The issue cranked up to new heights in recent days when the university's football team threatened to boycott the rest of the season if protesters' demands were not met and the specter of millions in lost revenues became very real. On Monday, University of Missouri President Tim Wolfe announced his immediate resignation. Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin soon revealed he would step down at the end of the academic year. Wolfe said he hoped his resignation could spark some healing on campus but Project 21 Conservative Black Leadership Network Co-Chair Horace Cooper says it will do just the opposite. "This isn't going to provide healing. This is appeasement. In fact, what we've witnessed is a racial, totalitarian hostage taking. We have watched folks who are making demands based on unreasonable offenses that they have identified and that is predicated on a lie - the Michael Brown 'Hands Up, Don't Shoot' story," said Cooper. He finds it baffling that Wolfe ever felt compelled to step down. "The president of the university is no more responsible for any perceived slights and real or unfair injustices that any students have committed, any more than President Obama is responsible for what happened with the shooting that took place in Charleston," said Cooper. Cooper says the demand for safe spaces and students refusing to hear ideas contrary to their own turns the concept of higher education on its head. "It's not just where you get your education. It's not just what equips you with the skills for the future. It is, conceptually, the kind of place where you first are exposed to this idea: in life, you are going to be exposed to concepts, thoughts and opinions that you do not like, that you do not prefer and that offend you," said Cooper. He says the American way of responding to hostile ideas is to find ways to live with those who hold them or enter into a debate of ideas. On this front, he says the coaches and faculty at Missouri crashed and burned. "The coaches didn't encourage them to do this and neither did the faculty members. This entire fiasco tells us everything about how the modern university is no longer living up to its responsibilities," said Cooper. He says the next president ought to have stern words for football coach Gary Pinkel and his staff for supporting the player boycott. "I would make sure that this cancer stops where it is. It would start with telling the athletic department leadership team that when their contracts are over, they're not going to be renewed under any circumstances and they might as well start looking for a job now," said Cooper. "Second, I would issue a memorandum to all faculty members that there is now a new requirement before you can get tenure. You are going to have to show a commitment to tolerance, to the idea that people can have different perspectives and views," he added. But it's not just the coaches who would get a tongue-lashing from Cooper. He would also have a clear message to the striking players. "You signed an agreement that you would accept a scholarship to attend here predicated on you playing. If you're refusing to play then you're going to have to be responsible for all the financial costs of attending here. Secondly, we recruited a back-up player for every person in the event of injury. We're going to go to the next game and we're going to play without you. We might lose but we're going to play without you," said Cooper, who believes the vast majority of players would drop the protest and suit up to keep their scholarships. The tactics of the protest leaders also infuriate Cooper. "They are operating far more like the Black Panthers, than they are any kind of student group," said Cooper. As evidence, Cooper points to protester demands that the next university president be selected by a panel with a majority of minorities. They also want a special commission established to address racial or other troubling issues that arise that would be comprised of a majority of minority students, faculty members and people from the community. Cooper hopes other schools are watching Missouri and learning what not to do. "If this cancer is not cut off now, it is only going to metastasize," said Cooper. |
| 'If There is Fairness Anywhere in the World, These Charges Will be Dismissed' |
| Mon, 9 Nov 2015 16:21:43 EST A circuit court judge in Oregon is beginning two weeks of hearings before a state panel as he pushes back against allegations he is unfit to serve on the bench because he will not officiate same-sex weddings. In 2014, Oregon's definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman was thrown out by court order and the state refused to appeal the decision. There is no requirement for judges in the state to perform weddings but some choose to do so. Day informed his staff to politely decline if any same-sex couple requested him to perform their ceremony and refer them to judges who would do the job. "So nobody was being deprived of the right to have a gay marriage. He was simply asking that he be excused from that task," said Patrick Korten, media adviser to Judge Day. Later in 2014, Day decided to stop officiating weddings altogether. Now, Judge Day faces 13 counts before the Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability, but his supporters say there's really only one. "Frankly, 12 of the 13 are largely window dressing to cover over the fact the real issue here is the same sex marriage decision," said Korten. Other charges include allegations that Day improperly used his office by handing a business card to a high school soccer referee who asked for one after Day complained about the officiating in a game where his son suffered a concussion. Korten says the commission hearing this case already threw out the soccer game-related charges but now they're back. As for the big issue in this case, Korten says the facts in this are clear and entirely on Judge Day's side. "The fact of the matter is that nobody wound up asking for [Day to perform gay weddings]. Nobody even knew about it until much later, when one of his staff members complained to the commission, 'Do you know what the judge did?' and that has become a cause celebre," said Korten. If no one was turned away then what's the problem? "The objection is that simply declining to perform a same-sex wedding presents evidence of bias," said Korten. Judge Day is represented in this process by James Bopp, Jr. of the Madison Center for Free Speech. Koren says the defense strategy relies on basic constitutional protections. "He and they are contending when you become a circuit court judge in Oregon or anyplace else, you do not give up your first amendment rights to speak, and it's not as if he spoke loudly," said Korten, who points out Day said nothing publicly that should have triggered any probe. "He didn't make a public fuss about it. He didn't make a big deal about it. He certainly didn't say anything about gay couples plus or minus in any way. Simply by declining to conduct such marriages, they decided that was a questioning of his fitness to serve as a judge," added Korten. Should the commission rule against Judge Day, Korten says it would be a dark day for American liberty. "It certainly would have a chilling impact on conscience. This is already a problem all over the country since the Supreme Court decision came down last summer," said Korten. "You have an awful lot of cases where people are being castigated simply for holding a view that was well nigh universal before the Supreme Court decision came down." He says this case and others like it really have nothing to do with fairness but with a determination to force compliance with an agenda. "In effect, what those who won this legal battle over same-sex marriage are doing is trying to castigate all those, a majority of the people of those states, who had the temerity to express a public policy view that was at variance with theirs," said Korten. The Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability is comprised of volunteers, but the case is being prosecuted by the commission's executive director, Susan Isaacs, and other staff members. Nonetheless, Korten says Judge Day believes the commission will ultimately rule in his favor. "He feels confident that if there is a fair hearing given to the charges and his response to it, that they will simply do what they did in the case of those soccer business card accounts a couple of years ago, they'll simply dismiss it," said Korten. Hearings will go on for two more weeks. It could be months after that before a verdict is rendered and that ruling could then be appealed to the courts. "If there's fairness anywhere in the world, these charges will be dismissed," said Korten. |
| 'The Lower the Better' |
| Thu, 5 Nov 2015 15:47:00 EST Republican presidential candidates are in agreement that tax rates need to be lower, simpler and fair and enacting that kind of reform could be "rocket fuel" according to one of the chief architects the emerging proposals. Stephen Moore is Senior Economic Contributor at FreedomWorks and has advocated for conservative tax reform for decades through his work at the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and other institutions. He says dramatic action on taxes would quickly change our economy. "The lower the better," said Moore. "If you do that, I think it will be rocket fuel for the U.S. economy. The only bad news is the Democrats, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders , are talking about running in the opposite direction." However, Moore is thrilled that there seems to be a consensus throughout the GOP field on the need to lower taxes. "It's hard for me to find a single Republican who has not talked about dramatic reductions in tax rates in exchange for getting rid of loopholes and all the carve-outs in the system that are causing revenue losses," said Moore. There's a good reason Moore is happy with the plans. He and three other famed conservative economists have played key roles in drafting them. "I've worked with a lot of these candidates to put these plans together, with my friend Art Laffer, Larry Kudlow and Steve Forbes. So the four of us have really been the four horsemen of tax reform. I think most of these plans were influenced by one of the four of us," said Moore. Moore specifically cited the plans of Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush and Donald Trump as being strong on lowering taxes and simplifying the system. He played a direct role in the drafting of Rand Paul's flat-tax, calling for a 14.5 percent rate. While Moore wants Americans to keep more of their earnings, he says the best reason to move to lower, simpler, flatter rates is to spark job creation. "Let's talk about our business taxes because, after all, businesses create jobs. Hillary Clinton said businesses don't create jobs but of course they do. We have the highest business tax in the world. We're at 35-40 percent. Most of the rest of the world is below 25 percent. That puts every one of our American businesses that does business abroad at a 10-15 percent competitive disadvantage," said Moore. He says decisive changes to our tax policy will make a huge difference in job creation. "If we can get our business tax down to 15 percent or 20 percent, then all those businesses that have been leaving the United States, like Burger King and Walgreen's and now Pfizer's talking about leaving, one of our major drug companies, they would come back to the United States and bring the jobs back with them. It's really important, if we want the high-paying jobs, to not have a tax code that encourages companies to invest abroad," said Moore. Tax policy is not an issue that often stirs passion in the electorate and Democrats are sure to paint the GOP plans as likely to favor the rich and drive up federal deficits. Moore says Republicans must be consistent and strong in their messaging. He says there are three reasons why voters should embrace conservative tax reform. "One, we want to create jobs for America. We want the most competitive tax system in the world so that American jobs are here and not in China and Mexico," said Moore. He says the GOP must also make it clear that flat rates and closed loopholes is the fairest way to reform the system. "We have to basically make the point that if you get rid of all the loopholes and carve-outs, that's what makes the system unfair. You can have a flat tax where everybody is paying the same rate. If you make a million dollars a year at a 15 percent rate, you're going to pay $150,000 in taxes. If you make a thousand dollars a year, you're going to pay $150 a year in taxes. I think that can be sold to the American people as fair and equitable," said Moore. Finally, he says Americans will likely be attracted to a much simpler system. "We have a tax code that takes people days and days, if not weeks, to figure out. It's 60,000 pages long, this tax code that might as well be written in Greek. Nobody can understand it. Nobody can fathom it. It's a huge dead-weight loss for the economy," said Moore. Moore says the twin promises of creating more jobs and getting the special interests out of the tax code ought to be music to the ears of many voters. "We've got to find a way to convince Democratic voters and blue collar workers that we're going to bring the jobs back. We're going to save your job. We're going to give you a pay raise if we can get this done. I think that's a very popular message with Americans who despise Washington," said Moore. "By the way, the tax code is the center of power in Washington. If we didn't have a complicated, loophole-ridden tax system, you wouldn't have anything to buy and sell in this town," he added. In a recent column, Moore laments that any reform will likely have to come despite Democratic opposition. He says that's a far cry from the tax reform of the 1980's, when reforms passed Congress by huge bipartisan majorities. Moore says Clinton and Sanders want the exact opposite. "If you listen to Hillary Clinton and you listen to Bernie Sanders, they're talking about raising taxes on the rich. Raising taxes on the rich is fine except every time we've tried to do it over the last 50 years, when we raised the tax rates we get less revenues not more because people either move out or find ways to get around the tax system," said Moore. But Moore says the whole "rich need to pay their fair share" argument from Democrats is a canard. "They're interested in a radical redistribution of income. Instead of creating wealth there are too many liberals who want to redistribute it. In other words, instead of people going out and taking risks and building a business and becoming rich, they're saying you don't have to do those things. Just take it from people," said Moore. |
| 'He Was the Quintessential American' |
| Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:37:38 EST The American people adored Ronald Reagan, a fact author Craig Shirley says was proven in the national outpouring of grief following Reagan's death in 2004, ignored by the liberal elite and co-opted by shrewd Democrats who figured they would join Reagan since they couldn't beat him. Shirley is the author of three volumes on Reagan, the latest of which is "Last Act: The Final Years and Emerging Legacy of Ronald Reagan." His prior books chronicled Reagan's insurgent challenge to President Gerald R. Ford in 1976 and his historic victory over President Jimmy Carter in 1980. Reagan's landslide wins in 1980 and 1984 were evidence of the public's affinity for Reagan, as was the convincing victory of his vice president, George H.W. Bush, in 1988. But Shirley says the entire nation saw it in June 2004, after Reagan's death from Alzheimer's-related pneumonia at the age of 93. From California to Washington and back, hundreds of thousands of Americans paid their respects in person. Millions more did so while watching the events from home. Shirley says the week crystallized how much the liberal elite detested Reagan and how much the people admired him. "The elites always criticized him, derided him, loathed him, attacked him. The American people, by and large, learned not only to support him but a lot of them actually grew to adore him because he was in touch with the American people unlike any president since John Kennedy and, before, that, Franklin Roosevelt," said Shirley. The reason was not complicated. "He got the support of the American people because he was part of the American people. He was the quintessential American. He was't elitist. He wasn't out of touch. He was, in many ways, his own one-man focus group," said Shirley. During the Reagan presidency, the media and Democrats relentlessly criticized Reagan for being a nuclear cowboy and for an economic agenda they branded as favoring the rich. Upon Reagan's death, however, Shirley says the liberal elites and politicians had very different pubic reactions to Reagan. For the academics and the press, nothing changed. "The media elite, academia, those people never understood Reagan, never understood his appeal, would actually resort to making up things about him," said Shirley. But, curiously, elected Democrats were much more kind, and Shirley says the reason went far deeper than public figures being reluctant to speak ill of the dead. "A lot of Democratic politicians, (then-Michigan Gov.) Jennifer Granholm and others, were very, very praiseworthy. The reason is because they saw up close and personal the rise of the Reagan Democrat. They knew that Reagan had forged a cultural and psychological bond with these voters," said Shirley, who says Democrats were keenly focused on not offending those constituents who helped to trigger the Reagan Revolution. "They were still Democrats but they were culturally conservative and had grown as a political phenomenon, the most important political phenomenon in the history of American politics since the rise of the New Deal," said Shirley. Rather than demonize Reagan after his death, Democrats even embraced some aspects of his record. Shirley says that's a far cry from the way the Clinton administration tried to divorce itself from any connection to Reagan during the boom of the 1990's. "Isn't that interesting? The Clintons derided the decade of the 1980's as a decade of greed and yet the very same economic underpinnings that fueled the growth of the 1990's, which came about after Gingrich took control of Congress, was not called a decade of greed. Isn't that curious?" said Shirley. President Obama has invoked Reagan on multiple issues, from pushing for increased spending for transportation to legalizing millions of people in the U.S. illegally. As fewer and fewer Americans remember the Reagan years, Shirley says it's vital for us to know the real legacy and what is being distorted for political purposes. "Go back and filter the truth. Find out the unvarnished, the real truth about Reagan on immigration and things like that. He wasn't for open borders. He wasn't for amnesty," said Shirley. Reagan did legalize some three million illegal immigrants in 1986 in exchange for stringent border security that never happened. As the immigration and amnesty debate rages today, Shirley says you have to understand the context in which Reagan agreed to the immigration deal. "The '86 immigration bill came at the height of the Cold War. He wasn't about to hand Gorbachev a giant public relations bonanza by forcibly evicting people from this country at a time where he was speaking out to Gorbachev to free the people of his country and the Soviet-dominated countries of the Warsaw Pact and the Baltics," said Shirley. As a result of Reagan's dealings on immigration and a tax hike that should have been offset with major spending cuts that never materialized, critics of today's conservative movement suggest that Reagan may not even be welcome in the party today. "The only people who make that argument are liberals in the Republican Party or moderates in the Republican Party or establishmentarians. I don't know any conservative who says, with a straight face, that Ronald Reagan wouldn't be welcome today in the Republican Party. Of course he would," said Shirley. The great frustration for die hard Reagan supporters is that Republicans have been unable to elect or even nominate another candidate cut from the Reagan mold. Shirley says it's unfair to look at the current crop and try to determine who could be the next Reagan. He says we'll never know until that person is actually president. "As I tell audiences, Ronald Reagan wasn't Ronald Reagan before Ronald Reagan was Ronald Reagan. And by that I mean that very few, if any, actually saw his greatness before he was great. In the long history of the American presidency, there's only one man who was thought would be a great president before he was president and that was George Washington," said Shirley. Different admirers of Reagan point to different accomplishments as most significant during his eight years in office. Shirley says Reagan had his own answer to that question. "The two things that he cited as being the most important was, one, the restoration of the American economy, which created 19 million new jobs. Second was restoration of America's morale," said Shirley. He says Reagan saw those as vital ingredients towards accomplishing his top goal. "He believed that America operated on a higher moral plane than any other country in history. He assumed the presidency in that fashion and he knew that to defeat the Soviets he had to have a strong economy. And to have a strong economy he had to raise America's morale," said Shirley. As the years roll along, Reagan's history will be written less by those who lived it and more by reporters and academics who largely disparage Reagan. Shirley says the challenge is to fight back against revisionism wherever it rears it's head. "Fortunately, there's a group of Reagan historians and biographers who have demonstrated a willingness and ability and sometimes courage to push back against disinformation about Ronald Reagan. George Santayana once said that, 'History is a pack of lies agreed upon, written by people who weren't there.' The history of Ronald Reagan is too important to be lied about or written by people who weren't there," said Shirley. |
| Obama, Big Business Get Cozy on Climate Agenda |
| Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:25:14 EST The Obama administration is actively lining up corporate America to champion his controversial climate agenda that he hopes to push through a United Nations summit in the coming weeks, and businesses are jumping aboard by the dozens, either out of profit motive or to avoid punitive action from the White House. Back in June, a Daily Caller article reported that Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett was using both sticks and carrots to woo big businesses onto the climate change bandwagon. In a column for Conservative Review, energy expert and crony capitalism watchdog Dr. Tom Borelli says corporate leaders are only too eager to join forces with Obama. "Eighty-one companies have signed onto a White House climate change pledge, where each company volunteers to take certain actions to reduce carbon dioxide emissions," said Borelli. Some firms signing onto the Obama climate plan are focused on renewable energy and see a major windfall in profits headed their way if carbon dioxide standards are slashed in the U.S. Others have different incentives. "There's a group of food companies that have also signed on. I believe some of these companies, specifically Coca-Cola and Pepsi, are really just trying to align themselves with the administration because they fear at any one moment the progressives will start talking about a tax on sodas," said Borelli, who says this is the latest episode of Obama taking aggressive steps to get what he wants. "He wants a worldwide global treaty and then he's going to try to enforce that on companies, if not directly through law then through intimidation and through public pressure," added Borelli. The bad news for corporations, according to Borelli, is that their obedience will only get them so far. "You think government will be your friend but eventually you'll end up turning on the company as well. The bell will toll for them," said Borelli. Even if that didn't happen, Borelli says Obama and big business have gone a long way down a dangerous road. "Probably the most dangerous legacy he's going to leave us is this corporatist state, where big business and big government align themselves temporarily for a policy goal," said Borelli. He says Obamacare is a "prime example." "Initially, pharmaceutical companies were against HillaryCare back in the '90's and lobbied against it. With Obama, they lobbied for it because they got specific breaks they wanted," said Borelli, who is confident the health care industry is already regretting its support for Obamacare. "Now there's talk of Obama reversing some of the promises he made and there are no promises far out into the future. Companies should be aware when they align themselves with big government, big government can and always will turn on them," said Borelli. Obama is planning to treat any UN deal as an executive agreement and bypass Senate scrutiny. much as it did with the Iran nuclear deal. Borelli says no one should expect Congress to take major steps to stop Obama's unilateral action. He says real change is up to the American people at the ballot box. "It's going to be up to everyday Americans looking forward to the next elections to try to get really true conservatives in that will rein in government, that will rein in this corporatist state that we're involved in these days and, more urgently, rein in this global cooperation, where we're starting to sell our sovereignty down the road," said Borelli. However, Borelli says Obama's strategy for imposing his climate agenda makes it much easier to reverse, if the right people get elected. "We can start to roll back some of these regulations, especially that the EPA has been issuing against the coal industry and every other manufacturer. It's going to take a little time but a lot of what Obama's doing through his pen and his phone and through his executive branch can be rolled back," said Borelli. |
| Obama 'Destroyed the Reputation of the U.S. Presidency' |
| Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:24:14 EST Russian President Vladimir Putin will do anything to accumulate and preserve power and the world will descend into greater and greater chaos unless the United States and other free nations stand up to him, according to legendary chess champion and Russian democracy advocate Garry Kasparov. Kasparov has been fighting for greater freedoms in his native Russia for decades. After 20 years as the top-ranked chess player in the world, he retired in 2005 to devote his full energies to be a leading voice against Putin and his assault on liberty. Kasparov's new book is "Winter is Coming: Why Vladimir Putin and the Enemies of the Free World Must Be Stopped." In the book, Kasparov chronicles the stunning swiftness with which Russia embraced freedom, only to begin handing it back to Putin by the end of the 1990's. In the intervening 15 years, Kasparov says Putin has not revealed any grand goals or overarching principles. In our subsequent interview, he said Putin's modus operandi is actually quite simple. "Putin's strategy, if you may call it a strategy, in fact is the tactics of survival. He must stay in power in Russia and to stay in the Kremlin, he must come up with a good rationale for the Russian public," said Kasparov. He says that gets tougher for Putin given the current state of Russia. "The economy's in terrible shape and nobody expects it to get better, especially with oil prices around 50 (dollars per barrel) and unlikely to rise dramatically in the near future. Of course, that's one of Putin's goals, to create mass chaos and wars in the Middle East in expectation that could effect oil prices the way he wants it," said Kasparov. As Putin feels the heat economically, Kasparov believes the plan is to rally the Russian people around his response to manufactured threats. "When you run out of enemies in Russia, as with every dictator he has been looking for enemies elsewhere. His image as a strong leader who could defy the United States, who could send Russian troops abroad, who can annex territories of the neighboring countries; this is what he sells the Russian public," said Kasparov. He says the Russian public relations campaign is constantly working to burnish Putin's reputation. "Russia today, from the eyes of Putin's propaganda machine that has been working 24/7 and is really poisonous and brainwashing, represents our country as a fortress of good surrounded by evil and Putin is the only savior who can protect Mother Russia against the global conspiracy," said Kasparov. In the book, Kasparov says Putin and his cronies are far different than the old Soviet regime, noting that Putin and his allies do not simply want to repress freedoms and have a vacation home on the Black Sea. Instead, he says they want to get very rich and live the high life and gain influence throughout the world. Kasparov says that approach is a greater threat than the USSR. "It's a greater threat because, unlike the Soviet Union, we're dealing with a full-blown one-man dictatorship, and it's much less predictable. The Soviet Union was an existential threat, but there was the Politburo, there was the Central Communist Party and there was a system that tried to protect itself," said Kasparov. "Here you're dealing with a situation where any threat to a dictator could be dealt with by the whole power of the Russian state," he added. He believes there are no limits to what Putin will do if he feels threatened. "He thinks if it helps him to stay in power for another year, he will do absolutely anything," said Kasparov. Putin's lust for power is only part of the story Kasparov tells. He says the failure of the U.S. and our allies to confront Putin is a major problem and he spares no criticism for President Obama. "Obama's response to Putin, if you may call it a response, was very weak and I think it destroyed the reputation of the U.S. presidency globally. It will take a considerable amount of time for a new president to restore this credibility," said Kasparov. "If you don't have credibility and no one takes your word seriously, and who will after Obama's infamous red line in Syria two years ago, then force remains your only argument," added Kasparov. He says Putin is taking full advantage of Obama. "That's what happened with all dictators in the past. They have been growing in their strength and arrogance while seeing there was no adequate response from the free world," said Kasparov. Kasparov's biggest frustration with the West is that once the USSR collapsed, the U.S. and others abandoned it's firm demands for Russia to embrace a free society. "I believe that many mistakes were made in the '90's. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, everybody was in a cheerful mood and nobody wanted to think about the right strategy for the future," said Kasparov, who says every president since George H.W. Bush adopted "intellectual self-deception" and pursued a vague engagement strategy that has only enabled Russian leaders to consolidate power. Even now he says those who refuse to stand up to Putin are offering a false choice. "Some people say that if it's not negotiation or diplomacy or concessions, then war is the only alternative. Before we look at boots on the ground a as a last resort, there are so many economic and financial options to bring the Russian economy to the ground and to destroy the foundation of Putin's power in Russia," said Kasparov. What would work? Kasparov says the focus should be on energy. "Creating alternative sources of oil and gas supply, which can be done by America and Europe, will hurt Putin badly," he said. Kasparov says the Russian economy is so dependent upon oil and gas that if the U.S. and Europe flooded the market with energy alternatives to the nations of western Europe that Russia's financial health would implode. Kasparov has been a strong, public critic of Putin for years. Many others who have spoken out over the years have met mysterious deaths. Does Kasparov worried that he may be targeted? "Yes I do. That's why I work in New York, not in Moscow," he said. But he is quick to add that he feels he must continue to highlight what Putin is doing. "I believe I have no choice. It's a moral imperative, especially after my close friend and colleague, great opposition leader Boris Nemtsov, was gunned down in front of the Kremlin on February 27th of this year," said Kasparov. Kasparov is pessimistic that democracy will return to Russia anytime soon and he says whatever follows Putin will likely be messy. "I don't expect that the fall of Putin's regime will lead to democracy. Putin has steadily destroyed all democratic institutions. You don't have democratic components to rebuild democratic institutions instantly. Most likely it will be chaos," Kasparov. That being said, Kasparov says playing nice with Putin and allowing him free rein in perpetuity simply cannot be an option. "Even if the price of bringing down Putin looks high, tomorrow the price will be higher and the day after tomorrow it could be unbearable. That's why the sooner we can bring Putin down, the sooner we can start rebuilding Russia, the better the chance Russia will join the family of civilized nations and will start playing a constructive role, not a destructive one," said Kasparov. |
| 'This Is Suicide for the Republicans' |
| Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:24:46 EST The fierce Republican backlash to the tone and tenor of questions to the 2016 GOP hopefuls on Wednesday night leaves the party no choice but to remove liberals from its debates and demand better work by the chairman to give conservative principles a chance to be expressed. That's the reaction from Richard Viguerie, chairman of conservativehq.com and a decades-long fixture in the conservative movement, in reaction to Wednesday's explosive debate on CNBC. Conservatives, moderates and plenty of non-Republicans all excoriated panelists John Harwood, Carl Quininilla and Becky Quick for repeatedly asking insulting questions that were seen as an attempt to antagonize the candidates. Donald Trump was asked if he was running a "comic book" version of a campaign and was told he had as much chance of flapping his arms and flying as he did at balancing the budget. Marco Rubio was asked why he cashed in a small retirement account. Mike Huckabee was given the chance to denounce Trump as a bad choice to be the moral leader of the party (he declined). The panelists also repeatedly interrupted the candidates and even seemed to debate them at times. Viguerie was appalled. "It was just outrageous. It may be the most biased panel ever assembled for a presidential debate. Republicans are used to having biased liberal panelists for these debates, but this was over the top and this was in a class by itself," said Viguerie. He points the fingers of blame in two directions, first at NBC News. "NBC should be shamed. NBC is owned by General Electric. The president is Jeff Immelt, a very active liberal Democrat. It just stinks of the hands of the Democrats," said Viguerie. "This is a suicide for the Republicans to continue to go into the den of the enemy and turn the messaging of the Republican Party over to our sworn enemies, which is mainstream media." But Viguerie does not put all the blame on NBC. He says Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus gave the green light to that format and those panelists. "Reince Priebus has put the job of identifying the issues that should be talked about in this campaign in the hands of liberal Democrats. I mean it's just outrageous," said Viguerie. He says it's time for grassroots conservatives to demand better of Priebus or send him packing, as they just did to another prominent Republican. "The grassroots just needs to take the same action regarding Reince Priebus' ineptness and incompetence that they did with (former House Speaker) John Boehner. It was the grassroots that forced John Boehner out of office and I think the grassroots' voice needs to be heard loud and clear in the coming days to force Reince Priebus to change the format of the debates," said Viguerie. Viguerie also hated the venue. "He close one of the most liberal college campuses in America, Boulder, Colorado. There's so many wonderful conservative colleges: Colorado Christian College, Hillsdale College, Grove City, many, many conservative colleges that would have been a nice backdrop," said Viguerie. While the left-leaning questions came early and often, the debate took on a new dimension when Sen. Ted Cruz unloaded on the panelists. "The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don't trust the media. This is not a cage match. You look at the questions. Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Ben Carson can you do math? John Kasich, will you insult two people over here? Marco Rubio, why don't you resign? Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen? How about talking about the substantive issues people care about?" said Cruz, to thunderous applause. Viguerie was among those cheering. "I hollered out when he said that, 'Grand slam home run!' It was just outstanding. I thought Rubio's comments regarding the panel was a home run. Cruz's was a grand slam home run," said Viguerie. "I think you're going to see Rubio and Cruz significantly move up in the polls in the coming days." But now that the debates are underway, how much can Priebus and the Republican Party do to alter the format of upcoming events. Viguerie believes there plenty of changes that can be made. "It has to be a partnership with the networks and you have to pass judgment on the panelists. That's part of the game. If not, then hold them on Fox and Let's Fox's numbers go up," he said, noting that Democrats in 2008 and again this cycle refuse to allow any debates on the Fox News Channel. While Viguerie says it's crucial to fix the debates now so Americans can hear a clear exchange of conservative ideas, he considers it imperative to have changes in place for the biggest debates of all. "Certainly, as we look at the fall of 2016 general election. If they have people again like Candy Crowley asking questions, Republicans will be telling you they're into the suicide business," said Viguerie. Crowley, then with CNN, famously interrupted 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney to claim President Obama had described the attacks in Benghazi as acts of terrorism from the very beginning. Later, with tens of millions fewer viewers, Crowley admitted she had been wrong. Viguerie is ultimately hopeful that the CNBC debate will serve as a wake-up call for the mainstream media, not out of a sense of fairness but for self-preservation. "At some point here the media are going to have to clean up their act because they are a dinosaur. They are a dying dinosaur. Events like last night do nothing but damage the mainstream media's reputation and it drives more and more people away from them," said Viguerie. |
| 'The Snapping of the American Mind' |
| Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:28:48 EST Decades of liberal indoctrination descended in a perfect storm upon the election of Barack Obama, and author David Kupelian says the left needs a nation of broken, dependent people to stay in power. Kupelian, who is author most recently of "The Snapping of the American Mind: Healing A Nation Broken by a Lawless Government and Godless Culture," also tells traditional Americans to resist the instinct to lash out at what they see as ugly takeover of our nation. Kupelian says Marxists have been trying to infiltrate and indoctrinate critical American institutions since the years following the Civil War. He says the past 50 years have been especially aggressive and America has changed far more than most people realize. "The 'blur' is my metaphor for what we've lived through since the 1960's, meaning we don't really understand what has happened to us and what has been leading us and where it's leading us to. We've just been changing very rapidly over the past few decades and most people don't really understand why," said Kupelian. He says the American people largely resisted major liberal changes, but the election of Barack Obama changed that. "With the election of Obama and the re-election of Obama in 2012, we've moved into a new phase of this. The cultural Marxists, the Frankfurt School and all the various players that said, 'We'll take over the institutions. We'll take over the colleges. We'll take over the news media, even many of the churches,' which is undeniable that they have. They said the last piece to fall into place will be government itself," said Kupelian. He says the most accurate gauge of the "blur" is how many Americans are miserable. "This madness that we're describing in the country, the big strokes, the wealth redistribution, the change of our economic system and the change of our health care system, is reflecting in the individual problems and brokenness and pathology of individual Americans," said Kupelian. He says there are all sorts of statistics documenting America's broken state, but listed two in particular he thinks paint a very frightening portrait of a nation. "The statistics are absolutely heartbreaking: one hundred ten million Americans with a sexually transmitted disease, one hundred thirty million Americans that are dependent on mind-altering substances just to get through life. I could go on and on. The statistics are absolutely breathtaking. It sounds like everybody in the country is addicted and miserable and depressed," said Kupelian. But rather than really trying to improve the lives of those people, Kupelian says that's exactly the way liberals want them. "The left is dependent on making people angry and dependent on them and needing them. All you have to do is look at the most broken people in society and you see that's the voting bloc. You want to get really hard core? That's who is voting for people like Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders," said Kupelian. Kupelian sees liberal loyalty to Clinton as an acute case of this concept. "Everybody knows Hillary Clinton is a shape-shifter and just say whatever she to get elected. She's just a sociopath. She has no principles. She just loves power. So how can people not see that? How can they be so blinded? How can Americans not see that? I'm saying these are the most broken people in America. The most miserable, dependent, damaged broken people are the ones that resonate with Hillary Clinton," said Kupelian. As more and more people become dependent upon the federal government, Kupelian says the left is more and more open about its true agenda. "I would challenge people to go to cpusa.org, that's the Communist Party USA's website. Just spend 10-15 minutes looking it over. Click on the various tabs. Read their positions on issues. I defy you to find any significant difference today's Communist Party...and today's Democrat Party," said Kupelian. Kupelian says desperate people gravitate in that direction while the others have a very different view. "The normal people are hoping to elect a truly decent person as president. That is the spectacle we see on stage right now," said Kupelian. But Kupelian is quick to add that Americans who honor the Constitution and abide by Judeo-Christian values are not without hope. He devotes much of his book to reversing the liberal tide but he says the most important point is to avoid giving the left exactly what it wants. "We have hundreds of sanctuary cities and the borders are wide open and men cutting off their private parts and then proclaiming that they're women. We see all this sheer madness and we say, 'What do we do?' It's very easy to be upset about it. Don't," said Kupelian. Why not? "The modus operandi of the left is utterly dependent on people flying into a rage and overreacting and becoming full of anger and fury at what is being done to them.," said Kupelian. "This is a war for them. They cannot succeed over a virtuous people unless people become so angry and so broken," said Kupelian, who says responding in anger gives the left a win by making conservatives look unhinged. He also says responding in kind comes with an absence of grace, which is critical to long-term success. "We need to find God's grace. We need to wake up from this trance and we need to stand up to it. We need to do it with grace. Think Ronald Reagan," said Kupelian. |
| 'Justice in Their Hands Is a Mockery' |
| Mon, 26 Oct 2015 16:13:02 EST On Friday, the Justice Department announced it was closing it's investigation of former IRS official Lois Lerner and would not be filing any charges, chalking up the scandal instead to mismanagement. However, the head of one of the grassroots organizations that endured unwarranted scrutiny by the IRS says the decision is simply more proof of a "lawless administration" that is making a "mockery" of justice. On Friday, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik, sent a letter for House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Virginia, and ranking Democrat John Conyers, R-Michigan. "Our investigation uncovered substantial evidence of mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia, leading to the belief by many tax-exempt applicants that the IRS targeted then based on their political viewpoints. But poor management is not a crime," wrote Kadzik. "We found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other in appropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution. We found no evidence that any official involved in the handling of tax-exempt applications or IRS leadership attempted to obstruct justice," Kadzik continued. "Based on the evidence developed in this investigation and the recommendation of experienced career prosecutors and supervising attorneys at the Department, we are closing our investigation and will not seek any criminal charges," stated Kadzik. True the Vote is one group that endured years of IRS harassment over its application for tax-exempt status. It's president, Catherine Englebrecht, is disgusted but not surprised by the Justice Department's announcement. "This is a lawless administration. They write the rules and then play by those if they choose to follow. It is certainly not a surprise at all that they've chosen to try to wipe the slate clean of the IRS scandal, as they have so many other scandals," said Englebrecht. "They don't look to police themselves. They're not interested in the better interests of their fellow countrymen. They're interested in the survival of their party." According to Englebrecht, the refusal to prosecute is not only a slap in the face to her group and many others but to American justice at large. "Justice in their hands is a mockery. This is an arrogant and corrupt administration that holds no justice for the American people. It is my great hope and prayer that the American people will reassert themselves, through their vote, to take back the reins of this country," said Englebrecht. Englebrecht also blasted the logic expressed by Kadzik, saying not only were crimes committed but there is a mountain of evidence proving it that Obama's Justice Department ignored. "I bet our organization alone submitted 500 documents or more that show clearly this was far more than 'mismanagement.' This was not only intentional targeting in an attempt to silence what they perceived to be a political threat, but, beyond that, there was collusion between the IRS and other branches of government. We have the documentation that proves it all," said Englebrecht. In the specific case of True the Vote, Englebrecht says there was obvious collusion between two critical figures in this scandal. "The IRS was working closely with select Democrat congressmen, particularly in my instance Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland), who sought and received from Lois Lerner information, that when I requested it myself about me, came back redacted. So I can't get the information that Lois and Elijah shared, but somehow that's all excusable," said Englebrecht. She says other documentation proves the Justice Department was in on the collusion as well. "Absolutely. The Department of Justice, those are the attorneys that are defending the IRS in court. The thought that they would be the ones to head up an investigation makes a mockery of the process," said Englebrecht, who says the obvious decision should have been to appoint a special counsel to investigate that case but the Obama administration wanted no part of that. "A special prosecutor should have been assigned to this at the outset and there is only one reason why that didn't occur. They didn't want the answers. If you don't want the answers, you engineer the system to not ask the questions. That's exactly what we've seen play out," said Englebrecht. Is this the end of the scandal? Englebrecht says no. True the Vote is taking the IRS to court, but suffered an early setback when a federal judge ruled True the Vote did get approved as a tax-exempt organization and getting to the bottom of the controversy would be impossible since Lerner's emails had been destroyed. Since then, many emails have been recovered and Englebrecht hopes that will reinvigorate her legal options. "That gave us an avenue for appeal. We are anxiously awaiting being heard by the court, hopefully in the first few months of 2016," she said. Englebrecht says this entire ordeal has been miserable. She says the greatest lesson learned is that she was right to speak out as the IRS closed in because the more she spoke the less power the federal government had to intimidate her. She says the administration may think it has covered its tracks but she is confident the American people will have the last word. "I think they are discounting too heavily that Americans will forget. I think Americans have had enough and I think that's going to be reflected next November," said Englebrecht. |
| Is Freedom Caucus Making House More Liberal? |
| Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:27:32 EST A staunch conservative member of Congress says the House Freedom Caucus may have it's heart in the right place but he says its tactics are counterproductive and actually aid the opposition. The House Freedom Caucus was created earlier this year in the wake of the challenge from the right to House Speaker John Boehner. It is credited with forcing Boehner from power and halting the rise of House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy to replace him. On Wednesday, a supermajority of the caucus backed House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan to be speaker but fell short of an official endorsement. Rep. Tom McClintock, R-California, was a member of the House Freedom Caucus but resigned in mid-September, concluding that the group's strategy did more harm than good. "I feel that the HFC 19s many missteps have made it counterproductive to its stated goals and I no longer wish to be associated with it," said McClintock to The Hill newspaper at the time. McClintock who enjoys an "A" rating from the Conservative Review Scorecard, the same tally that gives Ryan an "F", hasn't changed his opinion at all in the past few weeks. "What the Freedom Caucus has done, in the name of conservatism, is to move the political center of gravity of the House dramatically to the left," said McClintock. He says it's not the political positions of caucus members he disagrees with. In fact, he is very sympathetic on many policy issues. However, McClintock says the approach the caucus often takes results in the opposite of its intentions. "The danger of the House Freedom Caucus is that their position is that decisions on running the House, that are traditionally made by the majority party in its conference, ought to be moved instead to the House floor. I've tried repeatedly to warn them that on the House floor there is a disciplined block of 188 Democrats who get to vote, led by Nancy Pelosi. Not one of them gets to vote in the House Republican Conference," said McClintock. He then explained why caucus members taking their fight to the floor is a bad idea. "(If) you want to move these decisions of selecting a speaker or scheduling floor votes from the conference to the House floor, beware. Those 188 Democrats are far more likely to combine with the 30 most liberal Republicans in the House, not the 30 most conservative," said McClintock. McClintock says this is not just political theory. He asserts that Freedom Caucus tactics have inadvertantly reinvigorated an issue conservatives hate. "We've already seen that with the scheduling of the revival of the Export-Import Bank. That's a battle that we had won. The Export-Import Bank, which is a poster child for crony capitalism, expired on June 30. Beacuse it is opposed by a majority of the Republican Conference, it was never scheduled for a vote to be renewed," said McClintock. "But when the Freedom Caucus broke that tradition, it freed the liberals in the conference to join with Democrats and execute the first discharge petition in 12 years. Now we're going to have a vote on that and those 188 Democrats will combine with the most liberal members of the Republican conference and vote that bill out," said McClintock. A discharge petition forces the majority leader to bring a bill to the floor if supporters can prove over half the members are in favor of it. McClintock says if caucus members don't change course on their tactics, the Export-Import Bank will just be the tip of the iceberg. "The real danger for conservatives is this same math works for amnesty for illegal aliens, blowing the lid off of spending caps, bringing back the tawdry era of congressional earmarks. That's the Pandora's Box the House Freedom Caucus has opened," said McClintock. He says that threat could also materialize in the vote for speaker if the party is fractured. "By threatening to withhold votes on the House floor for the Republican conference's choice for speaker, there's already discussion now, if Paul Ryan isn't able to make that 218-vote threshold, there will be a coalition formed between those 188 Democrats and the 30 most liberal members of our conference," said McClintock. |
| Dodging Default |
| Thu, 22 Oct 2015 15:18:45 EST House Republicans passed legislation Wednesday to ensure debt payment on the national debt would go forward in the event the debt ceiling is not raised in the coming days, but the chief sponsor says President Obama and Democrats refuse to embrace that protection of our credit rating and will not take steps to rein our government's insatiable spending. In a vote largely along party lines, the House approved the Default Protection Act. Rep. Tom McClintock, R-California, the lead sponsor of the bill, says this one-page measure could save the United States from financial misery if Congress and the president cannot find common ground on the debt ceiling. "It simply guarantees the sovereign debt of the United States will be paid in full and on time, regardless of what differences and quarrels we are engaged in in Washington," said McClintock. Noting that our national debt now exceeds the size of the U.S. economy, McClintock says protecting the credit rating of the United States is essential and more difficult as our debt soars. "When people lend you money, they generally like you to pay it back. Until you do, they like you to pay interest on that. If there is any doubt that the full faith and credit of the United States will be honored, the interest that is charged to us for borrowing could go up. It could spike. Given the amount of debt we're carrying, that would be absolutely catastrophic," said McClintock. The congressman says even at current, record-low interest rates, the amount of money spent paying interest on the national debt is staggering and being in danger of missing payments could be very problematic. "Interest costs on the national debt are already exceeding $220 billion. Within eight years, they will exceed our defense spending, so any spike in interest rates caused by any question that we'll make our payments on time and in full could be catastrophic," said McClintock. Wednesday's vote took place a day after the White House announced President Obama would veto the legislation if it reaches his desk. "Default by any other name is default," is a common refrain from Democrats, ranging from White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest to Rep. Sander Levin, D-Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. McClintock says Democrats are badly mischaracterizing his bill. "What they're doing is confusing default on the sovereign debt of the country, which is basically our credit, with postponement of paying other bills. Neither of those is a good thing. If you're a family that is living off of its credit cards, as we are at the moment, you had darn well better make the minimum payment on the credit card first or you won't be able to pay the rest of the bills," said McClintock. "That's exactly the situation the United States government is in at the moment," he added. The congressman's greatest frustration on the issue is the refusal of Democrats to show any inclination to find ways to tackle our debt, which is now officially north of $18.4 trillion. "When the family has to increase its credit limit because it's spending above its means, it had also better have a serious conversation about what's driving this debt and what to do about it. That's what the Democrats refuse to engage in," said McClintock. McClintock says most members of both parties acknowledge that existing debts need to be paid but he says only one sees the status quo as a problem. "When you are increasing the debt limit, you also have a responsibility to address the policies that are driving that debt. Republicans acknowledge that responsibility. Democrats don't, and that's the crux of the problem," said McClintock. Beyond the blinders McClintock suggests Democrats wear on this issue, he says they are guilty of bewildering hypocrisy on the issue. "They support loan guarantees to foreign corporations. They support loan guarantees to domestic special interests and foreign governments. But they're unwilling to guarantee loans made to our own government. I can't understand the logic there," said McClintock. Given the partisan divide in the House vote, it's unlikely the Default Protection Act will reach a final vote in the Senate, much less reach Obama's desk. McClintock admits that's the likely outcome but says it's further evidence of a broken U.S. Senate. "It will take six Democrats to cross party lines and agree to consider this bill in the Senate. That's a pretty tall order considering the partisanship in the Senate. That's also a good argument for revisiting the question that it takes 60 votes just to take up a bill in the Senate," said McClintock. McClintock believes his approach to staving off a credit disaster will ultimately succeed, but not until 2017. "I'm counting on a very different president taking office in 458 days, not that I'm counting," said McClintock. "This measure will pave the road for a future measure in the next Congress that will be signed into law." |
| No Coronation for Ryan |
| Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:14:30 EST House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan says he will run for Speaker of the House if the party can unify behind his candidacy and agree to his conditions, but the GOP congressman who first challenged John Boehner earlier this year says those demands are a non-starter for him. Ryan has made no secret he doesn't want the job. On Tuesday, he said he would agree to run if the party unifies around his candidacy and members of his party vow not to launch any efforts to remove him if he becomes speaker. He also demanded a more concerted effort to promote conservative ideals to turn the nation around and be permitted to protect the time he spends with his family. While many House Republicans are hailing Ryan as a consensus choice, others definitely are not. "He talked about all the shortcomings of the current leadership while Mr. Boehner was there, talking about the shortsightedness, we didn't have a vision, we didn't have a long-term outlook, we have bills brought up right at the deadline so it's a crisis. We're not unified," said Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Florida. "He's been here for 17 years. He's dealt with a broken system, not willing to challenge it until the moment arrives. That, to me, is not leadership." Yoho mounted an eleventh hour challenge to Boehner just prior to the start of the 114th Congress in January. Two other members subsequently joined the race for speaker. Boehner survived the insurgency but last month announced his impending resignation as he faced what was likely to be a bruising fight to keep the top job in Congress. More than two dozen Republicans defected from Boehner in that January vote. Yoho is quick to point out that Ryan was not one of them. "Where were you come January first of 2015, when three of us put our heads on the chopping block to run for the Speaker of the House. Dan Webster (R-Florida) was the one we really wanted to run. Where were you back then, standing up saying the emperor doesn't have any clothes or the system is broke and we need to change it," said Yoho. "If you weren't willing to lead and challenge leadership back then, what makes me think you're going to be any different than the current leadership structure," he added. While Ryan's past performance bothers Yoho, his forbidding of any efforts to remove him as speaker is especially chilling to Yoho. "I think the last caveat was, 'I'll take this job if you get rid of the motion to vacate the chair.' That was something our founding fathers put in place for us to hold people in our House accountable. To take that off the table is like, 'I'll take the job if I know I can't be fired," said Yoho. Yoho says if Ryan makes good on his promise to be a speaker who tirelessly champions conservative principles, no one is going to undermine his leadership. "Each one of the members of Congress, we can be removed in the next election. I think that needs to be over anybody's head. If you're doing your job and you're doing it well, it's not a threat," said Yoho. The process to replace Boehner is taking much longer than planned. Boehner initially set Oct. 8 for leadership elections. However, that day, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy dropped his bid for speaker and Boehner pushed back elections, which will now come Oct. 28. Yoho says that delay was unnecessary and another example of poor leadership. "My hope is now that the leadership team with Mr. Boehner does not upset the process again. Had they not done what they did on Oct. 8, we would already have a new speaker installed. We would be dealing with a Nov. 3 debt ceiling deadline. We'd be dealing with funding the government on Dec. 11. We would be finishing up our appropriations," said Yoho. "The lack of leadership, and this is why we're fighting so hard to replace it, has created this angst that we're seeing over the last three weeks," he said. Yoho backs Webster for the job and Webster presently has the endorsement of the influential House Freedom Caucus. Other than adamantly opposing any effort to scrap the option of members to "vacate the chair," Yoho says there really don't need to be a lot of new rules. He says GOP leaders need to abide by the ones already in play, and one in particular is on his mind. "Follow the rules that are already in place. We've already got a 49-page rule book, one of them being the 72-hour rule. Before we vote on a bill, every member of Congress has 72 hours to review it. We don't do that now. We fought to do that and leadership said no, we can't do that," said Yoho. Two other issues are critical for Yoho and other members of the House Freedom Caucus. One is a commitment to pursue immigration reform in stages by securing the border, enforcing existing law and addressing guest worker programs. He also wants an end to leadership punishment for members who don't vote as the party brass would like. Committee slots and travel perks have been stripped from some members. Yoho says that needs to stop. Whether Ryan becomes speaker will be determined in the coming days. Regardless, Yoho has no regrets about his challenge to Boehner in January that triggered a series of events leading up to this change in leadership. "I'm happy with my role and the results we've gotten. We ran on 'Washington Lacks Leadership' It needs new leadership,and a direction and a vision. I'm real happy where we're at right now. we just don't need to back up. We need to go forward," said Yoho, who is confident this episode will ultimately be good for the country. "This will all work out because the American people sent us here because it was a broken system. We've put in the mechanics to change that system. now, we've got to go and get our work done. The sooner we get this speaker's race over, the better the American people will benefit and our country will benefit," said Yoho. |
| 'A Total Miscarriage of Justice' |
| Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:25:30 EST The military is "upside down" for recommending that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl be given no jail time for voluntarily leaving his unit and being taken by the Taliban, a move that got several troops killed and led to the freedom of five hard core Taliban figures in exchange for Bergdahl. That's the assessment of retired U.S. Army Lt. General William "Jerry" Boykin. Boykin served 36 years in uniform, many of those with special forces including command of all Green Berets. Earlier this month, military prosecutor Lt. Col. Mark Visgers recommended that Bergdahl be given no jail time and that his case be moved from a general court martial to a less severe special court martial. Visgers does not have the last word, but his shift from advancing charges that could have landed Bergdahl in prison for life or even the death chamber raises Boykin's eyebrows. "My only conclusion is these prosecutors are under some serious pressure through the chain of command. I suspect the chain of command is under some pressure from the administration," said Boykin. "I don't know that for a fact but what else can you conclude? These are military prosecutors. They know the seriousness of these charges." In June 2014, President Obama trumpeted the exchange of five Guantanamo prisoners for Bergdahl and hosted Bergdahl's parents in the White House Rose Garden. In the ensuing days, the details of Bergdahl's alleged desertion came to light in addition to charges that several brothers in arms died trying to find him. Boykin says all of those details demand severe punishment. "These are egregious charges. Look, this guy deserted in combat, and not only that, they have proven that was cavorting with or he is guilty of misbehavior with the enemy. Bergdahl went with the Taliban deliberately. He stayed with the Taliban for five years. There has to be accountability for that," said Boykin, "I think this guy should probably spend the rest of his life in jail. This actually carries the death penalty. I'm not advocating that by any means, but I do think he needs to be held accountable," he added. Desertion and misbehavior before the enemy are bad enough, but Boykin says the other two factors are even more infuriating, namely that Bergdahl's actions cost the lives of fellow soldiers. He also winces at the thought of giving up five key terrorists to get Bergdahl back. "The fact that we put five of the most hard core criminals in Guantanamo back on the streets, we released these people. These were commanders. These were senior people and they were some of the worst in Guantanamo. We traded them for a guy who deliberately walked off his installation and joined the Taliban there," said Boykin. Prosecutors dispute that last point. Maj. Gen. Kenneth Dahl says he interrogated Bergdahl for over an hour and concluded Bergdahl was never friendly with the Taliban. Most infuriating for Boykin is the military's penchant for harshly disciplining some soldiers for doing the right thing in Afghanistan while it looks like Bergdahl will catch a break. "The Army is about to put an Sgt. First Class Charles Martland out of the Army for an incident in 2011, where he slugged a police chief for raping a child repeatedly. We're going to put him out of the Army, but here we've got a guy that cavorted with the enemy, that deserted in wartime and we're going to let him walk," said Boykin. "This is upside down and I think this is a total miscarriage of justice," he added. Boykin says troop morale dropped when they learned of Bergdahl's release and the price the U.S. paid for that freedom. He says if Bergdahl faces no jail time, morale will take another punch to the stomach. "I think that if he's allowed to walk with some minor slap on the wrist, I think it's going to have another huge impact on morale throughout our services, not just the Army," said Boykin. |
| Three Martini Lunch 10/20/15 |
| Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:24:38 EST Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review discuss new poll results showing Democrats are more favorable towards socialism than capitalism by a 12-point margin and how that should be a huge advantage for conservatives in 2016. They also slam Joe Biden for dragging out his decision on whether to run for president. And they shake their heads as Jim Webb abruptly quits his 2016 bid and the Democratic Party while mulling an independent bid. Finally, they observe five years of the Three Martini Lunch by looking back on one of their favorite martinis of all time. |
| Obamacare in the Cross Hairs |
| Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:19:06 EST Congressional Republicans will soon move forward on repealing major portions of Obamacare, and this time Senate Democrats can't stop the effort. Three different committees in the House of Representatives are advancing legislation that leaders hope to roll into one package to pass and send along to the president. The Ways and Means Committee is most ambitious. It is pushing full repeals of the individual and employer mandates, along with repeals of the so-called "Cadillac Tax" and the medical device tax. The Energy and Commerce panel is looking to kill the Prevention and Public Health Fund while the Education and Workforce Committee wants to scrap employer auto-enrollment for health insurance. If the whole package were to become law, it would trim about $80 billion from federal spending. House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, R-Georgia, says this effort will force a veto from the president and he believes it will help the American people better understand which party is on their side. "It's important that the American people know who is standing up for positive, patient-oriented solutions in health care. Those are the Republicans in the House and Senate and who's getting in the way of the kinds of things the American people want when it comes to health care," said Price. The GOP-led House already approved repeals of the "Cadillac Tax" and the medical device tax but they failed to find 60 votes to advance in the U.S. Senate. That will not be a problem this time, as Republicans use a budget tool known as reconciliation that requires only a simple majority for passage in the Senate. Price says this option is a result of lawmakers doing their jobs earlier this year in the budget process. "So many of the American people are frustrated because we haven't been able to get things to the president's desk because of the 60-vote threshold in the United States Senate. Reconciliation is a process through the budget resolution that we passed earlier this year," said Price. "Part of that is the ability to do this reconciliation bill, which we passed out of our committee in the House and hopefully we'll pass through the House itself and send it to the Senate in a week or two that will repeal huge portions of Obamacare," he added. The marquee items are the proposed repeals of the individual and employer mandates, requiring adults 26 years old and older and businesses of a certain size to purchase coverage. Price and his allies also want to ditch the "Cadillac Tax." "The 'Cadillac Tax' is a tax on those individuals who have insurance coverage, mostly from their employer but at a level that the government deems to be 'too much.' This again gets to the core of what Obamacare's all about and that is that Washington is making decisions for you and your family that may or may not be what you would want or desire," said Price. He says this is a classic example of government stifling consumer choice. "When the government says you've got too much, what does it do? It will tax it and that's what the Cadillac Tax is. It flies in the face of choices. One of the principles that is so important in health care is that the patients ought to be deciding when they're treated and where they're treated, not the government forcing individuals to purchase what they think they ought to buy," said Price. Obamacare opponents also want to slash more than $12 billion by throwing out the Prevention and Public Health Fund. "There's a classic Washington example of a wonderful-sounding thing, when in fact it is essentially a slush fund to move billions of dollars to the kinds of activities that it wants," said Price, saying that money is essentially at the beck and call of the secretary of Health and Human Services. Lastly, the Republicans want to do away with employer auto-enrolling in Obamacare. "This is an adjunct to the employer mandate. What we think is most important is that patients and families and their doctors be making medical decisions. It ought to be patients and families that are selecting the kind of coverage they want for themselves," said Price. Price concedes Obama will veto the legislation and Congress will not be able to override it. However, he says the message this episode will send is crucial. "The president, no doubt, will veto this piece of legislation. We think it's important that the American people understand and appreciate who's standing in the way of real solutions," said Price. |
| 'Architects of Disaster' |
| Fri, 16 Oct 2015 16:09:24 EST The man who once spearheaded congressional efforts to strengthen American intelligence is hammering former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her description of the U.S. mission in Libya at the recent Democratic debate and blames both Clinton and President Obama for unnecessarily turning a reluctant ally into a hotbed for jihadism. Former Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chaired the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during his time in Congress. He is now a senior fellow at the Investigative Project on Terrorism and the author of "Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya." During the first Democratic presidential debate on Oct. 13, Clinton vigorously defended the Obama administration's decision to intervene in Libya and ultimately force the overthrow and killing of longtime dictator Moammar Gaddafi. "Our response, which I think was smart power at its best, is that the United States will not lead this. We will provide essential, unique capabilities that we have, but the Europeans and the Arabs had to be first over the line. We did not put one single American soldier on the ground in Libya," said Clinton at the debate. Hoekstra was stunned. "If this is smart power, I'd hate to see what dumb power would be," he said, slamming Clinton for touting America as a follower instead of a leader. "She's passing the buck and saying, 'We didn't lead.' If we're going to use our resources, whether they are men and women in the military or whether it is the Air Force where we don't put a boot on the ground but were fully involved, I'm sorry. I want us to lead. I'm not willing to turn over our military over to what the Europeans want, what the Arab countries want or what the UN wants," said Hoekstra. Even more stunning to Hoekstra than America's subordinate role in the Libya campaign is that America picked the wrong side. He says despite Gaddafi's horrific past of sponsoring terrorist attacks that killed scores of Americans, by 2011 the dictator was providing far more help than harm to the U.S. "For eight years, Moammar Gaddafi and Libya did everything the United States asked them to do in terms of their nuclear weapons program, in terms of paying reparations to the victims of their past terrorist activities. They were partners in fighting jihadists and Al Qaeda, not only in northern Africa but in other parts of the world," said Hoekstra, who says he met with Libyan leaders, including Gaddafi, three times between 2003-2009. "He was still a bad and evil man, but he was working with us to secure our national interests," said Hoekstra. Instead of relishing that cooperation, Hoekstra says Clinton and Obama threw it away. "In this case, the president and the secretary of state snatched defeat from the jaws of victory," said Hoekstra. The Obama administration's case for intervention morphed from the immediate need to prevent a genocide in Benghazi to eventually demanding Gaddafi's ouster. Hoekstra not only says the mission creep was unacceptable but asserts the dire predictions of Gaddafi being on the brink of slaughtering rebels was a major exaggeration. "In hindsight, there's all kinds of evidence that was not even anywhere close to what was going to be happening in Libya. Throughout the process, Gaddafi and his sons wanted to negotiate a settlement and a peace agreement and Hillary and the Europeans said no. They just wanted to get rid of Gaddafi," said Hoekstra. In the debate, Clinton said Libya was on the path to democracy until outside factors intervened. "They voted for moderates. They voted with the hope of democracy. Because of the Arab Spring, because of a lot of other things, there was turmoil to follow," she said. Again, Hoekstra is baffled by Clinton's interpretation of events. "Chaos followed? No, disaster followed," he said. "Sure they had an election but the jihadists were well enough organized that this new government never effectively took control of the country. Europe, America, we walked away. Read the papers every day. It is a state of chaos. It is an ungoverned region." But worst of all, Hoekstra says Libya is a mess because the U.S. teamed up with some of the most radical Islamist elements on earth. "In Libya, we allied ourselves with jihadists who had American blood on their hands. They recruited and they fought in Afghanistan and Iraq and we allied with them," said Hoekstra. Hoekstra fears we may soon learn that the weapons used by jihadis in Libya and elsewhere came from NATO and then took them to the Middle East under the pretense of ousting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. He says these radical elements the Obama administration trusted in Libya are now perpetrating the worst horrors seen in generations. "They never got rid of Assad. What they did is they morphed into what today we call ISIS, which is operating a genocide against Christians in Syria and Iraq and now holds large geographic parts of both of those countries," said Hoekstra. More than a year after Gaddafi was killed, terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on September 11. 2012. Ambassador Chris Stevens was murdered along with Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. In the Democratic debate, Clinton suggested the death of Stevens came with the job of serving in a volatile part of the world. "Unless you believe the United States should not send diplomats to any place that is dangerous, which I do not, then when we send them forth, there is always the potential for danger and risk," said Clinton. Hoekstra says any educated assessment of the unrest in Benghazi should have prevented our ambassador from being there without a major security upgrade. "That's not a place for an American ambassador to go unless he's got an enhanced security detail traveling with him. He was sent anyway. He was sent to a facility where they'd been cutting back on security. The real question we're going to have to find out is why was he there and why were we allowing jihadists to actually provide security for the facility where he was staying," said Hoekstra. While Hoekstra says Clinton still owes Americans a lot of critical information, he says one fact about the entire Libya operation remains the most chilling. "President Obama and Hillary Clinton, for the first time in American history, made the decision that you could work with, you could manage and you could trust radical jihadist groups. That is a a huge mistake. These people want to attack, they want to destroy and they want to eliminate the American way of life. This president and this secretary of state thought that these were groups that we could work with," said Hoekstra. |
| Time to End 'Top Down' Leadership |
| Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:03:05 EST 'Top down' leadership from both parties has failed the American people and House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, R-Georgia, says Republicans need to rally around a consensus candidate who can heal GOP divisions and foster a 'bottom up' approach that gives Americans the strongest voice in their government. House Republicans are in waiting mode as they work towards electing a new Speaker of the House. John Boehner, R-Ohio, is planning to resign Oct. 30 but has indicated he would stay until a successor is chosen. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-California, was expected to replace Boehner but abruptly withdrew his name from consideration Oct.8. Price was a candidate for House Majority Leader until McCarthy ended his bid for speaker and decided to stay in his current position. While the conservative House Freedom Caucus is endorsing Rep. Dan Webster, R-Fla., many GOP critics of Boehner say the election of speaker ought to be less about who takes the job and more about respecting the conservative members of the conference and fighting harder to enact the policy changes that earned the party sizable majorities in the House and Senate last year. Price strongly agrees. "I think the concerns are real and valid. Everyone who goes to Washington, by and large, has given up something significant to go to Washington to try to solve big problems. The House, through Republican and Democratic leadership, has been a top down model of leadership. That's not the way you get things done in a manner that allows each and every American citizen to know that their representative is having a direct effect on the outcome of legislation in Washington," said Price. He says Republican leaders need to demonstrate that they recognize who truly holds the power. "All of us understand and appreciate that we're not going to get everything that we individually want, but we want to make certain that every member of Congress, every member of the House has an opportunity to effect the outcome. As long as that works from a bottom up process standpoint, I think you get much more buy-in, much more unity and a greater opportunity to represent the American people," said Price. Price admits significant tensions persist within the House Republican Conference but he says a bitter fight for the speaker's chair is a prescription for disaster. "Having talked to over two-thirds of our conference over the last three weeks or so, I know that the divisions are deep and the fissures are significant. I believe that having a contested election right now will in fact deepen those divisions and widen those fissures," said Price. To Price, the task ahead is for a frayed conference to rally around one leader. "I'm desirous of having the Republican Conference rally around, in a consensus way, one individual that can pull us together and unify us so that we can work together in way that allows us to move these pieces of legislation to solve the challenges that we have over to the Senate and then demand and challenge them to do their work," said Price. Since McCarthy's exit from the speaker's race, many members are urging House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan to step up to the job but he has repeatedly distanced himself from that notion. Price says he would be happy to see his predecessor on the budget committee take the job, but he insists the key is to find someone everyone can agree upon - even if that person is him. "I think Paul Ryan would be a great one. I really do. Paul is an individual who can pull us together and move us forward in a positive way. If that's not to be, there are a number of folks I think that could fill that bill. If the conference thinks that I'm capable of being that unifying candidate, then we certainly would be willing to do so," said Price. However events play out in the coming days, Price says what may look like dysfunction inside the House Republican Conference is really the GOP trying to respond appropriately to an unprecedented event and setting the stage to better serve the voters that sent them to Washington. "This is an historic time. We've never had, in the history of the country, a sitting speaker resign mid-term without a scandal. This is a remarkably challenging time but it's a time where there's great opportunity to select an individual as speaker who can unify our conference, address the challenges we have and move forward in a very, very positive way," said Price. |
| 'His Legacy Is Already Shot' |
| Thu, 15 Oct 2015 16:22:03 EST President Obama says thousands of U.S. troops will stay in Afghanistan beyond his initial 2017 withdrawal date but will not be resuming combat operations. A decorated U.S. general says the troop decision is a good one but Obama is being disingenuous about the mission. On Thursday, Obama announced that troop levels will remain at about 9,800 through most or all of 2016. Instead of drawing down at that time to a force needed to secure our embassy, Obama says about 5,500 troops will stay in Afghanistan since the government forces there are not ready to secure their nation alone. While the decision reflects ongoing challenges in Afghanistan, frequent critics of Obama are glad to see him adjust his withdrawal plan to meet specific threats. "I'm glad to hear it. He has obviously has listened to the commanders on the ground there and has made this decision," said retired U.S. Army Lt. General William "Jerry"Boykin, who served as commander of all Green Berets and later as deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence. Boykin says he's heartened that Obama apparently learned a lesson after failing to secure a Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq and conducting a complete withdrawal that Boykin and others believe triggered tremendous instability and allowed for the rise and success of ISIS. "His legacy is already shot and is not recoverable with regard to Iraq. I think he's trying not to make the same mistake in Afghanistan," said Boykin. Despite being pleasantly surprised by Obama's decision, Boykin does have several lingering concerns about U.S. policy in Afghanistan, starting with the residual troop numbers being approved. "I don't personally think that the 5,500 number or even the 9,800 number is necessarily the right number for what he is trying to achieve," said Boykin. Another irritation for Boykin is that U.S. forces will be engaged in dangerous missions but the president insists our combat days in Afghanistan are over. "It's inconsistent to say the combat mission has ended and then say we're going to keep forces there to do counter-terrorism. What that means is we're going to stay there and try to kill the Taliban. We're going to search out terrorist leaders. We're going to probably target ISIS. Tell the guys on the ground that's not a combat mission," said Boykin. But the general is encouraged that Obama appreciates that the job is far from done in Afghanistan. "It's very clear from the fact they've taken Kunduz that the Taliban is resurgent . As we have pulled back into, essentially, our bases, the Taliban has gone back into the countryside and recruited more, gained a lot of strength and that's why they were able to take the city," said Boykin. However, if the U.S. forces are going to be tasked with hunting and killing terrorists, Boykin says military rules of engagement should be adjusted to allow troops to do their jobs. "Our rules of engagement have to reflect the tactical considerations and not the political considerations. We know what the rules of warfare are. We know the the international laws require. We know what our military is supposed to do but we have got to let them have the rules of engagement that will not only protect them but will give them the margin for success," said Boykin. Many military figures both active duty and retired have complained about restrictive rules of engagement that prevent effective operations in an effort to eliminate any possibility of civilian casualties or collateral damage. A recent case in point was the missile strike that recently hit an Afghan hospital. Boykin says that is deeply regrettable but can't be an excuse to hamstring our mission. "They have to be able to engage. There are bad things that happen in wartime. That hospital the other day was a terrible situation but it was not deliberate. These kind of things happen and unfortunately rules of engagement have been so restrictive that our troops on the ground there. All you have to do is talk to them. The troops on the ground there are frustrated by the fact they can't engage the enemy because of the rules of engagement," said Boykin. |
| 'They Know We Have Very Weak Leadership' |
| Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:22:15 EST Retired U.S. Army Maj. General Paul Vallely says there is no doubt Russia is running the show in Syria and he says the only successful path forward is convincing Vladimir Putin to abandon the Assad regime for the good of Russia and the region. Vallely recently spent several days in Europe, evaluating the refugee crisis and meeting with key officials, most notably Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov, who serves as Putin's chief envoy to Syria and the Middle East. The general says Bogdanov didn't say much but listened intently and certainly conveyed the belief that Putin is calling the shots in Syria. "They know we have very weak leadership in the United States. We have no strategy that works or will work in the Middle East. He knew that Russians were basically controlling the chessboard and nothing will happen in Syria unless something is done with the Russians. That's just the way it is," said Vallely. During their talks in Paris, Vallely laid out his multi-point plan for solving the Syrian crisis to Bogdanov. "Nothing will happen in Syria, as I've said on TV, radio and to the ambassador until Assad retires and is removed," said Vallely, who urged the Russians to take several immediate steps. "First thing, cease fire. Quit bombing the Free Syrian Army and civilians that the Russians have been doing. They been hitting almost no ISIS targets at all. We got this from inside Syria through our intel operatives there. Assad's got to step down, be replaced by a new government and then they can proceed with the reunification and restoration and get Syria pulled back together as a unified country and people," said Vallely, who still firmly believes that supporting the Free Syrian Army is the smartest way to achieve a secular, stable Syria. The Vallely plan calls for Assad to be deposed and a resettlement zone to be established in western Syria to allow for the return of refugees while a coalition consisting of the U.S., Russia and several other regional nations to destroy ISIS. Once successful, Syrians would be returned to their towns and villages and a redevelopment and reconstruction plan would be implemented to get the nation back on it's feet. Of course, there's one major problem facing the plan before it even starts: Russia is a staunch ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and says its entire purpose for the current military operations to keep Assad in power and remove the threat to his rule. Vallely admits changing Putin's mind about Assad will not be easy, but he says the key is to use more carrot than stick. "How do you make Putin a hero in all this? Well, number one, he can be the one that helps unify Syria. He can be the one that helps destroy ISIS. Third, they can be part of the economic development program for a new Syria," said Vallely. "It's like 'Let's Make a Deal.' Like Donald Trump says, you can make a deal with these guys but there has to be something in it for them. What's in it for them in the long term is an oil pipeline across Syria, the benefits of reconstruction and development of high tech cities and manufacturing in Syria. So a lot of things could be done that Russia would benefit from," said Vallely. Vallely also traveled to Vienna to observe the human tide of refugees entering Europe. He says the simplest answer is to end the fighting in Syria under a new government and return the refugees. He says that's vital because there's no way of knowing how many radicals are mixed in with the migrants. "The problem is they're not vetting any of them. Unless you vet them and profile them in some way, you're never going to find out. Obviously, ISIS is using the refugee program to infiltrate into Europe," said Vallely. He says a major headache for European nations is that many of these people have enough money to buy train tickets to other European nations and once there they can declare refugee status, which must be honored under existing agreements. Vallely believes most of them want to return to their homelands, but in the meantime, they are quickly changing the complexion of Europe. "Paris is overrun by Muslims right now. It is incredible. Even the beggars on the street were elderly women or young, pregnant girls. But Paris has been overrun. It's an incredible situation to see," said Vallely. |
| Refugees Part of ISIS Plan to Trigger Apocalypse |
| Fri, 2 Oct 2015 15:45:51 EST ISIS is behind the refugee crisis currently afflicting Europe, and radical Islam expert Robert Spencer says the surge is part of a five-year plan designed by radicals to trigger their apocalyptic vision. Spencer is director of Jihad Watch at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. His latest book is "The Complete Infidel's Guide to ISIS." In recent weeks, hundreds of thousands of alleged Syrian refugees have arrived in Turkey, Greece and eastern European nations like Hungary and Serbia. Spencer says was no spontaneous human tide. He says ISIS is right on schedule. "They threatened last February to send 500,000 refugees into Europe, and they said they were going to have their jihadis among them. The Lebanese education minister just last week said that of the 1.1 million refugees in his country from Syria, there were at least 20,000 active jihadis," said Spencer. The flow of refugees is often labeled as Syrian, but Spencer says the reality is far different. "Eighty percent of these people are not actually Syrians. They come under the guise of Syrian refugees but they've been discovered to be from all over the Middle East. Their accents betray them. Egyptian Arabic and Moroccan Arabic and Algerian Arabic and Lebanese Arabic are all very different. They show themselves not to be Syrian," said Spencer. "They have forged Syrian passports. They're coming in under the guise of refugees, but they obviously have a very different agenda," he added. Not only does Spencer say the refugees were sent west by ISIS, he believes is part of a nightmarish goal. "They think they are going to bring down several major nations in the next few years and conquer Rome by 2020, just five years from now, obviously not by conventional warfare but by infiltration and subversion like this refugee crisis." said Spencer. He says the radical Sunnis believe the fall of Rome would trigger a massive battle between Muslims and non-Muslims, leading to a Muslim victory and eventually Islamic domination of the earth. Spencer calls that "apocalyptic fantasy" but says the ISIS threat continues to gather steam because world leaders and President Obama in particular refuse to identify the threat. "The Obama administration, as Obama underscored again at the UN, refuses to acknowledge the ideology that guides and motivates and helps the Islamic State among Muslims. Thirty thousand foreign Muslims have now joined it from all over the world," said Spencer. He says ISIS has been very clear what drives its actions. "The Obama administration is saying it has nothing to do with Islam. while the Islamic State is appealing to Muslims on the basis of Islamic texts and teachings. Until we acknowledge that and devise some way to counter it, they're going to continue to make recruits among peaceful Muslims in that way but the Obama administration is in complete denial," said Spencer. "You cannot defeat an enemy you don't understand. You especially can't defeat an enemy you refuse to understand," he said. But is ISIS recruiting through a badly warped interpretation or manipulation if Islam or are they espousing it in its purest form. To Spencer, the answer is clear. "Pretty much 100 percent. Everything ISIS does is very carefully based on the Quran and the teachings of Muhammad in the Hadith. So they are able to point to chapter and verse and show Muslims, 'See, we're the authentic Islamic caliphate because we're doing what Muhammad did. We're doing what the Quran says and other Muslim groups aren't," said Spencer. While other Muslim groups are not joining ISIS, Spencer says he's noticing what else they're not doing. "There are no Muslim groups in the United States today, not a single one, that has any program to teach young Muslims why they should reject the ISIS ideology, even though they all condemn and reject it," said Spencer. Spencer says defeating ISIS will take force and a long-term ideological campaign to dissuade young Muslims from embracing radical Islam. He says ISIS could be defeated militarily in a matter of weeks but the U.S. just isn't serious about winning. "The airstrikes that the Obama administration has sponsored have largely been cosmetic. They haven't hit the most vulnerable areas. They haven't hit the leadership. They haven't hit the long convoys that we see in photographs. When ISIS takes a city and there's these huge strings of trucks and cars going in and parading around. They don't hit these obvious targets. They haven't hit the black market oil tankers, nothing like that," said Spencer. |
| Government Computer Networks Still Show 'Persistent Weaknesses' |
| Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:18:45 EST A new government report shows the computer networks of 24 federal agencies still do not have adequate security systems in place and are vulnerable to cyber attacks, and former CIA Director R. James Woolsey says it's completely unacceptable "It needs to improve a great deal and it needs to improve fast," said Woolsey, who served as the nation's top intelligence official from 1993-1995. He is now chairman of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. At issue is a Government Accountability Office, or GAO, study showing the government is still playing catch-up when it comes to cyber security. "The GAO found 'persistent weaknesses' at 24 federal agencies, including deficiencies in how organizations prevented inappropriate access to computer networks, identified intrusions and planned for a network disruption," reported The Hill newspaper, which also quoted the report's diagnosis of the problem. 1cThese deficiencies place critical information and information systems used to support the operations, assets, and personnel of federal agencies at risk, and can impair agencies' efforts to fully implement effective information security programs, 1d according to the GAO. Woolsey says the feds continue to drag their feet on an issue proven by recent hackings to be a national priority. "It is frustrating to find these things, report after report after report. Such and such a group is behind, such and such a group has not gotten started," said Woolsey. "As MacBeth said, 'Tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow.'" In June, the Office of Personnel Management reported a major hack of personnel files, most likely by the Chinese. Over the ensuing weeks, the government admitted nearly 20 million personnel files were compromised along with more than five million fingerprints. So is the sluggish response by the federal government simply the result of the time needed to implement major changes? Woolsey thinks there is still not enough urgency. "I think there's still a kick in the pants needed. I think people have not really zeroed in on how serious it is," he said. And if the government networks have suspect security, Woolsey says it stands to reason the private server emails of officials such as Hillary Clinton make an especially inviting target that our adversaries almost certainly pursued. "Whoever discovered that and began to exploit it would be the toast of the town within Moscow or Beijing or wherever they found out about it," said Woolsey. The urgency also takes on greater importance when considering Chinese ambitions in their sphere of influence and Russian aggression that now includes bombing the non-ISIS opponents of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. "We're in a situation now that is stunning, with Russia ordering us to stay out of their way in the Middle East. Try to imagine what the response of Teddy Roosevelt or Harry Truman or Andrew Jackson would have been if the Russians has said, 'Stay out of X,'" said Woolsey. The former CIA boss says it is imperative that President Obama personally and publicly demand better from our government right away.. "This is something people are only going to pay attention to if the president makes it a high priority. The problem is now, because he's been running a weak foreign policy, he's got to have a lot of priorities. He's got to put his finger in a lot of different dikes," said Woolsey. "One that he's got to plug the leakage on is this and he needs to make it a personal matter that he brings home to all the agency heads in homeland security and defense and elsewhere," said Woolsey. While Woolsey sees no good excuses for government inaction, there are obstacles to progress, both political and technical. "Some of it is concern about civil liberties that I think is manageable. Some of it is the nature of the web. Some of it is government bureaucracy not responding well and quickly to serious dangers because it interferes with the normal path of business," said Woolsey, who adds that officials in the public and private sectors are sometimes reluctant to spend additional money on cyber security because they consider other issues more pressing. Aside from the bureaucratic nightmares, Woolsey says it's hard to keep developing tools to fend off the ever-changing cyber threats. "You're starting from a position in which you're walking uphill in trying to make transitions and so forth on the web secure. But it's not impossible. There's a lot we can do that we've been slow on, but it's a frustrating undertaking for a lot of people and it's easier to play offense than defense," said Woolsey. |
| Why Won't Obama Call it Genocide? |
| Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:03:11 EST ISIS brutality continues to intensify, the future of Christianity in the Middle East is at stake, and the refugee crisis could soon be exponentially worse, but President Obama refuses to do much of anything, according to one of the nation's leading voices on human rights. Former Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., is now a distinguished senior fellow at the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative. He says despite all the talk at the United Nations this week and over the past couple of years, no one seems willing to label ISIS atrocities for what they really are. "The first thing we have to do to focus attention on the region is to declare what is taking place to Christians, Yazidis, Shia and other religious minorities is genocide. It meets the Rafael Lemkin definition of genocide," said Wolf. Lemkin was a Polish-born Jew who escaped after Nazi Germany invaded in 1939. Five years later he coined the term "genocide" and defined it. "It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group 1d wrote Lemkin in his 1944 book, "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. Wolf is mystified and frustrated by the failure of the United States or other leading nations to use the term in connection to the barbarity of ISIS. "For the world not to be calling it genocide is unbelievable. For President Obama not to be calling it genocide, for (U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) Samantha Power who wrote the classic book on genocide (is unbelievable). It is genocide," said Wolf. Wolf believes without quick action, ISIS will join the list of Cambodia, Rwanda and Bosnia as genocidal horrors we look back on and wish we had done something about much sooner. He says not doing what is takes to stop ISIS is even more inexcusable than the others on that list. "All the other people that have done genocide have tried to hide it. ISIS is not hiding it. They are showing what's going on," said Wolf. Beyond Obama's failure to label ISIS horrors as genocide or mount a concerted effort to defeat it, Wolf says the president does the effort great harm by downplaying the motivations for ISIS murders, by referring to 21 beheaded Coptic Christians only as Egyptians or 148 slaughtered Kenyan Christians only as Kenyans. But it goes even further. Wolf points to the Obama administration stopping the truth from coming out about what's happening in ISIS-controlled areas. "There were some Catholic nuns who wanted to come into the country and the administration denied their visa. We were with Sister Diana a couple of months ago. We wanted to bring her here so she could (tell what was happening). The administration initially denied her visa. There are some Catholic nuns who want to come over here for different reasons. The administration has denied their visas," said Wolf, who says the administration lacks a coherent approach to defeat the group responsible for the murders of several Americans. "The administration, quite frankly they've been silent. They really do not have a policy," said Wolf. He says the difference between the Obama response to ISIS and the George W. Bush response to another humanitarian crisis is stark. "When (former Sen.) Sam Brownback and I went to Darfur, we came back, we put in a resolution. Congress got behind it. Colin Powell called it genocide in Darfur. President Bush called it genocide. This administration is doing almost nothing and the people there feel fundamentally abandoned," said Wolf. However, Obama's inaction is not the only frustration for persecuted believers. Wolf says they also want to know where their fellow Christians are. "Almost to a person, every person we met with, particularly the Christian community, felt abandoned by the West. The Yazidi community felt abandoned by the West. I had a couple people say, 'Doesn't the church in the West care about us?" said Wolf. Wolf says the tide can be turned and he believes a declaration of genocide against ISIS is the trigger to a meaningful response. "The administration and the Congress and the UN need to call what is taking place in that area genocide. By doing that, we will honor the victims but we will also begin to put in place a policy that deals with what's taking place out there," said Wolf. As for the details of stopping ISIS, Wolf favors a multi-layered approach. He advocates an oil embargo to cut off the revenue stream for ISIS. He then favors direct aid to the Kurdish Peshmerga, rather than sending assistance through Baghdad where the Shia-led government only passes along a tiny fraction of materials to the Kurds. Wolf advocates for U.S. special forces to provide training to the Peshmerga and to the Ninevah Plains Protection Unit, a collaboration of Christians, Yazidis and others committed to protecting their homeland. Wolf and others from the Wilberforce Initiative went to Iraq in January and weeks later issued a bleak report on the future of Iraqi believers. He says things are only getting more desperate. "It's intensified. It's much, much worse," said Wolf. Without intervention, Wolf says, the human toll will only swell and that means the refugee crisis hitting Europe will look like nothing compared to what's coming. In addition, he says the human tide entering Europe presents a major national security challenge. "There's a real danger. I must say it. Some of the refugees that are going to come in are going to be ISIS people. There have even been reports that some of the people going into Europe are actually connected to ISIS," said Wolf. "It isn't just Syrians. You're getting people from Eritrea, from Afghanistan. Did you see what took place in that town in Afghanistan? The whole town was taken over by the Taliban. Unless ISIS is stopped, this thing is going to get so bad that Europe will not be able to withstand all the refugees coming," said Wolf. In another troubling twist, Wolf says Christians are rarely part of the refugee masses because they don't feel safe among them. "They are part of it but they are not part of the refugee camps, mainly because the Christians and Yazidis are fearful even when they're in the UN camps. I won't go into detail what they said but they are very, very fearful. You're finding Christians and Yazidis generally going into individual homes. Many of the Christians are not going north. Many are coming into Lebanon," said Wolf. Wolf says the bottom line is that ISIS must be stopped. "Call it genocide so we can mobilize the world to fight what's taking place in the region. Otherwise, during out lifetime, we're going to see the extinction of Christianity in the cradle of Christianity," he said. |
| 'It's About Strategy' |
| Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:20:55 EST The congressman who first challenged House Speaker John Boehner for his job at the beginning of the year says he's not surprised by Boehner's resignation and implores House Republicans to worry less about the new leaders than to forge a commitment to solve the nation's problems with a bold determination to pursue conservative principles. Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., challenged Boehner for the speaker's chair at the start of the 114th Congress in January. Several other Republicans followed Yoho's lead. Boehner survived the insurgency but only after 25 House Republicans voted against Boehner. While most of Washington was stunned by the timing of Boehner's announcement on Friday, Yoho was not. "It was anticipated. We saw that coming. There was just too much pressure on him to move on. I'm not taking anything away from Mr. Boehner for what he has accomplished, but at this point in time in our country's history, we need truly different leadership," said Yoho. On Friday, Boehner scoffed at suggestions he could lose a subsequent vote for speaker and that he simply didn't want to put his members through another ugly, public fight. Yoho says we'll never know if Boehner critics would have won such a vote, but he says it would have been nowhere near the cakewalk that Boehner predicted. "Yeah, it was going to be very contentious. I say that because people were coming up to me that had talked to the rank and file and said if another vote came up for speaker, they couldn't support him. I think that was building up," said Yoho. Yoho and other conservatives have several frustrations with Boehner's leadership, but he says the lack of principled planning to tackle critical issues was perhaps most aggravating and the new angst over the debt ceiling is a perfect example. "We've had two years to deal with the impending debt and it's not like it was going to go away. It was going to have to be dealt with. We started negotiating about five days ago," said Yoho. Yoho says House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers repeatedly asked Boehner for "conferences, strategy sessions, hearings to decide what we're going to do about this" but he says Boehner never acted. "There's multiple examples like that. We need to start solving the American citizens' problems or the problems of our country," said Yoho. On debt, he says a long term solution wouldn't be very difficult, especially after Congress kicks the can down the road to December. "From this point forward, after we resolve it December 16. It shouldn't be an issue two years from now because we should have the funding mechanisms in place and reforms made to where we don't have to have this discussion," said Yoho. The next chore for House Republicans is to choose new leadership. As expected, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., announced Monday he would be running to replace Boehner. Many reports suggest McCarthy already has enough GOP votes locked up to win the race. Yoho isn't ready to assume that's the case. "No, I think it's open," he said. "Kevin's well-liked but, leadership-style, what would be the difference between him and a John Boehner?" Reports suggest that despite McCarthy's closeness to Boehner, conservative members are warmer to him because he is more respectful and considers the opinions of all members. Does that ring true for Yoho? "No, I can't say that," said Yoho. "Again, it's not so much listening as the strategy. It's like why haven;t we been strategizing on the debt ceiling from two years ago? Why are we not dealing with [Department of Homeland Security] funding that we fought at the beginning of the year. The highway transportation fund bill is coming up real soon again." Yoho says Republicans need to get out of the habit of dealing with issues only while the clock ticks down to zero on various deadlines and then coming up with short-term responses that just set the stage for more dysfunction weeks or months later. "These short term fixes waste our time because you're always doing crisis management. If you sit down in committees and you work through a problem and get membership buying into it, you do that by bringing members in and saying, 'What are your thoughts on this? How would you like to deal with this?' If we did that, we wouldn't have near the problems," said Yoho. However, the leadership gets sorted out, Yoho wants the GOP members to have a robust debate and get firm plans and promises from those vying for key positions of speaker, majority leader and beyond. "I want to make sure we sit in front of conference, air our differences, and the people that want to run for speaker get vetted, kind of like a campaign. You ask them where they're going to be. They have responses that are recorded so we do have accountability to people. And we want an open process, where people come and they tell us what our agenda is and what we're trying to accomplish for the next year and project into the next congress," said Yoho. |
| 'Great Day for Conservative, Great Day for Freedom' |
| Fri, 25 Sep 2015 16:21:58 EST House Speaker John Boehner announced Friday he would resign from Congress October 30 and one of the core groups behind the tea party movement could not be happier. "Great day for conservatives, great day for freedom," said FreedomWorks President and CEO Adam Brandon, who organization led petition drives and encouraged Americans to demand the resignation of Boehner. FreedomWorks was a key player in organizing the tea party, which fueled public resistance to ideas like the Wall Street bailout, the Obama stimulus and the Obama healthcare overhaul. Passage of those items and others despite public revulsion led to a Republican House majority in 2010. Boehner became speaker, but Brandon says he failed to live up to the promises that made him the most powerful man in Congress. Brandon says this is the latest win for the tea party and follows on the heels of a stunning rejection of the House GOP leadership last year. "This started when Dave Brat defeated (then-House Majority Leader) Eric Cantor in Virginia. After every one of those victories, you always hear the same thing. 'Oh, the tea party movement has died out. Oh, it doesn't have that much of a political bite in Washington.' Every single time that happens, this roars back to life," said Brandon. "Speaker Boehner was defeated by members of the House Freedom Caucus and the House Freedom Caucus has its direct lineage in this grassroots movement," he added. On Friday, Boehner said he wanted to avoid a contentious vote inside the GOP conference but insisted he made up his mind that morning and was leaving on his own terms. Brandon strongly disagrees. "He woke up and realized after some meetings yesterday that this House Freedom Caucus was going to stay together and he was out of options," said Brandon. While the timing of Boehner's decision surprised a lot of people, conservative discontent was palpable for years. Just prior to the summer recess, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., introduced a resolution to remove Boehner as speaker. It was not acted upon, but Brandon believes that was the handwriting on the wall for Boehner's time in the speaker's chair. "Mark Meadows' resolution was kind of a sword of Damocles hanging over the speaker's head. Everyone laughed at it and laughed earlier in the year at a motion in which 25 people back in January said they didn't want the speaker. I think people went from laughing to smirking to getting nervous," said Brandon, who says anywhere from 50-70 House Republicans were ready to reject Boehner. So why was a growing number of House Republicans ready to cast Boehner aside? Brandon says there were multiple reasons, starting with high-profile failures. "From 'cromnibus' to the failure to stand up on Iran to a failure to do anything real big, that's not why you have a Republican majority. You have a Republican majority to do things and they weren't really doing anything," said Brandon. "There were over 40 or 50 show votes on Obamacare but when it really came to defund Obamacare, nothing happened." Another point of frustration for many grassroots activists was their belief that Boehner constantly surrendered ground to the president. "There was too much negotiating against himself and not enough standing up to President Obama. President Obama has been relentless in pursuing his agenda. He puts his lines in the sand down on 'if you don't fund Planned Parenthood, I'm going to veto everything.' Then Boehner would quickly go back and say, 'Oh okay, how about this? How about this?'" said Brandon. Brandon says that was a sure-fire prescription for failure. "That's not how you negotiate. You negotiate from a position of strength. 'Here's what we demand. Here's where we are. You say where you are and then we'll sit across the table," added Brandon. Boehner and his allies often made the case that tea party demands were unrealistic, noting there was only so much Republicans could so long as Obama was in the White House and Democrats ran the Senate until this year. Brandon is having none of that. "That is the lamest excuse in the world. So basically when everything's perfect and there's sunshine, we can play baseball. No, you have a Republican majority in the Senate. You have a Republican majority in the House. Do something with it," said Brandon. Most reports suggest House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., is likely to succeed Boehner as speaker. Brandon isn't convinced that's a slam dunk. "I think there's going to be a very robust battle for speaker. I would love to see someone like Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) step up. Jeb Hensarling is responsible for stopping the Import-Export Bank. He's always stood on principle. Let's get someone like that in office," said Brandon. Even if McCarthy does become speaker, Brandon is hopeful he will have learned from Boehner's fate. "Even if it is McCarthy, I think he knows the only reason he's majority leader is the tea party with Dave Brat beat Eric Cantor. Now I think he knows the only reason he would be speaker is because the House Freedom Caucus beat Boehner. He should have a pretty good idea of how he got to the office he's in," said Brandon. |
| 'Obama Doesn't Know How to Play Hardball' |
| Thu, 24 Sep 2015 16:10:38 EST China's aggressive military buildup, troubling alliances and territorial ambitions all require firm resistance when Chinese President Xi Jinping visits the White House, but retired U.S. Army Maj. General Paul Vallely has no confidence that President Obama will do that in their face-to-face meetings. In recent years, most national security concerns in the U.S. have focused on Russia and the threat of Islamic terrorism, but Vallely, who served as Deputy Commanding General, U.S. Army Pacific, says China is giving us plenty of reasons for alarm. "They are developing one of the largest armed forces in the world, a very modern navy in what what we call a blue water fleet, (and) a very rapidly-expanding and modern air force. Their high-tech capability now has expanded enormously over the last ten years," said Vallely. He sees two aspects of Chinese progress that give him the most concern. "I think the expansion of their blue water fleets and the takeover of many island, expanding their influence in the South China Sea, even toward the Philippines is a major threat," said Vallely, who also cited China's development of long-range missiles. The most example of Chinese aggression against the U.S. is the recent cyber attack against multiple U.S. government systems, most notably the hacking of records at the office of personnel management. Some 18 million current and former government employees had data stolen in the attack and this week the government said 5.6 million had their fingerprint data compromised. Vallely says that is another area of great concern. "Along with that would be the cyber security threat that they have been exercising by hitting a lot of our computers in the government and also in our corporations," said Vallely. As for China's long-term goals, Vallely believes the most urgent priorities are fiscal. "Their long-term goals are economic and financial. From that standpoint, we've seen what happened to our stock market because of the currency situation in China. And of course they're holding a lot of our debt that's been issued on paper from our federal reserve," said Vallely. However, he says there are other ambitions as well. "Their goals are their expansion of their power, expansion of their military, their influence not only over there but also their great influence in Africa now as well as in the Middle East," said Vallely. That influence in the Middle East is particularly troubling to Vallely, who says China and it's proxy are helping Iran hide its nuclear progress. "[China's] client state, which is North Korea, has been working with Iran on the development of their nuclear weapons program and it's why we've stated now nuclear weapons are already capable inside Iran because Russia and North Korea have done all the testing," said Vallely. According to Vallely, That's a group of nation's that spells bad news for U.S. interests. "By working with what I call a cabal with China, Russia, North Korea to assist in support of the nuclear program of Iran has been all too apparent for many years," said Vallely. "We're actually enemies of all those states when you look at Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. They work together against us but they use us when they can." Vallely says Obama could push Xi hard on any of those issues and more. But he's not holding his breath. "There are a number of subjects that Obama could approach and relate to the [president] but of course Obama won't focus on the real needs of what the major threats are. I'm sure that [Xi] looks at Obama the way other leaders in the world do with not a lot of credibility and not a lot of respect," said Vallely. The general says adversaries like Russia and China present challenges that Obama just isn't prepared to meet. "The problem is Obama's not the kind of individual that conveys strength. When you're dealing with Russia and China, these are world class leaders and strategists. They play hardball and Obama doesn't know how to play hardball. He'll be at a disadvantage in any engagement or discussion," said Vallely. Vallely says the president should make it clear that the U.S. will not tolerate Chinese aggression. "Certainly put forth that the U.S. is standing tall in the world. We are updating our capability to meet all threats and we will meet those threats. That's what he should say but Lord knows what he'll end up saying. I'm sure it'll be from a position of weakness, which is too bad," said Vallely. |
| Obama Ally Exports Jobs in Crony Capitalism Tantrum |
| Wed, 23 Sep 2015 16:52:31 EST General Electric has been bailed out by taxpayers and been stuffing its coffers out of Americans' pockets ever since, but the corporate giant is shipping 500 jobs overseas after not getting its way on a major policy debate. As reported by energy policy expert and free market advocate Tom Borelli in Conservative Review and in the Wall Street Journal, GE threatened to relocate 500 American-based jobs overseas if Congress did not reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. Congress let the bank expire at the end of June and General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt appears to be following through on that vow. "It looks like Immelt is following through on his retaliation by claiming to move jobs overseas," said Borelli. Immelt has been a very public supporter of President Obama's economic policies and even served on the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. He later was tapped as one of Obama's key economic advisers from outside the administration. Borelli says Immelt is guilty of a very short memory. "We the people bailed out General Electric during the market crash in 2008. In fact, they got a $16 billion loan from the federal reserve. The FDIC also tweaked its requirements that allowed General Electric to be qualified as a bank so that some of GE's loans would be backed again by we the people," said Borelli. "With Immelt, it's a one way street. We the taxpayers have all the burden while he wants all the benefit," added Borelli. Borelli says GE was not as pushy at the government trough before the 2008 financial crisis. Since then, he says the company is the poster child of what's wrong with crony capitalism. "It's a model, really, of corporatism, where he used government to boost profits of General Electric products," said Borelli. He says this relationship between government and business is not how an economy grows. "A free market is great as long as it's free. General Electric uses its lobbying force to try to get government favors in order to boost sales of their products. And the Export-Import Bank is just one of those examples," said Borelli. Borelli says the problem has gotten much worse under President Obama, especially in his pet sectors of the economy, and the collusion is getting very ugly. "The way corporatism has developed through the Obama years, whether you look at Obamacare or green energy, as government has grown, big business has become more and more cozy with big government. They have a great little network of DC insiders who lobby for the laws so they end up benefiting big government and also boosting their sales," said Borelli. Getting back to free market principles is key for Borelli, but time is of the essence. He says the longer business leaders prop up their balance sheets by holding out their hands to government, the harder it will be to convince them to give up the easy money. "There is a growing dependency of big business on big government. Remember, it's not like individual people who may be on individual subsidies like food stamps or some sort of welfare program. Big business has a lot of money to spread around Congress to get special favors," said Borelli. The best way to shake up the system, according to Borelli, is to pursue an issue both parties say is a major priority but never seem to get to: tax reform. "I think fundamental tax reform would be a great way to advance really free markets along with (reducing) corporate taxes as well, bringing a lot of money that's overseas back here. If you really had a simplified tax code or even a flat tax or even a zero flat tax for corporations, they'd have every incentive to keep employees here and grow here, rather than trying to manipulate this system for an individual company's benefit," said Borelli. But before than can happen, he says one important thing must change. "It's going to take a new administration, that's for sure," said Borelli. He says it will also require lawmakers to find the courage to pull away the feeding dish from some of their highest donors. "A number of elected officials benefit as well from these special interests because they get the money to try to really tweak the laws to the favor of big business. That's why every individual needs to be engaged, watch what their representative is doing and then really push for a smaller government. That's really the only answer," said Borelli. |
| Hunting RINOs |
| Tue, 22 Sep 2015 16:28:14 EST Conservative activist Kay Daly is taking aim at incumbent GOP Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., declaring that she is taking aim at RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). At stake is the Republican nomination in the Tar Heel State's second congressional district. Ellmers scored a major upset to win the seat as a tea party candidate in 2010, but Daly says Ellmers quickly abandoned the principles she espoused while running for office. "She's the gift that keeps on giving," said Daly, before listing the issue she thinks ought to disqualify Ellmers from serving another term. "She's a tax and borrow liberal. In her first year in Congress alone, Ellmers voted to increase the debt by more than Hillary Clinton did in eight years as a senator. She refuses to exercise Congress's purse power to defund Obamacare. She's an open borders, pro-amnesty apologist for illegals," said Daly. "She's the one who tried to kill the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act." After exploring a congressional bid by traveling throughout the district, Daly says the GOP-heavy district is ready for a change. "They cannot wait to get a conservative, a real conservative, into office. They can't wait for the election. Most of them, when they found out I was even considering it, they were saying, 'Please run. Please.' [Ellmers] is someone who comes back to the district and gets in arguments with her constituents. It's all over YouTube," said Daly. Daly, whose first ad shows her firing a gun and saying 'I'm hunting RINOs' says the recent actions by the Republican Congress show there needs to be new blood in the majority. "What we have too many of in Congress are millionaires who don't do their job. What we have too few of are folks with titanium spines and political courage. What we need are folks who can go to Washington and actually remember they're conservatives and actually vote their districts," said Daly. There's more than one challenger to Ellmers from the conservative side. Jim Duncan entered the race earlier this year, touting himself as the antidote to Ellmers. Daly says she looks forward to a spirited campaign and hopes Duncan will endorse her in the run-off against Ellmers following the March 2016 primary. Daly says she can better make the case as the conservative challenger to Ellmers because of a lifetime of principled activism. "I've got 30 years worth of a conservative record that I don't think Jim has if one looks closely at his record," said Daly. "I've worked for (former Texas Sen.) Phil Gramm. I've got the support of people like Jim Dobson and Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer." "It's like Ted Cruz said, 'Where have you led and where have you bled?' said Daly. Daly calls her time in Gramm's office a Ph.D-level experience in understanding what public service is all about. She says the lessons learned there stand in stark contrast to the way Ellmers views her job. "He told me time and time again, 'Remember who you work for.' What I'm remembering first and foremost is 'Remember who your boss is.' It's the people of the second district. What my opponent said was after she got there was, 'Oh, my boss is John Boehner," said Daly. Daly flatly refuses to back Boehner or other members of the current House leadership for re-election, and she says they will have no influence on her votes. "I'm going to go to Washington. I'm going to stand on principle. John Boehner, Kevin McCarthy and the rest of them aren't going to change my mind for anything," said Daly, insisting she will not play their game of voting on bills minutes after they are made available for review. "If a thousand-page bill is handed to me half an hour before the vote, I'm going to use the Sen. Mike Lee rule and vote no," said Daly. Several issues will be front and center for Daly if she is elected to Congress, starting with government spending. "When I look at my three children, it's something that is untenable. That's something that has to be gotten into hand right away," said Daly. Immigration is another front-burner issue. "We can't afford to take in everybody anymore. This is the greatest country in the world and we are the most generous country in this world. But the answers Washington has come up with are just completely out of touch with what the rest of the world is feeling. Too many people are out of work too many people are in trouble out there. We have to take care of our own right now," she said. Social issues also matter a great deal to her, especially protecting the unborn and traditional marriage. "These issues are near and dear to my heart. I'll be fighting for the unborn and fighting to get our courts back in line," she said. More information on Daly's campaign can be found at kaydaly.com. |
| 'The Most Expensive Regulation in the History of Regulations' |
| Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:09:26 EST The Obama administration is just weeks away from imposing a new ozone particulate standard that manufacturers say will cripple jobs and productivity in the U.S and leave some firms and industries clinging to life. The National Association of Manufacturers released a study suggesting the standard would cost the U.S. 1.4 million jobs and $1.7 trillion in productivity by 2040 the standard is lowered from 75 parts per billion to 65 parts per billion. The EPA could bring it as low as 60 parts per billion, which the study projects would be catastrophic. For business owners like Summitville Tiles CEO David Johnson, the change would be devastating. The firm is based in Ohio, which relies heavily on manufacturing for jobs and economic growth. Johnson recently wrote a column explaining what's at stake if the Obama administration get's it's way. "We have 88 counties in this state and under this new ozone standard, all 88 of these counties would be out of compliance, just by the stroke of the pen of this executive order of the president," said Johnson. In addition to burdening existing manufacturers, Johnson says the new ozone standard would stifle new business. "It would essentially stop any new projects from going forward unless there were reductions in emissions in other plants in other areas. In other words, there's a trade-off. If you're going to add new emissions, you'd have to reduce emissions somewhere else. So (if you) shut down a factory or a company goes out of business, then and only then would you have a permit to expand your particular operations," said Johnson. According to Johnson, American manufacturing has never received a gut punch like this from its own government. "This is not a bill that's been passed by Congress, hasn't been vetted, hasn't been studied. It's simply President Obama and his EPA's effort to combat what they believe is global warming. So yeah, it would be the most expensive regulation in the history of regulations," said Johnson. Johnson says the looming change is especially maddening when the EPA admits ozone levels are vastly improving over the past few decades. "By EPA's own public admission, concentrations of ozone have actually declined by 33 percent from 1980 to 2013, during the same period of time when the U.S. population had increased by 40 percent and the economy had more than doubled in size," said Johnson. Summitville Tiles has been in business for four generations and for over a century. In recent years, however, Johnson says a 700-member workforce has been trimmed considerably just to stay afloat. The firm is the only remaining member of its national trade association from the ceramic tile industry because most cannot compete with cheaper materials flooding the market from China and Mexico. Johnson says the ozone regulations are part of a looming double whammy that could leave manufacturing in dire straits. "This new Pacific trade agreement is a perfect example of another whole new category of countries that will be given preferential treatment to ship product into the United States to undermine and undercut our products," said Johnson. He added, "At the same time, we're being hammered by these new regulations and those will be very costly to comply with." A public comment period is open before the ozone standard goes into effect, but Johnson thinks voicing opposition to the EPA is a waste of oxygen. He says the only way to fight back is at the ballot box. "Another four years of Obama thinking could do irreparable harm to this country's ability to compete and its ability to provide jobs," said Johnson. He says 2016 must be a change election for the sake of American jobs. "I urge people to get involved in this next election and make sure that there's a change in the White House. That's where it's coming from. This is government by fiat, not government by deliberative democratic process," said Johnson. |
| 'Rip the Place Out By the Roots' |
| Thu, 17 Sep 2015 15:59:14 EST Senate Conservatives Fund President Ken Cuccinelli says the next president needs to be a rock-solid conservative who will "rip the place out by the roots" when they come to Washington, but he says the leadership of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner still amounts to nothing more than pre-emptive surrender. Speaking from Mount Vernon on Constitution Day , Cuccinelli says he thought there was plenty of substance in the three-hour CNN Republican presidential debate but that it could have done without the incessant questions asking candidates to respond to statements their rivals made. "They had talked about making it Lincoln-Douglas style. CNN's idea of Lincoln-Douglas style is just the fact that candidates talk to each other. You know there was no moderator turning to Senator (Stephen) Douglas saying, 'You know, Lincoln says you're short and fat like a fireplug. What do you think of that? Hey Lincoln, Senator Douglas says you're a big, tall, ugly gorilla. What do you think of that?" mused Cuccinelli. The former Virginia attorney general says an actual Lincoln-Douglas style debate would have been much better. "It would be nice to transport them back there and maybe get a little peek at it," said Cuccinelli. "Eventually [the Wednesday debate] got to substance, thankfully, but I think the candidates have a legitimate criticism there." Cuccinelli says he's encouraged by the quality of candidates in the GOP field, but he says the nominee needs to embrace a concept many Republicans don't think about much. "One thing that I have been telling people in Virginia that I think needs to be a very important new consideration is we need a president who will show up and rip the place out by the roots, without apology," said Cuccinelli. He says that sentiment is rampant among conservatives and explains the popularity of the the Republican front-runner. "It's amazing now to see the Trump phenomenon, which is based very much on that, at least the people who are supporting him want that. He's not a conservative but he is very anti-establishment, so he is really generating his support on the anti-establishment side. He's ticking all the right people off," said Cuccinelli. But Cuccinelli says it's still vital for Republicans to nominate a principled conservative. "You can wreck the place but what are you going to build afterwards? Is it going to be something based on the vision of this country and first principles," said Cuccinelli. "That's what I want to see out of the next president and I think we have a very high quality field on the Republican side and there are many candidates who might fit that bill." Cuccinelli says the Senate Conservatives Fund will not be getting involved in the presidential race and he declined to give his personal preferences. However, when asked to list the candidates that did a good job of articulating conservative principles on Wednesday, he mentioned Sens. Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, along with Carly Fiorina and, to some extent, Gov. Chris Christie. While the 2016 presidential race plays out, Cuccinelli is keeping a very close eye on the 2016 appropriations process. A new fiscal year starts Oct. 1 and insistence from Democrats and President Obama on higher spending in many areas has GOP leaders believing a short-term continuing resolution at existing spending levels is the best option. Cuccinelli is thoroughly unimpressed. "That's silly. The habit by Boehner and McConnell of preemptive surrender is really devastating to America and to the people who helped to elect these majorities," said Cuccinelli, who also fumes over McConnell's comments in recent weeks that fights over Planned Parenthood funding and other Republican priorities would have to wait until we have a different president. "How about if you just fight for what's right? How about that? It doesn't even occur to him to do the right thing. I'm a litigator, a negotiator by profession. President Obama, as we've seen with Iran, is an awful negotiator. He's just terrible at it. But John Boehner and Mitch McConnell make him look brilliant by comparison," said Cuccinelli. He believes GOP leaders could be much tougher, from actually passing bills and forcing Obama to veto popular legislation to making Democrats filibuster the old fashioned way by defending their position on Planned Parenthood or Iran for hours on the floor. "Make the Democrats stand up there for hour after hour and defend Iran. Defending Iran! Can you believe we're saying this. Make them do it. Where's the guts on this and, frankly, where are the brains?" said Cuccinelli, who says the public is overwhelmingly supportive of Republican positions on these issues. Republican leaders dismiss Cuccinelli's approach, saying the party will badly lose the public relations battle if there is a government shutdown and President Obama will never back down on issues like funding Planned Parenthood, sanctuary cities and the implementation of the Iran deal. Cuccinelli says the strategy should be much more aggressive. "If it were me and I sent him a budget that defunded Planned Parenthood and he vetoed it and he came back, I'd then send a budget that defunded Planned Parenthood and sanctuary cities. If he vetoed that, I'd send him a budget that defunded sanctuary cities, Planned Parenthood and the Iran deal. You get the idea," said Cuccinelli. He also says McConnell could have effectively killed the Iran nuclear deal. "If a senator put in a resolution to approve the Iran deal as a treaty and McConnell brought it to the floor, of course it wouldn't get two-thirds of the vote (for ratification). I would like to see Sen. (Tom) Cotton do that. Of course I would then expect him to vote against his own resolution to approve it as a treaty," said Cuccinelli. "Then it will be identified by both houses as a treaty and rejected by the Senate, which has [jurisdiction] over treaties. You could immediately be in court with the president for a preliminary injunction to stop the implementation of the Iran deal immediately. That's easy. You don't even have to win any votes. You just have to hold them. Even if it's filibustered, it would put the Senate in the posture where that litigation is available," said Cuccinelli. Despite his frustrations with what he sees as a lack of boldness from the GOP leaders of a congressional majority, Cuccinelli says he still holds out hope that Republicans will fight back against Obama in these critical upcoming voted. However, he says there's only one way that will happen. "I do think tactics can change but they aren't going to change unless the people of this country call their Republican senators and Mitch McConnell and beat them over the head to get change," he said. Thursday afternoon, Republicans unveiled a new push to end taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood. They call for a short-term continuing resolution and a separate vote on defunding Planned Parenthood that would not require the 60-vote threshold. |
| GOP Rep Explains Call to Impeach EPA Boss |
| Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:50:59 EST Nearly two dozen House Republicans are already on board an effort to impeach Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy for allegedly committing perjury and making false statements to Congress as part of her effort to push a controversial new rule on water. Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., is a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He says McCarthy broke the law multiple times before the committee while advocating for the Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, standard. The rule is lauded by environmentalists but critics say it gives the feds power to regulate everything as small as a puddle. "One of the responsibilities of Congress is the power of the purse but there is also oversight. In order to have proper oversight, you have to have agency administrators, directors and secretaries of those agencies speak frankly and about the facts," said Gosar. Despite the EPA's controversial proposals on water, ozone and power plant rules, Gosar says the impeachment is explicitly in response to McCarthy deliberately misleading Congress. Known officially as House Resolution 417, the articles of impeachment drafted by Gosar specifically call three instances into question. It alleges that McCarthy lied to the House Space, Science and Technology Committee when she said that the scientific rationale for proposing government regulation of any water found within 4,000 feet of navigable waters was included in materials provided to the committee. "It is available in the docket 26and that 19s what we relied on, both the knowledge and expertise of our staff, the information that we received from the public and comments and the science that 19s available to us," testified McCarthy, who said her policy had the support of the Army Corps of Engineers. However, Gosar and his allies point to an April 27 memo from Major General John Peabody of the Army Corps of Engineers that describes the EPA wavering between a 4,000 and 5,000 foot boundary and neither number being grounded in sound policy. "EPA staff never provided any scientific support or justification for either a 5,000-foot or 4,000-foot cutoff." said the Peabody memo. In late July, McCarthy appeared before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, where she assured lawmakers that any differences with the Army Corps of Engineers about the rule had been cleared up. "I individually had conversations with [Assistant Secretary of the Army Jo-Ellen Darcy] about the changes that the Army Corps was interested in making, and as the proposal moved through the interagency process I understood that everything had been fully satisfied," testified McCarthy. But document from the Army Corps of Engineers offered a much different version. 1cIn the Corps' judgment, the documents contain numerous inappropriate assumptions with no connection to the data provided, misapplied data, analytical deficiencies, and logical inconsistencies. As a result, the Corps' review could not find a justifiable basis in the analysis for many of the documents' conclusions," the Corps reported. The final incident occurred in McCarthy's testimony before a joint hearing of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, in which McCarthy insisted that WOTUS would not increase the amount of waters regulated by the government. Yet, the EPA's own reports showed the rule would increase jurisdiction by 3.2 percent. Gosar says that kind of deception must be addressed by Congress. "The magic of the American experience is that we've upheld the rule of law for everybody, everybody treated equally beneath the law. If you're not going to have consequences to a bad decision or to mislead Congress or any other aspect of life, that only incubates people to hatch bigger ideas that are not forthright and not abiding by the law," said Gosar. Often times, public officials under oath will make corrections to the record if they give inaccurate testimony or do not have specific information available. Gosar says those sorts of corrections still have not happened. "She said nothing," said Gosar, who says his case is further strengthened by a federal judge hearing a water dispute case in North Dakota. "The judge cited almost exclusively what we put forward in that application, which is that they have put forth false science and the fact there is no science that bases this," said Gosar. In addition to having flimsy or nonexistant science to back up the proposed water rule, Gosar says McCarthy is directly violating the Supreme Court's 2006 ruling on the Clean Water Act that says bodies of water with no significant connection to other navigable waters do not fall under the Clean Water Act and cannot be regulated by the government. Gosar says Congress has two options but only one seems to make sense. "We have the power of the purse. That's been a hard and arduous way when we can't even get the Senate to take up any type of budgetary process. So your second one is impeachment or holding accountable. These are high crimes and misdeameanors, including lying under oath to Congress. The facts speak for themselves," said Gosar, stressing this allegation is not a matter of opinion. "It's hardly my word versus hers. This is the Army Corps of Engineers versus her. She's got problems," he added. Gosar says it's now time for GOP leadership to move on this impeachment effort. "It is time to go on the offense. Hold people accountable for the wrongdoings they do and commit against the American people, use the vestiges of the Constitution which gives us the outline of how we hold them accountable and make the Justice Department do their job. In this case, we make the Senate do their job," said Gosar. If the House were to approve the articles of impeachment, the Senate would be unlikely to find 60 votes to reach a final vote, much less the two-thirds majority to convict and remove. Those facts lead some to conclude that pursuing McCarthy's impeachment is a fool's errand. Gosar vehemently disagrees. "It is time for the cloture rule to go away. It is time for the modern day filibuster to go away. If you want to put your body and soul and sit on the floor and give everything you've got until you're done, that may be fine. There's nothing in the Constitution that talks about the 60 (votes needed to cut off debate). These are modern rules," said Gosar. The congressman says our founders never meant for rules like this to gum up the works. "Our framers only wanted the ability to debate their fellow man with facts in public arenas with freedom of speech and to use the power of persuasion to persuade why they're right," said Gosar. "We need to see the Senate stop hiding behind the 60-vote threshold and get back to how the rules of the Senate once were framed, and that is simple majorities." |
| 'It Puts President Obama's Feet to the Fire' |
| Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:08:30 EST Famed attorney Alan Dershowitz is giving up hope of Congress blocking the Iran nuclear deal but he says Congress can still play a key role in demanding that Iran honor its commitments and having a pre-approved military response ready to go in the event of any violations. Dershowitz taught for many years at Harvard Law School and also served as defense counsel in several high profile cases. He comments frequently on Middle Eastern Affairs. His most recent book is "The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Now Stop Iran from Getting Nukes." Dershowitz says the moment the Corker-Cardin deal was approved, requiring a two-thirds majority to reject the plan in both the House and Senate, there was no chance of lawmakers stopping the president. However, he says all hope is not lost and the best path to preventing an Iranian nuke lies in the first part of the agreement. "The deal itself starts with a re-affirmation by Iran that it will never, ever, under any circumstances seek to obtain, develop or secure nuclear weapons. Nobody has ever heard of that because there is, I believe, a private, secret agreement between the United States and Iran that that part of the deal is not enforceable," said Dershowitz, directly suggesting that the U.S. and Iran are guilty of a major deception that essentially gives Iran a nuclear green light a decade from now. "I think we're being sold a pig in a poke. I think we're being sold a different agreement than the agreement that the two parties, in fact, signed off on," he added. Regardless, Dershowitz says that language in the opening of the deal gives Congress a major opening for a two-pronged strategy. Part one, he says is to turn Iran's anti-nuclear rhetoric into policy. "(They should) say, 'We accept as American policy Iran's re-affirmation, Iran's own promise that it will never, ever, under any circumstances, seek to develop nuclear weapons.' We have to make that an enforceable, integral part of the deal, regardless of what the president of the United States had as a side deal with the Iranians. The deal itself says that. We're entitled to hold them to their word," said Dershowitz. The second part of the Dershowitz plan is to promise a fierce response for any violation of that commitment by Iran. "We need deterrence. We need to make sure that the Iranians know that there is a military option on the table if they cheat and rush to develop a bomb. Right now, they do not believe that the president of the United States will ever engage in military action against them. They think they're free to do whatever they want," said Dershowitz. "We need Congress to authorize the president in advance to use whatever is necessary, including military, to prevent Iran from ever developing nuclear weapons. I think if we get Congress to pass such a statute, it will send a very powerful message," he added. Dershowitz admits Obama may refuse to sign that type of legislation, but that would put the president in a curious position. "If he vetoes it, he's going to have a hard time explaining to his Democratic colleagues why he's vetoing a law which only repeats what's in the deal, number one, and number two, which repeats what he has already said. He believes he has the authority and the will to use whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from developing weapons," he said. Either way, Dershowitz believes the legislation would have a positive impact. "The strength of this proposal is that it puts President Obama's feet to the fire and it makes him tell the American public what this deal really is and what he's promised the Iranians," said Dershowitz. His ideas are already getting a favorable response on Capitol Hill, especially from lawmakers who reluctantly supported the Iran deal. "I've gotten a number of calls from congressmen and senators who voted for the bill and who like my proposal and who think my proposal will make them more comfortable with their own votes," he said. Stunningly, Dershowitz says many of those same lawmakers were quite candid about their opinions of the Iran deal, even though they ended up supporting it. "I have to tell you, I've spoken with a number of senators and congressmen, all of whom voted for the bill pretty much. Not a single one of them told me they liked the deal. Not a single one of them told me they thought it was a good deal. The best they could come up with is maybe it's better than the alternative or it would be bad it Congress voted it down. But nobody that I've spoken to has a good word to say about the deal itself," said Dershowitz. He says that reaction is because it is a bad deal, created by poor negotiating on the part of the Obama administration. "We gave up our competitive advantage. We've taken the military option off the table. We've taken the sanctions off the table. We have nothing. That's why we crossed several of our own red lines and Iranians really didn't cross any of their red lines. They're going around boasting (about) how great this deal is," said Dershowitz, who says all the wrong people like this deal. "Virtually every anti-American person in the world is jumping up and down with joy. People like Noam Chomsky, who hate America, love this deal. People who have been antagonistic to America over the years love this deal," he said. Dershowitz says Obama may have gotten the deal to move forward but it came despite huge majorities in the House, Senate and in public opinion polls roundly rejecting the plan. "You have to ask yourself, in a democracy, is this the way we ought to make important foreign policy decisions?" said Dershowitz. |
| 'It's Not Just A Temporary Move' |
| Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:11:56 EST Russia is aggressively stepping up it's military presence in Syria and a decorated retired U.S. Air Force general says the plan is not just to prop up the Assad regime but to pursue closer ties with Iran to dominate the region and boost it's sputtering economy. Major tank shipments and other weapons have arrived in Syria in recent days and some of that arsenal is already headed out to confront ISIS. Still, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says there's nothing out of the ordinary is happening. "We have always been frank regarding the presence of our military experts in Syria who help the Syrian army in training and learning how to use the equipment," Lavrov said last week. "And if further steps are needed we will stand ready to fully undertake those steps." Retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney says that's just not true. He says there are clear short-term and long-term goals behind the Russian commitment. The immediate priority is to end the stalemate in the Syrian civil war in in favor of its longtime ally. "There's no question that the Russians are in for the full count to support Bashar al-Assad," said McInerney. "Their first challenge is to defeat ISIS but also to defeat al-Nusra, which is a spin-off of Al Qaeda there, and any other adversaries that try to take Bashar al-Assad down." But McInerney believes that's only the prologue. "He's got something much larger in mind. He sees that Iran is going to be the hegemon as a result of this nuclear agreement the Obama administration that the Obama administration has come up with. [Russian President Vladimir Putin] wants to have his chips on the side of the hegemon," said McInerney. "This is not just a temporary move on his part. This is a very important strategic move. He sees a weakness in the U.S. foreign policy and weakness in this administration's desire to support historical allies that the United States has supported. It has both a tactical and a strategic purpose behind it," he added. The Russian-Iranian nexus seems like an odd coupling. Iran is the world's largest sponsor of terrorism and Russia remains strongly committed to stamping out radical Islamic threats in Chechnya, Dagestan and elsewhere. Yet, Russia has led the way in supplying materials for the Iranian nuclear program. McInerney calls it a "strategic attraction." "Clearly, they can sell a lot of weapons to the Iranians. They need the port in Syria because it is the only Mediterranean port that they have. That's very important for the presence in NATO's southern flank. Finally, they need a counter to the United States in the Middle East. If Iran's the hegemon, and it's closely allied with Russia, they benefit greatly," said McInerney. Sanctions relief is also a major consideration for the Russians, according to McInerney. Just as the nuclear talks lifted the fiscal choke hold for Tehran, the general believes Putin is smarting from sanctions targeting Moscow over it's conduct in Ukraine. "The difficulty is the sanctions that we have put on Russia and NATO has and the European Union because of the Ukraine are really driving the Russian economy down. They need to have allies to the south. That could be a strong economic boost to the Russian economy," said McInerney. So what is the proper U.S. response to Russia's maneuvers? McInerney says Congress is embroiled in that right now. "First, I would terminate the Iranian nuclear agreement. That is the most dangerous thing that is going on now. Is it surprising that Russia and China, who are members of the P5+1, strongly supported that agreement?" asked McInerney. "This president will not do that, so what we are left with are tactical issues on what we can do on defeating ISIS, which helps Bashar al-Assad stay in power," he added. That being said, MCInerney agrees that ISIS presents a far more immediate threat than the Assad regime staying in power and strengthening troubling alliances. "We've lived with Bashar al-Assad for a long time. He was on our side in Desert Storm when we went against Saddam Hussein. ISIS must be defeated and that evil ideology of radical Islam must defeated first in the Middle East," said McInerney. McInerney says the Middle East is getting more and more difficult to handle and this latest confluence of trouble stems from poor U.S. leadership in the region. "This president has not left himself with many options that in the long run benefits the United States and our allies, like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, in the Middle East. He hs given his successor a very difficult hand," said McInerney. |
| Refugees, Radicals and the War on Terrorism |
| Fri, 11 Sep 2015 16:16:41 EST A leading terrorism expert says 9/11-style attacks are less likely today but smaller plots are far more likely and that makes diligent screening of refugees or any other immigrant vital for the strength of our national security. As the nation marks 14 years since the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, Pentagon and in Pennsylvania and three years since the deadly assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the likelihood of another grand assault on our homeland is far more remote. "In terms of radical Islamic terrorism, we're certainly more well prepared because of all the lessons learned since 9/11. So I'd say we're safer from a 9/11-style attack that's more sophisticated and, therefore, more easy to intercept," said Ryan Mauro, a professor of homeland security and a national security analyst at the Clarion Project. But Mauro cautions that the diminished threat of a major attack doesn't not mean we're more safe. "We are less safe, I think, from what's sometimes falsely called a lone wolf attack. I say falsely because they are usually working and communicating with somebody. Those smaller attacks are a reason for why we are less safe because of developments overseas, because of the appeal of ISIS, because of the trends that we're seeing overseas and here in the U.S., where there are an increasing number of terror arrests and terror plots," said Mauro. In fact, Mauro says we appear to be losing ground in the battle to stop the spread of radicalization. "What you see is a multiple times over increase in the number of Salafist terrorists, which is the Al Qaeda brand, around the world (and in the) number of attacks around the world," said Mauro. He says the trend here in the U.S. is also very chilling. "Terrorism expert Patrick Poole did a compilation of the different terror-related cases. What he found was that in the first six months of this year it was double that of the past two years combined. The appeal of ISIS, because of their perceived appeal overseas, really caused a spike in radicalization here at home," said Mauro. Rooting out very small plots is much harder for authorities to do, so Mauro advocates screening people coming into the country both for ideology and intent. "You need to screen those that are coming into the United States, not focus solely on the violent illegal act, the person about to set off the bomb. What we need to have is an ideological strategy where we embrace those who stand against the Islamist ideology, Islamists meaning those Muslims that take their faith and they turn it into a political doctrine combining mosque and state, calling for the destruction of Israel," said Mauro. Mauro would also aggressively apply that approach to any refugees the United States considers accepting from the human tide flowing into Turkey, Greece and eastern Europe. "We need to have a massively well-funded process to vet these individuals on an ideological basis, not ties to a terrorist group but what they actually believe and let in as many of those that pass that test as possible," said Mauro, who says statistics show a certain percentage of the refugees probably sympathize with the ones forcing them to flee their homes. "There was a poll done in November 2014 of 900 refugees in the countries surrounding Syria. This is important so that you understand what we're dealing with. Four percent of those Syrian refugees said in those interviews that they had positive feelings toward ISIS. Another nine percent said they are somewhat positive. According to the poll, you're looking at about 13 percent, at least, of Syrian refugees that have sympathies toward ISIS," he said. Anyone seeking to damage the United States could try to slip through the interrogation process, but Mauro says effective screening can still spot the vast majority of radicals, starting with those actually connected to terrorist groups. "If they are so radical, to the point where they decide they're going to infiltrate the system and lie to get in here, there's probably going to be some information at that point about their ties to that group," sad Mauro. He says those persuadable towards radicalism are tougher to see but there are still clues to follow. "You deal with radicals who haven't chosen a group or actually reached out to a group and what do you do about them? That's when you look at their social media account. You go through an interviewing process and you ask them questions about their ideological beliefs, and you can do that with Muslims and non-Muslims," said Mauro. "I think there's nothing wrong with, when you're letting someone into this country, asking them what their opinion is of jihad and democracy," he added. Until those answers can be verified, Mauro says we can send aid to other countries where the refugees are located. "If you're providing them with medical aid, things that can't go to the cause of terrorism, then that's something I could support. But before we allow people into this country, there has to be an ideological vetting process," said Mauro. |
| Lead or Get Out of the Way |
| Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:25:36 EST House conservatives are forcing an effective strategy to fight back against the Iran nuclear deal, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's refusal to lead is imperiling the effort and putting America at risk, according to one of the fiercest House critics of leadership. Heading into this week, House and Senate leaders planned to proceed with votes to accept or reject the Iran deal, knowing full well that opponents did not have enough votes to override a veto from President Obama in the Senate. House conservatives changed the dynamics by refusing to approve the rule to organize debate on the up-or-down vote. Instead, House Republicans will pursue a three-pronged attack. One vote will still focus on the deal itself. Another will declare the president in violation of the Corker-Cardin bill for not handing over the details of side agreements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency concerning nuclear inspections. The final bill would forbid the lifting of U.S. sanctions on Iran until January of 2017. "The new strategy is a good strategy. If we would have gone with the first bill just to disapprove, that would have strictly been a symbolic vote. Plus, we would have been breaking the law we just passed in May, the Corker-Cardin bill," said Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Corker-Cardin required the Obama administration to turn over all text related to the agreement within five days of negotiators signing it. Lawmakers subsequently discovered the secret side deals and the administration will not provide details on it. Yoho says Obama clearly violated the terms of the law he signed. "The president has already gone beyond that time period. He's not given us the full information. Had we taken that vote when we first came back, we'd have been breaking our own law that we just passed and we would have codified the president moving forward with this," said Yoho. While some lawmakers believe the failure to provide the details of the side agreement means the 60-day review period should be paused until that information is provided, Yoho thinks it should qualify as a deal-killer. "I would prefer that it's struck down because we're beyond the time period where he should have been in compliance," said Yoho, who believes Obama's failure to honor Corker-Cardin should result in the agreement being trashed and negotiators heading back to the table. While the strategy is much bolder in recent days, it's likelihood of succeeding borders on impossible, not only because it would be tough to find 60 votes for it in the Senate but because Senate leaders have no interest in trying to fight back. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, sent a letter to McConnell, pleading for the Senate to follow the House lead. McConnell flatly rejected the idea and Corker himself said Thursday that the GOP tried to stop the deal but just couldn't. That's not acceptable for Yoho. "For Mitch McConnell to say we tried and failed, leadership is lead or get out of the way. If that's the way he feels, he needs to get out of the way," said Yoho, who believes the American people are tired of watching the GOP Congress pile up defeat after defeat. "The American people don't want us to try. They want us to do," said Yoho. "The American people are fed up with Congress trying. They want us to resolve these problems. They overwhelmingly don't support this Iran deal and we're the only mechanism in government that can stop this." If Congress fails to reject the Iran deal, as seems increasingly likely, opponents have floated the idea of cutting off funding for implementing the deal during the appropriations process later this month. Yoho is open to that idea but once again fears McConnell does not have any stomach for the fight. "We've already sent appropriations bills to the Senate. We did that last year too and the reason they were never brought up is we could blame (Democratic Leader) Harry Reid. Mitch McConnell's in charge and he hasn't brought one of those up. It's because of the threat Harry Reid may block that," said Yoho. "Again, if you're going to lead, lead. If not, then get out of the way. Bring those bills up. Let the people over there decide. If Harry Reid blocks them, let the American people know Harry Reid is blocking the progress of this country," he added. Yoho says there is no clearer evidence of America's disgust with the current GOP leadership than the current state of the 2016 presidential race. "Look who's leading the polls in the Republican Party. All outsiders: Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina. The American people are hoping people get in there that put politics aside. Don't be a Republican. Don't be a Democrat. Do what's right for America," said Yoho. |
| VA Mess: Lack of Information, Lack of Trust |
| Wed, 9 Sep 2015 16:22:00 EST The Department of Veterans Affairs inspector general says over 300,000 veterans likely died waiting to be added to to the beleaguered federal program and one of the leading congressional investigators says solutions are slow in coming because VA leaders are slow to report critical data and what they do submit often cannot be trusted. Last week, the inspector general reported that 800,000 veterans suffered unacceptable delays in getting their applications processed just to enter the system. That information did not come willingly. It was demanded by Congress. "This is a report that came out from the inspector general simply because our committee asked for it. Now the VA's own inspector general is admitting 800,000 records were stalled in their system," said Rep. Dan Benishek, R-Mich. Benishek was a surgeon for decades at a VA hospital in his district. He is now a member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee and chairman of its health subcommittee. The IG report is latest massive black eye for the VA. In May 2014, whistleblowers revealed veterans were forced to wait months for treatment in many cases and some facilities cooked the books to make it look like care was being delivered in a much more timely fashion. Despite a major reform bill signed into law last year, Benishek says it's unclear what progress is actually being made. "I understand it's difficult to get things moving in government. You need to make some dramatic steps to get this ship turned around, but I don't know that it's actually turning around," said Benishek. A big reason for why lawmakers struggle to chart any improvement at the VA is the stunning lack of cooperation from the VA itself. "If we had facts, if we had the data, then we could make better decisions. The VA's been unforthcoming to provide that data. The administration needs to get up front and center. The president should really make this a priority," said Benishek. Adding to the frustration, says Benishek, is the nagging doubt about the accuracy of the little information the VA does provide to Congress. "They keep saying, 'We're working on it. We're working on it,' and then you heard last year that all the numbers were cooked. It's hard to trust what we get out of them. Frankly, that's a continued problem. Until I see some improvement there I'm going to continue to hammer on them to make faster improvements," said Benishek. So far, it's been one excuse after another. "Just before we left for our break, they told us they were three billion dollars over budget in providing health care for veterans and they didn't even know it because they had 'old software.' This kind of mismanagement can't be tolerated anymore. We need to put a stop to it," said Benishek. One of the most hopeful aspects of the reform package last year allowed veterans to seek health care in the private marketplace and send the bill to the government. The "choice" program was expected to improve care and reduce the backlog, but it hasn't always worked out that way. "It hasn't been working that well because the VA's had a hard time signing up providers for it. I've had veterans complain to me that it hasn't been working for them in all cases. I've had other veterans tell me that it's working okay," said Benishek, who says another massive headache centers around vast disparities in competency and leadership from facility to facility. "Depending on where you are in the country, there's different performance of the VA. There's not a standardized performance nationwide," said Benishek. "If you've been to one VA hospital, you've been to one VA hospital." Another part of the reform bill was the demand for an independent assessment of the VA's practices. That report is due soon and Benishek says he is tentatively encouraged by the executive summary. He says one simple idea that could have a lot of hassle for veterans is for the medical records of active duty military personnel to automatically transfer from the Department of Defense to the VA. But even the simple ideas tend to hit major roadblocks. Benishek says this idea has been tried before and it was a flop. "We've worked with the Department of Defense and the VA Department in the past and both secretaries were in front of me in a committee saying, 'We're going to get this done.' We spent three billion dollars on making it happen and nothing happened," said Benishek. He also believes the VA should study what works best at effective VA hospitals and push those standards and practices on the dysfunctional facilities. "In my district, we have a good VA hospital director. He's been working with us well, solves the problems that we bring to his attention. That should be going on all over the country," he said. Ultimately, he says real progress will require the government making this a top priority and that's not happening right now. He says loud insistence on progress from the American people could make a huge difference. "It's really up to the American people to put enough pressure on the administration to make some real change in the VA," said Benishek. |
| Fearing God More Than Man |
| Tue, 8 Sep 2015 16:22:58 EST A new generation of American Christians is setting an example for courage in the midst of an increasingly hostile culture and the rest of the nation needs to follow that lead if the most cherished of our founding principles are to be preserved, according to Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. Perkins is also author of the new book, " No Fear: Real Stories of a Courageous New Generation Standing for Truth," which focuses on little known stories of mostly young Americans fighting back against the infringement of their rights to free religious expression. Included in the book is a chapter on high school students who defied orders not to pray at commencement, another who recorded the anti-Christian lectures of a history professor and released them, and another on the 14-year-old pageant contestant that testified against gay marriage. Several other stories are shared as well, each of which Perkins connects to an episode of courage in the Bible. Perkins says there are plenty of example of courage in each generation, but he is especially encouraged by the boldness of young believers. "We told that religion and this orthodox view of sexuality or this orthodox view of living out your faith, that's the over-50 crowd. In reality, what we're finding about young people is a greater commitment in devotion to the truth," said Perkins. "It means something for them to say, 'I follow Jesus.' There is a cost to discipleship that these young people are paying and are willing to pay today that we've not seen in times past," he added. Perkins firmly believes this fight over freedom of religious expression is about far more than any individual episode of government or educational leaders trying to stifle speech. "This is for the very future of our country, for democracy. Is a vibrant protection of religious freedom, and that doesn't mean the freedom to believe something between your two ears and not be able to speak it. It is the ability to live your life according to those orthodox beliefs, which has long been the hallmark of what it means to be an American," said Perkins. "We must aggressively protect that. We must aggressively pursue that first amendment freedom in everything that we do. And we have to fight for it," he added, noting the fight cannot be any less intense than the battle to enshrine these freedoms into law in the first place. "The pilgrims didn't get on a ship and come over here and half of them die in their first year here just so they could pick a new church. They came over here so they could establish a country, according to the teachings of their faith. That's what religious liberty is. It's the ability to live your life according to your faith," said Perkins. The current religious liberty debate triggers intense debate among conservatives and even Christians over when to obey or disobey the law. Romans 13, for example, is the Apostle Paul's admonition for believers to obey their secular government, in an epistle written while Christians lived under the oppressive Roman Empire. "It does us in fact tell us we're to submit to those authorities, but when we have authorities that issue edicts that are in direct confrontation to the revealed specific word or commands of God, we're under obligation to obey God, not man," said Perkins. He cites Acts Chapter 5 as a prime example, where Christ's followers refuse to obey commands to stop preaching in the name of Jesus (Acts 5:29-32, 42). But just like the disciples, Perkins says those who take a stand for God need to be prepared for hardship. "When it comes down to choosing whether to obey God or man, when the two are in conflict, as Christians, we have to obey God. That does not absolve us from the consequences," said Perkins. He points to the saga of Kim Davis as an example. She is the clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who was jailed for days for refusing to issue marriage licenses in the wake of the Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage. Davis was released on Tuesday, just a short time after the interview with Perkins was conducted. He says Davis exactly the type of courageous Christian he hopes his book will encourage or inspire. "I'm going to give her one of the first copies of the book because she could be on the cover of this book. One of the stories I tell in this book is of a young mother, Mariam Ibraheem, who is a Sudanese woman who was imprisoned a little over a year ago for her faith. Little did I ever envision that I would be seeing a woman here in the United States imprisoned for her faith," said Perkins. The Davis story is stirring fierce debate over how people who consistently insist upon the rule of law can side with Davis, regardless of her beliefs. Perkins says the court decision in question lacks a vital component of good law. "An unjust law is no law at all. That goes back to St. Augustine. There has to be a moral foundation for the law. And we have a long history in this country of making accommodations for people based upon their religious views," said Perkins. Perkins hopes to see many more like Davis, who he says has "more courage that most politicians in this country combined." In the bigger picture, he sees America in perilous times, from the Planned Parenthood scandal in which "we're now parting out babies as if they were junked cars down at the junk yard" to a suspect nuclear deal with Iran to a teetering economy to a Christian being imprisoned for her faith. He says the book is designed to provide hope and encouragement to people to do the right thing when asked to turn their backs on their faith. "I hope they will live out their faith in such a way, in a real authentic way that impacts the world around them. Bottom line, we have to come to a point where we have a greater fear, or reverence, for God than we do a fear of man and what they may say or do to us," said Perkins. |
| GOP Hopes for Status Quo on Spending as Dems Demand More |
| Fri, 4 Sep 2015 16:00:08 EST Despite large majorities in the House and Senate, House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price says Democratic demands for much higher spending across the board are forcing Republicans to maintain current federal spending levels until they can find enough Democratic cooperation to pursue greater fiscal discipline. Republicans in the House and Senate approved budget blueprints months ago, that call for a balanced federal budget within ten years. They also insisted upon "regular order" for approving annual spending bills, meaning the 13 major bills would be considered and voted on separately. That is the way appropriations bills were passed historically and advocates say it greatly helps reduce the amount of wasteful projects that end up in catch-all omnibus spending bills. Neither of those goals will advance this year. "The president and Senate Democrats have decided they don't want to pass any spending legislation unless there's a lot more spending," said Price, who says Obama not only wants more money across the board but especially for his favorite agencies that conservatives loathe. "The president put out the word that he wasn't going to sign any piece of spending legislation that didn't increase spending on his favorite topics, like the IRS and the EPA," said Price. Price says the Republicans have tried to pursue a responsible process that results in less spending. "The work that's been done by the appropriations committees in both the House and the Senate has really been remarkable. The Senate has actually passed a number of pieces of appropriations legislation out of committee. The Democrats haven't allowed those bills to come to the floor, because it takes 60 votes to get them to the floor. But they passed out of committee and the vast majority of them in a very bipartisan manner," said Price. The chairman claims Republicans got the message from voters in 2014 to get the government's fiscal house in order. He says President Obama did not listen to voters and is playing hardball once again, leaving the GOP on defense. "His constituency wants him to spend a whole lot more money and expand government and expand the ability of government to infringe upon people's lives. We simply believe that's the wrong direction to head and we will fight as hard as we can to make certain that that doesn't happen," said Price. With Obama and Democrats demanding higher spending, Price says Republicans have reluctantly concluded they need to shelve their more conservative budget blueprint and just try to stop spending from going any higher. "The only option really is what's called a continuing resolution, simply to continue the spending levels at the current fiscal year and extend those into Fiscal Year 2016," said Price. "Hopefully, we'll be able to do that because that's the responsible thing to do, to not spend more on the things that aren't working but wait until we have an opportunity to work with a group of senators that actually want to solve problems as opposed to just getting in the way." Price hopes to avoid funding all of the next fiscal year at current rates. He hopes at least six Senate Democrats will eventually reach across the aisle to solve the impasse. "Hopefully what will happen is that at least six Democrats will recognize that having the president shut down the government is not a wise thing to do. We will try as hard as we can to make certain the president isn't able to shut down the government," said Price. Since the budget blueprint was approved earlier this year, taxpayer funds for Planned Parenthood have come under fire after a series of Center for Medical Progress videos exposed officials for the the nation's largest abortion provider callously referring to conducting abortions to preserve the organs of unborn babies for research and alleged profit. They also allege Planned Parenthood has killed babies that survived abortions and that are still moving as technicians cut through the face and harvest brain tissue for its clients. Earlier this summer, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to bring up an amendment to a highway funding bill that would defund Planned Parenthood. That move would only require a simple majority. Instead, McConnell called a separate vote on defunding Planned Parenthood that needed 60 votes to clear procedural hurdles. That vote failed. In recent days, McConnell poured cold water on activists' hopes of ending taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood this year. " 1cWe just don 19t have the votes to get the outcome that we 19d like, 1d McConnell told WKYT's "Issues and Answers" program. 1cAgain, the president has the pen to sign it. If he doesn 19t sign it, it doesn 19t happen. But, yeah, we voted on that already in the Senate, we 19ll vote on it again, but I would remind all of your viewers the way you make a law in this country, the Congress has to pass it and the president has to sign it. 1d Price admits the votes will be hard to find, but he's still prepared to fight for defunding. "We need to find whatever avenue is possible, whether it's through the continuing resolution, whether it's through an omnibus bill, whether it's through any other piece of legislation, to try to make certain we try to hold the administration to account, yes, but to make certain that Planned Parenthood does not get the resources they currently get, over $500 million a year to continue this absolutely despicable act," said Price. The chairman says he understands and shares the frustration rising up within the conservative grassroots over sizable Republican majorities in Congress that cannot seem to advance their interests or stop the policies that matter most to Obama. Price says the people need to get loud and demand better government. "It means that more political activity needs to occur. The American people need to engage as never before to hold people's feet to the fire and to hold their representatives and senators to account and to demand of them responsible representative activity," said Price. |
| Obama Administration Have Green Berets Fuming |
| Fri, 4 Sep 2015 14:54:05 EST Rules of engagement that risk the lives of our forces and harsh punishments over questionable charges have America's elite Green Berets fuming at the Obama administration, and the former commander of all Green Berets says it's just the latest symptoms of a military deliberately weakened by this administration military official more concerned about advancement than the good of their forces and their nation. The litany of Green Beret frustration was detailed this week by the Washington Times. The piece detailed several questionable punishments for elite service members over incidents that never resulted in formal charges. Army Secretary John McHugh stripped Maj. Matt Golsteyn of a Silver Star for killing a Taliban bomb maker who took many U.S. lives. McHugh contends there is probable cause to believe Golsteyn committed murder, even though Golsteyn was cleared by the military. Lt. Col. Jason Amerine shared his concerns about a flawed hostage rescue program with Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. When the FBI looked into it, officials there reported Amerine to the Army, which opened a criminal investigation on Amerine, because they suspected he transmitted classified information. No evidence was ever found to support such a charge. The most highly publicized case in recent weeks centers on Sgt. Charles Martland, who is being expelled from the Army for roughing up an Afghan Local Police Commander after a mother and son told troops the police official raped the 12-year-old boy and assaulted the mother. The Times also quotes former Green Beret Danny Quinn, who quit the military because of how politicians and bureaucrats were punishing troops and tying their hands in theater. "Cases like these certainly have an adverse effect on a Special Forces soldier's psyche," Quinn said in the article. "It creates a mentality of playing not to lose versus playing to win. Soldiers feel like their leadership, lieutenant colonel and above, won't support them, regardless of what they've done in that career to that point and what situation they're currently in." Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William "Jerry" Boykin commanded all Green Berets for a portion of his 36 years in uniform. He says conditions and morale for our military are even worse than the Times and Quinn stated. "There's more that hasn't been reported in terms of the kinds of things our special forces are putting up with now, to include rules of engagement for example. They make it virtually impossible for them to succeed and, in many cases, even to protect themselves and the people they are responsible for," said Boykin. Boykin places much of the blame for this shoddy treatment of our service members at the feet of President Obama, but he says another group also shoulders a great deal of responsibility for our military decline. "I am so disappointed in the Army leadership and the leadership in general in our military right now because they have allowed the social experimentation that has had such a devastating impact on our military," said Boykin, who says weakening and transforming our military is a critical step in Obama's efforts to change America. "You can't change society unless you change the military, because the military is such an anchor of our society in terms of values," he said. When it comes to the poor leadership of military leaders, Boykin says it is evident in multiple ways, starting with policy. "The service chiefs have supported these major budget cuts as well as sequestration. They have now, essentially, an all-out assault on religious liberty within the military, where people, including chaplains, are being punished for exercising their first amendment rights of freedom of religion," said Boykin. The general says he is disgusted by departing defense secretaries like Leon Panetta and Robert Gates who offered critical reviews of the administration on various issues but never confronted Obama when they had the power to do so. Boykin believes the proper reaction of military officers to the Obama military agenda should have been obvious. "If they really object to what's going on, they should stand up and say so. They should put their stars on the table and be prepared to resign as a result of not being able to support the direction our military is taking our military," he said. How did the military drift to the point where the top brass is now content to endorse rules of engagement that leave troops exposed and punish members for actions that merit no official charges? "The president came in with an agenda. He sought out, I believe, people that could be put into senior positions that were willing to support that agenda. Either they were aligned with him ideologically, which I don't think is the case most of the time, or they were so focused or careerism that they have been unwilling to step up and be counted," said Boykin. November 2016 will be a critical time for the military, according to Boykin. He says electing a strong leader as commander-in-chief could reverse a lot of what's gone wrong in the military over the past several years, but he fears some of the changes are here to stay. "It's going to take at least a decade for us to be able to turn this around. That's assuming we get a good commander-in-chief in who's got some leadership and who wants to change it. But there are some things that are not going to change. You're not going to roll back some of the social policies that have been implemented under this president," said Boykin. Boykin says he is concerned for the future of the military and the United States. He is especially worried that the absence of leadership among the highest-ranking officers is leaving young service members with no one worth emulating. "One of the things that I fear most is when you look at the young officers in the military today, who should be looking up to proven combat leaders, who have a proven record of leading men and women in combat," said Boykin. "Instead of looking at them, they're looking at careerists. They're looking at people who have compromised on very important and fundamental issues. All these young leaders see that and know that. What are we raising? Are we raising a generation of young leaders who will ultimately be great combat leaders and great warriors, or are we raising a generation now that is going to be focused on careerism?" he asked. "I am afraid and very concerned it will be the latter," said Boykin. |
| Reagan: 'Render Unto Caesar What Is Caesar's' |
| Thu, 3 Sep 2015 15:07:59 EST The conservative son of the late President Ronald Reagan is strongly rebuking a county clerk in Kentucky for refusing to obey court orders to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Michael Reagan is a longtime radio talk show host. He is now a motivational speaker and serves as president of the Reagan Legacy Foundation. On Wednesday, as Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis continued to refuse issuing licenses due to her strongly-held religious convictions, Reagan tweeted "She needs to find a new job. Agree or not, it's the law." On Thursday, Davis was sent to jail by U.S. District Court Judge David L. Bunning for refusing to comply with federal court decisions demanding that she give her approval to gay and lesbian weddings. "The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order," Judge Bunning said in issuing the arrest order. "If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that's what potentially causes problems." Bunning was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush. He is also the son of former Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky. He chose not to fine Davis, because he suspected like-minded Americans would make sure she suffered no major financial penalties. Reagan's tweet in response to Bunning's ruling: "She is an idiot." In a subsequent interview, Reagan believes the issue is quite simple. It all comes down to where Davis works. "She has a government job. She doesn't have a job in the private sector. She has a job in the government. When you work for the government, you in fact work for all the people. You don't get to pick and choose who you agree with and who you don't agree with. Like when you get elected president or governor, you're not representing just the people who voted for you. You're representing all the people," said Reagan. He says conservatives are right to protest the Obama administration's selective enforcement of federal laws, so they should have no more tolerance for those who do it elsewhere in government. "Just because the President of the United States is doing what he's doing does not mean that, 'Oh, we get to do the same thing.' If you're not happy, then elect a new President of the United States. Elect someone who better represents you and what you want to see done from the presidency of the United States of America," said Reagan. "That's how simple it is. But don't go, 'Well, he's selective so I'm going to be selective," he added. Reagan says says he sympathizes with Davis adhering to her biblical convictions However, he says if she believes she cannot follow the court's orders, she has an obvious option. "I disagree with gay marriage, but the reality is it is the law. The Supreme Court has ruled it's the law. If you're not happy with it, you can quit," said Reagan. "They can't fire her. She can quit and find another job. I would suggest maybe she get one with the church." That argument is passionately disputed by other conservatives in support of Davis. Former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark., who is also a 2016 GOP presidential candidate, argues that Davis should not be punished because there is no law she's violating. "The Supreme Court cannot and did not make a law. They only made a ruling on a law. Congress makes the laws. Because Congress has made no law allowing for same sex marriage, Kim does not have the Constitutional authority to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples," said Huckabee in a statement. Reagan is not swayed by the argument that Davis cannot possibly be breaking the law since there are no specific federal or state laws she is flouting, only court decisions, which Davis defenders contend do not carry the weight of statute. "Again, let's start nitpicking at this whole thing. It's really simple. The Supreme Court has ruled that gays, lesbians can get married. That's what they have ruled. As long as they have ruled that and you're working at a government job, then you are to enforce what, indeed, what has been approved and ruled on by the Supreme Court," said Reagan, who says his father, as governor, was forced to comply with court decisions he did not agree with. Some of the moderate GOP presidential hopefuls side with Reagan, including Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham and John Kasich. "When you are a government employee as opposed to say, an employee of another kind of organization, then in essence, you are agreeing to act as an arm of the government," said Fiorina on the Hugh Hewitt Show. "Is she prepared to continue to work for the government, be paid for by the government in which case she needs to execute the government 19s will, or does she feel so strongly about this that she wants to severe her employment with the government and go seek employment elsewhere where her religious liberties would be paramount over her duties as as government employee," she added. Graham, also speaking to Hewitt, was even more blunt. "As a public official, comply with the law or resign," said Graham. Kasich once again made it clear he has no intention of encouraging resistance following the court decisions. ""We'll honor what the Supreme Court does," Kasich told the Washington Post. "It's the law of the land. It's the way that America functions." Davis and her defenders do not suggest there is no actual law being violated, but they say her first amendment right to freely exercise her faith is being infringed by the courts. "When people of conviction fight for what's right they often pay a price, but if they don't and we surrender, we will pay a far greater price for bowing to the false God of judicial supremacy. Government is not God. No man - and certainly no unelected lawyer - has the right to redefine the laws of nature or of nature's God," said Huckabee in his statement. "The federal government, and by extension, the court, has no business to compel people of faith to violate their religious beliefs," said Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for Sen. Ted Cruz told the Washington Post. Sen. Rand Paul, who represents Kentucky, was adamant in his revulsion over Judge Bunning's decision to jail Davis. "I think it's absurd to put someone in jail for exercising their religious liberty," Sen. Paul, R-KY, told CNN. "If you want to convince people that same-sex 'marriage' is something that's acceptable I would say try to persuade people" instead of using state force. Paul says the treatment of Davis by Judge Bunning will only stiffen the resolve of traditional marriage supporters and possibly even drive some states and localities out of the marriage business altogether. Other Davis allies suggest asking Davis to violate her conscience by handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples is akin to forcing a pro-life obstetrician to perform abortions because it is legal. Reagan quickly dismissed that argument as well. "This argument goes back and forth all the time. It gets really old and really tiresome, trying to find analogies here and analogies there and conscience and so on. She's out there saying it's God's law. OK, it's God's law. Is it God's law that you've been married four times and divorced? Is that God's law too?" said Reagan. "I'm really getting tired of Christians who only know how to point a finger but don't know how to live under their own pointed finger," he added. Davis is married for the fourth time. She says her conversion to Christianity happened within the past few years. Nonetheless, Reagan believes the Bible is on his side in his belief that Davis should either quit or issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians. "Let's all start living under the laws that were passed. What did they say? "Render under Caesar what is Caesar's. Render unto God what is God's" (Mark 12:17). Well, guess what? Under Caesar, the reality is gays can be married," said Reagan. |
| 'It Is Not Over Yet' |
| Wed, 2 Sep 2015 17:09:10 EST Thirty-four Senate Democrats are now vowing to support the Iran nuclear deal, suggesting U.S. sanctions will soon end against the world's leading sponsor of terrorism, but retired U.S. Army Lt. General William "Jerry" Boykin says the fight is not over until the votes are taken and Republicans may well deserve more blame than Democrats for this deal surviving. On Wednesday, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., became the final vote needed to save the deal. Her announcement followed on the heels of Tuesday's news that skeptical Democrats Bob Casey, D-Penn., and Chris Coons, D-Del., would also back the agreement. "I really question how long they actually pondered this, as opposed to trying to develop a strategy for how they were going to support this president. If they had really pondered this and considered all sides of this and all the evidence, they would come out where 75 percent of the American public is," said Boykin, who is now executive vice president at the Family Research Council. "How could anybody ponder that and think that there's any way that this is a reasonable for the United States or the rest of the world?" asked Boykin. Earlier this year, President Obama announced any nuclear deal would be treated as an executive agreement rather than a treaty, meaning he had no intention of getting any input in Congress. In response, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and ranking Democrat Ben Cardin, R-Md., crafted legislation giving Congress the chance to reject a deal. Unlike a treaty, which requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate to ratify a treaty, the Corker-Cardin legislation would require two-thirds opposition in both the House and Senate to override an Obama veto. If all 34 Democrats hold firm, Republicans are powerless to stop the lifting of U.S. sanctions on Iran. But Gen. Boykin says 34 promised votes are not the same as a done deal. "It is not over yet. There is a big rally here next week, the ninth of September. Tens of thousands of people are going to be in the streets," said Boykin, who is one of over 200 retired military officers who wrote to leaders of both parties in both chambers imploring lawmakers to reject the Iran deal. "I think there's still a good possibility that some of these Democrats will listen to the people that put them in office as their representatives and reject this deal," added Boykin. Not a single Republican in the House or Senate is supporting the Iran deal, but Boykin says leadership played it's hand poorly when Obama vowed to bypass Congress on the nuclear deal. "I think the Republicans made a terrible mistake by supporting Corker-Cardin, which usurped and subverted the U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section 2 is very clear. This is a treaty and we all know it," said Boykin, stressing the deal should require 67 votes for ratification. "We subverted that with this Corker-Cardin legislation. I blame the Republicans, maybe even more than the Democrats, for pushing this thing through," he added. Boykin says his involvement with other retired military officers in trying to sink the Iran deal was a no-brainer. "It is, in fact, a pathway to a nuclear weapon. It doesn't give any consideration to the four Americans that are being held. It does in fact put billions and billions of dollars into a very rogue regime that's been the largest sponsor of terrorism," said Boykin, just beginning to list his criticisms of the deal. Boykin also staggered that Iran gets so self-inspect at least one of it's most suspicious sites and that Iran would have at least 24 days to remove evidence from newly suspected sites before inspectors would be allowed on site. He says the security threat to the region and the world is immense. "Much of that money will be used for Hezbollah and Hamas and other terrorist organizations. A lot of the money will be used, once sanctions are lifted, to buy modern military technology as well as other types of weapons and technology that will further increase the military capabilities of Iran, That will result in an arms race in the Persian Gulf," concluded Boykin. |
| 'They're Not Good Leaders' |
| Tue, 1 Sep 2015 16:16:00 EST Reducing the size of government entitlements and winning the war on poverty are both achievable, but American Enterprise Institute President Arthur C. Brooks says it will take much stronger leadership and a change in how conservatives present their message. Brooks is the author of "The Conservative Heart: How to Build a Fairer, Happier, and More Prosperous America." The book makes a passionate case that big government policies are doing nothing to alleviate poverty in the U.S. and that conservative policies could have a significant impact if pursued boldly and wisely. Brooks says the biggest problem right now is that very few people have the courage to take on entitlement reform because they fear failure or backlash, even though the need for it is fiscally obvious. "The fact that politicians say that's impossible is because they're not good leaders. They're followers is what it comes down to. The definition of leadership is inducing people to do something difficult on behalf of the whole society. Great leaders can take a country to war, yet we don't have leaders today who can reform our entitlements?" said Brooks. According to Brooks, the longer Washington dawdles on the issue, the bigger the problem gets. "The creaking entitlement system that is just completely unsustainable is imperiling the safety net completely. We're going to have austerity. Just look at Greece. That's down the road for us at some point and the people who will suffer are not the rich. They never are. It's always the poor. So if we love the poor, we have a responsibility to avoid austerity. That means we have to be solvent and to be solvent means we have to be fiscal conservatives," said Brooks. In contrast to today's leaders who pretend issues of poverty and fiscal irresponsibility do not exist, Brooks offered a glimpse of what he thinks real leaders would do. "We have to have real leaders who have hard conversations about what the entitlement system should look like. You don't have to throw somebody out on the street or take away benefits that are actually earned. You simply have to have some common sense approaches to it," said Brooks. "The fact that we have leaders who are so poor that they can't even broach the conversation about what the retirement age ought to be when people are living longer and longer is just more evidence that we're incapable of doing hard things," he added. Brooks says fiscally conservative approaches to keeping the nation solvent and lifting people out of poverty are the right approach, but the right has a problem. He says while conservative policies are far more compassionate and encouraging than the liberal approach of government cutting a check to the poor, conservatives have allowed the left to stake the higher moral ground on such issues. Instead, he says conservatives need to do a better job of convincing people they want them to succeed. "Go from fighting against government institutions to fighting for people that are being held down and denied their equal rights to the pursuit of happiness and you're going to be on track to starting a social movement and not just a protest movement," said Brooks, referring to the tea party activists who he believes started a much needed revolt against Washington but need to do a better job of explaining what they support. Some of that starts with taking back the true definition of hot-button political terms. Brooks says conservatives have surrendered the term social justice to the political left, when it should describe the opportunity culture small government advocates seek to advance. "Conservatives never say social justice. Why not? We believe in social justice. We just define it differently. The way we define social justice, the way we define fairness, the way we define compassion; these are the definitions the majority of Americans shares. It's time for us to start talking that way," said Brooks. "If you believe in poverty reduction like I do, you must be a fiscal conservative and you must have conservative values," he added. Brooks also stresses that creating opportunity means establishing a level playing field. He that means not setting burdensome hurdles for people to chase their dreams and not having politicians handing out political favors to their donors and other political cronies. "It doesn't matter if people vote Democrat or vote Republican. We have a moral obligation to stand up for people who need our opportunity society. One of the things that's in the way of that is very powerful people that are gaming the system, particularly, at the corporate level, to make sure they can be in front of the line and in front of the little guys. It's not right. We have to stand up and denounce it," said Brooks. But just as important as bold leadership and championing the rights of all Americans is how those messages are conveyed. In his book, Brooks lists what he calls "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Conservatives." He says it's a debate strategy that helps conservatives win, with focuses on staking the moral high ground, fighting for people rather than against things, stealing good arguments, going to nontraditional audiences and more. But he says the most urgent priority for conservative messaging is to get happy. "Nobody wants to follow someone who's grim, at least not for very long," he said. "The Republican Party only wins when it's the party of aspiration. Just ask the people who worked with Ronald Reagan. He threw away the playbook of malaise and throwing insults around and saying everybody's stupid. He said it's morning in America. We're going to fight for everyone. He was a true happy warrior." |
| 'The Point of This Is to Reduce Legitimate Gun Ownership' |
| Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:17:36 EST Secretary of State John Kerry once again signed the United Nations Arms Treaty on Wednesday, a move that supporters say will help stop weapons from getting into the hands of criminals and terrorists worldwide but critics contend is is a backdoor assault on law-abiding gun owners. The treaty would require nations to conduct a detailed registration of all guns. The issue is dead on arrival in the U.S. Senate, but one of the leading experts on guns says even if the agreement is only ratified in other countries, it can still work to erode gun ownership here. "The point of this is just to try to reduce legitimate gun ownership in other countries. Eventually it has some feedback effect in the United States. If Canadians are much less likely to own guns, gun control activists will point to them and say, 'Look how outlandish we are in the United States,'" said Dr. John Lott, an economist who serves as president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. Lott is also the author of well-known books on guns, including "More Guns, Less Crime" and "The Bias Against Guns." He says the stated purpose of the UN treaty sounds pretty harmless but the devil is in the details. "The claimed purpose is to try to make sure that the gun trade is regulated across countries. The claim is that terrorist groups and other rebel groups around the world are getting guns because of private gun owners there. It ignores the fact that almost all the guns that these different groups get are from other governments, not from private individuals," said Lott. In addition to stifling weapons supplies to terrorists, proponents of the treaty argue that mass registration will help solve many criminal cases around the world as well. Lott says that is simply not backed up by the facts. "In theory, if a gun is used in the commission of a crime if left at the crime scene and it's registered to the person who committed the crime, then you can use that gun to trace back and find out who committed the crime," said Lott. "The problem is that never really works. The reason is pretty simple. One, crime guns are rarely left at the scene. Two, when they are left at the scene, they're not registered to the person who committed the crime," he added. Lott says the ineffectiveness of gun registration is proven over and over. In Canada, he says lawmakers recently rescinded a mandate on long gun registration because it was accomplishing nothing. "It cost billions of dollars and it hadn't solved any crimes. In fact, before the long gun registration was eliminated, it was clear that even the handgun registration that has been around since the mid-1930's had not been able to solve one single crime," said Lott. It's the same story in the United States. Lott says Hawaii has forced gun owners to register their weapons since 1960. He recently took part in legislative hearings in the state, but he says the testimony of another witness was most compelling. "They had the Honolulu police chief come in and they asked him some questions. They said, 'How many crimes have they been able to solve in Hawaii as a result of it?' It was zero. They couldn't point to a single crime that they had solved," said Lott. Beyond the inability of gun registration to help police catch criminals, Lott says the police chief explained what a drain the policy is on law enforcement. "They asked, 'Well, how much police time does it take every year to go and implement this?' Just for the Honolulu Police Department, it was about 50,000 hours of police time each year. That's 50,000 hours of police time that could have been used to go and solve real crimes," he said. Lott says taking police away from their cases robs them of their best chance to solve crimes. "It's extremely important, I think, in terms of my research, in terms of reducing crime rates. Yet, here we want to go and waste this huge amount of manpower that could be used to save lives and protect people, to go and do this meaningless paperwork. I think the main point of it is just to make it costly and difficult for people to go and own guns," said Lott. Lott does not expect the Obama administration to claim this agreement is not actually a treaty and implement it unilaterally. He says the most Obama could do is issue some new executive orders under the auspices of the UN treaty. Even then, Lott says the impact of those orders could only go so far because the next president could rescind them. He believes Obama is simply pushing another avenue for his tireless push for more gun control. "They're trying to do what they can in order to make it costly for people to own guns and reduce gun ownership. This is just one out of many ways that'll give them an excuse to implement a few other executive orders that maybe they wouldn't have tried to push otherwise," said Lott. |
| Caddell: Defying Public Over Iran Could Decimate Democratic Party |
| Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:27:04 EST President Obama appears to be on pace to find enough votes to save the Iran nuclear deal, but longtime Democratic pollster and strategist Pat Caddell says the party is at risk electoral disaster by propping up a deal the public hates and may well pave the way to a nuclear-armed Iran. "If the question is that they have voted for something that the American people think is dire and ends up having dire consequences because the majority will of the Congress and the vast majority will of the country's been ignored, I fear the Democrats will live with this issue of 'they lost the Middle East.' And that will be painful election after election," said Caddell. Caddell has been down this road before. He helped Jimmy Carter win the White House in 1976 but watched helplessly as the Iranian hostage crisis buried Carter in 1980. "We know in 1979-80 the Iran hostage situation, and the Democratic Party's inability to solve that satisfactorily, hurt the Democratic Party. We are now dealing with a situation where overwhelming majorities of Americans oppose this agreement that has been engineered by Secretary of State (John) Kerry and the president," said Caddell. The Secure America Now poll, for which Caddell serves as a principal, shows 65 percent of Americans oppose the deal when they learn some of the critical details. Other polls show lower opposition numbers but every virtually survey finds the public wanting to reject the deal. Caddell says huge swaths of Democrats want the deal to die as well. "Large majorities of Democrats look at a deal in which the side agreements on inspections, even without the knowledge Iran would be self-testing its violations, the questions about handing over $100-150 billion almost immediately for their nefarious activities; all of these things which the public opposes in 75-80 percent numbers," said Caddell. He says the numbers would be even more lopsided if Obama and Kerry were honest about the terms of the deal. "The American electorate has made the decision by well over two-to-one that the president and John Kerry are not being honest with the facts. They're only telling the American people what they think might convince them. This is a real departure. Either the Democratic Party is the party of democracy or not. I think senators are going to find themselves not only in trouble in general elections, I think they'll have troubles in primaries," said Caddell, who firmly believes voters will remember their elected officials defying the vast majority of their constituents on a critical issue. "You cannot go fly in the teeth of what is now overwhelming opposition, registering in almost every survey of well over 60 percent of the people, show utter contempt for the constitutional processes by going to the UN first and then think it's not going to have an impact," he said. As of Wednesday, the resolution to reject the Iran deal appeared to be on course for passage in the House and majority support in the Senate. However, it's looking less likely that opponents will find the two-thirds majority needed to override a promised Obama veto. In fact, only two Senate Democrats are publicly splitting with the president thus far. Opponents will need at least four more Democrats just to fend off a filibuster. A successful filibuster would mean Obama never has to veto the bill, but Caddell thinks enough 'no' votes will materialize. "I don't think the filibuster's going to succeed. I think the Democrats who are out, many of them are really against this deal," he said, noting the debate has been overshadowed in the media by the political success of Donald Trump and the legal woes of Hillary Clinton. "As it becomes front and center as a national security issue and as a question of America's long-term security, I think that the thing will pass," said Caddell. "I do not understand at this point how Democratic senators and congressmen can say they are going to vote for something which the vast majority of Americans oppose, including a goodly percentage of their party." In addition to the danger of being portrayed as soft on national security for generations to come, Caddell says voters are turned off by politicians who simply march to the White House beat. "The American people see a Democratic Party, which puts what the president wants over the interests of the nation," he said. Caddell says that's an especially bad policy for Democrats to follow with this president. "President Obama's handling of national security is very poorly received, and in reality, frankly has been a frightening disaster, whether it's Russia to the Middle East to Iran to ISIS or whatever," said Caddell. "This Democratic Party need to measure whether they are going to be viewed as a party that cannot be trusted with national security. If so, that is something that will tip the political balance of this country," he added. But Caddell was not done slammimg Obama, saying the current occupant of the Oval Office is besmirching a party that once embraced a robust approach to national security. "Barack Obama has taken this party and jerked it so far away from its roots as being a party that speaks for the people," said Caddell. He says Democrats are sprinting to the political fringe in the Obama era in ways that would have never happened before. "Just look at the parties now that are talking about getting rid of the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners that traditionally for 100 years honored the founders of the Democratic Party because they're no longer in style for these people," said Caddell. "This attempt to drag the Democratic Party into becoming, instead of the voice of the common people, the voice of entitled elites, is unacceptable to me and many Democrats," he concluded. |
| 'It's Like Allowing a Murderer to Investigate His Own Crime' |
| Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:10:33 EST The man who first warned the world about Iran's current nuclear ambitions says newly revealed side deals that allow Iran to inspect one of it's own nuclear sites is tantamount to letting a murderer investigate his own crime scene. In recent days, the Associated Press reported that unrevealed side deals between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, allow Iran to conduct it's own inspections on a critical facility thought to be involved in the creation of nuclear weapons. Alireza Jafarzadeh is deputy director of the Washington office of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which is the Iranian parliament in exile since 1979. He says information obtained from inside Iran backs up the Associated Press account of the secret agreement. "The information that we've been receiving from other sources was actually pointing to the same facts that appeared in the Associated Press story, which is allowing Iran to take it's own samples (of soil near suspected nuclear weapons sites," said Jafarzadeh. He is stunned that so much latitude is being given to the particular plant in question. "[They are focused on] a specific site called Parchin, which is a military site that is believed to have been used by Iran a few years ago and perhaps continued afterwards for high explosive tests, which is only used for building a nuclear weapon," said Jafarzadeh. Given past Iranian defiance on nuclear issues and it's unrepentant support for terrorism, Jafarzadeh says allowing Iran to conduct its own inspections makes no sense. "Allowing the Iranian regime to inspect Parchin and provide results to the IAEA is like allowing a murderer to investigate his own murder and provide the victim's DNA to the police," he said. Jafarzadeh says members of Congress he's spoken with are frustrated by the Obama administration's refusal to provide the content of the side deals. "The entire nuclear agreement between Iran and P5 plus One (the five permanent members of the United National Security Council plus Germany)is heavily based upon the scrutiny and the intrusive inspection of Iranian sites, which is going to take place by the IAEA. Yet, the members of Congress are not allowed to see how the IAEA is actually going to do that," said Jafarzadeh. Even based on what we do know about the side deals, Jafarzadeh says Iran is getting very different treatment than other nations facing nuclear scrutiny. "Under any standards, you cannot take your own samples. The standard of the IAEA is that they have to be there. They have to be present. They have to make sure that the place was not decontaminated before. They have to look at other factors in the environment that could effect the sampling. They have to maintain the continuity of ownership over the samples before it's taken to the lab for inspection," said Jafarzadeh. Jafarzadeh says the IAEA appears to be no pillar of resolve in these side negotiations but he says ultimate responsibility for the lax inspections belongs at our own feet. "Many members of Congress believe that even though is apparently a side agreement between the IAEA and Iran, but the overall circumstances that has led to these side deals was really worked out between the P5 plus One - namely the United States - and Iran," he said. According to Jafarzadeh, the very least the allies should have procured was an Iranian admission about previous pursuits of nuclear weapons. That didn't happen either. "If you don't know exactly what Iran did in building the bomb before and you're not going to resolve it in a satisfactory way, how can you be sure that Iran is going to be truthful [in] the future. If they continue to hide what they'd hidden before, then that's a clear indication that they still have the same objective, which is building the bomb," said Jafarzadeh. But he says you don't even need documentation of previous intentions to know what's coming next in Iran, because the leaders are brazen in their desires. "As far as Iran is concerned, they have not changed their agenda, which is building the bomb. The supreme leader continues to seek building a nuclear bomb. Unfortunately, the JCPOA (Joint Completed Plan of Action) leaves all pathways to the bomb open," said Jafarzadeh. |
| 'Pornography is Destroying Families' |
| Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:58:42 EST Last week, former reality television star Josh Duggar admitted to a pornography addition that led to marital infidelity and famed Subway pitchman Jared Fogle struck a plea deal in response to charges of child pornography and sex acts with minors, but a Christian attorney and writer says these stories are just the tip of the iceberg of the destruction caused by pornography. The Duggar admission followed the data dump by hackers of the Ashley Madison adultery website. "I have been the biggest hypocrite ever. While espousing faith and family values, I have secretly over the last several years been viewing pornography on the internet and this became a secret addiction and I became unfaithful to my wife," said Duggar in a statement. Matt Barber is a former vice president for Liberty Counsel Action. He is still a constitutional attorney and is founder and editor-in-chief of barbwire.com. He says pornography addiction is rampant, due in large part to it being available at a moment's notice. "Pornography is pervasive in our culture now. It is available in hand-held devices, your iPhone. People are literally a button away. It's so pervasive, in fact, that it even comes through your computer unsolicited, you know pop-ups and things like that," said Barber, who says pornography is often the trigger for other lusts, like the ones pursued by Duggar and Fogle. "Adultery is sin. Certainly this child abuse is sin. Pornography is the common denominator, a catalyst. It's a gateway drug that leads people to act on their fantasies," said Barber. He says our secular culture acts to diminish the harm done by pornography but the facts show otherwise. "People say that pornography is a victimless crime. Nonsense. The objects of pornography, whether it's child pornography or whether they're consenting adults. You start looking at the statistics of the women who engage and try to make a quick buck in pornography, selling their bodies for the consumption of all of these men, these are victims," said Barber. However, Barber says the most obvious victims are the ones left shattered at home. "Pornography is destroying families right and left across America. It sets up this false notion in the minds of the husbands that are looking at this pornography. It creates this unrealistic view of what is beauty and what is sexual," he said. Even more, Barber says addicts usually seek greater titillation as time goes on. "With the law of diminishing returns, they view this and then they want the next big thrill. As one form of pornography becomes kind of boring, they go on to the next, higher level of hardcore porn. It's a vicious cycle and it's destroying marriages," said Barber. So how can the "vicious cycle" be stopped? Barber offers multiple steps, starting with a realization of what pornography is. "It's adultery. Scripture talks about if you look at a woman with lust in your heart, you have committed adultery (Matthew 5:28). So people need to understand that pornography is not a victimless crime. It's a device, it's a tool that is being used to lead people into other forms of sexual perversion and sexual immorality," said Barber. Next, he advises individuals and parents to apply internet filters to their electronic devices. "It's a good idea to do that whether you have children or not. Certainly, if you have kids and they're on your computers and they're on your iPads, you've got to get this software, because it is so pervasive, so readily accessible and it comes unsolicited often times. We're protecting our children with Net Nanny but I would suggest that people, whether they have kids or not, just remove the temptation as much as possible," said Barber. There is progress to be made in our culture as well. While courts have upheld the rights of pornographers as free speech, Barber says United States v. Miller clearly stated there are obscenities that are not legally protected. However, Barber says we have no reason to expect this administration to do anything about them. "The problem in this Obama administration is there is no one at the Department of Justice who has any interest in going after obscene material and going after these pornographers and so forth," he said. He says the current inaction is proof that elections are important. "Elections matter. We have to get people in office who have the political will to do the right thing and protect children from this horrific trade," said Barber. |
| 99.999 Percent Not Good Enough |
| Fri, 21 Aug 2015 16:03:37 EST The energy industry is pushing ahead with even stronger safety rules in an effort to have a perfect record and give federal officials no reasons to block the construction of new pipelines that would reduce costs for consumers. The new rule comes after extensive cooperation among the American Petroleum Institute, the National Transportation Safety Board and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to improve an already strong safety record. According to American Petroleum Institute Group Manager of Midstream and Industry Operations Robin Rorick, the U.S. contains 500,000 miles of oil and gas lines. In 2013 alone, the pipelines carried nearly 15 billion barrels of crude oil. Given the volume of products on the move, Rorick says the track record was already good. "That was done where 99.999 percent of our products reached its destination, but as an industry we're committed to getting that number to 100 percent," said Rorick. He says it's all about making the industry safer across the board. "We're going to work with the industry to establish a safety culture for companies, so that for the CEO all the way down to the worker in the field, we're working with them to develop a program so that safety is at the core of everything that they're doing," said Rorick. "That ensures that the worker who's operating at the facility can operate and minimize any chance of injury , but it also ensures that we're doing everything we can to prevent a release from happening that damages the surrounding environment or the community as well," said Rorick. But the change also makes a statement to federal officials that the industry is willing to collaborate with Washington and state governments in an effort to improve a safety record that's nearly impeccable. The goal is to win approval of critical pipeline projects. The most famous project in limbo is the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada down to the heart of the U.S. President Obama has vetoed Republican efforts to approve the project despite the State Department's blessing for the pipeline. At the same time, Obama refuses to accept or reject it. Rorick says there's no good reason to block it. "With regard to Keystone, there were five environmental reviews that demonstrated that Keystone would not provide additional environmental harm. The vast majority of the public supports the development of the Keystone XL pipeline. I think the data and the support is there. Unfortunately, the administration is not," said Rorick. Politics are also causing problems in the northeast, and Rorick says New England residents are paying higher energy prices because the industry isn't allowed to get oil and gas there more efficiently. "If you look at the Marcellus Shale area that produces natural gas. We're talking about areas in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York as an example. There's an opportunity there for them to provide natural gas up to the New England states, who suffered last year from a brutal winter," said Rorick. "On average, folks in New England pay five dollars more for their natural gas costs than the rest of the country does simply because we don't have the infrastructure in place, which is only a few states away, up to the New England area," he added. The new rule will focus on individual plants and companies constantly reviewing their safety records and implementing any needed changes. The ongoing evaluations will also allow the entire industry to benefit from the best practices of individual firms. Rorick says companies will make the decision whether to abide by the new standards but given the wide collaboration in formulating the plan, he expects most in the industry to take part. Reducing the already small number of accidents could prove difficult. Rorick says there is a variety of reasons for pipeline problems but says one of the most common causes is completely out of the industry's hands. "You'll have everything from operator error to equipment failure. In some cases, you'll have natural disasters that will cause damage. One of the leading causes for damage is not even within the realm of control within our industry," said Rorick. "It's third party line strikes. It's someone putting an addition on a house or putting in a new tree and they have a backhoe that comes in and it strikes one of our lines," he said. |
| 'This Is A Huge Issue and it Seems to be Getting Worse and Worse and Worse' |
| Thu, 20 Aug 2015 16:14:37 EST This week, the information of tens of millions of philandering spouses has been exposed by hackers of the adultery website AshleyMadison.com, and while there isn't much sympathy for this batch of victims, how vulnerable are the businesses that do have your personal information? In addition to the Ashley Madison breach, major corporations like Target, Sony and Home Depot have fallen victim to hackers, as has health insurance giant Anthem. With so many of our daily transactions conducted in cyberspace, the opportunities for our data to be compromised are plentiful. "This is a huge issue and it seems to be getting worse and worse and worse. Once you have companies like Target, Sony that start getting breached, and these are companies that have incredible security, then we know that there is a very big problem," said Tyler Cohen Wood, a cyber expert who is also cyber branch chief for the Department of Defense. She is also the author of "Catching the Catfishers: Disarm the Online Pretenders, Predators and Perpetrators Who Are Out to Ruin Your Life." Wood says because almost all of us take part in electronic transactions, almost all of us are at risk. "It is effecting pretty much everyone and one of the worst thing about it is there is not a ton that the average consumer can really do to protect their information when they're putting it out there on these types of websites," said Wood. According to Wood, hackers will prey on any system where they can find an opening. "Hackers target companies of all shapes and sizes. Often times, unless there's an ideology behind it, like in the Ashley Madison case, they're typically going to go for the lowest hanging fruit. So they're going to find a way in, and it's getting harder and harder for companies to find where the lowest hanging fruit is," said Wood, who explained the unlikely manner in which a major retailer was breached. "Target was actually breached through a remote HVAC system. The lowest hanging fruit there was an unsecured HVAC system, where they were able to steal credentials and get into the system," said Wood. The greatest damage is done to companies that fail to discern a breach until long after it happened. "Often times, companies don't necessarily know that they've been breached for a few months. So a lot of times they just don't know so we don't hear about it until months, months later," said Wood. There are some bright spots in this challenge, however. Wood says the recent spate of high-profile hackings has corporate leaders focused on making sure it doesn't happen to them or their teams. "I think a lot more higher-level executives are taking notice and getting involved. This is no longer just an issue where your IT department can step in and do all of the security. Now you have employees who are using devices to connect into your network. All employees have to be educated about the threats and the risks that they could potentially be posing to their corporate network as well," said Wood. Another encouraging sign, she says, is that better security will soon be available for our credit cards. "There's also something that's coming in October called the new PIN and chip cards. These cards are actually going to help consumers because, when you use them, the information is stored in a chip. When you add that with a PIN, it is much less likely to be hacked," said Wood. "The Federal Reserve says that it makes the transaction 700 percent more secure." Although greater corporate vigilance and heightened credit card security are likely bring greater consumer protection, Wood says individual Americans need to be very careful to avoid offering help to hackers in our online posts. "One of the big problems is that people take for granted that they're completely anonymous or they have complete privacy when they're posting things because they're sitting behind a keyboard," said Wood. Wood says it's smart to check every online communication for any information that doesn't belong in cyberspace. "People really need to take a different way of looking at this issue and really think that anything that you put out there is not necessarily private. Anything that you do put out there could potentially come back and haunt you one day," said Wood. |
| 'This is Absolutely Barbaric' |
| Wed, 19 Aug 2015 16:05:40 EST The doctor who recently went public with her belief that Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers harvest organs from babies with active heartbeats says she is sickened to see her theory confirmed by a new Center for Medical Progress video and says the horror is compounded by knowing fetal organ research yields virtually no medical progress and that other depraved experiments may be happening. On Wednesday, the Center for Medical Progress released the seventh in a series of videos exposing the practices of Planned Parenthood, with particular focus on the abortion provider's alleged profiting from the sale of aborted baby parts. The new video is the third to feature the testimony of Holly O'Donnell, a former procurement technician for Stem Express, the biomedical firm that had a close business relationship with Planned Parenthood until last week. O'Donnell told the horrific tale of watching a Planned Parenthood employee prepare to harvest the brain of a newly aborted baby. "This is the most gestated fetus and the closest thing to a baby I've seen. [The Planned Parenthood employee] was like, 'Okay, I want to show you something.' So she has one of her instruments and she just taps the heart and it stops beating. I'm sitting here looking at this fetus and its heart is beating and I don't know what to think," said O'Donnell in the video. "It had a face. It wasn't completely torn up. It's nose was very pronounced. It had eyelids and its mouth was pronounced. Since the fetus was so intact, she said, 'Well, okay, this is a really good fetus and it looks like we can procure a lot from it. We're going to procure brain. So what you do is you go through the face.' I'm thinking, no, I don't want to do this," continued O'Donnell. AVM Biotechnology CEO Dr. Theresa Deisher, who predicted these sorts of tactics were being used in abortion facilities, says she takes no solace in having her theory confirmed. "I probably felt the same emotions that every American and every person is feeling this morning. Having my suspicions and the suspicions I shared with (Center for Medical Progress Project Lead) David Daleiden over the years confirmed, it just made me sick and really a horrible sinking feeling in my stomach," said Deisher. Deisher says her suspicion of such grisly tactics came from years of studying scientific journals and learning what fetal organs are most highly desired. "For the heart research, they look for fetal gestation age of 20 weeks or beyond," said Deisher, noting that babies as young as 22 weeks in the womb have survived premature births. "In their descriptions, it was just very clear that those babies had to be alive when they took their tissues because the scientists in their publications say that they have to have the material in their special digesting buffers within five minutes. That wouldn't be possible with other situations," said Deisher. As O'Donnell saw the Planned Parenthood technician tap the baby's heart on and off, she was sure if the child was alive or dead. Deisher says there should be no confusion. "A human being is certainly alive until their heart stops beating. Perhaps in this situation, the baby's heart stopped beating temporarily during the procedure to take the baby from the mother's womb. But it started beating again with a tap. I would consider that a living baby," she said. Deisher is not sure if we will soon see videos describing other grisly tactics, but she has another ominous fear about how these babies may be used. "I have long worried about the temptation that people might have to keep an aborted baby alive and potentially use that baby for an intact study on a drug metabolism or a new drug toxicity profile by perfusing the baby, which is absolutely horrific," said Deisher. Deisher says Wednesday's revelations not only shock the conscience but ought to generate even more frustration when realizing the pro-choice defense of harvesting baby organs is fallacious. "Regardless of illegality or legality, this is wrong. Even if it's legal, it should be made to be illegal. We should not allow this as a civilized society. More important, it's absolutely unnecessary," said Deisher, referring to Planned Parenthood assertions that the harvested organs are used to develop breakthrough treatments for all sorts of ailments. She says that's simply not true. "I'm not aware of any medical breakthrough that required or needed the use of aborted fetal issue for progress," said Deishen. She says there are biological barriers that prevent fetal parts from being of much use to treat older patients. "Results from fetal tissue would often times be misleading because what happens during the development of a baby in a womb and the proteins and factors that regulate that is often not what happens in an adult or a toddler," said Deishen. "Since we're talking about breakthroughs to treat adults or children, the information from the aborted fetus in many cases would not be applicable at all," she added. Deishen concluded by saying the moral conscience of America must be aroused by the horrors exposed in these videos. "This is absolutely barbaric and beneath the dignity of a civilized society," she said. "We can do better than this. We, as a people who are civilized and respectful of other human beings, we need to develop alternatives. That's the mission of my organization, to develop alternatives so that no one will ever feel compelled, coerced or justified in exploiting another human being for medical progress." |
| The 'Free College' Myth |
| Tue, 18 Aug 2015 16:11:46 EST Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders is vowing "free" college tuition if he is elected and Hillary Clinton is promising a plan that might make student loans a thing of the past, but a prominent economist says the only results would be soaring costs for taxpayers and a much worse education for students. Sanders and Clinton have made the cost of education one of their earliest campaign issues. While Sanders advocates government picking up the tab for tuition, Clinton's plan is a bit more complicated. She would commit $350 billion over ten years to help make college more affordable for families. While requiring qualifying students to work ten hours a week while in college, she would also mandate that a college graduate would never pay more than ten percent of their income to pay down student debt. Recipients who faithfully make payments would have their remaining debt erased after 20 years. Those details give the impression of a detailed plan, but those in the know see nothing but political spitballing. "First, $350 billion doesn't even come close to paying for kids' college over the next ten years. What politicians do is they'll throw out a big number and make it sound like they're doing it, but it doesn't come close. It is a huge expense," said Brian Wesbury, former chief economist for the Joint Economic Committee in Congress. He's now chief economist at First Trust Advisers in the private sector. Not only does Wesbury believe Clinton greatly underestimates the cost of education, but he says plans like those offered by her and Sanders would only make the affordability problem exponentially worse. "When you give something away for free, the demand for it picks up. When the demand for it picks up, the price picks up. We already know what student loans have done to the cost of college," said Wesbury, who believes there is a clear parallel in another sector of the economy. "There's a saying about health care, 'If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it's free.' If you think a college education is expensive, just wait until it's free because taxpayers would have to foot the bill and the costs would go through the roof while the quality of education fell," he said. Wesbury says schools are a marketplace just like anyplace else and the amount of government involvement at various levels tells a very instructive tale. "For example, our higher education system in the United States is one of the best educational systems in the world. But if you look at our primary education, especially inner city schools, where school is free, it's one of the worst education systems in the world," said Wesbury. "You have to have a market. You have to have a price mechanism. That's the only way to keep the quality up," he said. However, Wesbury says there is a big difference between the government paying for everyone's tuition and taxpayers helping the truly needy get ahead in life. "I don't have a problem economically with helping low income people get a college education. The problem comes when you make it universal, when you make it bigger over time. Then you take the competitiveness out of the school system," said Wesbury. So what is Wesbury's answer to the high cost of education? First, he says we need to realize why the tab is so high. "The whole idea is that you're paying the professor to teach the student no matter what it is. In ballroom dancing, you have to pay the professor today, whether or not that helps a child get an education," said Wesbury. He believes the market post-graduation should determine the costs. "My alternative would be to make college professors paid by equity. In other words, negotiate with the student. I get ten percent of your salary for the next twenty years, or fifteen percent of your salary for the next 18 years, some negotiation," said Wesbury. "If that were the case, what do you think the professor would teach the student? They would teach them that would earn them an income, that would get them a job: math, writing, speaking. You know, all the things that actually work, rather than what we've gotten to know as politically correct education," he said. Wesbury believes that by relying on the future salaries of students, professors will spend more time developing critical skills and less time indoctrinating. "Let the professor share in the income the student can earn. Then the professor would be forced to teach something that is of value in the marketplace," he said. |
| Obama Working Against the 'United States' Best Interests' |
| Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:11:14 EST A former Pentagon official is slamming Obama administration policies on ISIS and Cuba as the terrorists reportedly deploy chemical weapons against Kurdish enemies and the United States re-opens its embassy in Cuba, saying the president and his team are deliberately working against the best interests of the country. "They're eager to do this because no else believes that it is in the United States' best interest. They want to go against the United States' best interests," said Jed Babbin, who served as a deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration. He is now an author and columnist. When pressed to explain that comment, Babbin doubled down. "I mean what I said. These people, this administration has a track record of doing a lot of things that are not in the United States' best interests," he said, asserting that American policy on ISIS and Cuba are two prime examples. Late in the week, reports suggest ISIS used chemical weapons, mustard gas in particular, against Kurds in northern Iraq. Babbin believes the weapons could have been obtained in several different ways. "It could be from old Iraqis stores that we found and I have information that says we did find them long about 2005. Could have been from (Syrian President) Bashar Assad. Could have been a lot of places. I don't think they have the sophistication to make them themselves," he said. But Babbin says this new dimension of the ISIS threat probably won't change a thing for Obama. "It doesn't really change anything. We're not going to do the right thing. We're not going to arm the Kurds. We're not going to go in there ourselves and try to do something with them, which I don't think is the right path anyway. So I don't think, for us at least, it changes things," said Babbin, who says Obama is doing virtually nothing militarily or ideologically to stop ISIS. "The real problem here is they're trying to kick the can down the road. They want to leave this for the next administration to deal with, and that's what Obama's doing. He's not conducting a serious campaign and he's not conducting an ideological war at all," said Babbin. The latter point is the most galling for Babbin, who says for all of Obama's talk about confronting the murderous ideology of ISIS, there is no effort to actually do it. "You cannot win the war against terrorists and the terrorist nations without winning the ideological war as well," he said. But while he expects the specter of ISIS possessing weapons of mass destruction to have no discernible impact on U.S. policy, he says the other nations in region are definitely sitting up and taking notice. "I think it changes things a lot for the neighboring countries. Certainly the Israelis are not going to be very happy about this and the Arab states really can't be happy about this either. It's really their fight. They should be putting troops on the ground and planes in the air and dealing with ISIS. They're just sitting back and watching," said Babbin. Half a world away, Secretary of State John Kerry raised the U.S. flag and re-opened the American embassy in Havana, Cuba, on Friday. The event comes less than a month after Cuba re-opened its embassy in Washington and is the latest step in re-establishing diplomatic ties with the communist regime. Babbin says this is another arrangement in which the Obama administration was fleeced through diplomacy. "There's really nothing in this for us and then Castro is out there saying, 'The United States owes us millions of dollars in reparations and needs to give us Gitmo back.' There's just no reason to do this whatsoever," said Babbin, who believes an episode from early in the Obama administration demonstrated whose side this president would be on in times of crisis. "You can go back to 2009, when they stood with Fidel Castro in condemning the efforts of the Honduran people to throw out a would-be dictator, Mr. (Manuel) Zalaya. When the Honduran supreme court removed him when he was trying to overstay his term in office, Obama said that was a coup and so did Fidel Castro," explained Babbin. Babbin says the past six-and-a-half years are littered with policy after policy that weaken the United States and the Cuba policy sends an especially bad message to other dictators around the world. "It says that Obama is their friend and not their enemy. That's, quite frankly, the truth. We see what's going on with the Iran deal. We see the things that are going on in North Korea, which we're doing nothing about. We're seeing the things going on in the South China Sea with China building these artificial islands and we're not doing anything about that," said Babbin. He added, "The list of things we should be doing something about and aren't is relatively short. But there's a very long list of things we're doing that are things we shouldn't be doing." |
| 'This Takes This Whole Political Correctness Crap to a New Level' |
| Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:05:28 EST A retired U.S. Navy officer, who spent seven excruciating years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, is blasting the argument made in a recent Newsweek column that the POW/MIA flag was a political concoction of the Nixon administration that is really a symbol of racist hate. On Monday, Newsweek published a column by Washington Spectator National Correspondent Rick Perlstein entitled "It's Time to Haul Down Another Flag of Racist Hate." "You know that racist flag? The one that supposedly honors history but actually spreads a pernicious myth? And is useful only to venal right-wing politicians who wish to exploit hatred by calling it heritage? It 19s past time to pull it down," wrote Perlstein. "Oh, wait. You thought I was referring to the Confederate flag. Actually, I 19m talking about the POW/MIA flag." Perlstein then proceeded to assert that President Richard Nixon used the POW families and their movement for his advantage. "The flag was the creation of the National League of Families of Prisoners of War, later the National League of Families of American Prisoners and Missing in Southeast Asia, a fascinating part of the story in itself," wrote Perlstein He continued, "The organization was founded by POW wife Sybil Stockdale, during the Johnson administration, in an effort to embarrass LBJ and challenge his line that all in Vietnam was going swell. Johnson tried to silence them; Nixon 19s people, however, spying opportunity, coopted the group, sometimes inventing chapters outright, to fan the propaganda flames." Perlstein further alleges that the Nixon administration engaged in a public relations effort by demanding to know what happened to downed pilots and to know the names of every prisoner of war. He says this flew in the face of previous wars, in which prisoners were only discussed after the war, and that the movement was aimed at painting the U.S. as the primary victim of the war and our enemies as "some species of Oriental despotism." Retired U.S. Navy Captain Gerald Coffee was held captive from February 1966 to February 1973, much of that time in the infamously brutal Hanoi Hilton. Coffee finds Perlstein's argument ridiculous and insulting. "This takes this whole political correctness crap to a whole new level. I'm just so disappointed that this flag, the symbol of our incarceration, got dragged into it," said Coffee, who went on to receive a Silver Star, two awards of the Legion of Merit, the Distinguished Flying Cross, two Bronze Stars and many other citations for his heroism. He says the prisoners were aware of the flag and were greatly inspired by it. "It was something that was very comforting to us there in Hanoi when we realized there was a flag in our honor and was flying with our country's flag. It honored us more and did more for our morale," said Coffee. "That flag is a symbol of the sacrifices that are sometimes required to defend our freedom." Coffee says he personally knows the history of the flag and the people behind it, adding the real history and Perlstein's version are very different. "I know the people involved in the design and conception of that flag and there's not a racist bone among them," he said. " Perlstein admits in his piece that Coffee and the other U.S. prisoners were treated badly, but he says the ongoing adoration of the flag covers up the fact that our enemies were supposedly treated far worse in the hands of our South Vietnamese allies. Coffee says that misses the point. "It doesn't make any difference. Our treatment was horrendous. It's been verified. Just read any POW book and there's a dozen or so out there. My own book, "Beyond Survival," tells it like it was. I had no reason to exaggerate or embellish," said Coffee. "People who come off with these half-cocked ideas like Perlstein, without having read something that a POW has written, at least one book, God, at least one book. To speak out of total ignorance is just beyond the pale," said Coffee. For Coffee, this is the second slap in the face for POW's in recent weeks. "What the hell does Perlstein know? What does he care anyway? He's just inserting himself into something about which he knows nothing, just like Donald Trump did a few [weeks] ago talking about John McCain's behavior as a POW," said Coffee. Beyond the perils of the men held captive in Vietnam, Coffee says the flag also reminds Americans of the character needed to keep America strong since its founding and that he believes is sorely needed again. "The service of the POWs in Hanoi characterized the kind of dedication and patriotism and determination that through the years has helped to keep our country free, that is until the last six-and-a-half years or so," said Coffee Rather than accuse the government of using the POWs as a political smokescreen, Coffee says Perlstein and everyone else should see the story of Americans prisoners in Vietnam as one of nation's finest chapters. "Almost to a man, the performance was equally dedicated. We looked at our POW time as a different form of combat. We communicated with each other. We formed ourselves up into military organization. We had command structure, a chain of command. We didn't consider our selves to be out of combat because we were POWs," said Coffee. The backlash to the Perlstein story has been intense. Both Newsweek and the Washington Spectator have changed the headline to the more benign, "The Story Behind the POW/MIA Flag." The content of the story is unchanged, however, and Perlstein's apology mostly keeps arguing his initial case. "I sincerely regret the use of the word 1cracist 1d to describe how the POW/MIA flag distorts the history of the Vietnam War. The word was over the top and not called for," said Perlstein in his statement. "I 19m deeply sorry it hurt people 14especially people who 19ve selflessly served their country. Most of all, I 19m sorry because many of the people offended by the word 1cracist 1d are the same people who were hurt when the experiences and feelings of common soldiers and veterans were manipulated to serve the powerful interests and individuals who blithely and perennially send men and women to war, then don 19t take care of them when they return home," he continued. Coffee flatly rejects the political arguments, particularly the one suggesting the war should not have been fought. "Just ask any of the Vietnamese who's one of the boat people that spent ten years incarcerated under the communists when they took over. They'll tell you what we were trying to accomplish was worthwhile. We saw this. Saigon fell. South Vietnam was in a blanket of communist hatred and repression. It was exactly like we thought it was going to be," said Coffee. "It was a shame too because we had the war won and Congress snatched defeat from the jaws of our victory," he added. As for Perlstein, his column and his effort an apology, Coffee see no good that can come from such an effort. "I'm very gratified Perlstein is getting static for this. He deserves it. He deserves all the static he's getting, for trying to open old wounds like this," said Coffee. |
| 'Culture of Death' Moves to Virginia |
| Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:04:36 EST Just weeks after a prominent health care expert predicted that Democrats would begin a nationwide push for taxpayer-funded contraception for schoolgirls, including abortion-inducing drugs, Virginia is proving to be the next battleground. The idea started in a Colorado pilot program, in which teenage girls were given contraceptives including implanted abortafacients known as long-acting reversible contraceptives, or LARC's, and intra-uterine devices, also called IUD's. The program showed marked reductions in teenage births and reported abortions. Efforts then began to enact a taxpayer-funded version of the program, but it died in the Colorado legislature over conscience and religious liberty concerns. Writing in The Washington Post, Virginia Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam, who is also a pediatric neurologist, hailed the Colorado numbers as a proven way to bring teenage pregnancies way down. Over the past six years, Colorado observed a 40 percent decline in teen births and a 42 percent decline in teen abortions based on an innovative program that provided education, counseling, administrative support and long-acting, reversible contraceptives (LARCs) to providers and patients upon request," wrote Northam. "These long-acting birth control methods, which include intrauterine devices (IUDs), injectables and implants, can last up to 10 years. They have a failure rate of less than 1 percent compared with condoms and the pill, which have failure rates of around 18 percent and 9 percent respectively," added Northam. Northam made it very clear he wants Virginia to go down the same road. "This is an issue Virginia needs to consider for the health of women of all ages, the health of our infants and the fiscal well-being of our commonwealth," he said. Northam also made a focused pitch for taxpayers to pick up the tab since IUD's and LARC's are far more expensive than oral contraceptives. "As a physician and a policymaker, I believe all Virginia women should be informed about and have access to all possible reproductive health-care options so they can make the best decisions for their families," he wrote. Galen Institute President Grace-Marie Turner addressed the issue last month in a New York Times "Room for Debate" forum. In a subsequent interview she cited this push as part of the "culture of death" pushed by the political left. In response to Northam's case for taxpayer -funded IUD's, Turner says it sets a troubling precedent for government. "If the state is basically saying, &aposapos;We don't trust you,' then we're basically saying the state has to make all of your decisions for your life," she said, noting this could set up a battle between government and parental rights. "What if parents object to that? Is the state going to say, No, we've decided that because we don't want to have the state pay for the pregnancy and the delivery and perhaps Medicaid for the child after that. Therefore, we're going to encourage young women to have these long-term contraceptives," said Turner. She also says Northam paid no attention in his Washington Post piece to the ethical and health concerns surrounding implantable contraception. Indeed, Northam gave it just one sentence. "Unfortunately, myths also abound with regard to LARCs and the safety of IUDs, in particular," wrote Northam, while noting the devices have the backing of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Turner says that glosses over some major issues. "Northam makes absolutely no reference about the moral, ethical, religious issues involved in this question," she said. "He's basically saying he's looking at the numbers, that teen can be reduced without any sense of what message does this send." Two major objections are in play simultaneously. Northam is asking taxpayers to pay for the program, regardless of whether such a plan violates their consciences. "This is not something for the state to decide. When the state says that we are going to use taxpayer dollars to pay for long-term contraceptives that can actually be abortafacients, that is condoning those. There are tens of millions of people in this country who have strong moral, religious, ethical convictions against that," said Turner. Much like the Hobby Lobby case that landed at the Supreme Court, Turner expects any state that adopts this policy to end up in a long legal battle. "For the state to say we're going to ignore [objections of conscience] and to use your tax dollars to pay for that, that is a violation of the first amendment. I think we would see many court cases taking that, ultimately I hope, to the Supreme Court," said Turner. Turner is also concerned about the impact such a policy would have on middle school and high school girls. "Having the government fund these long-term contraceptives for often poor teenage girls, tells these young women that taxpayers will pay for them to have sex without fear of pregnancy and that they don't have to be responsible for the consequences of their actions. Sex is not without consequences, even if pregnancy is not one of them," said Turner. She said the possible consequences range from physical to emotional. "There's no such thing as safe sex. Are we telling these young women that they can have promiscuous sex and not have consequences? Of course there are going to be consequences, not only in the form of sexually transmitted diseases but in the sense of what kind of an image are they developing of themselves," said Turner. And she says implanted devices that can prevent conception for up to a decade also carry some risks. "We don't know the consequences for their health, of having contraceptives for a 19-year-old girl. The contraceptive may last for 10 years. Is she ever going to get her fertility back? You don't know that," said Turner. |
| 'You're Going to Kill People' |
| Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:28:24 EST The Environmental Protection Agency's triggering of massive water pollution in four western states is further proof that the federal government has lost sight of its environmental responsibilities and has no business burdening Americans with costly rules on emissions, water or ozone. That's the conclusion of Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Chris Horner in the wake of more than three million gallons of contaminated water escaping from an abandoned Colorado gold mine. The Animas River turned orange as gallon after gallon of water containing arsenic, lead and other dangerous metals escaped the Gold King Mine as a result of work done by EPA contractors trying to shore up the mine. "They were trying to clean up areas near a very old mine that had been considered a problem waiting to happen or a slow-moving train wreck and they came in and made it disastrously worse," said Horner. In the days following the disaster, the EPA has offered very limited comment and been criticized for its sluggishness in updating the extent of the problem. Horner says the EPA would never let a private firm get away with this kind of response. "It's the kind of spill that if it occurred as the result of the private sector would lead to the EPA demanding, shrieking to the heavens that they be granted all sorts of further authority over the private sector so that this thing doesn't happen," he said, noting that accountability is not a two-way street at the EPA. "Everybody makes mistakes. EPA's reason for existence and constant expansion is that they don't make mistakes like others. The problem is government is not like you and I. They're not accountable," said Horner. Horner says the EPA's clumsy handling of the Gold King Mine contamination means it should never be permitted to enforce sweeping new regulations on citizens and businesses. "It comes amid their biggest demand for authority over the private sector, wrapped in this veil of saintliness and goodness and perfection and competence. This reminds us the agency clearly does not possess it," said Horner. Because of the EPA's pursuit of lower carbon emission standards and new rules on water and ozone, Horner says the agency can't keep its eyes on the job it's supposed to be doing. As a result, he says Congress ought to take an aggressive stand against the EPA overreach. "You know what Congress ought to say? 'This is a big red flag. You are not accountable. That is clear. And you want to redesign the electricity system. What happens when you take that out of the hands of the people that delivered a miracle, the modern electricity system, and give it to an unaccountable bureaucracy that has no expertise in this,'" said Horner. "This is an agency running around, pretending to control the weather with rules they acknowledge will have no impact on the weather. But it's a good excuse to do something they've always wanted to do," he added. Among the carbon, water and ozone rules, Horner finds the recent power plant emissions rule the most troubling. "You're threatening the country with a blackout. There are terrific, tremendous, immediate human health and environment consequences, life and death consequences from that," said Horner. "[The rule] was driven, expressly according to the president, to finally make renewable energy profitable. That's not a legitimate purpose of government. And to bankrupt companies he didn't like. You need to hit the brakes on that immediately because you're going to kill people. This agenda is killing people in Europe right now, which may be one of the reasons the president stopped telling us to look to Europe to see how it's going to turn out," added Horner. |
| Single-Payer Not Working 'Incredibly Well' in Canada and Scotland |
| Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:04:40 EST While the media focuses on the public spat between Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump and Fox News, a prominent health care expert says Trump's praise for single-payer health care systems in Canada and Scotland doesn't survive an examination of the facts. During Thursday's GOP debate, Bret Baier of Fox News opened up a section of questions about Obamacare by asking Trump about his shifting position on health care reform. "Now, 15 years ago, uncalled yourself a liberal on health care. You were for a single-payer system, a Canadian-style system. Why were you for that then and why aren 19t you for it now?" asked Baier. Trump responded that his opinion back in 2000 related to the situation at the time and does not reflect his position now. "As far as single payer, it works in Canada. It works incredibly well in Scotland. It could have worked in a different age, which is the age you 19re talking about here," answered Trump, before moving on to discuss his endorsement of allowing health care policies to be purchased across state lines. Grace-Marie Turner is president of the Galen Institute and battled Obamacare as well as the Clinton health care reform efforts in the 1990s. She says the first thing to remember is that Canada and Scotland have two different systems. "The Canadian system is a single-payer system. The government is the payer, both the provinces and the federal government for all health care services. In Scotland, it is really socialized medicine, in which the government owns hospitals and employees physicians. So they're two different systems," she said. She also doesn't buy Trump's argument that circumstances were that much different 15 years ago, when the GOP front-runner embraced the single-payer approach. "He's basically saying that either one of them would have worked better and could have worked in this country in the year 2000, which is relatively recently and I don't know how much has changed in the sense that we might have been able to have done socialized medicine in the year 2000? I think not," said Turner. Regardless of the structure, Turner says the realities in both countries are far from what Trump describes. "It probably would work very well for him because he would be able to go wherever he wanted and pay for his own care privately. But for individual citizens, that's not true," said Turner. "In either [Canada or Scotland], you face long wait times, unless you can escape and go someplace else for your care. If you are stuck in either one of those systems, in which you need care, you get in the queue and you will wait weeks, sometimes months , sometimes years to get the care that you need," said Turner. And she says the waiting game is only getting worse. "A wonderful think tank in Canada, the Fraser Institute, keeps track of wait times for medical care in the country. In 1993, there was about a nine-week wait for surgery or treatment," said Turner. Today, it's 18 weeks on average. So it's doubled in those 22 years." And that's only for necessary treatment. "They're even worse for what we call elective surgeries, like hip, knee or back surgery. That wait? Forty-two weeks or ten months, neurosurgery is 31 weeks," said Turner. Turner says life is even more miserable for Canadians unfortunate enough to have their procedure scheduled late in the years. "If a hospital reaches its budget the first of December, it will close the rest of the year. So if you had a surgery scheduled for the tenth of December, you're going to have to get back in the queue," she said. Turner also points to research from Forbes magazine health care expert Avik Roy, pointing out the contrast in cancer survival between the U.S. and Scotland. The overall five-year survivability numbers show 73.8 of Americans surviving five years or more after their cancer diagnosis, compared to 52.7 percent in Scotland. Double digit differences also exist for specific cancers, including prostate, colon and breast cancers. Roy has served as a health care adviser to former Gov. Rick Perry, R-Texas, during this campaign. Perry and Trump have taken numerous shots at each other. However, Roy's numbers on the cancer differential come from a 2008 CONCORD Study. In his debate answer, Trump also pushed for health insurance policies to be purchased across state lines. "What I 19d like to see is a private system without the artificial lines around every state. I have a big company with thousands and thousands of employees. And if I 19m negotiating in New York or in New Jersey or in California, I have like one bidder. Nobody can bid," said Trump. "You know why? Because the insurance companies are making a fortune because they have control of the politicians, of course, with the exception of the politicians on this stage. But they have total control of the politicians. They 19re making a fortune," he added. While endorsing the purchase of policies across state lines, Turner believes that answer suggests Trump doesn't fully grasp the current system. "As a large company, he can self-insure his employees. Therefore, he is under a provision of law called ERISA that allows him to operate as one health plan. He doesn't have to have individual negotiations with individual states," said Turner. "He already has, as a major employer, as do tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of major employers operated exactly the way that he's describing we should," said Turner. |
| 'The President Is Misspeaking, Some People Would Call It A Lie' |
| Fri, 7 Aug 2015 15:12:01 EST Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., is blasting President Obama for likening Republicans to Iranian hardliners and other alleged falsehoods, and he is also furious at his own party's leadership for not fighting harder on this and other issues. On Wednesday, President Obama defended the Iran deal during a speech at American University in Washington. His most controversial statement came while addressing what he called the "kneejerk partisanship" of the Republican Party. "Just because Iranian hardliners chant 'Death to America' does not mean that that's what all Iranians believe. In fact it's those hardliners that are most comfortable with the status quo. It's those hardliners, chanting 'Death to America' who have been most opposed to the deal. They 19re making common cause with the Republican caucus," said Obama. Yoho, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee fired back at Obama's comparison. "Number one, it's not presidential. I mean to throw (one of) his own political parties under the bus like that and compare us with the hardliners. . Let's look at who the hardliners are. The hardliners in Iran, the people chanting 'Death to America', that would be their Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini and their president, President Rouhani," said Yoho. The congressman says Obama is also disingenuous in insisting no stronger deal was possible and the alternative to the deal is military conflict. "He was saying, 'If it's not this deal, it's war.' No it's not. The alternative is a better deal and you get a better deal by putting sanctions on there harder and bringing the P5 nations back together and negotiating a better deal," said Yoho, who says if Iran was serious about acting responsibly there would be obvious signs. "When Iran denounces terrorism around the world, that would be a start. When Iran releases out four hostages, that would be a good faith gesture. And when Iran stops chanting 'Death to America. Death to Israel' and burning our flag, then I would listen to them. They're not ready yet," said Yoho. Obama also denied the existence of side deals between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, over the terms of inspecting sites suspected of nuclear activity in the future. "Again the president is misspeaking. Some people would call it a lie. There are side deals because John Kerry even said, 'Yes, there are deals and there are briefings on that," said Yoho, who says one known term of a side deal completely mystifies him. "One of the agreements is that there has to be environmental sampling. In this agreement, Iran is charged with bringing environmental samples to have the IAEA look at. How much faith do have in Iran sampling the area that's in question? I have zero faith that they'll do that," said Yoho. Several congressional Democrats have announced their support for the deal this week while a number of House Democrats said they would oppose it. The opposition got a major shot in the arm on Thursday, when Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., announced he would vote to reject the deal. House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Democrat Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., announced he would do the same. Yoho expects a lot more Democrats to follow suit. "I think you're going to see the Democratic members of the House vote against this deal, especially ones that sit on the foreign affairs committee. The majority of them will vote against this," he said. If the deal were considered a treaty, it would require two-thirds support in the U.S. Senate. The Obama administration refuses to classify the agreement as a deal. In response, Congress passed the Corker-Cardin bill, requiring Congress to vote on the plan but it flips the script by forcing two-thirds of members in both the House and Senate to reject it in order to override a promised Obama veto. Yoho understands why his party's leaders took that route but wishes they had taken a different course by insisting that the administration classify the agreement as a treaty. "Ideally, it would have been better to play hardball but with the lack of leadership we have in Washington both in the House and in the Senate, we're not going to have that," he said. Congress is on summer recess. The Iran vote will come soon after lawmakers return in September. Other major debates will center on appropriations and the debt ceiling, more issues where Yoho thinks GOP leaders need to get much stronger. "We have not had one discussion on the debt ceiling as a Republican conference all year long. Again, this is a lack of leadership. (House Speaker) John Boehner has not brought this up. [Appropriations Committee] Chairman Hal Rogers has asked for hearings on this. We've not had one," said Yoho. "I hope that we can get our act together in those 12 days to deal with the trillion-dollar spending that's going to come up," he added. Yoho is also also unimpressed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's public vow that there would be no government shutdown. "I've learned in poker you never show your cards 'til you're ready to cash them in. Nobody wants the government to shut down, but but you want to raise a trillion dollars in debt. The American people don't want that either," said Yoho. "They sent the Republicans the largest majority we've had in almost 90 years to lead this country. If we're not leading, we're going to lose the trust of the American people," he said. |
| 'They're Living in A Dream World' |
| Thu, 6 Aug 2015 16:02:35 EST The Obama administration is moving forward with a new environmental rule requiring power plants to drastically reduce carbon emissions, a policy President Obama says will improve our health and our bottom line but critics say is a massive tax hike that won't do the planet a bit of good. Earlier this week, President Obama unveiled a new directive from the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, that mandates a 32 percent reduction in carbon emission by 2030. "As one of America 19s governors has said, 1cWe're the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation that can do something about it,'" said Obama. "And that's why I committed the United States to leading the world on this challenge, because I believe there is such a thing as being too late." Obama also tried to head off critics concerned about the impact of this rule on energy prices by saying his administration's studies conclude the average American will save $85 per year on energy costs once this is fully implemented. Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe, R-Okla., says this rule is just a bureaucratic reincarnation of failed legislative efforts on cap and trade through bills like McCain-Lieberman and Waxman-Markey. Inhofe says once Americans found out what was in those bills they wanted nothing to do with them. He believes the reaction will be the same to this EPA rule. "When the people found out how expensive they are, and the cost is between $300-$400 billion, that translates to about $3,000 for every taxpaying family in America. And then they find out that even if all these things were passed, it's not going to have the effect of reducing [carbon dioxide] worldwide," said Inhofe, who is also author of "The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future." The senator says the testimony of two other key players backs up his point, including then-Sen. Barack Obama during a discussion with the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle during the 2008 campaign. "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," said Obama in that interview. "Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal plants, natural gas, you name it. Whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers." Inhofe also says former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told him in a committee hearing that new emissions mandates on power plants and others wouldn't actually make a difference in our climate. "I asked her the question, 'If we do all this stuff unilaterally in America, will it reduce CO2?" She said no. As a matter of fact it could increase CO2 because as we chase our manufacturing base overseas to China and other places where they have no restrictions, it would have the effect of increasing CO2," said Inhofe. Obama also tried to blunt conservative protests that new restrictions would hurt minority and poor communities the hardest. "Even more cynical, we've got critics of this plan who are actually claiming that this will harm minority and low-income communities -- even though climate change hurts those Americans the most, who are the most vulnerable," said Obama this week. "Today, an African-American child is more than twice as likely to be hospitalized from asthma; a Latino child is 40 percent more likely to die from asthma. So if you care about low-income, minority communities, start protecting the air that they breathe, and stop trying to rob them of their health care," he added. Inhofe says the chairman of the Black Chamber of Commerce told his committee a far different story. "It'd be the most regressive of all taxes that we've ever passed, going after the poorest people. Think about it. The lower your income is, the higher percentage you're going to be spending on heating your home," said Inhofe. The senator believes the administration is simply toeing the line with the United Nations insistence that climate change is an immediate, pressing concern. "It all comes from the United Nations. Unfortunately, I think right now everyone is aware after having watched John Kerry as secretary of state trying to negotiate with the terrorists. It's, again, a dismal failure. He's one and there's a lot of liberals like him who think there's never been a [bad] idea that has come from a multinational organization, primarily the United Nations," said Inhofe. While the UN and America's own government are insisting on much more stringent emissions in the United States, Inhofe says the world's worst violators are just waiting to gobble up our companies and jobs. "Right now, China is looking at us, just hoping that we'll pass something here because that would chase our manufacturing base over there. That's exactly what they would want," said Inhofe. Beyond the economic impact is the simple fact technology does not exist to bring many power plants into compliance with the rule. Obama says we need to have faith in American ingenuity, just as we did in drastically raising fuel efficiency standards in the auto industry. Inhofe says the country simply can't operate on the energy Obama wants to use. "You can't make that kind of reductions when you stop and realize that all the renewables put together right now only constitute five percent of the total energy it takes to run America," he said. But Inhofe is not without hope. In the near term, Senate Republicans are pushing back with the ARENA Act, a plan sponsored by Senator Shelley Moore Capito of coal-rich West Virginia. "What it does is pretty much negate everything that [Obama] is trying to do," said Inhofe. "It would rescind the rules. It would require emission limits that coal plants can actually achieve, in other words they are possible. It would allow states to opt out of any plan that is found to have a negative impact on their economy on their growth or on their energy reliability." Knowing full well that Obama will have his veto pen ready for any such legislation, Inhofe says an aggressive education campaign is needed to rally public support against this policy, just as it rallied against the earlier legislative efforts. "Once their constituency learns that, number one, it's not possible to do what they want and, number two, even if we did this would not have any effect on the overall emissions of CO2, then people are not going to be wanting to spend a tax of approximately $3,000 a family for something that doesn't accomplish anything," said Inhofe. |
| New Abortion Horrors Unveiled |
| Tue, 4 Aug 2015 16:21:21 EST A leading pro-life activist says the fifth undercover video depicting Planned Parenthood's alleged profiting off the sale of aborted baby parts is the clearest evidence yet of criminal activity, and she says also says it's possible that abortion providers are delivering babies alive and killing them outside the womb to preserve the value of their parts for sale. Jill Stanek is National Campaign Chairwoman for the Susan B. Anthony List. She is a former registered nurse who confronted then-State Sen. Barack Obama over his refusal to support legislation requiring life-saving measures to be directed to babies who survive abortions. Stanek was also one of the leaders of the sit-ins at the office of House Speaker John Boehner this year to demand a vote on the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. On Tuesday, the Center for Medical Progress released the fifth in a series of undercover videos. This one prominently featured conversations with Melissa Farrell, director of research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast. Farrell and the investigators hold lengthy discussions about obtaining intact fetus cadavers for research and how to word the transaction on any forms. 1cIf we alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, we can make it part of the budget that any dissections are this, and splitting the specimens into different shipments is this. It 19s all just a matter of line items," says Farrell in the video. She also refers to creative billing for research firms for 1cadditional time, cost (and) administrative burden. 1d "This is the clearest video to date demonstrating that not only is Planned Parenthood involved in illegal baby parts trafficking for profit but also, to do that, they clearly often manipulate abortions, which is also illegal, to get baby parts in the most intact position that they can get them," said Stanek. Another critical moment in the video is when Farrell shows investigators a massive online order for intact cadavers. "She read an order on camera that had just come in for 120 intact fetal cadavers and she accepted the premise of that order without even blinking," said Stanek, who says that story gets even more disturbing. "It didn't make the final video cut, but in the full length transcript, when she's talking about this buyer that wants 120 fetal cadaver specimens, it's for a project to humanize mice, putting human cells into mice,: she said. One of Planned Parenthood's common defenses in recent weeks is to claim that any money it receives from companies is simply reimbursement for tissue procurement and shipping. Stanek says that's bogus. "The buyers, like from Stem Express, send their people to these Planned Parenthoods to find the body parts they want for these orders that they've been given, package the body parts themselves and ship themselves," said Stanek. "So all of the costs and all of the personnel involved in baby parts buying and selling is incurred on the part of the buyer. Planned Parenthood doesn't do anything to warrant even five dollars," she added, noting that intact cadavers are worth hundreds and hundreds in payment to Planned Parenthood because of all the body parts that are valued by researchers. "These videos are actually giving us a glimpse into the abortion world and the callous treatment for profit motive they have on committing abortions but then making as much as money off the victims of abortion that they can, which is something even the Nazis didn't think of," said Stanek. The Center for Medical Progress promises more shoes will drop in future video releases. While Stanek has no advanced knowledge of those she believes a case is building that babies are being murdered outside the womb as part of Planned Parenthood's efforts to profit off of body parts. "[They are] even potentially committing live-birth abortions because they don't kill these babies ahead of time because that would poison the organs and not make them fit for sale," said Stanek. "There's prima facie evidence that there may be born-alive abortions going on." |
| Slate of TV Shows Push Transgender Agenda |
| Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:35:36 EST Three new cable television shows portraying transgenders in a positive light debuted this summer and a leading cultural expert says this is clearly the latest step in convincing people, especially children, to approve of the lifestyle. The most highly promoted program is E!'s "I Am Cait," tracking the life of former Olympic decathlon champion Bruce Jenner as he now identifies as a woman named Caitlyn. In addition, TLC recently launched "I Am Jazz," featuring a a 14-year-old biological male who lives as a girl named Jazz Jennings. In June, "Becoming Us" premiered on ABC Family. Produced by Ryan Seacrest, the program centers on to boys coming to grips that both of their fathers are transitioning to women. The transgender debate has exploded in recent months, particularly after Jenner went public. Family Research Council Senior Fellow Peter Sprigg says the timing of these shows is no accident. "I think the sensational aspect of it is something they think will bring them ratings, but I think there is an ideological aspect too, where they think they can transform society and transform social attitudes," said Sprigg. "I Am Jazz" and "Becoming Us" both focus on children. Sprigg says that is also intentional because that is the target audience for this movement. "Certainly that is part of the agenda in terms of creating sympathy. There's going to be more sympathy for a child as a character in one of these shows than perhaps than there is for an adult. If you are trying to change attitudes then it's the attitudes of children that you want to change," said Sprigg. While "I Am Cait," is the only program of the three that does not center on kids, Sprigg says Jenner's interactions with his children suggest young people struggle mightily when their parents make such a radical change. "People would say, 'Oh, is family is very supportive of him.' But if you actually watch the show, you would find that his daughters and his step-daughters seem to me to be devastated by the whole situation. I think what we see in reality may be something that doesn't necessarily serve the transgender movement," he said. The ratings for these programs can be interpreted two very different ways. "I Am Cait" debuted to one of the largest cable audiences of the year, with 2.7 million viewers in the initial broadcast. "I Am Jazz" burst on to the scene as the tenth most watched show in all of cable on it's first night, suggesting considerable demand for this genre. However, in it's second episode, "I Am Cait" drew less than half of the audience it attracted the first week. "I Am Jazz" dropped from tenth to twentieth to twenty-fifth in it's first three weeks. "Becoming Us" premiered only in 81st place and for the past two weeks hasn't even registered in the top 100 cable programs. Sprigg chalks up the strong early ratings to "curiosity" and "novelty". He also believes having multiple shows focusing on transgenders makes each of them less intriguing. "This is the irony. When you're the first transgender reality show, there'll be a lot of curiosity. When you get to the point where there's a half a dozen of them, it's like, 'Ho hum, another transgender show,'" said Sprigg. Sprigg says the onset of these programs is another reason for parents to maintain vigilance over what their kids see on TV, including the use of filters. However, he encourages parents to be ready to address transgender issues and to be up front about it. "I think we have to be honest that there are some people who want to be or feel like they are the opposite sex from their biological sex but we shouldn't assume that that's the right way for them to be. In fact, their biology, the anatomy of their body is a more clear indication of their sex than their subjective psychology," said Sprigg. "While we should have compassion for these people, we shouldn't be affirming them in this confusion. We should instead be encouraging them to find the kind of psychological counseling that might help them to become comfortable with the body that God gave them," he added. The transgender movement has made significant strides in recent months, with governments and school districts changing policy to accommodate adults and children who identify as the gender opposite of their biological sex. However, Sprigg is not convinced the movement will get as far as gay and lesbian activists. "Homosexuality is basically an invisible characteristic for the most part. If you encounter someone on the street you don't necessarily know that they're homosexual. With the transgender issue, if someone is presenting themselves as the opposite of their biological sex, often it's very unconvincing and, frankly, disturbing to other people," he said. As a result, Sprigg suspects Americans will be less swift to embrace transgender accommodations. "I think they're going to have a much harder time getting people to accept and feel comfortable with this than they do with someone saying, 'Just leave us alone and don't worry about what we do in private' because cross-dressing is inherently a public activity," said Sprigg. |
| Defense of Principles or Distraction? |
| Mon, 3 Aug 2015 15:39:25 EST The Republican congressman calling for the removal of House Speaker John Boehner says his efforts are not a distraction from the big issues facing lawmakers but will help focus Republicans on approaching them the right way. Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., filed a motion to "vacate the chair" last week, catching virtually everyone in Congress by surprise since he did not do any sort of head count or consultation before taking action. In his resolution, Meadows listed multiple reasons for why Boehner ought to be removed, ranging from the consolidation of power to ceding legislative power to the executive branch and from punishing members for votes against leadership to broken promises on amending and reviewing legislation. Boehner allies and even some of his critics wonder at the timing of this move by Meadows. They fear a focus on Boehner's job security could distract from the GOP's approach to key issues once Congress returns in September. Meadows says it will do exactly the opposite. "We'll be returning to a very busy September, with all sorts of critical issues like Iran and Planned Parenthood, funding of the government, etc. Those are critical times not that just a few voices are heard but that the vast majority of the American people are represented and that their representatives have a clear vote on all of these issues," said Meadows, who also believes that arming military members at recruiting centers and other facilities should be another major priority after the recess. "I think it's really about what's coming up more than what has happened," he added. "All of those need to come up and so I think this puts the focus back on that and back on the legislation." Of all the grievances listed in the Meadows resolution, the one that likely hits closest to home is the charge of Boehner punishing those voting against the interests of GOP leaders, particularly on the rules for various debates. Earlier this year, Meadows was stripped of his role as chairman of the House Oversight subcommittee on Government Operations. After a fierce protest from conservatives, Meadows was restored. The congressman insists his efforts to vacate the chair do not stem from that episode, but he says the punishing of him and other members is a sore spot in the House Republican Conference. "It's not just me, " he said. "It's a number of other people who vote their conscience and then are punished either in a direct or indirect way for doing so. It really thwarts their efforts to represent the people that have sent them to Washington, D.C., to vote on their behalf." Thus far, Boehner is giving the Meadows motion scant public attention. "You've got a member here and a member there who are off the reservation. No big deal," said Boehner at his weekly press briefing. "This is one member, alright? I've got broad support among my colleagues. Frankly, it isn't even deserving of a vote." Meadows says Boehner is entitled to his opinion but is not honestly characterizing the extent of discontent with the speaker. "To suggest that it's one or two people would not be indicative of the facts on the ground," said Meadows. "He's really not recognizing the depths of the issue at hand here. Really, it's not just one or two," he added. "There is a growing, growing concern among not just conservatives but a number of members." Supporters and critics of Meadows are both scratching their heads over his tactics. The motion filed by Meadows leaves the timing and rules for the vote up to leadership. Detractors say if he was really serious about removing Boehner, Meadows would have filed a privileged resolution which demands an immediate vote. Meadows says he could still go that route at some point, but he deliberately decided against it to allow for a "conversation" within the GOP conference. "If we can have that family discussion first and solve it, then there doesn't need to be a need for calling it up as a privileged resolution. If not, that option was available for us a few days ago and certainly will be available to us in the future," said Meadows. So will this actually go anywhere? Meadows says there are two key factors that will determine if this ever comes to a vote. First, he says the American people need to let their member of Congress know if this issue is important to them. He also says leadership can play a big role in how this turns out. "It depends on the leadership team in place right now. If they're willing to look at changing the way that we do business, then there's not the need for a new speaker," said Meadows, who cautions that leadership needs to do more than simply make more promises. "We've had initiatives that have started, but, indeed, if we're going to do business as usual, then it requires a change. If not, I welcome that and look forward to having those discussions with the appropriate actions to follow up. Hopefully we'll make sure Washington, D.C., is no longer broken," he said. This is the third attempt by Republicans to remove Boehner. The other two occurred in the votes for speaker at the start of a new Congress in 2013 and again earlier this year. One of the major criticisms of those efforts was that GOP dissenters failed to rally around a single candidate as an acceptable alternative to Boehner. Meadows says the idea that a conference of 247 members can only produce one option for the top leadership position is ridiculous. He says many of his colleagues would do a good job, but did not offer any names. "There's been a handful of people mentioned. It's really too early to tell who would be that person or even if there will be one. But certainly there are a number of very gifted colleagues in the House of Representatives right now," said Meadows. |
| Senate Showdown Monday to Defund Planned Parenthood |
| Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:23:08 EST The U.S. Senate will vote Monday evening on a bill to strip Planned Parenthood of taxpayer dollars in the wake of four undercover videos exposing the practices of the nation's largest abortion provider, but even pro-life activists confess the effort will fall short until a pro-life president resides in the White House. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has scheduled a vote on legislation sponsored by Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa. Senate Resolution 1881 will require 60 votes to cut off debate and then a simple majority to pass the bill. Pro-life forces say they have more momentum on this issue than ever before, even though getting to 60 votes will be a stiff challenge. "The last time we had a vote in the Senate to defund Planned Parenthood, we only got 42 votes. This time we're expecting to get a majority. We're working toward getting 60 votes," said Susan B. Anthony List Communications Director Mallory Quigley. Right now, the group, also known as the SBA List, is fiercely urging fence-sitting senators from both parties to get behind the Ernst bill. "We've been lobbying very hard swing Republicans and swing Democrats alike. There are three Republicans that are shaky on this issue and there's a couple Democrats we'd really like to win over, people that have voted pro-life in the past," said Quigley. The Republican senators who have yet to commit on this issue are Lisa Murkowski, R- Alaska, Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Susan Collins, R-Maine. The SBA List is also trying to convince Democrats Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., Joe Manchin, D-WV, Bob Casey, D-Penn., and Heidi Heitkamp, D-ND, to support the bill. This debate has shifted seismically in the past three weeks. Quigley says the videos produced by the Center for Medical Progress have quickly and radically changed the abortion debate. "This is the worst PR disaster that Planned Parenthood has ever experienced," she said. "This is getting us way farther in the fight to defund Planned Parenthood than we've ever been before and it's very encouraging to see so many of our pro-life leaders, particularly Joni Ernst, one of those pro-life women we helped to elect, taking the lead on this." There's a harsh reality for the SBA List and others looking to end the $528 million in taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood. Even if they can finds the 60 votes to pass the bill in the Senate, they will need 67 to override a guaranteed veto from President Obama. Quigley admits winning this fight with a Democrat in the White House is very tough. "Planned Parenthood has an absolute stranglehold on the Democratic Party. We won't get this done without a pro-life president. We've got to break that dam if we're going to get through," she said, saying the current president and the likely Democratic nominee in 2016 are wholly committed to the pro-choice agenda. "The ultimate solution to this issue is electing a pro-life president. President Obama has been a longtime ally of Planned Parenthood. Hillary Clinton, who's got a lot of support on the Democratic side for the upcoming election, she and Planned Parenthood have an incredibly cozy relationship going back decades," said Quigley. If a pro-life president is elected, Quigley believes they will have the support of the majority of Americans on numerous life issues. "The people of this country are pro-life. The majority , when it gets down to brass tacks and you're talking about actual legislation, they oppose more abortions than they support. They support these common-sense, compassionate limitations, and people don't want to be funding abortion businesses," said Quigley. In addition to the effort to remove taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, Quigley says the Senate will also soon take up the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, that would ban the vast majority of abortions past 20 weeks of pregnancy. "Majority Leader McConnell has committed to that vote multiple times, so we're expecting it sometime in the fall," said Quigley. |
| 'He Failed Every One of Those Duties' |
| Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:23:20 EST House Republicans are calling for the ouster of IRS Commissioner John Koskinen over his failure to preserve evidence or tell the truth about the agency's targeting of conservative organizations and their donors. The government's reluctance to hand over relevant materials to Congress in this case also suggests the special Benghazi committee may have trouble getting what it needs from Hillary Clinton's emails. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, is a longtime member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He says the IRS was under a preservation order from it's own officials and a subpoena from the oversight committee to maintain critical evidence. But that's not what happened. "With a preservation order and a subpoena in place, the IRS destroys 422 tapes containing potentially 24,000 emails. This according to the inspector general. They destroyed them on March 4, 2014," said Jordan. Koskinen became commissioner in the midst of the investigation, but Jordan says his performance has been abysmal. "Three weeks after that, John Koskinen comes before the oversight committee and testified. He's asked repeatedly about Lois Lerner's emails and he tells us at that hearing, 'I will get you all of her emails.' That's a blatantly false statement if you've destroyed 422 tapes and 24,000 emails," said Jordan. Just as significant, says Jordan, is that Koskinen has never corrected the record. Meanwhile, the committee is still waiting for thousands of Lerner emails that were salvaged because IRS officials are taking time to make sure there are no duplicates of any emails. Put together, Jordan says the commissioner has to go. "When you think about the duties Mr. Koskinen had: a duty to preserve the documents, a duty to produce the documents, a duty to disclose to us when he couldn't preserve and produce those, a duty to give accurate testimony and then, if he's given testimony that's inaccurate, a duty to correct the record," said Jordan. "He failed every one one of those duties and that's why he needs to go," he added. Jordan says the GOP demand for Koskinen's removal is not an overreaction. He says the commissioner has already received more tolerance than the government grants the average taxpayer. "If you're a taxpayer and you're being audited by the Internal Revenue Service, do you get to make false statements and then not correct the record? When you are supposed to preserve things, do they cut you any slack if you wouldn't preserve those and wouldn't produce those and didn't disclose to them when you destroyed those?" asked Jordan. "There is no way a taxpayer gets that kind of courtesy or that kind of treatment, so why in the world should the agency that serves the taxpayers get some special deal?" he said. In 2013, President Obama expressed outrage that the IRS allegedly harassed conservative groups applying for non-profit status. Last week on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," Obama had a much different appraisal of the story. "When there was that problem with the IRS, everybody jumped, including you, 'Look, you've got this back office and they're going after the tea party.' Well, it turned out no," Obama told Stewart, contending that IRS operatives "poorly and stupidly" implemented a confusing law. "The truth of the matter is there was not some big conspiracy there," Obama insisted. Jordan says that's simply untrue. "The IRS was targeting people based on their political beliefs and they targeted conservatives. It's a fact. The inspector general did the investigation and that's what he determined. Now the inspector general has further investigated and determined that they destroyed 422 tapes containing potentially 24,000 emails," said Jordan. Jordan's frustration extends beyond Koskinen to the commissioner's former chief counsel, Kate Duval. "One month before those tapes were destroyed, she was on notice that there were problems back in 2011 with Lois Lerner's emails and that the emails they were trying to recover foe congressional investigation, there were gaps in those emails," said Jordan. "So she learns that in February 2014 and doesn't disclose that. In fact a month later they destroy the tapes," said Jordan. Duval is no longer at the IRS, but Jordan fears her new job could hamstring another critical probe. "Guess where she's at today? She's over at the State Department. She's left the IRS. She's now at the State Department. She's in charge of document production about Hillary Clinton's emails for the Benghazi select committee," said Jordan, who is a member of the Benghazi panel. "Sometimes fact is stranger than fiction." House Republicans are demanding President Obama fire Koskinen as head of the IRS but that is very unlikely to happen. Jordan says lawmakers will pursue impeachment if necessary, although he admits that could be a lengthy road. "We're looking at how that has to unfold. You may have to look at a contempt (of Congress) issue before you go to impeachment. You have to work with the House Judiciary Committee. So we are doing the due diligence, the hard work that has to be done to be ready for that," he said. Jordan says Obama and other Democrats are eager to move on from the IRS investigation but he says Republicans will keep demanding accountability in order to defend the most constitutional rights. "Remember what they did. They attacked our most fundamental liberty. Under the first amendment, we have a right to speak in a political nature against the policies of our government and not be harassed for doing so," said Jordan. "They systematically, and for a sustained period of time, harassed people for speaking out. They violated people's first amendment free speech rights and now they think they can have this cavalier attitude about destroying and erasing tapes and not producing the documents and not disclosing and not testifying accurately. That is flat out wrong and they should be held accountable," he said. |
| 'They Are Destroying This Party from the Top' |
| Wed, 29 Jul 2015 15:58:02 EST Congressional Republicans are headed towards summer recess in turmoil and former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says it's because Republican leaders are acting like big-spending liberals and conservatives have had enough of it. The House of Representatives is the scene of the latest unrest, as Rep. Mark Meadows, R-NC, filed a motion to remove House Speaker John Boehner from his leadership position. Boehner says he will not allow a vote before recess. Things are just as intense in the Senate. Last Friday, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, called Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a liar on the Senate floor for allegedly insisting to GOP colleagues that there was no deal with Democrats to add an amendment to the highway funding bill that would re-authorize the Export-Import Bank. That amendment was easily approved, while McConnell refused to consider amendments to defund Planned Parenthood of withhold homeland security funds from sanctuary cities. McConnell vows to hold a separate vote to defund Planned Parenthood and the process is being fast-tracked. Nonetheless, conservatives are fed up with what they see as a GOP leadership abandoning the conservative principles they espoused last year to win the majority. "Mitch McConnell is now an affliction upon America as majority leader," said Cuccinelli, who is now president of the Senate Conservatives Fund, which has contributed to numerous challengers to moderate or liberal incumbent Republicans. He says the difference between the campaign rhetoric and the legislative record is as different as night and day. "The simple measure is have they passed anything that is helpful from a conservative standpoint. Sadly, in the U.S. Senate, the answer is no," said Cuccinelli. "You literally cannot name, here at the end of July headed into the August recess, one thing that has come out of the United States Senate that conservatives can be proud of. Not one thing." In denouncing the GOP leader, Sen. Cruz also asserted that a Senate run by McConnell is largely identical to the one run for eight years by former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D- Nev. Many on the right have suggested that statement is an exaggeration. Cuccinelli doesn't think so. "If you just close your eyes and look at what's come out of the Senate, it wouldn't surprise you at all to learn that Harry Reid was the majority leader. If you just look at what's coming out of the Senate, President Obama, for his ranting and raving at times, has every reason to be very happy with it all," said Cuccinelli. Not only does Cuccinelli see McConnell and other Republican leaders squandering the power they won in the midterm elections, but he says the past six months have greatly dispirited the base. "When Republicans govern like big government Democrats, and they squash conservatives and they squash any sense of fiscal responsibility, Republican grassroots voters abandon them and get fed up and furious. They are destroying this party from the top of it," said Cuccinelli. "As you've seen from polling, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner together are driving Republicans' view of Republican leadership into the dirt, face first, no hands to catch yourself," he added. Cuccinelli says the proof is not only in the lack of conservative accomplishments but in the backlash aimed at those who mention it. He says Cruz was never rebutted on the facts of his allegation against McConnell but was admonished for going public. "When did telling the truth become beneath the decorum of the Senate?" he asked. Another concerning moment for Cuccinelli centered on McConnell attaching an amendment to the highway bill to defund Obamacare. He says it quickly became clear this wasn't a serious effort. "Mitch McConnell said he was going to fight to pull out Obamacare root and branch. He abandoned Mike Lee's effort to support Mitch McConnell's own amendment to do that," said Cuccinelli. "He became horrified when Lee figured out a way to actually get the amendment considered as opposed to just giving Mitch McConnell credit for submitting it. So then Mitch McConnell was whipping votes against his own amendment," said Cuccinelli. He says the conservative members are now getting hammered for trying to advance the party's stated priorities. "They're beating up Ted Cruz for simply telling the truth. They're beating up Mike Lee for actually trying to keep promises that all of them made. God forbid we do what we said we were going to do," said Cuccinelli. |
| Obama Readies 'Pen and Phone' on Iran |
| Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:31:17 EST Secretary of State John Kerry refused to tell lawmakers Tuesday that the Obama administration would abide by existing laws on Iran sanctions if Congress were to successfully torpedo the agreement. In a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, Rep. Brad Sherman, D. Calif., pointedly asked Kerry if the administration would follow the current law if Congress were to find the two-thirds majority necessary to reject the plan. 1cI can 19t begin to answer that at this point without consulting with the president and determining what the circumstances are, 1d said Kerry, according to a report from National Review. When Sherman followed up, Kerry said his previous response simply indicated that he would not engage in hypotheticals. Rep. Ted Yoho, R. Fla., was alarmed by the exchange. "I think Mr. Sherman was right on. To see the secretary of state skirting around this instead of backing up America and saying, 'Absolutely, we are going to follow the rule of law. We are going to hold Iran's feet to the fire,'" said Yoho. The congressman says the president is clearly emboldened and has even reason to expect he can flout the law and get away with it. "As has happened so may times in this administration, the president's got a pen and he's got a phone. He has audaciously talked about that," said Yoho. "Why would he not do that? We in the House have never held him accountable for any of that," he added. Yoho is also frustrated by Kerry's contention to lawmakers and in the press that Congress must approve the deal to preserve America's standing in the world. "That's a very cheap shot. Sitting on Foreign Affairs and having the ability to talk to dignitaries and ambassadors from all over the world, we've already lost our credibility in the world," said Yoho. I've talked to people from a lot of different countries. The credibility of the United States is at the lowest point they've ever seen it. Our allies don't know if they can trust us and our enemies don't really fear or respect us." Tuesday's hearing also focused on recently revealed side deals that the Obama administration did not reveal to Congress. Last week, Sen. Tom Cotton, R. Ark., and Rep. Mike Pompeo, R. Kansas, reported the deal gives the International Atomic Energy Agency latitude to negotiate with Iran for the right to inspect suspected nuclear facilities without Congress having the opportunity to review the concessions made by inspectors. Yoho says the explanations from Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz were less than satisfactory to him. "When they were asked about that they first disputed them. Now they're owning up that there are some side deals. [Rep. Ron] DeSantis asked if we were going to get the information. John Kerry said, 'We'll give you a briefing on it.' I don't want a briefing. I want the information that's in the deal so that we can make an intelligent decision on whether or not this a bad deal," said Yoho. To be sure, Yoho is already convinced this is a terrible deal. "I don't need that information to tell me it's a bad deal because with what I know now, it is a bad deal other than for Iran," said Yoho, who says a country music song sums up this deal. "It reminds me of that country song by Jerry Reed, 'She Got the Gold Mine (I Got the Shaft).' They get to export their oil. They get to export their gold. They're paving a road to nuclear weapons. In economic development, they're getting released of $100-$115 billion in sanctions, which equates to about $60-$70 billion that they get to use now. We get to import Persian rugs, dates and nuts," said Yoho. As bad as the terms of the deal look to Yoho, he says the most offensive part of the deal is that the United States considered the terrorism-sponsoring regime in Iran worthy of serious negotiations. "Guess who you're dealing with? You're dealing with a country that, since 1979, has got a lot of American blood on their hands. If you look at all the soldiers that were killed or harmed in Afghanistan or Iraq, seventy percent of those came from IED's. Ninety percent of those were manufactured by Iran," said Yoho. As the vote on the Iran draws closer, the congressman says lawmakers of all political persuasions would be wise to heed the words of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who served as commander-in-chief near the dawn of the nuclear age. "President Eisenhower said back in the '50s that if a country's nuclear intentions are peaceful, they're out in the open and everybody knows about it. If they're in secrecy and done in the heat of the night and hidden, those are only done for producing weapons," he said. |
| 'Absurd' Federal Ruling Ties Employers' Hands |
| Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:46:50 EST A key government agency says the landmark Civil Rights Act forbids employers from firing or refusing to hire people based on their sexual orientation, a ruling critics say has no basis in law and threatens to erode our most basic liberties. On July 16, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on biological sex, also ought to apply to sexual orientation. The decision follows a 2012 ruling that extended similar protections to transgender employees and applicants. The only exception is extended to business with fifteen or fewer employees. "This ruling is absolutely absurd," said Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver. "It's certainly not based upon the statute and so this is lawlessness in the process. This is an activist agency dominated by appointments from President Barack Obama that has a homosexual agenda that trumps not only Title VII and any other statutory law but even the first amendment." Staver says there is no rational way to conclude members of Congress in 1964 intended the Civil Rights Act to cover sexual orientation. "Title VII is what Congress said it is and what Congress said it is is very specific. It's about sex discrimination. That's whether you're male or female, not whether you're engaging in a certain kind of sexual behavior," he said. "They're not trying to protect a pedophile or a homosexual or a transsexual or a pederast or someone else that has some other sexual fetish or abnormal activity. They're trying to deal with the difference between a male and a female," said Staver, who says the EEOC is ignoring the law to advance its agenda. "This is just three people pretending to have authority which they don't. Their authority has to interpret the federal Title VII. Title VII does not include homosexuality or any other kind of sexually aberrant behavior," he said. What will be the impact on the workplace? Staver contends that if employees keep their sex lives to themselves, most working environments would remain much as they are today. "Most people are not going to tell someone that they can't work for them if they're doing the job and they're not pushing their sexual activity into the face of other individuals. They're not going to inquire about what they do when they're not at the workplace in most situations," he said. The problem, says Staver, is that homosexuals often call attention to themselves because their sexual orientation is critical to their overall identity. "They're not content just having this as something that they do outside of the workplace. No, this is part of who they want you to understand they are. It is front and center. It is a very sexualized culture," said Staver. "They bring that sexualized culture into the workplace. They talk about it. They put it into your face," said Staver. There are no exceptions in the EEOC decision for churches or faith-based organizations and Staver complaints based on religious freedom will fall on deaf ears. "If you're relying upon the EEOC, there is no religious freedom protection. In fact the the head of the EEOC appointed by President Obama, Chai Feldblum, says that if there is a collision between homosexual rights and the first amendment free exercise of religion, you would think that the first amendment wins. She says no. Homosexual rights win," said Staver. What options does this leave employers seeking greater freedom in their hiring? Staver says the time for civil disobedience is here. "We're entering into a lawless phase. The 3-2 decision by the EEOC is an example. The 5-4 opinion by the Supreme Court on marriage is another example. When we come to a lawless phase, at some point in time we just have to resist and say, 'We're not going to allow three people on the EEOC or five people on the Supreme Court to destroy this religious mission and ministry. We're not going to allow it and we've got to push back," said Staver. In fact, Staver believes the failure to push back now and over the long haul will put our our most cherished liberties in peril. "We've come to a different place in our history. We've come to a place of revolution, where we need to revolt against this tyranny of a few people who, despite what the Constitution and the courts' precedents say and despite what natural law and the Bible says, they come out with this opinion," he said. "They expect 320 million Americans to walk like the Pied Piper and follow them over the cliff. If that's what happens, then God help us, because we've lost our country. We've lost our liberty," said Staver. |
| 'Dozens and Dozens of Hours' |
| Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:46:45 EST Undercover video of a high-ranking Planned Parenthood official casually discussing the graphic dismemberment of the unborn rocked the abortion debate last week, and the head of the group behind the video says there's much more to come. The initial video focused on Planned Parenthood conducting abortions in a manner that would preserve fetal organs intact. The Human Capital Project of the Center for Medical Progress produced the video, alleging Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of aborted babies for profit. That is a violation of federal law punishable by imprisonment and hefty fines. Planned Parenthood says it donates fetal tissue for medical research and only charges for the amount needed to be reimbursed for its efforts to donate the specimens. Reaction to the both the content of the video and the casual manner in which Planned Parenthood Senior Director of Medical Services Dr. Deborah Nucatola describes such grisly actions elicited a swift response. Five states and three congressional committees are launching investigations. Center for Medical Progress President David Deleiden says this video was part of a 30-month undercover operation at Planned Parenthood. He says what we've seen thus far is just the tip of the iceberg. "We have dozens and dozens of hours of very shocking, troubling footage and admissions from within the top levels of the abortion industry and Planned Parenthood, coming straight from the words of top level Planned Parenthood executives and officials and medical directors and abortion doctors," said Deleiden. And it doesn't stop there. "We have probably 100-200 pages of Planned Parenthood body parts purchases, internal documents about the practice," he said. Several of those documents have already been posted to the group's website. Deleiden says other compelling video will emerge as well. "We also have very compelling eyewitness testimony from people who were actually in real life involved in the harvesting of aborted baby parts at Planned Parenthood clinics," he said. The roll-out of the videos and documents will come over the coming days and weeks. Deleiden says there are good reasons for this to come out in stages. "The whole issue of Planned Parenthood's baby parts sales is such a complex and multi-layered phenomenon that it's really important, especially in out 24-hour news cycle, that each piece of evidence gets a fair hearing and gets all the attention that is due to it, so that you don't actually lose the audience as you're trying to move forward and educate the public about everything that's going on," he said. How did the harvesting and alleged selling of unborn baby body parts become the focal point of this probe? Deleiden says he and his allies did not know much about the issue when the undercover work started because no one had aggressively investigated it in the past 15 years. "There's sort of been a renaissance of fetal tissue harvesting at Planned Parenthood Clinics in the past five years. That was the extent of our knowledge getting into this whole project. Really, everything we've learned we've learned from the mouths of the abortion doctors and the Planned Parenthood leaders themselves. So we just listened and continued to add to the pile of evidence for two-and-a-half years," said Deleiden. On Thursday, Planned Parenthood President Cecille Richards released a video statement to respond to the allegations from the Center for Medical Progress. Richards vehemently denies selling aborted baby parts for profit but admits to donating fetal tissue for research if the families wish to do so. She denounced the Center for Medical Progress but did apologize for the tone of Dr. Nucatola's comments as lacking compassion. Deleiden is not impressed. "It's a pretty belated apology, coming three days late from Planned Parenthood. I'm also curious what they think is compassionate about saving a baby's head for laughs or making sure that you don't crush a certain part so you can sell it later. It seems to me like it's less of an apology and more of a cynical, last-minute excuse," he said, noting the tone doesn't change in the videos still to be released. "The kind of conversation that our investigators had with Planned Parenthood's new director of medical services was pretty much mirrored in every other conversation that we had with their abortion doctors. There were many statements made over the past two-and-a-half years that were even more shocking than what was said at that lunch meeting," said Deleiden. He says Nucatola's comments also give lie to Planned Parenthood's insistence that patient safety is always the top priority. "If Planned Parenthood is really a legitimate medical provider, you're expecting them to put the interests of the patient first. As the Planned Parenthood senior director of medical services says in the video, when they are manipulating the abortion procedure and changing things about their technique with the goal of getting better body parts for sale, they're not putting the interests of the patient first," said Deleiden. As for the long-term impact on the abortion debate, Deleiden says these videos will demonstrate how illogical abortion laws really are. "According to our laws, an unborn child is not considered fully human enough to be fully protected by the law. They're not protected from being killed by abortion. At the same time, it's precisely because of their humanity that their body parts are so valuable for sale to biotech companies and for scientific experimentation. That's why researchers hunt after their body parts like buried treasure," he said. "It's a really disturbing paradox to a lot of people, where we're saying children are more valuable dead than alive," said Deleiden. |
| 'They Obviously Don't Know Islam' |
| Fri, 17 Jul 2015 16:04:20 EST The United States government refuses to acknowledge the Islamic threat confronting our nation and our leaders and citizens turn a blind eye to the danger to their own peril because what is often termed as radical Islam is actually the religion's purest form. Retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis is the author of the forthcoming book "Never Submit: Will the Extermination of Christians Get Worse Before It Gets Better?" The book is due to be released in late August and is endorsed by the likes of evangelist Franklin Graham. On Thursday, Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez attacked two different military locations in Chattanooga, Tennessee. He killed four U.S. Marines and seriously wounded a member of the U.S. Navy before being killed himself. In response, President Obama responded to the deaths of the Marines by calling it a "heartbreaking circumstance" and cautioning Americans not to jump to conclusions. For Maginnis, this is par for the course for Obama. "When it's politically expedient, he jumps to conclusions on other cases. When it comes to Islamic terrorism, he'll drag his feet and won't even declare we have a problem with Islamic terrorists," he said. The investigation is still in the early stages, but federal officials are classifying the case as terrorism and the early reports of extended trips to the Middle East jihad-related blog writings add fuel to the likelihood that Abdulazeez is the latest in a series of murderers acting in the name of Islam. "It's quite possible and probably likely that he was motivated by his faith of Islam and he was motivated by his belief in jihad and that he took out that hostility that is pent up in many of these people against targets of the U.S. government. Of course the most visible (targets) in many communities are the recruiters who wear military uniforms," said Maginnis. Obama takes pains to distinguish between what he considers the peaceful religion of Islam and violent extremists who be believes pervert the faith. "ISIL is not "Islamic," said Obama to the nation in September 2014." No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL's victims have been Muslim." Maginnis says Obama and his defenders have that all wrong. "They obviously don't know Islam. They need to study the Koran, the Hadith, the Sunnah. When you do, you find out that what ISIS is doing is exactly in compliance with what the prophet Mohammad taught and what the Koran says. ISIS is more Islamic than the vast majority of the people that calls themselves Muslims in today's world," said Maginnis. And the worldview of Abdulazeez may be far more common among American Muslims than many realize. Maginnis cites a Polling Company survey conducted in June for the Center for Security Policy. "Sixteen percent believe that jihad justifies violent holy war here in the United States. Forty-one percent believe that jihad is an obligation that they have from Islam," said Maginnis. Other results show 51 percent of American Muslims believe they should have the option of living under Sharia law as opposed to U.S. law. While a majority of Muslims believe Sharia and the U.S. Constitution are compatible, 43 percent believe if they conflict that the Constitution should be considered supreme. Thirty-three percent say Sharia should take precedent. "What you have is a sizable part of a Muslim population that believes in violent jihad and the imposition of Sharia Islamic law," said Maginnis, who says America is also faced with the simultaneous problems of unfettered Muslim immigration at the expense of Christians and a government awash in political correctness. Maginnis adds that while Obama and other officials may be confused with the Islamic end game, others see it very clearly. "In the book, I chronicle a number of people that have come out of the Islamic faith and say, 'They are deadly serious about what they're saying.' Unfortunately, in the West we tend to forgive that as being naive. They're not naive. They know exactly what they want, and they're going to get it at our expense," said Maginnis, who is quick to add that the general public is oblivious to the creeping Sharia threat as well. "It's total ignorance. It's [fear] of the political correctness that permeates from the top all the way down to our local communities. This is especially threatening to Christians because just like we saw Christian genocide taking place in the Middle East, they have no tolerance for anyone that will not believe in their god, in their way of life, in their laws," said Maginnis. He added, "We've been the great melting pot for many, many years. This particular segment of the population doesn't want to be part. They want to take over our country and make it into something tantamount to what you're seeing today in the Middle East." Maginnis admits rolling back this momentum will be challenging, but he before we can win we need to admit we have a problem. "If we don't wake up as a nation...then we're going to pay a very heavy price. And that price could be our own freedom," he said. |
| Greece: The Musical |
| Fri, 17 Jul 2015 15:37:40 EST Are you struggling to keep track of the issues and developments in the Greek debt crisis? Fear not. The Capitol Steps explain it all, to the music of "Grease." |
| 'Culture of Death' Targets Schoolgirls |
| Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:12:22 EST The Obamacare contraception mandate was a major issue in the 2012 presidential campaign and liberals may soon be pushing for taxpayer-funded abortafacient drugs for young girls as part of the 2016 campaign strategy. The issue appeared earlier this week in the New York Times' "Room for Debate" blog. At issue is a growing debate arising out of Colorado. "The most recent issue involves a pilot test in Colorado, where a private, charitable organization had paid for long-term birth control: implants and IUD's and other things for teenage girls. They found that dramatically reduced the incidents of pregnancy," said Galen Institute President Grace-Marie Turner, who contributed to the "Room for Debate" dialogue. She says activists in Colorado then decided to take the idea statewide on the taxpayers' tab. "The Colorado legislature then considered legislation for taxpayer funding for long-term birth control," said Turner. "It was not able to get through the Colorado legislature...because of the issue of government funded, taxpayer-funded contraception, particularly contraceptive devices that cause an early abortion, as an IUD does." Despite the defeat in Colorado, where the legislative chambers are controlled by different parties, Turner says we can expect this to soon become a national debate. "When you see something like this as a pilot test and it reaches the New York Times that it is absolutely very likely to be advanced as a national agenda," said Turner. "Hillary Clinton, if she gets the nomination, is certainly going to push women's issues to the front and center, and this is certainly one of them." She added, "If we think that government really is supposed to take care of us, then that would be part of the agenda of those who would be advancing this particular type of initiative." She says the template was already set with the implementation of Obamacare. "The abortion lobby has been very active in pushing for passage of the Affordable Care Act, then including in it a mandate that all private health plans free contraceptive coverage and that includes abortafacients. The preventive care mandate in Obamacare includes sterilization," said Turner. Turner believes this is all part of a larger, destructive agenda. "What kind of message does that send to teenage girls, that we don't trust them to be responsible with their own sexuality? The government is going to take care of them. They can have sex without consequence," said Turner. She says that message from the left is a bald-faced lie. "There's no sex without consequence, even if pregnancy is not one of the consequences. The incidents of sexually transmitted diseases will increase. The sense of responsibility for these young women, their ability to have longer-term relationships later in life (will be threatened)," said Turner. "If young women are not taking care of themselves, men are not going to respect them," said Turner. "It certainly could be compromising their health. Their sense of being able to earn their place in a civil society absolutely will be compromised." While Turner admits Republicans have been "all over the map" on the contraception issue in recent years in response to the contraception mandate, she says there are still stark differences between the two parties. "There's this culture of death that I think is such an antithesis to what health care is about. They treat pregnancy as a disease instead of leaving it as the life-giving force that it is. There is a very basic, fundamental difference between the agenda of the right and the agenda of the left. That's really manifest in this most recent controversy," she said. |
| Congress Can't Stop Iran Nukes |
| Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:32:41 EST Vigorous debate is already underway in Congress over whether to accept or reject the multilateral agreement designed to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton says the vast majority of the deal will go into effect regardless of what Congress does, meaning Iran will get the bomb. According to the legislation passed earlier this year, Congress has 60 days to vote on the deal. President Obama vows to veto any rejection of the plan, meaning Republicans would need considerable help from Democrats to amass the two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate needed to override the veto. Even if that happens, Bolton says Iran and Obama still get most of what they want. "The deal itself can't be stopped by Congress. Even if they got a veto-proof majority in both houses, the only thing they could do is prevent Obama from lifting American sanctions. Once the UN Security Council lifts sanctions, the Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese, everybody else will rescind their national sanctions," said Bolton. While keeping the U.S. sanctions in place would temper the financial relief for Iran, Bolton says they will not provide meaningful resistance for the Iranian nuclear agenda. "Even if the opponents in Congress prevail, our sanctions will remain in place but nobody else's will. That means Iran can get whatever it needs somewhere else in the world," said Bolton. "Absolutely, Iran is on it's way to nuclear weapons and free of economic sanctions to boot," he said. Bolton says the next president can "renounce" this agreement but that may not accomplish much. In addition to the UN and many countries planning to lift sanctions, Bolton expects Iran to take advantage of the next 18 months. "Iran can read the calendar just as well as we can. Nobody knows who will be elected in November of 2016, but they know their man in the White House for the next 18 months. I think you can count on the ayatollahs to take every bit of advantage they can out of Obama's remaining days in the presidency," he said. Bolton has pleaded for the past few years for the Obama administration not to strike a deal with Iran. Now that the terms of the agreement are public, he says the reality is worse than what he feared. "Unbelievably, it's even worse," said Bolton. "On issue after issue, Iran has won their point almost to the exclusion of any benefit to the United States. In particular, I do think we have legitimized this regime, this state sponsor of terrorism. We've legitimized their nuclear program. We've left them with the technology that critical for a would-be nuclear weapons state." In addition to his service at the United Nations, Bolton spent the first four years of the George W. Bush administration as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security. He says that background shows him just how feeble this nuclear deal really is. "I can speak as an old arms control negotiator myself. Reading the exact language the parties have agreed to shows how many loopholes really exist. So when the president, Secretary Kerry and others talk about what the deal provides, they're only occasionally being accurate. It's almost like it's a matter of coincidence," said Bolton. What is an example of these loopholes? "There's just so much flexibility for them to obstruct the work of the international inspectors and others, to build up stockpiles of uranium even though they're supposedly committed to reducing them and to begin to take steps in full, plain view of international inspectors that will bring them closer to a real nuclear weapons capability," said Bolton. "For example, they will not only be allowed to continue to do research and development on advanced centrifuges, they'll be able to test that with radioactive material. They may not be able to accumulate more enriched uranium. What they need is not to accumulate it but to test it, so that these more advanced centrifuges, once perfected, could be manufactured in secret somewhere else," he said. Bolton says that's just the tip of the iceberg. "There are more examples than time that we have," he said. "The inspection provision is full of loopholes. The requirement to disclose possible military dimensions of their program is more loophole than agreement. The so-called snapback provision designed to bring sanctions back into effect if Iran is found to be in violation is extraordinarily weak. The list goes on and on." One of the concerns getting the most attention is the U.S. concession on inspections. After months of insisting upon anywhere anytime inspections, the Obama administration agreed to have inspectors request permission to inspect facilities newly suspected of carrying on nuclear activities. Under the agreement, a minimum of 24 days would separate the request from the actual inspection. Why did the U.S. back off this supposedly non-negotiable position? "I think the Iranians just ground the administration down on it. So when you hear the president say, 'We have full transparency here,' that's a fantasy," said Bolton. "The fact is the terms of the agreement give Iran innumerable opportunities to obstruct the [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspectors and to conceal and hide damaging information." Bolton would never strike a deal with Iran because he believes it would legitimize the Iranian regime and because he's confident they will cheat on any agreement. But he says any hope for a a decent deal collapsed when the Obama administration made a critical error early in the negotiations. "The biggest mistake the administration made was right at the beginning of this latest round of negotiations two years ago when they conceded that Iran could continue to do uranium enrichment," said Bolton, noting the UN Security Council was adamant that Iran stop enriching uranium as far back as 2006 because enriched uranium is the key to any hopes of any nuclear proliferation. Defenders of the agreement, including Obama, insist blatant violation of the terms by Iran would not only result in renewed sanctions but keep a military option on the table. Bolton says once Iran has nukes, that option becomes far more complicated. "The world's main funder of terrorists having nuclear weapons gives them impunity from retaliation for their terrorist sponsoring activities. Think back to 9/11. If Al Qaeda and the Taliban had had nuclear weapons back then, would we have been so quick to overthrow the Al Qaeda/Taliban regime in Afghanistan? I don't think so," he said. "I think we would have, quite rightly, had to worry about their retaliation with nuclear weapons. Iran, I think, will soon be in that position," said Bolton. |
| 'No Requirement to Change Their Behavior' |
| Tue, 14 Jul 2015 16:15:05 EST The man who first publicly warned the West about Iran's nuclear intentions is blasting Tuesday's agreement as one that allows the world's top sponsor of terrorism to grow its program, fails to provide meaningful inspections and does not force Iran to change it's behavior at all. Alireza Jafarzadeh is deputy director of the Washington office of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which is the Iranian parliament in exile from the government that was overthrown by Islamic radicals in 1979. Jafarzadeh says assurances from President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry that this agreement will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is fiction. "First, the agreement does not prevent the Iranian regime from having a nuclear weapons capability. Second, it actually maintains and legitimizes the entire nuclear infrastructure of the Iranian regime," he said. Jafarzadeh has reviewed the agreement and is troubled by many aspects, starting with how little it actually restricts Iranian activities. "It puts some cap on for the next 10-15 years, but it allows the regime to build an industrial-size nuclear program with very little limitations in about a decade. It also allows the Iranian regime to conduct research and development on advanced centrifuges," he said. "These are significantly more efficient centrifuges that allow the Iranian regime to use a much smaller number of centrifuges in a hidden place to provide fissile material that they need for the bomb," said Jafarzadeh. And inspections? Jafarzadeh says not to count on those to accomplish anything. "It doesn't provide anytime, anywhere access to suspect nuclear sites, including the military sites. It basically provides what they call managed access with significant delays, which takes away the whole surprise element completely. It undermines the very purpose of intrusive inspections," he said. The deal also provides no specifics on allowing inspections of several sites that Iranian officials have blocked United Nations weapons inspectors from visiting. While the agreement is light on verification in his estimation, Jafarzadeh says U.S. and allied concessions are very clear. "It is very specific when it comes to sanctions relief and the kind of break that is provided to the Iranian regime, including giving them relief in five to eight years on weapons and missile trade, which is a big problem. It actually enhances the terrorism network of the Iranian regime," said Jafarzadeh. He added, "When you have the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism having a nuclear weapons program legitimized by the international community and over time they can actually expand it and not diminishing it or having any requirement to change their behavior, it's a major, major concern." Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, or ICBM's, are the most likely delivery system for a future nuclear weapon. Jafarzadeh says that program isn't addressed in the agreement either. "Why do you want to have an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program? The only use for is delivering nuclear weapons. There's no country in the world that has so far developed ICBM without using it for nuclear weapons," he said. Along with the legitimizing of the Iranian nuclear program, some of the most nefarious groups associated with Iran would no longer be considered pariahs in the eyes of the U.S.. "A number of entities and individuals who have been involved in terrorism and weapons of mass destruction the exporting of violence in the region are going to be off the list," said Jafarzadeh, specifically listing the Qods force and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in that category. Earlier this year, after Obama announced he would not submit any agreement to Congress as a formal treaty, congressional leaders pushed legislation to give lawmakers the power to review and vote on the deal. However, instead of needing a two-thirds majority to approve it as in the case of treaties, a two-thirds majority is now needed to override a promised Obama veto and sink the deal. Jafarzadeh also blasted Obama for insulting the Iranian people by referring to them and the Iranian regime interchangeably. "The Iranian regime rejects this regime," he said. Jafarzadeh also disputes Obama's contention that the agreement will prevent rather than trigger a Middle East arms race. He says Iran's neighbors know exactly what this regime is capable of. "Look at the countries that are all being troubled by the Iranian regime when they don't have the bomb. Imagine what things would look like in the region when the Iranian regime will get the bomb," he said. |
| OPM Deliberately Failed to Encrypt Personnel Data |
| Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:41:20 EST The Office of Personnel Management, or OPM, refused to encrypt the personal data of millions of Americans, telling lawmakers security is the top priority while failing to implement much of anything recommended by its own inspector general. "Verbally, [security] was a high priority but as a matter of fact it was not," said Rep Mark Meadows, R-N.C., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Subcommittee on Government Operations. "We see for eighteen months, everything else was a priority. They just didn't have time to get to it or they said they were working on it. Yet it was priority number one. Well, we find that priority number one was a whole lot of other issues with regards to this director," said Meadows. In June, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee heard testimony from OPM officials and others following reports that the data of 4.2 million Americans had been compromised. More recent reports put the number at 22 million, triggering the resignation of OPM Director Katherine Archuleta. Meadows is pleased to see Archuleta step down. He says her performance before the committee last month proves she was not up to protecting sensitive data from America's cyber enemies. "In the hearing they said security is priority number one. Yet, what we found was over and over again, each and every thing that was recommended didn't get done, as if somehow there was a firewall that would not allow...Chinese hackers to come in but to stay in there for days at a time," he said. The biggest jaw-dropper in the June testimony was that sensitive data was virtually unguarded. "The director and her chief information officer failed to take even the basic precautions of encryption. You and I would know to do that. You would think that someone who was charged with protecting the personal information of federal workers would just [do] the basics," said Meadows. He says Archuleta and Chief Information Officer Donna Seymour offered multiple reasons for the lack of encryption. "One of the reasons why it supposedly wasn't encrypted was because the programming language was so old that it couldn't be encrypted," said Meadows. "Then it went further to say it was such a large volume of information that they just didn't have time." Meadows says millions of Americans are now at great risk of having their personal information "sold or conveyed" to identity thieves. However, he says the danger to our country is even more sobering. "You've got a real espionage issue here, where you've got people with top-secret security clearance that have background information that are now in the hands of a foreign entity," said Meadows. He added, "The privacy of individuals is one thing, but the national security of a nation is another. To not take the basic precautions as you would with any offensive threat from a foreign government is troubling." According to Meadows, just changing the director at OPM is not enough. He recommends three areas of focus that he refers to as "buckets," starting with the resignation of Seymour. Next is a major focus on updating and strengthening encryption. "We need to make sure that all private information is encrypted, and that includes not only Social Security numbers but other personal identifiers as well," he said, while also highlighting the critical role the private sector can play in protecting out data. "Get the private sector involved in the type of security clearance and encryption and cyber attack defenses that they use. Google does a great job of that in the private sector. We need to get some of those private sector solutions," said Meadows. In addition to the OPM story breaking in June, Meadows himself was in the headlines for several days after full Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, removed Meadows as chairman of the subcommittee on government operations at the behest of GOP leadership. Meadows was punished for voting against various procedural motions on the House floor. After fierce protest from House conservatives, Chaffetz restored Meadows to his previous role. Meadows says he and Chaffetz work together very well and their ability to dig into issues like OPM is not at all hampered by the politics that played out in recent weeks. "My vote was more one that was challenged by leadership. Chairman Chaffetz doesn't see that as a direct attack towards him, nor I his removal of me as a direct attack on me. Hopefully, in the end, we have our priorities, both of us, on the American taxpayer. That's where it needs to be," said Meadows. And right now, he says, that focus needs to be protecting American information and assets from those who wish to do us harm. "We can't continue to turn a blind eye to the kind of attacks that we have. Anybody that has any kind of connectivity with the World Wide Web has an issue with this. So we need to be vigilant each and every day. There are folks out there that are wanting to take this and use this for their benefit and our detriment," said Meadows. |
| 'Do You Trust People or Do You Trust Washington?' |
| Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:16:59 EST Congress is advancing a bill that would allow parents to opt their children out of Common Core but some conservative members say Republicans should use their sizable majority to transfer much more control of schools back to parents and local officials and move closer to scrapping the Department of Education entirely. On Thursday, the House of Representatives re-authorized the No Child Left Behind law that was originally passed in 2002 but expired in 2007. The vote was 218-213. All Democrats opposed it, along with 27 Republicans. Rep. Mark Walker, R-NC, is a leading congressional advocate for decentralized control over education. He says the bill is definitely not perfect but does accomplish some important things. "It does prevent federal coercion on Common Core. It also allows parents across the country to specifically opt out of Common Core for their children. Being a father of three, that's something that's very important to me," said Walker, who is a bit worried about how the U.S. Senate might change the bill. "It does go to the Senate, which can be frightening," he said. "I know they're working together on an education bill and we hope that some of these amendments we've added would remain." The Senate version of the bill will eventually head to a conference committee, where House and Senate negotiators will hammer out a compromise. Walker says it needs to include two key components if leaders want his support. "If the parent doesn't have more control than where it was just a couple months ago, then I would certainly vote a strong no against it," said Walker. "A good solid federalist approach would be to let the states have more control. If those two things are in it, I can go forward even though there may be a couple of nuggets I don't like. If those two things aren't in it, then absolutely not." Walker says the heart of meaningful, GOP-led education reform should be focused on moving power out of Washington and back to parents and local officials. "Do you either trust the people in the local communities or do you trust Washington to do a better job specifically in the area of educating our children. We did a poll recently in the sixth district of North Carolina. Seventy-one percent believe that government is more effective and more accountable the more localized you can make it," said Walker. Walker also led an effort to amend the House bill to give states much more flexibility in how to spend federal dollars. While the amendment failed, the congressman says his APLUS plan is another way to get Washington bureaucrats out of the classroom. "It allows states to opt out completely of even the bill that did pass, but still keep the federal funding. In other words, the funding would come in the form of block grants, but the state would not be required to adapt to any of the more than 80 federal programs that we have seen time and time again not bringing the success that's needed," said Walker. Democrats immediately pushed back at the Walker's amendment, claiming the receipt of federal dollars ought to be contingent upon following federal rules. "I had to do this on the floor with the member (Jared) Polis from Colorado, who, in paraphrasing, talked about, "How are we going to manage this? How do we hold them accountable?' My question was this: how has that worked for us the past, 40, 45, 50 years," said Walker. The Walker amendment, which was also championed by Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., failed on a 235-195 vote. While hoping for passage, Walker says getting that close on his amendment was a major achievement in just a few months. "It was just three months ago when I took it to the rules committee that it was a slam dunk, no-way no-chance, not anywhere close. To come back only three-and-a-half months later and get it to the floor for a vote, a lot of people were expecting maybe 125 or 130. To go as strong as 195 was something that certainly encouraged us," said Walker. Walker's current focus is on giving states more control over their schools. His bigger goal is to abolish the Department of Education. He says its track record is a disaster. "You've got to somehow go back and do a generation of failed policy all the way back to the late Jimmy Carter administration, when it was first introduced. Reagan tried to abolish it early on in his presidency. He didn't have the horsepower or the Congress behind him enough. If you fast forward 35-36 years later, most of our lifetime, we now can look back and see that this new federal bureaucracy simply hasn't worked," Walker said. While he admits no efforts to abolish the Department of Education have been introduced yet in the House, Walker says he would likely get behind that legislation. "There's been some drafts here and there, nothing that's been assigned to a bill number, that would be aggressive to say, 'We tried this. There's billions of dollars being wasted every year. Maybe it's time to take a look at that. If it is, I would be one to support that and happy to go on record in doing so," he said. While Walker draws his line in the sand on how he'll approach a final version of the current legislation, he is not as confident that GOP leaders will demand more rights for parents and states. "No sir, I'm not," said Walker. "There seems to be a culture sometimes in Washington that to get it through is a victory. As Dr. Phil says sometimes, 'How's that working for you?'" That being said, Walker is very appreciative that House leaders allowed his APLUS amendment to be considered. "We actually approached leadership and worked hard on these three amendments, both the Salmon amendment (which allows parents to opt their children out of Common Core), the one that shortened it (from a six to a four year program) as well as APLUS. So they did work with us in allowing these three amendments to get to the floor, when just a few months ago APLUS was ruled out of order," said Walker. |
| Caddell: Legacy Trumps Security in Iran Talks |
| Thu, 9 Jul 2015 16:21:22 EST Longtime Democratic pollster and strategist Pat Caddell says the American people don't want the Iran deal the Obama administration is pursuing and he says America is on the brink of a major mistake because Obama and his allies are more focused on his legacy than national security. Caddell, who rose to prominence for his key role in helping Jimmy Carter win the White House in 1976, is now a frequent thorn in the side of his party for criticizing the Democratic left farther and farther to the left. He recently helped to conduct a bipartisan poll for Secure America Now. The finding show the American people overwhelmingly concerned about a nuclear Iran and the deal being negotiated. Sixty-eight percent of Americans believe Iran will give nuclear weapons to terrorists if it can develop them. Eighty percent believe Iranian nukes will set off a Middle East arms race. 70 percent believe Iran would use nukes against U.S. forces in the region, and 79 percent believe Iran having the bomb will mean their children will be threatened with nuclear war in the years ahead. Caddell says 80 percent of respondents also believe the deal being hammered out in Vienna would only "kick the can down the road." He says the American people make two things perfectly clear. The first is that they want the Iran program entirely scrapped. "When you go through some of the specifics of what we know was being discussed, the American people start with the idea that if [the Iranians are] going to be allowed to keep the nuclear infrastructure, then they're not in favor of it," said Caddell. He also says the public knows what needs to happen to remove the threat. "They would have to discontinue or deconstruct their nuclear program, not maintain it, and that they would have to allow inspections without any reservation and also get rid of the excess uranium they have. People think that's the base of a deal that would work," said Caddell. Those terms are a long way from the reports of what a final deal would likely include. Caddell says a major reason is because Obama and other Democrats are too eager to get something done. "There was a phone call reported by the [Associated Press] the other day, held by several White House aides and (Illinois Rep.) Jan Schakowsky's husband, Mr. (Robert) Creamer and a bunch of very partisan Democrats, talking about how important this was to his legacy," said Caddell, who is infuriated by the political focus on such a key issue. "This isn't about his legacy. This is about our lives. The problem is we're going into this negotiation wanting three things. The president wants a deal for his legacy. (Secretary of State) John Kerry wants a Nobel prize. The Iranians want a nuclear weapon. And they all get what they want," he said. Caddell is mystified by another part of the negotiations as well. "Wendy Sherman, the undersecretary of state for this, is the same woman who negotiated the deal with North Korea," he said. "The same person who did the North Korean deal is amazingly now doing this deal with Iran." "That is scary. That really bothers me. You shouldn't be rewarded for your incompetence by being allowed to perform the same act with an even more dangerous player," said Caddell. Caddell is concerned that a nuclear Iran could turn the 2016 campaign into a referendum on national security. He fears Obama can find enough Democrats to ratify a bad deal thanks to the Corker-Cardin plan, which gives Congress a say on the Iran deal, but allows Obama to veto the rejection of lawmakers. He says the Democratic nervousness runs deep. "There is a lot of consternation in the foreign policy community among Democrats and concern about this deal," he said. Caddell says the bipartisan poll shows lopsided concerns on both sides of the aisle and Obama and other Democrats ignore it at their peril. "I'm going to make sure Democrats understand how our voters feel about these issues as opposed to what the president is claiming. This is not about politics. This is one of the most important issues of my lifetime, maybe the most important," he said. |
| Religious Freedom Fight Rooted in American Heritage |
| Wed, 8 Jul 2015 16:48:18 EST America needs to prepare for a major governmental assault on religious liberty in the wake of the Supreme Court's marriage ruling, but those standing against the tide can find plenty of inspiration from those who pioneered the concept of religious freedom at the American founding. Michael Farris is the co-founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association and is author of "The History of Religious Liberty." The book details the fierce fight for the religious freedom provisions that eventually emerged in the first amendment to the Constitution. Farris says that history is critical to understand in the wake of the marriage decision and the brand new threats to liberty being advocated on the political left. The day after the Obergefell v. Hodges decision was handed down, Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., told MSNBC that she believed religious liberty was a much narrower concept than has been understood for centuries. 1cCertainly the first amendment says that in institutions of faith that there is absolute power to, you know, to observe deeply held religious beliefs. But I don 19t think it extends far beyond that. We 19ve seen the set of arguments play out in issues such as access to contraception," said Baldwin. "Should it be the individual pharmacist whose religious beliefs guides whether a prescription is filled, or in this context, they 19re talking about expanding this far beyond our churches and synagogues to businesses and individuals across this country. I think there are clear limits that have been set in other contexts and we ought to abide by those in this new context across America." she added. Farris is dumbfounded at Baldwin's read on the first amendment. "The ignorance of members of Congress and the U.S. Senate never ceases to baffle me. How did they get there in the first place without taking a basic civics course? Or maybe they have and they just don't believe it," said Farris. "This senator has just simply walked away from not only the text of the Constitution and the meaning of the Constitution but our great American traditions." In fact, Farris believes Baldwin's concept of religious liberty is almost completely backwards. "It is an institutional right. Churches have religious freedom, but it's primarily an individual right. The Supreme Court, back in the day when it used to think straight. would say things like it's not up to the government or the courts to determine which individual within a faith has correctly understood the demands of that faith. You're allowed to go your own way," said Farris. In response to the court decision, Govs. Greg Abbott, R-Texas, and Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, have announced their states will vigorously protect the religious liberty of the people. Farris applauds the efforts but warns those policies won't stop all government intrusion into our lives or the practices of religious institutions. "That's a good thing. It limits the areas where a church or a school can expect, but a Christian college residing in one of those states can still expect an attack from the IRS or from the accrediting association or from the U.S. Department of Education if they don't go along with the federal edicts on this," said Farris, who says schools and churches would be wise to protect themselves legally now given the dire warnings offered in the dissents to the Obergefell decision. "We have four justices on the Supreme Court effectively warning all the religious institutions, 'You better do something about this because trouble's coming.' I don't think that's an idle speculation. That's about as strong of a warning from about as high a source as you can possibly get," he said. Farris expects the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to provide federal protection for Christian individuals and organizations, but only to the extent that Justice Anthony Kennedy acknowledges it. In "The History of Religious Freedom," Farris details the long, unlikely triumph of religious freedom in America's founding. Just as in Europe, colonial America witnesses various denominations cracking down on others. Modern history textbooks credit enlightenment thinking for the emergence of religious liberty in America. Farris that's academic fantasy and true scholars have actually debunked that notion. "It's simply not true. I lay out the historical evidence in great detail. One Harvard historian around the 1920's said that the evidence that people that are indifferent to religion, that basically is the enlightenment crowd, were the cause of religious liberty is an unsustainable argument. There is simply no evidence for that point," said Farris. "It was people who cared very deeply. It was grassroots kinds of Christians fighting establishment kind of Christians that gave us religious liberty for everybody," he said. "The battle for religious liberty wasn't settled on the Mayflower." Protections for the free exercise of religion were anything but guaranteed in America. Farris says the colonial government of Virginia teamed with the Anglican Church to punish dissenters as late as the 1770's. In 1776, Virginia's Declaration of Rights became the first declaration of religious liberty anywhere in the world. In 1789, Congress approved the Bill of Rights and sent them to the states for approval. That same year, the French Revolution unfolded. The upheaval in the two countries has long been compared, especially as the U.S. moved forward with stability and France subsequently endured the Reign of Terror and the Napoleonic era. Farris says there are key reasons for the very different results of revolutions rooted in freedom, including America's much deeper respect for personal religious liberty and vastly different views about the nature of man. "France believed that man was perfectable and that we could create our own utopia, whereas the American Revolution followed the Christian biblical idea that all men are sinners and that's why you needed limited government, because you can't trust any man in government to rule faithfully forever," said Farris. According to Farris, the greatest parallel between the colonial struggle for religious freedom and today's cultural battles is where the battle lines are drawn. Religious freedom, he says, was not championed by the ruling class. "It was a monumental battle. It was the common people, who believed in Jesus, who believed the bible was the authority for their faith and their life, who really fought the war and won. Many of them paid with their lives," he said. Farris says that founding generation should serve as inspiration for the religious freedom fights of this century. "Common people armed with bravery and faith in God can turn anything around. I've seen it in my own life through the home schooling movement. We were outnumbered and outgunned by the teachers' unions day after day after day. We won battle after battle after battle because (we were) common people armed with the Constitution of the United States and belief in the Word of God," said Farris. |
| 'It Will Give Democrats All Power for All Time' |
| Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:35:33 EST A conservative congressman says the murder of a San Francisco woman by an illegal immigrant deported five times is a microcosm of the border security dereliction of the Obama administration and liberal city leaders choosing to reward criminal behavior. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, also addressed the fierce debate within the Republican presidential field, taking care to avoid characterizing any candidate but leaving no doubt what he thinks the GOP's policy position ought to be. The immigration debate took on a more personal dimension over Independence Day weekend, as 32-year-old Kate Steinle was randomly murdered by 45-year-old Juan Francisco Lopex-Sanchez. The killer, who has since confessed, has been convicted of seven felonies and deported five separate times. Gohmert says similar stories have played out far too often as the Obama administration effectively waves illegals across the border. "It's very easy to explain when you have a president who does not believe in the rule of law, who has pandered to people who are illegally in the country. All we can figure is he thinks that if they can just get people who are illegally the right to vote before they understand the responsibilities of trying to keep a democratic republic, then it will give the Democrats all power for all time," said Gohmert. According to Gohmert, the Steinle murder is hardly an isolated incident. He says the House Judiciary Committee, of which he is a member, received very disturbing numbers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement on the extent of violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants in Fiscal Year 2014 alone. "These individuals have been convicted of 79,059 crimes, including 175 homicides, 373 sexual assaults, 186, kidnappings (and) 14,014 impaired driving offenses. It just goes on and on. This is making America less safe," he said, noting both the federal government and city governments need to stop rewarding criminals. "If the president's going to protect America, if our city leaders are going to protect America, the cities can't be this haven for people who broke the law and would kill a beautiful young lady like we had in San Francisco. And the federal government has got to stop encouraging illegal immigration," said Gohmert. The congressman says the Steinle murder struck close to home for him and he says the policy of San Francisco and other "sanctuary cities" needs to be revisited right away. "Having three daughters, I'm particularly sensitive to these things, but to have her shot so senselessly, randomly, right there in front of her parents would never have happened if San Francisco were not a city that just welcomed people who violated our immigration laws. It is a sanctuary city," said Gohmert, meaning San Francisco and other cities have laws refusing to hold people whose only known offense is coming to the U.S. illegally. Lopez-Sanchez has seven felonies on his record. San Francisco and the federal government are now engaged in a blame game over which is responsible for the killer being loose in the first place. The federal government asserts Lopez-Sanchez was in custody and about to be deported for a sixth time when he was handed over to the city to face a drug charge and should never have been released when those charges were dropped. San Francisco officials say it was the federal government's job to have a warrant ready to go when the drug case concluded. Gohmert says illegal aliens create trouble for law-abiding citizens, even when there is no violent crime involved and he contends a recent account from a teenage constituent is a perfect example. "She and her single mom were trying to make ends meet. An illegal alien hit her car. He had no driver's license, no insurance. He was allowed to drive off in his car. Hers was totaled. It just made things crazy for these poor girls. It's just outrageous that this president would not be more sympathetic to the plight of Americans dealing with crime in America," he said. Just as maddening to Gohmert as what he sees as the Obama administration refusing to enforce immigration law is the president's insistence that border security is operating at record efficiency. "It may just be because out president doesn't know enough about our history. I'm sure they didn't teach it in Indonesia, but the fact is when he says nobody has done more to secure the border than I have, or words to that effect, it's simply not true," said Gohmert. The congressman says the border was far more secure after Woodrow Wilson (not a favorite of Gohmert's) effectively sealed the border after Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa conducted numerous murderous raids into the United States. On Wilson's orders, thousands of forces clamped down on the southern border. "The border was secure. Nobody came in unless we wanted them to," said Gohmert. "This president could do more. Of course, you remember (former Homeland Security Secretary) Janet Napolitano just announced one day, 'Hey, the four billion dollars or so that was appropriated by Congress for virtual fence? I'm not going to do that. I'm going to spend the money elsewhere.' This administration not only encourages people to violate our immigration law but it violates the laws regularly themselves," he said. The killing of Kate Steinle poured rhetorical gasoline onto an already combustible debate within the 2016 Republican presidential field over the issue of illegal immigration. Billionaire real estate developer Donald Trump immediate stirred the pot in announcing his White House bid. "[Mexico is] sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists, and some I assume are good people," said Trump on June 16. Several other GOP hopefuls have denounced Trump both for his language and for his alleged inaccuracy. "He's doing this to inflame and to incite and to draw attention, which seems to be his organizing principle of his campaign," said former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.). "He doesn't represent the Republican Party or its values." Gohmert is not wading into the back and forth between candidates but he says he trusts the assessment of the U.S. Border Patrol and its assessment is sobering. "Many of them have told me there is not a single mile of the U.S.-Mexico border that is not under the auspices of some drug lord. And you don't cross that border into the United States without permission from that drug lord. If you do, they'll find you in the United States and kill you," said Gohmert, who adds that many illegals come across and claim they are refugees from deadly gang violence in their home countries. After a brief interrogation, it is usually discovered that gangs are not the reason for their illegal migration but the means for shuttling them across the border. The congressman says the proper approach for Republicans should be obvious. First, he says there should be nothing but admiration for Hispanic families who come here legally, since they value the intact family as high as this country did in the past. "It's a generalization but it's a pretty good generalization that Hispanics love God, are devoted to God, love family, are devoted to family and they have a hard work ethic. Those are the kind of things that made America great. We need more of that. We need more of what the Hispanic can bring before we co-opt it and teach them other ways," said Gohmert. However, he says that admiration has to be tempered by a strict adherence to the law. "They have to come in legally. To just disregard the rule of the law makes us like the countries in central America or Mexico that they're fleeing," he said. Opposition to legal status or even a pathway to citizenship for those illegally in the U.S. has long been described as unrealistic and now Republicans and Democrats accuse that position of being hateful or even racist. Gohmert flatly rejects the label. "It's ridiculous to say it's racist if you want people who commit crimes to be punished for those crimes. Having been a former felony judge, many times people accused me of being mean, but I followed the law. I was fair across the board, and that's what we have to do. It's part of the price of maintaining this democratic republic, as (Benjamin) Franklin said, if we want to keep it," said Gohmert. |
| U.S. Vulnerable to Any 'Hacker or Cracker' |
| Mon, 6 Jul 2015 15:58:19 EST Terrorism expert Harvey Kushner says the most sensitive U.S. assets are at the mercy of any "hacker or cracker" and the next major attack against our country will likely come through cyberspace, but he is also also cautiously optimistic that America's best minds will be able to thwart the sinister intentions of our enemies. During a recent appearance on WNYW Fox 5 in New York City, Kushner offered a blunt diagnosis of the cyber threat facing the American people and our most sensitive national data. "Any hacker or cracker from his or her basement can get into our national grid and get into our military hardware," said Kushner in the Fox 5 interview. Kushner, who is also director of the Homeland Security and Terrorism Institute at Long Island University, says this level of vulnerability is the price of rapidly advancing technology. "The advances occur almost on a daily basis. So just when you have something up and you have it somewhat protected, somebody is able to compromise the system and get into whatever it is you're trying to protect," said Kushner, who fears the next major attack that succeeds against the U.S. will come from hackers. "I do think that the next Pearl Harbor, so to speak, when it comes to a terrorist event here in the United States, certainly will be in cyberspace," he said. However, Kushner is quick to add the private sector in the U.S. is at the cutting edge of keeping pace with hackers. "I'm quite confident that the private sector, because of its interest in the process, will try to develop better techniques to protect their infrastructure, whether it be Amazon or whether it be Google or whether it be any number of players out there," said Kushner. The private sector needs to be ahead of the curve, because businesses are a much softer target for hackers and their failure to protect sensitive consumer information can bring misery to millions of Americans. "The first line of defense when it comes to cyberspace actually is the private sector, whether it's Home Depot or it's Target or whether it's your local hospital or your own database. You're going to have to be responsible for putting up firewalls and other types of protections, so others can't get in and do you damage," said Kushner, who says leaning on the private sector for solutions is critical for anyone trying to keep the government from assuming a larger role in overseeing the internet. "We do not want it regulated. There's a lot of people who don't want to regulate the internet. They want to keep it as a free base of operation and so that makes it vulnerable," he said. But while private companies are expected to play a critical role in developing defenses against cyber attacks that can also be employed by the government, corporate vigilance is also responsible for alerting the Iranians to the most significant threat to the progress of it's nuclear program, namely the Stuxnet worm. "You know who blew the whistle on that was Symantec and few of these other companies here in the west that protect the cyber industry. They noticed that was happening and they put out the report, so it exposed our intelligence agencies who were working very hard to disturb the Iranian nuclear system," said Kushner. The most extensive compromising of government data came through an attack on the Office of Personnel Management that the government announced in June. The attack compromised sensitive information for as many as 18 million government employees, applicants and retirees. Most experts believe the Chinese are to blame. Kushner says a lot more than personal information is at risk if hackers can access government systems. "From traffic lights to medical records to water to power grids to your automobile and then again to our satellites and our military and to our government records, all of this is at risk," he said, noting several adversaries have the ability to do us great harm. "There are individuals as well as governments. You can't rule out a Chinese cyber attack or a Russian cyber attack or an ISIS cyber attack," said Kushner. Kushner doesn't believe U.S. officials made cyber security less of a priority, but he says our efforts at the federal level fell behind nonetheless. "I think it's been a priority, certainly after 9/11 and the realization of what could happen. But not enough was done. As you see, they were able to get in and get compromised records," said Kushner, who says cyber security needs to be a higher national priority in the budget as well. "Our representatives in Washington need to allocate much more money to cyber defense, especially when it comes to our military and to our power grids and to our services that keep our country running on a 24/7 basis," said Kushner. |
| Preaching the Gospel in a Hostile Age |
| Thu, 2 Jul 2015 12:58:22 EST In the face of a U.S. Supreme Court decision finding a constitutional right to gay marriage and the Oklahoma State Supreme ruling a Ten Commandments monument unconstitutional, many Christians are experiencing increased intolerance in the public square. But does the increasingly secular culture mean believers need to adjust how they share the gospel? "Yes, I mean, and no," said Dr. Tim Keller, founding pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. "No in that you don't change the good news, but yes, it does I think change the way you share it." Keller is the author of several well-known Christian books, including "Counterfeit Gods" and "The Reason for God." His new book is "Preaching: Communicating Faith in an Age of Skepticism." Keller says we frequently alter our method of communicating with people based on what we know about them, and sharing Christ is no different. "If I'm talking to somebody who's skeptical or somebody who's sympathetic, I change the way I talk. We're that way with everyone. Hopefully, if you know how to communicate, you instinctively say things differently when you're trying to bridge a barrier. Now that we live in a more secular society, we're going to have to change the way we communicate the gospel," said Keller. According to Keller, a key step to engaging this generation is to be able to explain your personal relationship with Christ through His word. "The gospel has to be real to you. It has to have really changed your life. It can't just be something you've adopted because you inherited it. If you simply say, 'Well, this is the truth,' people aren't going to listen. Instead, you have to say, 'Here's how it works. Here's how it functions in my heart, how it functions in my life.' There's got to be authenticity and you've got to make it life-related. Otherwise, people won't listen," said Keller. Keller says authenticity is critical to the millennial generation, although he says young people are often quite hypocritical on this issue. "Millennials are very high on authenticity. They're often self-righteous about it. I'm not sure that they're any less self-righteous or any more tolerant than their grandparents, or parents or great-grandparents. What's funny about the millennials is, like every other generation, whatever they value they're self-righteous about it. 'We have it and nobody else does.' And then they look down their noses and so they're no better," said Keller. That being said, Keller says authenticity needs to be at the core of our witness. "Paul says, 'We didn't just preach the gospel, but we shared our very hearts with you (1 Thessalonians 2:8).' Therefore, you really do have to do that and it's never been more important," said Keller. Keller is very quick to assert that engagement is meaningless unless the truth and significance of Christ's life, death and resurrection is conveyed. He says many clergy fail to be clear and it leads people down a road of false assurance of their salvation. "If you don't do that people just assume in their heart what you might call moralism," said Keller. "So if you're preaching on Malachi, where it talks about tithing and giving your money away and not spending it all on yourself. Jesus is not in the book of Malachi. It's an Old Testament book. If you just explain that and then you end the sermon, the impression will be that I'd better give my money away or God's not going to take me to heaven," said Keller, calling that thinking "deadly." "You don't want to encourage people to think that it's their moral efforts that can get them to heaven. That creates pride and discouragement," he said. Keller says every Bible passage can be logically connected to the gospel, and he says the Malachi example is no exception. "You have to go to the gospel. You say Jesus Christ was infinitely rich. He was in heaven with all the spiritual riches. But He became poor so that through His poverty, we might become rich. He came to earth, became immortal, He died on the cross. And He didn't just tithe. He didn't just give ten percent. He gave everything," said Keller. "When you do that, you're not only giving people an inspiring motivation, but you're reminding people that you're not saved through your giving of money. You're saved through Jesus," he said. Keller says all preachers, ordained or not, need to keep the gospel at the center of their messages. "It's not something a lot of preachers do, but it's something they need to learn to do," he said. |
| Feds Admit Failure on Renewable Fuel Standards |
| Wed, 24 Jun 2015 17:38:01 EST The Environmental Protection Agency is unilaterally reducing Renewable Fuel Standard mandates and effectively admitting congressional projections were far off base, but the government is pouring even more money into efforts to keep biofuels afloat. On June 10, the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, announced it was increasing the amount of renewable fuels that must be blended into our fuel in the coming years, but the levels are a reduction compared to the mandates approved by Congress last decade. "The EPA, in typical regulatory fashion, is kind of redrawing the law on itself to reduce the amount," said Tom Borelli, a senior fellow at Freedom Works, who recently wrote about the EPA actions. The decision is drawing howls of protest from the biofuels industry, traditional energy companies and free market advocates, with the latter saying reality proves government mandates are almost always a terrible idea. "Government command and control policies fail. They fail every time. The free market should decide the type of fuel that we use. Industry is smart enough to figure a way," said Borelli. Meanwhile, Borelli says the biofuels industry is furious that the government is shaving back on it's original promises. "The biofuels industry is really upset, and to a certain extent they should be, because they were making investments based on what Congress said they would be forcing into the fuel supplies. So if you're a biofuels company, you thought you had a certain amount of demand every year and now the EPA said, 'Nah, we don't need all that much,'" said Borelli. But while the EPA is slowing the increase of biofuel increases to the fuel supply, the percentage is still outpacing gasoline consumption. That means car makers and the traditional energy industry are looking at big problems. "When you do the percentages, now we're hitting what they call the 'blend wall'. You'd be over 10 percent ethanol, for example, in the gasoline supply. That would be destructive for a number of car engines as well as the energy infrastructure that the oil industry has," said Borelli. The mandate dilemma extends back a decade to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. President George W. Bush signed both, the first in collaboration with the Republican-led Congress. Democrats were in the majority when the second bill was passed. "President Bush and Congress were concerned about the amount of oil we were importing from foreign nations. They thought it would be a grand idea if the federal government could step in and force the introduction of renewable fuels into our gasoline and diesel supplier transportation fuels," said Borelli. But the congressional micromanaging was just getting started. "In its infinite wisdom, Congress set out very specific targets of the billions of gallons of these sorts of renewable fuels that would have to be blended into our transportation fuels going all the way out until 2022," said Borelli. With the numbers not quite working out as planned, the Department of Agriculture is trying to keep the biofuels flowing. It vows to spend $100 million om new pumps that can handle a higher percentage of ethanol in our fuels. "A hundred million dollars is not a lot of money in terms of the energy infrastructure. Essentially, I think we just threw a hundred million dollars away," said Borelli, who says there is a lot of money involved in keeping ethanol and other biofuels afloat. "The farming lobby is huge. The biofuels industry can only survive by lobbing, right? It's only through government mandates that these companies can survive. So there's a lot of money going in to support this failed program," he said. Borelli says the Renewable Fuel Standard is a perfect example of what happens when politicians and bureaucrats try to dictate the future. He says the Bush administration did not foresee the fracking boom or the pace at which consumption and other technological advancements would proceed. "They couldn't predict technology in terms of ethanol production, especially from cellulosic ethanol. And they certainly couldn't project the fact that technology would allow the United States to be the leader in fossil fuel development. So the government should just clearly stay out of the free market," said Borelli. |
| Allowing Hostage Families to Pay Ransom = More Kidnappings |
| Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:22:27 EST The Obama administration is changing federal policy to allow the families of American hostages to negotiate ransom payments with the abductors, but a former high-ranking Air Force officer says that's a recipe for many more Americans to get kidnapped. On Wednesday, President Obama will announce the anticipated policy change. The change comes after the families of several Americans murdered by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, lashed out at the administration for refusing to let them negotiate and even allegedly threatening some with prosecution if they tried to pay a ransom. Officials say U.S. government policy will remain unchanged in not paying ransom for American hostages, because they believe it will only encourage our enemies to take more citizens into custody. Retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney fears the very same thing will happen by letting families negotiate price of their loved one's release. "This is a very difficult one because there's a great deal of emotion. But the fact is I think we're going to see more cases of kidnapping by radical Islam and trying to use those Americans that are over there helping in the Arab countries as treasury bait," said McInerney, who is also a military analyst for the Fox News Channel. McInerney concedes that reasonable people can disagree about whether to give families the option of negotiating a ransom, but he says it's the wrong choice and the administration is making a mistake by talking about it. "I would much rather have not announced it because I think it will increase the number of kidnappings. I think if we had a covert program that could have been done, that would have been better," said McInerney, who calls the policy change "a political decision." In addition to the protests of hostages' families, McInerney believes the administration also changed course and adopted the policies of some European nations that allow families to negotiate with hostage takers. The Obama administration is also promising to do a better job of communicating with the families of future hostages. Several families publicly scolded the government for infrequent updates and being treated as a nuisance when they asked federal officials for more information. McInerney says that's the least any government should be able to do. "There is nothing that encourages the radical Islamists to kidnap people if we keep our people informed. So there's absolutely no reason that the administration is not giving them up to date briefings, at least on a weekly or a bi-weekly basis," he said. In the big picture, McInerney says the best way to discourage more ISIS kidnappings is to wipe the radicals off the face of the earth. He is deeply frustrated by the administration's refusal to use it's air power dominance. "We've got to take the handcuffs off our air power. Seventy-five percent of the missions that come back are not dropping bombs. I know the air commander over there says, 'Well, the generals that are complaining have never fought this kind of war.' He's correct. We've never fought a war where we lost cities like this and air power has been so ineffective," said McInerney. McInerney says the Obama team is paralyzed by fears of killing innocents in the air campaign. He says that mindset cannot lead to success. "We know where they are. We're worried about the collateral damage. I think we have to accept it is war, accept that collateral damage and have it over quickly," said McInerney. |
| Allowing Hostage Families to Pay Ransom = More Kidnappings |
| Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:22:27 EST The Obama administration is changing federal policy to allow the families of American hostages to negotiate ransom payments with the abductors, but a former high-ranking Air Force officer says that's a recipe for many more Americans to get kidnapped. On Wednesday, President Obama will announce the anticipated policy change. The change comes after the families of several Americans murdered by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, lashed out at the administration for refusing to let them negotiate and even allegedly threatening some with prosecution if they tried to pay a ransom. Officials say U.S. government policy will remain unchanged in not paying ransom for American hostages, because they believe it will only encourage our enemies to take more citizens into custody. Retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney fears the very same thing will happen by letting families negotiate price of their loved one's release. "This is a very difficult one because there's a great deal of emotion. But the fact is I think we're going to see more cases of kidnapping by radical Islam and trying to use those Americans that are over there helping in the Arab countries as treasury bait," said McInerney, who is also a military analyst for the Fox News Channel. McInerney concedes that reasonable people can disagree about whether to give families the option of negotiating a ransom, but he says it's the wrong choice and the administration is making a mistake by talking about it. "I would much rather have not announced it because I think it will increase the number of kidnappings. I think if we had a covert program that could have been done, that would have been better," said McInerney, who calls the policy change "a political decision." In addition to the protests of hostages' families, McInerney believes the administration also changed course and adopted the policies of some European nations that allow families to negotiate with hostage takers. The Obama administration is also promising to do a better job of communicating with the families of future hostages. Several families publicly scolded the government for infrequent updates and being treated as a nuisance when they asked federal officials for more information. McInerney says that's the least any government should be able to do. "There is nothing that encourages the radical Islamists to kidnap people if we keep our people informed. So there's absolutely no reason that the administration is not giving them up to date briefings, at least on a weekly or a bi-weekly basis," he said. In the big picture, McInerney says the best way to discourage more ISIS kidnappings is to wipe the radicals off the face of the earth. He is deeply frustrated by the administration's refusal to use it's air power dominance. "We've got to take the handcuffs off our air power. Seventy-five percent of the missions that come back are not dropping bombs. I know the air commander over there says, 'Well, the generals that are complaining have never fought this kind of war.' He's correct. We've never fought a war where we lost cities like this and air power has been so ineffective," said McInerney. McInerney says the Obama team is paralyzed by fears of killing innocents in the air campaign. He says that mindset cannot lead to success. "We know where they are. We're worried about the collateral damage. I think we have to accept it is war, accept that collateral damage and have it over quickly," said McInerney. |
| Feds Lag Behind Private Sector in Cyber Security |
| Mon, 22 Jun 2015 16:18:04 EST Recent foreign hacking into federal government systems is not the equivalent of a cyber Pearl Harbor, but experts say the feds are badly behind the private sector when it comes to addressing the threat. A series of reported hacks from China and Russia into federal personnel databases is triggering the concern, as anywhere from four to fourteen million current and former government employees had their personal data compromised. Applicants for federal positions are also at risk. "I don't know whether I'd call it the Pearl Harbor. The cyber analysts have been trying to use that term for quite awhile now. I guess this is one of those times you could theoretically use the term," said Heritage Foundation cyber security expert Riley Walters. He says the data breach of millions of people is very serious and could lead to plenty of problems, but he says the most vital national security assets are much better protected and are not compromised. "I think it comes down to risk. When you've got [the Defense Department], you've got technical equipment, actual undercover agents, state secrets and methods for security in the future. It's very direct, kinetic security information," said Walters. But as impressed as Walters is with the defense and intelligence cyber security apparatus, he says the government overall is playing catch-up. "The government, compared to the private sector, is not necessarily as good in some areas for their cyber security," said Walters. "When you get into OPM or the VA it's a little more system and a little more shaky. This is certainly an area where cyber hackers can find a way into federal systems." Walters says one major reason the feds are lagging behind the private sector and other governments in security is a simple lack of due diligence. "The government is a bit slow in updating its systems. Since systems do upgrade so fast so regularly, it's hard for them to keep pace like a private company does," he said. That inability to keep up with the competition has Walters very skeptical about a larger government role in running the internet. "Here at the Heritage Foundation, we like to think that the federal government wouldn't be so good at regulating cyber security. If they can't even update their systems as regularly as they need to, then how can you update regulations as quick as you need to," said Walters. Walters says the greatest hacking threats come from China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. He says they have different specialties. China is focused on securing information on as many people as possible. Iran and North Korea prioritize the shutting down of websites. He says Russia is the best at not leaving any digital footprints. The threat is only going to get worse. Walters says it's a product of the insatiable demand for more data. "Over the past several years, we've just seen more reliance on big data and the internet. So obviously there's a correlation with the increasing number of cyber attacks," he said. |
| Gun Rights Group Braces for New Obama Offensive |
| Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:59:50 EST President Obama reacted to Wednesday's murders in Charleston by saying "there's something we can do about" mass killings in America, and a leading gun rights leader says the president is just angling for more gun control measures. On Thursday, Obama mourned the nine people murdered at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston. Twenty-one-year-old Dylann Roof is in custody for the killings. He has admitted committing the murders and sources say he does not regret his actions. However, in addition to expressing sympathies to the families and communities impacted by the murders, Obama also returned to the debate over guns. "We don 19t have all the facts, but we do know that, once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun," said Obama. "And at some point it 19s going to be important for the American people to come to grips with it, and for us to be able to shift how we think about the issue of gun violence collectively," he said. In the midst of that statement, Obama seemed to acknowledge the political realities in Washington are not in his favor on this issue. "I say that recognizing the politics in this town foreclose a lot of those avenues right now," he said. In 2013, Obama pushed hard for the U.S. Senate (then controlled by Democrats) to approve new measures, including expanded background checks, but the bipartisan bill failed to advance. Republicans now control both the House and Senate, so does this mean Obama knows he can't advance the issue over the remainder of his term? Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt says that may not stop Obama from applying the full-court press. "I'd bet a small amount of money on the president continuing to push, because he is so incredibly ideologically driven. Even as he's recognizing the difficulty of the task, I don't think that is going to inhibit him. I hope it will but I don't think so," said Pratt. Pratt sees the limited time remaining in the Obama administration as a major motivating factor in a possible gun control push. "This man is hard hard left. He believes the government should control everything. Now, he's got less than two years to really snap the socialist vise on the country. I don't see him backing off," he said. Pratt and other critics assert that Obama's proposed gun laws would not have made a difference in Charleston, since the victims were killed with a pistol rather than a so-called assault rifle. High-capacity magazines of ammunition were also not involved. Pratt says South Carolina's laws put the members of Emanuel AME Church at a disadvantage. "The law in South Carolina, which was actively supported by [Pastor and State Senator Clementa Pinckney] is that you cannot have a gun at a church unless the pastor or the governance of the church says it's OK," said Pratt. He says the horror in Charleston follows an unmistakable pattern by recent mass murderers. "The biggest problem occurs in gun-free zones. That's where all but one of our mass murders has occurred. So you get a dirtbag in a gun-free zone intent on committing mass murder and it takes awhile before a good guy with a gun can get there," said Pratt. Another major reason that killers strike where they do, according to Pratt, is the ability of law-abiding citizens to obtain a gun. He says the statistics in this area are overwhelming. "It's easier to protect yourself in a lot of parts of the country. In those parts of the country where access to guns is not impeded by the kind of laws that the state senator wanted and the president wants, the murder rate and violent crime rate is lower where gun control is not as onerous," said Pratt. He says the areas with the most restrictive gun laws see a much different story. "The problem we have in our country with violent crime and people using guns to commit heinous acts, occurs in our urban centers, where the gun control laws tend to be the most severe. So the president really doesn't have much of a leg to stand on," said Pratt. According to Pratt, the only people inconvenienced by cracking down on guns are the people who would act responsibly. "I think the answer is to stop kidding ourselves. Criminals are not going to obey the law, so let's not make it difficult for the good guys to have guns," he said. |
| Will 2016 Hopefuls Sign Marriage Pledge? |
| Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:21:39 EST The National Organization for Marriage is asking 2016 presidential candidates to sign its pledge to champion traditional marriage, including support for a constitutional amendment on the issue and rolling back Obama administration directives within the federal government. The group issued first issued the pledge in 2012 and the majority of Republican hopefuls signed it. NOM President Brian Brown says it's designed to see which candidates plan to walk the walk on a critical cultural issue. "It makes clear that the candidates won't just give lip service to protecting marriage, but will actually take concrete steps to protect marriage. So it's important that the candidates are on the record and that voters know which candidates will actually do something," said Brown. With so many Republicans in the race, several are likely to sign the pledge. Brown says those candidates will we rewarded during the campaign. "Our goal is to have champions stand up for marriage. Whether we get three people to sign or 14, it doesn't matter," said Brown. "Whoever signs, we're going to promote." The pledge asks candidates to make five commitments, the first of which is to back a constitutional amendment defining marriage in the United States as the union of one man and one woman. Even polls were lopsided in favor of traditional marriage a decade ago, the amendment failed to advance in Congress. Brown says this is going to be a long fight but the Supreme Court could soon make an amendment more necessary than ever. "In past years, we haven't had the specter of the Supreme Court potentially forcing the redefinition of marriage on the whole country. That is not the way our Constitution was written. That will be an illegitimate decision. The clear process we have to stop this form of judicial supremacy is a constitutional amendment," said Brown. The pledge also asks candidates to champion marriage through their judicial nominations and key administration appointments, such as attorney general. It also demands allowing Americans to be free to exercise their conscience in their daily affairs and to not punish citizens for publicly advocating traditional marriage. Those are clear references to recent religious liberty battles involving business owners uncomfortable with servicing a same-sex wedding and to the the IRS harassment of the National Organization of Marriage. The IRS not only harassed NOM but shared it's sensitive donor information with organizations on the opposite side of the debate. The pledge also asks the next president to roll back President Obama's directives within the federal government that NOM says erodes marriage and promotes the LGBT agenda. Brown says this White House activism extends from office rules to official diplomatic policy. "Even at the State Department, we're seeing de facto threatening of countries with the removal of aid unless they get on board with a new definition of marriage. That is fundamentally wrong," said Brown. Republicans are divided on the best campaign strategy moving into 2016. Many consultants and elected officials say that while the party should defend traditional marriage, candidates should speak about it very sparingly so as not to turn off voters who otherwise like the GOP agenda. Brown says Mitt Romney's presidential campaign proved that's a bad idea. "A billion dollars were spent on a grand experiment to do just that and it failed," said Brown. "The people of this country still understand what marriage is. They're looking for a leader who will stand up with conviction for the truth of marriage and not be silenced or intimidated by a media culture that largely believes this fight is over." |
| Will 2016 Hopefuls Sign Marriage Pledge? |
| Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:21:39 EST The National Organization for Marriage is asking 2016 presidential candidates to sign its pledge to champion traditional marriage, including support for a constitutional amendment on the issue and rolling back Obama administration directives within the federal government. The group issued first issued the pledge in 2012 and the majority of Republican hopefuls signed it. NOM President Brian Brown says it's designed to see which candidates plan to walk the walk on a critical cultural issue. "It makes clear that the candidates won't just give lip service to protecting marriage, but will actually take concrete steps to protect marriage. So it's important that the candidates are on the record and that voters know which candidates will actually do something," said Brown. With so many Republicans in the race, several are likely to sign the pledge. Brown says those candidates will we rewarded during the campaign. "Our goal is to have champions stand up for marriage. Whether we get three people to sign or 14, it doesn't matter," said Brown. "Whoever signs, we're going to promote." The pledge asks candidates to make five commitments, the first of which is to back a constitutional amendment defining marriage in the United States as the union of one man and one woman. Even polls were lopsided in favor of traditional marriage a decade ago, the amendment failed to advance in Congress. Brown says this is going to be a long fight but the Supreme Court could soon make an amendment more necessary than ever. "In past years, we haven't had the specter of the Supreme Court potentially forcing the redefinition of marriage on the whole country. That is not the way our Constitution was written. That will be an illegitimate decision. The clear process we have to stop this form of judicial supremacy is a constitutional amendment," said Brown. The pledge also asks candidates to champion marriage through their judicial nominations and key administration appointments, such as attorney general. It also demands allowing Americans to be free to exercise their conscience in their daily affairs and to not punish citizens for publicly advocating traditional marriage. Those are clear references to recent religious liberty battles involving business owners uncomfortable with servicing a same-sex wedding and to the the IRS harassment of the National Organization of Marriage. The IRS not only harassed NOM but shared it's sensitive donor information with organizations on the opposite side of the debate. The pledge also asks the next president to roll back President Obama's directives within the federal government that NOM says erodes marriage and promotes the LGBT agenda. Brown says this White House activism extends from office rules to official diplomatic policy. "Even at the State Department, we're seeing de facto threatening of countries with the removal of aid unless they get on board with a new definition of marriage. That is fundamentally wrong," said Brown. Republicans are divided on the best campaign strategy moving into 2016. Many consultants and elected officials say that while the party should defend traditional marriage, candidates should speak about it very sparingly so as not to turn off voters who otherwise like the GOP agenda. Brown says Mitt Romney's presidential campaign proved that's a bad idea. "A billion dollars were spent on a grand experiment to do just that and it failed," said Brown. "The people of this country still understand what marriage is. They're looking for a leader who will stand up with conviction for the truth of marriage and not be silenced or intimidated by a media culture that largely believes this fight is over." |
| IRS Target Unloads Over Lerner Email Delay |
| Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:13:41 EST Thousands of emails connected to a key figure in the alleged IRS harassment of conservative organizations have been found but the IRS refuses to release them, and now a target of those IRS tactics is firing back. Last year, the IRS reported that many thousands of emails connected to former director of exempt organizations, Lois Lerner, were lost due to hard drive failures. The Treasury Department's inspector general found some 6,400 Lerner emails. However, the IRS says it will not release them now and it may be months before lawmakers or lawyers for conservative activists can see them. "It is outrageous. It needs to be brought to an end immediately. Emails in whatever form that they have need to be released. The word games need to stop," said True the Vote President Catherine Englebrecht. "I think the fact that we pay our taxes to this agency and they are in charge of health care should keep us awake at night." Despite the frustration, Englebrecht says this latest example of stalling comes as no surprise. "It should come as no great shock at this point that the bobbing and weaving continues," said Englebrecht. "For them to tell the American people that, yet again, they must stall for something that has no basis suggests that, left to their own devices, they would just as soon never give up those emails." The IRS says the emails might be available by September. The hold up is the assertion that employees must physically sift through the emails page by page. "I am amazed yet again though at the attempt of the IRS to use complete nonsense in their attempt to validate the reason that they won't release these emails," she said. "What they've said is that they're willing to release them but first they must get rid of all of the duplicate emails and they're doing this manually." said Englebrecht, who points out there are plenty of computer programs that can sift out duplicate emails in short order. She says the litany of excuses and delays makes her wonder if we'll ever get to the bottom of the scandal. "It's more of the same and there's no end in sight," she said. Englebrecht isn't making any promises about what the 6,400 emails might contain, but she says the investigation should be much broader. "It's been troubling to me from the outset that we've put so much focus and attention on Lois Lerner. There are many other people, many other assistants of key people who are in play in all this. Our (Freedom of Information requests) have always sought to include much more than Lois Lerner and company, but rather a host of people who were in that circle at the time," said Englebrecht. She says one of the biggest problems is that IRS leaders feel no pressure to come clean to the American people. "They seem to have no fear of the repercussions that Congress may exact upon them. They have sort of positioned themselves as being untouchable. That's got to change," said Englebrecht. Congress has a major role to play in crushing that sense of invincibility. Englebrecht admits she doesn't know exactly where the power of lawmakers ends in this matter. She appreciates the hearings devoted to the scandal thus far, but she says there is a long way to go. "We are at a point now where we need prosecutions. We need perp walks an we need people to go to jail," she said. True the Vote was founded to ensure fair and accurate elections nationwide. Englebrecht's group strongly advocates for photo identification at the polls and cleaning up voter rolls to remove people who are dead or who have moved, among other steps. She says Hillary Clinton's recent visit to Texas to scold Republicans over the issue of voting rights shows this will be a major issue in 2016. "I think we are in for a voters' rights roller coaster in this election," said Englebrecht, noting Mrs. Clinton's lawyers are already challenging voter ID laws in states like Ohio and Wisconsin. She says President Obama's call for mandatory voting suggests an even more aggressive agenda could be afoot. As for the IRS fight, Englebrecht says she is never going away. "We will fight it with our last breath," she said. "This is an absolute attack on the essence of free speech." |
| Trans Fats Just the Start of Obama Food Police Agenda |
| Tue, 16 Jun 2015 15:52:57 EST The Food and Drug Administration is ordering food companies to eliminate trans fats from their products within three years, a move being hailed by the medical community but excoriated by free market advocates who believe this is the just the beginning of the government taking nutritional decision out of the hands of consumers. Tuesday's FDA decision targets partially hydrogenated oils, or PHOs, which are commonly called trans fats. Companies can petition the FDA for an exemption but will not be able to include trans fats without federal permission starting in 2018. Cardiologists are hailing the decision, saying trans fats are linked to obesity, high cholesterol and heart disease. But defenders of the free market say this is a solution in search of a problem. "Trans fats have been phased out of our diets over the past decade and we've reduced consumption as a result of the market demand, more than 80 percent over the last decade," said Jeff Stier, director of the Risk Analysis Division at the National Center for Public Policy Research. While Stier admits that market demand is due in large part of mandatory labels on foods containing trans fats, he says the doctors are getting this one wrong. "The argument that these cardiologists are trying to make is that we have to remove every last vestige, every little bit of trans fat that's left in the diet. There is no evidence to support that," said Stier. Even more maddening to Stier is that trans fats only came about because of previous demands by liberal interest groups. "The reason we have trans fats in the diet and they were so widely in use 15 years ago is because groups like the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the food police that was behind the the ban of trans fats, a generation ago was scaring us about saturated fates," said Stier. "They pressured us and threatened regulation to remove saturated fat from the diet whenever possible. The industry responded and introduced and increased the use of trans fats because of this concern over saturated fat," he said. Stier says the shift to eradicating trans fats follows a long time of contradictory demands from the left. "I think this ought to be a lesson in humility for the activist groups, who have been telling us, 'Eat eggs. Don't eat eggs. Eat butter. Don't eat butter. Eat margarine instead. Don't eat margarine instead.' We ought to be a little more careful about this advice and the consequences of it," said Stier. Don't expect the order on trans fats to be the last dietary directive from the Obama administration. Stier says Obama has hired many of the same people former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg employed to crack down on trans fats, salt, big sodas and other targets in the Big Apple. Centers for Disease and Control Director Dr. Thomas Frieden, who gained notoriety during the Ebola scare, served as Bloomberg's top adviser on health policy. The Obama administration is already seeking to impose other dietary changes. "The Obama administration scientific committee called for less consumption of meat and more plant-based diets, not only because they're healthier but because they allege that eating meat causes global warming. Therefore we ought to change how we eat because of its impact on global warming," said Stier, who says his organization is challenging the administration's agenda every step of the way and is urging Congress to assert its rightful authority on these issues. "It'll be interesting to see whether the Obama administration stays with that left-wing point of view or the law is instituted as Congress called for and that nutritional advice given out by the USDA and the FDA are actually based on nutrition rather than things like global warming," said Stier. In the meantime, do trace amounts of trans fats damage out health? Stier is skeptical, given that many of them are found in occasionally-eaten foods like dessert toppings. "Who's worried about sprinkles? There are very low levels of consumption. It plays a very important role in baking cakes, especially in the icing. You shouldn't eat lots of icing on cake anyway, but these very, very small levels serve an important role," said Stier, who says the alternatives to trans fats are maddeningly ironic. "If you take them out of the food supply, they're going to have to be replaced by other things, like butter, like palm oil, which activists don't like because of their claim that it's affecting rain forests in Malaysia," he said. Ultimately, Stier believes politics trumped science in the FDA's decision, and there will be negative consequences, including diminished shelf life. "We'll have more food waste because foods won't be as stable. They'll go rancid quicker with other oils. So I don't think the FDA has done an appropriate job of weighing these benefits and making a clear case of what the benefits are (very small) versus lots of unintended consequences. That's where they usually get into trouble, by ignoring the unintended consequences," said Stier. |
| 'Nowhere Near Enough Commitment' to High-Tech Security |
| Mon, 15 Jun 2015 16:23:00 EST A former CIA director says the Obama administration has not done nearly enough to protect the nation from attacks to our information and critical infrastructure systems. "The president has to put this first on his list because we are very vulnerable and we will stay vulnerable until some key things get fixed. So far I have not seen anywhere near enough commitment from the White House or anyplace else in getting this done," said R. James Woolsey, who served as director of Central Intelligence in the Clinton administration. He is now chairman of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. The concern is rising again after reports last week that as many as 14 million current and former federal employees had their personal data compromised. That news follows numerous reports of alleged Chinese and Russian infiltration into various government networks. "I think we've seen the beginning, but there will be more," said Woolsey. "We have not done a halfway decent job as a government or a society in protecting our infrastructure that's part of the internet." Woolsey sees multiple reasons for why security has not been a higher priority. "There's a certain kind of flower children, 'Hey, what could possibly go wrong. We're all going to talk to one another and won't that be great,'" said Woolsey. "The government has not taken nearly enough care with security. They always put it at the bottom of the list and say, 'We've got to have a check mark beside security. Somebody go hire a firewall.' The ablest, best, smartest and shrewdest people have not been paying attention to security for the grid and we're starting to pay the price," said Woolsey. While the most recent reports of private data being hacked is very troublesome, Woolsey says it's the tip of the iceberg. "It's also the case that they can hack into the control systems, the so-called SCADA systems or Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition. SCADA systems of our infrastructure, whether it's dams, railroad trains turn things off and turn things to the reverse of what they're supposed to do." he said. Woolsey says compromising one system could lead to a domino effect in many others. "We're an internet of things now as people say and they seem to think that's a great idea, but one reason that it's not a great idea is that all the things: computers, railroad, signals, etc. talk to one another. If you can get one going wrong and you can do it smartly. you can foul up everything it's connected to. That could be a massive disaster, particularly with something like the electric grid," said Woolsey. Woolsey says protecting the power grid in the U.S. is of the utmost importance. He says we have eighteen "critical infrastructures" in the U.S. but the other seventeen are reliant on electricity. If the power grid goes down, Woolsey says everything from food delivery to water purification to banking to prescription drugs is at risk. He reiterates that the Obama administration must get serious about this now. "The president needs to say this is the country's number one priority. It's not just cyber. An electromagnetic pulse could take down the grid and take down a lot of other systems. This needs to be a mobilization of the very best and brightest. We need to be able to break rules and move fast," said Woolsey. |
| Rebellion Triggers Transgender Movement |
| Fri, 5 Jun 2015 15:59:27 EST Deep-seated rebellion against God is at the heart of the transgender movement and activists and sympathizers are demanding public approval to compensate for the conviction they feel over their own sin, according to the pastor of a prominent Washington-area bible church who has written extensively on the subject. The transgender issue exploded again in the news this week as Olympic champion turned reality television star Bruce Jenner announced he was a woman named Caitlyn and Vanity Fair magazine released of Jenner in women's clothes. The story instantly dominated traditional and social media. Virtually every outlet diligently began referring to Jenner as "Caitlyn" and using female pronouns in reference to him. Many who ridiculed the story or merely refused to refer to Jenner as a woman were labeled as bigoted or hateful. Immanuel Bible Church Lead Teaching Pastor Jesse Johnson wrote about the appropriate response of the church to the transgender movement this week. The week before, he wrote about it in the context of accommodating transgender students and teachers in Fairfax County, Virginia, where his church is located. Johnson says the relentless push from activists for the general public to accept and even applaud transgenders should come as no surprise. "When somebody rebels against God in this way, that's never sufficient enough for them. Their goal in rebellion is to silence their conscience and to silence the conviction of sin that they feel. Simply changing their body or changing their sexual identity is never going to actually going to achieve that. It's not going to fix the conscience at all. So the second part of that rebellion is to demand that others approve," said Johnson. He says that is the same motivation for the demands of transgenders to have access to bathrooms of the gender with which they identify. "It goes back to this idea that I don't want to be confronted with the sin I've done to my body. I don't want to be confronted with it. Where's the place you're confronted with it every single time. Every single day, you're confronted with that sin when you have to choose which restroom you're going to use in public," said Johnson. "It seems so strange that some political movement with nationwide support would target elementary school bathrooms," said Johnson. "It seems so surreal, but what's behind that is this idea that that is the place where these people are confronted with their sin. They're confronted with the fact that God made them in a way that they reject, so their goal is to attack that place in our culture," said Johnson. Johnson believes the rapid onset of the transgender movement could be heading for a major backlash, especially if accommodations and forced in areas of the country far less liberal than Fairfax County, Virginia. He says if there is a backlash, it could get the public to rethink the push to redefine marriage. "It is connected to gay rights and same-sex marriages. If you say that gender doesn't matter for a marriage, why would you say it matters for a bathroom? Marriages are obviously more significant than what bathroom you use. It's an argument from the greater to the lesser. If the thing is absurd at the level of the bathroom, obviously it's absurd at the level of marriage," said Johnson. While the biblical condemnations of homosexual conduct in passages ranging from Leviticus in the Old Testament to many of the letters from Paul in the New Testament are fairly well-known after years of debate, what about being transgender? Johnson says the Bible is clear. "It is a sin because it's a form of rebellion against God. The scripture teaches that people were made in the image of God and that they were made male and female. We live in a country that has freedom of course, and people can do, in many respects, what they want to with their own body as long as you're not harming other people, but we still have a category for something that is sinful because it's done out of rebellion against God," said Johnson. Not only that, Johnson says this rebellion takes on additional dimensions. "Most Americans who want to rebel against God just say, 'I don't need God to forgive me of my sins because I'm a good person.' They go on and they try to work hard to be good people, totally ignoring God," he said. "There's a second degree of rebellion against God, where somebody says I'm not going to be content just being my own person. I want to actually rebel against the way God made me. It's this idea of, 'Who does God think He is that He would choose that I get to be male or He would choose that I get to be female. What right does he have?' I think it is a deeper form of rebellion against God than simply rejecting Him," said Johnson. Johnson also contends that the transgender movement inherently contradicts the rest of the gay and lesbian argument and much of the feminist cause. "The core of feminism is you can't reduce femininity to a certain set of physical features. That's exactly what the transgender movement tries to do. Men who are changing their bodies to be women are presenting this idea that femininity is just simply the lack of maleness, remove the male parts and you have a woman, add some other physical parts and you have a woman. . Of course, that's not what true womanhood is," said Johnson, who says there is also a major breakdown in rationale between this movement and homosexuals. "It's definitely hostile to this idea in the gay rights movement that you're attracted to somebody based on their physical appearance, where the transgender movement says physical appearance is not necessarily connected to gender or to sex. So that becomes a huge problem," he said. But Johnson says it's really the tip of the intellectual iceberg. "Logically, things that are presented by the two movements don't correspond at all. They conflict all over the place," he said. How should committed Christians approach this emerging issue in the culture? Johnson says a line must be drawn in the sand, namely believers not giving approval to the movement. "The Bible makes it clear that's the one thing Christians can't do. Romans 1 talks about how people who fall into this kind of sin immediately go pursuing and demanding that other people approve of it as well. The book of Jude talks about people who display their shame like the foam of the ocean, throwing it up. Jesus talked about people who feared man and wanted the approval of men more than the approval of God," said Johnson. "The very thing they're after is for people who know God to approve of what they're doing and that's the one thing that Christians can't do. They can't be seen as approving of that which God calls evil," he said. Johnson says believers should extend the love of Christ, who has the power to forgive all sin. "This is sin, but it's not the unforgivable sin. Believers understand that all sin can be forgiven through the person of Jesus Christ, faith in Jesus and submission to His word and His rule," said Johnson. "Love your neighbor. Love those who are around you. This is key for Christians to remember, part of love does not mean accepting someone as they portray themselves. Part of love is wanting what is best for that other person and God, of course, knows what's best," he said. |
| National Security Trumps TPA |
| Thu, 4 Jun 2015 16:02:58 EST A freshman congressman is staunchly opposing legislation to grant President Obama Trade Promotion Authority because he fears Obama will end up weakening national security through a bad deal. Rep. Steve Russell, R-Okla., says the last thing the Republican Congress should do is give Obama more power during is final 19 months in office. "Do we really want, with the last months of this president, and him wanting to establish a legacy, to run in haste into some Asian construct that could put us in a very dangerous future situation?" asked Russell. "I'm just not willing to grant him that authority. Russell gained notoriety for leading the U.S. Army unit that captured Saddam Hussein near Tikrit in 2003. He says Obama's performance in Iraq and many other places over the past six-and-a-half years convinces him that the last thing Obama needs is more power. "For example: Syria, the red line, picking the wrong side to arm that turns into ISIS and then calling ISIS a jayvee team only to realize it's a serious situation we still don't have a strategy for," said Russell. "Iraq, that it would work on its own if we pulled out. Then we also see the problems of the Arab Spring that's turned into nuclear winter, the issues with Crimea and Ukraine. I can go on and on." The debate is triggering some strange political bedfellows, with union-backing liberals teaming with Obama-distrusting conservatives and protectionists from both parties in fighting against Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA, and the looming Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. Russell says is coming at this issue from a unique perspective in trying to protect national security. "Maybe they've got concerns about secrecy or sovereignty or whatever and all of those issues are important. On the progressive side, they're worried about labor and wages and manufacturing trade unions. I don't come at this issue from any of that," said Russell. "All of that, although it is important, is not going to result in destructive forces being unleashed between our nation and Pacific nations (which it will) if we fail on the national security side," he said. The man Russell replaced in the House sees things very differently. Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., recently told us why he supports TPA and believes concerns about Obama's handling of that power are largely unwarranted. 1cIn all likelihood, this trade agreement wouldn 19t be complete until the next president. So we 19re lining up at the end of this presidency authority that will extend the majority of it into the next presidency, 1d said Lankford. While respecting Lankford, Russell strongly disagrees about the timing of any trade deal negotiations. "It is the president that was granted that authority that sets the parameters. For example, when we signed the U.S.-Korea agreement, KORUS, last year, all of that groundwork was laid by President Bush before he left office. So it does matter who the president is," said Russell. Another frustration for Russell is how supporters of TPA and TPP urge passage because it would "hedge" or "contain" China. "This is dangerous rhetoric. It's puts us very much at odds with our largest trading partner. Two, it has consequences when we do not have diplomatic and military efforts in tandem with economic efforts in a brand new region. China's not our enemy and making rhetoric like this and using it for some trade venture could be very dangerous," said Russell. TPA and TPP supporters also cite China's human rights record as a major reason to exclude it from the proposed deal with Asian countries. Russell says that is a valid concern but wonders why those same people have no problem including Vietnam and Brunei in the TPP. The U.S. economy is still struggling to find traction. Revised numbers from the first quarter of 2015 show the Gross Domestic Product shrinking 0.7 percent. TPA backers say getting American goods into foreign markets is critical for economic growth and job creation. Russell says there's plenty we can do to kickstart America's economic engines. "China needs oil and gas. We have plenty of it. Let's get the export legislation over there. China needs asphalt for her roads. We have the raw materials. They need timber. They need beef. We have timber and cattle in abundance in this country," said Russell. "There are a number of things we could do. With four quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas, we could be sending that to Europe and also Asia. Start trading natural gas for Chinese debt, how about that one? There's a number of things that we could immediately do and that the president is capable of authorizing in his tenure," he said. |
| New EPA Regs Have U.S. on Slippery Slope to De-Industrialization |
| Wed, 3 Jun 2015 16:03:37 EST The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to impose tougher emission standard on commercial airplanes in the United States, a move that experts say will lead to carbon taxes on airline passengers in the near future but one that could ultimately trigger the de-industrializing of America. The order will not impact smaller planes or military aircraft. The New York Times reports the directive is part of the Obama administration's larger climate change agenda, but this step may have been unavoidable. "The agency didn't really have a choice here. This was going to be a non-discretionary decision," said Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Will Yeatman. According to Yeatman, the die was cast on this policy and much more when the Obama administration made a fateful choice to pursue it's climate change agenda through the Clean Air Act, a strategy rejected years earlier by the George W. Bush administration. "The Clean Air Act is an interlocking mechanism, such that regulation begets further regulation. The upshot is when this administration made the choice to use the Clean Air Act as its vehicle to mitigate climate change, it, in essence, locked itself in on this course," said Yeatman, who says lawmakers on all sides of the climate change debate believe the Clean Air Act was a terrible tool to implement an environmental agenda. "There is agreement among them that the Clean Air Act is simply an inappropriate vehicle for this particular policy. Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, when people were scared of global cooling. The act is meant to deal with pollutants like ozone and sulfur dioxide and particulate matter. It is meant in no way to deal with a pollutant as ubiquitous as carbon dioxide," said Yeatman. However, Yeatman says there are far more serious concerns about this policy than how tougher emissions standards might impact airlines and their passengers. He says the future of the American economy is at stake. "It doesn't stop here. The dominoes will keep on falling and the logical end, which is pretty scary, is something known as a greenhouse gas National Ambient Air Quality Standard. That would effectively necessitate the de-industrialization of the United States of America's economy. That the sort of frightening end game. It's where we're headed due to this administration's foolish choice to get this ball rolling," said Yeatman. Yeatman elaborated on the dominoes we've seen and those allegedly still to come. "The program for cars that they started in 2010 triggered the program for stationary sources. They promulgated that in 2011 for power plants. They've actually got a pending rule for existing power plants and that triggered the one for airplanes. That will trigger the one further down the road for marine vessels. Ultimately, the Big Kahuna, the end game, the last trigger is this regulatory program known as National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS," said Yeatman, who fears increasing emissions restrictions threaten the feasibility of American industry. And what does the proposed regulation on airplane emissions mean for the industry and for passengers? For airlines, not much changes anytime soon. "No one has a larger incentive to decrease greenhouse gas emissions because they are a function of fuel efficiency. No one cares more about fuel efficiency than the airline manufacturers (primarily Boeing and Airbus)," said Yeatman. "There's nothing that direct regulation will be able to do. They can't command some sort of miracle technology that will do beyond that which these manufacturers already strive to do." It's a different story for passengers, who could be forking over higher airfares in the form of a per picket carbon tax if this rule is implemented. "Who knows ultimately what it would be, one to five dollars or perhaps even greater. I've not heard any definite numbers bandied about, but that's what we're looking at, another surcharge on your airline ticket to join the 30 other surcharges. This one comes courtesy of the EPA and environmental special interests," said Yeatman. One of the few surprising political elements of this story is that the EPA is moving forward on the rule change despite opposition from the Obama administration. "The administration didn't want to do this. There are international negotiations ongoing about addressing aviation emissions and so the administration didn't want its hands forced by the green groups, but that's the way the law works," said Yeatman. "This administration bit off more than it can chew and now the chickens are coming home to roost if you will," he said. |
| Obama Will Sign Iran Deal 'No Matter How Bad It Is' |
| Tue, 2 Jun 2015 16:00:10 EST Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton says President Obama is likely to sign any nuclear deal he can get with Iran because it's the centerpiece of his second term agenda. In a wide-ranging interview, Bolton also defended his strong support for the NSA's bulk data collection program that expired Sunday night and explained why he decided against a presidential run in 2016. The Iranian nuclear threat emerged again on Monday when the New York Times reported that Iran's enrichment program is ramping up, contrary to Obama administration assurances. "With only one month left before a deadline to complete a nuclear deal with Iran, international inspectors have reported that Tehran 19s stockpile of nuclear fuel increased about 20 percent over the last 18 months of negotiations, partially undercutting the Obama administration 19s contention that the Iranian program had been 1cfrozen 1d during that period," said the Times in it's lead paragraph. Bolton says this disconnect between administration statements and the true state of Iranian activities raises even more red flags about a formal agreement. "It underlines just how feckless the president's policy is with respect to Iran's nuclear weapons program, how dangerous and how flawed this deal that they've been negotiating is turning out to be," said Bolton. While Bolton thinks the recent injury to Secretary of John Kerry could postpone a final deal with Iran, he firmly believes Obama will take whatever agreement he can get from the mullahs in Tehran. "The president's press people have already said this is his second term signature issue, the equivalent of Obamacare in the first term. He's going to sign a deal with Iran, I'm afraid, with Iran no matter how bad it is," said Bolton. Even if talks were to break down somehow, Bolton believes simply engaging with Iran has done our enemy enormous good. "The administration's efforts are both legitimizing the regime, which is a tragic mistake, given that it's still the world's largest financial supporter of international terrorism. It also legitimizes the nuclear program, which really paves the road for Iran to become a nuclear weapons state at a time of it's choosing. This is very dangerous," said Bolton. Bolton also believes it was dangerous for Congress to let certain aspects of the Patriot Act expire over the weekend and for lawmakers to reject giving the National Security Agency, or NSA, the power to collect bulk data as a means of tracing terrorist connections. Led by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., lawmakers concerned about the program's intrusion into Americans' fourth amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure, succeeded in ending the program that a federal appeals court said was never authorized by Congress in the first place. On Tuesday, the Senate passed the House version of the USA Freedom Act. Bolton isn't impressed. "I think that's a very poor substitute for the Patriot Act program," he said. Under the previous policy, the NSA collected information on every phone call in the U.S., listing both the numbers involved in each call and the duration of the calls. Critics like Sen. Paul contend the government has no right to that information without probable cause. Bolton disagrees. "Unless you own a telephone company, if you want to make a phone call, you've got to go through a third party. The records we're talking about are not your records. They're the telephone company's billing records," said Bolton, who says other sources are far more likely to act irresponsibly with your information. "These records are like bank records, department store records, amazon.com records, all of which are sold to other commercial ventures. I think Google and Facebook probably know more about you than the NSA ever will," he said, adding that the collection of any data beyond the numbers called and the length of those calls requires a fourth amendment compliant warrant. Calling the recent debate "a bizarre moment in American politics," Bolton, without naming Paul or any other critic of the bulk data collection program, slammed them for what he considers a series of misleading points. "I think this debate has been characterized by demagoguery and misinformation. It's very hard to catch up with the truth when some of the opponents of the program are saying things that leave many Americans with the implication NSA is listening to their phone calls or reading their emails. Absolutely not true and yet it's very hard to have a rational discussion when the distortions are so prevalent," said Bolton. Bolton also addressed his recent decision not to join the crowded Republican presidential field. After publicly mulling that option for weeks, as he also did in 2012, Bolton ultimately decided running for the highest office in the land without ever holding elected office was not the right move. Still he believes his motivation for considering a White House bid has succeeded. "Too many people in the Republican and Democratic parties don't understand how critical national security is, Barack Obama at the top of that list. I thought running for president would help restore that attention. Unfortunately, events in the external world have put it back in the center of the debate and I think it will be one of the very top issues in the 2016 presidential campaign," said Bolton. Bolton still expects to be active in the 2016 cycle through his PAC, Super PAC and a new foundation he is starting. He is not endorsing any GOP hopeful at this point but says the Republican nominee must be ready to debate Hillary Clinton and ready to lead in a dangerous world one their first day in office. |
| Staver: Marriage Most Important Domestic Issue in 2016 |
| Fri, 29 May 2015 16:19:40 EST Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver says marriage is the number one domestic issue in the United States and he will be looking to the Republican presidential field for an articulate champion of traditional marriage and American values. Staver's comments some in the wake of a new Gallup survey suggesting Republican voters are softening in their opposition to the legalization of same-sex marriage. Thirty-seven percent of GOP voters now say they believe gay marriage ought to be legal, up from 30 percent a year ago. The poll also shows 51 percent of Republicans see same-sex relations as morally acceptable, an increase of 11 points from last year. For the first time, a plurality of Republicans (40 percent) believe gays and lesbians are born that way, while 36 percent understand it as a result of upbringing and environment. Since the polls started heading in the opposite direction on gay marriage in the past few years, Republicans have made it less and less of a campaign issue. Staver says that cannot happen in 2016. "From a domestic standpoint, there's nothing more important than this issue," he said. "If a candidate does not address it, the candidate is ignoring the most critical domestic issue of our time." Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver says marriage is the number one domestic issue in the United States and he will be looking to the Republican presidential field for an articulate champion of traditional marriage and American values. Staver's comments some in the wake of a new Gallup survey suggesting Republican voters are softening in their opposition to the legalization of same-sex marriage. Thirty-seven percent of GOP voters now say they believe gay marriage ought to be legal, up from 30 percent a year ago. The poll also shows 51 percent of Republicans see same-sex relations as morally acceptable, an increase of 11 points from last year. For the first time, a plurality of Republicans (40 percent) believe gays and lesbians are born that way, while 36 percent understand it as a result of upbringing and environment. Since the polls started heading in the opposite direction on gay marriage in the past few years, Republicans have made it less and less of a campaign issue. Staver says that cannot happen in 2016. "From a domestic standpoint, there's nothing more important than this issue," he said. "If a candidate does not address it, the candidate is ignoring the most critical domestic issue of our time." "Obviously, radical Islam, Israel, the Middle East, all that's important. That's from an international and national security perspective. They need to address that as well. But if they run from this issue, they've ignored the issue of our time," said Staver. Staver says he is not only looking for GOP candidates to stand on the side of traditional marriage but to be a passionate spokesman for why the institution must remain only for the union of one man and one woman. "It is the cultural battle of our time. [Same-sex marriage] is something that deconstructs the family. There's consequences to that, and it has a direct collision with religious freedom. We need somebody to articulate it. Once you get somebody to articulate issues like Ronald Reagan did and communicate it in a way that people understand it, rather than run from the issue, make a distinction between you and the other candidates in the field, I think the people will resonate with that," said Staver. As for the Gallup poll, Staver isn't buying the supposed Republican surrender on the issue of marriage. "I don't have any stock in that particular poll. If you look at 31 states that passed marriage amendments by the people, from conservative states to not so conservative states, in every single one of those instances marriage passed. In every single instance, it always under-polled by a minimum of five percent," said Staver. "No poll - none - was ever accurate in predicting how the marriage amendments were going to pass. They all under-reported the percentage and all of them were wrong. This particular poll is certainly no exception to that," said Staver. Beyond the numbers, Staver says a majority of Americans know the truth in their own hearts and minds. "It is ontologically the union of a man and a woman. People inherently know that the sexes are made for one another in a way that two people of the same sex are not and that children do best when they're raised in a home with a mom and a dad," he said. Even if Staver thought the poll numbers were accurate, he says it wouldn't change anything. "Frankly, it wouldn't matter whether a poll said that people believe that the earth was flat with respect to whether or not they believe that homosexuality, was something with which you are born," said Staver. "There is no evidence that homosexuality is something with which you are born. You're not wired that way. It is environmental. It is developmental but it certainly is not genetic." To be sure, the Republican Party platform firmly defines marriage as the union of a man and woman. The vast majority of Republicans in Congress support traditional marriage. Four sitting senators and a handful of representatives have publicly declared their support for gay marriage. At the same time, party leaders have grown increasingly quiet on the issue. Mitt Romney largely avoided it in 2012. Last year, many GOP candidates did the same and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said marriage was not a top-tier issue for Republicans. Earlier this year, as the debate headed to the Supreme Court, House Speaker John Boehner said most Republicans in Congress would not file briefs to lobby the court on its decision. If the GOP were to stop defending traditional marriage, Staver predicts it would be tantamount to electoral suicide. "If the party or the presidential candidate for the Republican Party ultimately goes the wrong way on marriage, the Republican Party will look at a splinter group, that will ultimately no longer support the Republican Party. There's be no reason to. If Republicans become just like Democrats on social issues, there's no reason to support that party," said Staver. "That is not just a matter of threat. I can tell you personally, I would not support the Republican Party. I wouldn't support the Republican nominee if that person did not believe in marriage as the union of a man and woman," he said. Staver is nowhere near the point abandoning the GOP. In fact, he is greatly encouraged that party leaders and the vast majority of Republican presidential candidates are clear in their defense of traditional marriage. "The good news is, that not only from the chairman of the Republican Party but also the majority of the candidates, they all are clearly outspoken on the issue of marriage as a man and a woman. There may be some that are stronger than others but there's some that might ultimately waffle on this issue," said Staver. "But the vast majority of this fairly broad field supports marriage as the union of a man and woman. You've got Bobby Jindal. You've got Mike Huckabee. You have Senator Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz. You just go on and on and name the list, but they're strong supporters of marriage as the union of a man and woman," he said. |
| How to Tame the Regulatory Monster |
| Fri, 29 May 2015 14:50:24 EST Just before the Memorial Day weekend, the Obama administration released 2,300 new regulations, and a new proposed water rule that has states howling mad, but a prominent Washington author and scholar is offering a blueprint to rein in the federal regulatory state through organized civil disobedience. Charles Murray is the W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He is also the author of several high-profile and controversial books, including "Losing Ground," "The Bell Curve," and "Coming Apart." His latest work is "By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission." The book concludes that civil disobedience on a grand but peaceful scale is needed to shake the government off the backs of Americans because our political and legal systems and even our Constitution are insufficient to bring the government back under control. "The system is paralyzed in ways that are not going to be fixed by electing the right Congress, by getting the right five people on the Supreme Court or by electing the right president," said Murray. "The regulatory state, which is my target for this, is largely beyond the reach of any of those branches of government. That's not a wild-eyed statement. That's pretty much mater-of-fact statement of the way the regulatory state functions," he said. While the growth of government spans over many decades, Murray says much of the unchecked power of federal regulators can be traced to a brief span in the Franklin Roosevelt administration. "It all happened in a period of about five years, from 1937-1943, where you had half a dozen key Supreme Court cases which very explicitly said, 'We are now going to adopt a new interpretation of what the text of the Constitution says and this new interpretation unleashes the government from the strict limits that the Constitution previously put on them, said Murray. He says a 1943 case changed the regulatory course of America forever. "The Supreme Court said it's okay for Congress to write legislation that has a high-minded purpose and vague words for saying what that purpose is and then leave it up to the regulatory agency to develop regulations independently of any further legislative guidance on how to implement this high-minded objective," said Murray. "That was the moment at which the regulatory state basically got its declaration of independence. It took a couple of decades to take off, but that's where it started," he said. And that is why Murray believes Americans should aim organized civil disobedience at the federal regulatory state, but he says it has to be done intelligently because some oversight is needed in society. "Some regulation is appropriate and necessary. I'm happy to see regulations of coal mines so that the tunnels that miners go into re safe and are not going to collapse. There are a variety of other regulations I have no intention of asking people to ignore," said Murray. However, Murray says there are plenty of other regulations which serve no constructive purpose other than to erode the freedom of honest, hard-working Americans. "I'm really focused on the regulations that get in the way of ordinary Americans, small business people, homeowners, community groups - which get in the way of them living their lives as they see fit, providing goods and services, solving community problems in ways that are essential to our civic culture," said Murray. Many on the right believe the recent Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, rule proposed by Obama's Environmental Protection Agency fits into what Murray just described. The administration says the rule is designed to protect wetlands and waterways, but critics say it will amount to a "regulatory and economic hell" for farmers and business owners because it gives the government authority over virtually any collection of water, from rivers to small streams and possibly even puddles. One of the most controversial regulations among the 2,300 unveiled before Memorial Day would require reductions in ozone emissions. Again, the administration cites environmental concerns, while the National Association of Manufacturers claims it could be the costliest in U.S. history. It estimates businesses could lose up to $140 billion per year if the regulation goes through. While those rules bother Murray, he offered examples of much simpler regulations that infringe on small numbers of people but that he says are just as offensive. "People doing these things are suddenly told, 'Oh, you can't do that. You're breaking the law. You owe us a fine. You cannot organize this little playground you want in your neighborhood. You can't provide the service that your business provides in the way you want to provide it,'" he said. Enter Murray's weapon to fight back on a large scale. "I'm not worried about big corporations. I'm not worried about grand themes. I want to lift the burden of these pointless, picayune regulations from ordinary Americans," said Murray. "To do that, I think what we need it a large legal defense fund that comes to their aid." Murray would call it the Madison Fund and believes it would need to be staked with about $200 million to be truly effective. He says the strategy is to stand up for harassed Americans and take overreaching bureaucrats to court. "They are technically guilty of a regulations. The regulation's really silly, but they're technically guilty. The Madison Fund says to the bureaucracy, 'We are taking this person's case. We are going to litigate it to the max even though this person technically violated the regulation. We're going to make your life miserable. We are going to drag out the litigation as long as we can. When you finally find the person guilty and levy a fine, we're going to reimburse the fine," said Murray. The goal, he says, is not to gum up the courts but to make regulators think long and hard before trying to enforce ridiculous regulations. "If you have a fund that continually does that and does that with a lot of cases, hundreds or even thousands of cases, it's not very long if you're a bureaucrat in a regulatory agency and somebody has violated a regulation that did no harm to anybody and then you're told the Madison Fund is taking that case, you have to say to yourself, 'Do we really want to go through with this,'" said Murray. Another major focal point for the Madison Fund would be to increase public awareness of regulations ruining people's lives and shifting public opinion toward more freedom. But to do that, says Murray, cases will have to be chosen very carefully. "You don't take a case if you're the Madison Fund unless you are confident that that publicity will get the overwhelming support of the American people. So whether they are moderate Democrats or moderate Republicans, when they read about that case, they will say, 'I'm on the side of the citizen that the government is going after," said Murray. But before you start looking for the Madison Fund online, be aware that it does not exist and Murray has no intention of starting it. "I write books. I don't run funds," said Murray. "I really hope somebody picks up the ball but I'm old enough to be quite confident that I know what I can do and what I can't do. Being the manager of a big fund is one of the things that I can't do," he said. If an organized legal fight against the regulatory state were to achieve some success, Murray says it might pave the way for other avenues to reform government for the better but he also sees emerging technology and communications as the newest weapons in confronting government. Using the explosion of businesses like Uber, Murray says more power is returning to the individual. "Uber is just the leading edge of a wide variety of things that are enabled by new technology, that provide superior services, that work around the government. I have no hope of making our government responsive and trim and flexible. It's not going to happen. I do have a lot of hope that government is going to become increasingly irrelevant to our lives," said Murray. |
| 'This Lawsuit Could Not Be More Crucial' |
| Wed, 27 May 2015 15:17:36 EST A leading congressional critic of President Obama's unilateral immigration actions is hailing a federal appeals court decision to uphold the challenge of 26 states to a policy that would grant at least five million illegal immigrants legal residence in the U.S. On Tuesday, a three-judge panel from the Fifth Circuit ruled 2-1 that the challenging states would be overly harmed by Obama's actions. It also rejected an administration request to move forward with the program in the states that did join the lawsuit. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, is a former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and is still a senior member of that panel. He filed a petition in support of Texas and the other 25 states challenging Obama's actions. Despite two long days of evaluating the response to devastating floods in his district, Smith is very upbeat about the courts delivering another blow to what he sees as an Obama overreach. "This lawsuit could not be more crucial, quite frankly. It's our first good win in court in a long, long time. We were overdue in trying to hold this president accountable for his unlawful actions," said Smith. "He took action to give amnesty to as many as five million people in the country illegally. Clearly that was in violation of current law." The congressman not only believes the 26 states have a good chance of winning the case all the way to the Supreme Court, but he believes the court-imposed hold will run out the clock on Obama's amnesty agenda. "It was clearly unconstitutional and I'm just gratified that the three judge panel called it for what it was, unlawful and unconstitutional. I think this has really set the administration back and I think the president will be out of office before it's resolved," said Smith. The White House, of course, vehemently disagreed with the decision. 1cToday, two judges of the Fifth Circuit chose to misrepresent the facts and the law, 1d said White House spokeswoman Brandi Hoffine, who says the president's actions were designed to improve our immigration system and the economy and were "squarely within the bounds of his authority." The crux of the legal debate is how far the president's discretion over deportations extends. Smith admits the chief executive does have the power to halt some deportations. "On an individual basis, he does have an amount of discretion whether to send someone back to their home country or not," he said. Obama contends he can defer deportation to the five million people in the nation illegally, because they all fall within a certain category. Namely, they all allegedly have children who are legal residents of the United States. Smith says that's not what the law allows. "He cannot give amnesty to categories of individuals. He can, on a hardship basis, make individual exceptions to the general rule, This is anything but individual," said Smith. The Obama administration has not only lost at the district and appellate court levels but has also been admonished by District Judge Andrew Hanen for continuing to implement the policy after Hanen placed an injunction on it. As a result, more than 108,000 people in the U.S. illegally were granted three-year deportation deferrals. "The judge was understandably upset by this. The administration says they don't know how it happened. They were wrong. The apologized, but we have seen time and time again this administration will do whatever they think they can get away with," said Smith, who says the administration has displayed that attitude since Obama took office. "Throughout his tenure, President Obama has intentionally undermined immigration laws, not enforced immigration laws and tried to unilaterally change immigration laws," he said. The administration claims it is trying to find out who was improperly granted deportation deferrals but Smith says it's hard to undo it. "I don't know whether to believe the administration or not. I'm glad they apologized but the damage is done," said Smith. Smith's comments come after two days of meeting with residents and local and state leaders after historic flooding in his district. Over Memorial Day weekend, the Blanco River sent a 44-foot high wall of water into Wimberly, Texas, destroying property in its path and taking several lives. Others are still missing. The previous record surge on the river was a 32-foot crest back in 1926. Smith says he is working to help the Texans in his district get on their feet and rebuild. "It is tragic. The devastation is hard to imagine. At the same time, it was reassuring to see these individuals who had been damaged by this flood already rebuilding. They're resourceful. They're resilient and I really watched firsthand the American spirit at work," said Smith, who says many businesses hope to be open again by the end of the week. |
| Time to End Compulsory Education? |
| Tue, 26 May 2015 15:56:49 EST An award-winning documentary filmmaker says science shows that compulsory education is a failed concept and the answer is to dismantle the system and allow "self-directed" learning designed largely by the children themselves. Cevin Soling is the director of "The War on Kids" and is author of "The Student Resistance Handbook." His film won honors as the best educational documentary at the New York Independent Film and Video Festival. He is speaking up again on the issue after legendary astronaut and former Sen. John Glenn, D-Ohio, said, as a Christian, that he believes evolution should be taught in schools but intelligent design should not. Soling says he is no fan of intelligent design, but believes the scientific community lacks any consistency when it comes to education. "My complaint is that the science community is saying that a component of curriculum of an institution that is wholly unscientific should be changed. That itself belies any kind of scientific mission and is grossly hypocritical," said Soling. In fact, Soling believes an honest appraisal of science confirms that compulsory education, whether public or private or whether religious or secular. "There's absolutely nothing science-based to the structure of compulsory schooling. Compulsory schooling is an experiment. It's an intervention that is designed to have some kind of purpose that's never been adequately defined. There's never been any test. There's never been any experimentation to show that compulsory schooling is effective at whatever it allegedly is designed to produce," said Soling. He says even the generally assumed goals of all organized education are a proven failure. "If one posits several different things that compulsory schooling could potentially produce - literacy, work skills, democratic values, social skills - one sees that compulsory schooling actually fails in every single one of these categories," said Soling. And how exactly does Soling conclude that every type of formal education flops in those categories? "In 2003, the Department of Education did a study and showed that only 13 percent of american adults were deemed proficient in literacy skills," said Soling. "One would imagine when you have a population that's forced to go to this institution for twelve years, nine months out of the year for five days a week that one would produce better results than that. And it hasn't been tested against other approaches to education." Apart from academics, Soling says the atmosphere in every school intrinsically teaches lessons antithetical to American principles. "Schools are run in a fundamentally fascist environment where you have an autocracy, where the population that's in the school is deprived of almost all of their civil rights," he said. According to Soling, every school in America and parents of every student in the nation are trampling students' civil rights by making them go to school and follow rules while there. "First you have a population that's forced to be in a place against their will. That in itself is a fundamental and gross violation of the most basic civil rights. Their speech is limited (as is) their capacity to go where they want, be where they want, socialize with who they want. Their due process is severely limited. (Their protections against) search and seizure is severely limited," said Soling. While the law does require schooling to a certain age, the vast majority of parents would likely enroll their children anyway. So while Soling does believe parents have a key role to play in educating their children, his answer on who ought to ultimately make educational decisions might come as a surprise. "It need to be a mediated decision between the parents and the child. The parents need to listen to and respect the interests of their child, which is something the institutions train them not to do," said Soling, who shed light on what he sees as the ideal education system. "The solution is developing self-directed learning. There are many different approaches to that. You have to understand and appreciate that all people are different and have different needs. Some people require more structure than others. There's democratic schooling, where intrinsic motivation comes from following the things that you're interested in," said Soling. He says parents do have a key role in that setting. "They're in the role of mentors, so the structure can be rather rigid if that's something that the individual child requires or quite free in the example of unschooling, where the child can have tremendous amounts of liberty," said Soling. Without any sort of standard for measuring achievement or gauging preparation for college or the working world, how would this system know when a student is ready to move on? "That's not for other people to judge. That's for the individual to judge. They decide whether their needs are getting met," said Soling. |
| Gold Star Children to be Honored on Memorial Day |
| Fri, 22 May 2015 16:10:49 EST This Memorial Day weekend, the nation will pause to remember and honor Americans of all generations who lost their lives in service to the United States, and this year's National Memorial Day Concert will spend time highlighting the children of those recently lost a parent in combat and how their lives are forever changed. The concert airs live on Sunday, May 24, from 8:00-9:30 Eastern Time on PBS. One of the focal points will on the work done by American Gold Star Children to reach out to kids devastated by the loss of a parent and connect them with other children going through the same heartache. "That's an ultimate sacrifice when a parent has had to give up their life, knowing that they had a child and yet they put themselves in harm's way so the rest of us in this country could live the good life and live with the freedoms and protections and advantages we have in this country," said actor Joe Mantegna, co-host of the National Memorial Day Concert. "Being able to focus on those children will be a very important part and I'm sure a very moving aspect of the program," said Mantegna, who is co-hosting the event for the thirteenth straight year. For the past decade, he has partnered with fellow actor Gary Sinise. The Dostie family was chosen to represent American Gold Star Children at the concert. U.S. Army Sgt. First Class Shawn Dostie was killed in Baghdad on Dec. 30. 2005. The 32-year-old Dostie was a 14-year veteran and left behind his wife, Stephanie, an eight-year-old son and a five-year-old daughter. "Befor Shawn was killed, I didn't know myself, even as a military wife, what a Gold Star was. All of a sudden, I became a Gold Star wife and my children became Gold Star children," said Stephanie Dostie. "Of course it was devastating. Your whole family dynamic changes. The first three years were pretty rough. It took a lot of adjusting." She says part of the reason those early years were so difficult is because often times it didn't feel as though Shawn had been killed. "As a military family, we were used to him being deployed or in training somewhere, so we were used to him being gone quite a bit. For a long time, it felt like he was still on a deployment or he was away at training. It took a few years to really comprehend that he wasn't coming home at all," said Dostie. Even after that realization, Dostie says adjusting to a new life was very difficult. "We have spent the last years trying to put everything back together and beginning to be a family of three instead of a family of four. We take it one day at a time, still to this day we take it one day at a time and I think that's the best way to get through something like this. Surround yourself with wonderful people, have a good support system and take it one day at a time," she said. Dostie's children were chosen as the faces of Gold Star children for the National Memorial Day Concert after many were considered. She says this attention is so meaningful to Gold Star families. "The only thing harder than losing your hero is feeling like they have been forgotten. To us, this is a wonderful way to honor Shawn. We're very blessed that they were picked and we're really looking forward to sharing our story with the nation," said Dostie, who says her family's experience with American Gold Star Children has been critical for her kids. "When they meet another Gold Star child, they have a camaraderie with them. They're able to open up to that child because that child knows that they've been through," she said. While life has resumed some sense of normalcy in since receiving the news of Shawn's death nearly a decade ago, nothing will ever be the same. "I think my son had a harder time than my daughter for quite a few years. He really needed his dad in his life. There were pivotal points where he just needed his dad there. He can talk to mom but there are some things he doesn't want to talk to mom about. He wanted his dad there," said Dostie. That son will soon graduate from high school. "It's bittersweet because I want his father there to see him walk across that stage. It's going to be a beautiful day for my son. It's also going to be a hard day for the family because his dad isn't there," said Dostie. "Once you're a Gold Star child, this follows you for the rest of your life. I think down the road when my daughter's going to get married, she's not going to have her father there to walk her down the aisle. I'm not going to be able to sit on a porch with my husband and tell stories to my grandchildren," she said. "This isn't something that ends once the funeral is finished. This is something that follows these children for the rest of their lives," added Dostie. She hopes the family's participation in the concert will help the American people understand families of those grieving loved ones from wars past and present. "I just hope the nation realizes the sacrifice these children have made by sacrificing their parent for freedom for this country. I hope it brings awareness to teach others to educate what a Gold Star child is," said Dostie. The National Memorial Day Concert will have a number of other special features, including a salute to World War II heroes 70 years after the war ended. Mantegna says with the World War II generation slipping away, this is a critical tribute. "They're losing thousands and thousands every day. There's going to come a time when there's actually no living person alive from that conflict. Yet it had such a major impact on world history, so it's important that we spotlight it," said Mantegna. He says the importance of the victory in World War II cannot be overstated. "Evil could have triumphed but it didn't. It was only due to the sacrifices that millions have made throughout the world, not just in this country but throughout the world," said Mantegna. |
| 'They're Getting More and More Desperate' |
| Thu, 21 May 2015 16:13:36 EST Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe is blasting President Obama for telling U.S. Coast Guard Academy graduates Wednesday that climate change is one of the most serious threats to security here in the U.S. and around the world. In the midst of negotiations over Iran's nuclear program and just days after the Islamic State capture of Ramadi, Obama focused his remarks on the temperature of the earth. "Climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security. Make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. So we need to act and we need to act now," said Obama, who called avoidance of the issue a "dereliction of duty." "Denying it or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security. It undermines the readiness of our forces," he said. Sen. Inhofe, who is also a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is the author of "The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future." "It shows that they're getting more and more desperate," he said. "He's trying to resurrect the issue of global warming. This has got to be the most desperate statement that he's made because it's one that no one's going to believe." "It is kind of humorous, the desperation that this president goes to trying to trying to bring this issue back," added Inhofe. He says Secretary of State John Kerry is floundering on climate change as well. "He's getting equally desperate. He's been in on the very beginning of this with Al Gore and others. It has not panned out. The public knows it. The polling is now against them. He will say anything in order to fortify or resurrect the issue," said Inhofe. The senator says desperation is growing on the left because the public is less accepting of the dire climate predictions and feels less urgency to address the issue. "We all know that climate changes all the time but it's not a result of man-made gases. They've lost the argument. I can remember ten years ago it was polling as the number one or number two environmental issue. It's now number thirteen out of fourteen," said Inhofe. Even if climate change were one of the most imminent threats to national security, man wonder what Obama actually expects the U.S. military to do about it. Inhofe says it's less about logistics and more about building a consensus. "I think what's he's trying to do is to get military members, and now and then he'll find a retired general to cater to the president, to get them to agree with his assessment. So far, that hasn't happened on anyone who didn't have another reason for wanting to agree with the commander-in-chief," said Inhofe. "He's trying to find some allies in the military, but they're not there," he added. Inhofe says Obama's commencement remarks are especially jarring given the major international challenges erupting in just the past few days. "North Korea has just announced they have a miniaturized nuclear weapon. ISIS has already taken control of Ramadi. ISIS has sixty percent of Syria right now. They're beheading Americans. We're not responding," said Inhofe. "His timing could not have been worse to make a statement like that to a group like that, right after the declaration by everyone including James Clapper, the director of national intelligence (and others) that this is the most threatening time in the history of this country," he said. The senator is also blunt in blaming Obama for creating the conditions that give us so many national security challenges that he believes are infinitely more urgent than climate change. "At a time when our enemies don't fear us, our allies don't respect us, they know this president has drawn the line in the sand many times as he's done in Syria and other places and then backed away from it," said Inhofe. Inhofe was at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy on Friday, speaking with the underclassmen. He says the cadets there know very well what the real threats to national security are. "These people at the academy know. They're really tuned into the threat that is out there because they are trained to meet that threat," he said. The good news, says Inhofe, is that the young men and women at the academy show America's military has a bright future. "I quoted a lot of the past heroes and let them know that when they take their oath that they're going to have to defend this country at the risk of their own lives. There wasn't one hand that didn't go up saying each one was willing to do that," said Inhofe. |
| 'Pig Book' Reveals Scope of Pork Barrel Spending |
| Thu, 21 May 2015 14:35:23 EST The congressional moratorium on earmarks has drastically reduced the amount of pork barrel spending in Washington, but billions of taxpayer dollars are still lost on redundant or worthless programs and the perpetrators are now harder to identify. Citizens Against Government Waste is out with its "2015 Congressional Pig Book." The group uses several criteria to determine if a project counts as pork barrel spending. Items requested by only one member or appropriated without competitive bidding are telltale signs, as are expenditures not requested by the president or that greatly exceed his budget request. Spending that only benefits a specific local area is another red flag. In the 2015 report, 105 projects are identified as pork, costing taxpayers $4.2 billion. "We continue to find earmarks after the moratorium, but it's way down from the record $29 billion in 2006," said Citizens Against Government Waste President Tom Schatz. "It's up from 2014, but $4.2 billion is fairly small compared to years of tens of billions (in spending) and fifteen or sixteen thousand (earmarks). Now there are 105," said Schatz. However, Schatz is quick to assert that "fairly small" is still not good enough. "Everything still counts. We still have a large deficit even though it's lower than it used to be, lots of liabilities for future entitlements. Every penny, every million counts here in Washington," said Schatz. In 2014, the "Congressional Pig Book" counted 109 pork projects, so that number is slightly lower. However, spending is up significantly from $2.7 billion a year ago. The jump to $4.2 billion constitutes more than a 55 percent increase. "What they've done essentially is put into single earmarks what used to be multiple earmarks. So a $25 million earmark that used to be divided among 58 members of Congress is now just a $25 million earmark and we're not quite sure who's going to get the money," said Schatz. So is pork barrel spending really on the decline or are lawmakers just doing a better job of disguising it? "Little bit of both," said Schatz, who says some members make it pretty clear they are behind these earmarks. "There are a few we can track to members of Congress. There's $5.9 billion fore the East-West Center in Hawaii, which Sen. Brian Schatz, no relation I might add, has requested over the past few years. There's $15 million for the Pacific Salmon Recovery Trust Fund out in Washington State and California, which Sen. Patty Murray specifically said she requested," said Schatz. Schatz says defense spending is responsible for multiple earmark violations. "For example, $25 million for a science, technology, engineering and math program through the Department of Defense, when there are more than 200 of those STEM programs identified by the Government Accountability Office in 2012. Not only is it duplicative but the Department of Defense shouldn't be teaching kids science and math education. That's up to other agencies," said Schatz. The Pentagon ventures into seemingly unrelated fields doesn't stop with education. "Why is the Defense Department spending $20 million dollars for alternative energy research when there are billions of dollars for that purpose in the Energy and Water Bill where, if the government should be spending money at all, they should be spending money on alternative energy research," said Schatz. Even projects that no longer have a sponsor and no one wants to keep find a way to survive. "Here's a great example, not a lot of money but an absolute waste: $2.6 million for the Denali Commission, created in 1998 to build rural infrastructure in Alaska. Even President Obama said to get rid of this in 2012. The inspector general of the Denali Commission himself said, 'I've concluded my agency is a congressional experiment that has not worked out. Congress should put the taxpayers' money somewhere else,'" said Schatz. The "Pig Book" has many other eye-opening revelations. Money for the Fund for the Improvement of Education soared from $21.1 billion in 2014 to more than $298 billion this year even though Obama did not request funding for it. The feds are also spending more than three million dollars per year on the Valles Caldera National Preserve even though government spending was supposed to end this year. For Schatz, the problem of congressional pork isn't going anywhere, but things are moving in a more responsible direction. "There are still some outrageous examples of waste but they are far fewer," he said. Copies of the "2015 Congressional Pig Book" can be obtained for a small donation at cagw.org or by calling (800) 232-6479, which translates to (800) BE ANGRY. |
| Senate Demands Religious Freedom Factor Into Trade Deals |
| Wed, 20 May 2015 16:02:22 EST The U.S. Senate voted unanimously to make religious freedom a factor in future trade agreements and the lead sponsor says it is vital that we make liberty our greatest export once again. Earlier this week, the Senate voted 92-0 to approve the amendment sponsored by Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla. It is now part of the Senate bill that would grant the president the power to negotiate trade deals and submit them to the Senate for an up-or-down vote. The issue is known as Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA. Injecting religious freedom or any human rights consideration into trade policy hasn't been seen much since the 1990's. Lankford says with two major trade bills in the pipeline, this was the time to take a stand for a core American value. "We're doing a trade agreement and conversations with the Asian Pacific and we have countries like Vietnam in the mix. We cannot, for the sake of a dollar in our trade, turn aside from hundreds of prisoners of conscience that are in Vietnam and a lot of problems that are happening there with human rights and basic religious freedoms," said Sen. Lankford. "If we're going to export something, let's start by exporting our liberties," he said. Lankford says his amendment is structured so that religious freedom and human rights cannot just be checked off the list in future trade negotiations but will be a serious part of the discussions. "It is part of the normal trade agreement and the negotiating terms of the agreements. They have to bring it up and be part of the conversation, to talk about human rights and religious freedom specifically in this area," said Lankford. What would those discussions look like? Lankford says the big issues are obvious. "Beginning with prisoners of conscience, pastors that are imprisoned, priests that are imprisoned right now simply because of their faith and the practice of their faith. Let's make a part of our negotiation conversations about those individuals, rather than saying we'll allow those people to be imprisoned for their faith as long as we can make a dollar in Vietnam. That's not our value," he said. In addition to Trade Promotion Authority, lawmakers are also about to consider advancing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. That would be a 12-nation partnership. Lankford sees Vietnam as the worst offender on the list of prospective partners. The communist nation claims it allows religious freedom, but only to those who get approval from the government. Not only does that policy bother Lankford, but he says Vietnam has a slippery history when it comes to honoring its trade deals. "They were what's listed as a "country of particular concern", which is a particular heading dealing with religious liberties. So there's some restrictions based on that. They had some improvement so they were removed from that list in 2007 and they've gone right back to the same issues," said Lankford, who believes a focus on religious freedom during trade negotiations will make the world a better place. "We'll have better trading partners if we have trading partners that have greater freedoms in their location. There'll be a more stable government, a more open government, better with trade if they have an open, functioning conversation about faith and allow people to be able to live their own faith in their own country rather than being an oppressive dictatorship," said Lankford. While repression of religion is much harsher in Vietnam and other parts of the world, it has become a flash point in the U.S. culture battles as well. In March, Indiana and Arkansas were the focus of intense battles over religious freedom legislation. Both passed strong conscience protections for business owners, but vocal protests forced GOP governors in both states to amend the bills. Lankford says there is a growing number of Americans who badly misunderstand the separation of church and state. "I understand the separations and protections in government, but that has moved now to actually trying to push people to not be able to practice their faith. The Constitution is very clear. It's the free exercise of religion," said Lankford. "To say that you're free to worship but you're not free to practice your faith would be to say that you're free to think something but you're not free to speak it." However, the senator does not see the need for any federal action to shore up religious freedom in the U.S. "This doesn't require additional legislation. It requires us to actually follow the Constitution and what's very blunt and clear there," said Lankford. While the religious freedom debate plays out in our own country, the fight over trade in the U.S. Congress is intensifying as well. Last week, the Senate played host to the odd spectacle of Senate Democrats filibustering Trade Promotion Authority while Republicans unanimously sided with President Obama. Lankford says TPA has very little to do with Obama. "In all likelihood, this trade agreement wouldn't be complete until the next president. So we're lining up at the end of this presidency authority that will extend the majority of it into the next presidency," said Lankford, who is a proud advocate of free trade. "You remember that document called the Declaration of Independence? One of the grievances the colonists had with King George is that King George inhibited our ability to trade around the world. We have been free traders as a nation since before we were even a nation. This has always been a big deal to us," he said. "I believe the American worker and the American product can solve a lot of the issues and can beat the competition around the world if we get a level playing field," said Lankford. As the TPP fight draws near, lawmakers from all points on the political spectrum have expressed great frustration at the secretive process and the great lengths to which members must go to even read the proposal. Reports suggest senators and representatives must go to a specific room with no electronic devices or staffers. They can take notes but give them up before leaving and cannot discuss the details in public. Lankford is not worried about this. He says there is great misunderstanding about where Congress is in this process and the public will have time to review any final framework. "The way this is set up is the twelve nations are negotiating. It is a closed process while they negotiate and talk through the different details. Once the twelve nations come to an agreement, based on the requirements that Congress actually sets...then it is a public document before Congress votes on it. So there'll be a lot of time that it's a public document before Congress does the final vote," said Lankford. |
| General: ISIS Capture of Ramadi Totally Avoidable |
| Mon, 18 May 2015 16:10:35 EST The key Iraqi city of Ramadi has fallen to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria but retired U.S. Air Force Lt. General Tom McInerney says U.S. air power could have wiped out ISIS but the White House won't use it out of fears of collateral damage. Forces of the Islamic State, or ISIS, have been laying siege to Ramadi for months. Over the weekend, Iraqi troops fled the city, once again leaving considerable U.S. military equipment behind. Monday afternoon, Reuters reported that some 25,000 people are fleeing Ramadi to avoid savage treatment at the hands of ISIS. Ramadi is the capital of the Sunni-dominated Anbar province. It witnessed some of the most vicious fighting of the Iraq War and was also the scene of the Anbar Awakening, in which local Iraqis rejected Al Qaeda extremism and teamed with allied forces to stabilize the region. Pentagon officials admit losing Ramadi is a "setback". McInerney says that's a major understatement. "This is a huge loss for the allied forces. Nobody can discount it other than that," he said. "It is vital to retaking all of Anbar and pushing ISIS out." McInerney, who flew combat missions in Vietnam and eventually rose to the third highest position in the Air Force, says the loss of Ramadi is even more infuriating because he believes it could have easily been avoided. "It should not have happened. We were well aware of what was going on months in advance. We should have used our air power appropriately to stop them from doing it. I'm just amazed that we haven't done it. We've averaged six or seven sorties a day. We ought to be doing hundreds a day to defeat them," said McInerney. While admitting the setback, Pentagon officials are also trying to downplay the significance of ISIS capturing Ramadi. They contend the ISIS siege lasted almost a year, so its eventual success wasn't really all that impressive. McInerney not only says that's wrong but but that it also camouflages the real reason we're not inflicting far more damage on the enemy. "Well, why didn't they destroy them when they had it surrounded. They were in easily locatable, geographical points that air power could have been used. The reason they didn't is because the White House is running this war. The Pentagon is not. The Pentagon is only running excuses," said McInerney. What does he mean by the White House running the war? "The White House is doing the targeting and the tasking. That should be done all in theater. They want to have an immaculate air campaign plan," said McInerney. "They do not want to have any collateral damage. They are making it to be so pristine and so perfect that they're not defeating the enemy." As a result, McInerney says a war that should have been over a long time ago is dragging on because of politics. "They do not have a grip on it because this White House has micromanaged it worse than any time in our history. It's very sad to see but this was something that could have easily been handled with the proper use of air power," he said. The news of Ramadi falling into ISIS hands came on the heels of significant good news in the battle, when U.S. Delta Force commandos successfully targeted and killed a major ISIS leader and took his wife into custody. Abu Sayyaf served as head of the terrorist group's oil and gas ventures. Commandos were hoping to take him into custody as well. "It was a brilliantly executed mission, absolutely brilliant. I'm amazed that we didn't have some casualties. So I give the administration great credit for taking this action," said McInerney. But he says it once again begs the question about where decisive action has been during this campaign. "If you can do this so perfectly, why couldn't you defeat, why couldn't you defeat those forces that were surrounding Ramadi. With all the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems we have, with all the precision-guided munitions we have, this should have been very easy," said McInerney. |
| 'American Contempt for Liberty' |
| Fri, 15 May 2015 16:50:44 EST Famed economist and columnist Walter Williams says America has embraced the government thievery of personal property to benefit others and he says the politicians are only doing what the voters want them to do. Williams is a distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University. He is a syndicated columnist and has substituted for talk show host Rush Limbaugh. His new book, a collection of his conservative-to-libertarian columns is entitled "American Contempt for Liberty." The title may sound a bit harsh, but Williams insists that's exactly what's happening in this country. "The average American thinks that it is indeed moral for the Congress to forcibly use one American to serve the purposes of another American. It will forcefully use one American to use farmers to serve farmers in term of farm subsidies or bank bailouts or welfare or food stamps," said Williams. "I think that the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another is immoral. As a matter of fact, that's the working definition of slavery," he said. Williams is quick to point out that he has not problem helping his neighbor in need. It's how that help is structured that he rejects out of hand. "I believe that helping one's fellow man in need by reaching into one's own pockets is praiseworthy and laudable. Helping one's fellow man by reaching in someone else's pockets is worthy of condemnation. For the Christians among us, when God gave Moses the commandment "thou shall not steal" he did not mean that thou shall not steal unless you got a majority vote in Congress," said Williams. To see how far and how quickly the American system has drifted from its constitutional moorings, Williams cites an impassioned speech that James Madison delivered on the House floor just a few years after the Constitution was ratified. "In 1794, Congress appropriated $15,000 to help some French refugees. James Madison stood on the floor of the House and he said, 'I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article in the Constitution that authorizes Congress to spend the money of their constituents for the purposes of benevolence,'" said Williams, who says our government is now drowning in forced charity. "If you look at the federal budget today, two-thirds or three-quarters is for the purpose of benevolence, or it can be described as the government taking the property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong," he said. "If a politician is running for office today, making the same statement that James Madison made, the American people would run him out of town on a rail because they'd have contempt for that sentiment." Williams says both parties engage in this "contempt for liberty" on a regular basis. "Conservatives and Republicans believe in taking your money and my money and giving it to farmers and banks. Liberals and Democrats believe in taking your money and my money and giving it to poor people and cities. They both agree on taking our money, but they disagree on what to use it for," said Williams. As frustrated as Williams is by the redistribution of property, he does not blame the politicians. He blames the people who hired them. "We can't worry about politicians because politicians do what the American people want. If the American people want us to have a constitutional form of government then politicians will do the same thing. We have to somehow get our fellow American to believe in the moral superiority of personal liberty," said Williams. Williams says if he ran for U.S. Senate in Virginia, followed Madison's lead in vowing not to bring money back to the commonwealth for roads, education or health care, he would get crushed at the ballot box because everyone's incentive is to get in on the government thievery. "The tragedy for our nation is that the people of Virginia would be acting exactly right by not electing me to the office in terms of their self-interest. If I don't bring back billions of dollars to the citizens of Virginia, that doesn't mean the citizens of Virginia will pay a lower federal income tax. All that is means is that North Carolina will get it instead," said Williams. "Once legalized theft begins, it pays for everybody to participate," he said. The problem with the government trying to meet everyone's wish list is that it spends more and more and falls further into debt. Williams says that lack of liberty and discipline will eventually harm the very people the government tries to help. "To maintain today's level of benefits in Social Security in the 2030's, the Social Security taxes alone will have to be 31 percent. I don't believe that people in the labor force in 2030 are going to tax themselves 31 percent plus the federal income tax to take care of some old people," said Williams. His optimism for the future remains quite low, due in large part to the state of higher education today. Williams maintains that half of college students don't belong there because over half of them require remedial work on campus that should have been done in high school. Williams says the lack of understanding students have about the American founding is especially frightening. "They don't know anything about the founding of our country. There have been survey questions asking college seniors, 'Where does the statement 'From each according to their abilities and to each according to their needs' come from?' Some will say say that it's in the Bill of Rights as opposed to the Communist Manifesto," said Williams. Williams says the future of America really comes down to one choice. And right now, he says we're getting it wrong as a nation. "Are we headed towards personal liberty or are we headed toward more government in our lives. I think it would have to unambiguously be the latter," said Williams. |
| Sit-In Leader Cheers House Ban on Late-Term Abortions |
| Thu, 14 May 2015 16:14:01 EST The House of Representatives passed legislation to ban virtually all late-term abortions Wednesday, and the leader of two Capitol Hill sit-ins on the issue says the protests were vital to keeping the issue on the "front burner". The House voted 242-184 to approve the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which bans all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, with some exceptions for rape victims. The legislation was sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., and advocates say the final version is even stronger than the one pulled from the floor earlier this year. "I was very pleased that the vote happened and also that the language of the bill ended up surprisingly to be much stronger than the original bill that would have been presented on January 22," said Jill Stanek, a retired nurse, who once confronted then-Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama over his opposition to a bill that would require abortion providers to extend life-saving measures to babies who survive attempted abortions. The bill was originally scheduled for January vote to coincide with the annual March for Life and the anniversary of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision in which the Supreme Court ruled there was a constitutional right to abortion. It was removed from the House floor when some female Republicans balked at a provision requiring women to present a police report before seeking a late-term abortion on the grounds they were raped. When the legislation did not swiftly return to the calendar, Stanek teamed with the Christian Defense Coalition and Operation Rescue to stage a sit-in at Speaker John Boehner's office on March 25. Stanek and many others were arrested that day. They held another protest earlier this month. Wednesday's vote took place on the second anniversary of the conviction of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortion doctor convicted of murdering babies who survived late-term abortions. Stanek firmly believes the sit-ins helped push the bill back onto the House floor. "Those who heard the floor debate [Wednesday] and heard Speaker Boehner heard him say that he wanted to give a shout-out to not only the representatives who were involved in crafting the bill. He also said, 'To those Americans who made their voices heard, who stood up for this bill, want you to know we heard you,'" said Stanek. "I know that people emailed and called their legislators and Speaker Boehner but I also think that he was acknowledging both our protests. Even yesterday, I heard from people who are insiders on the Hill that the protests made a big difference," she said. Stanek was in the House gallery for Wednesday's vote. She says the effectiveness of the protests was a simple case of the squeaky wheel getting the grease. "The Hill operates in crisis mode, basically putting out one fire to the next," said Stanek. "Our protest on March 25, where we had a sit-in and eight of us were arrested, I'm told by several people moved the pain capable bill back up to the front burner." As frustrated as Stanek was with the four-month delay in passing the bill, she is thrilled with what she sees as improvements to the original plan. "All of those warring factions in the pro-life movement ended up putting language in this bill that makes it pretty solid as far as not giving the abortionist really any room to even commit 20-week and beyond abortions, even if there is somewhat of a rape-incest exception," said Stanek. One of the biggest changes is that the bill treats minors and adults differently on whether they're required to file police reports. "Minors have to report rape and incest to police, which makes total sense because if you're a minor and you're involved in incest or you've been raped there's a big chance that you could be raped again if the perpetrator isn't caught," said Stanek. For adults seeking late-term abortions, one of the usual exceptions is no longer grounds for an exception. "They are only allowed to get abortions for rape. Incest has been taken out as an exception for adult women. If you're an adult and you're engaging in consensual incest sex, then you shouldn't have an exception for abortions. If you've been raped and the victim of incest and you're an adult then it would be rape. It would be considered rape whether it's a family member or not," said Stanek. Adult rape victims would be required to receive counseling or medical treatment 48 hours before an abortion. The next hurdle for the late-term abortion ban is the U.S. Senate. Republican leaders are favorable to the bill but reaching sixty votes to defeat a Democratic filibuster may not be possible. Stanek says Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., will passionately lead the fight. "For all the concerns I have for him as a conservative in other areas, I know without a doubt that he is very articulate on pro-life issues. I've heard him speak very forcefully and convincingly on this particular bill. He even said in January at a Family Research Council event that he was champing at the bit to debate this bill," said Stanek. Stanek is keenly aware that even Senate passage won't turn the bill into a law because President Obama is certain to veto it and supporters do not have the votes to override it. She says there is still an important reason to keep pushing it forward. "I am hopeful that the bill will continue to percolate at the forefront of conversation with the American public and continue to educate the American public about how advanced abortions are in the United States to the point where women can get abortions through all nine months of pregnancy, which so many people don't even know," said Stanek. Public opinion polls support Stanek's assertion. While the public remains intensely divided on the overall question of abortion, the gap gets wider and wider when the focus turns to late-term abortions. "Across all demographics, the majority of Americans, usually at least 60 percent, think that late-term abortions shouldn't be allowed and should be banned. We're talking men, women, young, old, millennials. Across the board, people think that this is heinous," said Stanek, who believes Democrats are making a mistake by defending late-term abortions. "It's definitely a losing proposition for Democrats and Hillary Clinton, for instance, to come out yesterday in a tweet opposed to this bill. It definitely sets them apart from the mainstream and makes them look like the extremists that they are," she said. Stanek says she will be focusing much of her time highlighting Clinton's position on this issue. She will also be watching to make sure the Senate takes action. "I'm trying to move forward in faith and seeing what Leader McConnell says and what Lindsey Graham says. There haven't been any plans formulated yet, except for if this doesn't move forward in a timely manner, we will be back," said Stanek. |
| Nepal's Next Nightmare |
| Wed, 13 May 2015 16:53:22 EST As Nepal staggers back to its feet after a devastating earthquake and a massive aftershock, a leading humanitarian group says the impoverished nation is at great risk to be exploited by human traffickers. Why is the threat higher at a moment like this? Experts say when the government is in crisis mode, people with sinister intentions smell opportunity. "First of all, the human traffickers are already there. Second, the social safety nets and the fabric of the state - legal protections and rule of law protections - which had existed prior to the earthquake, weak as they may be, have been weakened even further by the devastation and confusion caused by the earthquake. It's in these situations, the risk is considerably increased," said Anti-Slavery International Director Dr. Aidan McQuade. As McQuade intimated, Nepal is already a fertile area for traffickers. "We already know there has been a considerable reality of trafficking from Nepal, so our concern is that this will be used as an opportunity for unscrupulous people to exploit even more impoverished ones," said McQuade. "There are many people who are using the hope and the expectation that people have of a better life as a means to exploit them. You can only imagine, now that the country has been so much more devastated by these earthquakes that people are going to be even more desperate to look for better options by which they can help their families," said McQuade. Perhaps the most heartbreaking aspect of the problem is that the vast majority of Nepalese men, women and children know they are taking a huge gamble by responding to the promise of good jobs in other countries. "The people who are being trafficked and exploited aren't stupid. They're desperate," said McQuade, who relayed the story of a young man he met that he encapsulates the attitude of many people trying to escape poverty. "One person that we met a few years ago who was preparing to go to the (Persian) Gulf to work said, 'I know this is a choice between the frying pan and the fire. None of us know which is which. We know that we can live in abject poverty here in Nepal or we can risk going overseas and maybe finding decent work.' And some people do find decent work," said McQuade. For those who aren't so fortunate and wind up as servant laborers, McQuade says many men and women from South Asia end up in the Middle East. He says men are in high demand right now. "Many of your listeners will have read reports of forced labor of South Asian men in Qatar and in other Gulf States, many of them in preparation for the 2022 World Cup. There's tens of thousands of those South Asian men or Nepalese who have gone to the Middle East in search of decent work in order to help their families," said McQuade. The outcome isn't much different for females. Forced labor in the Arabian Peninsula is often their fate as well. "Tens of thousands of Nepalese women and girls have been trafficked for domestic work, again in hope of decent work for themselves so they can help their families, but oftentimes finding themselves in situations of domestic servitude or worse again in situations of sexual exploitation across South Asia," said McQuade. In the western world, a quick internet search can provide a great deal of information on the legitimacy of a prospective employer. That's not an option in Nepal. "For ordinary Nepalese who are seeking work, it's very difficult. You can seek advice about who is a good agent and who is not a good agent. But it's still very much a lottery about whether you get good advice or, even if you have got good advice, whether it remains good advice when you travel yourself," said McQuade. The persistent poverty in Nepal and other parts of the world makes it difficult to rein in human traffickers very effectively. However, McQuade says there are some concrete steps that could do a lot of good. "There's considerable need for reform of the international labor market. There needs to be considerably more thought about how we can facilitate safe migration of people looking for decent work. Western countries should think about assisting poorer countries to do this," said McQuade, who advocates embassies opening up offices to assist impoverished people looking for work in their countries. He also wants greater regulation of the recruiting businesses that target people in places like Nepal and more investigations of those suspected of being unscrupulous. Being lured into a life of forced labor is bleak enough. McQuade says trying to escape from many countries, especially those in the Middle East, can be virtually impossible. "If you end up in one of the Gulf States for example, one of the great difficulties is that you will be subject to what is called a Kafala system, which is a system encoded in the law of many of the Gulf States, which means that you cannot either leave or change employment within that country - for example Qatar - or even leave the country without the say-so of your employer," said McQuade. Virtually every Arab state enforces Kafala, including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates. McQuade says the inability of South Asian laborers to go home to check on their loved ones has been especially stressful. "Across the Gulf, there are tens of thousands of men and also women working in domestic work and other sectors whose families have been effected by the earthquake and are begging to be able to go home to see if their family are alive and well or who has been killed and injured and help them reconstruct. They are not being allowed to leave," said McQuade. |
| And the Good News Is... |
| Tue, 12 May 2015 16:00:19 EST In her new, best-selling memoir, former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino gives readers an inside look at the White House Briefing Room, the character of President George W. Bush and how she was the only casualty of the infamous shoe-throwing incident in Baghdad. The latter incident is how Perino open her New York Times best-seller, "And the Good News Is...Lessons and Advice from the Bright Side." President Bush deftly dodged the shoes thrown at him in a press conference late in his administration. Perino was not so lucky. "I was the only one who got hit in the face (my a microphone stand) and I ended up with this big black eye," said Perino. She said that backdrop actually led to a moment of respect from the press corps. "On that trip, there were three photographers from news organizations. They made a pact among themselves that they would not take any photographs or release any photographs of my injury," she said. Perino served as press secretary from September 2007 until Bush left office in January 2009. She says there were certainly moments of tension in the press room but believes she successfully served the administration while respecting the rights of the press to gather and investigate news. "I felt like I struck that balance pretty well, partly because I had been a reporter. So I knew what they needed. We had a lot of respect in the briefing room. For example if any of them came to me and they had some breaking news, but we weren't quite ready to confirm anything yet, I would tell them I would get back to them if and when we had anything to say. And I never burned anybody," said Perino. Perhaps the toughest part of the job for Perino was succeeding the adept and personable Tony Snow, who left to fight a recurrence of cancer. Perino was the last person who wanted to replace him. "I loved working for Tony Snow. I also loved very much being behind the scenes. I was happy there. One of the pieces of advice I give in my book is to always take the deputy job. You get to know the boss a little bit more on a personal level. You could do the job if you needed to but you don't have the responsibility," mused Perino. She says Snow's parting words were cathartic. "He made me stand up. He was 6-foot-5 and I'm only five feet tall. He put his hands on my shoulders and tilted my head back and said, 'You are better at this than you think you are,'" said Perino. She soon found out he was right. "I didn't know what he meant because I was wracked with anxiety but I go forward. I do the briefings for about two weeks. Two weeks later I said, 'Oh, I get it.' I don't have to be just like him. I can be myself and be successful," she said. Perino relates her deep professional and personal affection for President Bush throughout the book. Excerpts of his emotional visits with wounded and active duty military personnel have received a great deal of attention, but other accounts reveal other sides of the former president. One of Perino's predecessors as press secretary was Scott McClellan, a longtime family friend of the Bushes, who succeeded Ari Fleischer in the briefing room in 2003. McClellan struggled mightily in the job and was seen by many Bush loyalists as ineffective on key issues such as the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina and the Valerie Plame investigation. Eventually, McClellan was removed in favor of Snow in 2006. McClellan subsequently wrote a book about his time in the White House and was far more harsh towards Bush than anyone expected and the mainstream media couldn't get enough of the GOP infighting. By this time Perino was press secretary. She was friends with McClellan but furious about his criticism of Bush. It was the president who finally convinced her to move on. "I was very upset. The president knew this and I was kind of paralyzed and unable to do my job. He heard about this and called me into the Oval Office at 6:40 in the morning and said, 'I'd like you to try to forgive him.' I said, 'Can I throw him under the bus first?' He said no. He didn't want me to live bitterly, that no one would remember the book in three weeks and we had more important work to do," said Perino. Then the president addressed the issue Perino didn't even realize was bothering her most. "He did something that I think shows the measure of him as a manager and somebody that cared about the people that worked for him. I was leaving the Oval Office and he said, 'Oh by the way, I don't think you'd ever do this to me.' I realized that's what I was mostly concerned about. I was worried that my relationship with him would be hampered by my predecessor's decision to write a negative book about his personal relationship with the president," said Perino. Perino says Bush, whom she refers to as 43, is a very funny man and it manifested itself most noticeably in his relationship with First Lady Laura Bush. "I like watching husbands and fathers that can make their women laugh. With a look, he can make Mrs. Bush giggle. Their relationship of total commitment and love and fun really helped inspire me," said Perino. Once the Bush administration ended, Perino got involved in several different types of work, one of which was as a Fox News analyst. Soon thereafter, Glenn Beck left Fox News and the network decided to launch a temporary show called "The Five" to hold the time slot until a permanent replacement could be found. Perino was recruited for the show along with Greg Gutfeld, Eric Bolling, Kimberly Guilfoyle and the lone liberal, Bob Beckel. Fox News never had to find another program for the time slot because "The Five" was an instant smash. "That was the genius of Roger Ailes. He knew that the chemistry would be good. We didn't know each other very well. None of us were close when we sat down. In fact, Gutfeld and I had only sort of said hello passing in the hallway. It turns out we get along so well and I call him the brother I never wanted," said Perino |
| The Domino Effect of Gay Marriage |
| Mon, 11 May 2015 15:51:39 EST If the Supreme Court finds there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage next month, the tax-exempt status of any non-profit groups that refuse to embrace the movement could soon be on the chopping block. Writing in a column for USA TODAY, Home School Legal Defense Association Chairman Michael Farris says religious and even non-religious non-profit institutions will likely be targeted by the government for holding to traditional standards on sex, marriage and morality. "All of these entities are exempt from taxation under the same section of the IRS code. And even though churches can be exempt without application, their exemption can nonetheless be revoked," wrote Farris. "Even if it takes the IRS years to begin the enforcement proceedings against such institutions, we can expect other fallout from this decision to begin shortly after the release of the Supreme Court's opinion." The premise for this concern is rooted in a widely reported exchange during the Supreme Court's oral arguments on marriage held on April 28. "In the Bob Jones case, the court held that a college was not entitled to tax exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?" asked Justice Samuel Alito. "It's certainly going to be an issue. I don't deny that," responded U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. In a subsequent interview, Farris says the scrutiny would stretch much wider than just colleges and universities. "The legal principle that was established in the interracial case from Bob Jones University is applicable to all non-profit organizations, not just colleges," said Farris, who is also chancellor at Patrick Henry College, which accepts no federal funds. He can easily envision a scenario where the federal government would investigate the school. "We would not hire any professor that believed in that form of marriage or practiced it. If we stay true to our beliefs, we're going to find our tax-exempt status threatened in the days ahead. That is a death knell for a lot of organizations," said Farris. And it's not just colleges and universities. Farris says any religious non-profit group is at risk and Christian and private elementary schools, middle schools and high schools would find themselves in the IRS cross hairs. Churches would be at risk of losing tax-exempt status as well. Farris says a simple scenario for a Christian school getting in trouble would be for a legally married gay couple to attempt enrolling their child at the school. Many schools have parents sign a commitment to abide by the statement of faith, which may include language about marriage only being between a man and a woman. If the school denies enrollment to a student on those grounds, he says an investigation could easily follow. But even if there are no issues with personnel or the families trying to get children into the schools, the curriculum could also trigger a tax-exempt status review. "Just teaching out kids that homosexuality is a sin would be sufficient to bring these things into question," said Farris. In fact, he says a growing list of liberal activist academics don't just want schools that teach biblical morality to lose their tax-exempt status but to be shuttered completely. "Professors at Northwestern University, professors at George Washington University and at Emory have all opined that Christian schools and home schools that refuse to teach their kids a tolerant viewpoint should be closed down entirely, not just lose their tax-exempt status. They should lose the right to be able to teach children," said Farris. Many churches require membership based on a statement of faith and their affiliated schools require parents to acknowledge that students will be taught according to those principles. Historically, those voluntary associations have provided strong legal defenses. "I was in a courtroom in the late 1970's where an Orthodox Presbyterian Church was being sued for refusing to continue the employment of the church organist they found out was homosexual. In that day, the church won on the basis of religious freedom," said Farris. But he says those days are quickly ending. "Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of the United States, in 1990 in a case called Employment Division v. Smith, through the free exercise of religion onto the constitutional trash heap. So I would expect that case goes the other way (now)," said Farris, who says this will worm its way into every major decision churches make. "You can take it down as close to the heart of the church as you want: who you hire as your pastor, who you hire as your minister of music, who you hire as your youth director," he said. Just how big of a hit would non-profits take if they lost their tax-exempt status? Tax payments would not look much different, but donors would lose their tax benefits, and that includes private foundations required by their charters to give to IRS-approved non-profits. For many organizations, Farris says, the status loss would be a matter of life and death. "It would really hurt on the giving side of things. Unless there was an army of people who would rise up and say, 'I don't care about the taxes. I want to give to you anyway,' schools like Patrick Henry would end up having to close down," he said. If the Supreme Court does legalize gay marriage coast to coast, Farris says there is a short term way to preserve these non-profit institutions and a couple of long-term avenues as well. First, he says Congress needs to look out for the viability of religious non-profits. "Congress could pass explicit laws that would refuse to give this kind of implication to the internal revenue tax code. That's going to take majorities in both houses of Congress and it's going to take a friendly president to sign the law. So elections will matter," said Farris, who still his his eyes on the ultimate goal. "The biggest solution from my perspective is to get rid of the Internal Revenue Service and get rid of the whole income tax system and the inability of the government to regulate our lives through that," said Farris. |
| Obama Tying Public School Money to Transgender Accommodation |
| Fri, 8 May 2015 16:19:05 EST The largest school district in Virginia is expanding its non-discrimination policy to include gender identity over the loud objections of parents, and the Obama administration intends to impose the change on every public school district in the country. On Thursday, the Fairfax County School Board voted overwhelmingly to expand it's non-discrimination policy to accommodate transgender teachers and students. The vote came after the second of two boisterous hearings, at which parents overwhelmingly opposed the change. The amended policy would apply to students as young as preschool and allow teachers to stay in the classroom if they declare themselves to be a different gender and conduct themselves accordingly. Many parents are concerned about privacy for their kids if transgender adults and students are granted access to restrooms and locker rooms opposite of their biological gender. For weeks, board members touted the change as minor change and one that would ensure all people are treated fairly. Shortly after the vote, that story changed. In a statement released after the meeting, school board chairwoman Tamara Derenak Koufax released a statement which said the federal government left the board no choice. "The U.S. Department of Education has told school districts that transgender students are protected from discrimination under Title IX and has recently required some school districts including Alexandria, Va., to amend their policies to expressly include gender identity," said Koufax in the statement. Elizabeth Schultz was the only board member to oppose the policy change. But she says Koufax is right about the federal intrusion. "They've threatened that if we do not they will pull our federal education funds, free and reduced meal money for impoverished students," said Schultz to the Washington Examiner. As a result, this debate may soon be playing out in every public school district in America. "What happened in Fairfax is not just about Fairfax. It is now a national issue," said Traditional Values Coalition President Andrea Lafferty, whose children were enrolled in Fairfax schools for many years. "President Obama and his Justice Department and his Department of Education are going to start telling school districts, 'If you do not add gender identity, we are going to take away all your federal funding," said Lafferty. But Lafferty says the school board never brought up the federal mandate until after the vote and its reasons for considering the policy until this revelation was all over the place. "There's been excuse after excuse. That excuse didn't come out until they knew thousands and thousands of parents were sending them emails and calling them," said Lafferty. "At the meeting two weeks ago, one of the board members specifically said, 'Our policy suffices. We don't have a problem. We don't need to do this. But OK, we'll do it.'" She says the shifting explanations didn't end there. "As the days went by and more people expressed outrage, the story changed again. The sponsor said, 'Let's pass it and then the staff can tell us what's in it, just like with Obamacare," said Lafferty. As maddening as the changing rationale is for Lafferty, she says the board's treatment of concerned parents was even more outrageous. At each of the two meetings devoted to the subject, 10 people were allowed to speak for three minutes apiece. "The parents that were in the building and the parents that were locked out were overwhelmingly opposed to this. Anybody that watched it live or watched it online, could see the arrogance of the school board speaking down to these parents. Parents are upset. They want to be involved in the process and they weren't," said Lafferty. Lafferty approached Fairfax County Superintendent Dr. Karen Garza to complain about a process that stiff-armed parents away from the decision-making process. Garza disagreed. "She vehemently disagreed with me. The superintendent and all the school board except for one or two people think parents' voices have been heard and it's completely untrue," said Lafferty, who says the district studied and evaluated whether to change the start of the school day for many years but limited this issue to just one hour of public input. For now, she insists this fight is not over in Fairfax. "It's never final. These people were voted in. They are not lifetime judges and they can be voted out in November. There is a possibility of legal action. There's a lot of things that we're looking at right now," said Lafferty, who says every parent concerned about this issue needs to get ready for a fight in their town. "This is coming to your neighborhood, whether you're in Keokuk, Iowa, Tupelo, Mississippi, or wherever. You need to make sure your school board pushes back," said Lafferty. |
| Is Secretive Trade Deal Obama's 'Blank Check'? |
| Fri, 8 May 2015 14:03:59 EST Congress is being urged to approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade plan even though most have not read it and a leading gun rights activist says the plan could give President Obama the power to limit the importation of ammunition and implement his political agenda in many different ways. "Fast track authority in the context of this treaty means a blank check," said Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt. "By a majority vote, the Congress is preparing to give the president authorization to negotiate a treaty. When he brings it back, it would take two thirds of the Senate to vote it down because of the way they set up the parliamentary system," said Pratt. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, debate is made even more bizarre by the intense secrecy surrounding the proposed treaty. A Politico article described the hoops lawmakers must jump through just to see the bill. "If you want to hear the details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal the Obama administration is hoping to pass, you 19ve got to be a member of Congress, and you 19ve got to go to classified briefings and leave your staff and cellphone at the door," stated the article by Edward-Isaac Dovere. "If you 19re a member who wants to read the text, you 19ve got to go to a room in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center and be handed it one section at a time, watched over as you read, and forced to hand over any notes you make before leaving," Dovere continued. "And no matter what, you can 19t discuss the details of what you 19ve read." Pratt is appalled that the public is getting no chance to weigh in on TPP. "This is incredible. This is the administration that advertised itself as the most transparent that there ever would be. Give me a break. This is really going to the other extreme. Where is the objection just on procedure, let alone any of the details," said Pratt. If the terms of TPP are under lock and key, how does Pratt know that Obama is poised to restrict ammunition imports? "I don't know that it's there. I'm just assuming that a guy that's done everything he can heretofore with his pen, as he said he would do, will do it again when he's given a blank check," said Pratt, who says second amendment defenders aren't the only ones who should be worried. "It's not just guns. We could be talking about any number of other subjects where the president could just go hog wild," he said. "For people who say, 'Just because you haven't seen the treaty, why are you objecting?' Wait a minute, the only time anybody will be able to see the treaty is when it's too late to do anything." For Pratt, this comes down to Congress placing faith in a president who has proven he's unworthy of it. "This is a president who can't be trusted to do anything. We know that. He's not a truthful man. The idea that they would give him a blank check that he could write all kinds of firearms import and export restrictions into a treaty with Pacific nations, what are they thinking?" asked Pratt. Pratt says he's generally supportive of free trade. He says there is a simple solution to this problem but lawmakers don't seem interested in it. "Amend it now, while it's in a regular bill fashion and send him his authority minus gun-grabbing opportunity. So far all we get back is crickets," said Pratt. "It's a little upsetting to me that we have such a compliant, supine Congress that the president, apparently rightly, figures he can just wrap around his finger and do what he wants," he said. The gun lobby has been very effective at beating back previous Obama administration attempts at gun control. A Democratically-controlled Senate failed to approve expanded background checks in 2013. A few months ago, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, sought to ban certain types of ammunition, particularly those commonly used in AR-15s. An avalanche of public opposition forced the ATF to back off. But Pratt isn't so sure about the outcome of this battle. Do gun rights supporters have the votes to stop or change TPP? "I don't think we do in the Senate and I'm not sure about the House," he said, urging Americans to get involved in lobbying their members of Congress. "This horse is standing right by the door, ready to bolt. Hopefully people are going to be stepping up their contacts with members of Congress. I'm fairly confident predicting that if we give the president an opportunity to stick it to the second amendment, he will do it," said Pratt. |
| Follow the Money! |
| Wed, 6 May 2015 16:43:26 EST "Clinton Cash" author Peter Schweizer says there is an unmistakable pattern of Clinton Foundation donations greasing the skids for political favors throughout Hillary Clinton's congressional and diplomatic career and no one has been able to discredit the facts in the book. The thrust of the book is that the Clinton Foundation raked in millions and even billions of dollars from foreign donors who subsequently saw their most important issues addressed favorably by the State Department. The book has rocked the Clinton campaign for weeks, as the Clinton Foundation was forced to admit that it took foreign donations while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, refiled years worth of tax returns to set the record straight and revealed some 1,100 donors that it hadn't previously disclosed. Schweizer says there are a lot of different threads to follow in the various episodes, but he says the basic plot is as old as politics itself. "This is the oldest story in politics. Follow the money. If you follow the money in this case, you're talking about a scale of money that is unprecedented," said Schweizer. "It's a classic case of money in politics. When you give money, you want access and you want a favorable opportunity to get things done for your benefit." This week, Bill Clinton has spoken out in defense of the foundation's activities and stated it did nothing that was "knowingly inappropriate." At another event, when asked what the money went for, Clinton joked, 'I just work here. I don't know.' Schweizer is a bit stunned by the response. "I really think it's been odd, frankly. On the one hand, they've said that there's nothing here, but on the other hand they can't stop talking about the book," he said From Paul Begala hammering the book on Twitter to a new website and email alerts focused on the book, Schweizer says the Clintons are in major damage control mode. "If they think there's nothing there or the book is a dud as they've called it, they seem to be taking a lot of actions that show them to be scrambling," said Schweizer. He believes the real reason for the concern among Clinton allies is an crystal clear pattern of Hillary Clinton's State Department rewarding Clinton Foundation donors. "This is not a book with anonymous sources. There's not hyperbole here. It's just laying out the facts. It's laying out the template of the flow of funds to the Clintons over the template of her official actions as secretary of state. When you do that, you find this very troubling pattern between the two," said Schweizer. Schweizer says the actions of the Clintons are especially galling given the laws firmly in place to prohibit foreign donations to political campaigns and political action committees and clear limits on foreign lobbying of the U.S. government. "Yet the Clintons have set up this apparatus through the Clinton Foundation and through these so-called speaking fees that I think are more influence payments to Bill Clinton. These mechanisms are a way around foreign entities being able to influence our politics. You see the money pouring in and you see the decisions and the actions being taken for the benefit of those who are paying the Clintons," said Schweizer. All of this allegedly took place during Mrs. Clinton's tenure as secretary of state despite explicit demands from President Obama and the Senate Foreign Relations for the foundation to accept no foreign donations and for its records to be available for review. "If I was Barack Obama, I would be absolutely furious. This was a condition upon Hillary taking the job as secretary of state. We now know that almost immediately overnight, they violated that agreement," said Schweizer, who says Obama now needs to decide whether Hillary Clinton's presidential ambitions will trump the search for the truth in this case. "Are they going to let that supersede the fact that the Clintons flat-out lied to them. In this memorandum of understanding, it was very explicit that they were going to reveal all donors. We now know that they didn't do that, that there were millions of dollars from some very, very sensitive deals involving very, very sensitive people that was flowing to the Clinton Foundation," he said. "Clinton Cash" also asserts that some of the money coming into the foundation was given by some very questionable characters, including African warlords and other disreputable figures. Schweizer believes the company the Clintons were keeping is worth noting. "I think it's another red flag flag. You've got a guy, for example, like Gilbert Chagoury in Nigeria, who has been convicted in Geneva, Switzerland, for money laundering and aid and abetting a criminal enterprise. What he was basically doing was helping the Nigerian dictator (Sani) Abacha take billions of dollars out of the country and put them into Swiss bank accounts," said Schweizer. He says people like Chagoury don't give huge amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation or anyone else just out of generosity. "That's the kind of person they are spending a lot of time with and taking money from. A guy like Gilbert Chagoury operates in a political culture like Nigeria that is rife with paying bribes. The idea that he's going to give a large sum of money for the Clintons and not expect something in return is just patently ridiculous," said Schweizer. The book further contends that the quid pro quo for Clinton Foundation donors are not unique to the years Mrs. Clinton was running the State Department. Schweizer says it was evident during her years in the U.S. Senate as well. One chapter in the book focuses on a nuclear issue involving India. "The Indian government wanted access to U.S. civilian nuclear technology. In 2006, legislation was introduced to that effect. Hillary Clinton was not particularly supportive of that. She in fact supported three killer amendments that were designed to undermine that bill," said Schweizer. "Well, millions of dollars flowed to the Clinton Foundation. Bill Clinton got eight speeches from Indian interests. By 2008, she had completely reversed course and come out in favor of unrestricted access to U.S. nuclear technology by the Indian government," he said. Schweizer believes any doubts about whether donations to the Clinton Foundation played a role in the policy shift were answered by one of India's key players on the issue. Sant Chatwal was a friend and financier for Sen. Clinton who won a prestigious award from the Indian government for convincing her to change his mind. "When he described in interviews what he did, he talked about the fact that getting this bill through cost him millions upon millions of dollars," said Schweizer. The policy flip-flops did not stop there, especially after Sen. Clinton became Secretary Clinton. "There are a number of examples in the book where she publicly espoused one position or supported a piece of legislation. But then when she became secretary of state, she reversed course. The question becomes are these just all coincidences or in these dozens of instances is something more afoot," said Schweizer. The key to finding iron-clad proof may be gone since Clinton had her personal email server wiped clean of more than 30,000 "personal" emails from her time at the State Department. Schweizer is convinced that controversy is directly related to the Clinton Foundation scrutiny. "I believe the deletions occurred in large part precisely because of these kinds of transactions and communications we're talking about. But they're certainly not necessary to convene a grand ury and investigate these subjects," said Schweizer. And that is where Schweizer hopes all of his evidence eventually leads: to a serious legal investigation of the Clintons' actions. "My hope is that somebody with subpoena power either on Capitol Hill or a prosecutor is going to convene a grand jury or investigate these matters further," he said. |
| 'A Trial Is Not A Fact-Finding Opportunity' |
| Tue, 5 May 2015 15:19:20 EST A prominent black conservative is slamming Maryland State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby for charging six police officers with the death of Freddie Gray without bothering to collect all the evidence and he says that haste could trigger more riots if the officers are acquitted and leave law-abiding citizens in some neighborhoods at the mercy of troublemakers. Last Friday, Mosby announced charges ranging from second-degree murder depraved heart to manslaughter to office misconduct. However, attorney and Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper says the prosecutor is putting the cart before the horse. "We're all concerned about whether or not Freddie Gray died under legal or illegal circumstances," said Cooper. Our legal system is not supposed to be that a trial is a fact-finding opportunity. A trial is supposed to occur only after a level has been reached to believe that a crime has been committed by the individuals who have been charged." "In America, you're not supposed to have any person have charges brought unless the burden of proof has been met," he said. Cooper says Mosby is also going to have to get much more specific than simply accusing all six officers of playing a role on Gray's death. "If you are going to charge someone with depraved heart murder and someone else with negligence that's criminal, you are going to have to say who it was that actually took the actions, when did they take those actions and how did Mr. Freddie Gray die?" said Cooper, who believes Mosby charged the officers under the wrong motivation. "In this case, there was a very clear decision, it appears, by the state's attorney to bring what she perceives to be the most serious charges that could be sustained, without necessarily seeing where there's evidence. If this can happen to those officers, this could happen to any American," said Cooper. He also rips Mosby for failing to convene a grand jury before filing formal charges. "She has bypassed, at least temporarily, the grand jury process, which is a protection to make sure that you actually can support the charges that are brought against any individual," said Cooper. One area where Cooper seems to agree with Mosby and other Baltimore leaders is that it is possible for the officers to receive a fair trial in such a charged atmosphere. Opponents of a venue change assert that special arrangements were not needed for Boston Marathon bomber Dzokhar Tsarnaev or Colorado theater shooting suspect James Holmes. Cooper says that is a fair point, but he says any arguments to move the trial will be bolstered by Mosby's conduct. "In neither (the Boston nor the Colorado) circumstance did the prosecuting attorneys make statements about the accused that were provocative, that were inflammatory and that it appeared to be that the charges were brought to appease," said Cooper. By filing such hefty charges so soon, Cooper says Mosby could be setting the stage for another disaster in Baltimore if the evidence is not there to convict the officers. "What happens if there is an acquittal? The very crowd that demanded the charges in exchange for no longer burning down buildings, what are they going to do when an acquittal may occur?" asked Cooper. Beyond the Freddie Gray crisis lies the work of trying to put a divided city back together. Cooper says there are a number of things that must be agreed upon for healing to begin. First, he says there must be a separation of fact from fiction when it comes to how police interact with black neighborhoods. "There has been a false narrative presented that in America black men are somehow at some elevated risk at crisis levels in encounters. The individual charged with the highest, most serious charge in this death happens to be a black officer," said Cooper. Cooper contends that the prosecutor's approach to this case will make police less likely to engage in minority neighborhoods and that will leave law-abiding people in those communities at great risk. "We're going to see, just by necessity, law enforcement remove itself from many of these communities. We saw the rioting and the mayhem. It was because the police were operating under a stand down order. Those individuals are going to feel freer to engage in the rioting and the mayhem but there won't be cameras watching. It will people in those communities who will suffer as a result," said Cooper. As for the long-term approach, Cooper says it's time for everyone to admit that big government policies have badly failed Baltimore and many other big cities. "You have elevated levels of spending, the number three highest level of spending per capita on education, billions of dollars being spent over the decade on job training, social welfare transfers of all kinds and they do not work," said Cooper. According to Cooper, the hopelessness of many parts of Baltimore is magnified by the rapid decrease in population there. In 1968, Baltimore was one of the ten most populous cities in the U.S. Now, it's not even in the top twenty. He says it's high time to make failed leaders take responsibility. "[We need to] start addressing how we can encourage family formation, how we can encourage a new commitment to education, encourage job opportunities in these communities. That's things that are not about government programs but about cultural attitude changes and holding those elected leaders responsible," said Cooper. Recent polls suggest that blacks and whites view the events in Baltimore much differently, with whites roundly condemning the riots but a majority of blacks saying the actions were understandable in the pursuit of justice for Freddie Gray. But Cooper says there is a sizable minority of blacks who were disgusted by the violence and are fed up with the status quo in Baltimore and other big cities. "Twenty-seven percent is a significant bloc of black Americans. That's the group of people that we ought to start having conversations with, both politically and in the community. If 27 percent of black America switched their political affiliation and their voting practices, it would revolutionize America," said Cooper. |
| Inside the GOP Budget: Major Reforms, Obamacare Repeal, No New Taxes |
| Mon, 4 May 2015 14:41:24 EST Congressional Republicans are on the verge of passing a budget that would balance within ten years, repeal Obama and reform major entitlements all without raising taxes, but a confrontation soon looms between the GOP and a president who wants nothing to do with that agenda. The Senate is expected to approve the House-Senate compromise on the budget this week. It passed the House largely along party lines last week. "It was a remarkable challenge. The challenges get greater each year because the administration refuses to deal with the reforms that need to be put in place," said House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, R-Ga. "This is a big moment. It's been 14 years since the House and the Senate agreed to a budget that balanced within a period of ten years and this budget does just that." Price says the American people gave explicit marching orders at the ballot box and Republicans are finally in position to press the issue now that they control both the House and Senate. He says lawmakers and the public both know that doing more of the same is simply not an option. "You can't continue to be in debt at eighteen-plus trillion dollars and not do anything about it. Every dollar that's spent on interest and every dollar that's borrowed is a dollar that can't be used for paying the rent, for buying a house, for buying a car, for sending a kid to college, for starting or expanding a business. All the things the American people say they want to do are harmed by our current fiscal and economic path," said Price. He says the GOP plan is ambitious but clear. "Our budget would get to balance within a ten-year period of time without raising taxes. It would make certain that we lay out a path to save, strengthen and secure Medicare and Medicaid. We protect Social Security. These are the programs that are going broke under their current path. We would repeal Obamacare in its entirety, all of it's rules and regulations and taxes and make certain also we're providing for a strong national defense," said Price. Repealing Obamacare is not just a major political and policy goal for Price. He says it would save taxpayers a lot of money too. "That literally saves us nearly two trillion dollars over the next ten years. We would put in place patient-centered programs, patient-centered health care where patients, families and doctors are making medical decisions and not Washington, D.C.," he said. Price sees entitlement reform, particularly with respect to Medicaid, as another key ingredient in bringing government spending in line. He says that's another trillion that could be trimmed. "All you have to do is simply provide the states the opportunity and the flexibility to fashion a program that takes better care of their Medicaid population and is much more responsive to them and is much more flexible for the states and for the patients in those programs," said Price. Another major priority in the GOP budget is attaching conditions to government benefits for able-bodied adults. "In all the welfare programs that exist out there, the vast majority of them have no requirement whatsoever that the individual receiving the benefit." said Price. "What we've put in place is simply an opportunity for the states to require either work or searching for work or some type of education path for the individuals receiving those welfare benefits. When you do that, you save nearly a trillion dollars a year." The budget is divided between mandatory and discretionary spending. Price says entitlements are the biggest drivers in mandatory spending and must be addressed. "Unless we reform our mandatory spending programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security), we will continue to squeeze the discretionary side of our budget, including defense and everything else...in a way that is not sustainable if we're to accomplish the mission that we have to keep the nation safe," said Price. But some political critics see things much differently. Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., was a member of the conference committee hammering out a budget compromise between the House and Senate. "This conference report sends a strong message to students, seniors, and the underprivileged that their dignity and dreams are simply not of concern for the Republican Party, 1d Moore told Politico. Price says the facts speak for themselves. "Students are more in debt and much less likely to be able to pay for their education than they would under our program. Senior are suffering right now under a Medicaid program and a Social Security program that are going broke. They're going insolvent and the Democrats do nothing whatsoever to save those programs," said Price. "For those who are indigent and down on their luck, this is an economy that is the worst economic recovery in the history of our nation," he said. The toughest intraparty fight came over Pentagon spending. Many in the party believe the military has taken far too big of a hit in sequestration while others say it's vital to honor the few spending restraints that still exist in the budget. Price believes Republicans found a way to make both sides happy. "What we utilized was the global war on terror funding stream to be able to provide the resources to get above the president's level of spending on the Pentagon budget and hopefully put in place a process that will allow us to address this in the future where we don't have to use that outside funding," said Price. However, the road to a balanced budget in the next decade is obstructed by some simple facts. The biggest hurdle is President Obama, who has no interest in advancing the core goals of the budget, especially when it comes to Obamacare. "I'm not living under any illusion or delusion that he would actually sign that, but it's important for the American people to know who's standing in the way of progress and who's standing up for progress and positive solutions," said Price. The House should have no problem voting to repeal Obamacare. Price strongly encourages the Senate to pass it through reconciliation, the same tactic used to pass Obamacare in the first place which requires just a simple majority for approval. He says Congress could still end up enacting major changes to the health care laws this year. That would happen if the Supreme Court issues a ruling on King v. Burwell that determines the law only allows health care subsidies to be obtained through state exchanges. Nearly three-quarters of the states refused to create their own exchanges. Their residents would then be responsible for massive health care costs and Congress would be compelled to save the federal exchange or blow up the system. Now that the budget committees have largely wrapped up their work, the next challenge is to convince lawmakers to abide by it. Price says there are two priorities in that effort. The first is to go through appropriations bills one at a time and see what can be cut. "The Appropriations Committee deals with the discretionary side of the funding which is about at a trillion dollars for Fiscal Year 2016, which begins October 1. There are 12 subcommittees on the Appropriations Committee. We've already done two pieces of legislation through the committee and they'll work through the remaining ten to send to the Senate," said Price. He says the House Education and Workforce, Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce Committees are all poring over federal spending in an effort to find savings and give the Senate stronger footing to pursue reconciliation. |
| Are Consumers Gaining in the Cable Choice Battle? |
| Fri, 1 May 2015 15:57:16 EST Consumers are starting to see progress in their fight to stop paying for cable television channels they don't want and a leading advocate of family-friendly programming says the pressure will only grow from here and help drive trashy programming off the air. On April 17, Verizon FiOS announced it was introducing stripped down options for customers. The base package is now just 35 channels and customers then have the option of adding ten-channel bundles based on genres such as news, sports, pop culture, kids' programming and more. Parents Television Council President Tim Winter says this alone is not a huge change but it could be the first step in that direction. He says it reminds him of Neil Armstrong's first words on the moon. "He said it was a was a small step for man but a giant leap for mankind. I think there's something very analogous here. It is a baby step, but it's a step in the right direction. It is a step toward a video distributor trying to allow their consumers to have more choice and that's a good thing," said Winter, who is optimistic this move by Verizon could be the tip of the iceberg. "Does this lead to even more choice for families? Does this give them even more options. We believe ultimately it will, even though this step itself is rather small," he said. There's already a major roadblock in the way of Verizon's plans. Sports giant ESPN filed suit, accusing the provider of breaching their contract. "ESPN is at the forefront of embracing innovative ways to deliver high-quality content and value to consumers on multiple platforms, but that must be done in compliance with our agreements," said ESPN in a written statement. "We simply ask that Verizon abide by the terms of our contracts." Winter finds the statement laughable. "It's interesting that they say they're very innovative. They're innovative as long as they can still force people to pay them for something folks might not want. I guess that is fairly innovative if you can get away with it," he said. The outcome of the lawsuit, which Verizon vows to fight, could determine whether the cable choice movement thrives or craters. Winter disagrees. He sees the legal fight as entirely positive, no matter the outcome. "I think just the presence of this issue in the public eye is a win for the public. Regardless of how it comes down, I think it's exposing the programmers for what they're allowed to do by not allowing consumers to opt out. It's exposing the whole cartel-like business practice of the cable industry," said Winter. Winter says ESPN has a lot of nerve to wage a legal battle over a "baby step" by Verizon. "They make literally many billions of dollars every year by forcing subscribers to pay for networks they don't want. Our estimates are that ESPN charges something like seven dollars per month per subscriber to every single subscriber, whether it's cable or satellite or Verizon or AT&T. There is no way for the consumers to opt out and not have the requirement of paying in their monthly bill," said Winter. He says the principle applies for far more objectionable programming than what ESPN brings to your television. "Families don't want to be forced to pay for pornographic content, but they are. People who don't have children are forced to pay for children's programming. People who are conservative are forced to pay for liberal programming and vice versa," said Winter. True a la carte cable choice would force each channel to rise or fall on it's own. Winter says that's how the system should work. "No other product in the stream of commerce forces you to pay for so many products you don't want in order to have the ones you do want. The products that aren't able to face a market demand will go away just as they should," said Winter. One concern raised on both sides of the debate is the unbundling cable television could mean much higher cable bills. Consumers technically get many unpopular channels for free by paying for the popular ones. If cable choice arrives, the fear is paying for each individual channel could be a hit on the pocketbook. Winter says that's not necessarily the case. "The average cable family only watches 17 networks. That's whether they have 50 to choose from, or a hundred or five hundred," he said. "I don't know how you can make an economic argument if you're the cable industry to say, 'By adding another hundred networks you're not going to watch, somehow you're getting a better deal.' You're paying for all of them. The math just doesn't add up." One of the main reasons the Parents Television Council is staunchly supportive of cable choice is because a lot of inappropriate content emanates from channels cable customers must accept. In recent months, the group helped to force "Sex Box" off the air. That was a program on WE tv that featured couples having sex in an obscured room on a set and them reviewing their experience with therapists. It was cancelled after only a few episodes. Winter says the raunchy content is still coming, most recently through to A&E's "Seven Year Itch," which will reportedly feature couples married roughly seven years swapping spouses and sharing everything with their new mates, including their beds. "This is A&E's latest attempt to glamorize or celebrate the swapping of sexual partners as a lifestyle. Is there really a demand for this type of show? The answer is no because they tried it before and they failed," said Winter. "They're able to do this only because you cannot pick up the phone and unsubscribe to A&E if you still want to have History Channel or ESPN or Fox News or whatever else you watch," said Winter. The Parents Television Council will keep pushing for cable choice. In the meantime, they plan to make sponsors of shows like "Seven Year Itch" feel the heat. "What we will do is keep up our pressure on the sponsors of that program to make sure that they know where their media dollars are going and what content they're underwriting. Ultimately, if the advertising dollars go away, these programs cannot survive. We hope that responsible corporations are not going to align with that type of messaging," said Winter. |
| Why the Court Might Protect Marriage |
| Thu, 30 Apr 2015 16:05:08 EST A leading champion of traditional marriage is not only encouraged by Tuesday's oral arguments at the Supreme Court over the definition of marriage but is now confident the majority of justices will allow states to determine their own definitions of the institution. In his latest syndicated column, Marriage Savers President Michael McManus says he was particularly encouraged by the apparent hesitation of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has historically sided with gay activists. But on Tuesday, Kennedy expressed hesitation to redefine an institution that's been in place for thousands of years. 1cThe word that keeps coming back to me is 18millennia,' 1d said Kennedy early in the arguments. 1cThis definition has been with us for millennia. It 19s very difficult for the court to say, 18Oh well, we know better.' 1d "That's an encouraging comment, I believe. It shows you that there's really a possibility that he might vote with the conservatives on this," said McManus. McManus says that point was later reinforced when Justice Antonin Scalia asked the attorney for the plaintiffs if she could name one place that gay marriage was legal before 2001. She could not. "This is an issue that's brand new, relatively speaking. It's only been in place for ten years, and of the thirty-seven states where gay marriage is possible now, twenty-six of them did so only because of court orders, said McManus. He says a court ruling in favor of traditional marriage would mean many of those states would revert back to their original laws and the vast majority of states would once again define marriage only as the union of one man and one woman. The only other member of the Supreme Court who might surprise some with his decision is Chief Justice John Roberts. On Wednesday, the New York Times suggested that Roberts may vote to legalize same sex marriage nationwide because of a possible gender discrimination issue. 1cI 19m not sure it 19s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve this case, 1d Roberts said. 1cI mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can 19t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn 19t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination? 1d McManus says he's not worried about Roberts. He believes the chief justice made his true opinion known when he pointed out that Maine rejected gay marriage in 2009 but turned around and approved it in 2012. He says Roberts' own words tell the story that he prefers leaving the issue up to the states. "If you prevail here there, will be no more debate. Closing of debate can close minds and it will have a consequence on how this new institution is accepted. People feel very differently about something if they have the chance to vote on it than if it's been imposed on them by the courts," said McManus, quoting Roberts. "So I thought that was a pretty clear indication he's going to be on our side," said McManus. Earlier this week, Ethics and Public Policy Center President Ed Whelan told us why he was pessimistic about the upcoming court ruling and that little to nothing should be read into the questions during oral arguments. McManus is confident in the June ruling going his way because of the oral arguments that he sees as a very important in the final verdict. But, curiously, he reached that conclusion while being less than impressed with John Bursch, the lead counsel for traditional marriage supporters. "I think they matter a lot. One of my concerns is that the people giving the conservative side of this issue weren't very effective I didn't think. One of the most important points is that a child needs both a mother and a father. Obviously, that's not possible with gay marriages. That point wasn't made very well by our side," said McManus. There's also a pile of research McManus cites about the well-being of kids raised in the home of their married, biological parents versus those raised by gay couples. He cited a 2012 study by Mark Regnerus entitled "Social Science Research." According to Regnerus, children raised by gay couples are four times more likely to live on welfare and more than ten times more likely to touched inappropriately by a parent. Another issue McManus wishes Bursch would have raised is the apparent lack of interest among many gays and lesbians to actually formalize their relationships. "Gays are really not interested in marriage. That's not what you would think from all the press coverage of this issue," he said. His evidence is based on New York, which legalized gay nuptials in 2011. "There have only been 12,000 same sex marriages. In that state of nearly 20 million people, if 1.7 percent of the population is lesbian or gay, that would be over 330,000 people who could have married. So less than 10 percent are really interested in marriage, a point that hasn't been made by anyone as far as I know," said McManus. While McManus is expecting a favorable verdict in June, he is wholeheartedly endorsing the civil disobedience called for by faith leaders and some political figures to defy a ruling in the opposite direction. "I agree. I think we have to defy the court on this," he said. "It seems reasonable to me that the state should be able to decide for itself what marriage is. I would urge defiance on the part of those in those thirty-odd states that have endorses traditional marriage." |
| Supremes Still Likely to OK Gay Marriage |
| Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:04:56 EST Traditional marriage supporters and legal reporters suggest Tuesday's oral arguments on the definition of marriage mean the Supreme Court could go either way on marriage, but a respected legal scholar says the track record of the justices shows the odds are still strongly with supporters of same sex marriage. Justice Anthony Kennedy is seen as the key vote on this issue since five justices are needed for a majority and the four liberal justices are virtually certain to endorse gay marriage nationwide. Kennedy has been reliably sympathetic to the arguments of gay activists in previous cases, as evidenced by his opinion in Lawrence v. Texas that struck down anti-sodomy laws in 2003 and his 2013 ruling in Windsor v. United States that overturned the federal government's ban on same sex marriage. On Tuesday, however, the justices heard arguments on whether states have the right to define marriage for themselves and whether states should be forced to recognize marriages legally performed in other states. Observers noted Kennedy's obvious reluctance to redefine the institution of marriage. "The word that keeps coming back to me is 'millennia,'" said Kennedy. "This definition has been with us for millennia. It's very difficult for the court to say, 'Oh well, we know better.'" Many traditional marriage activists see this legal battle as an uphill climb, especially just two years after Windsor. But those words from Kennedy clearly raised their hopes. "For months, we've endured a barrage of claims that it is "inevitable" that the Supreme Court will issue a ruling imposing same-sex 'marriage' on the entire nation. Yet today's questioning from the justices themselves makes clear nothing is inevitable," said National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown in a message to supporters. Ethics and Public Policy Center President Ed Whelan is also an ardent defender of traditional marriage, but he is not expecting good news when the court renders its decision in June. "I come out of oral argument with the same pessimistic view with which I went in. When you look at Justice Kennedy's record, what he's written, what he's done over the past twenty years, I think he is a very very likely vote to invent a constitutional right to same sex marriage," said Whelan. Whelan is also insistent that trying to determine the court's decision based on oral arguments is a fool's errand. "I'm simply not going to assign much weight to any particular passage in the oral argument. Anyone who's attended these arguments knows that it's a rather chaotic affair. Justice Kennedy's questions are sometimes coherent, sometimes not. Same for the other justices," said Whelan. He says Kennedy's concern over millennia of tradition may only be a smokescreen. "I think he may have had an interest in appearing open-minded, to appear as though he hadn't made up his mind, but I'm very skeptical," he said. Whelan says over 25 years of Kennedy votes and opinions tell him a lot more than one oral argument. "I would assign far greater weight to what Justice Kennedy did two years ago in Windsor, far greater weight to the Supreme Court's denial of review last October from the four courts of appeals that had struck down state marriage laws, far greater weight to the Supreme Court's incomprehensible refusal to stay the district court ruling in Alabama," said Whelan. Whelan's pessimism is not an admission that traditional marriage forces have the weaker legal argument. On the contrary, he firmly believes the Constitution is on the side of the states. "The Constitution clearly leaves the matter to democratic processes, but if you're a living constitutionalist like Justice Kennedy who believes the Constitution means whatever you want it to mean, then you can make things up as you go along and no argument I'm going to make is going to have much of an impact," said Whelan. Same sex marriage advocates say their case is solidly backed up by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, which ensured the same rights to all Americans upon the abolition of slavery. Whelan says that argument is far weaker than it seems. "It's far-fetched to read the 14th amendment to read that the very sort of laws that existed everywhere at the time that the 14th amendment was adopted and existed everywhere until 2003 are now to be deemed unconstitutional, even though no one thought that the 14th amendment had anything to do with altering the male-female definition of marriage," said Whelan. Another reason many traditional marriage supporters hold out hope for either a win or a more limited ruling at the Supreme Court is because the justices are reportedly wary of issuing another sweeping decision that may only further polarize the nation in the way that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision did on abortion. Whelan says there's no reason to think that will be a mitigating factor in this ruling. "No, I think you have in Justice Kennedy and other justices a real extreme view of judicial power. As Justice Kennedy said in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case that ratified Roe two decades ago, he expects that the people acquiesce in whatever the court does. So I put nothing beyond what Justice Kennedy and other members of this court might do," he said. As for the long-term view, Whelan says marriage is already in deep trouble thanks largely to the way heterosexuals have sullied the institution and triggered an out-of-wedlock birth rate of 40 percent and rising. He says that is simply unsustainable. "We're transmitting the pathologies of out-of-wedlock birth from generation to generation in a way that will make it very difficult to sustain the sort of civilization we're used to having," said Whelan. He says championing "a thriving marriage culture" is the way out of this mess but insists same sex marriage will only make that harder. "I don't see how we can do that if five justices on the Supreme Court believes that the Constitution renders irrational any connection between marriage and procreation," said Whelan. "If marriage is redefined away from its core mission, it's going to perform that mission less well and the consequences will be severe," he said. |
| King: Take Marriage Cases Away from Courts |
| Mon, 27 Apr 2015 15:05:43 EST As the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on whether states have the right to define marriage as they see fit and whether to recognize same-sex marriage performed in other states, one congressman is looking to take the issue away from the courts. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, is sponsoring the "Restrain Judges on Marriage Act of 2015". "If my bill becomes law, then the states will make the decision from that point forward on marriage. Any enforcement funds would also be blocked. In the end, state would decide what marriage is . There's only two questions: what is marriage and who's going to decide?" asked King. "Not nine judges, or more likely five of nine judges, but the people need to make a decision on marriage," he said. How would the bill accomplish this, given that many question whether the legislative branch can dictate what the judicial branch can and cannot review? King believes the power is clear. "My bill just utilizes the constitutional authority that's drafted into the original version of the Constitution by our founding fathers that provides for Congress to determine the conditions by which the federal courts can hear a case," said King. Specifically, the "Restrain Judges of Marriage Act of 2015" would immediately remove any marriages cases from the federal court system, including cases already pending or any filed on or after the date the King bill would take effect. It also withholds any taxpayer money for the federal government to deal with any such cases. "All courts are created by the United States Congress, including the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the only court required by the constitution. The balance of the federal courts are created by Congress. If they can be created by Congress, they can also be managed by Congress," said King. King cites Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution for the basis of his legislation. The germane part reads: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." King says there is a difficult history of the federal courts trying to solve issues in a manner the public refuses to accept. First and foremost on that list is the 1857 Dred Scott decision that determined Scott was someone's property and the court ordered his return. King says it took a bloody Civil War, a civil rights act of 1866 and two constitutional amendments to ensure that slavery was abolished and that blacks in America were entitled to all the rights and benefits of citizenship. He says the 1973 decision legalizing abortion met with the same reaction. "We also saw Roe v. Wade and what they did when they said abortion on demand is fine. We've been fighting that now since 1973. The court should not be making these big decisions. They need to be decisions of the people. That's something we should know from history and something we should know from reading our Constitution," said King. He says the Supreme Court is precariously close to going down that same road. "Why do we think we're going to live under judge-made law when they do this to the institution of marriage, which is the essential unit, the building block of our society and has been for thousands of years. To think that the arrogance of a court could rewrite that when the voice of the people could not?" said King. King is ardently pro-traditional marriage but he says if same-sex marriage proponents used the system the right way, he have to grudgingly accept it just as he did in Iowa, but only after he personally sued the governor for doing it the wrong way. "We had a situation in Iowa where there was a governor who thought he could legislate in a similar fashion. I took him to court and sued him successfully and they vacated his executive order," said King. "About eight or nine years later, they elected different majorities in the house and senate and for governor. They passed that through as a matter of law. They never heard a word from me at that point because it was the decision of the duly elected representatives of the people," he said. The odds of King's bill becoming law are not good. The votes would almost certainly not be there to override a veto from President Obama. Far before that, King admits there's no guarantee Republican leaders will take up the bill. GOP leaders have gone largely silent on the marriage debate since the polls have turned against traditional marriage supporters. House Speaker John Boehner said the party would most likely not weigh in at all on the case currently before the Supreme Court. But King says the public can make a big difference. "I think leadership, if they hear enough requests from the public to push this thing, then they will. The sheer force of logic doesn't seem to have the same effect as I thought it did when I was a young, purely idealistic man. It takes the force of politics as well," said King. |
| Transgender Bathroom Battle Erupts Near Nation's Capital |
| Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:21:12 EST The cultural battle over opening bathroom to people based on their gender identity rather than their biological sex has reached one of the largest school districts in the nation and is playing out just outside the nation's capital. The school board in Fairfax County, Virginia, is now considering a policy change to accommodate students and teachers who consider themselves transgendered. "It's a ludicrous request," said Meeke Addison, director of Urban Family Talk, which is a division of the American Family Association. The AFA sent out an action alert earlier this week to alert parents in Fairfax County of the possible change. "This decision would effect from preschoolers right on up to senior year, kids during their formative years being exposed to what would be considered an alternative way of expressing yourself," said Addison. In addition to the transgender accommodations, the policy would also forbid parents in the district to opt their children out of complying with the rules. "This 'no opt out clause' is incredibly disturbing," said Addison. "Do public teaching institutions have the right to usurp authority of parents and teach children things that will go counter to that household's convictions. Do they have the right to do that? Wherever you fall on the transgender or homosexual debate, it doesn't really matter. The question is do public school systems have the right to usurp a parent's authority?" asked Addison. Addison says this type of "indoctrination" is not the point of public schools and her kids should not be pawns in a cultural agenda. "I expect them to come home reciting their times tables. I expect them to come home making their subjects and their verbs agree. I do not expect them to come home telling me about their teacher or a classmate who wants to use the men's bathroom because they decided they are not who they were originally created to be," said Addison. The issue grates at Addison on a moral level but especially irritates her as a black woman as she watches parallels made between this debate and the civil rights movement. "As an African-American, so often when we get caught up in this discussion, we believe that we are talking about immutable characteristics, we are talking about the way a person was or was not born," said Addison, who says race and sexual identity or orientation are not at all similar. "Science shows we are not talking about immutable characteristics. We are talking about choice. When we begin to allow choice and preference to trump immutability, then we have a problem. Not only do we have a slippery slope but I would say we don't have a slope at all. We're just careening to destruction," she said. So how should school districts deal with students who sincerely struggle with their gender? Addison says they should be treated with dignity, but so should every other student. "Something like that has to be dealt with on a case by case basis with sensitivity to that child and sensitivity to that child's parents. But whatever sensitivity you extend to that child, whatever accommodations you make for that child should be made for all children," said Addison. Fairfax County is an increasingly liberal part of northern Virginia and it is yet to be seen how parents are coming down on the issue there. Regardless of the political leanings of the district, Addison says all parents should be worried about this kind of proposal. "For people who feel this is no big deal, the question is when will it become a big deal? When it's something you don't like? When it' something that's not part of your core convictions?" she asked. Parents have already had one chance to address the issue with the Fairfax County School Board. They have one more chance May 7. Addison urges parents to fight all the way. "I'm not ready to say let's put the nail in the coffin for parental rights. You have a right to parent your child and I'm not ready to give that up. I'm not ready to call the fight over. It'll happen in Fairfax County. It can happen in Lee County. It can happen wherever you are in your school if parents do not stand up for their very basic right," said Addison. |
| 'She Does Not Have A Record' |
| Fri, 24 Apr 2015 14:56:00 EST One the leading Republican women in Congress says Hillary Clinton's record shows the former Secretary of State is not a champion of women's issues and her indifference to women's equality around the world and in her own office adds to Clinton's trust deficit with all voters. "There's a lot of disparity in what she says and what she actually does," said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn. "I think people want representatives that are going to be genuine and honest and they're not seeing that play out with the Clintons." According to Blackburn, this week is indicative of what the country would get with Mrs. Clinton in the White House. Multiple allegations have surfaced in the forthcoming book "Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich" by Peter Schweizer. The most explosive accusation to date is that Clinton's State Department approved the U.S. ceding 20 percent of its uranium reserves to Russia after a key player in the deal made a $2.35 million donation to the Clinton Foundation. "One of the things that it speaks to is the crony capitalism that they practice and it also points at how this has made our world less safe," said Blackburn. "That is one of the things that concerns women the most is the security issues, whether it's national security, job security (or) retirement security." While the Clinton campaign and the national media are focusing on the potential of Clinton to be the first female president, Blackburn says both women and men are plenty weary of the Clintons. "The American people have great muscle memory when it comes to the Clintons. Her actions and the revelations are reminding the people why they did not like having Bill and Hillary Clinton in the White House," said Blackburn. "The actions of crony capitalism, the lack of attention to security, the lack of attention to security of employees of the State Department has caused those issues to resurface and to be front and center. It's a problem for Hillary Clinton," said Blackburn. Blackburn is even challenging the very thesis of Clinton's campaign. In her tour of Iowa, Clinton repeatedly said her candidacy was a result of her lifelong commitment to fighting for women and families. The congressman says Clinton's record as Secretary of State tells a very different story when it comes to fighting for oppressed women around the world. "She does not have a record of making this a priority issue. When you look at the practices of some of these nations against women, the lack of freedom that they have and the abuse that some women suffer. Hillary did not take that opportunity when she was given the opportunity to address those issues," said Blackburn. "She flew a lot of miles and she visited a lot of countries, but she did not address those issues," she said. Blackburn says Clinton's lack of action on this issue is evident in another black eye for the Clinton Foundation. "The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation has accepted money from countries that do not honor the rights of women," she said. Diplomacy can be a delicate game. Saudi Arabia, for example, has a very poor track record on women's rights but is a strategic partner of the U.S. in terms of oil and in trying to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Nonetheless, Blackburn says there are a number of things Clinton could have done to show the issue was a priority in our dealings with Iraq. "Number one would have been to continue the outreach that the State Department started after the Gulf War," she said. Blackburn herself traveled to Mosul in 2003 to promote educational opportunities for women and to encourage women and girls to take advantage of schooling. "Wouldn't it have been great for Hillary to have made that a priority. Also, pushing forward having women elected into their parliament and bringing those opportunities forward for those women. Those are things she could have done, ought to have done but chose not to do," said Blackburn. In contrast to the concerns of women around the world, Blackburn says Hillary also neglected to act to help the women who surrounded her on a daily basis. Far from the equal pay demands that Clinton champions on the campaign trail, Blackburn says the secretary's track record is pretty dismal. "When you look at positions, males and females in the same job, that have been in her employ in the Senate and in the State Department, the females with the same qualifications at the same grade level were lower in that range than the men," she said. One advantage Clinton may have in her campaign is the allegation that criticisms against her from male candidates constitute a form of sexism and that a female candidate like Carly Fiorina may be the only one who can attack Clinton with full force. Blackburn disagrees. She says Clinton is fair game for everyone, but urges all GOP hopefuls to stick to the facts. "Instead of personalizing it, you look at her record. We've talked about her record at the State Department. We've talked about her record as a U.S. senator. What did she accomplish? She was a big earmarker for the state of New York. So her record is all you need to talk about," said Blackburn. Blackburn has not endorsed any Republican candidate for president and says it is unlikely she will do so prior to the nominee being determined. However, she is excited about the GOP field and what the candidates bring to the race. "We've got a deep bench and a lot of great candidates that are out there. The fact that we do have thinkers out there from every different corner of our party shows the Republican Party is a big tent," said Blackburn. "We are going to be focused on the security issues. We fully realize that the American people are saying, 'Look, the campaign is not about the candidates. It is about us, the individuals, the American people," she said. |
| 'We Are in A Police State Right Now' |
| Thu, 23 Apr 2015 16:00:49 EST Americans are increasingly living in a police state and the road looks very bleak unless citizens stop being complacent and take back their government, according to Rutherford Institute President John Whitehead. Whitehead is the author of the new book, "Battlefield America: The War on the American People." It's his second book on this issue. In 2013, he published "A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State." The issue is taking on additional urgency this week after an online news article chronicled how police stormed into the homes of three supporters of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in the middle of the night, subjecting the citizens to intense harassment simply for backing Walker's collective bargaining reforms in the state. None of them were ever charged. Whitehead says episodes like this are becoming less of an exception and more of a rule. "The government's watching everything you're doing," said Whitehead. "We are in a police state right now. The question is can we push it back." One of Whitehead's greatest frustrations in the book is Americans' acceptance of limitations placed on their freedoms and an unwillingness thus far to fight back. He says one of the biggest problems is that most Americans are unaware of how much police interaction with citizens is changing in many different ways. "They're not getting the news. If you watch just regular television news, you don't realize there are 80,000 SWAT team raids (each year). There were only 3,000 of those in the early 1980's. There are 80,000 occurring annually now across the United States. Eighty percent of those SWAT team raids are for what we used to call warrant service, where a policeman would come knock on your door," said Rutherford. He says digital intrusion into our lives is also skyrocketing. "How many Americans know that the NSA is now downloading two billion of your emails a day and American citizens' text messages. They admit to hacking into 160,000 Facebook pages a day to see what you're doing," said Whitehead. "In some of the cases we get involved with at the Rutherford Institute are doing regular free speech things about Obama. They're getting raided for it. Some have actually been arrested for it," he said. In addition, Whitehead says laws are now giving the government more latitude in investigating citizens and stripping constitutional rights away from the rest of us. "How many people know there's a thing called the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that Obama has signed into being, which allows the military to come to your door if he thinks you're an extremist, not a terrorist, and have you arrested by the military, taken away and put in a detention camp where you can't see your lawyer or your family," he said. According to Whitehead, several U.S. states are refusing to comply with the NDAA on constitutional grounds. He says this rapidly emerging threat is a far cry from what our founding fathers envisioned. "George Washington was screaming to never have a standing army on American soil. You will regret it. With the Department of Homeland Security handing out over five billion in military equipment, grenade launchers, MRAPS (Mine-Resistant Armored Protection Vehicles) that they use over in Afghanistan, sniper rifles," said Whitehead. "All the things you see in war zones, local police have those now," said Whitehead. He says another increasingly common tool for local police is the stingray device which puts our digital information at risk as police drive by our homes. "They're fake cell phone towers. They download everything you're doing on your cell phone so they can track you. And they do track you," said Whitehead. Whitehead says a major reason for the change is a significant adjustment in how police officers are trained now. "I actually work with some policemen who teach in the academies now. They say the training in the academies is very, very military. And how the police view us is much different than how Barney Fife and Andy Griffith viewed us about 40 years ago," said Whitehead. "In fact, I have police now using the term when they refer to American citizens as civilians. I've actually corrected a few policemen and said, 'By the way, I'm not a civilian. I'm a citizen and so are you, sir,'" added Whitehead, who says the increasingly militaristic nature of police work changes how they deal with the public. He says that's a big problem because police seem far more likely to obey and execute all orders rather than object on moral or constitutional grounds. "What they're saying in the psychological studies is when the police put on camouflage outfits or those black outfits in SWAT team gear, it actually effects their psychology and they view us much differently than they used to view us," said Whitehead. He says the worst example of this came in Ventura, California. "The police went through the door in the home of a mother and father. The parents had done nothing wrong by the way. [The police] were in the wrong home. They said, 'We have a year-old baby sleeping in that room. Please, I want to keep my baby safe.' One cop actually pushed the door open and threw a flash bang grenade in the room and burned the baby," said Whitehead. Despite the frightening episodes, Whitehead says he wants Americans to keep a level head about the problem and what can be done about it. "I don't think we should be paranoid. I think we just need to be informed and realize there are things we can do," said Whitehead. And what are those things? "If your local community is not outraged when a baby gets burned by a flash bang grenade in a SWAT team raid, they should. You can set up oversight committees and make sure that those SWAT team members are called in and corrected and (make sure) they won't do that again," said Whitehead. "The average American watches about 150 hours of television a month. If you're sitting, you're not doing. So I tell people give me 80 hours of that watching time for involvement in local government. Set policies and change what you're doing in your own hometown," said Whitehead. |
| Heartland Battle for the Heart of the GOP |
| Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:12:20 EST After a bruising series of intraparty primary battles in 2014, the conservative and moderate wings of the Republican Party will fight their next battle in Illinois this summer as the GOP selects its nominee to replace disgraced ex-Rep. Aaron Schock. Schock resigned his seat in the state's 18th district last month after a series of reports detailing his lavish spending on his Washington office, questionable air travel and overcharging taxpayers for his mileage within the district. The district leans heavily to the right. Mitt Romney defeated President Obama by 24 points there in 2012, so the winner of the July 7 primary will be an overwhelming favorite in the general election. State Republican leaders quickly rallied around State Senator Darin LaHood, son of former Rep. Ray LaHood, who later served as transportation secretary for President Obama. However, the path to the nomination just got rockier for LaHood, following this week's announcement by longtime policy analyst, political consultant and conservative media figure Mike Flynn that he is also seeking the GOP nod. Flynn has worked in issue advocacy at the state level through his work at the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. He is best known in the media world for his time as editor of Andrew Breitbart's Big Government website, which broke the story of the undercover videos that exposed the liberal group ACORN as willing to facilitate criminal behavior within the sex industry. Flynn is a sixth-generation resident of central Illinois, although he has lived outside of the area for 20 years. He says he's putting his existing career on hold in order to give a conservative district a real choice in July. "When I saw the vacancy and that the party establishment has kind of fallen behind State Sen. Darin LaHood, I thought, 'Congress is not a family heirloom you pass down.' This area of the country in Illinois has not had a good, strong conservative voice in D.C. So I thought I'd step up and ask the voters to let me be that voice," said Flynn. On Monday, Flynn turned in twice the number of signatures required to qualify for the primary ballot. He says the residents were far less concerned about his 20-year absence than the direction of the party and the country. "While I have not been in the district in recent years, people know that I have long ties here and I've been working around this district for a long time. That has not come up. I think they are refreshed, not only that we're going to have an election, but that we've got a real choice to make," said Flynn. He says his political philosophy is simple: challenge both parties by standing up for conservatism and actively engaging in the battle of ideas "I think too often Republicans seem embarrasses to be conservatives. They don't really want to embrace that message and communicate it with voters," said Flynn. As for LaHood, Flynn sees an ambitious political climber who has "been looking for public office his entire life." LaHood was appointed to and ran unopposed for his current seat. He ran unsuccessfully for state's attorney and was previously appointed as an assistant U.S. attorney. "His whole life is just a series of appointments to political office. I never have envisioned politics as a career. I don't intend to make it a career now. I think the real difference is my opponent looks at this as a family legacy and a family career. For me, it's an opportunity to communicate conservative values," said Flynn. LaHood allies assert that he is much more conservative than his father and would be a conservative voice in Washington. Flynn says "it doesn't take much" to be further to the right than Ray LaHood. He says voters in the district can get a good idea of how Darin LaHood would operate in Washington based on where his money is coming from. "One of the first contributions of his campaign was a maximum contribution from a union-funded PAC (Republican Main Street Partnership). It's whole purpose for being is to attack conservatives in primaries. Whatever he says he's going to be, his actions speak otherwise," said Flynn. Nonetheless, LaHood can point to multiple experiences in public service as to why he is prepared for the job. Flynn says his career proves he knowledgeable and committed to conservative principles. "I've been working in conservative policies for over 20 years, working to enact legislation at the state and federal level. A lot of success there and in conservative media, so I have an appreciation for both how the media works and how the media tries to work against conservatives," said Flynn. But Flynn says he also has years of experience pushing back against what he sees as poor decisions by his own party. "I have a history of standing up, not just to Democrats and the left but to Republicans who are not articulating a conservative policy. I think Darin LaHood will be more of the same go along, get along Republicans that we've had too much of and is not moving us in the right direction," said Flynn. Not surprisingly, Flynn is underwhelmed by what he's seen thus far of Republicans controlling Capitol Hill. "They have won the power but they are not doing anything with that power. They seem almost driven to wake up in the morning and preemptively surrender to Democrats and Obama. They seem to just want to maintain their majority, maintain their jobs in office but not do anything with the majority they have," said Flynn. "I think it's time the voters told them, 'We gave the Republicans a majority for a reason and they've got to use it. Part of that using is to dismantle the destructive agenda that Obama has imposed on this country," said Flynn. On specific issues, Flynn starts with a repeal of Obamacare and not just what he calls symbolic votes. "Each day that that law is on the books, it just further distorts our health care market," said Flynn. He also wants to give Republicans a shot in the arm in stopping Obama's unilateral immigration actions. "We have a real crisis here, where we have millions of foreign nationals in this country. We have no idea who they are. There's no background checks. They're depressing wages and taking jobs from Americans. We have to get a handle on that. We're only getting lip service from Republicans in Washington," said Flynn. His third major priority is to remove the shackles that are holding back what he believes could be explosive economic growth. "We've got to enact the reforms, be it tax or regulatory, that are going to get the economy growing again. We've had six years of a stagnant economy. Wages have not risen. The opportunities are not there. For the first time ever, we have more businesses dying than being created in this country," said Flynn. "We've got to get serious about enacting the kind of pro-growth reforms that will get the economy growing again. We cannot solve our fiscal challenges without a growing economy," he said. In 2014, the conservative challengers ultimately lost the vast majority of challenges against incumbent Republicans. While Flynn may start the primary campaign as an underdog, he believes there is a clear path to victory. "The candidate that comes in and can energize voters and get them excited about the campaign is going to have an edge. This is a special election that will take place in the depths of summer. When you set aside endorsements, the candidate who is going to have the edge here is the one who excites the grassroots. I think I'm in a position to do that," said Flynn. |
| Anti-Christian Military Struggling to Recuit, Retain |
| Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:55:22 EST A leading defender of Christians in the military says the crackdown on the free religious expression of Christians in uniform is increasing despite Pentagon assurances to the contrary, leading active duty personnel to re-evaluate their careers and young Americans and their parents to reconsider service at all. Recent discipline for military chaplains dispensing biblical counsel have made national headlines, but a recent piece in The Washington Times suggests enlistment numbers are in danger of dropping as well. Liberty Institute represents chaplains in two high-profile cases as well as several other personnel reprimanded for their free expression of Christian beliefs. Senior Counsel Michael Berry says the American people are paying attention and getting increasingly worried about what's happening in the military. "A great deal of Americans of faith, which is still a majority of our country, are looking at the environment and climate within our federal government and military more specifically and seeing case after case, report after report," said Berry. He says the growing number of stories is causing committed Christians to ask some uncomfortable questions. "They're starting to wonder, 'Is this going to be a place where I'm welcomed? Is going to be a place where I'm tolerated? Am I going to be required to keep my faith in the closet, so to speak?' Or are they going to be allowed, which has always been the practice in our country up until this point, to freely exercise their religion in accordance with their sincerely held beliefs as the Constitution allows," said Berry, a military vet who made his own difficult decision to leave the armed forces as he saw religious liberties eroding. "I was on active duty and I began to see the writing on the wall. I realized this is not the military I grew up in. This is not the military that I was raised to believe in and to support. It's changing, and I realized it was time for me to make a move," he said. And Berry is not the only one thinking long and hard about military service is the right career path. "I've had a lot of mothers and fathers ask me. They say, 'Mike, I served and my son or daughter wants to follow in my footsteps. But, as proud as I am of my military service, I'm not sure I want my son or daughter to be serving in our military anymore, given what's going on.' That's very scary for our country if that kind of conversation and dialogue is now happening," said Berry. It's difficult to get solid numbers on the impact religious freedom restrictions are having on recruiting and retention. Berry says the military almost always keep mum about drops in recruiting and retention and they never break down the reasons for the declines. "It doesn't behoove the military to report that they're having problems with retention. A group like a chaplain's corps is not going to say, 'We're having a hard time attracting new chaplains' because that doesn't present them in a very favorable light," said Berry. Liberty Institute is providing counsel for Navy Chaplain Wes Modder, an Assemblies of God minister who was removed from his position after answering questions from personnel who wanted to know what the Bible said about homosexuality and sex outside of marriage. Another client is Army Ranger Chaplain Joseph Lawhorn, who was served with a letter of concern after a soldier complained about Lawhorn telling a suicide-prevention seminar that in his darkest moments he found comfort and solace in the Psalms of King David while also endorsing many secular resources. Berry says the protest was baseless and can be seen as opportunistic by any objective analysis. "[The soldier] didn't even complain to Chaplain Lawhorn or the chain of command. He went and complained to an outside media outlet, who then published the story. That's what really precipitated that whole incident and led to Chaplain Lawhorn being punished," he said. In The Washington Times article, Defense Department spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen is quoted as extolling religious freedom and how it continues to be cherished in the military. "The Department of Defense respects, places a high value on and supports by policy the rights of members of the military services to observe the tenets of their respective religions or to have no religious beliefs," said Christensen in the article. "The mission of the chaplain corps is to provide care and the opportunity for service members, their families and other authorized personnel to exercise their constitutional right to the free exercise of religion," he said. Berry says the impressive rhetoric is not matched by the facts. "If what the DOD spokesperson is saying is true then why on earth are chaplains like Chaplain Lawhorn and Chaplain Modder being threatened with career-ending punishment? Simply because they hold religious beliefs that are no longer popular? I would seriously question the DOD's commitment to religious freedom is that's allowed to stand without challenge" said Berry. Lawhorn and Modder join other Liberty Institute clients whose careers are in limbo over their expression of personal beliefs. The list includes an Air Force senior master sergeant whose career is in doubt after he voiced support for traditional marriage. A commanding officer in the U.S. Army is fighting back after complaining that heterosexual soldiers are being treated unfairly compared to homosexuals. "That's just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of cases beyond what Liberty Institute handles dealing with religious hostility in this country. And like I said, within the military It's on the rise," said Berry. While the Defense Department publicly professes great respect for religious freedom, anti-Christian activists are not hiding their agenda. The Washington Times article also features Military Religious Freedom Foundation President Michael Weinstein, who says chaplains who hold to biblical views on sexuality need to keep their mouths shut or find another line of work. "You can continue to believe that internally, but if you have to act on that, the right thing to do is to get out of the U.S. military, because you have no right to tell a member of the military that they're inferior because of the way they were born," Weinstein is quoted as saying. Berry finds that analysis legally ludicrous. "Mr. Weinstein could not be more legally wrong. The Constitution, federal law and military regulations all forcefully protect the right of service members to hold and to express their sincerely-held religious beliefs. The military has a very high legal standard they have to meet if they're going to try to censor or prohibit the free exercise of a service member's sincerely-held beliefs," said Berry. |
| Top Cop Turned Convict: Time to Clean up the Justice System |
| Mon, 20 Apr 2015 15:43:28 EST A decade ago, Bernard Kerik was hailed by millions for his leadership of the New York Police Department. Now, after serving more than three years in federal prison, he says the criminal justice system needs major reforms to treat non-violent offenders more fairly and prevent a complete implosion of the system. Kerik served as commissioner of the NYPD from 2000-2001. In 2005, he was nominated to be Secretary of Homeland Security by President George W. Bush. The selection was quickly withdrawn, but the process still led to Kerik's eventual imprisonment on federal convictions for tax fraud and making false statements. He served his time at a minimum security prison in Cumberland, Maryland. His story and his subsequent efforts to reform the system are the subject of Kerik's new book, "From Jailer to Jailed: My Journey from Correction and Police Commissioner to Inmate #84888-054." Kerik's call for criminal justice reform centers on three primary issues: the treatment of prisoners inside the system, punishments for non-violent offenders and how those convicts are sent back into society. In the book, Kerik details how personnel ranging from corrections officers to rehabilitation experts not only enforced their incarceration and diminishing of freedoms but relished the opportunity to regularly demean and dehumanize inmates. Kerik says he doesn't expect prison to be a comfortable experience and he realizes many corrections officers are honorable people. "For the most part, correction officers all over this country man the gates of our prisons and jails. They have a dangerous job. They have a stressful job. They are courageous in the work they do. They go into many of these violent units without weapons of any kind and they do a job nobody else would do," said Kerik. However, he says there are more than a few bad apples who do a tremendous amount of damage. "There are a bunch of them that are out there. They believe it's their job to punish you mentally and physically. That's illegal and it goes against everything the system stands for," said Kerik. So what's the solution? "Training and accountability within the system is what makes the system right and makes it work and holds people accountable to the standards that are set," he said. Kerik says he knows both the right way and the wrong way to run a prison. Prior to serving as police commissioner in New York City, he spent six years as commissioner of the Department of Correction. Among the facilities under his responsibility was Riker's Island, which had earned a reputation for one of the most violent detention facilities in the nation prior to his appointment. When I took over in 1995, we had 133,000 annual admissions. At the time I took over, we averaged 150 slashings and stabbings per month. When I left as police commissioner, we had one (per month)," said Kerik. Once Kerik arrived in federal prison, he became baffled at the number of people incarcerated for non-violent crimes. In fact, all inmates at the minimum security facility were non-violent offenders. In the book, Kerik says many were low-level drug offenders, but there were also people serving years in prison for exaggerating the amount of their mortgage, commercial fishermen who caught too many fish and even a man who sold a whale's tooth on eBay. "All of these people could have paid an alternative price or punishment instead of being sent to prison," said Kerik, who believes prison is only grooming some non-violent offenders for far worse crimes upon their release. "We're taking thousands and thousands of non-violent people and we're sticking them in prison. We're turning many of these young guys into monsters. We're teaching them how to be real criminals. We're sucking all the societal values out of them, institutionalizing them and then sending them home," he said. Kerik says the system is also setting up white collar criminals to be a lingering burden on society. "We take people who were in the workforce, paying taxes, taking care of their families. We criminalize them. Then when they get out, they can't find a job. They can't go back to what they were doing. They can't work in any organization or company that's regulated by the government," said Kerik. "We're creating a second class of American citizen that is diminished by about 70-80 percent in constitutional and civil rights and work ability. It's just bizarre. It's absurd," he said. However, Kerik is quick to state that these concerns do not apply to hardcore violent offenders. "I'll be the first one to say I've put a lot of people in prison. But they were bad guys, bad people who did really bad things. They have to be punished and we have to keep society safe," said Kerik. The final frustration for Kerik is that ex-convicts are forever branded as felons, making it very tough for them to find honest work after they leave prison. "The premise that you do your time, you pay your debt to society is a falsehood. It's not reality at all. You never finish paying your debt to society. That conviction lasts with you until the day you die and it has a collateral negative impact on you, your profession and your family forever," said Kerik. According to Kerik, it's no just ex-cons and their families who suffer from the current system. He says we all do, because of the burden placed upon the taxpayers. "It is destroying us, not just from a societal perspective, but from an economic perspective, we are losing billions of dollars a year in tax income and economic spending over the reported cost of incarceration. There is this hidden cost far beyond the cost of incarceration that we are losing in our economy," said Kerik. He believes non-violent offenders should also receive a full restoration of constitutional rights upon completion of their sentences, a step he would not grant to violent offenders. "The most violent people, committing murder or rape or are pedophiles, if you want to keep them in a diminished capacity I get it. But for 60 percent of the people we're locking up, we're destroying them personally (and) professionally for the rest of their lives," said Kerik. The former commissioner says he is pleased to see lawmakers from both parties working to address some of these perceived inequities. He specifically cited Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Cory Booker, D-N.J., John Cornyn, R-Tex., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I, for advancing legislation. But Kerik is aiming for help from a higher office. "Going into the 2016 election, the next president of the United States, no matter what party they're from or who they are, criminal justice reform must be one of the top five domestic issues on their plate. As it stands right now, the entire system's going to implode. We can't sustain it economically," said Kerik. |
| Gohmert: Time for an Immigration Audit |
| Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:08:18 EST Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Tex., and 21 other members of Congress are demanding the Government Accountability Office conduct a formal audit of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services out of growing suspicion that money is being improperly used to fund President Obama's unilateral immigration actions in violation of court order. Of greatest concern to Gohmert and the other members is the allocation of fees collected by the government through the legal immigration process and whether money charged of those in the country legally is actually being used to secure legal status for those who broke the law to get to the U.S. "They raise most of their money through fees. They used the fees for things they lied about using them for. We need the Government [Accountability] Office to get to the bottom. What are they using those fees for?" asked Gohmert. The issue is triggering more concern for numerous reasons, the most recent of which stems from a confrontation inside the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday between Gohmert and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Sarah Saldena. Gohmert asked Saldena why the government has already granted three-year deferrals to more than 108,000 illegal immigrants who ought to be deported and where the authorization came from. Saldena said the authorization did not matter to her since it came from Citizenship and Immigration Services, or CIS. When Gohmert wondered if Saldena was not bothered by the prospect of so many people receiving fraudulent benefits, she insisted she was concerned about potential fraud. 1cIf you don 19t like fraud, does it bother you that your Homeland Security Department that you work for has actually instigated a fraud among the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas? 1d asked Gohmert at the hearing. 1cRepresentative Gohmert, with all due respect, I would appreciate you not yelling," said Saldena. That exchange may have been the last straw. "That further accentuated the need to get some answers," he said, noting that the more suspicious the government's actions, the less helpful the administration is in responding to those concerns. "The administration sends directors like the one from CIS over, who at one time had done great things and been noble participants in government. Then all of a sudden they become in a position of leadership in this information and their job seems to be to obfuscate, to hide, to prevent people from finding out what was done illegally or unconstitutionally," said Gohmert. In addition to the frustration on Capitol Hill, Gohmert says it is obvious the Obama administration is thumbing its nose towards lawmakers, the rule of law and a crystal clear court order to stop implementing the administration's unilateral actions that Gohmert and others label as amnesty. "It is clear that Homeland Security and CIS has been violating the law, the Constitution, and in particular, United States District Judge Andrew Hanen's order not to be granting amnesty that the president spoke into being," said Gohmert, noting Obama never actually signed any orders to try and change the law but instead directed Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to issue a memorandum noting the change. With the government providing very little help in clarifying how immigration fees are being used and whether the administration is complying with the law, Gohmert sent an investigator to CIS offices in Arlington, Virginia. "They have massive Grade A space. I'm shocked that they would feel the need to lease or purchase or create this Grade A business space for something that could virtually be done in a warehouse. How did they get this space? Who paid for it ? How much did they pay for it? Who is being hired?," wondered Gohmert. The investigator was sternly rebuffed when asking for more details on CIS operations. "We couldn't get any of that information. They were stonewalling on everything, everybody saying, 'You'll have to talk to this person or that person.' Nobody was willing to get answers, nobody willing to let a representative sent by a congressman in to review the facilities they've hired," said Gohmert. Gohmert says the good news is that Congress does not need to pass anything to force the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, to conduct a formal audit. "They are supposed to do audits where they see that they're necessary. Congress can direct them to specifically do audits, but we hope by bringing this to GAO's attention they will say, 'This is true. This is not money that's appropriated. They say they only need $600 million on hand for a rainy day fund and yet they have $1.2 billion. So we we better take a look at this,'" said Gohmert. Congress has demanded answers in other investigations into this administration only to find that key data no longer exists or numbers have been fudged. Gohmert says he's not overly worried about that happening in this fight. "It may be that we'll run into the same problem that we had with the IRS or with the State Department . Gee, all of a sudden everything that would show what they've been doing gets deleted. But if it happens that they've deleted spending records, then they will have run into some criminal violations and be looking at prison," said Gohmert. In the meantime, the investigation continues into whether the Obama administration is abiding by Judge Hanen's order and suspending deferrals of deportation until the issue is settled in court or whether the government is directly violating court orders. Gohmert says the evidence following Hanen's first ruling strongly suggests the latter. "They finally had to come in, I believe it was March 3, and admit, 'Gee, since November 20, even though we told you we would not violate your order and would not be granting these, there have been 108,081 that have been granted," said Gohmert. Gohmert says the administration has an explanation for that but it's veracity is very much in question. "They said those were just renewals from the prior amnesty program, but there's some question about that at this point," said Gohmert. |
| Kerik to Politicians: Stop Crucifying Cops |
| Thu, 16 Apr 2015 15:09:08 EST Former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik says politicians, civil rights leaders and the media need to stop crucifying police by presenting a few controversial encounters as part of some nationwide crisis and he says competent police work has saved countless black lives in New York City and beyond. Kerik served as commissioner of the New York Police Department from 2000-2001 and led the department through the events of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the city. For 12 years prior to his appointment as commissioner, Kerik led the city's Department of Correction. He later served time in federal prison for tax fraud and making false statements. Kerik is the author of the new book "From Jailer to Jailed: My Journey from Correction and Police Commissioner to Inmate #84888-054." In recent months, Kerik has been very critical of political leaders such as President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio for what he sees as divisive rhetoric on race and the police. When two NYPD officers were murdered in December, Kerik suggested de Blasio had blood on his hands as a result of recent comments by the mayor. From the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri, to the Eric Garner controversy on Staten Island and beyond, Kerik believes prominent political and civil rights figures have only fanned the flames of division. "We broad brush the cops as racist, as criminals. We crucify them in the court of public opinion and I just think it's wrong," said Kerik. Kerik says the first thing people should realize is the immense volume of police work that occurs on a day to day basis. "Local, state and federal law enforcement in this country probably effect more than two million arrests per year. Two million. In New York City alone, there's more than 100,000 arrests per year," he said. The biggest problem he says is that too many people fail to look at each case on its own merits and instead start looking for some sort of narrative. "We then take two, three, four incidents and we turn those into a broad brush of negativity toward the law enforcement community all over this country and it should not be," said Kerik. "Every one of these events should be looked at individually. First and foremost, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That goes on both sides of the coin, whether it's the suspect or it's a cop that's involved in an incident," he said. Kerik also takes aim at politicians and civil rights figures, not only for failing to diffuse tense situations but to blatantly mislead the public about what is happening in the protests. "I think it is the political leadership that incites these protests. People have talked about these protests. These are peaceful protests. Well, that's not necessarily the case. Some of them are. Most of them have not been," said Kerik. He says protests in the wake of two high-profile cases are perfect examples. "In Ferguson alone, they burned down half the community for God's sake. That's not a peaceful protest. Peaceful protests in New York City are not calling for cops to be killed," said Kerik. Kerik stresses that people have the right to assemble and speak their minds but elected and self-anointed leaders have a responsibility to maintain calm. "People have a right to express their opinion, but when you have civil rights leaders and you have public officials that are supposed to be there to keep the peace, it's just wrong for them to get out and incite these people. They're really creating more havoc and more harm to communities than necessary," said Kerik. This week, Rep. Hank Johnson, R-Ga., took to the House floor to sound the alarm for what he sees as a pattern of police abuse and even murder toward black suspects. "It feels like open season on black men in America and I am outraged. In fact, all Americans are at risk when bad actors in law enforcement use their guns instead of their heads," said Johnson, who also submitted a list of 22 Americans who died in police encounters. So is there a systemic problem of racial bias that is putting black lives in danger at the hands of police? "I don't think so." said Kerik. In fact, Kerik says competent police work radically reduced violence and murder in New York City. "Look what law enforcement community has done for the minority communities in New York City. Back in 1990, there were more than 2,400 murders in New York City, most of them came from the minority communities. In the last 20-25 years, the NYPD has reduced overall violence by more than 75 percent and homicides by close to 80," said Kerik. He says the bottom line is that the lives of black New Yorkers are far better as a result of the NYPD. "The predominant [beneficiaries] of those reductions in violence and murders have been the black communities. I think that's completely ignored in this racial incitement, this racial argument that's out there," said Kerik. |
| Iran Ratchets Up Political Murders |
| Wed, 15 Apr 2015 16:35:30 EST Despite the international persona of a more moderate regime that the U.S. can negotiate with, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is killing political opponents at a faster rate than the previous leader and should not be trusted at all, according to the man who first warned the west about Iran 19s current nuclear ambitions. 1cRouhani was supposed to be the more moderate version of the Iranian president. He has killed more people under his watch than was killed under (former President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad during the same period, 1d said Alireza Jafarzadeh, deputy director of the Washington office of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which is the Iranian parliament in exile. 1cIran has the highest per capita executions in the world. It 19s close to 1,400 people executed under Rouhani since he became president, 1d said Jafarzadeh. Rouhani has been president since August 3, 2013. That calculates to more than 2.25 executions per day. Jafarzadeh says while the United States and some of our allies may be convinced Rouhani is a different type of leader, the people of Iran know better. 1cThere has been no opening up of the society. All the promises that Rouhani has made have not materialized. All Rouhani has done in the past year and a half since he took office was negotiating on the nuclear issue, trying to get the sanctions lifted. That 19s all he 19s done, 1d said Jafarzadeh. 1cIn order to make up for the weaknesses of the regime and make sure that the population doesn 19t stand up and raise their voice, Tehran has increased the level of repression and the killing, 1d he said. Can Iran be trusted on any level to honor a nuclear agreement? 1cAbsolutely not, 1d said Jafarzadeh. 1cLook at the way they have handled the negotiations. They say one thing during the talks and when they get to Tehran they say something else. They can never be trusted, not just because of their nuclear behavior, but also in terms of their engagement in terrorism. 1d However, he says Iran 19s past conduct in misleading the world about it 19s nuclear program is also instructive. 1cEvery single nuclear site of Iran has been exposed by the Iranian resistance, not by the Iranian regime. Tehran has been caught cheating continuously and consistently over the past 10-15 years when the inspections started in 2003, right after the revelation of the nuclear site in Natanz by the main opposition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, 1d he said. Jafarzadeh is also deeply concerned about reports this week revealing that Russia is now willing to sell missile systems to Iran, purportedly for defensive purposes. He says the change in policy not only adds a dangerous dimension to Iran 19s military but give Russia more and more incentive to thwart efforts to keep the Iranian ambitions in check. 1cThe other problem is the more the Russians get invested in Iran, the more difficult it will become for them to vote against the Iranian regime 19s violations in the future during the UN Security Council, 1d said Jafarzadeh. The Iranian resistance is encouraged by this week 19s Senate actions to give Congress a voice in determining whether Iran is actually adhering to any future nuclear deal and giving lawmakers the chance to bring back sanctions or keep them in place if Iran cheats on its commitments 1cIt was Congress from the beginning that understood the threat of the Iranian regime and the need to curb the threat and passed all the necessary legislation that led to sanctions. It was those sanctions that brought the Iranians to the table, 1d said Jafarzadeh, who says President Obama could use the legislation to press for greater demands from Tehran. 1cIf Congress doesn 19t get involved, then the administration would be unilaterally in charge of the whole thing in dealing with Iran and knowing the Iranian regime 19s track record and history of cheating and their willingness to defy, you always want that additional leverage, 1d he said. Jafarzadeh says Obama would be wise to use the bill as a way to press the Iranians for snap inspections of nuclear facilities and other major concessions. While the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed the legislation unanimously and it appears likely to become law, some are still frustrated that lawmakers are effectively giving up their right to hold a vote on a treaty that would require a two-thirds majority to approve, whereas this bill would only require Obama to cobble together 34 votes to sustain his veto of any attempt to reinstate sanctions on a cheating Iran. Jafarzadeh testified before the Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday. He says a full treaty vote would be ideal but he says the mood Tuesday on Capitol Hill suggests even this new legislation could be enough to handcuff Obama. 1cWhat I saw yesterday, both among the Democrats and Republicans, what I saw in terms of the resolve and focus of Congress, I think the president may have a difficult time to even get those 34 votes, 1d said Jafarzadeh. |
| Ex-Clinton Official: Obama's Iran Approach 'Absurd' |
| Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:28:24 EST A former Clinton administration official calls the Obama administration approach to Iran "absurd" and believes the American people are being mislead on the framework of a deal, but he insists a Hillary Clinton presidency would chart a much different course on the threat of a nuclear Iran. In the days since an announced framework for a nuclear deal, Iranian officials have worked nonstop to declare the U.S. appraisal of the deal a lie. Iran has disputed such key issues as when the sanctions would end, how many centrifuges would be allowed to keep spinning and even where enriched uranium would be stored. Is one side actually telling the truth or are both governments actively spinning the details of the framework to win over their own people? "I suspect it's more of the latter. Let's keep in mind that we're talking about a framework as opposed to a deal itself. Both sides put off very crucial questions," said Larry Haas, who served as communications director to then-Vice President Al Gore. Given all the unresolved issues, Haas is not surprised that the two governments do no appear on the same page. "I'm not terribly surprised that we are seeing different interpretations by the two sides. I think I am far more disturbed by the kind of rhetoric that's coming out from the supreme leader of Iran, who at the end of the day will have the final say," said Haas. "He is now making demands for a final deal that if the Obama administration were to go along with them it would be akin to simply giving the Iranians a nuclear weapon," he said. In addition to the unresolved questions are the critical issues the United States says are no longer on the table: addressing Iranian actions and ambitions to dominate the region and working to free multiple Americans imprisoned there. The Obama administration says those are ancillary issues that do not need to be part of the nuclear discussions. "That is precisely absurd to think that way," said Haas, who says a nuclear Iran is a far different animal than a nuclear Great Britain, Israel, France or even Pakistan. "Those governments are not radical in the way that the regime in Tehran is. It is precisely because Tehran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and precisely for the fact that it abuses the human rights of its own people and any other area that it dominates and precisely over the fact that it wants regional dominance that we fear what this regime will do if it has nuclear weapons," said Haas. Haas says these issues ought to be at the very heart of any negotiations with Iran. He says Iran's success in getting them off the table means they've already won. "The fact that we now view them as ancillary are all concessions to the Iranians. When these negotiations began, they were central to the negotiations themselves. We basically said this is part of an overall negotiation having to do with nuclear weapons and other issues that are troubling us, like the Iranian ballistic missile program, and terrorism, and regional dominance and all the rest," said Haas. He sums up the U.S. negotiating posture as "appeasing" and "self-defeating." Furthermore, Haas says recent American history proves the Obama administration is heading down the wrong road. In a recent piece for U.S. News and World Report, Haas says Obama is following in the misguided footsteps of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, who got policy toward the Soviet Union very wrong in the wake of the Vietnam War. "Like President Obama, President Nixon essentially subscribed to the view that the United States could not be alone as the world's major power center, that rather than fighting the Cold War, we ought to pursue detente, and a detente that would allow the United States to be perhaps the first among equals, but literally among equals," said Haas. Starting with President Reagan, Haas says presidents of both parties reverted back to the notion that a strong America is best for our nation and the world. "We are a country that believes, and we have since World War II, that the world is a better place when the United States more than any other power calls the shots, ensures regional stability and keeps other players in line," said Haas. While Haas believes Bill Clinton ended up a strong president on foreign affairs, he believes Clinton dropped the ball in confronting North Korea's nuclear ambitions. And he doesn't believe Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have learned anything from that episode. "I do think we're heading down the same path, a path of too much trust for regime that I would argue is implacably anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-western, and that is the regime in Tehran. I do fear that we are making the same mistake," said Haas. Regardless of who becomes the next president, Haas expects American foreign policy to look more like it did prior to the Obama years. "No matter what happens over the next year and a half, I do believe that the next president, whoever he or she is, will not continue this policy and will turn to a more traditional view of America's role in the world," said Haas. Despite Hillary Clinton serving as Obama's top diplomat for four years, he believes she would chart a far different course on Iran than her former boss although it might be hard to tell based on her campaign rhetoric. "I think we would see a markedly different approach. She will not be able to say on the campaign trail precisely how much she would differ from President Obama because it would undercut her Democratic support. So it's going to be very tricky for her," said Haas. When it comes to blame for the proposed nuclear deal with Iran, Haas stresses that he sees Hillary's tenure at the State Department as maintaining a tough posture towards Iran. However, he contends it all unraveled as Kerry took over. "She really spent much more time beefing up the sanctions against Iran, which was precisely the right policy. It was really President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry who have pursued this policy of lifting the sanctions temporarily, negotiating a deal and making one concession after the next," said Haas. |
| Defining 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' |
| Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:35:15 EST Saying he and his constituents are tired of presidents violating the Constitution to achieve their political goals, a Florida congressman is bringing forth legislation to define "high crimes and misdemeanors" and what actions ought to trigger impeachment proceedings. "Every time we go back to the district and even before I ran, people said, 'The three branches of government are out of balance. When is Congress going to stand up and have some accountability and rein in the power of the executive branch,'" said Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla. The congressman says the thirst for power in the executive branch is a longstanding problem that's only getting worse. "The executive branch has been growing stronger and stronger over the past two or three decades but this administration with President Obama seems to be on steroids," said Yoho, who says enough is enough. "I think the last straw was on Nov. 20 with the executive order on amnesty overreach of the president. Over 30 times in a six-year period of time he said he did not have the authority to change the law on immigration, yet he went ahead and did," said Yoho. Federal District Court Judge John Hanen placed an injunction on the Obama orders and recently shot down an Obama administration attempt to activate the program while its constitutionality is sorted out elsewhere in the federal system. Yoho says immigration is just one issue where the executive branch is aggressively challenging its constitutional limits. "Pretty much every week we're up here, we hear one of the legislators or the news talk about the constitutional crisis we're facing. It's in so many different areas, whether it's religious freedoms or redefining marriage or trampling on states' rights," said Yoho. "At some point we've got to draw that line that says from this point forward, all presidents, I don't care if they're Republican, Democrat, from the planet Mars. They're going to be held to the confines of the Constitution," he said. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution reads, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors." Yoho is now seeking to define high crimes and misdemeanors. His legislation would include 1cfailing to take care that the laws be faithfully executed through signing statements or systematic policies of non-enforcement." Another would be 1csubstituting executive agreements for treaties. 1d In addition, Yoho's bill would also target presidents who start military action without receiving authorization from Congress, violate appropriations laws to force money towards their political priorities or defy congressional subpoenas for documents or testimony. Yoho insists this is not designed to kickstart impeachment proceedings against President Obama, but he admits Obama's actions are in many ways the inspiration for this. "If we had a chief executive that would faithfully execute the laws...this wouldn't be an issue and we could get on with America's business," said Yoho. "But when you have to play like a babysitter and say, 'No you can't do that' over and over and over again, the American people are tired of it." "The beauty of this is that this is not attacking this president. It's attacking this president and all future presidents," he said. Much like teams enter a sporting event by acknowledging the rules that guide the game, Yoho says it's time for all political players to recognize and obey the Constitution as the rule book for our government. "Unlike football, which is a game, you're talking about the United States of America and preserving our Constitution so that we don't have to talk about a constitutional crisis in the future," he said. Non-partisan critics may be quick to point out that America's founders deliberately left "high crimes and misdemeanors" as vague so as not to dictate to all future leaders what constitutes an impeachable offense. "The founders actually did make it very vague because if they said it's based on incompetence or it's based on ignorance; they started to play around with that but what they found is those are very loosely defined. So they allowed congresses to go ahead and define those in the future," said Yoho. And that's what the congressman believes his bill does now. He believes support for his plan ought to be unanimous. "There's no reason for any representative of the American people, I don't care what state or why party, Democrat or Republican, should shy away from this. This holds all presidents accountable," he said. Yoho says this warning also applies to any future Republican president who seeks to undo unpopular or unconstitutional actions of Obama through illegitimate means. "If we got a Republican president in 2016 and they didn't want to enforce parts of Obamacare...and they wave their pen and their phone and say, 'Nope, we're not going to do that.' We have got to hold them accountable," said Yoho. In addition to Obama's unilateral action on immigration, Yoho is very concerned about the president's attempts to go it alone on a nuclear deal with Iran. "Many of the legislators feel (his bill) is needed to resist an executive encroachment on their authority. I think what you're seeing is a natural reaction to the president's overreach in many areas and a desire for the Senate to re-assert it's traditional and constitutional role," said Yoho. Yoho stressed once again that the legislation should not make any president nervous but that it gives them a clear guide as to which actions will not be tolerated. "This is not about impeaching. This is about following the rule of law. This is a notice that says, 'From this point forward, there will be no impeachment as long as you stay within these parameters," he said. |
| 'This Is Not the Fall' |
| Fri, 10 Apr 2015 15:19:54 EST A prominent Christian seminary professor says believers need to keep their chins up in the face of a culture that seems increasingly hostile to their beliefs and he urges the faithful to keep fighting for religious freedom while still evangelizing the lost. Owen Strachan is an assistant professor of Christian theology and church history at Boyce College at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves at the school as chair of gospel and culture and as president of the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood. Strong religious liberty protections were modified in Indiana to the point where many faith leaders concluded the final law is worse than no bill at all. Legislation was also changed in Arkansas to accommodate political pressure on the governor from activists alleging that a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, discriminated against gays and lesbians. In addition to those political fights, the Supreme Court will hear arguments later this month on whether states have right to define marriage for themselves and decide whether to acknowledge same-sex marriages in other states. Many court watchers expect the justices to side with same-sex marriage advocates in those cases. But while the culture may be be shifting quickly against Christians, Strachan says this is the worst possible time for believers to give up hope or give up fighting. "This is not the Fall. The fall of Adam and Eve happened thousands of years ago. This is not the one problem the church is facing that it cannot overcome. If you study Christian history, you see so many obstacles faced by Christians in the past," said Strachan. "So often, there's this tendency, 'Jesus must be coming because things are getting so bad.' The reason that Christians have jumped to that conclusion is not simply because their theology is a little off. It's because things have been so bad in their culture and society," he said. Strachan says it is precisely when the road gets difficult that Christians must stiffen their spines. "We're in that kind of moment and we've got to recognize that the Lord has placed us here to be gospel witnesses and to push for love of neighbor in the public square, to champion good policy even if we lose in big terms at the Supreme Court. So we're going to keep on going. The band is not going to stop playing. It's time to put your head down and keep going," said Strachan. While Christians may be seeing the most hostility in modern U.S. history, Strachan says even America's relatively brief past shows amazing changes can happen. "If you lived in the 1840s, 50s and 60s you would have thought that slavery would be a part of America forever. it can feel like America is sliding into the abyss and it will never recover, but look what happened. Through a great, fiery cataclysm, slavery was abolished in this country and the slave trade was ended," said Strachan. "I have hope. I believe in an awesome God, who does awesome and unexpected things. Even if things do darken in our country, I would tell Christians to stay at their posts, as Chuck Colson used to say, and keep working," he said. But with record numbers of Americans denying faith on God and resisting the church, should faithful Christians be focused primarily on evangelizing unbelievers than trying to improve society through public policy. "I'm very greedy on this. I'm unwilling to choose one or the other and be forced to select only one entree culturally," said Strachan, who sees no conflict in believers vigorously pursuing earthly and eternal goals. "There is absolutely no divide between public square witness in policy work and evangelism. We must recognize that the gospel creates both of those instincts. The gospel creates an instinct to share the truth about Jesus Christ with unbelievers, absolutely. But the gospel also creates this love for justice and righteousness and this love for neighbor," said Strachan. That combination, he says, played key roles in two of the greatest changes in the American fabric. "Christians in the 19th century evangelized. They planted churches and preached the gospel. But they also worked at the local, state and national level to advance anti-slavery legislation. And you know what happened? It worked in the end after a great war," said Strachan, who says we saw a similar strategy play out in the middle of last century. "The same thing happened in the mid-20th century with the civil rights movement. A lot of Christians who loved the gospel continued to preach the gospel but also fought in different ways and advocated in different ways for full racial equality," he said. Strachan is quick to admit the monumental cultural challenge facing the United States. He says we are watching in real time the fracturing of an uneasy truce that lasted for centuries. "I think what we've seen in American history is a marriage of the First Great Awakening and the enlightenment.. So you have Thomas Jefferson at the same table as Jonathan Edwards. They'r effectively working together for common purposes. It appears today that the enlightenment, with it's call for neutrality and liberty and freedom is triumphing over our religious heritage," said Strachan. "What that means today, specifically, is that what is called erotic liberty is beating religious liberty in the public square. Christians, in a pretty unusual way, are being targeted for their views and our religious liberty is very much imperiled in this day," he said. Strachan says for America to drift away from its commitment t religious liberty is to forget the basic roots of our great experiment. "Religious liberty is what America's founded on. It's why the pilgrims and the Puritans came here. They were specifically not granted full-fledged religious liberty in the UK so they came to these shores so that they could worship according to their conscience," said Strachan. "It's the freedom that grounds all the others. If you don't have freedom to practice your religion to be sensitive to your conscience then what do other freedoms matter," he said. Because of that common heritage, Strachan says he is encouraged to see robust partnerships among Catholics and Protestants in fighting to preserve and strengthen religious liberties and other bedrock principles. He believes it's a movement that every faith in America should join, while noting that common cause in policy does not erase foundational differences in the faiths. "Christians should even be thinking about partnering with Muslims on this cause and Buddhists and others of different religions. It's not because we don't believe that our worldview differences are unimportant. We very much believe they are important and even eternally important. But we live here. We live in this country and we recognize that something is imperiled which threatens all of us," said Strachan. There have been countless religious freedom debates over the years and endless cultural debates as well. Why is the debate over homosexuality the pivot point for a confrontation over religious liberty? Strachan says he has a strongly educated guess for why this appears to be coming to a head now. "It's because homosexuality is so closely tied to the body. Our identity is so derived from our body. I think that's some of what is coming into play. People want to be able to do with their bodies as they see fit. So when others who are religious resist the full approval of same-sex marriage and transgender identity, we've recognized that this isn't going to be a gentlemanly dispute," said Strachan. Later this month, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the marriage cases, meaning the court may impose same-sex marriage on all 50 states in just over two months. Strachan says the impact of that on our culture would be enormous. "It'apos;s going to very much change the nature of this country. We've just got to be honest about that. We've got to look it full in the face and say America is going to change. It's going to mean that sexual immorality as defined by the Bible and as we would understand from natural design is going to be enshrined in law," said Strachan. "That's going to mean that people are going to be shaped by these laws. Politics is going to influence culture as it always does. This is going to have very deleterious effects for American culture and society in general," he said. But as difficult as that cultural avalanche would be to faithful Christians, Strachan says it's more important than ever to fight for what they know to be right. "There's a ton of ground left to be claimed in this cultural divide. We want to be very much plugged into upcoming elections. There's all kinds of good measures that have taken hold in the pro-life realm and the marriage realm at the state level," said Strachan. "We don't just want to look at one verdict from the Supreme Court, which will be huge. We don't want to assume that that's the only decision that has import for American public life. That's frankly not the case," he said. |
| 'The Very Definition of Lunacy' |
| Fri, 10 Apr 2015 09:59:18 EST Rep. Tom McClintock is working feverishly to reverse federal and state policies that give fish and rivers priority over people in the distribution of water during the worst drought in the state's history. California is now in the fourth year of the drought and water reserves are running frighteningly low. McClintock says it's a result of stunningly stupid policies dating back to the last time Gov. Jerry Brown was in office. "We haven't built a major dam in this state since 1979. Meanwhile, the population has nearly doubled. We aren't going to solve out water problems until we begin building more dams. We can't build more dams as long as the radical environmental laws make their construction impossible," said McClintock. Brown chalks up the shortage to climate change, saying higher temperatures mean less snow in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and less water come Spring. "If you happen to worship at the church of global warming, you should be pressing very hard to build more dams. It means with a warmer climate we will not be able to store as much water in the mountains as snow. Therefore, we need to store that water behind dams. Yet, Gov. Brown has been one of the leading opponents to new dam construction," said McClintock. If those rules seem hard to believe, McClintock doesn't blame you. "A year ago, I was beating the drums to sound warnings on these policies and nobody paid any attention. It began to occur to me, the reason they're not paying attention is because they don't believe me. They don't believe that our policy could be so breathtakingly stupid as to dump millions of gallons of precious water in the middle of a drought to adjust river water temperatures," said McClintock. "But those are the policies. They are being carried out. As our reservoirs now near empty, people are beginning to focus on that finally. Hopefully, it is going to cause a major re-evaluation of the many leftist environmental laws that have built up in our system over the past 20 years or so that are the very definition of lunacy," said McClintock. Last week, Gov. Brown imposed water restrictions on many California residents, demanding they reduce consumption by 25 percent and face fines up to $500 if they fail to comply. McClintock says the restrictions are not coming because reserves are tapped out but because humans are not the government's first priority. "We're now in the fourth year of the worst drought in the history of California. Yet, Brown and the environmental left continue to release what little water remains behind our dams, not for essential human consumption but rather to adjust the water temperatures in the rivers so the fish are happy," said McClintock. The congressman is working feverishly to pass House Resolution 1668, the Save Our Water Act. The bill would put an end to releasing massive amounts of water during a time of drought. Time is of the essence. Another major water release into the rivers is already scheduled. "The Federal Bureau of Reclamation has ordered another pulse flow. These are massive releases of water, billions of gallons of water. If this order is allowed to stand, they will drain several of our major reservoirs before the end of the summer for the fish, which means there will be no water left for the human population," said McClintock. But the issue gets even more maddening for McClintock. He says the biggest problem for the fish is not the drought but another government policy. "Mainly we're talking about a three-inch minnow called the delta smelt. In the case of the new orders, it involves steelhead trout. In most of these cases, the principal cause for the decline in the populations has nothing to do with our water projects. It has to do with non-native predator fish that were introduced into our streams and rivers by the government years ago," said McClintock. According to Reason magazine Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey, 50 percent of water in the reservoirs goes to the rivers and streams. And he says the vast majority of the remaining water goes to the farmers. Yet, he says the restrictions are all aimed at the people using 10 percent of the resources. He also says enforcing the restrictions requires a nanny state nightmare. "What will happen is that they're going to have to have a whole elaborate enforcement procedure, with people spying on their neighbors and reporting and so forth. It's a clunky, stupid system to do it," said Bailey. McClintock thinks Brown has a lot of nerve imposing the restrictions. "It's going to be very hard for him to summon any kind of moral authority to fine people $500 if they waste a gallon of water on their lawn or sidewalk and yet have no problems wasting millions of gallons of water in the pursuit of making the fish perfectly happy," he said. The congressman stresses this mess is a result of federal and state policies. He says the House of Representatives is trying to restore sanity to the law but it is racing against the clock. "I'm very confident that we will pass that bill out of the House this year but it will not be in time to prevent the releases that could literally drain to empty reservoirs that are now in California before we even get to the next rainy season," said McClintock. Within six months, McClintock says misguided government policies could mean the end of some towns in his state. "Copperopolis, a community of about 10,000 in the Sierra Nevada, will simply be without water because the water we had been storing behind our dams had been released during this period for the fish. It means that when people turn on their water faucets, no water comes out. It means entire communities dry up and blow away. These are communities of a long-neglected species, called homo sapien," said McClintock. In addition to putting a halt on pulse flows, McClintock says the federal government needs to make other obvious changes to the laws. "The House has acted several times now to modify those laws, to assure that there's an equitable distribution of water and that we approach the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements with a little more common sense," said McClintock. "For example, why shouldn't we be meeting these requirements (on fish numbers) by building fish hatcheries. Right now the hatchery fish are not allowed to be included in the population counts," he said. But could the free market solve the problem more efficiently than changing federal laws? Bailey thinks so. "Giving secure property rights to water to people would be the first step toward implementing markets," said Bailey, who believes water is badly under-priced in California and giving farmers more options for their water could benefit everyone. "What I would do is give free and clear title to the water to the farmers. Then they can decide if they want to farm or if they want to sell the water. My bet is that the price would be sufficiently high that a whole bunch of farmers will say, 'You know what? I don't need to raise any rice this year. I'm going to sell my water to San Francisco or Los Angeles," said Bailey. McClintock says that approach fails to take the dire situation of farmers into consideration. "The problem with that is we've already lost about a half a million acres of the most fertile farmland in America because of these regulations, compounded by the drought. When you turn off the water to an almond orchard, for example, that's not a one-year deal. Those trees die and it takes many, many years to regrow them so they're once again bearings nuts and fruit," said McClintock. While California's water crisis is a perfect storm of a major drought and what he considers extreme California environmental policies, he says the U.S. government is a major player in this and that means the rest of America is not immune. "This can come to any community in America at some time in the near future. If there's an ESA biological opinion requiring the release of this water, what that means is fish come first and people can fend for themselves," said McClintock. |
| Hillary's National Security Nightmare |
| Wed, 8 Apr 2015 16:31:39 EST 00:0000:00 The Russians did hack into the U.S. government and so did any foreign intelligence worth its salt, most likely through former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private server. That's the conclusion of Dr. J. Michael Waller, a longtime consultant to government entities ranging from the Secretary of Defense to the U.S. Senate to the U.S. Marine Corps Warfighting Labratory. During his career, Waller also worked extensively to thwart Soviet and Russian front organizations in the U.S. and Europe while attacking Russian intelligence efforts. He is now an investigative reporter at the American Media Institute. Waller is not swayed from his conclusion by Wednesday's assertion from White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest that the government is not prepared to definitively accuse the Russians of the hacking. "It was the Russians. It was not only through that State Department system," said Waller. "All the intelligence authorities that I interviewed say that the Russians, the Chinese and the Iranians almost certainly got all of Hillary Clinton's emails through her private server. While she destroyed the contents for Congress to look at, the Russians, the Iranians and the Chinese still have them." Waller thinks Clinton deserves prison time for insisting on an email system that clearly left the nation vulnerable to attack. "This is the national security equivalent of drunk driving. She should go to prison for this. When you drink and drive, you know in advance that you're putting other people in danger. Yet, you think because you're so smart or so clever or just don't care, that nothing's going to happen and then something does, so it's your fault. This is precisely what she did on the national security sphere," said Waller. How did Clinton get permission to install a server that Waller says every cyber-security expert is like a welcome mat to steal sensitive information? "She was the Secretary of State and she had the approval of the president. As we know from hearing people in the State Department and people who had ever worked with Hillary, everyone's afraid to contradict her because she'll yell and scream and destroy your career," said Waller. Since Clinton wiped the server clean, the chances of American lawmakers and media finding out what her emails contained is very remote. So if she was hacked, how will we ever get a picture of what other nations now know? Waller says we probably won't unless some awkward assistance comes our way. "We'll never know unless maybe one of our allies who also spies on us like the Israelis or the French or somebody like that, maybe they might decide to help us with the backups that they might happen to have," said Waller. While Waller says Clinton is an egregious example of tossing caution to the wind for the sake of convenience, and says something like this demands accountability. "You have to hold people here responsible who committed the criminal negligence that allowed that to happen. It's not the technical people. The technical people know what they're doing. They give the warnings to the policymakers," said Waller. However, he says it's a big problem for lawmakers and bureaucrats in both parties. "A lot of policymakers are simply too lazy to go through the security protocols. It's like how a lot of people prefer a simple password because they can't remember a really complicated one, so they go for the simple ones which are the easiest ones to hack. It's that type of mentality throughout our government," said Waller. Waller says the State Department has secret and top secret networks that do not appear to be compromised by the Russian hacking. He says that means any stolen data came from less secure networks, which personnel should not have been using for any official business involving sensitive information. Does this mean anyone who exchanged emails with Secretary Clinton through her private server is ripe for international hacking? "Yes, and friends of friends. You can burrow into different email networks simply by knowing an email address. You can get into that person's email and then find out who their networks are and so forth," said Waller. In addition to bringing Hillary Clinton and other alleged flouters of national security protocols, Waller says we need to act in another direction as well. "We have to go on an all-out attack against the Russians and against their systems. We're not doing that. We have the capability to do that, but the fact that the administration doesn't even want to reveal it was the Russians shows the White House is helping the Russians cover up for them," said Waller. How does this episode help Waller conclude we are not aggressively spying on the Russians? "If we were it would be known. I know just through the people I work with and listening to their years of lamenting that we're not doing anything substantively on a strategic scale to serve as a deterrence to what the Russians are doing, tells us that we're not doing much," said Waller. |
| 'Hollywood Traitors' |
| Tue, 7 Apr 2015 15:47:33 EST Communists were running rampant in Hollywood during the Soviet rule of Joseph Stalin. They sympathized with the Nazis until Hitler turned on Stalin and the effort is still underway to mislead the American people about the depth and goals of the movement. Later this year, Trumbo will hit theaters. It stars Bryan Cranston, Helen Mirren, John Goodman and Diane Lane. The film tells the story of Hollywood screenwriter Dalton Trumbo and how his great success in the movies came to a crashing halt after he was identified as a communist. Trumbo is one of the infamous Hollywood Ten, who were outed in testimony to the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) in 1947. The movie will portray Trumbo as a champion of the first amendment. Trumbo and his fellow communists in Hollywood's golden era are the subject of "Hollywood Traitors: Blacklisted Screenwriters, Agents of Stalin, Allies of Hitler" by longtime Human Events editor Allan Ryskind. Ryskind's father, Morrie, was a longtime Hollywood screenwriter, with more than 50 titles to his credit.. Morrie Ryskind was among those who named Hollywood communists in congressional testimony. Nearly 70 years later, the conventional wisdom suggests that the communist infiltration of Hollywood in and around World War II was either overblown or insignificant. However, the facts on Trumbo and others found to be communists are quite clear. "The Screenwriter's Guild, which my dad had belonged to, the flagship publication, was being edited by Dalton Trumbo, who was a famous communist, no question about it. He later acknowledged his was a communist. He turned the major publication into a communist publication," said Ryskind. Even after being exposed, Trumbo was unabashed in his support for communist figures and ideas. Ryskind says Trumbo even told a biographer that he joined the Communist Party in 1943 and should have done it a decade sooner. "He said he never regretted, never regretted it," said Ryskind, who says the association was just as obvious with the rest of the Hollywood Ten. "The Hollywood Ten that Hollywood weeps over, but each and every member of the Hollywood Ten were members of the Communist Party and were loyal to Stalin," said Ryskind. And the list didn't stop there. "There were lots of communists in Hollywood and I'm talking about hard core communists, people whose allegiance was to the Soviet Union and Joe Stalin. There isn't any question about it," he said. According to Ryskind's research, even the most left-leaning estimates admit there were over 200 communists in Hollywood during that time. But one area of great disagreement is over whether communists in Hollywood ever found solidarity with Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. Defenders of the Hollywood Ten and other communists strongly deny any affinity for Hitler. Ryskind says the attitude toward Hitler was directly related to their appreciation of Stalin. "They switched sides. They had been anti-Hitler. Suddenly, with the pact, they became pro-Hitler. These communists in Hollywood always like to portray themselves, and Hollywood likes to portray them as anti-fascist. They were on the side of Hitler when he invaded Poland, in the next year when he conquered western Europe and when he was bombing England," said Ryskind. "The only reason they changed, they only reason they became anti-Hitler was because Hitler double-crossed Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union in June of 1941," he said. These communists were not mere sympathizers. Ryskind says they saw them as actively involved in bringing down the American government and economy. "When the League of American Writers was formed, their purpose was to use their art as a weapon," said Ryskind. "The purpose was to destroy the American government as it existed, get rid of the capitalist system and impose a communist system. I'm not making this up. I got this from communist documents." Did the communist ideology of Trumbo and other screenwriters influence the content on the silver screen? Ryskind says it absolutely did. "All these films were being made that were saying how wonderful Joe Stalin was," he said. "There were all these various films, Song of Russia, Mission to Moscow. You had Action in the North Atlantic. You had Blockade." One of the most famous screenwriters of the era was Howard Koch, who wrote the screenplay for Casablanca. But he also wrote Mission to Moscow. "The fact is Koch was a fellow traveler. You'd call him a communist without a party card. He was married to a communist," said Ryskind, who says a man who may well have been a Soviet agent was a technical adviser for the film. "It's probably the most pro-Moscow, pro-Soviet film ever made. It made Stalin into the wisest statesman on the planet and that everything Stalin did was wonderful. It was so bad that even The Nation magazine, which was pro-Soviet, sid it was a whitewash," said Ryskind. As the communists grew in number and influence, patriotic Americans in Hollywood fought back. "In 1944, my dad and Walt Disney and Sam Wood, who was a famous director, formed the Motion Picture Alliance. The reason they did that was because the commies looked at that time like they had taken over Hollywood. They were embedded in the guilds and the unions," said Ryskind. Why were so many Hollywood figures enamored with communism? "What makes people join ISIS? There was an ideology there that people believed in. They believed that capitalism was terrible, It had to be overthrown and they wanted to actually see it overthrown," said Ryskind. It's not just Trumbo who Hollywood liberals lionize from that era. "You have John Howard Lawson. He was being memorialized in some fashion in The Majestic. Jim Carrey is in there. They name a wonderful town after John Howard Lawson, who was head of the Communist Party in Hollywood and was the enforcer of the Stalinist line and died a Stalinist," said Ryskind. Despite the deep leftist sympathies remaining in Hollywood today, Ryskind does not see as great a threat now as during the Stalin era. "in the 30s and the 40s and the 50s, these people were agents of a foreign government designed to destroy us. There's a little bit of difference between that and popping off and saying, 'I'm a left-winger,'" he said. |
| Americans Demand Tougher Immigration Enforcement |
| Mon, 6 Apr 2015 16:08:11 EST A new Rasmussen Reports survey shows the American people are getting increasingly frustrated with what they see as the government's lax enforcement of immigration laws, but a defiant administration and deep-pocked lobbyists on the other side of the debate make major changes very unlikely anytime soon. On Monday, Rasmussen released a new survey on on immigration and a solid majority of Americans disagree with the president on virtually all the critical questions. Eighty-three percent believe one should have to prove they are in the country legally before receiving any federal, state or local services. Sixty-two percent say deportation is not aggressive enough in the U.S., ten points higher than a year ago. Just 16 percent think it's too aggressive. Fifteen percent think it's just right. Birthright citizenship is also unpopular. Fifty-four percent of those polled oppose automatic citizenship for any baby born in the U.S. to parents who are here illegally, while 38 percent like the current policy. In a direct slap at President Obama's November actions, 51 percent of those surveyed say illegals should not be immune from deportation just because they have a child with legal standing in the U.S. Border security advocates are not surprised by the results. "The real reason you see this increase in hawkishness on immigration is that this administration has been so bad," said Center for Immigration Studies Executive Director Mark Krikorian, noting the Obama administration has released tens of thousands of criminal illegal aliens back onto American streets and made life much tougher for local authorities to enforce immigration laws. He also says Obama is soft on issue and is "not committed to American sovereignty." "So when you have that kind of situation, even people who have kind of ambivalent or a little bit squishy views, are going to harden their views," said Krikorian. He says American attitudes towards Obama on immigration all come down to one critical issue. "If you want a way to resolve our immigration mess...you need an administration that can earn the trust of the people on this issue. This administration has made it clear it cannot be trusted," said Krikorian. So do the lopsided poll numbers mean a major push is coming soon to address benefits, birthright citizenship, deportations and more? Don't bet on it. When you get down to brass tacks, the people willing to pay lobbyists to deliver the giant bags of money to congressmen to sway their votes, those people are all on the side of looser enforcement and more immigration," said Krikorian. "[Eighty-three] percent of Americans who don't want illegal immigrants to get welfare don't have lobbyists but the National Council of La Raza has lobbyists. People who want better enforcement don't have lobbyists, but the farmers and the corporate interests that don't want more enforcement, they do have lobbyists and give giant, giant amounts of money to influence policy," said Krikorian. Krikorian also believes the numbers prove the Republicans in Congress could have been far more aggressive in opposing funding for Obama's unilateral efforts to legalize more than five million illegal immigrants in the recent appropriations fight over the Department of Homeland Security. He says the key to winning the fight is to not sound "fringy." Krikorian thinks leaders just needed to look to their most passionate member for a winning argument. "Senator Jeff Sessions, for instance, from Alabama, has done a phenomenal job over the past several years of framing the message in a non-scary, constructive but pro-American worker fashion that the Republican leadership has just not taken advantage of," said Krikorian. "The old joke is that the Democrats are the evil party and the Republicans are the stupid party. Unfortunately, the leadership of the Republican Party is proving that joke to be true," he said. Krikorian believes immigration enforcement is actually better than it was at the time of the 9/11 attacks. He says even the Obama administration has done better work at the border while internal enforcement has been horrible, but he is hopeful things will get better if the right person is elected to succeed Obama. "Two steps forward and one step back is still moving in the right direction. What we need to do is keep pushing and try to push for better outcomes from the next administration," said Krikorian. |
| Pro-Family Groups: Pence Must Veto RFRA Changes |
| Thu, 2 Apr 2015 15:42:18 EST The changes proposed by state lawmakers to Indiana 19s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) would erode the freedom of conscience for most small business owners in the state and would mark the largest step towards special gay rights there in history, according to pro-family activists who have studied the language. 1cNothing in this law would enable a small business to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, use of a public accommodation, goods, etc., 1d said Americans for Truth About Homosexuality President Peter LaBarbera, reading in part from the proposed changes. 1cIt looks like it would preclude a small business owner from using the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 1d he said. LaBarbera says the changes gut protections for Indiana residents of all faiths and he is joining a 1cchorus 1d of activists urging Gov. Mike Pence to veto the changes. 1cThis language is unacceptable. It actually reverses the progress of the religious freedom law. I think Gov. Pence needs to veto this language if it comes forth, and he needs to stand strong, 1d said LaBarbera. 1cNo law would be better than eviscerating this religious freedom bill as it was with the new language. 1d The Indiana chapter of the American Family Association is also urging a Pence veto. 1cThe actions taken by the Indiana General Assembly do not clarify our Religious Freedom Restoration Act 19s purposes or goals. Our legal advisors tell us that it actually changes our law in a way that could now erode religious freedom across Indiana. If this revised law does not adequately protect religious liberty for all, it is not really a religious freedom act, 1d said AFA of Indiana Executive Director Micah Clark in a statement. The scenario most often referred to in this debate centers on vendors of deep faith who welcome all customers into their businesses but don 19t feel comfortable servicing a same-sex wedding. LaBarbera says those people may have no recourse if the proposed changes become law. 1cLet 19s take the example of the wedding cake baker. They have a wedding cake. They sell wedding cakes to everybody, including homosexuals, but they don 19t want to make, create or use their talents to create a gay marriage wedding cake. So if someone comes in and says, 18I would like a gay marriage wedding cake, according to this language they would not be able to dent that service, 1d said LaBarbera. 1cThat 19s the exact opposite of religious freedom, which is why pro-family activists are urging a veto of this new language, 1d he said, noting there would still be protections for houses of worship and non-profit organizations. Thursday, legislative leaders in Indiana stressed that nothing in the proposed changes extends special protected class status to homosexuals, but LaBarbera says it comes pretty close. This would be the largest step Indiana ever took towards gay rights. Effectively, you 19re saying nobody can be denied any good or service. Well, if someone comes up and wants a pro-homosexual or pro-abortion message, and the person does business with the entire public, he could not refuse that, 1d said LaBarbera. While LaBarbera brings a Christian worldview to the debate, he says the protections at stake are for the benefit of everyone. 1cThis is the equivalent of asking a Jewish guy to make a cake for (former Ku Klux Klan official) David Duke, right? You would never expect a Jewish photographer, for example, to have to take pictures at a Ku Klux Klan rally or a neo-Nazi rally. You should not expect people of faith to endorse a pro-homosexual marriage if they believe that homosexual marriage is sinful, 1d said LaBarbera. Critics of the original Indiana law liken the right of business owners to refuse to endorse messages contrary to their faith to the fight to enact civil rights legislation and integrate the public square. LaBarbera says it 19s an apples and oranges comparison. 1cHomosexuals are not being denied service in the way that blacks were denied service, you can 19t eat at the lunch counter, etc. That 19s unreasonable to most people, but what people do find reasonable is that a person should not have to create a message, which violates his belief, 1d said LaBarbera. LaBarbera says a great deal of the blame for the hysteria in Indiana belongs at the feet of the news media, which he says are not even pretending to cover this story objectively. 1cThis is a media-generated crisis, the media working with gay activists. The mainstream media has become part of the gay lobby almost. An incredible hysteria has been whipped up against Indiana. Gov. Pence needs to stay strong and he must make sure that he doesn 19t adopt a pro-homosexual agenda as the compromise, so-called, that would allegedly save this measure, 1d said LaBarbera. One of the media 19s most well-publicized moments in the past week was to spotlight the owners of Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana. The owners say they 19ve never been asked to cater a same-sex wedding but would refuse based on their beliefs. Death and arson threats poured in. Activists hacked the Google page of Memories Pizza and left a litany of foul comments on their Yelp page. LaBarbera says that type of harassment is not representative of all gay activists, but he says it a consistent practice of a belligerent portion of them. 1cThere is an element of the gay rights movement which has acted recklessly for decades and tried to intimidate people, sometimes using force. We had it happen at one of our banquets in Illinois. I would hope people would keep the argument civil. There 19s no need to get into these extremes, 1d said LaBarbera. Both sides of the debate are waiting on Gov. Pence and to see what changes Arkansas lawmakers make to their RFRA bill after Gov. Asa Hutchinson refused to sign it and ordered that it mirror the federal version passed in 1993. LaBarbera hopes Arkansas will now follow the changes proposed in Indiana. 1cI hope they don 19t back down or do a change that will backfire in Arkansas like apparently they 19re almost doing here in Indiana, 1d said LaBarbera |
| 'If They Do Anything, They've Caved' |
| Wed, 1 Apr 2015 16:21:28 EST Liberty Counsel Chairman is urging Republican governors in the cross hairs of the religious freedom debate to stop being "wimps" and let the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts in their states to stand as they are. On Tuesday, Gov. Mike Pence, R-Ind., ordered members of legislature to "clarify" and "change" the law he signed last week to make it clear that no discrimination against homosexuals would be tolerated. Wednesday, Gov. Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark., refused to sign the bill passed Thursday by the legislature until it mirrors the federal law passed in 1993. What would constitute minor clarifications and what would represent their surrenders on religious freedom? Staver, who authored Florida's Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the 1990s, says he has a simple litmus test. "If they do anything, they've caved. There is nothing to clarify. If they can't read my lips and understand religious freedom that's been in these statutes for two-plus decades and that has been in case law since the beginning of our history, then they should not be worthy of any of our votes. Any so-called clarification is caving into the homosexual agenda," said Staver, who believes Pence and Hutchinson are simply responding to political bullying. "People are looking for a strong leader. They're not looking for wimps. They're not looking for people who backpedal. They're looking for people who are strong leaders. Pence needs to be a strong leader and not buckle. Hutchinson needs to be a strong leader," said Staver. "They need to stand up to these bullies." While Staver fears the governors may essentially surrender in the religious freedom fight, he's more worried about what they may try to do to satisfy the gay right movement. "What I'm ultimately concerned about is Pence or Hutchinson or different governors elsewhere may now want to say,' Well, let's go ahead and pass special protection for homosexuals.' That's what these homosexual activists are wanting," said Staver, who says the current protests are largely a mirage. "They're not wanting clarification. They know [religious freedom laws] have never been used in the way they said. They can't point you to a single case. What they want to intimidate the opposition so that you'll react and then add into the statutes a special, protected, preferred status for homosexuality," said Staver. "If they get that, boy are they going to come and hammer you hard with it," he added. Staver says there can never be a truce in this debate. "These are two trains on the same track going in opposite directions. There is a collision that is taking place. One will win and one will lose. There's no navigating around this and there's no coexistence because they will coexist. That's why you're starting to see this vitriol, this hatred, this intolerance becoming manifest that we knew was there all the time," said Staver. He likens the standoff to the quest for Middle East peace. "This is an intolerant agenda. This is like dealing with terrorists, negotiating with people who simply have a zero-sum game and they don't want you to exist," said Staver. "It's like the Palestinians and the Israelis. The Palestinians in Gaza don't want the Jews to exist in the land. No matter how much land you give them for so-called peace, it doesn't really satisfy them. There is no satisfying this radical agenda. They don't want you to exist. If you do exist, they want you to promote and applaud their sinful lifestyle," said Staver. As for the content of the new law in Indiana and the legislation passed in Arkansas, Staver says the most common complaints about what they would do are simply not true. "They have this parade of horribles that is just simply untrue. 'It's going to allow someone not to serve a meal to an individual in a restaurant solely because they're homosexual.' Absolutely nonsense. 'You're going to be able to say to someone you can't sleep in this hotel room and rent it just like anyone else. Why? Because you're homosexual.' Absolutely not true," said Staver. So what would the laws do? "What we have here is a religious freedom bill. People of faith don't want to be put in any situation where they're coerced against their faith to support or affirm something. That's been the historic basis for our freedom of religion from the very founding of this country," said Staver. Staver says there is a rich legal history of these and other religious freedom statutes not being abused. "There's been litigation all over the country on a wide variety of issues from zoning to other kinds of issues involving religious freedom," said Staver. "We've got a track record with these statutes of twenty-plus. They can't point you to one case that supports their allegation that these are discriminatory," said Staver. Staver also dismisses the litany of threatened boycotts of Indiana by companies and groups. In fact, he is cancelling his Angie's List membership, after the website slammed the Indiana law. Staver says Angie's List promises to refund 110 percent of your fees if you cancel. He urges religious freedom supporters to cancel their memberships with Angie's List and donate the money to an organization fighting for religious freedom and traditional marriage. He says one of the great ironies in this debate is that the groups demanding tolerance are the least likely to practice it towards those who disagree with them. "They use the word tolerant. It's absolutely intolerant. They do not want anything to coexist that does not affirm and promote their lifestyle of same-sex activity or same-sex unions," said Staver. Thus far, some likely 2016 Republican presidential candidates have sided with the religious freedom laws, while others have largely stayed quiet. Staver says their words and actions in the face of fierce protest will be remembered by voters. "I think we need to hold all of our elected or would-be elected politicians accountable. This is a defining moment and they should not, better not flinch," said Staver. |
| Steve Forbes is Back...and So Is the Flat Tax |
| Tue, 31 Mar 2015 15:26:56 EST Two-time presidential candidate Steve Forbes is relaunching Americans for Hope, Growth and Opportunity in an attempt to build public support for a flat tax and market-based health care solutions and influence the policies of the next president. Forbes, who serves as the publisher of Forbes magazine, ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1996 and 2000. His call for a flat tax seemed like a novelty to many back then, but Forbes says the idea keeps gaining traction and could play a major role in the 2016 campaign. "A lot of us think the time is ripe to make a new push for the flat tax, not to mention getting patients in control of health care again and sound money. We take heart from what Ronald Reagan observed years ago, when Reagan said, 'You don't change minds on Capitol Hill through sweet reason. You do it through the heat of public opinion. By educating and turning up the heat, we can get some major reforms after the 2016 elections," said Forbes. Forbes is encouraged that Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, advocated for the flat tax in launching his presidential campaign. He says Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Gov. Scott Walker, R-Wis., are also very favorable to the idea. What is the flat tax? Forbes says it's simple. "We throw out the corrupt tax code. The nine million words, with all the attendant rules, regulations and the code itself is beyond redemption. We'd have a single rate, generous exemptions for adults and children and that's it," said Forbes. One of the most common criticisms of implementing a flat income tax rate for all Americans is that it would disproportionately burden the poor. Forbes says that's not true. "So a family of four, for example, would pay no federal income tax on their first $52,000 of wages and then above that you'd pay a flat 17 percent rate. You'd have no tax on savings, no death taxes," said Forbes. He says simplicity would be the hallmark of the flat tax on the business world as well. "On the corporate side, we cut the rate from 35 percent down to 17 percent and allow instant expensing of capital expenditures. Senator Cruz pointed out you could literally do your tax return on a postcard or a single sheet of paper or a few keystrokes on a computer," said Forbes. If all the current tax rates would be slashed, would we see a dramatic decrease in the revenues coming into Washington? Forbes says it would be exactly the opposite. "Over a five-year or ten-year period, it'll bring in much more revenue. Growth begets a lot of revenue and then the question and debate will be how do we use that revenue. Democrats will want to spend it. Others of us will want to reduce taxes further. But it'll be a nice problem to have and also provide the resources to rebuild our tattered military that this president is running into the ground," said Forbes. And Forbes says the flat tax would trigger one other change that would cause nationwide rejoicing. "All the IRS agents and the lobbyists and special interests all can get job retraining," he mused. Forbes admits those same lobbyists and special interests will fight feverishly to protect their interests in the current tax code. He says lawmakers are also a part of the problem and both parties deserve blame. "Washington is resistant on both sides, more the Democrats then Republicans, but complexity in the tax code is a source of power. They're not going to give it up voluntarily but I think the mood of the country and a mood among more and more members of Congress are coming to realize that this thing has got to go," said Forbes. On the health care front, Forbes advocates scrapping both the individual and employer mandates in Obamacare, allowing patients to shop for health insurance across state lines and giving individuals and businesses the same treatment under the tax code. He also wants to revolutionize Medicaid by setting up a voucher system for the states that would then be extended to the people. "You get a voucher for a certain amount and you go out and determine what kind of insurance policy you want. What you don't use in the voucher, you put in a Health Savings Account. Return it to the people so the people are the real customers, not third parties and government bureaucrats," said Forbes. Forbes is bullish on Republicans winning the White House in 2016. He has no plans to endorse a candidate anytime soon but says he is especially impressed with the depth of the likely presidential field. "Like millions of others, I'm looking over the field. I think there's a very strong bench for Republicans. Ted Cruz is formidable on his feet in a debate. I think the governors are going to add a lot to the race as they get in. I think we're going to have a good outcome in 2016," said Forbes. He is also not concerned about a large GOP field leaving the eventual nominee battered and bruised heading into the general election. "There are those say, 'Well, aren't you going to kill each other?' No, what we're going to get out of this, and this is where I think the flat tax is going to play a key role, is that the candidate who emerges is going to have a strong, pr-growth, exciting, Reaganesque agenda to get America moving again," said Forbes. After two White House bids of his own, Forbes also has some personal advice for the GOP hopefuls. "Just be prepared for what I call the hazing process. If you start to get traction, the media is going to descend upon you for a period of time. Nothing you do will be right. Just realize this is part of the testing process and you're talking to the people and not to the media. Stick to your message," said Forbes. |
| 'Everyone's Scared of Their Shadow' |
| Mon, 30 Mar 2015 15:14:16 EST In 2014, Dave Brat unseated the sitting House Majority Leader of his own party. Now, he's taking the fight for fiscal responsibility and immigration enforcement to the remaining GOP leaders while wondering how committed they are to those goals. Brat shocked the political establishment in June 2014, when he handily defeated House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the Republican primary. He vowed to rein in the size of government and stop the granting of legal status to those who entered the U.S. illegally. Just a few months into his term, Brat says advancing meaningful change is a major challenge, even within his own conference. On fiscal matters, Brat says last week proves the GOP struggles with consistency, as the House approved a Republican budget blueprint that vows to balance the budget within ten years but then agreed to significant new spending through a bill to provide doctors certainty of Medicare payments for the long term. "It's probably not as great an emphasis on fiscal discipline as you would want to see. The evidence of that is the day after the budget was done, we came out with a vote on the "Doc Fix". I'm all in favor of the "Doc Fix," but we did $140 billion unpaid for and that's a problem," said Brat. Brat has very good things to say about the GOP budget and the process by which it was created. He praised House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, R-Ga., as "awesome" for leading an open, transparent process. Nonetheless, Brat voted against the blueprint in committee but later supported it on the House floor. He says it was a matter of simple arithmetic after defense experts recommended additional spending. Late in the process, an additional $20 billion was inserted, but Brat was ultimately OK with the changes because spending offsets were found elsewhere in the budget. The episode highlights a cardinal principle in Brat's approach to Washington: making every effort to avoid adding another dime to the financial burden facing future generations. "Every dollar of deficit goes straight on the back of the kids and it's for real. Somebody's got to pay that bet back. The current generation is consuming and the later generation is going to have to pay the bill," said Brat. And while Brat is a strong supporter of the "Doc Fix," he says last week's bill failed his simple test. "The bad news is we got it with only two days to look at it. It dropped out of heaven on our plate. The good news is it makes a couple small moves on the entitlement reform side," said Brat, noting Republicans also made concessions such as more spending on the State Children's Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP). "It's a mixed bag, but the decider is it's not paid for," he said. Brat says the Republican majorities have another chance to prove their commitment to fiscal responsibility on Obamacare. "The other major indicator will be coming up in the reconciliation process. There, we get a chance to get rid of Obamacare with only a majority of votes in the Senate, 51 where ordinarily you need 60," said Brat. The 2010 health care law cleared the Senate through reconciliation, leaving opponents confident it can be scrapped the same way. Along with his vow to reduce the size and scope of government, Brat's campaign to defeat Cantor focused heavily on his commitment to oppose Democratic or Republican efforts to provide illegal immigrants with legal status, work permits and even a "pathway to citizenship." Due to Cantor's resignation, Brat took office shortly after election day. He voted against the December "cromnibus" bill that funded President Obama's unilateral immigration action through February. He opposed the funding again in February and March, but the clean Homeland Security funding bill was approved anyway, largely with Democratic votes. Brat says Republican leaders assured members that separating homeland security from the rest of federal spending would allow the GOP majorities to fight "tooth and nail" against what they consider to be Obama''s unconstitutional actions. He says it's a path that never materialized. "I asked the press all along that process, 'Do you see a fight out there? Have you seen a fight yet? Let me know when you see a fight.' There was no fight," said Brat. "Everyone's scared of their shadow on this issue in terms of 2016 presidential politics. That is leading the day instead of principle. We did. We voted to fund an unconstitutional action by the president," he said. Republicans who voted to approve the clean bill said the party could not afford to withhold funding from homeland security efforts and said the Obama immigration action may still be nixed by the federal courts. Brat says Congress made that far more unlikely. "Now the courts can look at that la and say, 'Not only did President Obama do it but a Republican Congress validated it. So it's not a good day for the country," said Brat, who says the lack of fight by Republicans already has the Obama administration examining ways to eliminate corporate tax loopholes and raise the debt ceiling without any input from Congress. Amnesty opponents are split on whether Obama's win on funding is the beginning or the end of the battle. Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., believes the fight has only begun and be reversed in court or through upcoming appropriations work. However, Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., thinks the fight is over and Obama won. Brat says Huelskamp is probably right. "I think it's over unless the courts save us but that's all wrong. We represent the people. We're the body closest to the people. We run every two years. We shouldn't be punting major issues like we do to the courts or to the executive branch because we don't want to take the hard votes," said Brat. In a town where political rancor seems more fierce than ever, Brat says the biggest surprise for him has been the graciousness extended to him by members on both sides of the aisle, but he says that atmosphere is nowhere enough to trump entrenched interests and force positive change. "When it comes down to policy, everybody takes ownership for their own piece of work," said Brat. "At the end of the year, if someone said you have to give up everything you did that year for the good of the country, would you be willing to do that. Up in D.C., boy, people want to hang on to their handiwork. So it's very hard to get big changes through," said Brat. Despite the odds, Brat says he is pressing ahead with his efforts to save future generations from financial misery. "We've got to fix the entitlement problem and there's no way to do that without being bipartisan and getting about 100 people behind closed doors and saying, 'For the sake of this country, we have to do this.'" said Brat, who notes reforms will help seniors as much as younger Americans. "These senior programs are done by 2032 in law. So the Democrats, when they run the negative ads, they fail to point out there won't be any programs at all. They're all insolvent by 2032 unless we fix them. That's clearly the number one issue for the country to face," said Brat. There are scores of freshmen members in the House this year, but only one of them defeated his own party's majority leader. Does Brat feel a special responsibility given his historic accomplishment or does he just focus on the things he promised to do if elected? The answer is yes to both. "The special place I have is linked to those principles. I ran on them and the whole country became aware of them. So it puts me under tremendous pressure because if I don't run on those principles and vote on the principles, people know I'm lying," said Brat. But as he faces the many legislative battles to come, Brat says the scrutiny is actually liberating. "It's kind of a good place to be. I'm kind of boxed in by my people in the seventh district who know exactly what I said I would do. Up in D.C., there's a lot of people who don't want to operate on those principles of fiscal responsibility, adherence to the Constitution, adherence to free markets. It's a hot spot. I ran for it. I'm proud to represent the people, so I'm happy with what I'm doing," said Brat. |
| Obama Hampers Boko Haram Fight to Advance Gay Rights |
| Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:05:00 EST Allegations are mounting that the Obama administration withheld weapons and intelligence support from Nigeria's fight against Boko Haram in an effort to boost the candidacy of the Muslim candidate for president, who is a client of the political firm founded by key Obama strategist David Axelrod, and to push a gay rights agenda on the African nation. As a result, the current Nigerian government has been slow to make progress against Boko Haram, but is making greater strides now after turning to the Russians for weapons. Nigerians will go to the polls on Saturday to decide a very competitive race between incumbent Christian President Dr. Ebele Goodluck Jonathan and retired Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, who ruled as dictator there from 1983 until 1985, when he was removed through a coup. Buhari has previously vowed to institute Sharia Law in the Muslim-dominated parts of the country if elected. With the guidance of Axelrod's firm, Buhani has tamped down talk of Sharia nearing election day and even added a Penecostal Christian as his running mate. Boko Haram is a radical Islamist terrorist group that recently pledged allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. In recent years, Boko Haram has slaughtered entire villages, burned countless churches and targeted Christians and moderate Muslims for death. It received global attention last year for abducting nearly 300 Nigerian schoolgirls. The Obama-Axelrod connection to the Nigerian elections and it's impact on U.S. policy toward Boko Haram is found in a detailed piece by James Simpson for Accuracy in Media. In speaking with us, Simpson said the Nigerians are thoroughly convinced Obama's actions are rooted in politics. "Nigerians overwhelmingly, at least the ones that I talk to and the articles I've been able to access, believe that the U.S. deliberately withheld military aid to the Nigerian president because David Axelrod's group, AKPD, is consulting his Muslim opponent in the upcoming elections," said Simpson. According to Simpson, the Nigerians are most upset over their requests being denied for Cobra attack helicopters. Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney has also studied this issue closely. "It seems the Obama administration has withheld intelligence. It seems it has withheld training. It's found various pretexts, but (the fact it has also withheld) some of the arms that could be very, very decisively used against this odious terrorist organization...really raises a host of questions that I don't think have been satisfactorily answered by this administration," said Gaffney. Gaffney says it isn't hard to see a pattern developing in how this administration approaches foreign elections. "This may sound like deja vu all over again," said Gaffney, who likens U.S. involvement in Nigeria's presidential elections to what we just witnessed in Israel's parliamentary elections. "He has, as he had in Israel, a political operative engaged in helping effect, in a way that is clearly meddling in the internal affairs of a foreign government and a friendly, sovereign foreign government at that. It redounds to the benefit, in this case it would appear to the financial benefit of his friend and adviser, David Axelrod. That has translated into efforts to support the candidacy of General Buhari," said Gaffney. Like President Jonathan, Gen. Buhari is also vowing to exterminate Boko Haram. So how could Obama administration policy impact the campaign? "(Jonathan) wasn't that popular to begin with, but he appears to be weak and ineffectual in the battle against Boko Haram because he's been unable to obtain the arms that he need to conduct a proper war. That's their argument," said Simpson. While Gaffney believes Obama's denial of meaningful assistance to Nigeria reflects either a desire to see Buhari get elected or simply to help Axelrod's client win, there are more official reasons given for the lack of support. "One is that the administration has found fault with the human rights record of the Nigerian military," said Gaffney. There is a standing U.S. policy, known as the Leahy Amendment, that forbids the sale of weapons to nations guilty of human rights violations. However, Simpson says it is applied very selectively. "The United States has provided arms to many other countries, who have committed human rights violations. In this case, they made a special exception, so to speak, for Nigeria. It really looks very much like the Nigerians are correct in their assessment," said Simpson. Simpson reports that Secretary of State John Kerry added fuel to the fire by suggesting the U.S. may re-evaluate the selling of arms and sharing of intelligence after the elections. "The whole thing is a joke. We provided military aid to Uganda and they have a bad human rights record as well. We've provided military aid to Al Qaeda-liked groups in Libya who are now joining ISIS. The whole thing is ludicrous," said Simpson. Despite very little U.S. assistance, Nigeria is starting to make significant strides against Boko Haram. Forty towns have recently been liberated, at least 500 Boko Haram members have been killed and many of the terrorists are retreating to the jungle in the border regions near Niger, Chad and Cameroon. The Nigerians say it's because they finally got help - from Moscow. "They are having an impact but they claim it's because finally they had to turn around and get their arms from Russia. They got Russian Hind attack helicopters and some other heavy duty military equipment, troop carriers and [armored personnel carriers] and things like that. So they've been able to take the fight to the enemy," said Simpson. Another major issue at work here is the Obama administration's push for a gay rights agenda throughout the world and Nigeria recently moved decisively in the opposite direction. Fifteen months ago, Nigeria enacted laws that criminalize homosexual behavior and strictly forbids gay marriage. Simpson says a public display of affection between homosexuals could draw imprisonment of 10 years or more. That is not sitting well with the Obama administration. "The gay rights agenda is detested throughout much of Africa. Seventy percent of African nations have laws outlawing homosexuality. This particularly harsh law was passed in December 2013 and the United States and other western nations spoke out against it," said Simpson. The diplomatic friction over the Obama administration's gay rights agenda may well be a key factor in America's refusal to provide more help against Boko Haram and in Obama's desire to see a new president in Nigeria. "Obama, in sort of veiled threats, said that he would withhold aid if they didn't repeal that law. The Nigerians basically told them to get lost. 'We're going to do what we want. You don't have any right to impose your morality on us,'' said Simpson, who says the Jonathan campaign alleges that Buhari has secretly promised the Obama administration that he will work to repeal the law if elected. Gaffney believes concerns about laws addressing sexual orientation may be warranted but says he has no "dog in that particular fight." He also believes regional and U.S. security interests suggest the administration ought to be pursuing a far different course. "We do have a profoundly important stake in the larger question of whether Nigeria continues to slide into chaos, into the orbit of these jihadists. Oil, the strategic resources and position and population of that country are put into serious jeopardy as a result of these calculations," said Gaffney. |
| Obama Playing Politics in Nigeria? |
| Thu, 26 Mar 2015 15:31:36 EST Allegations are mounting that the Obama administration withheld weapons and intelligence support from Nigeria's fight against Boko Haram in an effort to boost the candidacy of the Muslim candidate for president, who is a client of the political firm founded by key Obama strategist David Axelrod. Nigerians will go to the polls on Saturday to decide a very competitive race between incumbent Christian President Dr. Ebele Goodluck Jonathan and retired Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, who ruled as dictator there from 1983 until 1985, when he was removed through a coup. Buhari has previously vowed vowed to institute Sharia Law in the Muslim-dominated parts of the country if elected. With the guidance of Axelrod's firm, Buhani has tamped down talk of Sharia nearing election day and even added a Penecostal Christian as his running mate. Boko Haram is a radical Islamist terrorist group that recently pledged allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. In recent years, Boko Haram has slaughtered entire villages, burned countless churches and targeted Christians and moderate Muslims for death. It received global attention last year for abducting nearly 300 Nigerian schoolgirls. The Obama-Axelrod connection to the Nigerian elections and it's impact on U.S. policy toward Boko Haram is laid out in a detailed piece by James Simpson for Accuracy in Media. Mr. Simpson was unavailable for comment, but the Center for Security Policy has been closely investigating this story as well. "It seems the Obama administration has withheld intelligence. It seems it has withheld training. It's found various pretexts, but (the fact it has also withheld) some of the arms that could be very, very decisively used against this odious terrorist organization...really raises a host of questions that I don't think have been satisfactorily answered by this administration," said Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney. Gaffney says it isn't hard to see a pattern developing in how this administration approaches foreign elections. "This may sound like deja vu all over again," said Gaffney, who likens U.S. involvement in Nigeria's presidential elections to what we just witnessed in Israel's parliamentary elections. "He has, as he had in Israel, a political operative engaged in helping effect, in a way that is clearly meddling in the internal affairs of a foreign government and a friendly, sovereign foreign government at that. It redounds to the benefit, in this case it would appear to the financial benefit of his friend and adviser, David Axelrod. That has translated into efforts to support the candidacy of General Buhari," said Gaffney. Like President Jonathan, Gen. Buhari is also vowing to exterminate Boko Haram. So how could Obama administration policy impact the campaign? "Clearly, Goodluck Jonathan's re-election has been made more difficult by the appearance that he's not doing enough to defeat Boko Haram," said Gaffney. While Gaffney believes Obama's denial of meaningful assistance to Nigeria reflects either a desire to see Buhari get elected or simply to help Axelrod's client win, there are more official reasons given for the lack of support. "One is that the administration has found fault with the human rights record of the Nigerian military," said Gaffney, who says the other public concern rests with the Obama cultural agenda. "There are laws on the books of Nigeria, adopted by a sovereign nation through its normal processes, that they consider to be untoward, unacceptable, homophobic, whatever you want to call it, towards people who are lesbians, gays, transgenders, bisexuals and so on," said Gaffney. Gaffney believes some concerns about laws addressing sexual orientation may be warranted but says he has no "dog in that particular fight" and believes regional and U.S. security interests suggest the administration ought to be pursuing a far different course. "We do have a profoundly important stake in the larger question of whether Nigeria continues to slide into chaos, into the orbit of these jihadists. Oil, the strategic resources and position and population of that country are put into serious jeopardy as a result of these calculations," said Gaffney. |
| Screening of Muslim Immigrants 'A Farce' |
| Wed, 25 Mar 2015 15:52:54 EST Muslim immigration from dangerous nations is dramatically higher in recent years and government assurances that immigrants are being properly screened is "a farce" according to accomplished author and columnist Paul Sperry. "It's a huge surge under Obama. In the last three years, he's averaged 100,000 new immigrants from Muslim nations a year. That is very alarming. It's more than we're importing both from Central America and Mexico combined. This is a big shift in immigration flows," said Sperry, who is the author of Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington. "It's really insane what we're doing. No one's really talking about it, but this mass immigration from Muslim countries poses a serious national security threat," said Sperry. The stated reason for the influx in recent years is the rise in refugees from war torn nations like Syria and Iraq. The amount of people accepted from Syria in particular baffles Sperry, who says there is a long standing policy of keeping Syrians at bay. "Syria has always been on our terrorist list. We have had very strict restrictions on Syrian immigration. Since Syria's become a failed state, Obama's increased the number of refugees. By the time he leaves office, we will be importing over 10,000 Syrians into this country. This is a concern because Iraq and Syria are now controlled by the Islamic State," said Sperry. The government insists the case of each refugee is carefully scrutinized before they are allowed into the U.S.. Sperry says that claim is laughable. "At the top levels of the administration, DHS and so forth, they claim that these refugees are being vetted. But it's a complete farce. We know that from testimony from the FBI officials who are in charge of that type of vetting process for terrorists coming in under visas and these refugee programs," said Sperry. What has the FBI testimony shown? "They admit, under oath, that they have no idea who these people are and they can't find out what type of backgrounds they have, criminal, terrorism or otherwise, because there is no vetting opportunities. You can't vet somebody if you don't have documentation, police records, etc.," said Sperry. "Of course Iraq and Syria are now failed states and the police. There are no police records, so we are not vetting these folks," he said. Sperry says it's a huge gamble to let people from hostile nations enter the U.S. without any meaningful background check. "We have no idea of they're going to come into this country to escape terrorism or to carry out terrorism. We have no idea and they admit as much. For all we know they could be joining a sleeper cell here," said Sperry, who says Obama has also greatly increased the number of Saudis in the U.S. on student visas. According to Sperry, the U.S. should be feverishly dialing back its acceptance of Muslims from questionable nations. He says western Europe is a glaring example of what happens when more scrutiny is not paid to who enters the country. Sperry cites recent terror attacks and plots in Paris, Copenhagen and Brussels as proof that liberal immigration standards and refusal to demand assimilation is a breeding ground for disaster. "They opened the floodgates for North African Muslims. Now they regret it, of course, but it's too late. Europe regrets doing what we're doing now. We're the ones who are rolling out the welcome mat for Muslims from these hostile nations," said Sperry. While Sperry is quick to clarify that the U.S. contains none of the no-go zones for police that are found in some major European cities, he says political figures in the U.S. are naive to think that Muslims are not effecting major change in communities across the country, including some just a stone's throw from the nation's capital. "That's just nonsense on stilts. These politicians need to get out and go out into some of the communities just in their backyard. Alexandria, Virginia, for example, Bailey's Crossroad. They actually call that area Northern Virginia-stan," he said. Two major Midwestern cities are also cause for major concern to Sperry. "Then you have Dearbornistan, Michigan, and Minneapolis. We've brought in so many Somalian refugees that they've turned Minneapolis into a terror hot spot. They are very belligerent, very aggressive about asserting their culture onto the West. The Minneapolis mayor is now wearing a hijab when she meets with Muslim leaders," said Sperry. Asserting the culture leads to a litany of other problems. Sperry says law enforcement has a tough time arresting Muslims in some areas for spousal abuse because it is allowed by the Koran if the wife is disobedient to her husband. He also says honor killings are on the rise, where fathers or brothers are permitted to murder Muslim girls for wearing western clothing or dating a non-Muslim. Female genital mutilation is also a growing problem. Sperry says it's time to stop pretending we are not at war and take concrete measures to keep out people from suspect nations. He believes there is an obvious place to start. "They have a list of Muslim countries who are most hostile to the U.S. and the West. They rank them. We can start with those countries for a moratorium, putting some curbs on immigration from these countries," said Sperry. If the lack of solid background information were not enough, Sperry says the FBI is hopelessly overwhelmed in trying to vet immigrants already in the country so opening the doors to hundreds of thousands more makes us even more vulnerable. "Our FBI doesn't even have the resources to get a handle on all of the ISIS/jihadist threat in the Muslim community. Now we're going to lay on top of that all of these new immigrants who are even potentially more radical on top of that threat matrix. I mean that's just ridiculous," said Sperry. But is it fair to let no one from those countries when surely a sizable percentage have no interest in attacking the U.S.? Sperry says there's no other choice. "We just don't have the information. The FBI admits they don't have the information on the ground that they need, unless the FBI is going to go into these failed states, which isn't going to happen. . They do not have the police records, the police reports that they can make objective decisions on these folks coming in," said Sperry. "It's a pure sympathy play to let all these folks in on blind trust. We just cannot do that," he said. |
| Five Years of Broken Obamacare Promises |
| Mon, 23 Mar 2015 15:49:00 EST Five years after President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act, the White House claims the law is working even better than imagined but one of its leading critics says every major promise is now proven untrue and costs will keep going higher and higher unless we change course. On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the landmark Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, into law. It happened after a fierce debate on the House floor just a few days earlier and a controversial move by Senate Democratic leaders to pass changes by a simple majority since they did not have the votes to do it through regular order. The law took full effect in 2014, following a disastrous roll-out of the federal health care exchange website in October 2013. But for those who warned against the law before it's passage, the contents of the law are far more troubling than the major technical problems that bogged down the exchange. "People have learned on a very personal level how they were lied to in the passage of this law. They've lost their doctor. They've lost their health plan. Their costs are going up. Many people have lost jobs and certainly hours as a result of it. Small businesses have felt a huge impact. It's been a tremendous drain on the economy, and very few if any of those original promises were met," said Galen Institute President Grace-Marie Turner. Turner is a longtime veteran Washington health care policy debates. She was at the forefront of the effort to stop the Clinton administration's attempt to overhaul the health care system in 1993 and is still fighting to roll back Obamacare. She was in the House chamber in March 2010 during the final, intense moments of the debate. "The promises of utopia from Democrats was astonishing to me. 'Finally we're going to get to universal coverage. We're going to provide coverage to everybody and we're going to reduce the deficit. Everybody's going to save. Families are going to save $2,500 on their health insurance costs.' On and on and on it went," said Turner. Last week in Cleveland, President Obama referenced the five years since Obamacare was enacted and said the past half-decade proved the law's critics very wrong. 1cEvery prediction they 19ve made about it turned out to be wrong, 1d Obama said, accusing critics of employing an "evidence be damned" approach to evaluating the law. 1cIt 19s working better than even I expected," he said. Turner says the facts tell a very different story. "We are seeing an even greater shortage of physicians. Many of them are selling their practices or even closing their practices because they can't comply with this avalanche of rules and regulations," said Turner. "We're seeing young people having an ever more difficult time getting that first job to get their foot on the ladder, because the employer mandate has had such a huge dampening effect on job creation in this country," she said. And then there are the costs. "We're seeing families paying ever higher pricesfor health insurance that has many more benefits than they want and often less access to physicians and hospitals that they want. They have not saved $2,500 a year. It has not met its target, even its reduced target, in access to health insurance," said Turner. "So I don't know where he's getting his numbers but it is not based upon the actual facts of what's happening as a result of this law," she said. Contrary to promises that the law would lower health care premiums, Turner the average person enrolling on the federal exchange in 2013 witnessed a 40 percent spike in rates. As a result, she says focus groups of Americans of all political stripes demonstrate great anger and frustration over the hit to their wallets. "Half of them voted for President Obama, half of them voted for Romney in the last election to make sure we have a good mix of swing voters. You can't tell the difference between them when they start talking about this law and how they have been personally harmed by it. The first thing you hear is how expensive their health care is now," said Turner. Turner says the financial toll will only get more burdensome if we continue on the present course. "It's a prescription for health care inflation. You've not increased the supply of doctors and hospitals and in fact hospitals are merging and consolidating. We're learning today that many more rural hospitals are likely to close. You're pumping all this additional taxpayer money into the health sector, it's an absolute prescription for inflation," said Turner. According to Turner, the Obama administration has already made 49 unilateral changes to the law to prevent it from imploding in its infancy. She says a full repeal in Congress will not succeed as long as Obama is president. She says the best near-term hope for major change lies in the Supreme Court's consideration of King v. Burwell. That's the case contending the text of the Affordable Care Act provides for subsidies only through state exchanges and not the federal exchange. Since three-quarters of the states refused to set up exchanges, Turner says a ruling to forbid subsidies through the federal exchange would have a major impact. "Obamacare would basically be invalidated in 37 states if the plaintiffs win in this case. That would provide an opportunity for the Congress to begin to reset the dial, to provide coverage for the people who would otherwise lose it," said Turner. She says the best approach in that scenario is to empower states to take the lead on health coverage. "(People) would have options or health insurance that their states approve but doesn't have to comply with all of the rules and mandates of Obamacare. It gets away from the employer mandate, moves away from the individual mandate. Millions of people would be protected from Obamacare's onerous rules and requirements," said Turner. Turner says a win at the Supreme Court will provide a critical opportunity for congressional Republicans to chart a better course while showing concern for people in need of quality, affordable health care. "Members of Congress on both sides, governors, attorneys general, all of them have stepped forward and said, 'Yes, we want to take care of those five to six million people, but we want to do it in a way that gives people more freedom, more choice and really unleashes the opportunity for people to purchase the kind of coverage and insurance they want, without these extraordinarily expensive rules and mandates that Obamacare requires,'" said Turner. |
| 'The News Only Seems to Get Worse and Worse' |
| Fri, 20 Mar 2015 15:29:40 EST Months after the Veterans Administration scandal exploded in the headlines, top officials are still lying and hiding information from Congress and President Obama is actively trying to roll back the freedom of veterans to seek health care outside of the government system. That's the conclusion of Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kans., a member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. Last May, the VA was rocked by reports that veterans were forced to wait months for routine medical appointments and that some officials were doctoring hospital and medical records to cover up the failure to provide care. In response, Veterans Affairs Secretary Gen. Eric Shinseki resigned and Congress approved legislation giving future secretaries more freedom to remove ineffective personnel. Former Procter & Gamble Chairman Robert McDonald was eventually confirmed to succeed Shinseki and lead major reform efforts. Are there signs of improvement? On Monday evening, the House Veterans Affairs Committee grilled VA General Counsel Leigh Bradley over why more than 100 separate requests for information from the committee have gone unanswered for months and why the information that is given is often found to be false. "The news only gets worse and worse," said Huelskamp. According to Associated Press reports on the hearing, committee chairman Jeff Miller, R-Fla., expressed deep frustration with the VA's lack of cooperation on key facts, including wait times for veterans at the Phoenix hospital where the scandal began. "Let there be no mistake or misunderstanding: When this committee requests documents, I expect production to be timely, complete and accurate," said Miller. Huelskamp is particularly incensed at the falsehoods coming out of the VA, including one stated by Secretary McDonald on NBC's "Meet the Press". "They have falsified information and it is not just lying to members of Congress, it's lying to the American people. We even had the secretary about a month ago lie on national television and claim that he had fired sixty employees that made up, falsified, cooked the books on wait times for our vulnerable veterans," said Huelskamp. The real number was nowhere near that high. "He only fired four. There's a big difference between four and sixty, so there's a lack of trust there. But this is, more importantly, a lack of trust between veterans who deserve their care and whether they're getting in on time and whether they're getting the proper care," said Huelskamp. And the congressman says the lies don't stop there. "The VA claimed that at the (Los Angeles) veterans facility, the wait was only four days. We found out later, according to a CNN report, that it's more than 30 days. Who do you believe" Who I believe is the veteran. If the veteran says they've been waiting, that's what happens," said Huelskamp. Huelskamp says when Congress tries to separate fact from fiction, the massive VA bureaucracy grinds investigations to a halt. "We've had, I think, three secretaries of the VA in my four years here. For secretary after secretary and undersecretary after undersecretary, I didn't know that had that many undersecretaries. They always send a new one over and the answer is always, 'We'll get back to you. We'll get that answer to you,'" said Huelskamp. "We have documented where they have lied to the committee, where they have falsified information," he said. If anything good came out of the VA scandal, Huelskamp believes it is the provision within last year's reform bill that allows veterans to access care outside of the government system in order to shorten how long they wait for care. The congressman says expanded choice is working well for veterans and no longer forces many of them to travel hundreds of miles to approved doctors and facilities. He says that change is further proof the less government is involved in our health care, the better that care will be. "That's the best government health care you can get, and what we saw in Phoenix and around the country is that it's been an abysmal failure," said Huelskamp. While the expanded health care choices may be popular with veterans, Huelskamp says the Obama administration is actively trying to eliminate it. "When the administration came in and asked to end the Veterans Choice Program, that sent shock waves through Congress because most Democrats and Republicans agree we need to improve the system and give veterans more choice in their health care," said Huelskamp. "There's a pushback from the administration but the secretary has agreed, maybe not the president but the secretary has agreed veterans deserve to keep their choice," he said. "We're trying to push the VA in a different direction than Obamacare is taking the rest of the healthcare system. I think at the end of the day, the better model is putting Americans in charge of their health care, not Washington, D.C." When will Congress get time answers and the VA operate more efficiently? Huelskamp says a big part of the problem is a massive government bureaucracy that takes a long time to straighten out "There's a culture of non-accountability, a culture of attacks on whistleblowers. That's been going on for decades. It's difficult to change that. That takes years," said Huelskamp, who estimates some 330,000 bureaucrats are involved in VA operations. "I think many of them do a terrific job but it's a system that's set up based on the 1950s and 60s, not 2015. So it is a cultural shift at the VA, but the president has to provide leadership. I fear in the next two years, he will continue to drift away from any commitments to veterans in terms of reforming the system," said Huelskamp. What about Secretary McDonald? Is he the right man to lead this change? "We'll see if the secretary can answer those questions we asked a couple of nights ago. Some of these questions have been outstanding for months, which will give us insight (into) whether they're really making the changes that were promised," said Huelskamp. |
| The Squandered GOP Majority |
| Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:04:04 EST Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., says Republican leaders are wasting historic majorities in Congress by surrendering on critical issues like immigration and driving deep wedges in the party by collaborating more with Democrats than conservatives on key votes. "We are talking about historical vote margins in the House and Senate. Republicans have done better than we have in probably 80-90 years. We have immediately started squandering away that victory," said Huelskamp. Huelskamp says the biggest disappointments are in fully funding what he considers to be President Obama's unconstitutional amnesty and in failing to stop Washington's desire to tax more and spend more. He says the problem started back in December with the "cromnibus" bill, even before the GOP gained control of the U.S. Senate. "Both Speaker John Boehner and soon-to-be Leader Mitch McConnell backed away and seem more intent on working with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi than they are conservatives," said Huelskamp. Most frustrating to Huelskamp is the Republican surrender on blocking money for the president's unilateral action to grant legal status to five million adults in the U.S. illegally. The "cromnibus" bill funded the program through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for just two months, with the stated intention of killing the appropriation once the GOP controlled both the House and Senate. In January, the House passed DHS funding without money for Obama's legalization program. Republicans tried to move that bill through the Senate but Democrats filibustered it. McConnell then relented and allowed for full DHS funding in exchange for a separate vote to strip out the new immigration money. The funding bill passed. Efforts to defund the legalization program failed. After an initial one-week extension for DHS appropriations, the House also fully funded Obama's immigration actions. Huelskamp is appalled. "What we hear again and again is, 'Boy, if we do well in the next election, we'll really fight on some conservative principles.' It's always about the next election, the next battle. What I hear from the American people, particularly conservatives across this country is, 'Stand for something.' Win or lose, they know the difference between trying and failing and not trying at all," said Huelskamp. "So far what I've seen this year is not trying at all," he said. "You have too many insiders, both in the Republican Party and the Democrat Party that are more interested in their future up here than what the American people want." While many Republicans say the fight to stop what most call an unconstitutional amnesty is far from over, Huelskamp says the GOP just rolled over on the best and possibly last chance to really stop the president. "The leadership of the House and Senate Republicans have essentially folded their tents and given up on immigration. There is no more battle. It's now left up to the courts," said Huelskamp. The congressman says depending on the courts just got harder now that the legislative branch gave a firm thumbs up to the immigration program by funding it for the rest of the fiscal year. "We sent a very strong bad message to the courts when the leadership essentially agreed with the president's position and funded it, hoping somehow against hope that the Supreme Court's going to come in and save the day. That didn't work with Obamacare. I hope it works with immigration, but there is no plan for the House or Senate Republicans to challenge this," said Huelskamp, who says Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently told lawmakers not to rely on the courts to stop Obama. "He advised the members, saying, 'Do not expect the Supreme Court to do your constitutional duty.' He said, 'We can't. That's up to you,'" said Huelskamp. Beyond an unwillingness to fight fiercely against the Obama agenda, Huelskamp says when it comes to amnesty there a lot of Republicans who are far more accepting of the idea than they're willing to state publicly. "What I think is the reality is we have plenty of Republicans that said they were against the amnesty but silently hope it prevails and continues ahead. They would much rather the issue go away than to stand on principle," he said. Huelskamp is no stranger to public disputes with Republican leaders in 2013, Boehner stripped Huelskamp and two other critical conservatives of plum committee assignments for not being loyal enough to leadership. After Huelskamp and other conservatives refused to support a three-week or one-week extension of DHS funding as part of Boehner's attempt to force a House-Senate conference on the DHS funding bill, the congressman found himself targeted in ads from a Super PAC affiliated with the House GOP leadership. The ad accused Huelskamp of not being conservative and putting politics ahead of national security. "For a sitting Speaker of the House to use and rely on outside groups to target and attack fellow Republicans is unprecedented. I think that demonstrates the weakness of the speaker and his position," said Huelskamp. Huelskamp believes current leaders still have a 1990s mentality towards conducting business, but he says there are far too many crises brewing to shirk the need for strong leadership. "It's a different world. We have $18 trillion of debt. We have our foreign policy in shambles. We have amnesty being forced upon us by the president. We've got out of control executive agencies that are pushing the agenda of the left. The idea that you can negotiate and compromise with this president, I don't think our leadership gets that," said Huelskamp. |
| 'A Stinging Political Defeat for the President' |
| Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:53:28 EST Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party scored a surprisingly comfortable win in Tuesday's parliamentary elections, and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton says the vote was a "stinging defeat" for President Obama that will make Iran far more nervous and probably lead to more appeasement from the U.S. in nuclear negotiations. Most polls prior to Tuesday's elections suggested momentum was moving away from Netanyahu and Likud. When early reports suggested high turnout among Arab voters, the outlook seemed even more bleak for the prime minister. However, it became clear fairly early in the vote counting that Likud would win. The party scored 30 seats and is poised not only to form a coalition government without much trouble but it will likely be even more conservative than the current government. The results also follow Obama political operative Jeremy Bird and his team working to defeat Netanyahu. Members of Congress are investigating whether taxpayer funds were used in the efforts. Either way, Bolton says there is no way to spin the elections as anything other than a crushing defeat for the Obama administration. "It's a stinging political defeat for the president and those who wanted to get rid of Netanyahu. They were making the mistake of counting their chickens before they hatched in the run-up to the election and now all of that's changed," said Bolton. Obama also stands out Wednesday as one of few western leaders to not congratulate Netanyahu on Likud's victory. Secretary of State John Kerry conveyed his congratulations instead. Is Obama's personal silence significant? "Yes, I think the president can't stand Bibi Netanyahu . I personally don't think he can stand Israel while we're on the subject. Not congratulating a democratically-elected leader in a close ally of the United States, I just think is amateurish.. It's not professional. It's not presidential. It's just petty," said Bolton. "I think the president ought to get over it and at least send out a tweet," he added. Obama routinely congratulates winners in less friendly nations, including current Iranian President Hassan Rouhani after his victory in 2013. How did Netanyahu and Likud win when all polls at the end predicted the party would come up short? Bolton says one issue dwarfs all others in Israel. "The Israeli people still fundamentally see security issues as the most important that they face as a country and a people," said Bolton. Netanyahu's problem for much of the campaign was that the narrative constantly drifted back to domestic issues, in which his record is far more controversial. "The campaign has been dominated by domestic economic issues and there was a lot of criticism of Netanyahu that he had not carried through on market-oriented reforms that he said in his last campaign would be a priority," said Bolton, who says in the end Israeli voters cared more about the survival of the nation than Netanyahu's broken domestic promises. "When people really thought of the consequences of replacing him, they realized that there just isn't anybody in the Israeli political scene who can do the job that Netanyahu can on these vital security issues," said Bolton. Bolton admits all political parties are adamantly opposed to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, but he says the difference between how Netanyahu and Labor candidate Isaac Herzog would approach the issue is immense. "There'd be a much greater willingness (by Labor) to follow Barack Obama's lead, much closer views on creating a Palestinian State. Therefore, the ability of Barack Obama to pressure a Herzog or (Tzipi) Livni government not to act militarily against Iran would have been overwhelming. Whereas now, I think he has essentially zero influence on Bibi Netanyahu," said Bolton. The threat of military action is the major chip Israel has while Iran and the U.S. negotiate a possible deal over the Iranian nuclear program. Bolton says that fact alone makes the mullahs in Iran very uneasy. "Iran has to worry that a newly re-elected Netanyahu, with a solid win in this election, is on a much firmer base if he decides to use force against the Iranian nuclear weapons program, as Israel has twice before done in its history against nuclear weapons programs in the hands of hostile states," said Bolton. "The most significant outcome is that we're closer to a decision one way or the other, whether Israel's going to use force," he said. Bolton and others warned that a Netanyahu defeat and an emboldened Iran could trigger a nuclear arms race among Arab states terrified of a nuclear Iran. He says that threat is still possible because of the weakness of the Obama administration in confronting Iran. "The weakness Obama has shown over these past several years in his desperate efforts to get a deal with Iran, finally convinced the likes of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey that the United States was simply not going to do anything effective to stop Iran," said Bolton. "The act of negotiation itself helped convince the Saudis and others that they had to look out for their own interests. I think the negotiations and the possible deal have actually accelerated the nuclear arms race in the Middle East," he said. March features three critical moments in the debate over Iranian nukes. Netanyahu's speech to Congress and his successful elections are now in the past. Still to come is the negotiating deadline between the U.S. and Iran over a nuclear deal. Bolton says he has a pretty good idea how that will play out in the next couple of weeks. "This will just be an agreement in principle according to the schedule that was laid out last year. I think it's also possible the administration is so desperate for a deal, that if we get to the end of March and they're not in sight of it, they will nonetheless say we're going to keep negotiating because we're getting close," said Bolton, who says that would a terrible sign. "That's the sign of somebody who's just willing to make more concessions. I think that's exactly how Iran will read it," said Bolton. |
| Is Senate Ready to Reject Lynch? |
| Tue, 17 Mar 2015 16:22:22 EST Former Justice Department Official Hans von Spakovsky says Senate Republicans are finally realizing Loretta Lynch is an unacceptable choice to become the next attorney general, but he isn't sure enough of them will oppose her to prevent her from getting the job. Lynch, who is currently a federal prosecutor in New York, received generally positive comments from Republicans when she was nominated to replace Eric Holder late last year. Even after confirmation hearings in which she vigorously defended President Obama's unilateral action on immigration, there seemed to be a general consensus that she would be confirmed. Now, more than two weeks after the Lynch nomination cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee, the vast majority of Republican senators say they will vote against her. By some head counts, only four Republicans still support her, the bare minimum needed to get confirmed. The four Republicans plus 46 Democrats would give Lynch 50 votes and Vice President Joe Biden would then break the tie. Why are Republicans increasingly sour on Lynch? Von Spakovsky says her testimony is not wearing well over time. "The senators have had a chance to really think more carefully about what she said and how dangerous it is to have an attorney general who's unwilling to tell the president when he is going beyond the authority he's got under the law and under the Constitution," said von Spakovsky. Von Spakovsky served as counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights during the early days of the George W. Bush administration. He also served on the Federal Elections Commission. Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., were the three members of the majority to back her in committee. Von Spakovsky is not optimistic that any of them will join the opposition. "I think they've come out the way they have because they have this general view that a president has the ability to pick his nominees. But he doesn't have the ability to pick nominees who aren't going to enforce the law and abide by the rule of law. Frankly, the non-answers she gave indicate that she's going to be just like Eric Holder in helping the president bend, break and change the law whenever he wants to," said von Spakovsky. Sen. Graham said he is supporting Lynch mainly to get someone else in charge at the Justice Department and end the tenure of Holder. While he agrees with part of that logic, von Spakovsky says that rationale alone is not enough to overshadow the problems with Lynch. "I certainly agree it's time for a change but I don't think it's time for a change and putting someone in who is basically going to put in a version of Holder 2.0. I think they ought to instead push the president to instead put someone ethical and professional in who actually believes in the rule of law," said von Spakovsky, who admits Obama is unlikely to nominate anyone palatable to most conservatives. "That's what any reasonable president would do. I'm not sure he will because he seems to have decided to spend his last two years being as confrontational as possible with Congress as opposed to trying to work with them," said von Spakovsky. This week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced there would be no vote on the Lynch nomination so long as Democrats continue to hold up legislation to combat human trafficking. Democrats refuse because of language in the bill banning taxpayer-funded abortions. Is this a shrewd move by McConnell or is he just playing politics? Von Spakovsky thinks the strategy is fully justified. "I think that is a fair parliamentary tactic and I think it is something that is the right thing to do here, where the argument they're having over this debate is Democrats voting against language they previously voted to approve. That in itself seems unfair and inequitable," said von Spakovsky. |
| GOP Senators Growing Government? |
| Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:29:59 EST Two Republican senators are looking to increase government spending on various energy programs, but conservatives accuse them of stifling the free market's efforts to address energy concerns and effectively helping President Obama pass his climate change agenda. In a recent piece for Conservative Review, FreedomWorks Senior Fellow Tom Borelli highlights the efforts of Senators Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, to increase funding for the Department of Energy through the current appropriations process. Alexander is focused on federal assistance to develop more nuclear power, which Borelli says is now at a competitive disadvantage as a result of plunging natural gas prices. "This is not anything new for Mr. Alexander. A while back, he promoted a Republican plan to build something like a hundred nuclear plants and also to increase electric vehicles and double federal energy research. So it seems like the big government playbook is back for Mr. Alexander," said Borelli. According to Borelli's reporting, Sen. Murkowski's energy priorities include more money for the Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy and for the department's loan guarantee program. Borelli says her position doesn't come as a surprise either. "Lisa Murkowski, back in 2013 she had something called "Energy 20/20: A Vision for America's Energy Future," he said. "What she wanted to do was grow the energy research budget." Borelli says the actions of Alexander and Murkowski present another headache for GOP leaders already feeling the frustration of conservatives. "It's big government out of control. It's been disappointing so far with conservatives in terms of stopping Obama's agenda. It's one thing not to be able to stop the agenda, but to flip around and try to support part of President Obama's climate change agenda," said Borelli, who says letting the government pick winners and losers fails to learn one of the key lessons from Obama's first term. "The Department of Energy, as we know, led to spectacular clean energy failures like Solyndra," said Borelli. But if conservatives claim to champion the "all the above" approach to increasing the domestic energy supply, why are the actions of Alexander and Murkowski being panned? Borelli says it's not about the goal but about how the goal is achieved. "It should be done in the free market, not on the taxpayer's dime. As we've seen with Solyndra and other companies that went bankrupt with respect to Department of Energy funds, it's money that sometimes gets steered to political backers," said Borelli. "Their ideas couldn't cut it in the free market to get venture capital support, but you can always get money through government because it's a very loose system as we've seen in the past." "What we'd be for is all of the energy, but let it be done in the free market," added Borelli, who says there is plenty of action in the private sector towards developing diverse sources of energy. "There's plenty of venture capital firms out there who would be willing to take a risk on energy research. The problem is when you have government money going in to support energy it crowds out the venture capitalists. Let the venture capitalists take the risk, not the U.S. taxpayer," he said. While the appropriations process will play out over a matter of months, will Alexander and Murkowski get the extra spending on energy they want even though Republicans control the Congress now? "That's a good question and that's why conservatives need to pay attention and listen to good shows like yours and get on the phone and get engaged in social media to stop these kind of ideas," said Borelli. |
| 'There's A Bulldozer in the Lane of Religious Liberty' |
| Mon, 16 Mar 2015 16:30:52 EST Former college and pro football star Craig James is standing behind his comments that Satan is using the pressure to endorse same-sex marriage to silence and intimidate Christian believers from speaking out for their values. James drew attention for his comments after his former NFL team, the New England Patriots, signed onto a brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. Speaking on the radio with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, James said this rising tide of intolerance could make life very uncomfortable for Christian athletes. "If I were a current player in that locker room and my livelihood depended on me being quiet or losing it because of my belief system, I worry, I wonder. So, that 19s Satan working on us," James said. Asked exactly what he meant by that, James says the media frenzy occurred because his words were misunderstood. "If the person had really listened to the interview, who started this controversy, you would hear in there that I was talking about believers and specifically about me as I get fear and there's pause in my heart before I go out and speak and about my belief and believing in natural marriage. That's Satan working on me, on us as believers when we get pause and concern in their heart. So very, very much misrepresented," he said. James, who was half of the famed Pony Express backfield at Southern Methodist University in the 1980s, says locker room cohesion is critical and to have a team publicly endorse a position contrary to a player's beliefs makes for a difficult work environment. "A locker room is made up of a lot of different belief systems. Some believe. Others don't believe. Others are in the middle. Black, white brown, we're all over the map. Yet we all come together under one cause. My concern is that these pro organizations are going to begin to sort of censor or restrict and limit and shut down the belief systems of their players," said James. This is not some theoretical issue to James. He says we already saw the intolerance playing out last spring during the NFL draft. That's when Michael Sam became the first openly gay player to be drafted into the NFL. His public display of affection with his partner bothered a Miami Dolphins player. "He was suspended and sent to counseling for how he should think and what he should say. That's censorship and I'm totally against that," said James. So what does James want? "Here's what I really am fighting for: the freedom for me to continue to believe as I believe, for every player in that locker room who has a belief system to not fear for having that belief system and to feel like they've got to be quiet about it and sheltered," he said. Even before a possible Supreme Court decision to legalize gay marriage, James says there has been a dangerous erosion in the freedom to express one's firmly-held beliefs. "This two-way street that we've had forever of the first amendment, right now there's a bulldozer over in the lane of religious freedom trying to shut us down. We cannot accept that. I'm not going to accept that. I'm not telling anyone else what they have to believe. Don't tell me what I have to believe," said James. If the court rules against his position, James says the fight will still go on. We're going to fight this thing hard. I will not accept it. You cannot tell me that I have to accept something that is non-biblical. I'm not going to do it," said James. What he would most like to see now is for more believers to find the courage to speak up. "I just don't think there's enough people standing up and being heard who really have thought through the ramifications of being silenced and the slippery slope that that's on," said James. Like many traditional marriage advocates, James has received plenty of public scorn for his comments. He says being the target of such vitriol has actually been good for deepening his faith. "Don't miss an opportunity when God puts a storm in your life to grow closer to Him. I cherish the last 4-5 years of trials and tribulations in my life . I've taken the route that says I want to grow closer to God and what He wants from me in His Word. That's stability. Me trying to please the world, I have found, is a reckless, tireless event," he said. |
| The Impossible Watch |
| Fri, 13 Mar 2015 16:49:17 EST Elaina Newport of the Capitol Steps talks with us about the Hillary Clinton email scandal and Apple's fancy new watches. |
| How Alabama Could Impact Supremes on Marriage |
| Thu, 12 Mar 2015 15:30:37 EST Alabama stands as the only state to reject a federal court ruling on its definition of marriage, but an advocate of traditional marriage says what's happening in that state ought to give the Supreme Court pause before issuing any sweeping rulings on the issue. In 2013, the high court ruled the federal government cannot deny benefits to same-sex couple who are legally married in the states where they live in the case of Windsor v. United States. Federal judges around the country have used that decision to declare traditional marriage amendments and laws in many states to be unconstitutional. No state refused to comply until Alabama's supreme court ordered probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Family Research Council Senior Fellow Peter Sprigg says the actions ought to convince the Supreme Court to tread lightly when it considers whether states have the right to define marriage only as the union of one man and one woman. "I would hope that that lesson would be one more thing that would chasten the Supreme Court a bit and make them reluctant to overturn not just the laws but the constitutions of a majority of U.S. states on the issue of marriage," said Sprigg, a defender of traditional marriage. With Alabama as precedent, Sprigg says the Supreme Court may be in for a big surprise if it legalizes same-sex marriage nationwide and expects states to fall in line. "I think what is happening in Alabama shows that the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, should not necessarily operate on the expectation, that everyone on the state level will simply roll over and play dead because a federal court expresses its opinion on this issue," said Sprigg. "There are limits to how much the courts can impose their will simply by virtue of their prestige and so forth when they're clearly going beyond anything found in the text of the Constitution," he said. But is the Alabama Supreme Court operating within its powers or is it going rogue? Sprigg says most people assume any federal court trumps a state supreme court, but that's not the case. "They both have an independent authority to interpret the federal constitution. It is not as though because the federal district court is a federal court, that its interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is considered inherently superior to the Alabama state courts," said Sprigg. Another problem for same-sex marriage supporters is how they challenged the law in Alabama. They sued the state attorney general but Sprigg says marriage is under the purview of the judicial system. "In Alabama, that responsibility is delegated to the probate judges. Probate judges are not officers of the executive branch, like the attorney general. They are officers of the judicial branch and they are under the immediate supervision of the Alabama Supreme Court," said Sprigg. "So the Alabama Supreme Court, based on its own interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and based on its own authority to supervise the probate judges, has ordered them not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples," he said. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges on April 28. The case centers not only on whether states can craft their own definitions of marriage but whether they must recognize same-sex marriage legally performed in other states. Sprigg not only contends the Constitution is on the side of traditional marriage advocates. He says legal precedent is as well, despite the flurry of lower court rulings in favor of same-sex marriage. "I think people who believe that the Windsor case is going to dictate the outcome of this case are mostly people who haven't actually read the Windsor decision," said Sprigg. "That decision was premised on the assertion of the court that the Defense of Marriage Act constituted an unconstitutional federal interference with state definitions of marriage." Sprigg says while that rationale worked against traditional marriage supporters two years ago, it now helps make their case that states can define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. "If that same principle is applied in the current case, that the federal government has an obligation to respect states' definitions of marriage, then this time it would mean that the federal government, in this case the Supreme Court, has to respect states that have chosen to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman," said Sprigg. Federal judges have not cited that language in their decisions. Sprigg admits Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion also provides some ammunition to same-sex marriage backers in this and other cases. "Justice Kennedy's opinion did include some rather sweeping language about the dignity and respect that should be afforded to same-sex couples who are married according to the laws of the state and the harm to their children of denying them that recognition and so forth. That's the language of Windsor that the other side chooses to refer to instead," said Sprigg. Sprigg says there's a simple reason why that language should not matter as much in the current case as the right of states to define marriage for themselves. "It's not a legal, constitutional finding. It's more an expression of personal opinion. I'm hopeful, and perhaps it's naive for a conservative to be hopeful of this, but I'm still hopeful that the court will show respect for the text of the Constitution and for its own substantive prior precedents and uphold the states' powers to define marriage," said Sprigg. The vast majority of court watchers expect the June decision to legalize gay marriage in at least the four states involved in Obergefell v. Hodges if not the entire nation. In addition to the string of court wins for same-sex marriage advocates, there are four reliable liberal justices on the court and Justice Kennedy has consistently written opinions that advance the cause. Sprigg says Kennedy is key but he might not be the only hope for traditional marriage forces to find five justices to side with their arguments. "I'm not ruling out the possibility that one of those who is considered more liberal might actually exercise some judicial restraint on this and come our way. But I think most of the money is on Justice Kennedy being the deciding vote," said Sprigg, who dismisses speculation that Chief Justice John Roberts might also side with the liberals in this case. |
| Will U.S. Submit to 'Climate Justice Tribunal'? |
| Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:59:22 EST While Washington focuses on whether President Obama will sign on to a nuclear agreement with Iran without submitting the deal for Senate approval, the administration is following a similar strategy on a global climate change policy that could leave the U.S. beholden to an International Climate Justice Tribunal. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) recently released the negotiating language for the agreement to the public. The official purpose of pursuing a "universal climate agreement" is to renew the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 deal championed by then-Vice President Al Gore but resoundingly condemned by the U.S. Senate. President George W. Bush eventually cut all U.S. ties to Kyoto. Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Chris Horner, who raised alarm about the proposed tribunal in Sunday's edition of The Washington Times, says that provision is ominous for the United States. "What is climate justice? This is troubling for several reasons," said Horner, who says his first concern is President Obama attempting an end run around the Senate's role in ratifying any international treatied. "The Senate has an advisory and a confirmation role in international agreements. Whatever comes out of these Kyoto II talks, the president said, 'It's not a treaty, so I don't need to go through the Senate.' But now we see this draft that has a court. That's a problem," said Horner. The first problem, he says, is that the U.S. has always vigorously resisted being subject to any international court, despite the best efforts of the political left. "You know about the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). That was a global environmental treaty as well as a wealth transfer. It had a court as well and that was a major reason the United States never ratified it. The first thing Ronald Reagan did was push that aside. Bill Clinton later signed it but we've never ratified it because it had a court. It was Kyoto with a court," said Horner. Horner says it's also a problem in part because this tribunal will mainly be looking to punish one country - the United States. "Now we actually have a Kyoto court and the president saying ratification has proven to be a problem. We've seen that when our system causes him obstacles, he decides he doesn't have any use for our system. Now we see there's going to be, in a treaty, a climate justice tribunal, which I assure you has one country in mind and it will not be stacked with the Antonin Scalia's of the world," said Horner, who elaborated more on what the tribunal would likely be about. "It will be stacked with people who style themselves as climate jurists seeking climate justice, which as we've seen in recent years, means pretty much any grievance there is, climate is an excuse to force a wealth transfer to remedy it," he said. Why would the United States have any interest in joining an agreement that largely targets it for climate violations or makes us subject to a legal entity outside of our own judicial system? Horner says it's part ideology and partly driven by policy. First, he says there are many leaders and activists on the political left in America and around the world who don't like our system. "There are a lot of people, including the head of the UNFCCC, which is the UN body running this and some academics and some authors who have come out saying, 'Look, capitalism is the problem. This is how we solve the problem. This is how we solve capitalism.' There are a lot of people who believe that, including some in the administration," said Horner, who says the climate change movement has had the U.S. economy in its cross hairs from day one. "It was transparently all about us when [Kyoto] was drafted in the '90s. When Asia happened and all this development occurred, thank goodness, and their emissions began skyrocketing while ours did not, it remained about us. Now that's odd if it really was about greenhouse gas emissions," said Horner. "Now that they're putting in a court and claiming they're going to go around the U.S. Senate, you need to be very concerned because these climate jurists will not be those who have our best interests at heart," he said. Horner says another major motivation for Obama to get involved in this climate agreement i to help lock his own environmental policies in place. "He's trying to make sure that his EPA rules are too politically hot-buttoned that his successor will not touch them and undo them. Congress will not undo them and the courts will be reluctant to undo them," said Horner. Does the Senate have a way to stop this if the agreement is never presented for ratification? Horner says there is and it means following the strategy we've seen Senate Republicans already take this week on Iran. "They need to make the same statement, either in a letter or perhaps through a Sense of the Senate Resolution saying that anything he does that purports to bind us in Paris on climate is freelancing. Do not think this is a treaty because we don't," said Horner. Horner cited a Sense of the Senate Resolution passed unanimously in the 1990s to denounce the Kyoto Protocol before it was even adopted at the conference. As a result, the Clinton administration never submitted the plan for ratification and the U.S. was never bound by it. He admits the Senate can no longer get a unanimous vote on this issue but he says you don't need that many when two-thirds of the Senate would be required to approve it. "Fifty-one votes is plenty. To be honest, 34 votes is plenty. You have to put the world on notice, because of something called customary international law which our courts sometimes bow to, that whatever happens is not a treaty if it doesn't go through the Senate," he said. |
| Military Rules Blocking U.S. Air Power from Decimating ISIS |
| Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:53:30 EST U.S. air power is making progress but not achieving nearly as much as it could in the battle against the Islamic State because American pilots or forced to go through a long bureaucratic chain before receiving permission to attack obvious targets such as convoys and atrocities being committed in real time. Rules of engagement have long been a point of frustration in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the restrictions placed on pilots are getting renewed attention following a Sunday blog post by retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Rick Francona, a former intelligence officer who is now a commentator for CNN. In the post, Francona quotes a pilot using the pseudonym of "Chris." "The level of centralized execution, bureaucracy and politics is appalling. Pilots have no decision making authority in the cockpit. Unless a general can look at a video from an ISR sensor, we cannot get authority to engage. I've spent hours watching a screen in my cockpit as ISIS commits atrocities, but I cannot do anything. The fear of making a mistake is now the hallmark of American military leadership," said the pilot. Retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula says that analysis is spot on. Deptula served 35 years in uniform and held command positions in Operation Northern Watch in Iraq in the late 1990s. He also played key roles in orchestrating the air campaign against the Taliban in 2001 and spearheaded the response to the devastating South Asian tsunami. When it comes to the fight against the Islamic State, Deptula says our air campaign is having noticeable results but it's only a fraction of what is possible. "While what's going on has been very very effective and air power has halted the further movement of ISIL, we could be so much more effective is we actually put together a coherent, comprehensive air campaign," said Deptula. The first problem, he says, is the limited amount of activity in the air campaign. "We have to apply air power like a thunderstorm, not like a drizzle. So far, we've been applying it like a drizzle," he said. Deptula says the difference between the air campaign in the Gulf War versus the current operation could not be more different. In the 43 days of Operation Desert Storm, he says there were 1,100 attack sorties and a total of 3,000 air sorties per day. "The average since the 22nd of September of 2014 in Syria has been less than a handful, on the order of 5-10 strike sorties a day. To date, we've accomplished about 2,700 attacks since September. If you put that in Desert Storm terms, that's about two days worth of attacks," said Deptula. While the circumstances may be different between the two conflicts, so is the mindset of U.S. military planners. Deptula says American leaders are terrified of making a mistake. "There appears to be a disproportionate focus on the objectives being to completely avoid any collateral damage to the exclusion of inflicting the greatest amount of impact on the adversary," said Deptula. The main frustration for pilots is that while they are authorized to carry out their pre-planned missions, they are not permitted to exercise their own judgment if they spot an enemy convoy or even witness the Islamic State committing barbaric acts against innocent victims. Just as "Chris" noted in Col. Francona's blog, Deptula says there is a maddening and time consuming chain of command that pilots must follow. "That pilot has to make a request to a tactical operations center, who then has to approve or discern that there are no possibilities for collateral damage or friendly fire in the area. Then they have to pass that request to higher headquarters, who then has to sign off on it," said Deptula. Deptula says the bureaucracy sometimes goes further than that and opportunities to attack are frequently squandered. "In some cases, depending on if you're in Syria or in Iraq, then there are other officers from other nations that get involved in the approval process. So just from what I've been telling you, you can see we're not talking about a matter of seconds or minutes. In some cases it may be as long as hours or it may not happen at all," he said. When it comes to civilian casualties, Deptula says there is often confusion about whether laws or the military's rules are at issue He says the facts are quite clear. "The laws of international armed conflict understand that warfare is ugly and that casualties will occur. But there's a big difference between causality of casualties and the responsibility for who accomplishes that," said Deptula. The general says if civilians die because they're used as human shields by the Islamic State, the responsibility for the deaths belongs with the enemy. "There is this misplaced concern about creating negative impressions in the media that can be used against those who are actually applying force," said Deptula. "The sad part of all of this is that adversaries like ISIL, if they are co-mingling with civilians, in accordance with the laws of modern conflict, they are the ones responsible for any casualties, not those applying the force in a legal fashion against the adversary," he added. Deptula says the effort to avoid civilian casualties at any cost actually winds up getting more people killed. "If we get over-consumed with casualties and collateral damage avoidance, that is going to lengthen the campaign and ultimately increase overall civilian casualties. The best way to minimize casualties is to conduct a swift, rapid and focused operation to eliminate ISIL," said Deptula. For Deptula, the solution is simple: trust the pilots. "You need to delegate execution authority and engagement authority to the individual who has the greatest situational awareness at the time, and that's the pilot who can clearly see and discern what is going on," said Deptula. This is not just military theory for Deptula. He says that strategy was very effective while he served as Joint Task Force Commander during Operation Northern Watch, a mission enforcing no-fly zones in Iraq in 1998 and 1999. "Instead of having my pilots have to ask, 'Mother, may I?' for engagement authority, I delegated to them engagement authority based within the context of the pre-brief rules and the degree of certainty of what they were engaging," said Deptula. How much of a difference would we see in the fight against the Islamic State if pilots had engagement authority? Deptula says it would be instant and obvious. "You'd see the difference immediately and it'd make a big difference, because now you're not missing valid, legitimate and timely targets that have been missed because of an excessive vetting process and an oversubscription to a focus on casualty avoidance as opposed to mission accomplishment," said Deptula. |
| Pro-Lifers Set to Storm Boehner's Office |
| Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:27:36 EST Pro-life activist Jill Stanek is joining with the Christian Defense Coalition later this month to stage a sit-in on Capitol Hill over lack of action on a late-term abortion ban that was supposed to be passed in January. The sit-in is scheduled for 11.a.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 25 outside the office of House Speaker John Boehner. At issue is the GOP leadership's handling of the "Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act", which bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy but includes exceptions for victims of rape and incest. Stanek, a former nurse, rose to national prominence after confronting then-Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama over his opposition to legislation that would require medical personnel to take every measure possible to save the life of a baby born alive after an attempted abortion. She says personal experience drove her to speak up then and it drives her now. "I, as a nurse at a hospital in Chicago, held an abortion survivor for 45 minutes until he died and he was 21 weeks old. An abortion ban such as this would save babies like I held. This is very real to me. I have actually seen and held the babies that the House is just playing around with willy-nilly right now," said Stanek. The bill was supposed to be voted on January 22 in conjunction with the anniversary of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision to legalize abortion and while Washington was filled with pro-life activists for the annual March for Life. Stanek says the concept is very simple. "It is a ban on abortion past 20 weeks. It is known that by 20 weeks, and probably before, children feel pain. When they are aborted at 20 weeks, they are literally drawn and quartered. They're just ripped apart, limb by limb. So this ban would make it a federal offense [and] ban abortions past 20 weeks," she said. But the bill, which sailed through the House with a smaller Republican majority in the previous Congress, never received a vote. "Inexplicably, inexcusably, the House leadership scuttled the bill at the last minute, reneged on their promise to pro-lifers. When we protest on March 25, it will have been two months. We've been patient, more than measured in our response, more than muted. I, among others, am just not going to stand for this anymore," said Stanek. The sticking point in the legislation centered on the exception for rape and incest victims, who would be required to provide a police report of the crime before receiving an abortion. Stanek thinks the exception is a bad idea altogether. "There should have never been a rape-incest exception to begin with. We're talking about five months along in pregnancy. Certainly by that time, mothers should know that they're pregnant. And certainly, babies, even if they're conceived in rape or incest, are innocent victims too and shouldn't be put to death," said Stanek. Stanek says the provision exists because Republicans have suffered public relations headaches from multiple candidates fumbling the issue of rape and abortion and want to avoid the problem going forward. Speaker Boehner and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-California, tapped Republican women to be the face of this legislation, but it was ultimately two GOP women who forced the bill back on the shelf. Reps. Renee Ellmers, R-NC, and Jackie Walorski, R-Ind., made it clear at the GOP retreat before the vote that they had problems forcing victims of crime to bring a police report with them to get an abortion. Stanek says if you're going to have the exception, not requiring women to present a police report would make the law virtually meaningless. "Late-term abortions aren't good for women to begin with, but taking out this reporting requirement would just give a huge loophole to abortionists to check that box every time a woman came in for a late-term abortion and say she's been raped," said Stanek, who says the reporting requirement also makes women safer. "Making women report their crime to police protects other women from being victimized by these sexual perpetrators and protects the very women themselves against these perpetrators from violating them again," she said. "Some of these women are victims of incest and girls are victims of incest. If they don't have to report the crime, then the evidence is covered up, literally killed when the abortion is committed." Despite the eleventh-hour controversy, Stanek says leadership could have pushed the bill through the House. "The bill never should have been sidelined. They didn't even take a headcount to see if they had the votes. They had the votes. At the last moment, the chief opponent, Renee Ellmers, said she would vote for the bill, but they just chickened out and they took advantage of the pro-life movement," said Stanek. "They don't take us seriously. They don't respect us or fear us," she added. Pro-life dissatisfaction swelled after the bill was pulled. In response, the House passed legislation to ban taxpayer funding of abortions that same day. Many members also promised that the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act would be revived shortly. Stanek says there has been neither noticeable progress toward fulfilling that promise nor any explanations for why it hasn't happened. "There have been no excuses made. They did promise to bring the bill up right away and they haven't. That is precisely the reason that after two months of waiting, we are going to Washington, D.C., and we are going to force them to address this," she said. The protest does carry some legal risks for participants but Stanek believes the cause is worth it. "It's going to be a sit-in. We're going to risk arrest, but this form of civil disobedience is nothing compared to what is happening to these children every day," said Stanek. |
| 'The Party's Making a Huge Mistake' |
| Fri, 6 Mar 2015 15:43:48 EST Former California Democratic Party Chairman Bill Press says the growing email controversy surrounding Hillary Clinton should convince members of his party that an uncontested coronation of Clinton as the party's 2016 nominee is a very risky idea and encourage other Democratic White House to throw their hats in the ring. Press is now a widely-read columnist and television commentator, who wrote about his concern over the Democrats essentially stepping aside for Clinton in his latest column. He's been stunned by the number of Democrats content to allow Clinton a virtually contested path to the nomination. "It dismays me as a former party chair of California, as an active Democrat all my life that we're hearing, 'Well, nobody should challenge Hillary Clinton because she is the most experienced person we've got. She's the best candidate we've got. She has such a powerful political machine. She can't possibly lose, so everybody else just get out of the way and hand her the nomination,'" said Press, who says this is a rerun of a failed strategy. "That's exactly what we heard in 2008 and we know how that worked out. I think the party's making a huge mistake in not recruiting other people to run. A healthy, contested primary would be good for Hillary. It would be good for the other candidates. It would be good for the party," he said. How did the party come to a consensus on Hillary as the nominee without even a campaign? Press says there are several factors at work. "There's a certain group of Democrats for whom the Clintons can do no wrong. I think people's memories are short and then there's all this media frenzy and attention to Hillary that some people forget there are other very experienced and talented and qualified Democrats out there. By the way, starting with the Vice President of the United States. Hello? Why isn't anybody talking about Joe (Biden)?" said Press. The issue is taking on more importance for Press in light of recent controversies over Clinton's use of private email on a personal server in her home as secretary of state and the Clinton Foundation accepting donations from foreign governments while she served as the nation's top diplomat. "Let's face it, there may be other shoes to drop, right? And to put all the eggs, if you will, in the Hillary basket is really very foolish from a long term strategy. If she gets to the middle of the summer and other stuff breaks out and nobody else is out there, then the party's left empty-handed," said Press, who believes Clinton's actions were legal but very "sloppy" and "careless." "Nobody has explained why. It's such an unnecessary set of troubles now for her, for the party, for the Obama administration," said Press, who believes the good news is more Democrats will seriously consider a 2016 White House bid because of all this. "I would hope that this scandal over the emails would prompt some people who might have thought of not going for it to take another look at it and to speed up their decision making process, starting with Joe Biden. He has said he's going to make his decision by the end of the summer. I think that'd be a big mistake. I don't think they've got that much time," said Press, who thinks other candidates ought to make up their minds in the next month. In addition to Biden, Press thinks Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) would make solid candidates, along with former Gov. Martin O'Malley (D-MD). Press is quick to add he is not advocating a vigorous primary because he doesn't want Hillary Clinton to be the nominee. "It's not that her time has come and gone. I would not say that, but I don't buy the theory that this is her time, period, and everybody else ought to get out of the way," said Press. In addition to avoiding a coronation and allowing other candidates a chance to run, Press says a competitive primary would make Clinton a tougher nominee in the general election. "The worst thing for her would be to be able to take the summer off and to coast, to go into the general election and stand up on stage in her first debate against Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, I don't care whom, and be rusty, not be tested, not be sharp, not be up to date and up to speed on the issues," said Press. "It's like sending someone to the Metropolitan Opera to walk on stage to sing the lead without going through rehearsals," he added. Press says the email and fundraising controversies of the past couple of weeks are leading many more Democrats besides him to encourage a competitive Democratic primary. "I think there's a growing feeling among Democrats that Hillary needs a challenge in the primary, for the good of the party and her own sake. (It's a) big mistake to have a coronation. I don't think it's ever worked. I can't remember in my lifetime when it's ever worked and I don't think it will work this time either," said Press. |
| New Obamacare Showdown |
| Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:54:09 EST The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a case challenging the legality of Americans receiving health care subsidies through the federal exchange and which could implode President Obama's signature legislation if the court rules against him. Justices heard arguments in King v. Burwell. The petitioners say the law is clear in only allowing Americans to receive subsidies to offset the cost of health care premiums from exchanges "established by the state." Opponents of the law say the language is crystal clear, while defenders say Congress surely intended for patients to have access to subsidies through the federal government if states decided not to create their own exchanges. The issue is critical since just 14 states plus the District of Columbia set up their own exchanges. Gayle Trotter is a lawyer and columnist, who made headlines in 2013 for her passionate defense of gun rights before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Trotter is also a senior fellow with the Independent Women's Forum. She says this should be an easy call for the Supreme Court. "Clearly, the stronger argument is to stick to the black letter of the law. That's why we have laws and the rule of law. We can look at the text of the law. We can all understand it and agree and the language is very clear. The subsidies only occur when the state establishes the health care exchange, not when the federal government establishes a health care exchange," said Trotter. The Obama administration's argument is that by forbidding subsidies through the federal exchange, the court would be sentencing millions of Americans to impossibly high insurance premiums, but Trotter says it doesn't have to be that way. "The citizens in those states should not be forced to have the individual mandate and they should not be entitled to the subsidies because their representatives decided that the costs of Obamacare outweighed the small benefits that the federal government was providing for a limited amount of time," said Trotter. Reports from Wednesday's oral arguments suggested that liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were sympathetic to the administration's arguments, while conservatives Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito seemed likely to back the petitioners in the case. Chief Justice John Roberts, who is normally an active questioner during oral arguments, was noticeably quiet on Wednesday. Trotter says that might have been a deliberate strategy by Roberts after his prominent role in saving Obamacare in his 2012 ruling that determined the individual mandate was constitutional through the power of Congress to levy taxes. "Because of that and the significant pressure that has been put on by all sorts of elite academics and media folks on John Roberts that they think was successful in the first go-around of this Obamacare fight, I think he's holding his cards very close to his chest," she said. Trotter sees this case as a golden opportunity for a do-over for Roberts. In a Washington Times column this week, Trotter likened the second court fight over Obamacare to the flubbed oath of office Roberts rendered to Obama in 2009. She says this is obviously a much more consequential opportunity to right something Roberts clearly got wrong in 2012. "Chief Justice Roberts went against what logic would dictate, what everyone thought he would decide on that case and he upheld Obamacare, torturing the logic behind it to find it a tax," said Trotter. The other justice to watch is Anthony Kennedy. He was an active questioner. Kennedy wanted to know whether states were under the impression there would be a federal exchange available to residents if they elected not to establish an exchange in their own states or whether they assumed people would not have access to subsidies. Trotter says the government tried to appeal to Kennedy's track record on questions like that. "The government's lawyers were certainly trying to make the argument to Justice Kennedy that this was a federalism issue, that the federal government can't use a cudgel to make the states set up these exchanges to basically pass a law and push it on the states. They're trying to play into what they think his judicial philosophy is," said Trotter, who says Kennedy's vote on this case will likely come down to a basic question. "It's really going to come down to whether Justice Kennedy accepts the plaintiff's arguments or if he is subject to this sort of post hoc rationalization by advocates of Obamacare who were trying to use this to force the states to do what they wanted," said Trotter. If the court does strike down the issuing of subsidies from the federal exchange, it could leave the Republican majority in a precarious position. If they somehow salvage subsidies for those currently on the federal exchange, opponents of the law will likely accuse them of saving Obamacare. If they do nothing, Democrats will rail against them for forcing sky-high premiums on millions of people. Trotter doesn't expect it to be that dramatic. "It is an extremely unpopular law, so Americans, and not the elite in Washington, D.C., are going to be happy if Obamacare collapses under it's own weight. They've seen the rising premiums. They've seen the limitations of access to the doctors they want to choose. They've seen the choices they have not been able to make based on the types of health care they previously had," said Trotter. So what should Congress do if the court rules for the petitioners? "Congress needs to come together and come up with the best patient protection type of legislation that increases free market options and makes sure that the power of the doctor-patient relationship is respected," said Trotter. |
| Fighting Obama's Ammo Ban |
| Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:48:41 EST President Obama is now blatantly breaking the law in an effort to ban one of the most popular types of ammunition for the AR-15 semi-automatic weapon and the timing comes just before a massive amount of supply of the bullets is due to arrive in the U.S., according to Gun Owners of America Chief Counsel Michael Hammond. Last month, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Exploves (BAFTE) announced it was planning to fast-track a ban on 5.56mm M855 ammunition through executive action. Hammond says the timing is not a coincidence. "There is a massive backlog of M855 ammunition from NATO, which was about to come onto the American market as a result of the fact NATO is being encouraged to go from lead to copper ammunition," said Hammond. "This action, if it were successful, would [make illegal] the sale and possession of that to individuals in America of this massive backlog, which is coming on line from a government surplus," she said. Obama stayed away from the issue of guns during the 2012 campaign, but a month after his re-election in 2012, a gunman murdered 20 elementary school students and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. The president then called for Congress to take decisive action on the issue of "gun violence." However, even Democrats rejected the effort. "In the Spring of 2013, trying to wave the bloody flag of Newtown, in order to exploit those victims for political purposes and ban this gun. In the end, he was not only not successful, he didn't get a majority vote. He didn't even get 40 votes in a Democratic-controlled Senate for banning the AR-15," said Hammond, who says the new executive action comes as no surprise. "So what does he do? He turns around and says, 'If I can't ban the gun legally through the constitutional process, what I'm going to is ban it illegally by banning the most common ammunition used in it and making that completely unavailable. Furthermore, I'm going to do it in such a way that explicitly contradicts the statute which I'm purportedly using in order to do this," said Hammond. Which statute is that, exactly? Hammond says he worked to defeat 18 U.S. Code § 921 in the 1980s, but he says Section A17 is crystal clear in forbidding the Obama administration's actions. "It says you can ban these bullets only if they're made 'entirely' of tungsten, steel, iron, brass bronze, beryllium, copper, uranium, Guess what? M855 ammunition is, by and large, made mostly of lead. So it doesn't even arguably fall within the definition of the statute they're trying to use to ban it," he said. Hammond says the revolt to this executive action is already underway. "The Second Amendment community is really all fired up on this. We already have a Senate office that's called us and said, 'We want to offer language to ban this Obama action and to defund it on whatever the first appropriate vehicle is. They would have liked to use the DHS appropriations bill, but we will use whatever the first appropriate vehicle is to reverse this unlawful action," said Hammond. After watching Republicans fail to find 60 Senate votes to defund the president's unilateral immigration actions, pro-gun activists may be skeptical that Republicans can block the president through regular order. However, Hammond says there are Democrats who know failing to defend the Second Amendment could cost them their careers. "If I were a Democrat from a red state, I would be looking over my shoulder at what happened in 2014 and saying, 'I don't want to be going into my next election with the Second Amendment community accusing me of authorizing the illegal banning of AR-15s,'" said Hammond. Hammond specifically cited Democrats Harry Reid (Nev.), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Joe Manchin (W. Virg.), Heidi Heitkamp (N. Dakota) and Jon Tester (Mon.) as being inclined to buck the president on this issue. In addition to the legislative fight over guns and background checks in 2013 and the fight brewing over the executive action on M855 ammunition, Hammond says there have been plenty of other battles waged during Obama's second term. He says the biggest fights have been won by pro-gun forces. "They tried to take this requirement that you register multiple sales of firearms with the government, which is currently applicable to four border states. They tried to extend that to all 50 states. We were successful in beating that back," said Hammond. Another major fight centered on federal efforts to dry up the money supply for the gun industry. "They tried to use a program called Operation Chokepoint to convince banks not to do business with gun dealers and gun manufacturers, thereby financially strangling the Second Amendment. We were successful in beating that back," said Hammond. "As a matter of fact, we got a Democratic Senate to tack language onto it's appropriations bill, which says, 'We're defunding the whole program, not just vis á vis guns but vis á vis everyone," he said. There are other challenges unfolding in addition to the effort to ban certain ammunition. Hammond says the next big fight will center on Obamacare and efforts to gather information on gun owners. "The Obama administration is working to use Obamacare in order to encourage doctors to enter into their computerized records who owns a gun and who doesn't own a gun. There is a real feat that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms will begin trolling this data bank to determine who should additionally be added to its gun ban black list," said Hammond. |
| 'This is the Day the Obamanet was Born' |
| Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:09:27 EST Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tennessee, is leading the first legislative effort to roll back the federal government's decision to start regulating the Internet as a utility, calling Thursday's action by the Federal Communications Commission the start of the "Obamanet" and a guarantee of more taxes for Internet consumers. On Thursday, by a party line 3-2 vote, the FCC approved a plan commonly known as net neutrality, but which critics like Blackburn see as unnecessary government intrusion into the private sector. "This is the day the Obamanet was born," said Blackburn, who is vice chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "The Internet is not broken. It does not need the FCC's help and assistance in order to be productive or profitable." Coverage and analysis of the FCC's net neutrality decision has been fairly limited, with both experts and consumers finding the issue very complicated. Blackburn says the impact of this is clear and very significant. "The FCC will now reclassify broadband services from an information service to a telecommunications service. They will do this under a 1930s-era law, the Telecommunications Act. They will thereby subject the Internet to taxes, regulation, international considerations that are now put on our wire-lined phones. So this is a step backward, it is not a step forward," said Blackburn, who stresses that the private market was serving consumers just fine. "It's a sad day when you see the Federal Communications Commission coming in and preceding your Internet service provider, your ISP, in the governance of the Internet. Basically, what you're going to see is the FCC will now be able to assign priority and value to content because they will be in charge of controlling pricing and fees," she said. Blackburn says higher taxes on your Internet bill are not a possibility but a guarantee. And how much more will Americans be paying? "You've got estimates that run from a few billion dollars in additional taxes to as high as $15 billion. So at this point, I think it's 'pick a number', but everybody agrees the cost is going to go up because of taxes and fees," said Blackburn. In short, Blackburn says the government is stepping in to control something that didn't need rescuing. "Whether it is packaging and pricing or the availability of broadband, you now have given the control over this to the FCC to decide what areas of the country get what speeds, what type of businesses get access to what speeds," said Blackburn. "It allows the FCC to now begin picking winners and losers." Blackburn is launching the first piece of legislation aimed at rolling back the FCC plan, joining with Sen. Thom Tillis, R-North Carolina, to repeal a specific provision that trumps their states' laws on broadband service. The FCC upheld petitions from Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Wilson, North Carolina, that would allow their broadband rules to be placed on residents outside their jurisdictions. "Let's say you have County A that goes in and they work with the FCC and they get a grant that helps them stand up a municipal broadband network. Well, they decide, 'We need more customers on this network,' so they go into adjoining counties B,C and D and say, 'We will provide this service for you. What you have then done is to make counties B,C and D subject to the governing body of County A," said Blackburn, noting that county would then have the power to set pricing and speed levels for people who do not live within their borders. Her bill with Sen. Tillis would block that. "The legislation that Sen. Tillis and I filed yesterday would prohibit these municipal broadband networks from going into these other areas and expanding their footprint," she said, while again slamming the federal government for needlessly trying to trump state law. "If they want to do it for their own constituents within their own footprint then fine. But it doesn't take the federal government coming in and pre-empting state law and pre-empting local law to do that. They have no right to do that and they ought not to be doing that," said Blackburn. The net neutrality controversy comes at the same time members of Congress are fiercely debating whether President Obama had the power to unilaterally approve the legalization of five million adults in the U.S. illegally. Blackburn, who calls the FCC a group of "unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats," sees a disturbing pattern. "It is more of this overreach and quite frankly, I think the American people are growing weary of this. They don't think one city ought to be able to override another and get into the broadband business competing with the private sector," she said. While she isn't sure if the Senate will find the votes to pass her bill or others likely to be drafted in response to the FCC, Blackburn says Republicans are ready to fight over her bill and the larger issues at stake. "I think they're pretty fired up and you're going to see us move forward with our legislation. Of course, I've had the bill that would block net neutrality for about three and a half years , so it's time to move it forward now so we can nip this in the bud before they get a chance to put it on the books," said Blackburn. |
| 'It's An Absolute Surrender' |
| Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:04:32 EST Senate Conservatives Fund President Ken Cuccinelli calls the Senate Republicans' decision to push Homeland Security funding that includes money for President Obama's immigration action a "total surrender" that proves GOP leaders "really don't have any backbone." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, decided earlier in the week to stop pushing a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations bill that strictly forbids funding for Obama administration executive action on immigration in 2012 and 2014. With Democrats blocking debate, McConnell agreed to bring a "clean" bill forward in exchange for a Democratic promises to vote on a separate bill to defund Obama's unilateral November action to legalize five million people in the country illegally. The latter bill has virtually no chance of passing. So is this an example of Republicans letting Obama get away with an unconstitutional act or was it the only realistic way to keep our Homeland Security efforts funded? "Oh, it's an absolute surrender and surrender is the primary word that we have been able to associate with the Republican leadership since Election Day. Can you point me to one time they have fought? No, you can't. What did they run on? Fighting. Well, if they had run on what they have been doing just in the last few months, there wouldn't be Republican majorities in the House or Senate," said Cuccinelli, who served as attorney general in Virginia from 2010-2014 and was the GOP nominee for governor in 2013. He says there's an astounding difference between the Republican rhetoric in the 2014 midterm elections and what we're seeing now. "Senate leadership and House leadership by Republicans have failed to deliver what they promised. This is a very basic item. One of the two most important issues of the election, along with Obamacare, was the president's illegal actions on amnesty," said Cuccinelli. In 2014, Republicans campaigned vigorously on the theme that a Republican majority in both the House and Senate would give the party much more power to stop President Obama's agenda. So why didn't it make any difference in this debate? "They really don't have any backbone. If they had principles at any point in their political lives, they don't have them anymore. They've constructed their own view in their head of what everybody thinks of them. What they care about most is people thinking they are nice fellows instead of principled fighters or anything really meaningful. They're scared to death to be painted as mean," said Cuccinelli, who says that GOP mindset is a dream come true for President Obama. "If you're the president, that is awfully easy to deal with and we're watching the president deal very effectively because it is so easy for him. This is very poor negotiation," he said. In addition to believing Republicans constantly cede the high ground to Obama, Cuccinelli is appalled that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, is not only gaining the upper hand on the minority leader but now issuing demands for the House of Representatives to fall in line as well. "Negotiating is a skill and Harry Reid has at least a little bit of that skill, where Mitch McConnell doesn't appear to have any. That little bit of that skill is enough to, frankly, outmaneuver Mitch McConnell. So instead of getting one surrender and calling it a day, Harry Reid is upping for two surrenders. He now also wants the House to surrender. The only way to stop that going forward is to stop surrendering," exclaimed Cuccinelli. Cuccinelli says Republican leaders need to apply a lesson parents learned long ago. "The rules for how to deal with this are very similar to your two-year-old. If you tell them that they can't have candy if they misbehave and they misbehave and you give them candy, what happens? Well, for any of us who have had a two-year-old, we all know what happens," said Cuccinelli, a father of seven. "They haven't done what they said they were going to do. In December, they said, 'In February, we will attach the executive amnesty defunding language to the DHS bill. If you don't do that, it's giving the two-year-old candy when they misbehave," he said, referring to the "cromnibus" strategy. After Obama announced his unilateral action in November, GOP leaders decided to postpone the fight over funding it until they controlled both the House and the Senate. In December, Congress funded the entire government through September 2015, with the exception of Homeland Security. "There's no reason for Republicans to have not defunded executive amnesty in December. They set up the plan to defund here in February on the DHS bill. Remember that. This is their plan. This isn't the conservatives' idea. Conservatives didn't want to do this. Conservatives wanted to defund this in December," said Cuccinelli What approach would Cuccinelli advocate in this debate? He says it's pretty simple actually. "It's not that complicated. The defund language should stay in the DHS bill. You need a must-pass bill. They should pass the bill. If Democrats filibuster it, that's on the Democrats. They should go out and say the Democrats have shut down the Department of Homeland security," said Cuccinelli. "[Republicans] say, 'Oh, but we never win that fight.' Well, good news. Eighty or eighty-five percent of all the personnel in the Department of Homeland Security are labeled necessary folks. So they're not going anywhere," he said. "You're only talking about shutting down 15-20 percent of that department. We're not going to lose border patrol. We're not going to lose protection. All those things are going to continue on, but Democrats are going to have held this up. If you're the House Republicans and you send over a bill that doesn't defund amnesty, you have to reject it" said Cuccinelli. In the end, Cuccinelli says it all comes back to leading with principles and conviction. "They need to stand up and fight for what they campaigned on. What the American people thought they campaigned on was ending executive amnesty and restoring the rule of law," said Cuccinelli. Cuccinelli says the Senate Conservatives Fund does not decide whether to seek conservative challengers to sitting members based on individual votes, but he says this and other votes will be watched very carefully. He also says a senator's entire six years is closely scrutinized since many moderates suddenly vote in more conservatively when their re-election draws near. Regardless of which members are eventually deemed worthy of a challenge, Cuccinelli says the criteria they look for in candidates remains the same. "We're looking for conservative fighters, who don't just want to be in the majority. They want to be helping to lead America in the right direction, and that is back in the direction of first principles of this country here in the 21st century," said Cuccinelli. |
| 'I Know We're Not Serving the American People Properly' |
| Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:37:09 EST As Senate Republicans shift towards passage of a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill that includes full funding of the Obama administration's unilateral plan to legalize five million people in the nation illegally, one the most vocal opponents of the plan says GOP leaders are not only giving Obama exactly what he wants but sending a dangerous message to the rest of the world. In January, the House approved full funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through the end of the fiscal year in September. It did not include funding for the recently announced Obama immigration policy or his unilateral move in 2012 to grant legal status to so-called "dreamers," illegal immigrants who were brought to this country at a very young age. Senate Republicans tried to move the House bill but failed to get a single Democratic senator to join them. As a result, the GOP failed four times to reach the 60-vote threshold to debate or pass the bill. Earlier this week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced he was scrapping that strategy and would instead pass a "clean" DHS appropriations bill that included money for Obama's immigration programs. In addition, the Senate will vote on a separate bill to defund the actions announced by Obama in November. That bill is also unlikely to receive 60 votes. "The more I look at it and the more I hear about it, I just can't support it," said Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Florida. Yoho was the sponsor of a House bill in December that declared the Obama administration's action illegal. That fight also propelled Yoho to challenge House Speaker John Boehner when the 114th Congress convened in January. He says this move makes no logistical sense. "The leverage that we had was we funded DHS like we're supposed to, like we've been sent up here to do the people's business. It went through authorization. It went through appropriations. We funded it at 100 percent. We put blockage in there of any activity by the president to exercise or go forward with his illegal, unconstitutional amnesty that he did on November 20th," said Yoho, who sees McConnell's strategy as surrendering the high ground. "To separate those takes that leverage away and I think it's a huge mistake. We've got the law on our side and for the Senate to not stand up and do what's right, I just think it's wrong. I think there's some other options that they could have done. I know we're not serving the American people properly by doing that," he said. The Senate is already moving forward on the clean funding bill. It cleared it's first procedural hurdle by a vote of 98-2. Only Sens. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, and Jim Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, voted against opening debate, suggesting the votes for passage are there in the Senate. The House vote would be less certain. Yoho says there are a lot of members who share his frustration. "I know there's a lot of consternation over here. There's people that have the same concern I do. There's no leverage to make what the president's doing illegal. I know we have that judge's order, but if they get that rescinded then the president will go on and give green cards to five million people here," said Yoho. But the congressman says that's not even the worst result of Congress giving Obama what he wants. "What's worse is by America's policies, he's created around the globe that America has a global policy of unenforcement on immigration. You can come here any way you want to come here and we're gonna get you a work permit so that you're here legally. They'll start competing with American citizens for jobs and they're here illegally," said Yoho. "Without securing the border and enforcing the laws on the books. This is a terrible way to go forward. It's reckless for this president to do it," he said. With the deadline for funding DHS approaching fast and Senate Republicans clearly unable to find the votes for passage, Yoho says there is another approach Republicans could take besides passing a clean bill. "If they pushed anything, if they're going to do this, I don't like this option but I'd like to see them push blocking the president's executive order from November 20th. Pass that first and have the president sign that and then and then do DHS funding," he said. Just as with previous funding showdowns, Republican leaders say their hands are effectively tied at this point. Even though they say Senate Democrats are the ones holding up funding for DHS, Democrats and the media will likely brand Republicans as obstructionists and the public is likely to believe them. Yoho is ready to call their bluff. "If we get blamed for that like we did last time and we win the largest majority in 90 years, I'll take that kind of blame. The American people are smart enough to figure out who really did what," said Yoho. He says the argument to make for holding their ground would be an easy one. "We stood on the side of the law. We stood on the side of doing what's correct for our country and standing with the Constitution. I don't see how anybody can fault us. I think [voters] spoke loud and clear in November and I think the president and his party are going to have a price to pay if they keep trying to push rules and keep trying to change laws by fiat. You're going to see the American people wake up," said Yoho. If the McConnell approach carries the day and Congress fully funds the president's immigration programs, has Obama effectively won this debate unless the courts strike them down? "No, I don't think he's won this fight. There's other things we can do and all I can tell you is stay tuned and see what we can do to prevent them. This is not the way to fix immigration. If the president truly wants to fix immigration, we've been on the news saying I'd be happy to sit down with him. We've got a four-step process that could fix this if they would come to the table," said Yoho. |
| 'The United States Must Take the Lead' |
| Tue, 24 Feb 2015 16:34:41 EST Former Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Virginia, says the United States must lead decisive action to protect Christians and other religious minorities facing severe persecution in Iraq and that there may only be months left to save the Christian population there from extinction. As reported earlier, Wolf recently led a seven-day trip to Iraq, where he interviewed countless persecuted believers and was told people there don't see any meaningful help coming from the West on their behalf against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. After retiring from Congress in January, Wolf is now the first-ever Wilson Chair in Religious Freedom at Baylor University. He is also co-founder of the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative, which sponsored the trip in to Iraq in January. The group also recently released a report of that visit, entitled "Edge of Extinction." In addition to documenting the horrors of ISIS violence, the report also details six recommendations, starting with the creation of a "Ninevah Plains Province" to protect religious minorities and even establish it's own National Guard-type security force. The report concludes another high priority should be much more active support for the only meaningful resistance to ISIS in much of Iraq. Wolf says decisive action needs to be taken and there's only one logical choice to lead the effort. "The United States must take the lead. Quite frankly, I don't have a lot of confidence in the United Nations. The U.S. must take the lead. Secondly, they must aid the Peshmerga, that's the Kurdish military, because they are the point of the spear against ISIS," said Wolf, who says we need to change how we help the Peshmerga. "When you look at the weapons that the Peshmerga has compared to ISIS, ISIS has sophisticated, American-made weapons that they took from the Iraqi military. The Peshmerga has old, old, old weapons," said Wolf. As a prerequisite for the direct aid to the Peshmerga, another major recommendation of the Wilberforce Initiative report calls for the establishment of a safe zone for displaced Christians and other religious minorities. "One of the conditions for giving them weapons and aiding and training is that they will set aside their so-called Ninevah Plain Protection Unit area and Christians, Yazidis, Turkamen and other religious minorities can stay there. They are working on a national guard that will defend it. But the United States needs to put pressure on the Kurdish government, who I think will do this," said Wolf. While Wolf remains optimistic that the Kurdish government can be convinced to aid persecuted minorities, he's far less confident the actual Iraqi government can be trusted for much of anything. A prime example is Baghdad's insistence that any weapons sent to Kurdish forces must go through the Iraqi government but the Iraqis never actually pass those weapons along to the Peshmerga. Wolf says there's a troubling reason for that. "The Iraqi government, unfortunately, is being taken over by Shia elements. You have a large number of Iranians that are connected to the Iraqi government. If we put pressure on them, because they want our assistance and they want our aid, then I think [cooperation] will happen," said Wolf. For the refugees, survival is the most immediate concern, but Wolf says they also want every reasonable measure taken to save their homes whenever an offensive is launched to root out ISIS from Mosul and other areas of northern Iraq. "They want their houses back. Christians and Yazidis are getting calls from people who are living in their homes, saying 'We're in your home. Now how does this work.' They're concerned the homes are going to be destroyed when the Kurdish government comes back [with] the Iraqi military," said Wolf. With the ISIS onslaught against Iraqi Christians nearing the nine month mark already, Wolf says there isn't mush time for the U.S. and our allies to act. "It's pretty short. I don't think the people will continue to live in the conditions that they're in. I say six months, maybe to a year. There'll always be perhaps a remnant but overall I think you're going to begin to see them dramatically begin to leave," he said. Religious leaders made it clear to Wolf and his team that they cannot stay much longer under current conditions. "We met with the religious leaders. They said they want to stay. The people say they want to stay. The phrase was 'help us to stay,' meaning, 'If you don't help us to stay, we're going to go.' I think within a matter of a year or two, if there's not something fairly dramatically done to come to their assistance, you're going to see them leave in droves," said Wolf. "In three to five years, there'll be almost no Christians left in the region," he said. |
| 'People Don't Know the Danger that is Coming' |
| Tue, 24 Feb 2015 14:53:28 EST Fox News Channel Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano says the Obama administration's efforts to regulate the internet constitute a major infringement upon our freedom of speech but he believes the new plan will get struck down in court for lack of transparency. The five members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are scheduled to vote Thursday on a plan to advance Obama's net neutrality agenda that also allegedly calls for the internet to be treated like a utility. Despite the major changes this plan could well involve, lawmakers and the media have been rather quiet about it. "People don't know the danger that is coming. The danger that is coming is a gaggle of bureaucrats here - three Democrats and two Republicans, the Republicans will probably dissent - claiming they have the power to regulate the internet," said Napolitano. He says Congress has passed no statute authorizing new government controls on the internet and the first amendment clearly states that Congress nor any government agency it created can make no law restricting the freedom of speech. Napolitano admits the the stated goal of net neutrality sounds innocuous when first presented but he says the problem Obama and his allies really have is with the free market. "They claim that the purpose of their regulation is to prevent the internet from affording priority and faster service to certain preferred users. Would we all like to have fast service? Yes. Do we all know how to get fast service? Yes, we do. Might that cost us something? Yes, it might, but at the present time it is free from government regulation," said Napolitano. However, the judge says the public goal of establishing internet fairness will come at a very heavy price. "If the government regulates the internet and tells providers how fast they can move information, we will soon see the government regulating the cost of the internet and we will eventually, just like with broadcast television, see the government regulating the content of the internet," said Napolitano, who described the chain reaction he believes the FCC proposal would trigger. "Right now, the internet is the freest marketplace of ideas and transfers of information that the world has ever known. At least in the United States, it is utterly and totally - there are some minor exceptions - unregulated. Once these federal bureaucrats get their hands on it, give them a couple of years. It'll look like broadcast television, a watered down version of what we now have," he said. Also at work, according to Napolitano, is the federal government's unquenchable thirst for more and more power. "Think about it. You're a commissioner on the FCC. You're regulating telecoms and broadcast TV. Wouldn't you like to regulate cable while you're at it? Wouldn't you like to regulate the internet while you're at it. It's human nature when you have power to want to expand the power. That's why we have a Constitution, to prevent these expansions of power," said Napolitano. One of the greatest frustrations for those concerned about the FCC plan eroding speech rights is that the commissioners will not, and say they cannot, reveal any details of the package until after the vote on Thursday. Napolitano says that tactic is actually a double-edged sword. He says the downside of the secrecy is obvious. "It's bad because the government has an obligation under federal law, when any of its administrative agencies plan on changing their rules and expanding their power or modifying substantially the manner in which they regulate, to publish those rules for 30 days," said Napolitano. And because the FCC is not following the law, it gives opponents fertile ground for an appeal. "The good part is the failure to publish this will invalidate the rules once they're challenged before a federal court. The government is shooting itself in the foot," said Napolitano, who sees this turning into a replay of another fierce court battle involving the administration. "This is the very same thing it did when it attempted to implement President Obama's changes in immigration law and they were enjoined from doing so last Monday by a federal judge in Texas, who said, 'You didn't publish these rules for 30 days, which gives the public the opportunity to comment and, more importantly, Congress the opportunity to modify the rules," said Napolitano. Napolitano says the biggest asset for net neutrality supporters right now is the disinterest of the American people. He says if that changes, the whole debate will change. "This proposal by the president (these are the president's appointees on the FCC) actually has the support of the leadership of both political parties, big government Republicans and big government Democrats. But some of them will have great pause for reconsideration if there is a great national debate on this," said Napolitano. He says fierce debate is exactly what the Democratic majority of commissioners is trying to avoid through their secretive tactics. "That's the reason why the three Democrats on the FCC want to force it through, so there will be no great national debate, because a great national debate will result in the undoing of this," said Napolitano. |
| 'Why Will No One Speak Out for Us?' |
| Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:39:36 EST Former Rep. Frank Wolf, the leading voice for religious freedom in Congress for decades, says Christianity is on the verge of extinction in Iraq and the remaining steadfast believers do not see much effort from the U.S. or other western nations to improve their plight. Wolf served in the House of Representatives from 1981-2015. He is the author of the International Religious Freedom Act, which the International Religious Freedom Office at the State Department and created an Ambassador-at-Large position to promote religious freedom around the world. That post has been vacant for some time. Upon leaving the House, Wolf became the first-ever Wilson Chair in Religious Freedom at Baylor University and co-founded the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative. He co-led a trip to Iraq in January to observe conditions for Christians and other minorities and to speak to people first-hand. The group recently released a report based on that trip entitled "Edge of Extinction: The Eradication of Religious and Ethnic Minorities in Iraq." He says the conclusions of the visit were obvious. "Two things. They're really suffering and they're really facing extinction," said Wolf, who says the people there are mystified at the relative silence in the midst of their suffering, since the Islamic State has very real plans to bring their savagery to the West as well. "The threat ISIS poses is not only to them but to people in the West and, quite frankly, people in the United States. It's kind of a conglomeration. They kept saying, 'Why will no one in the West speak out for us? Does anyone care?' said Wolf. "I think they're running out of confidence that the West will do much about it, because you know it's been going on since it started in June, then in August. Now here we are in February of the next year, so they're not seeing very much assistance," said Wolf. Wolf says that impression is only intensified after events like the beheading of Coptic Christians in Libya and the Obama administration only referred to them as Egyptian citizens. He says instead of reacting to individual atrocities, the U.S. and other western nations need to understand what's really happening. "It is genocide, genocide against Christians and genocide against the Yazidis and other religious minorities," he said. The nightmare for Christians started long before the rise of the Islamic State. Wolf says the the state of Christianity in Iraq now compared to the days before the Iraq War is staggering. "In 2001, there was a million and a half Christians in Iraq. They're down now to 300,000 and I think probably under that number. Some say under 225,000," said Wolf. "The suffering of the people is not just numbers. We interviewed many, many people there that are suffering. They would like to stay, but if something isn't done they are going to leave," Christians who refuse to convert are either killed or forced to live in subhuman conditions. As cold winter conditions hit the region, thousands of people are sleeping in whatever abandoned buildings they can find, often in 12x12 or 15x15 foot sections with just two-inch-thick mattresses as beds and kerosene heaters for warmth. For those allowed to live, there is no opportunity for work or for education. They also have no medical care. "Many of them are doctors and many of them are lawyers. They're educated people, but they don't have any resources," said Wolf, who says the most substantial relief is coming to believers through a Catholic group called the Dominican Sisters as well as Samaritan's Purse, the relief organization headed by evangelist Franklin Graham. All of this is taking place in a region rich in biblical history. "More biblical activity took place in Iraq than any other country in the whole world, other than Israel. Abraham's from Iraq. Rebekah's from Iraq. The twelve tribes of Israel lived in Iraq. Ezekiel is buried in Iraq. Jonah, Ninevah, in fact Jonah's tomb was just blown up in Iraq. Daniel, one of the great men of the Bible, is buried in Iraq," said Wolf. Despite the intense persecution, the report from the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative suggests the faith of embattled believers remains strong. It tells stories of people preferring to die than recant their faith in Christ. Another man lost his wife to cancer after the Islamic State refused to allow her to receive treatment in Mosul because she would not convert to Islam. In the report, the widowed husband shared his wife's last words. "I am going to hold onto the cross of Christ. I refuse to convert. I prefer death. I prefer death to abandoning my religion and my faith," she told him. Wolf says faith of Iraqi Christians is the strongest he's ever seen, but he adds that Christians and other religious minorities there have infinitely less faith in western nations to come to their rescue. "Their faith is strong. Maybe their faith is greater with the persecution than it is in the West where there's a lot more materialism and things like that. I think they're beginning to give up on the west and many are saying, 'Help us stay,' meaning if we don't stay. we're going to leave," said Wolf. "If they leave, we will literally see the end of Christianity in the place where it kind of began. In the cradle of Christendom, there'll be no Christians left and ISIS will have won," he said. |
| Don't Underestimate ISIS |
| Fri, 20 Feb 2015 16:04:31 EST The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, is gobbling up more territory in preparation for striking western nations and a retired U.S. Army Special Forces officer says the U.S. needs to stop underestimating the enemy and start engaging Sunnis in Iraq to stand up and fight for their homeland. Retired Lt. Col. Scott Mann spent 23 years in Special Forces, including 15 years of service as a Green Beret. He saw combat duty in Iraq, Afghanistan and several other spots around the world during his years in uniform. Mann points out that ISIS now controls a land area greater in size than the United Kingdom. He says the U.S. and our allies need to realize ISIS likely presents a greater threat to the West than any other group we've confronted since 9/11. "These guys, in a lot of ways, are a lot more advanced than Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda always talked about re-establishing this caliphate, but I don't think even Bin Laden expected to see it in his lifetime. Whereas ISIS, not only have they established it, the caliphate is part of their legitimacy. So the expansion of this is a very real thing and they're going to keep going," said Mann. After Sunday's video release of the grisly beheadings of 21 Coptic Christians in Libya. reports surfaced this week that ISIS plans to use North Africa as a launching pad for attacks in Europe. Mann believes that is definitely part of the plan. "I fully believe they are looking to expand into Europe and even further, and I do think their activity in Libya and other places indicate that," said Mann. Mann says for all of its horrifying actions, ISIS has been very clear about its intentions and the U.S. and other nations have been slow to take them seriously. "It seems like we keep counting these guys out or we keep missing what we're capable of . The reality is these guys have a very powerful narrative that resonates with a lot people. And they follow an end of days kind of scenario here. They are manufacturing a holy war between Islam and the West and they fully intend to fight it," said Mann. At this week's White House summit on confronting violent extremism, President Obama said the very reason he does not refer to ISIS as being motivated by Islamic extremism is because that's what the radicals want. Mann is of two minds on this debate. First, he says Obama definitely needs to be more clear about who our enemy is. "I do think it is a mistake to not call out the enemy as Islamist violent extremists because they certainly are and they are using medieval Islamism to justify their actions," said Mann, who also says Obama is right not to give ISIS a lot of material to feed its propaganda efforts. "I do think the president is right in cautioning us to not fall into the role of the crusader, who they want us to be. That falls right into their narrative and, frankly, that's how they recruited the shooter in Denmark. It's how they recruit these young girls from the UK, this narrative that Islam is under attack by the West. By trying to 'do something,' we end up playing into that narrative," said Mann. So how will ISIS be most effectively destroyed? Mann says is starts by studying how ISIS has gobbled up so much territory to this point. "They go into a fragile state that is basically exploited by violent extremists in areas that are beyond the reach of that partner government. In Iraq, they go into the marginalized Sunni tribal areas, where those tribes are degraded and beaten down and they co-opt them from the bottom up," said Mann. "So if you strike them from the top down with the Iraqi military whom those Sunnis distrust or whether it's with air strikes, you just drive those extremists deeper into the population, like a tick in a dog," he said. While Mann believes military action is critical to stop and ultimately destroy ISIS, he says the key is for American and other allied advisers to go into the marginalized areas and win over tribal leaders and have them fight back over time. "These extremists have to be taken out. There's no doubt about it. I believe it needs to be done in the context of a broader strategy, where we get into these local areas, these strategic safe havens and we find tribal leaders that are pushing back and resisting and we help them push [ISIS] out of there. I think that's the only way for the long term that we degrade ISIS and other extremists to the point they are irrelevant," said Mann. According to Mann, sending in huge numbers of ground troops to collaborate with the tribal leaders would look like another U.S. occupation. He says sending in the advisers would accomplish the same goal with a much lighter footprint and a much small cost in blood and treasure. He says it's an approach he personally watched succeed in Afghanistan. "In the last few years of the Afghan war, Green Berets did that throughout rural Afghanistan. It was very effective and Mullah Omar was on record, citing it as one of the greatest threats the Taliban faced," said Mann, who noted Gen. David Petraeus employed the same strategy in the Sunni areas of Iraq with groups like Sons of Iraq and The Awakening. While Mann is urging western leaders not to underestimate ISIS, he also cautions that this fight will not be over quickly. "This McDonald's drive-thru mentality that we have of defeating these guys, where it happens in a couple of news cycles or a one-year combat rotation is fantasy. This is going to take decades to build up partner nation capacity to push back from the bottom on their own. In many of these societies, it took several decades to degrade it, and it's going to take that long to build it back up," said Mann. |
| Rep. Yoho Lauds Judge on Immigration Ruling |
| Thu, 19 Feb 2015 14:56:57 EST The Florida Republican congressman who challenged John Boehner in the race for Speaker of the House earlier this year is praising a federal judge for halting the Obama administration's unilateral plan to grant legal status to at least five million people in the U.S. illegally. Rep. Ted Yoho is also praising Speaker Boehner for insisting that the U.S. Senate act on a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill that refuses to fund the the legalization plan that critics call illegal and unconstitutional. On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge John Hanen ordered a halt to the implementation of Obama's policy of granting legal status and work permits to illegal immigrants who have children living in the U.S. legally. Hanen said the case brought by 26 states raised significant constitutional issues that must be resolved before allowing the program to go forward. The judge said there must be a pause because if the administration loses this case at a higher court, "This genie would be impossible to put back in the bottle." Yoho, who sponsored a House bill in December to declare Obama's actions illegal, is thrilled with Hanen's ruling. "Judge Hanen absolutely did the correct thing, for the rule of law and for our nation," said Yoho. "Once you let the toothpaste out of the tube or the genie out of the bottle, you can't get it back in there. This is wrong for America. This is not the way to fix immigration. This is going to make the situation that we have in this country with 10-11 million people here illegally, it'll make it worse." The Obama administration agreed to halt the legalization program pending further court action, but insists it has the winning legal argument. "The law is on our side and history is on our side," said Obama earlier this week, saying legal precedent shows the executive branch has the power to exercise prosecutorial discretion. Yoho says the law is actually very clear and it's not on Obama's side. "He is absolutely 100 percent wrong. I've got lawyers and briefings and court cases where he can't do that because what he has done by saying he has the legal authority, he's rewritten the law," said Yoho. Prosecutorial discretion was on an individual basis. What's he's doing is categorically taking a group of five million people here and applying it to the whole group. You can't do that on an individual basis." The congressman alleges this is just the latest example of the president trying to work around the law to enact his political agenda. "This president and this administration have created the global policy of unenforcement, meaning that if you get to America , you're going to get a work permit. And you're going to get free housing, free education, free health. If we want to solve this problem, we've got to stop illegal action and overreaching the boundaries of the Constitution," said Yoho. Yoho thinks the case will get fast-tracked through the federal court system but it will ultimately be decided by the highest court in the land. "I think you're going to see the Fifth [Circuit] work rather quickly on this. I think you'll see them rule in our favor or they'll go along with the injunction and defer to the Supreme Court," said Yoho. Hanen's decision comes at a critical time in the congressional fight over funding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). That funding runs out at the end of this month. Last month, the House of Representatives fully funded DHS at current levels through September, with the exception of defunding Obama's unilateral program. The GOP Senate majority has tried to move forward on the same bill but has failed because all Democrats are united in filibustering the removal of that immigration funding. Yoho says the courts putting the brakes on the program should remove any remaining opposition to the Republican version of the bill. You can't move forward with something that is deemed illegal by the court system. To move forward would be reckless and irresponsible. The common sense thing would be to say, 'You know what? Let's fund DHS. Let's not put our country's security in jeopardy or the people fighting to protect our borders, like the Coast Guard or our border securities. Let's not put them in jeopardy. Let's fund this bill and let's have this discussion on another date once the courts decide," said Yoho. Democrats are insisting on a "clean" extension of DHS funding, which has included money for the legalization program since passage of the "cromnibus" bill in December. Speaker Boehner stated earlier this week that the House passed a bill and it's now incumbent upon the Senate, especially Senate Democrats, to pass a funding bill. Yoho is very pleased to see Boehner drawing a line in the sand. "I'm proud of Mr. Boehner for standing up and staying strong on this. You know I've been a vocal critic of his, but if he's willing to do this I think he's on the right path," said Yoho, who agrees that the onus is now on Senate Democrats to act responsibly. "Those people that decide to vote against us are voting on the side of going against our Constitution and voting for the 10-11 million people here illegally versus voting for what's best for America, not as a Republican or a Democrat but as an American. I think you'll see them come around and do what's right," said Yoho. Even if the GOP plan were to clear the Senate, an Obama veto is waiting at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Yoho says getting it to Obama's desk would be a huge step forward. "Let [Senate Democrats] help us push this bill and then send it to the president. Then this president will have to decide if he's going to side on the side of the people here illegally or if he's going to side on the side of national security and the American people," said Yoho. But the congressman says Republican lawmakers will need help from more than just a half dozen Senate Democrats. He says the public has a huge role to play in putting pressure on Congress. "This is something all Americans need to get up and get rallied behind," said Yoho. |
| 'This Is Embarrassing It's So Ridiculous' |
| Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:28:31 EST Attorney General Eric Holder says defining the largest terrorist threat to the U.S. and the West as Islamic extremism is insignificant compared to what we're doing about it. State Department Spokeswoman Marie Harf is doubling down on her contention that poverty is the greatest trigger violent extremism, and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton says both comments only sow confusion and weaken the effort to destroy our enemies. On Tuesday, as the Obama administration kicked off a three-day summit on combating violent extremism, Holder spoke at the National Press Club. One of the questions following his speech asked the attorney general to explain why the administration was reluctant to refer to the motivation of ISIS as radical Islam or Islamic extremism. "I'm not sure an awful lot is gained by saying that. It doesn't have any impact on our military posture," said Holder. "I don't worry an awful lot about what the appropriate terminology ought to be. I think people need to think about that. Really? We're having this conversation about words as opposed to what our actions ought to be?" Bolton says that line of thinking comes as no surprise. "I think it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the threat that we face but it's been a misunderstanding that they've had for six straight years," said Bolton. "The president said back in the 2008 campaign that he considered terrorism to be a law enforcement matter, something we could handle by arresting terrorists and trying them in federal court." While he believes Holder and Obama think they're helping their cause by supposedly respecting Muslim sensibilities, Bolton says they're really just guaranteeing that terrorist threats will get stronger. "[Obama] doesn't treat it as a war. He doesn't want to acknowledge that the threat is much graver than sort of robbing the local drug store, except a little bit more serious," he said. "I think this whole approach guarantees, in effect, that the terrorist threat will continue to be with us for a long time and even grow. They're the ones that are waging the war. They know what they are. They think they're Islamic." Furthermore, Bolton says the Obama refusal to get specific hurts non-radical Muslims the most. "The people who are the most significant victims of this kind of terrorism have been other Muslims. It really is hiding your head in the sand to think that by avoiding calling is Islamist radicalism or whatever term you like, but by simply using euphemisms, that somehow that's going to make a difference," said Bolton. He says last week's U.S. evacuation of Yemen is a perfect example of the inevitable consequence of weak U.S. action at a time of crisis. "It's a symbol of the decline of American influence, of the country spinning out of control, of both the Houthis and [Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula] now having Yemen as a base of operations. It's a reflection of the failure of the whole Obama administration terrorist strategy. What he once called an example of the success of his strategy has turned into a debacle," said Bolton. But how would clearer terminology make a difference? How would labeling terrorists as Islamic radicals hasten their destruction. Bolton says it would make two big differences. The first is on the international stage. "I think you can help build international coalitions more readily if people understand what they're facing. I don't think in the Arab or the larger Muslim world there's any misunderstanding of what the nature of this threat is. In a way, it's patronizing to Muslims to act as though they are somehow completely homogeneous in their thinking that they'll be insulted by describing this threat for what it is," said Bolton. The former UN ambassador also says clarity helps to galvanize Americans toward a common goal. "I think it's also important domestically so that Americans understand we're not opposing an abstraction known as terrorism, nor are we opposing terrorism in every single manifestation. We don't care about what's left of Irish Republican Army terrorism. We're not concerned about the Basque separatists in Spain and France. The terrorist threat that the U.S. and the West as a whole face is very specific and if you can't describe it , people can't get their arms around the steps that will be necessary to eliminate that threat," said Bolton. Holder's comments came just one day after State Department Spokeswoman Marie Harf told MSNBC's Chris Matthews that addressing poverty was a larger goal than killing terrorists. "We cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium and longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it's lack of opportunity for jobs," said Harf. "We can work with countries around the world to help improve their governance. We can help them build their economies, so they can have job opportunities for these people." Bolton rips Harf's assessment as a juvenile perspective on how the world operates. "This is embarrassing it's so ridiculous, but it reflects the ideology of the left, what Karl Marx called economic determinism, that everything in the world is caused by economics. Politics, religion, as Marx called it were simply the superstructures of economics. Today's leftists believe that every problem in the world is caused by poverty. So this child is out there saying if these guys had jobs they wouldn't pick up AK-47s," said Bolton. He says facts and history prove Harf to be very wrong. "I think that utterly ignores the roles of ideology in politics and world affairs. Osama bin Laden didn't lack for job opportunities, nor do many of these other terrorists. If poverty were the source of terrorism, Haiti would be one of the most terrorist countries in the world. It's so simple-minded that you'd think that nobody would pay attention to it. In fact, you'd think nobody would say such foolish things, but so much for our educational system," said Bolton. On Tuesday, Harf suggested her comments were too nuanced for her critics to understand. She also offered quotations from former Secretary of State Colin Powell and former President George W. Bush suggesting that reducing poverty also reduces the allure of terrorist activity. Bolton's still not buying it. "I haven't seen the exact quotes she's using and I don't doubt that you can take remarks out of context in a way that makes it look like it supports her position. But she could have Mother Teresa on her side and it still wouldn't reflect reality," he said. As for actually solving the ISIS problem, Bolton says the solution is pretty clear. "The way you eliminate the threat is to go after is to go after the territory they control, not just by sporadic, pinprick bombing raids but by forging a coalition and using effective military force. I think we're blinking at reality if we don't see that that's ultimately what we need to do," said Bolton. Last week, Obama submitted his request for Congress to approve a three-year authorization for the use of military force (AUMF). Bolton says that request is not serious but a robust AUMF would be very helpful. "I would vote against his text. I think you've got authority under the Constitution and under the 2002 resolution that granted President Bush authority to use military force. The only thing that is required is a one-sentence resolution that says the president is authorized to use all necessary means to destroy ISIS and all its affiliates. If you went with that, that would be perfectly satisfactory," said Bolton. |
| 'Do We Want to Lead This from Behind? |
| Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:40:25 EST Terrorism expert Dr. Walid Phares says the United Nations Security Council could play a critical role in confronting ISIS, but he says that is unlikely to happen as long as the Obama administration refuses to identify the threat to the U.S. and many other nations around the world. The Obama administration took heat in September for insisting that the Islamic State is neither Islamic nor a state. Earlier this year, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest stated that the Taliban was not a terrorist organization. Over this past weekend, the White House statement to the attacks in Copenhagen never mentioned terrorism or radical Islam. In addition, the response to the ISIS beheading of 21 Coptic Christians in Libya failed to note the faith of those killed, calling them "Egyptian citizens." Phares is a longtime professor of Middle East studies and an adviser to the U.S. House of Representatives. His latest book is "The Lost Spring." He says the administration's verbal acrobatics don't help the cause against ISIS. "There is this general reluctance on behalf of the administration to engage in what we call the war of ideas or what we call the ideological confrontation. They don't want to identify this as an ideological problem or crisis, so when it's in Europe, these are extremists, without defining what that means. When it's in Libya, these are Egyptian citizens though they were targeted for who they were," said Phares. He says there is a stark contrast in just the past week between how Obama reacted to acts of terrorism compared to the brutal murder of three Muslims in North Carolina. "If you apply what the president has said with regard to the tragic killings of three citizens who are Muslim and the way he defined the slaughter of 21 Copts, there's a big difference. In one case, it's because of who they were and their identity. In the other case, with the Copts, it's because they were Egyptian, so there is some correction to be done to our narrative," said Phares. Phares also says Obama's reluctance to identify our enemies flies contrary to how presidents of both parties have approached threats to national security. "What the administration and its advisers are doing is not a different description. It's a different identification. They are describing what is not defined. They're saying these are bad, these are criminals, these are extremists. But they never say who they are. During World War II or the Cold War, all the presidents, Republicans and Democrats, defined and designated what the ideology of the other side is. Then they built strategies," said Phares. Phares is making news in recent days over his call for the United Nations Security Council to get much more involved in confronting the threat ISIS poses to many of its member states. "Remember that those jihadis have been attacking civil societies, not just in the United States but every single member of the permanent five nations on the UN Security Council (United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and the U.S.)," said Phares, who suggests a declaration against ISIS could be more effective than many might think. "It is time, in my view, that the security council issue a resolution declaring not just ISIS and Al Qaeda but the entire network with its ideology as a threat to the international community and therefore authorize all these governments to conduct not just separate campaigns and activities but join an international campaign and well integrate it against that group," said Phares. United Nations critics see the body as effectively useless in these sorts of crises, citing ineffective action on Iraq, Syria, North Korea and many other bad actors on the world stage. Phares contends one critical factor is different than in controversies of the past. "This situation is different. This is more so the situation that occurred in Korea, minus the Soviet Union, but this time even Russia would be on board. The reason is the international community needs to unify its resources. Besides, the United Nations is nothing more than its own membership, meaning if the big guys of the security council decide can take action and issue a resolution, they can finally have a joint strategy ," said Phares. He also thinks a security council resolution could solve other logistical headaches. "More importantly, if there are any issues between the U.S. and Egypt, between the Russia and some other countries, if it's done under the umbrella of the UN, it should be helpful," said Phares. But who among the permanent five members of the security council would take the lead on something like this? Russia is focused on it's own foreign policy priorities in Ukraine and elsewhere. China has also demonstrated no leadership on the issue. Phares says it's time for an American administration that is often reluctant to lead the pack to reassert itself at a time of crisis. "The question now is really a question of leadership. Do we want to lead this from behind? If we take the lead to the UN Security Council, we would lead it from the front. While I agree this is the thing to do, I'm not sure what the administration in Washington wants to do. That's a different discussion," said Phares. As for Middle Eastern allies in the battle against ISIS, Phares says Egypt and Jordan are clearly the leaders in the region. He says the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are no board but capable of only playing small roles. Phares says substantial numbers of Libyan troops are willing to fight under a general the west believes can be trusted. He also believes the emerging secular government in Tunisia could play a key role in undermining ISIS in the region. |
| 'This is 101 in Basic Warfighting' |
| Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:25:36 EST In the wake of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) beheading 21 Coptic Christians in Libya, retired U.S. Air Force General Tom McInerney is slamming the Obama administration for failing to take obvious military steps to destroy the terrorists and identifying radical Islam as the motivating factor for the atrocities committed throughout the region. McInerney is a Vietnam veteran and rose to the number three position in the Air Force during his career in uniform. He is now a Fox News military analyst. On Sunday, ISIS released a new video depicting the beheading of 21 Coptic Christians from Egypt on a beach in Libya. U.S.-led airstrikes have been aimed at ISIS since August, after the terrorists beheaded American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. However, McInerney says the operations could be far more intense and would quickly cripple the enemy if done right. "I think the air campaign is not nearly the intensity we needed. It's not even an air campaign. It's somewhere between seven and fifteen sorties a day when we absolutely need upwards of 100-200 sorties a day. I'm calling for 200. We need to be attacking the ISIS capital of Raqqa (Syria) 24/7. We need to close the highway between Raqqa and Mosul, Iraq," said McInerney. He says those steps would quickly tighten the noose around ISIS. "Nothing can move on that highway. If it's moving, we'll destroy it. We'll kill their commerce. We'll kill their ability to feed people in their 'Islamic State'. That's going to require between 100-200 sorties a day, plus we're going to need constant surveillance reconnaissance assets over the area," he said. "Let's get serious on this. The president has elected not to get serious. The Pentagon wants to do this but the White House is holding back," added McInerney. Another concern inside Iraq is the fate of 300 U.S. Marines and the Iraqi forces they are training at the Al Asad military base in Anbar Province of Iraq. Reports conflict over what danger ISIS forces pose near the facility. Pentagon officials publicly state they are not at all worried about the safety of U.S. and Iraqi forces. McInerney isn't so sure and says this is another issue that could easily be resolved with decisive action. "We need to put a Global Hawk or a Reaper (drone) overhead between Al-Asad and the town that they captured, al Baghdadi. Anything that moves out of al-Baghdadi towards Al-Asad should be destroyed. In addition, we ought to continuously attack al-Baghdadi. In other words, a good offense gives you a great defense," said McInerney. Again, the general sees a dithering administration. "By attacking those troops in al-Baghdadi, they're going to be fearing for their lives. but I don;t see this being done. This is 101 in basic war fighting and we're not getting that. I know the Pentagon wants to do that, but they're not getting support out of the White House. This is being micromanaged out of the White House," said McInerney. In addition his frustration with the military tactics being employed against ISIS, McInerney is livid over the Obama administration refusing to define the motivation behind the threat. Calling the rise an expansion of ISIS the result of "what happens when good people do nothing to fight evil," McInerney says the Obama administration is keeping its head in the sand about how the ideology of this movement must be confronted. "The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is a radical Islamic organization. Al Qaeda, that attacked us on 9/11, is a radical Islamic organization. Hamas in the Gaza Strip is a radical Islamic organization. All these organizations that people hear about are radical Islamists. The Iranian government is a radical Islamic organization," said McInerney. The general says it is incumbent for President Obama to stop avoiding the elephant in the room and clearly state who and what we are fighting. "Until the president identifies the threat that we are facing as radical Islam, it makes it very difficult to defeat the threat. I just can't say it any clearer. It's important that this White House and this president identify the threat for what it is," he said. Obama was vacationing in California over the Presidents' Day weekend. The only White House responses to the ISIS beheadings or Saturday's terrorist attacks in Denmark came from written statements. In a very short response to the shootings in Copenhagen, a three-sentence statement from a National Security Council spokesperson never referred to terrorism or radical Islam. On Sunday, the statement from White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest referred to the 21 slain Coptic Christians only as "Egyptian citizens." McInerney is mystified by the lengths to which the administration goes to avoid references to radical Islam. "I don't know. Maybe we have some Islamists embedded in the White House. Whatever it is, it is absolutely bizarre. When Charlie Hebdo was attacked in Europe, everybody was calling it radical Islam except our president, who was calling it violent extremists," said Mcinerney. "What is the ideology of violent extremists? I don't know. Are they Irish? Are they Swedes? Who are they? I do know what the ideology of radical Islamists is. It is the Koran, the Hadith and Sharia Law. Those are the things that we are fighting against," said McInerney. Last week, President Obama requested a new congressional authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) against ISIS. Some lawmakers are pleased that Obama is consulting Congress on the mission some six months after it began. Others say the scope is too narrow and should not be limited to just the next three years. McInerney is not impressed by the request. "He has given a political document. He's trying to tie the hands of the president who follows him. He is not being aggressive on this because I think it's a funding thing. His priorities are on domestic policy. It's not on the global situation. He's had four secretaries of defense. No president in our history has had four secretaries of defense. We have lost Libya, Syria and now Yemen. Plus, we have really lost Iraq, because that's now become a proxy state of Iran when we pulled out," said McInerney. In just over six years of the Obama presidency, McInerney saus the pendulum in the Middle East is swinging badly in the wrong direction. "He has completely changed the geopolitical position in the Middle East. Egypt is now getting aid from the Russians. Forty years ago, we made a brilliant move when we flipped Egypt from relying on the Soviet Union to the United States and the western world. This administration has completely reversed that. It's a disaster," he said. |
| Parents Lose Colorado Bathroom Battle |
| Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:10:13 EST Democrats in the Colorado state legislature have killed a bill that would allow school officials and business owners to restrict bathroom and locker room access to people of the same biological sex. The legislation was sponsored by Republican State Rep. Kim Ransom of Littleton. She says the bill was very straightforward. "The bill was actually very simple. It restricted access to a sex-segregated locker room based on an individual's actual biological sex," said Ransom. Ransom's legislation died in committee on a mostly party line vote of 7-4. One Republican crossed the aisle to oppose it. In 2008, Colorado enacted a law to provide equal accommodation to restrooms and locker rooms for individuals based on the gender with which they identify, rather than the gender identified at birth. Ransom says she brought her new bill to committee after parents became uneasy about people of the opposite biological sex using the same restrooms as their children. "I actually brought it forward at the request of some parents and a group that was trying to help some moms that were dealing with young children that were just being exposed to people of the opposite sex," she said. Ransom insists her legislation is not designed to prevent transgenders from using their preferred facilities. "It's not necessarily addressing the cross-gender or transgender at all. That really wasn't the intent. It's people that are abusing that statute," said Ransom. Some critics of Ransom's bill suggest this problem in restrooms and locker rooms is hypothetical and no documented problems have been reported. Ransom says the concern is very real. "What has happened, not only in Colorado but in other states as well, is that predators can use that equal accommodation allowance to go into the opposite locker room and the manager or the school principal can do nothing to remove them, even if they're ogling children or looking at them or exposing themselves if they say those specific words that they self-identify with that sex," said Ransom, who says there are specific stories on record. "The most egregious one was in Washington state. I believe it was a YMCA locker room. There was a woman in a locker room with her two small girls and there was literally was a man that was completely undressed walking around in that locker room. Whether or not his specific thought pattern was female, his outward appearance was male," said Ransom. Another major criticism from Democrats was that it amounted to a violation of the civil rights of people who identify with the opposite gender of their birth. Lifesite News reported particularly scathing remarks from Democratic State Rep. Joe Salazar, who suggested the bill was this generation's version of Jim Crow. "The reasons for non-desegregating in the 1950s and '60s was because Mexicans and blacks somehow were sexual perverts," Salazar said. "I'm offended by this bill because this is rinse and repeat prejudice. 1d Ransom is baffled at such a charge. "This doesn't really address civil rights. It doesn't have anything to do with civil rights," said Ransom. "I was not trying and the bill was not intending to address the statute that was addressed in 2008. It was trying to empower business owners to just enforce the signs on the door if there were complaints." But while she's not looking to overturn existing laws, Ransom says others need to respect the uncomfortable and unsafe position girls find themselves in when school leaders and business owners have their hands completely tied. "Locker rooms are a vulnerable place to have your kids, you know shower rooms, locker rooms, changing to go to the pool. You want to have your children protected and make sure there aren't people of the opposite sex in there with your small children," said Ransom. In the end, she says common sense ought to prevail. "When you look at a locker room, there's usually a stick person with a dress and a stick person with pants, indicating that it's meant to be a men's room and a ladies' room. We're just having a lot of crossover due to the current laws. I'm just trying to let parents protect their young children from people that abuse the current statute," said Ransom. |
| American Family in Crisis |
| Thu, 12 Feb 2015 16:19:51 EST More than half of American teenagers do not live with married parents and the family will be destroyed in this country if the U.S. doesn't start championing marriage and stop rewarding people for having children out of wedlock, according to a new report from the Family Research Council's Marriage and Religion Research Institute. The fifth annual Index of Family Belonging and Rejection" shows just 46 percent of American teens between the ages of 15-17 have grown up with their biological parents always married. For black adolescents, the statistics are far worse. "This index is particularly acute at a chronic level in the African-American community, where only 17 percent of black teenagers, compared to 54 percent of white teenagers are being raised in intact families and this marks a 21 percent decrease in family belongingness for black teenagers since 1950," said Ken Blackwell, senior fellow in family empowerment at the Family Research Council. Blackwell says these worsening numbers carry a whole raft of negative consequences with them. "It means that we are a nation at risk because there are so many positive benefits of children being nurtured and raised in intact families that too many of our people are missing. It's having effects socially, culturally and healthwise for too many of our youngsters. And is has an effect on criminality," said Blackwell. He says we've seen this societal breakdown before. "We are going to be suffering from the same sort of family breakdown that we find in totalitarian, authoritarian and real major welfare states," said Blackwell. "If you look at it across history, there are two things that totalitarian and authoritarian states have done. They've weakened or destroyed the family and they have silenced the church, creating a greater dependency on government," said Blackwell, who says the U.S. is barreling down this ill-advised road by different means. "That is happening in our country, not through totalitarianism or authoritarianism but through the rapid expansion of the welfare state. It's having the same disastrous effect in terms of the destruction of the family and the explosive growth in the number of people who are dependent on the government. What we know from historical experience is that the intact family is the incubator of liberty," said Blackwell. Blackwell says the biggest problem with government dependency is that is encourages people to make bad decisions. "The welfare state has an incentive system for families to separate, as opposed to encouraging the intactness of families or maintaining the intactness of families. Welfare states tend to reward families that are not intact. As a consequence, if you want more of something, you reward it," said Blackwell. So how can the tide of broken homes be reversed? Blackwell says it will require all hands on deck. "We know that if we reduce the number of out-of-wedlock births by encouraging young people to refrain from sexual activity until they are married, if we have every institution in our culture supporting a marriage between one man and one woman and if we encourage our young people to stay in school and get a decent education then we know we can reverse this trend," said Blackwell. One of those key factors will soon be in front of the Supreme Court. Blackwell reiterates that the numerous benefits of intact marriages are directly linked to strong traditional marriages. "We're not going to reverse this trend if we redefine marriage as something other than the natural design of marriage," said Blackwell. |
| 'There's No Winners at All' |
| Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:54:29 EST Middle East scholar Dr. Mike Evans says Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is now stuck in a partisan tug-of-war among American politicians that could cost him his job and he believes whoever convinced Netanyahu to agree to address the U.S. Congress ought to be lose their job. With just weeks remaining before next month's parliamentary elections in Israel, Netanyahu and much of Israeli politics are consumed by the partisan battle here in Washington over Netanyahu's upcoming address to a joint session of Congress over the Iranian nuclear threat. On January 21, House Speaker John Boehner announced Netanyahu would address Congress on March 3. The White House complained that it had not been notified and called the invitation a breach of protocol, particularly so close to the Israeli elections. Many Democrats, including Vice President Joe Biden and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have said they will not attend the speech. "It's a horrendous mistake and whoever advised him to do it should be fired," said Evans. "I'm sick over it. I'm sick that he's put in that position. Obviously, he's brilliant and articulate and he knows what's going on with Iran, but the timing is horrible, absolutely horrible." Evans, who is a longtime personal friend of Netanyahu and the author of 67 published books, including "Jimmy Carter. the Liberal Left and World Chaos" and "Atomic Iran," fears this massive distraction during a tight campaign could give momentum to the more moderate and liberal political elements in Israel, which would be welcome news in the Obama White House. "It's a no-win for [Netanyahu]. The opposition party is screaming their heads off, 'Cancel it! Cancel it!' So if he cancels it, he looks weak. On the other hand, he has a real genuine message that needs to be heard by the House and by the nation. But the timing is extremely serious and could end up existential for him. It could in fact cost him the election," said Evans. According to Evans, the controversy over the speech is such a big deal because the Israelis don't have many allies and they don't want to alienate their biggest one. "A lot of Israelis believe, 'The world's against us. The world is against us as they were at Auschwitz.' And they believe there's no solution. So they want friends. They desperately want friends and alliances and they don't want to be alone," he said. "So this dilemma with the House is upsetting them terribly because they don't want to come across and be perceived as being pushy, being arrogant and pressuring an ally like the United States. The average Israeli on the street is really troubled about this," said Evans. Furthermore, Evans says Israelis are keenly aware that the vast majority of Jewish Americans are Democrats and that adds to the unease over this debate. "The Democratic Party has traditionally been extremely strong supporters of Israel. This has not just been defined as a challenge to Obama but as embarrassing the Democratic Party. So it's very problematic," said Evans. If the speech goes forward, Evans worries that the critical message about Iran will be lost and it will end up as a politically bruising experience for everyone, particularly Netanyahu. "He's being sucked in to a partisan battle that he didn't start. It's a lose, lose, lose. Nobody wins in this one. There's no winners at all," he said. Despite the threat of his friend looking weak at a critical point in the campaign, Evans says the smart thing to do would be to postpone the speech. "If I was advising him, I would tell him, for security reasons, don't do it. Postpone the speech. Give the speech, but postpone the speech for a couple of weeks and get out of the drama," said Evans. Evans says the race for control of parliament is razor thin right now and he is very cautiously optimistic about the chances of Netanyahu and Likud hanging on to control with a coalition government. "The vote is very close right now. As a matter of fact, Herzog and Livni have a slight edge. So the elections are very problematic for Bibi. I don't believe he's going to lose them because they are a coalition government and he can probably put the government together. but it's very close," said Evans. Election day in Israel is March 17. |
| 'It's the Way You Lose A Country' |
| Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:50:19 EST Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) says Republicans are stuck in a box of their leaders' own making in the effort to defund President Obama's unilateral immigration actions and he says Obama's ongoing aggression on amnesty coupled with a weak GOP response are putting the United States in a very dangerous position. In December, Republican leaders decided to delay any legislative fight over amnesty until they controlled both chambers of Congress in January. At that time, lawmakers approved most government funding through September but extended Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations only through this month. In January, the House approved a bill to fund DHS through September while stripping out funds for the implementation of Obama's unilateral action to grant legal status to some five million people in the country illegally but who have children with legal status. Despite a GOP majority in the Senate, Republicans have been unable to recruit any Democrats to their side on this issue. Without 60 votes, the measure will die and DHS funding would be in limbo. With activists, media and lawmakers clamoring for a new strategy, Gohmert says Republicans are keeping their powder dry at the moment. "If we are already talking about Plan B before we give up on Plan A then we're never going to have any chance on Plan A. If you understand and appreciate the position, it's tough to talk about a Plan B if you're still actually honestly pushing Plan A," he said. In the meantime, Gohmert says Obama is already taking steps to expand what the congressman calls "unconstitutional amnesty" into a problem involving exponentially more illegal immigrants. "Obama is now talking about allowing all those people to whom he's given unconstitutional amnesty the ability to bring in extended family members. They'll call it immediate family but the five million could turn into twenty million or twenty-five million once you start bringing in all the other family members. This is part of his fundamentally transforming America," said Gohmert. Gohmert was staunchly opposed to the December strategy on immigration, known around Washington as a "cromnibus". Now he says that flawed approach is haunting the GOP. "We're in a box because our leadership decided to fund everything the president cared about and only leave Homeland Security unfunded and expected to use that as leverage," said Gohmert, who believes the only leverage was achieved by the White House as Republicans were left with no good options. "You're giving up all the leverage. You're giving up everything that the president wants and then you're going to leave us in the position of negotiating by saying, 'Now, if you don't stop this unconstitutional, unilateral, amnesty that you are doing illegally, then we're not going to fund the border patrol. We're not going to fund people to keep us safe,'" said Gohmert. For Gohmert, the "cromnibus" strategy in December did not reflect the fierce condemnation of Obama's actions just a couple of weeks earlier. "All the right things were said after the November election gave us the majority in the Senate and more seats in the House. We were going to fight, the expression was 'tooth and nail'. Haven't seen any teeth or nails coming out on this particular issue," he said. The congressman also noted the frustration conservatives had with leadership last summer. In the wake of the surge of illegal border crossings, including many by children, the House leadership tried to pass a border bill before summer recess. Gohmert says Republicans balked at the bill because House Speaker John Boehner would not say who authored it and members knew it did not originate from the House Judiciary Committee as it should. After the Boehner bill was pulled, Gohmert joined House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia) and several other members to craft a stronger bill that passed the House but never received consideration in the Democratically-controlled Senate. Are Republican leaders committed to stopping amnesty but guilty of employing a lousy strategy or are they not all that distressed by the president's actions? Gohmert says the jury is still out. "There's plenty of reasons to be concerned about the dedication of our leadership, but if Americans keep making their voice heard, then people will listen and that includes Democrats. They will listen when their constituents respond," said Gohmert, who says the coalition exists to stop Obama in his tracks. "There are enough union members and Democrats in the country who are feeling the pinch of the illegality of this president's amnesty that are going to push their Democratic senators and members of Congress to stand more firmly with them," he said. Obama's efforts to add family members to his orders from November is not the only controversy involving Obama and immigration this week. The Center for Immigration Studies released a report a few days ago suggesting 5.5 million people were granted work permits by the administration from 2009-2014 in addition to the 3.5 million approved by Congress, which is supposed to have jurisdiction over the permits. Gohmert says Obama's actions are pushing the U.S. to a very dangerous place. "There's word that that five may have actually been seven (million). We're trying to get to the bottom of that. It is outrageous and it is part and parcel of the lawlessness that we've been dealing with in this administration. Unfortunately, when you have 50 percent of the American people are saying, 'Hey, we're OK with not having checks and balances in our government.' It's the way you lose a country," he warned. The congressman says America is treading down a path that has brought disaster to those who have traveled it before. "I believe there's enough people in the House and Senate that don't want to lose this country. We don't want to lose this little experiment, as (Benjamin) Franklin said a republic if we can keep it. If we allow the president to continue this kind of lawlessness, there will not be a republic. We will be morphing more over into more of a totalitarian, dictatorial type country," said Gohmert. Ultimately, Gohmert believes any meaningful effort to stop Obama will have to be waged over government funding. "Then we can start cutting off the things that the president cares about in must-pass legislation that he's got to sign. There are bills that he cares very deeply about and you can put him on the horns of a dilemma," said Gohmert, who says there is one thing Republicans need if that's going to happen. "We've just got to have our leadership feel strongly enough about this that they will use the leverage that we have, instead of giving it away time after time," said Gohmert. |
| 'The Greatest Deception in History' |
| Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:54:55 EST The climate change movement is being rocked by another major ethical scandal that journalists and some climate scientists say could serve to expose the movement as "one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time." The latest blow against the credibility of the of those demanding urgent, sweeping political change in response to human activity allegedly threatening the sustainability of earth appeared in Saturday's edition of the London Daily Telegraph. Columnist Christopher Booker cites the work of Paul Homewood on his "Not A Lot of People Know That" climate blog. Two weeks earlier, Booker noted that Homewood compared the original temperatures recorded at weather stations in Paraguay over a 60 year period with the numbers now being used in climate reports. "In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming," wrote Booker. In the new piece, Booker reports on Homewood's research into the original and revised data at many other South American weather stations. "In each case he found the same suspicious one-way 'adjustments,'" reported Booker. According to Booker, Homewood is now studying similar data from arctic stations from Canada to Siberia. "Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded," he wrote. Homewood's research shows a consistent changing of temperature data and always in a way that makes it appear the earth is getting warmer. Moreover, these changes were not made by obscure organizations. They were done through the U.S. government's Global Historical Climate Network. Additional responsibility lies with the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Climate Data Center. Climate scientists who do not buy into the global analysis on climate change say this manipulation is a devastating indictment of the movement. "It's enormously significant because the whole thrust of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is supposedly the official source of climate change data, have been saying that currently it is warmer than it has ever been in the historic record or the instrumental record," said Dr. Tim Ball, a former professor of climatology and author of "The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science." Ball says while Homewood's discoveries does not amount to breaking news, the reporting by the Telegraph is monumental. "There's nothing new about this, other than that it's finally got into the mainstream media, but only into the conservative mainstream media because the Telegraph is a conservative newspaper in Britain," said Ball. Dr. Ball elaborated on the temperature fudging that he says has been going on for some time. "This adjustment of the historic record has been going on for a very long time. It started with the elimination of a period known as the Medieval Warm Period a thousand years ago, when it was warmer than today," he said. Nonetheless, he says Homewood has uncovered valuable evidence of a massive scientific and political con job. "What is now being disclosed by Homewood, but has been disclosed by others long before this, is that they are adjusting the modern instrumental temperature record so that the older records appear colder than they actually were. What that does is that it changed the gradient or slope of the temperature increase, making it look like the warming is much greater than it actually is. So this is what's going on," said Ball. Ball says the scientific history of events like the Medieval Warm Period are a major problem for activists looking to convince people that human industrial activity over the past few hundred years is responsible for record-high temperatures. So he says they've determined to rewrite history. "They've got to keep saying, 'Oh no, it's warmer now than it's ever been." So anything that suggests it was warmer in the past must be eliminated. So they created the infamous 'hockey stick,' which essentially rewrote the historic record," said Ball. Homewood's research and Booker's reporting have the potential of making this the biggest scandal since the revealed emails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia, in which climate scientists allegedly admitted to manipulating data to reach preferred conclusions. Ball says this new potential scandal could actually be bigger. He says most people couldn't decipher the contents of the emails very easily but the temperature changes are a very different story. "This kind of thing is much more clear. When you start changing numbers and you can show that it's clearly deliberate and it's clearly all in one direction...this is much more understandable to the public," said Ball. Ball expects even more evidence of unethical science to be revealed before long. "It isn't just that they lowered the historic temperature. They also reduced the number of stations that they were using to determine the global temperature. They argued that in vast areas, where you only have one or two stations, that one station was representative of the temperature in a 1,200 kilometer radius. I mean it's absolutely outrageous what they've done," said Ball. But far from deflating the climate change movement, Ball says revelations like the ones from Homewood will only intensify efforts to enact sweeping policy changes in the U.S. and beyond. "Look for a cover-up because there's huge volumes of money involved. There's political implications with this with Obama with climate change as the key thing. Now they've got the pope involved in it. So there'll be a scramble to counteract this. I mean a real vigorous scramble," said Ball. So how will climate change activists fight back against these revelations? Ball expects the same tactics he's witnessed through the decades in this debate. "They tell lies. They come out and say severe weather has increased when it hasn't. They say that the temperature is continuing to increase when it hasn't. They just tell lies about it and that's what's going on. Of course, as everybody knows, it's not the original crime that gets you in trouble. It's the cover-up," said Ball. "Once the cover-up is exposed, you're done," he said. At the end of his column in Saturday's Telegraph, Booker says, "This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time." Ball agrees. "I do think this is the greatest deception in history as I say in my book. There have been scandals in history but they've been regional or they've only impacted certain areas. This whole climate thing has had a global impact on energy and government policies around the world. So it really is the biggest deception in history. There's so much money and so many political careers riding on this that it's going to be a battle royale," said Ball. |
| Why Reagan Still Stands Tall |
| Fri, 6 Feb 2015 16:07:28 EST Ronald Reagan left the White House more than 26 years ago, but his legacy still dominates the American political landscape, and a former Reagan political director says the Gipper's record and principled positions explain why. Reagan was born on February 6, 1911. Friday would have been his 104th birthday. When Reagan died in 2004, tens of millions of Americans turned out to honor him in California and in Washington. Long before the former California governor ascended to the presidency, he attracted a dedicated group of activists who worked tirelessly for his insurgent campaign against incumbent Republican President Gerald Ford in 1976 and for his successful White House bids in 1980 and 1984. Frank Donatelli was a young operative in those early campaigns and later served as political director in the Reagan White House. He says it was easy to see why so many conservatives flocked to Reagan nearly 40 years ago. "The country was headed in a fundamentally wrong direction in the 1970s. The economy was stagnating and we were on the defensive all around the world to Soviet communism. We needed somebody strong, somebody with a vision to reverse these trends. Reagan stood out as someone who had very strong beliefs, but more importantly, somebody that could actually implement those beliefs in a coherent program," said Donatelli, who says the difference after eight years of reagan was obvious to most people. "In the Reagan years, we saw a disastrous economy transformed into the fastest-growing economy that we've had in a long time, 18 million new jobs. On the foreign policy front, we began the process that ultimately saw the demise of the Soviet Union and international communism," said Donatelli. While the Reagan administration witnesses many fierce partisan battles on both foreign and domestic issues, today Democrats rarely invoke Reagan except to point out issues where they think his statements help their current positions. Donatelli thinks this stems from multiple motivations, some honorable and others less so. "There is a segment of the Democratic Party that has honestly looked at the Reagan years and said his record was pretty good and the country was better off eight years after he was elected. Then there's the other part of the party, like the current president, who quotes Reagan when it's convenient for him. In other words, he'll find these tiny little areas where he and Reagan seemingly agree and he uses that just to attack the rest of the Republican Party," said Donatelli. The vast majority of the time, according to Donatelli, Obama's invocation of Reagan comes in a grossly misleading way. "The classic example was him citing Reagan's support for a 28 percent capital gains tax, which is what is in his budget. Of course, what he doesn't point out is that Reagan favored 28 percent for all income and Obama's now over 40 percent and trying to go even higher. So it's very selective quotations on the president's part," said Donatelli. For Republicans, Reagan still dominates policy debates and his legacy can be seen in every presidential race as multiple candidates jockey to claim the mantle of Reagan. "They say nothing succeeds like success. The Lombardi Trophy is named for the man who won the first two Super Bowls, so politicians will always look for successful models to emulate," said Donatelli. These days, Republican factions often argue over where Reagan would fall along the GOP spectrum. Moderate sometimes assert Reagan wouldn't even have a home in today's party because it's moved so far to the right. Conservatives point out Reagan challenged a moderate president of his own party and would among those standing on principle vs. taking the route of political expedience. Donatelli says they're both right and they're both wrong. "Reagan was always a conservative and took conservative positions and tried to move the political spectrum to the right. That being said, he was not on a fool's errand. He was always somebody practical enough to understand the importance of governing. So I don't think you'd ever see him go over the side of the cliff. I think you's always see him look to make the best deal possible," said Donatelli. "I think that's something that we seem to be missing now. There's a feeling that government just doesn't work and so many of our institutions are broken. I don't think that was the case when Reagan was president. I think the public is looking for somebody that can somebody that begin to repair some of our big institutions," he said. Donatelli says there are ultimately two versions of a president's legacy. When it comes to the voters, he says the verdict is obvious. "Here we are all these years later and I think the country has concluded that the eight years of Reagan's presidency were an unqualified success," said Donatelli. As for history's judgment, Donatelli says that tends to ebb and flow over time. He says when Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, Reagan was not viewed all that favorably but his reputation has been greatly burnished over time. In the long run, he believes the towering achievements of the Reagan years will look very good over the test of time. "Everybody's legacy goes up and down. However, I do think that the idea of 18 million new jobs and the end of Soviet communism and totalitarianism is something that will survive the ages and that the president's legacy will continue to be very strong," said Donatelli. |
| Obama wants to 'Tax More to Spend More' |
| Thu, 5 Feb 2015 14:33:53 EST House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Tom Price (R-Georgia) says President Obama's budget is simply more taxes to pay for even more spending and he says congressional Republicans will take a much more responsible approach to cutting spending and improving the nation's fiscal health. On Monday, Obama unveiled his $3.99 trillion budget for Fiscal Year 2016. It calls for higher taxes on investors and more fees on large banks in order to pay for "free" community college for students and tax credits for families with two working parents to pay for day care. It also makes major infrastructure spending a priority. Deficits only get bigger in Obama's ten-year projection. If his budget were adopted in full, well over eight trillion dollars would be added to the national debt over the next decade. Chairman Price says Obama is doing the same thing year after year and expecting different results. "The president wants to tax more just to spend more. That's the kind of policy that doesn't get us a growing economy," said Price. "His proposal never balances, ever. (It) never ever balances. It's more taxes, more spending, more borrowing. Remember what that means to each and every American. Every single dollar that's taken for taxes or every single dollar that's borrowed is a dollar that can't be used to pay for an education for a child, to buy a house, to buy a car, to pay rent. to pay a mortgage. All the things that the American people are so desirous of doing are harmed by what the president's proposal is. We think there's a better way," said Price. For starters, Price says Congress will have a united front in the budget process after years of partisan clashes and some years of Democrats simply failing to produce a budget. "It will be a budget that will get to balance, that will lay out that path for solving and strengthening and securing the Medicare and Medicaid programs and the health and retirement programs for our country. We'll lay the policies in place that would provide for pro-growth activity in our economy, whether it's tax reform or energy policy," said Price. The Obama budget calls for an end to spending caps mandated by sequestration, calling for seven percent increases in defense and discretionary spending. On Monday, Obama said the additional spending was vital to national security and the care of veterans and he slammed the existing caps as "mindless austerity." Price says that's some interesting revisionist history. "It's curious because this 'mindless austerity' was actually his idea. The sequester was the president's idea and it's one of the few things where Republicans and Democrats have agreed with each other over the past four years on how to begin to control spending," said Price. The chairman says House Republicans will probably issue their budget late next month. He believes they will likely propose a framework that would lead to a balanced budget within ten years. So how will GOP budget leaders begin to chisel away at our deficits? Step one, according to Price. is to pass spending bills in a responsible way. "It's a significant amount of money that can be saved by doing appropriations bills through regular order, which means that the committees in the House and the Senate deal with them individually and they come to the floor of the House and the Senate individually as well," he said. "It's not just the money that can be saved here for the federal government. It's also all the kinds of regulatory schemes that have been put in place by this administration can be addressed in that way to limit what the EPA is doing, to limit what the National Labor Relations Board is doing to harm job creation. We can do those kinds of things through the appropriations process in a way that's virtually impossible to do in any other way," said Price. Price expects little common ground between the parties, but he does believe Republicans and President Obama could pursue some common priorities if both sides are so inclined. "I think there can be progress. The president has recognized that the level of taxation at the business level is harming job creation and is harming American businesses. We hope there's common ground there. The president has suggested that there's some reform that he might be open to on the international tax side so we can create more jobs and have more resources for research and development and growing our economy," said Price. Before the appropriations battles begin over Fiscal Year 2016, Congress is still mired in the fight over funding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from the end of February through September. The House approved a bill that does not include funding for Obama's unilateral immigration policy to legalize some five million people in the U.S. unlawfully. Senate Republicans have tried multiple times to advance that bill but have come nowhere near the 60 votes needed to clear procedural hurdles. Price says the best way to fund homeland security efforts while stopping what Republicans consider an unconstitutional power grab is to keep the heat on Democrats at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. "If they pass the bill that we passed through the House that would hold the president to account on his unilateral action then that would be wonderful. We would move to the president's desk and then the American people can see exactly who's standing in the way of appropriate reform of our immigration system," said Price. |
| 'American Sniper' Shows 'A Real Hero, A Real Leader' |
| Tue, 3 Feb 2015 14:55:35 EST As "American Sniper" continues to smash box office records week after week, retired U.S. Army Lt. General William "Jerry" Boykin says the film is striking a chord in millions of Americans who love their country and believe in defending freedom regardless of the liberal chatter seeking to diminish the film or the late Navy SEAL Chris Kyle. Boykin spent 36 years in uniform, was an original member of Delta Force and served as commander of all Green Berets. He concluded his career as deputy undersecretary of defense and is now executive vice president at the Family Research Council. The general says Chris Kyle's story shows moviegoers the very best of America and they wish our leaders were a lot more like him. "I think Americans are so fed up in terms of what they see as a lack of leadership in the Congress and the White House and every sector of our society that they are drawn to a movie like this because it shows a real hero, a real leader, a person who understands what their transcendent cause is, what's worth fighting, sacrificing and even dying for. That's a very strong and powerful message and I think it attracts Americans to it," said Boykin. Despite the records revenues, "American Sniper" is not without its critics. Filmmaker Michael Moore has called snipers cowards. Actor Seth Rogen likened it to propaganda watched by Nazis in the film "Inglourious Basterds." An MSNBC reporter referred to Kyle as a racist who enjoyed going on "killing sprees" in Iraq while other left-of-center media outlets have questioned the veracity of Kyle's account of his time at war. "First of all, does anyone really care what Michael Moore thinks? Does anyone care what Seth Rogen thinks? I certainly don't. I don't think most of the people that I know care what they think," mused Boykin. But the general does think there are more troubling reasons underlying the cool reaction to the film from the political left. "The left has been so anti-Iraq, anti-Afghanistan, anti-war. What this is doing is not glorifying war. I think just the opposite. It is not portraying the American soldier as a bloodthirsty, drug-crazed psychopath as so many of the Vietnam-era movies did, but it is portraying him as a human and it's showing the toll that it takes on them," said Boykin. But he says liberal hostility goes even deeper. "The left wants to be heroes to be people from the left. When you make heroes out of people that are clearly patriot,s that are conservative, that have a deep appreciation for the first amendment, not only the freedom of religion but also the freedom of speech. I think it's just too much for the left, but who cares? Who care what they say?" said Boykin. In addition to the underlying qualities of Kyle, Boykin says "American Sniper" offers viewers an important look at the realities and impact of war. "I think it's one of the most realistic portrayals of the actual toll of war, not only the death and injury of Americans as well as the enemy fighters but also the emotional toll," said Boykin. "I think the movie does a very good job of bringing out what happens to a person when they're in an environment like that and exposed to so much killing and carnage and so forth. I think they show that very accurately in terms's of Bradley Cooper's character as he plays Chris Kyle," he said. Kyle is credited as being the most lethal sniper in American military history. Boykin says the work of Kyle and other special forces snipers is hugely important to the success of ground combat operations. "A good sniper is irreplaceable. A good sniper who is really good at not just his marksmanship but is mentally switched on to understand the environment and know where he should be observing and what looks out of place and knows when and when not to pull the trigger is very critical to the mission," said Boykin. Boykin, who commanded special forces for much of his military career, says great snipers like Kyle can do even more. "More importantly, a good sniper that can give verbal directions to a foot patrol or a convoy and things to avoid and place to go and maneuver is just as important as being able to take a shot," said Boykin, who says snipers of Kyle's caliber "saved an untold number of lives." Story after story tells of audience members sitting silently through the closing credits of "American Sniper" and then filing out of theaters without saying a word. Boykin says there are ways to channel that powerful experience into help for real-life heroes. First, he says reaching out to veterans and their families can make a huge difference. "I hope they understand that veterans have paid a dear price and I hope that translates into programs to hire veterans, to supports veterans and their families," said Boykin. The general also hopes moviegoers will hold Washington officials to account on keeping the U.S. military strong and not shackled by arbitrary spending caps through sequestration. He also says the pressure needs to keep coming to make sure our heroes get the care they deserve. "I hope that it gets America fired up to want to have a strong military and to want to take care of our veterans instead of letting them die at VA facilities because they can't get a colonoscopy or something. That's just one of the most egregious tragedies in the last 50 years I think," said Boykin. |
| Obama's 'Groundhog Day' Budgeting |
| Mon, 2 Feb 2015 15:59:21 EST President Obama is urging Congress to adopt the priorities he lays out in his new federal budget that would cost over four trillion dollars for just the next year, but Republicans say the president refuses to change course after American voters roundly rejected his current economic strategy. Re. Scott Garrett, R-New Jersey, also says Obama's fiscal approach would greatly burden future generations and make spending on real priorities increasingly difficult. Obama's federal budget for Fiscal Year 2016 would cost north of four trillion dollars. He calls for a series of tax increases on investors and corporations in order to pay for specific, targeted tax credits for working families. Obama calls it "middle class economics" and stated Monday that those policies plus spending on education, infrastructure and other priorities amount to investments we can't afford not to make. Republicans are declaring the proposal dead on arrival. Garrett is the senior GOP member on the House Budget Committee. He says the Obama budget is disappointing but hardly surprising. "This is just a lousy Groundhog Day repeat or as Yogi Berra would say, 'This is deja vu all over again.' You see the same thing from this president budget after budget. It increases taxes. It expands the size of the government. It expands the size of the same failed government programs that are not doing anything to create jobs," said Garrett. Garrett is also stunned at how both Obama's budget and last months State of the Union message seem to contain any acknowledgement of the political upheaval that took place last November. "The American public had rejected his spendthrift, bailout type of spending patterns that he had in the past. The American public has also rejected the idea that. And the American public has also rejected the idea that we have to live in an economic morass that we've lived over the last six years. We have to turn things around and I think that's what the public is asking Washington to do," said Garrett. As for the new budget, Garrett says Obama is not only beating the same dead horse but is pursuing badly flawed economic policies. "It is a failed policy. It is not what the American taxpayers are looking for. It's certainly not what my constituents back in the fifth district in New Jersey are looking for. In short, they want a Washington that lives like they do, which means live within your means, come up with a budget that actually helps to expand opportunity, expand and create jobs and create more prosperity in the country. His goes in the opposite direction, " said Garrett. "For example, how can you possibly say raising taxes on spending and investment is a good thing? If you raise taxes on something, you discourage that activity. If you discourage saving and investment, that means you're walking in the opposite direction of job creation. You're discouraging good job creation and job growth," he said. In addition to the four trillion dollar price tag, the Obama budget also carries a $474 billion deficit in 2016. In the final year of the ten-year projection, Obama's numbers work out to $687 billion in red ink. "Those are the same sort of numbers we get year in and year out. I remember being in budget committee last year and asking the administration, 'When does this budget balance? One year, five years, ten years, twenty years, forty years?' Of course, the answer then is the same as this year's budget. It never balances. That means that our kids (and) our grandkids are going to be the ones ultimately paying the price for the largesse that this president puts in his spending packages this year," said Garrett. Beyond the saddling of future generations, Garrett says the more deficit spending the U.S. racks up, the tougher it is to find room for anything else in the budget. "The interest on the debt will be $229 billion. That's a huge sum of money.It's going to go up to over $780 billion by the end of this cycle. That's more money than we spend on defense. That's more money than we spend on Medicaid. That's more money than we spend on all of the discretionary stuff combined. When you're spending so much money on the interest on your debt, that means you don't have any money to spend on the things they have to spend on," said Garrett. Critics of Republicans are quick to point out that GOP of control of Washington for much of last decade also led mounting debts crippling future generations. Garrett says that is inexcusably true but pales compared to what we're seeing in this administration. "I never defended the Bush administration's spending. I often criticized what President Bush did, but President Obama is Bush's spending on steroids," said Garrett. With Republicans now controlling both the House and Senate, a very different budget will be offered by the GOP in the coming weeks. "It'll be a realistic budget. It'll be a budget that actually tries to live within our means and also tries to help promote growth and job creation. Once we have that laid out, the American public will have their choice and their voice will be heard. Do we have a budget that actually grows the economy or do we have one like we've seen in the past that stunts it, restrains it and leads to the dismal economic growth that we've seen over the last several years," said Garrett. The budget blueprints offered by the White House and Congress are really more like wish lists than practical expectations. Some previous Obama budgets have failed to draw a single vote of support in either the House or Senate, even among Democrats. Reality will clash with the wish list once the appropriations process kicks off in earnest later this year. In the meantime, Republicans and Obama are preparing for a showdown over funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which runs out at the end of this month. President Obama wants a clean extension. Republicans want to withhold funding to enforce Obama's unilateral actions on immigration, citing them as unconstitutional. The House has already passed such a plan to withhold the immigration funds. The Senate has yet to take it up. Obama has promised a veto. For Garrett, this showdown is about Obama honoring his word. The congressman says there is a simple way to address this standoff without ratcheting up the shutdown drama. "Pass that bill and then, if he has other ideas on immigration policy and the like then he should be coming back to Congress and addressing those in the next step. But right now, it's most important that we make sure that Homeland Security, that appropriations bill, a clean bill if you will, passes both houses and gets signed into law," said Garrett. |
| Obama Attorney General Nominee 'Came Up Way Short' |
| Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:59:34 EST Sen. David Vitter (R-Louisiana) is strongly opposed to the nomination of Loretta Lynch to be the next attorney general, saying she has made it clear she is committed to to enforcing what he considers President Obama's unconstitutional amnesty orders and ignoring the laws on the books. Vitter is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which held confirmation hearings for Lynch on Wednesday. He says her answers, especially on Obama's immigration policy, should disqualify her from leading the Justice Department. "I have a lot of concerns, but the single biggest reason, by far, is President Obama's unconstitutional executive amnesty and the fact that she's defending it and would carry it forward," said Vitter. During the eight hours of testimony, Lynch made it clear she believes Obama's unilateral action to confer legal status on some five million people in the country illegally is "reasonable" and is a policy she will defend. Lynch further stated that it made sense to focus immigration enforcement the most recent illegal arrivals and those who pose a criminal threat . During his questioning, Vitter sought to convince Lynch that Obama's action directly conflicts with existing immigration law and was not impressed with her response. "I thought she came up way short, quite frankly. I cited the statutes relied on. One of them makes it clear that any case like this has to be considered on a case by case basis. And I asked her, 'Is an action that covers five million illegal aliens really acting case by case?' She would never address that question directly, I think for a very obvious reason. That doesn't pass the smell test," said Vitter. Vitter says he also found Lynch strangely unconcerned about how Obama's change in policy seems to trump current law and greatly diminishes the attorney general's position when it comes to immigration enforcement. "I also asked her about her role in this because the statute makes very clear that the attorney general is supposed to be in the middle of this, making these case by case determinations. The administration's plan is not to involve the attorney general in any major way. Again, she didn't have a direct answer to that," he said. Does Vitter see Lynch as a carbon copy of current Attorney General Eric Holder when it comes to partiality toward the Obama administration? The senator says yes and no. "I think it would be largely the same. She wouldn't be as much of a lightning rod as Eric Holder. Arguably, that could make her even more dangerous because she would operate under radar more. But I think in terms of substance and policy and outcome it would be the same," said Vitter. Nonetheless, early indications suggest Lynch is probably headed for confirmation. Two Republicans on the panel, Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) have suggested they are inclined to support the nomination. Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), who is not on the panel has already indicated his backing for Lynch. However, Vitter says observers may be surprised by how many votes are cast against Lynch. "I think lots of members are still making up their minds. I think you're going to see a very significant number of no votes. I'm not predicting we'll block the confirmation as I would hope we'll do, but you're certainly going to see a significant number of no votes," he said. Immigration is not only a major issue concerning the Lynch nomination, but the Senate will soon take up the effort to block funding for the president's unilateral action as well. Earlier this month, the House of Representatives approved funding for the Department of Homeland Security through end of Fiscal Year 2015 without providing funds for Obama's orders or the Deferred Action for Child Arrivals program that Obama unilaterally instituted in 2012 to grant legal status to young people brought to the U.S. illegally when they were very young, a group often labeled as "dreamers". Sixty votes are needed to pass the bill out of the Senate and on to Obama's desk. Vitter knows it will a tough fight. He praises Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for allowing a full and open debate on this and other issues. However, the senator will be working to pass the bill in it's current form. "Everybody's going to have their opportunity for amendments. Folks who want to take some of the language out of the bill can put up an amendment. I'm going to oppose that. I strongly support all of the House bill. We'll see where we end up at the end of that process. I hope that we keep the House bill wholly or largely intact and then pass it on to the president," said Vitter. Beyond what he considers the ignoring of existing immigration enforcement statutes, Vitter is also fuming that Obama's actions make life harder for American citizens and legal immigrants to find work. "It's not just setting enforcement priorities. It's going further. It's giving these people a parole, a different legal status for at least three years at a time. It's also giving them a work permit, when there's plenty of statutory law that says they cannot work here in the United States legally," said Vitter. Getting to 60 votes will require at least six Democrats to come on board. Vitter doesn't know of any that are prepared to buck the president right now but he says their own words in reaction to the president's actions in November may push a few to join the Republicans. "This executive amnesty is a big deal. There were certainly Democrats who stated that they opposed it at the time, who stated that the president overstepped his bounds," said Vitter. "How are they going to show that? How are they going to demonstrate that position? We're going to find out in the next few weeks." Department of Homeland Security funding is currently set to expire in late February. |
| Strong Families = A Strong Economy |
| Wed, 28 Jan 2015 16:21:07 EST Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is pushing a pro-family legislative agenda that he says is a common sense approach to strengthening families and the U.S. economy at the same time. The proposals range from a renewed push for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to giving Americans more flexibility at work so they can make family a priority. Lee outlined his approach earlier this month in a speech at the Heritage Foundation. His main thesis is that it's a mistake for conservatives or anybody else to think of family issues as separate from our economic challenges. "I believe the family is the fundamental building block of society. Too often, as conservatives, we've tended to look at the family exclusively as a social unit that has economic implications. I think it's equally important to view it as an economic unit with social implications," said Lee. He says Washington needs to recognize that helping American families is good for all of us. "Everything we need to be doing in Washington should be focused on the family, on making sure that government is at least not harming the family, making sure that the government is not doing anything to discourage marriage and child rearing, not doing anything to single out, target or punish or harm families," said Lee. Lee's agenda takes on many different dimensions but largely seeks to address kitchen table issues. Right at the top of his list is the need to reduce the cost of a college education. "I think the best way to bring it down is to look at the way we accredit institutions of higher learning. If we look to expand the number and nature of entities that are accredited and allowed to participate in federal higher education funding programs, I think we could achieve a state of play in which there'd be more competition. With more competition, you generally have prices going down instead of perpetually up," said Lee, who believes accrediting many more online colleges and universities could be a game-changer in reducing the cost of college and the staggering amount of student debt. For those already in the workforce, Lee wants to see transportation made a priority but in a way that largely takes Washington out of the picture. "Through my Transportation Empowerment Act, we would help moms and dads get home to their families sooner, allowing them to spend less time in gridlocked traffic by shifting more of the funding over to the states. We would lower the federal gasoline tax from 18.4 cents per gallon to 3.7 cents per gallon and allow states to collect and spend the differential of 14.7 cents per gallon entirely on their own," said Lee, who says there are great benefits in this approach. "When you do it that way, you expand the spending potential of each dollar by 20-30 percent because all of a sudden you don't have all of these federal regulatory costs that go into this. We want to connect where people need to work with where they want to live, and that's what this bill would do," he said. Besides a desire to shorten commutes for working parents, Lee is teaming with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on giving parents more freedom in their schedules through the Working Families Flexibility Act. "What this does is to give the comp time alternative and makes that available to private sector workers. Currently, that's available only for government workers. If an employer wants to offer comp time and an employee wants to receive comp time, they don't have that choice even if they're both interested in doing that because federal law precludes it. We think that's wrong and we think that if it's OK for government workers, it ought to be just fine for America's private sector employees as well," said Lee. He says that sort of flexibility at work will give parents more opportunities to focus on things more important. "If someone wants to work an extra hour or two or more one week, they can take that time off the next week if they want to go attend their child's ballet recital or baseball game," said Lee. The teaming of Lee and McConnell on the bill may surprise some who remember the two senators preferring much different strategies during the 2013 showdown over appropriations and Obamacare funding and last month's drama over the "cromnibus" bill. Lee says he is thrilled to see McConnell running the Senate and allowing a much more open process on legislation than former Majority Leader Harry Reid ever did. The senator also says too much is made of a few high-profile disagreements. "As senators from the same party, we don't always agree but our areas of agreement far outnumber our areas of disagreement. This is one of the countless areas in which we agree. So I'm happy to have his help," said Lee. Aside from the family agenda, Lee is also starting a new push for the federal government to handle it's finances like most families and businesses, by not spending more than it takes in. He is calling for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It's an idea that fell one vote short in the Senate on two separate occasions in the 1990s. Lee says it's something the American people want. "People want a balanced budget amendment. They want Congress to have restrictions placed on its ability to spend money, and in particular on its ability to impose economic burdens on future generations of Americans, including Americans who have not yet been born and including others who have been born but are not yet old enough to vote. It ends up being a form of taxation without representation," said Lee, who says his proposed amendment is pretty straightforward. "It would require Congress to use a super majority vote to approve any budget that's not balanced, to approve any increase on the debt ceiling, in order to raise taxes or in order to spend more than a specific, defined percentage of GDP (18 percent). We think that if Congress wants to do any of those things, it ought to have to secure a super majority vote in both houses of Congress in order to do it," said Lee. A constitutional amendment would require 67 votes in the Senate. Hi family agenda measures would likely need 60. Lee says he's not to the head-counting stage yet but believes his ideas are little more than common sense and should draw wide bipartisan support. "It's really hard to argue against these things. It's going to be hard for them to argue against allowing private sector employees the same benefits that government workers have, the same opportunity they have to access comp time," said Lee. |
| Obama's Dangerous Game |
| Mon, 26 Jan 2015 16:05:00 EST Chaos in Yemen is leading to even greater Middle East stability, shines the spotlight of failure on a nation President Obama hailed as a foreign policy success just four months ago and forces an even tougher negotiating position with the Iranians, according to retired U.S. Navy Captain Chuck Nash. As he laid out his approach to confronting the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in September, Obama cited numerous operations targeting terrorists in Yemen as a major success of his effort to take the fight to the terrorists. "We took out Osama bin Laden and much of al Qaeda's leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We've targeted al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen, and recently eliminated the top commander of its affiliate in Somalia," said Obama. Nash says that's looking pretty bad in hindsight. "It just adds to the overall instability and the mess that the Middle East has become ever since the Arab Spring. This was the knife in the heart of Yemen, which the president has been holding out as a way of modeling our success post-Arab Spring," said Nash. Yemen has a complicated history in the fight against radical Islamic terrorism. Even before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole as it refueled in Yemen, killing 17 Navy personnel. Since 9/11, the Yemeni government sporadically assisted in the fight against Al Qaeda even as the terror group's Yemeni chapter, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), grew in size and effectiveness. The U.S. has conducted numerous drone strikes in Yemen, including the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American citizen who inspired the Ft. Hood massacre, the attempted Christmas Day underwear bombing of an international flight. Even years after his death, AQAP credit al-Awlaki with planning the deadly Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris earlier this month. Ali Abdullah Saleh was effectively forced from power during the Arab Spring after losing support from the U.S. and other western nations. His vice president, Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, was forced to resign last week as Iranian-backed Houthi rebels stormed much of the capital and forced most of the government to step down. Nash says while the Houthis are kindred spirits with the Iranians, they are their own group with their own ambitions. "They're co-religionists with the Iranians, because they will help just about any Shi'ite group in the region, has backed them, helped them get weapons and we can expect that the Iranians will fully leverage any opening they get with these guys," said Nash. Nash believes the greatest potential mischief of the Houthis can be seen on the map. "It's a 900-mile coastline It starts up in the Red Sea and then swings around into the Indian Ocean. It sits astride that Red Sea opening that leads to the Suez Canal. A tremendous amount of the world's shipping goes right past Yemen. As you'll remember, that's where the USS Cole was bombed some years ago. It's a very choke point country," said Nash. Yemen also lies next to Saudi Arabia, which is engaged in economic warfare by tanking the price of oil to fiscally cripple the Iranians. The Saudis are also transitioning to a new king after Thursday's death of King Abdullah. "Now you have the new king in there and he is unwilling to tighten down the oil spigot. So keeping that oil spigot open is a direct financial threat to the Iranians, to the point that the prime minister of Iran has made threats to the countries [that] he believes are waging economic warfare against Iran," said Nash. So how should the instability in Yemen impact the Obama administration's posture toward Iran and its nuclear program? Nash says Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry need to take a much tougher line. "We have enabled our enemies to so accurately judge our position because they know all they have to do is stand firm and we will try to meet them halfway to an unreasonable position, which means our position will become less and less reasonable and closer towards theirs," said Nash. Nash says the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had some advice the Obama administration would be wise to accept. "The Iron Lady was once asked, 'What do you think is the lesson of the 20th century?' and Margaret Thatcher said, 'I would think that the greatest lesson of the 20th century is one cannot appease dictators if one values the lives of the innocent,'" said Nash. He says the Obama administration is going in the opposite direction. "We are a country that's all about freedom. We've been trying to export freedom. We're not going to turn countries into Jeffersonian democracies, but we would like to stand for some basic human rights and do things where we can all sleep well and be comfortable in our own skins at night," said Nash. "That's not what the Iranians are about, that's not what Al Qaeda is about and that's not what the Islamic State is about. They are direct threats to all of humanity. They have to be dealt with and dealt with sternly. Weakness just breeds greater problems," said Nash. |
| Three Martini Lunch 1/26/15 |
| Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:27:00 EST Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review take note of avowed socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders criticizing President Obama's take on the jobs picture. They're also growing weary of the renewed speculation of Donald Trump and Sarah Palin White House runs when neither of them have any real intention of running. And they react to the drone that crashed at the White House and the potential security threats that could pose. |
| 'They Deserve No One's Vote' |
| Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:37:51 EST A leader in the fight to preserve the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is warning Republicans not to abandon the cause after reports suggest the GOP hopes the Supreme Court will help them out of an awkward position later this year. The renewed concerns from social conservatives comes after a New York Times report suggesting Republican Party officials are thrilled the Supreme Court is taking up the issue this year, suggesting it will be a settled issue by the time 2016 rolls around. Republicans championed traditional marriage in 2004 and many observers believe George W. Bush owes his victory that year to millions of extra voters showing up to support traditional marriage amendments in key states such as Ohio. Since then, the GOP has been increasingly less vocal, especially with millennial generation voters overwhelmingly supporting same-sex marriage. According to the Times report, even governors who were once staunch defenders of traditional marriage, are waving the white flag. After losing on the issue in a lower court, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie refused to fight for the existing traditional marriage law, calling it "a settled issue." After federal appeals courts sided with same-sex marriage litigants in Wisconsin and Indiana and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear appeals, the GOP governors of those states also said the fight was essentially over. 1cFor us, it 19s over in Wisconsin, 1d said Walker. 1cPeople are free to disagree with court decisions, but we are not free to disobey them," said Pence. Most recently, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a likely 2016 contender, indicated his position has also changed over the past several years. 1cWe live in a democracy, and regardless of our disagreements, we have to respect the rule of law, 1d the Times quoted Bush as saying. Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver has defended traditional marriage in many states around the country. He has little regard for politicians who wilted on this issue once the poll numbers started to change. "I think they're wrong. They're wrong historically, and they deserve no one's vote for being that kind of person who comes out and makes such a statement as a politician. Governor Scott Walker, Governor Pence, Governor Chris Christie, former Governor Jeb Bush, they're wrong," he said. Republican Party operatives counter by saying many courts have already spoken, the Supreme Court will rule in June and GOP officials have little choice but to enforce those rulings and move on to other issues. Staver says great leaders in history have proved that approach to be wrong. "Abraham Lincoln didn't say, 'Well, the Supreme Court spoke on Dred Scott. I'm personally opposed to slavery, but the courts have spoken so we're going to continue to impose slavery.' No, he opposed it. He advocated that this was wrong. Thomas Jefferson didn't say, 'I don't like the Libel and Sedition Act. It violates free speech. You can't protest the government under that. I think that's wrong, but we've got to uphold it.' No, what did he do? He completely advocated disobedience," said Staver. He says the way prominent Republicans have shifted on the issue show them to be precisely the type of leaders Americans do not want in an even higher office. "They need to have some guts. This is an issue that is not some side, tangential issue. This is a fundamental reshaping of our society. It is a clash with religious freedom of unprecedented proportion. And if they don't get it, they don't get my vote," said Staver. GOP officials dispute that last point, saying the economy and national security are far more pressing issues than the fight over marriage and they believe primary and general election voters do not want to make this a key issue in the 2016 campaign. Staver thinks Americans are much more upset about the courts taking the power away from states to decide marriage laws than the national party or even polls might suggest. "I think many primary voters are of that mindset. They want somebody who will speak truth, who will speak boldly. The people of this country don't want these mealy, weak-backed, weak-kneed politicians. I think they're frankly sick and tired of the courts deciding these major social issues for them when they know that the courts have no authority to do so," said Staver. Staver says social conservatives would strongly prefer to advance their causes through the Republican Party, but he says the party may leave them no choice but to leave and support someone else. "I think if the Republican Party or any party ultimately goes off the farm on same-sex marriage that that party is no longer worthy of support. I think it's time for another party. That hasn't happened with the Republican Party, but certainly it's happened with some of the Republican candidates. I think people just need to simply write in different candidates and vote for different candidates that have the backbone," said Staver. He believes Republicans still have a chance to get this right. Social conservatives have been a critical part of the Republican coalition since the rise of Ronald Reagan in 1980. However, Staver says there are clear limits to that support. "You can't compromise on life . If a candidate doesn't get that, they don't get your vote. And you can't compromise on the natural created order of marriage as a man and a woman. If they don't get those very basic, simple facts, how are you going to get them to figure out where they ought to balance the budget or what they're going to do if Iran gets a nuclear weapon," said Staver. "If they can't get the basic kindergarten kind of fundamental, foundation values, then how can they get anything else? They're not deserving of our time and certainly not of our votes," he said. |
| 'All About that Base' |
| Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:31:54 EST As Democrats try to figure out what went wrong in the 2014 midterm elections, the Capitol Steps eavesdrop on President Obama, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi brainstorming for 2016. Our guest is Capitol Steps Co-Founder Elaina Newport. |
| Battling "the Abortion President" |
| Thu, 22 Jan 2015 16:12:28 EST One of the strongest pro-life voices in the House of Representatives says Republicans will soon pass a bill banning most abortions before 20 weeks of pregnancy and he says the legislation passed Thursday to ban taxpayer funding of abortion is also a major step forward for those committed to protecting the unborn. Thursday marks 42 years since the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that declared abortion a constitutional right. House Republicans were initially planning to pass the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which bans almost all abortions before the unborn child reaches the 20-week stage. Those plans were scrapped by Republican leaders after Reps. Renee Ellmers (R-North Carolina) and Jackie Walorski (R-Indiana) withdrew as co-sponsors of the bill. Their main concern was that an exception for rape victims required law enforcement documentation of a rape complaint around the time of conception. Ellmers also worried the vote could tuen off young women from the GOP in the opening weeks of the new Congress. Enough GOP members were getting wobbly on the issue that leaders decided to pull the resolution from the floor after debate had started. However, pro-life stalwart Rep. Chris Smith (R-New Jersey) believes the bill will come back for consideration. "There was some pushback, but pushback that I think will lead to another day where we get another bill that will bring unity. I am certain that the bill will be up very soon," said Smith. Smith says he was stunned at how Democrats found ways to defend dismembering unborn children more than halfway through their development in the womb. "It was such a revelation to see how the abortion rights side can't some to grips with the fact that dismemberment abortions cause hideous pain. A child hurts as her or her arms and legs, and ultimately they are decapitated by the abortionist. They just paper over that. They just say it's not true, even though the evidence is overwhelming that the child feels pain at least at the 20-week point and probably even before," said Smith. "There's a culture of denial in the abortion movement that we're trying to expose because these little children deserve better than being so mistreated," said Smith, who is appalled that pro-choice advocates believe discovering disabilities in an unborn child makes ending that life acceptable. "How dare we suggest that you kill a baby painfully, or any other way, because he or she has Down Syndrome or some other anomaly that they're coping with. That is cruelty of the highest order," said Smith. On Thursday, the House did overwhelmingly approve legislation to ban taxpayer funding of abortion. "That is huge. We're talking about Obamacare, where U.S. taxpayers are now subsidizing over a thousand insurance plans to pay for abortion on demand. This would end that. It would also make permanent the different restrictions we have like the Hyde Amendment, that have to be renewed every single year. It also provides more transparency because the Obama White House has no transparency whatsoever," said Smith. Smith says despite endless assurances to the contrary during the Obamacare debate, taxpayers are now funding more abortions now than at any other time in U.S. history. And he says there is a simple explanation for that. Obama "lied" during his health care speech to a Joint Session of Congress in September 2009. "I was six feet away from the podium when he gave that speech. It is absolutely untrue," said Smith. "Obamacare has a lot of lies to it, a lot of things that were said that turned out to be unbelievably untrue. When it comes to abortion funding, this is the biggest and most massive funding of abortion in America's history." Smith says he is amazed that Democrats won't acknowledge those facts either. "It's almost like being in an Orwellian theater sometimes when you hear some of the members speak.. There were people standing on the floor today saying that there's no federal funding for abortion in Obamacare. Yet the Government Accountability Office (GAO)... said 1,036 Obamacare insurance plans pay for abortion on demand.," said Smith. But the taxpayer subsidizing of abortion does not stop there. Upon taking office in 2009, President Obama reversed Bush administration policy by allocating funds to organizations providing abortions like Planned Parenthood in developing nations. Obama is also pumping money into the United Nations Population Fund, which partners with groups enforcing China's one-child policy through forced abortions and sterilization. "This government, not under Reagan, not under Bush, not under the second Bush, but under Clinton and now President Obama lavishly funds this organization that has extolled the one child per couple policy, defends it, whitewashes it and on the ground is actually a part of it," said Smith. The congressman says the simple truth both at home and abroad, taxpayers are funding countless abortions through Obama administration policies. "We're enabling abortion and Obama is the abortion president," he said. |
| 'Next Roe v. Wade' Coming in June? |
| Thu, 22 Jan 2015 14:00:45 EST Forty-two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Americans have the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, a decision that launched one of the most intense political and social debates in our nation 19s history. As activists on both sides observe the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the high court may be poised to intervene again on an issue of immense social significance and intense debate: the definition of marriage. Following a 2013 Supreme Court decision stating that the federal government could not withhold spousal benefits from same-sex partners in states where gay marriage was legal, a myriad of challenges were filed against state laws limiting the definition of marriage to the union of one man and one woman. The vast majority of federal judges at the district and appellate levels sided with the plaintiffs and struck down traditional marriage laws and state constitutional amendments. Last fall, the Supreme Court refused to hear appeals from those seeking to defend traditional marriage laws. However, in November, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed lower court rulings and upheld traditional marriage standards in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. On Jan. 16, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of that ruling. Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver says the court has a very important choice to make. 1cWill the court ultimately say, 18Yes, these states that affirm the definition of marriage, that 19s fine. Those can continue on? 1d We don 19t know. On the other hand, if they ultimately somehow invented a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it could be the Roe v. Wade for same-sex marriage and that would have a devastating impact, 1d said Staver, who says the Sixth Circuit had good reasons for upholding traditional marriage laws. 1cNumber one, it said the Supreme Court back in the 1970s issued the Baker v. Nelson decision, in which the Supreme Court then dismissed the case for lack of a federal question because there 19s no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. They also said that even the Supreme Court 19s decision in 2013 regarding the Federal Defense of Marriage Act said that states have the right to be able to define marriage so the federal government should not interfere, 1d said Staver. Staver says the court had little choice but to take up the issue now that conflicting appellate court rulings are on the record. Nonetheless, he 19s apprehensive about how this case will turn out because of what he considers the court 19s lousy approach to the marriage debate in the past. 1cThe Supreme Court has made a mess out of something very simple. It 19s very simple because there 19s no constitutional right, never has been and can never construed to be, a right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution. They should have said that a long time ago and we would have been done with this issue, 1d said Staver. Even in decisions Staver considers wrongheaded, he says the court has set precedent on the side of traditional advocates. He says the Windsor case from 2013 is a prime example. 1cIn that case they said multiple times that it is the prerogative of the state to define marriage. I believe marriage predates the states and it 19s only an affirmation of what is. But they said it was a states 19 rights issue and the federal government should not interfere, 1d he said. Staver expects the defense of traditional marriage laws to center on that states 19 rights argument. He also anticipates lawyers pointing to the court 19s earlier rejection of marriage as a federal issue in Baker v. Nelson and the harm done by concluding children are not disadvantaged by not having both a mom and a dad. If the Supreme Court does uphold traditional marriage laws, Staver says we can expect a flurry of legal and political activity in states where same-sex marriage has been instituted through the courts. 1cI think what would happen is a firestorm in these other states that have overread the 2013 decision as saying there is a constitutional right to a same-sex marriage. If the Supreme Court later this year says no there 19s not and states have a right to affirm marriage as one man and one woman, that means these other decisions went too far and went beyond what the Supreme Court had said, 1d noted Staver. 1cTherefore, there will be efforts to set aside those decisions, and/or there will be efforts to re-pass marriage amendments in those states. So the battle will continue and heat up big time, 1d he said. Conventional wisdom suggests traditional marriage advocates have an uphill fight at the Supreme Court. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are likely to back same-sex marriage and Justice Anthony Kennedy has consistently sided with the liberals on the issue. Staver admits it will be a tough fight, but he believes it should be made easier by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan removing themselves from this case. 1cThey should be recused. Why? Because while they had the cases of same-sex marriage pending before the court last fall 26Ginsburg and Kagan presided over same-sex marriages. They should be recused. They have actually injected themselves into the very issue that was then before the court and now before the court, 1d said Staver, who is not holding his breath waiting for the two justices to recuse themselves. 1cIt 19s very clear that they should. The statute says that they should, but if they don 19t who 19s going to force them? There 19s no one above the Supreme Court to force a recusal. They are the final word in that respect, 1d said Staver. If Ginsburg and Kagan stay on this case and end up being the difference in legalizing same-sex marriage coast to coast, Staver says our justice system will be severely compromised. 1cThey could choose not to recuse, but if they do , they will certainly undermine the confidence of the people in the court. What may be on trial is not marriage but the validity and the legitimacy and the trustworthiness, or lack thereof, of this Supreme Court, 1d said Staver. |
| Obama's 'Blind Eye' on Terrorism |
| Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:56:00 EST Rep. Robert Pittenger (R-North Carolina) says President Obama continued to project weakness in his State of the Union address Tuesday night and he asserts Obama's characterization of our fight against terrorism and a nuclear Iran is not backed up by the facts. In his speech Obama claimed the shadow of crisis has passed when it comes to the threat posed by radical Islam. In one of the most striking statements, Obama said the U.S. has halted progress in Iran's nuclear program. Pittenger says Iran is doing just fine because the nuclear program has not stopped, more money is pouring in after the easing of sanctions and Iran is only too happy to string the west along by suggesting the prospect of some breakthrough agreement that will probably never come. "Now we're on our second extension (of nuclear talks with Iran) for another seven months. We've unfrozen billions of dollars of more assets for them. We already provided eight billion dollars of economic aid. This is a terrorist state that has funded terrorism for the past thirty-plus years," said Pittenger. Obama also stated his administration is leading a successful coalition to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Pittenger says that appraisal clearly fails the smell test. "Syria is the staging ground for Al Qaeda and ISIS throughout the world. There are over 90 countries represented in Syria today, over 3,000 western passports. It would be the most naive statement to say that we are winning the war in Syria," said Pittenger. He says ISIS is still freely exporting oil to finance it's bloody assault on the region and has recruited anywhere from 60,000-80,000 foreign fighters while the United States is planning to train about 5,000 Syrian rebels. "We are very much challenged by the commitment, the assertiveness, the aggression, and frankly the technical capabilities of ISIS and what has taken place in Syria," said Pittenger. On Tuesday, Obama also hailed the end of combat operations in Afghanistan and said after once having 180,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are now 15,000 remaining in Afghanistan and that number is expected to decline even further. Pittenger says Obama should think long and hard about forecasting stability in Afghanistan by pursuing the same strategy he employed in leaving Iraq. "He did the same thing in Iraq, didn't he? We didn't have a force to retain there. As a result, we did not have the intelligence capabilities. We didn't have the support to get to the Iraqi army. It dismantled. We didn't have support to give to the Kurds to strengthen them. All of that dissolved. It created anarchy and chaos and the destruction that happened as a result of it. If he fully intends to withdraw out of Afghanistan, we're going to see the same type of collapse there," he said. For the congressman, who also blasted Obama for seeking to normalize relations with Cuba, Obama is sending exactly the wrong message to our enemies. Pittenger says it's a pattern that began in 2009, when Obama decided to abandon our missile defense commitments in Poland and the Czech Republic and he believes it has only gotten worse. "We've taken our armed forces down to the lowest level since before World War II. He's sent every signal out to our adversaries that we are not going to stand strong. That has made them more assertive and more provocative," said Pittenger. When it comes to the fight against radical Islamic terrorists, Pittenger believes Obama shows a particular weakness. "He more or less gives a blind eye to the assertiveness and the focus of the Islamic terrorists. I reminds me of what occurred with (former British Prime Minister) Neville Chamberlain prior to World War II. He never understood what Hitler was all about," said Pittenger. Beyond Obama's refusal to identify our enemy is the uncertainty he leaves with allies in the Middle East. Pittenger has taken multiple trips to the region to meet with leaders there. He our friends in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and elsewhere have no idea what Obama believes or what to expect from him. "They don't know where this president stands. They don't know, when he makes a commitment, if he's going to be there tomorrow. I heard that time and again, so that's why you have someone like the emir in Qatar playing both sides," said Pittenger. Pittenger says the lessons America learned from the end of the Cold War and from the Obama years ought to be crystal clear. "The world is safe when America is strong. When Ronald Reagan was president, he never fired a shot and the (Berlin) Wall came down because we stood strong. We haven;'t stood strong," he said. The congressman says national security priorities for the Republican-controlled Congress include stronger border security and collaborative efforts with our allies to improve intelligence on our enemies and cut off their sources of funding. |
| 'Do We have Any Privacy in Our Homes Now?' |
| Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:28:45 EST Police around the country are using more and more technologies to monitor us in our homes, often without probable cause, and privacy advocates warn Americans are on the verge of losing all privacy from their local governments. The latest flash point in this debate came in Tuesday's edition of USA Today. That story detailed a fairly new type of radar that allows police to closely monitor activity in any home they wish to investigate. "They're called doppler radar devices. What they do is they can see in the home. If you're a breathing, living human being, they can actually get the outline of your body and know where you're at," said Rutherford Institute President John Whitehead, who is also author of "A Government of Wolves" The Emerging American Police State." This type of radar has been used by law enforcement since 2012. According to USA Today, the existence of this technology came to light after a federal appeals court in Denver blasted law enforcement for using the technology without a warrant. Whitehead says obtaining a warrant before using the radar on a private residence gives it constitutional clearance, but any police using it without going through the appropriate legal channels are guilty of infringing on the privacy rights of citizens. "Before the government does surveillance, they have to have probable cause, which means some evidence of illegality. With these types of devices, they can drive by your home now and just see if you're at home. If they want to come in under various laws now that allow them to do this, they can come into your home while you're gone, knowing you're not there and download all the information off your computer or other electronic devices," said Whitehead. According to Whitehead, this radar is just the tip of the iceberg. He says some police departments have laser guns that can detect the presence of alcohol in cars, allowing officers to call ahead and have a colleague pull over someone who may never have been drinking. Another tool becoming more common is a stingray device dispensed to local police through the Department of Homeland Security. "They drive by your home. [The device] is inside the car, but it acts as a fake cell phone tower. It actually can download whatever you're doing on your laptop or your cell phone," said Whitehead. He says another concern are mobile body scanners invading our privacy. "It fits inside a van. They drive by your house and they can see the outline of you. It's like when you fly at airports and you have to go through those scanning machines. They can see the outline of your body in your home. you don't even know it," said Whitehead, who alleges the scanners are being used unconstitutionally in many cases. "They're not getting warrants. They've been using them secretly. They're handed out by the federal government, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security," he said. "As long as there's a warrant issued, you fit within the Constitution. The problem we're seeing now is they're using them secretly." In addition to emerging methods of conducting surveillance from the ground, Whitehead says governments can keep tabs on you from the air. "A number of these devices are attached to drones. Drones now legally fly over the United States. They can fly over your home and actually scan you inside your home. You don't even know it," said Whitehead. "Do we have any privacy in our homes now?" he asked. "I would say probably not." In addition to the daunting task of pushing back against government infringement of our privacy rights at all levels of government, Whitehead admits the first problem is the sheer number of Americans unconcerned about invasive surveillance. "Most people aren't concerned, but as I've seen in former countries that have turned the wrong way in history, when the government does a lot of things people are comfortable [until] hey start focusing on someone who speaks out," said Whitehead. " For example, if you go to a local city council meeting and you oppose the government, you can get in a lot of trouble. They'll have all kinds of information, including your electronic banking. They know how much money you spend, where you spend , where you spend it, what books you read. Eventually this stuff does come home. History teaches us that," he said. When it comes to fighting back on the policy front, Whitehead is pushing lawmakers at all levels to pass an electronic privacy bill of rights. He says one of the core tenets of that should be for citizens to see exactly what their government knows about them. "Number one, it should be available to the public. If they're shooting images of me, I should be able to go see it somewhere or tap into it on the internet. Number two, it shouldn't be used against you in a court of law because it does violate the Constitution," said Whitehead. So where can citizens begin to fight back? Whitehead urges people to start as close to home as possible. "Local citizens can get together and create oversight boards and force their local city councils to rein in all this equipment. The police should tell you if they have it and how they're using it. They should do quarterly reports," said Whitehead. "That's going to take average American citizen getting down to their local city council meeting. You can do it, but you're going to have to get organized. If you want a free future for your children and your grandchildren, then you better get involved in your local governments and rein this stuff in," he said. Whitehead says much more material on emerging law enforcement surveillance tactics can be found at rutherford.org. |
| 'Huffing the Fumes of a Bygone Era' |
| Mon, 19 Jan 2015 15:31:09 EST The former executive director for the Greater Los Angeles chapter of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Southern Christian Leadership Conference believes Dr. King would be greatly distressed at the ongoing racial division in the United States and says those presenting themselves as today's black leaders cannot hold a candle to King and are merely 'huffing the fumes of a bygone era.' "I think he'd be greatly disappointed in what he saw taking place over the last several months, possibly going back as far as the Trayvon Martin shooting," said Joe Hicks, a former liberal who no aligns with the conservative Project 21 black leadership network. He is also vice president of Community Advocates, Inc., a think tank based in Los Angeles. The months leading up to Monday's observance of Martin Luther King Jr. Day witnessed some of the most intense racial division in a generation as a result of the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and the death of Eric Garner in Staten Island. Grand juries in both places decided not to indict the officers connected to those cases. Protests, some of them destructive, broke out in Ferguson. New York City was rocked in December by the murders of two NYPD officers by a man who claimed the killings were retaliation for the deaths of black men in confrontation with white officers. Hicks says Dr. King would not have been impressed with the protests in either place. "I've had people ask me, 'Is this the rebirth of the new civil rights movement?' I hope not because when you have people marching through the streets of New York chanting things like, 'What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want them? Now,' Dr. King would have been appalled by that," said Hicks. He places some of the blame for escalating tensions at the feet of today's black leaders. Hicks says King associates like Jesse Jackson, Rev. Joseph Lowery and Rep. John Lewis are taking on less public roles. That leaves the stage to figures like Rev. Al Sharpton. While he cannot be certain what King would say about today's black leaders, Hicks is confident the Nobel Peace Prize winner would not be impressed. "Knowing how he viewed things and the honor with which he approached the things he was doing, I think he'd be a bit appalled by some the antics of somebody like Al Sharpton for instance, as well as some other folks that now claim the mantle. These people like Sharpton and others today are standing in the shadows of giants like King and huffing the fumes of a bygone era. I think he'd be a bit saddened by what he sees today," said Hicks. According to Hicks, one major difference between King's goals and those pursued by Sharpton and others is that King championed a concrete, meaningful agenda. "Dr. King was about some very real kinds of things: getting the ability of black Americans to vote, allowing people to access public accommodations, getting rid of discrimination in employment and on and on, a list of actual real things that were getting in the way of black Americans participating fully in this society," said Hicks. What beliefs and values of King would serve the nation well in the midst of our current division? Hicks says King's most famous words would be a good starting point in which the civil rights leader implored Americans to judge one another by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. He says today's politics has it exactly backwards. "That's something else I think he's be disappointed in is that we have this sort of racial identity politics that we see being played out in many of these current protests. That wasn't what Dr. King was all about. He wanted us to move past racialism and look at each other based on who we were as individuals, not so much judging people by what their skin color might indicate to others," said Hicks. In the 47 years since King's assassination, Democrats and Republicans have both liberally quoted King to bolster their position on various political issues. Democrats claim they are carrying on the King legacy and reference the liberal path charted by other civil rights figures. Republicans point out that King was a Republican and frequently cite his comments on abortion, homosexuality and the inherent worth of the individual as evidence to the contrary. Hicks says King was probably drifting left in his later days, including his opposition to the Vietnam War, but he believes all sides need to stop co-opting King for today's political battles. "People like Jackson, and to some extent John Lewis, are extremely liberal in their politics. Would King have followed that road? I don't know. It's possible he might have, but again that's speculation. A lot has changed and shifted in the culture, particularly black culture and black activism. It's taken some interesting kinds of roads. I'm not sure King would have been on board for all of that, but we don't know where he ultimately would have gone politically or ideologically," said Hicks. Each year, the federal holiday in King's honor gives Americans the chance to reflect upon King's ideals and his impact on the United States. But Hicks says our culture makes it tough to drive home the values of Dr. King year-round, since his legacy is so frequently commercialized. "Everybody tries to get a piece of this man and King is not unique in that. American culture has a way of rendering people as innocuous in some kinds of ways. How do you prevent that from happening? It's hard to do because that's what pop culture does," said Hicks. "We see the movie Selma that just came out that distorts history. I think King would have been a little unhappy with how events were treated by a movie put out by Hollywood, attempting to characterize him and the movement," he said. |
| Obama's Amnesty Funding Strategy |
| Fri, 16 Jan 2015 15:02:21 EST Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) says President Obama's loyalty to liberal special interests could doom Republican efforts to fund the Department of Homeland Security while blocking funding for Obama's unilateral action to confer legal status on at least five million people in the nation illegally. However, Flores says Obama is already taking additional actions to undermine the rule of law and American families before Congress even finishes it defunding efforts. "I don't hold out much hope for the president. He puts the interests of others ahead of the interests of families," said Flores. Congress did agree to fund the process to confer legal status on those millions of illegal aliens through the end of February as part of the "cromnibus" vote in December that postponed the long-term debate over Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations while funding the rest of government through September. On Wednesday, the House of Representatives approved legislation funding DHS through September but stripping out money to enforce Obama's November memorandum. However, the House legislation will need 60 votes to clear the U.S. Senate and that appears very unlikely. Even if the votes do materialize, an Obama veto would make an override impossible. Republican leaders vow to push hard to pass the House bill but admit they're not sure what to do if it fails. But even if Republicans were to defy the odds and stop the funding, Flores says Obama is already tapping into other money to accomplish his goals. "He's taking the fees from people who are trying to go through the legal immigration process properly. He's using those fees to pay for the cost of trying to allow the folks that are here illegally to jump to the head of the line," said Flores. Obama is not only treating legal immigrants worse than illegal ones, but Flores reminds American workers that the soon-to-be legalized immigrants will also have a major advantage when competing for jobs. "He's created this perverse incentive for American employers to hire illegals under this new program, over hiring Americans. The employers don't have to provide Obamacare. There's certain other benefits they don't have to provide. So you have a $3,000 advantage if you're an employer to hire somebody here illegally than to hire legal American workers," said Flores. Flores says this is just the latest punch in the gut to hard working Americans. "He's put American workers at the back of the line, and this is after they're already hurting under the Obama economic policies," he said. While the odds of victory seem slim in stopping Obama's agenda, Flores says Republicans will continue to fight. "Those of us in the House of Representatives who believe in the rule of law are going to side with the strong majority of Americans that thinks that the president's action was improper and unlawful. So we are going to fight to stop this presidential action," said Flores, pointing to constitutional clarity on how laws get changed in the United States. "Article I of the Constitution says that Congress has the right to make all laws. It doesn't say anything about the president having any right to break the laws. It also doesn't say the president has the right to make the law if Congress fails to act," said Flores. "If Congress addresses immigration reform, then that's solely for us to do. If we elect not to address immigration reform, the president really doesn't have any options. He has to live with that." Flores is also focused on a debate brewing among House Republicans. He chairs the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a coalition of House conservatives that is the largest caucus on Capitol Hill. More than a dozen Republicans contend the RSC is becoming insufficiently conservative and are planning to form a new group designed to push GOP leaders to the right. The congressman dismisses allegations that the RSC is too moderate or too timid in lobbying leadership. "It is the largest, most conservative, most effective caucus in Congress. There are at least 150 members of Congress, which make up about two-thirds of the House Republicans, that want to be part of that because it has the greatest ability to influence legislation and to push our leadership toward conservative principles," he said. As for the possible defections by some conservatives, Flores says he has no problem with the formation of other conservative groups that will advocate for conservative ideas. "There's room for other groups as well. So to the extent that other members of the RSC would like to form another group to be part of so that they can talk about their ideas, I'm fine with that. I think it's complementary and most of those folks that are doing that are remaining as members of the RSC. So there's not really a split in the RSC. There are just a smaller number of people that want to go form a group so that they can share their ideas among themselves. We applaud that move and think that it's perfectly appropriate," said Flores. |
| Jobs, Jobs, Jobs |
| Thu, 15 Jan 2015 16:04:50 EST Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) says building the Keystone XL Pipeline will create thousands of good jobs, greater energy independence and lower energy prices, but it will require President Obama to prioritize working families over liberal special interests. Flores is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and is chairman of the Republican Study Committee. Prior to his election to Congress in 2010, he was president and CEO of Phoenix Exploration Company in the oil and gas industry. The congressman says projects like this are vital in numerous ways to American families that need relief. Flores and most other GOP lawmakers are at the party retreat in Pennsylvania. American Enterprise Institute President Arthur Brooks addressed the group Thursday morning and stated that the wealthiest Americans have seen seven percent growth since Obama took office while the bottom 50 percent have seen any growth at all. Flores says that frustration is compounded by the fact that many costs for families are on the rise. "During that same period of time, their cost of health care is higher. Their cost of education is higher. Their cost of energy is higher. The Obama economy has really put a squeeze on these folks and bills like the Keystone Pipeline are the exact solution we need to be able to give those families an opportunity to improve their economic position. I'm hoping the president will one day see that and he'll start to stand with them, instead of standing in their way," said Flores. In recent weeks, President Obama has downplayed the potential benefits of the pipeline, saying it's Canadian oil that will be largely shipped to other countries after being refined along the U.S. gulf coast. He further states that the pipeline will only create about 35 long-term jobs once construction is over. Flores strongly disputes that characterization of the pipeline's impact, especially when it comes to jobs. "There would be thousands of jobs during the construction of the pipeline. There would be lots of jobs to continue to operate the pipeline after it's constructed," said Flores. "That oil is going to be refined in U.S. refineries, and that creates thousands of jobs for hard-working American families," he said. And Flores says the benefits wouldn't end there. "The first thing it would mean is for every barrel of oil that came out of Canada, from our friendly North American neighbor, it would displace a barrel of oil from an unfriendly country like Venezuela or those that are having turmoil in the Middle East," said Flores. In addition to new jobs, he says it would also mean lower bills. "Probably the most important from an American economy aspect is that it will lower the cost of energy, particularly for gasoline and for heating our homes and for our air fares and things like that," he said. "Whenever you're spending less money on energy , that's more money in the pockets of families and that means they can start to re-enjoy the American dream," said Flores. On January 9, the House of Representatives passed Keystone 266-153. The Senate is likely to pass the bill next week, with at least 63 and possibly as many as 65 votes. Flores says GOP Senate leaders are working hard to get to 67 votes, which would be enough to override a veto. "I've had some good conversations with the senators that are here at the GOP retreat this week. They are trying to find enough votes to get to 67 on the procedural votes so they know they've got a veto-proof group of people supporting the bill," said Flores. The congressman says the simplest way forward is for President Obama to acknowledge the will of the vast majority of Americans and sign the bill. "What I hope will happen is that the president will put the American people ahead of special interests and that he will sign the bill and we can create thousands of great-paying American jobs by doing this," said Flores. Earlier this week, House Energy and Commerce Committee Vice Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) predicted that Republicans and enough Democrats would come together to override an Obama veto if necessary. Flores isn't so sure, but he believes Republicans can make progress either way. "The worst case is we can show the American people how he's against it, how he puts special interests ahead of them. In the best case, we might be able to get enough votes to stand with those American families and approve this thing," he said. Flores says his four years in Washington have shown him Democrats are all to willing to do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. "One of the thing I've learned is that all too often there are too many people, particularly those on the left that put their special interests ahead of American families that are struggling. That's what causes me to be sanguine about this," said Flores. |
| 'I Blame Jimmy Carter for What Happened in Paris' |
| Wed, 14 Jan 2015 15:48:14 EST Former President Jimmy Carter says terrorists like the ones in Paris last week are motivated in large part by Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, but Middle East expert Dr. Mike Evans not only says Carter is wrong but that Carter himself bears a great deal of responsibility for the rise in Islamic radicalism that played out in the French capital last week. On Monday, Carter appeared on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." After Stewart contended that terrorists only use Islam as a cloak, Carter suggested Israel's treatment of the Palestinians was a highly motivating factor for terrorists. "One of the origins for it is the Palestinian problem, you know, and this aggravates people who are affiliated any way with the Arab people who live in the West Bank and Gaza, what they're doing now (and) what's being done to them," said Carter. Evans is having none of that explanation. "It's not about the Palestinians. It's about terror and Carter's weak liberal left policies that accommodates terror," he said. If Carter is looking to assign blame to influences beyond the terrorists who murdered people in France, Evans says Carter needs to take a long look in the mirror. "I blame Jimmy Carter for what happened in Paris, France. I blame Jimmy Carter, because he began it all with his liberal left policies in Iran," said Evans, who is also author of "Jimmy Carter, the Liberal Left and World Chaos. "He needs to take responsibility because the terror we're experiencing today," said Evans. "This man was the chief architect of everything that fueled and fed terror and he still is." Evans says Carter's diplomatic activism paved the way for a regime change in Iran that ushered in radicals more responsible for terrorism than any other government. "It was Jimmy Carter himself, who used (then-Secretary of State) Cyrus Vance to negotiate what's called the Algerian Accords. He told Iran, 'If you do what I want you to do, I will give you $7.9 billion,' which he did by the way. He transferred it to the Bank of England from the Federal Reserve and signed the Algerian Accords. What am I talking about? I'm talking about the overthrow of the Shah of Iran," said Evans. The Algerian Accords were signed on Carter's last full day in office as part of his last-ditch attempt to free the 52 Americans held hostage at the U.S. embassy in Iran. Evans says personal conversations with two key figures also shed light on Carter's role in the rise of radicals in Iran and his unwillingness to see and hear the warnings. He says Farah Pahlavi, the widow of the deposed Shah, expressed her husband's grave concerns about Carter's foreign policy. "When Jimmy Carter met with them, her husband said to her, 'He wants the political prisoners released. He wants freedom of the press. He wants a terrorist by the name of Khomeini to be the head of this country. If Carter succeeds, Iran will be overthrown, the Russians will invade Afghanistan, Iraq will invade Iran and who knows what hell will come upon the earth?'" said Evans. According to Evans, Carter was also strong urged by then-French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing to end his desire to see Khomeini rule Iran, but he says Carter would not listen and ultimately played a leading role in the erosion of support for the Shah in the West. "[Giscard d'Estraing] said, 'At the Guadalupe Summit, Mr. Carter came. I told him Khomeini's a terrorist. He said, 'No, no, no. He's going to be a Gandhi-like figure. We're going to bring him into Iran and we're going to get the Shah out,'" said Evans. Evans says the former French president also referred to Carter as "a bastard of conscience." The Guadalupe Summit was in January 1979. Two weeks later the Shah left Iran. Two weeks after that, Khomeini returned triumphantly to Iran. In early November, the hostage crisis began at the U.S. embassy and for decades the State Department has declared Iran to be the number one state sponsor of terrorism. The way Evans sees it, President Obama is cut from the same ideological cloth as Jimmy Carter. "Unfortunately, Obama is Carter on steroids. He buys into the Carter ideology that these people are victims and that the perpetrators are us. He won't say it, but that's what he believes," said Evans. Obama is taking a great deal of heat for failing to appear at the unity rally in Paris on Sunday. "He was simply saying to the Muslim world, 'I feel your pain. I understand the hurt and the injustices done to you.' That's what he was fundamentally saying. He was giving a liberal left excuse for what happened. Shame on him," said Evans. |
| 'They've Basically Set up Their Own Little Country' |
| Tue, 13 Jan 2015 16:09:47 EST Radical Muslim terrorist group Boko Haram is taking its persecution of Christians and other Muslims to a new level with the recent slaughter of some 2,000 people, but Voice of the Martyrs says Christians are rock solid in their faith and even evangelizing the terrorists while the Nigerian government does little to stop the carnage. Best known in the U.S. for its brazen abduction of hundreds of schoolgirls last year, Boko Haram is now believed to have committed by far its most heinous atrocities to date in its massacre of two thousand people in and around the village of Baga, Nigeria. "Those are unconfirmed reports. The police and the Nigerian military can't even get into the village to bury the dead and to evaluate the situation. Boko Haram has made it so dangerous. There are reports that one village was basically destroyed. All the people they could get there, they killed. They burned down all the huts in the village, so it is basically gone completely," said Voice of the Martyrs Director of Media and Public Relations Todd Nettleton. The population of Nigeria is effectively split between Christians and Muslims. Christians dominate the southern part of the country, while Muslims are in the north. Nettleton says the terrorist group effectively runs the northeast part of the country. "They have actually gone so far as to declare a caliphate, very similar to what the Islamic State has done in Syria and Iraq. They've said, 'We're going to run this territory according to Sharia Law. I'm the caliph. I'm the leader of this part of the country. They basically have set up their own little country," said Nettleton, who believes Boko Haram admires and emulates what the Islamic State forces are doing in the Middle East. He says there are tremendous similarities between the two terrorist groups and Boko Haram is every bit as violent as their counterparts in Iraq and Syria. "Most of the time the Islamic State has told the Christians, 'You have to go or you will be killed,' so they're giving them an opportunity to leave. Boko Haram seems to be going more directly towards violence. We haven't heard the opportunity where they've announced, 'The Christians have to leave or they will be killed.' They simply go in. They've attacked churches, they've killed pastors and other Christians in Northern Nigeria," said Nettleton. As evidenced by the slow response to the recent slaughter in Baga, Nettleton says the government has done very little to push back against Boko Haram. "So far, the Nigerian government has not been able to stop them. They have not been able to respond militarily or police-wise," he said. And why not? "There are very different stories. There are some who say the government just doesn't want to do this. There are others who say that the government can't, they don't have the capabilities. I even heard from some who said, 'If this Christian president is deposed and a Muslim president comes into power Boko Haram will go away because what they really want is for a Muslim to be in charge of the country," said Nettleton, noting that Boko Haram is a major issue in the upcoming election between incumbent Goodluck Jonathan and his Muslim challenger. "They both say, 'Elect me. I can handle Boko Haram. I will get this problem solved,'" said Nettleton. "We'll see which one the voters believe." Nettleton says the decision to attend church is far different than the one we make in the U.S. "Even to hold a church meeting in the area controlled by Boko Haram is an act of incredible courage because you realize, 'If I go to church on Sunday, I'm going to be at a place that's going to be targeted and I'm going to paint a target on my own shoulders," he said. Despite the years of intense Boko Haram persecution, Nettleton says the courage and faith of Christians there remains very strong. "They do keep following Christ. They do keep meeting together with other believers and some even continue to evangelize. They continue to share their faith with the people around them, which is pretty amazing that they would do that under such risks," he said. He says the faithfulness and boldness of persecuted believers has even led to heart changes among some terrorists. "We have met former radical Muslims in Nigeria who even attacked and killed Christians, who then came face to face with Jesus Christ and are now serving Him faithfully. They're reaching out to fellow Muslims, sharing the gospel and inviting them to know Christ. These people, even as they're committing these atrocities, are not beyond the reach of God's grace. We can be part of the battle for their souls by getting on our knees and praying for them," said Nettleton. Voice of the Martyrs is very active in Nigeria. Programs include medical care for those injured, Bibles for believers, counseling and training for pastors and assistance for the many Christian widows there. "We need to understand this is a spiritual battle. Because it's a spiritual battle, we can be involved in the fight, even from 10,000 miles away. We can get on our knees. We can pray for the nation of Nigeria. We can pray for our Christian brothers and sisters there and pray that God would move," said Nettleton. |
| 'The President Is Out of Excuses' |
| Mon, 12 Jan 2015 15:54:47 EST House Energy and Commerce Committee Vice Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) says President Obama is out of excuses for not supporting the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline and predicts supporters of the project may find enough votes to override the expected Obama veto. On Friday, the House of Representatives voted 266-153 to authorize the pipeline. The Senate is expected to follow suit in the coming days. Friday's vote came the same day the Nebraska Supreme Court threw out what may be the final legal hurdle to the pipeline. The State Department green-lighted Keystone in 2012 after years of review. "The president is out of excuses," said Blackburn. "It's time for him to sign this. It has wide, wide bipartisan support in the House." Blackburn believes the real reason for Obama's intransigence is his fidelity to the environmental lobby. "I think it has to do with his friends who are active in the environmental community. They've invested heavily in alternative energy sources, primarily wind and solar. But that doesn't work in every state in the country. Wind and solar [are] not predictable. They are a very small part of our nation's energy supply," said Blackburn. The Senate is expected to approve Keystone soon. If Obama makes good on his veto threat, Blackburn thinks the president may surprised by what Congress does next. "I think what you would see is we have the ability to override a veto if he moves forward with the veto. We're all looking forward to the Senate vote," she said. An override would be a tall order in either chamber, since two-thirds of the House and Senate would need to back Keystone to force it past the president. Vote counters in the Senate believe GOP leaders can find the six Democrats needed to pass the original bill, but lining up 13 Democrats to reject an Obama veto may be hard to find. In the House, 290 votes are needed to override a veto if all members are present. Blackburn says the benefits of Keystone should be obvious, particularly when it comes to energy independence and job growth. "It does increase the nation's oil supply and it does move us further along the path to energy independence. That's the goal that we all share and are working toward. Another thing it does is the jobs. Twenty thousand jobs will be created by the pipeline," said Blackburn, who says Keystone would also provide business owners with some desperately needed certainty. "If you reduce the cost of doing business because you are aiding our nation's energy security policy, which gives businesses that deal in logistics or transportation or packaging with plastics and polymers which come from crude oil, you give them a more solid and predictable foundation that they can do their pricing on," said Blackburn. Despite the apparent end to the legal battle over Keystone and his own State Department approving the project, Obama remains firmly opposed. While Blackburn attributes this to the influence of environmental lobbyists, Obama argues the pipeline will move Canadian oil to the U.S. gulf coast for refining and much of the final product will be exported to other countries. Blackburn says there are still major economic incentives to approve the plan. "Yes, it is Canadian oil but it's coming into our ports to be refined. What it will help do is to get down the costs of oil and also (help) the ready supply for our businesses," said Blackburn. Blackburn says more energy gives another powerful geopolitical tool to help beleaguered allies. "A great example of that is what's happened in Europe and how they have had to depend on Russia. Look what Russia has done to them. We would like for our allies to be able to do business with that. It's short-sighted not to want that," she said. The number two Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee is also dismissing rumblings on Capitol Hill and beyond that a hike in federal gasoline taxes may be needed to replenish the Highway Trust Fund in order to address infrastructure needs around the nation. She says that dog won't hunt with her. "I am completely opposed to raising the gas tax. It's the wrong step. What you need to do is clean up what the transportation trust fund is used for. Right now, it's going to paths in parks and bike paths and museums, you name it. There's about 30 percent of that fund that has other uses," said Blackburn. "I think it's time for us to just clean that up." |
| Stuck in the Middle East Too |
| Fri, 9 Jan 2015 16:47:31 EST Barack Obama campaigned heavily on his opposition to the Iraq War and vowed to end it. But just two years after pulling out U.S. forces, Iraq is once again in turmoil due to the rise of ISIS. The Capitol Steps bring Obama and George W. Bush together to discuss their challenges in Iraq. |
| Driving Towards a Gas Tax Hike? |
| Fri, 9 Jan 2015 15:48:41 EST Congress is desperately searching for money to replenish the Highway Trust Fund, but National Taxpayers Union President Pete Sepp is urging key Republicans to back away from a hike in the federal gas tax to provide the needed revenue. In an unusual twist, it is Republicans publicly toying with the idea of higher taxes, while Democrats are mostly opposed to it. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) and Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) say they are open to gas tax increases and further state that Americans shouldn't view such a move as a tax hike but more like a "user fee." The federal gasoline excise tax is 18.4 cents per gallon, while the rate for diesel is 24.4 cents per gallon. The last gas tax increase came as part of the Clinton administration increases in 1993 and it is not indexed to inflation. The notion of raising the federal rate is gaining some traction as a result of plummeting gasoline prices in the U.S. over recent months. Both Inhofe and Hatch insist all options are on the table to supply money for the Highway Trust Fund and they are not demanding a tax increase. Sepp says recent reports are probably just testing the public reaction to the idea of higher taxes. "I think that this is largely, so far, a trial balloon, an attempt by Republican lawmakers to see just how far they may be able to push the tax increase envelope," said Sepp. What is behind the parties' role reversals on this issue? Sepp says Republicans may see the gas tax differently than other rates Americans must pay. "Perhaps they believe that because the gasoline tax and diesel fuel tax is a levy on the consumption of a good or service, that's better than doing something like an income tax increase. Well, from an economic standpoint, a consumption tax would probably cause less economic damage than an income tax increase. But the damage would still be there," said Sepp. Sepp contends that logic is flawed on multiple levels. First, he says officials in Washington warm up to ideas like higher gas taxes based on deeply flawed assumptions, like all of the money will go to the right place. "The only problem is throwing more money at some of these projects by the federal government doesn't necessarily translate into reduced congestion or fewer potholes. There are a mound of port barrel projects that often get funded in highway bills. We also have a severely inefficient distribution of the funding," he said. In addition, he says higher gas taxes would definitely be a blow to consumers. "Although it's buried in the price of a gallon of gas, it's still something that many people will feel almost immediately when they fill up at the pump every week," said Sepp, noting that the financial toll doesn't end when you leave the gas station. "If diesel fuel taxes increase, there will be a ripple effect in other kinds of goods and services and their prices. So many of the things that we buy, whether it's toys or food or pizza delivery for that matter are provided through vehicles that run on gasoline or diesel fuel," said Sepp. There's also the concern about fuel prices rising again. Sepp says the U.S. is enjoying the fruits of an energy revolution, but if Congress decides to raise taxes on oil companies or the Environmental Protection Agency applies additional regulations on energy exploration, prices could reverse course. He says some responsible work by Congress would do a lot of good. "We can't necessarily count on good, low energy prices until we get a stable energy policy out of our federal, state and local governments, who recognize the value of good, abundant, affordable energy," said Sepp. Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer's latest opinion piece calls for increasing the federal gasoline tax by a dollar per gallon but offsetting is with cuts in FICA taxes. He theorizes such a move would provide plenty of transportation funding for the government while taxpayers break even and maybe even save more money if they make conserving fuel a priority. Sepp says the biggest problem with that idea is Washington's penchant for going forward with the tax increase while the tax cut somehow gets left on the side of the road. He says there would have to be strict assurances that all parts of the deal would be honored. But even then Sepp says lawmakers are missing out on better, free market ways to improve our national infrastructure. He endorses tolls on more roads and considers that a more accurate consumption tax than raising the gas tax. Sepp says another simple adjustment that could preserve infrastructure and improve traffic flow would be passing the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act. "What this would do is allow states to have heavier trucks on their roads, not bigger trucks but heavier trucks with a fifth axle to distribute the weight and minimize pavement damage. What you do by allowing heavier trucks is you allow more efficient loads to be put on them. When that happens, you have fewer trucks on the road. In the end you get less congestion and less repair needs on many roads around the country," said Sepp. And what will happen with the "trial balloon" testing the viability of a gas tax increase? Sepp that's up to the taxpayers. "Hopefully, the American people will push back and say, 'Look, we want to do something about our infrastructure problems too. Why don't you take a look at the spending first, as well as alternatives to taxation,'" said Sepp. |
| 'It's the Primaries, Stupid' |
| Thu, 8 Jan 2015 16:10:56 EST House Speaker John Boehner easily fended off an eleventh hour effort by conservatives to deny him another term, but longtime conservative activist Richard Viguerie says the Republican majorities in Congress need to take concrete steps to prove they are taking the nation down a more responsible path or members can expect some bruising primaries in 2016. Viguerie has been an active conservative for more than 50 years. He pioneered the use of direct mail in political campaigns. Viguerie is now chairman of conservativehq.com and is author, most recently of "Takeover: The 100-Year War for the Soul of the GOPand How Conservatives Can Finally Win It." He says the conservative insurgents failed on Tuesday but also delivered a clear message. "I think this sends a strong signal to the leadership that there's unrest at the grassroots," said Viguerie, noting the next intraparty battle could unfold next year if GOP leaders don't chart a solidly conservative course during the 114th Congress. "The most important thing for conservatives to be focused on between now and Election 2016 is the primaries. I say, 'It's the primaries, stupid,'" said Viguerie. "We're going to be collecting a list of people who are supportive of big government by things like (the vote for speaker), those that voted for the cromnibus bill which increased government spending and there'll be many other votes that we can take a look at. I think you're going to see a record number of Republican House members that are going to be challenged in the primaries in 2016," he said. Viguerie says there's an easy way for incumbent Republicans to avoid such a headache, by pursuing a solid agenda over the next two years. One area of progress, he says, would be for the GOP to "get off of defense" when it comes to spending and get serious about fiscal responsibility. "Compromise, for as long as I can remember in Washington, has meant we grow government. (Republicans) don't grow it as much as the Democrats would like but we grow government at some level. Let's put a marker out there that we want to reduce the power, the scope, the reach of the federal government and compromise with the Democrats that we're going to reduce it maybe not as much as we want , but we're going to reduce it," said Viguerie. Another major focus for the GOP majorities, according to Viguerie, is to obey the demands of voters expressed in last year's elections. "I think they need to communicate to the American people that they did hear the message that people want less government. The 2010 election was about the tea party, about limited government, constitutional government. The 2014 election was about stopping Obama. Whatever it is that Obama is doing, the voters want him to stop, whether it's Obamacare, spending, leading from behind in national security. There's just a long list of things," he said. Viguerie is not impressed by the GOP leadership in either the House or Senate, but he says grassroots activists can still make a big difference in what kind of legislation comes out of Congress. "Conservatives are not going to let to the political promised land, quite frankly, until we get new leaders," said Viguerie. "We need to keep that pressure on and we'll win more than perhaps we'll lose." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell recently told the Washington Post that one of the main goals for the GOP over the next two years is to give voters good reason to elect a Republican president to go along with a responsibly-led Congress. "I don 19t want the American people to think that if they add a Republican president to a Republican Congress, that 19s going to be a scary outcome. I want the American people to be comfortable with the fact that the Republican House and Senate is a responsible, right-of-center, governing majority, McConnell told The Washington Post. Viguerie sees that as flawed logic for two reasons. First, he says voters expect decisive conservative leadership now. "They're looking for people who have bold vision. American voters like the message they heard in 2010 and 2014. They don't like this go along to get along attitude of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner," he said. Furthermore, he cautions conservatives against assuming they will experience political nirvana if the GOP controls Congress and the White House. "We has that in most of the Bush years. We had , for years, Republican White House, House and Senate and government grew at a massive level, so we need to make sure that we have the right type of leaders and right now we do not have them," said Viguerie. He says choosing a rock solid conservative is essential for the party in 2016. "The nomination fight coming up is so important that (the GOP must nominate) somebody that's not going to maintain the status quo but actually ratchet down, ratchet back the growth of government and reduce the size of government," said Viguerie. |
| 'What We Saw Today is War' |
| Wed, 7 Jan 2015 17:09:16 EST Masked Islamic terrorists killed 12 people in Paris on Wednesday in a brazen attack that terrorist expert Dr. Walid Phares believes amounts to war, and he says those trying to distance the killers from any connection to Islam are doing the world a great disservice. On Wednesday, heavily-armed and masked gunmen stormed into the offices of the satirical French magazine "Charlie Hedbo, asked for victims by name and murdered ten of them while wounding many others. The terrorists also killed two police officers on the street outside the magazine's offices. Phares, who is also an adviser to the U.S. Congress on the Middle East and terrorism, says the details of this attack chill him even more than the hostage crisis that played out in Australia last month. "The more worrisome kind of act that we saw today, which is the crossing of a benchmark or a red line, is a military-style attack. This is a team of four. They acted two-by-two according to reports and they executed a military mission, using for the first time not just machine guns but also RPG. This is Paris. This is not Baghdad or Mosul and things have changed," said Phares, who urges the west to understand how the radicals view this fight. "What we saw today is war. This is not people who are offended by an issue anymore. This is a cold-blooded operation that killed many top French artists. This is an intimidation. This is a unilateral action taken not in reaction, because those cartoons were published a long time ago. The majority of those who protested, protested on the street. So people need to make a distinction between what is terrorism and what is a protest," said Phares. The Paris terrorist attacks come less than a month after the Sydney hostage standoff and the terrorist massacre of scores of students at a school in Pakistan. Phares says we will likely see many more of these targeted attacks that are harder for intelligence efforts to detect. "We have been seeing and will unfortunately be seeing more widespread jihadi attacks of various kinds," he said. Phares is also denouncing the response by some media outlets to suggest the staff of "Charlie Hebdo" should have expected such a response following the publication of Mohammed cartoons years ago and he is also critical of outlets scrubbing their archives of images that may be offensive to Muslims or adherents of any other religion. He sees history proves that self-censorship in the hopes of appeasing enemies does not work. "These are the absolute wrong moves. We've seen in the late '20s and '30s how concession after concession, the National Socialists, the Fascists - and the Bolsheviks in the '50s - would demand concession after concession, that this would be hurtful to German nationalism or Italian nationalism. This is how they built their totalitarian web," said Phares. Political and media figures also fueled controversy on Wednesday by refusing to attach a motive to the attacks, even as they reported that the terrorists were shouting "Allahu Akbar" and that they had avenged Mohammed. Again, Phares says denying obvious connections only pushes us further away from addressing the root cause of these sorts of attacks. "I fully understand that we need to make a distinction between a religion, members of that religion and this ideological group, but this immediate rush towards making that distinction and saying Islam has to do or nothing to do with it. This is a theological debate. It has noting to do with the debate about this movement. I feel that by rushing to the other direction, we forget to identify and condemn and isolate an ideology," said Phares. |
| 'The World Just Doesn't Get It' |
| Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:49:52 EST As the western world stands in shock at the brutal murder of magazine employees and police officers by radical Muslims in Paris, the new World Watch List suggests Islamic violence throughout the world is spawning the most significant increase in the persecution of Christians on record and that likely means more intense repression of all kinds is not far behind. On Wednesday, Open Doors USA, one of the leading organizations serving the persecuted Christian church released the 24th World Watch List, which lists the 50 nations most fiercely persecuting Christians. "The 2015 Watch List documents the most dramatic increase in violence and persecution of Christians in the modern era. So it's really dramatic," said Open Doors President and CEO Dr. David Curry. Curry unveiled the World Watch List in Washington but he is very concerned that leaders in the U.S. and elsewhere in the western world fail to grasp the significance of this dramatic rise in the targeting of Christians and what it means for believers and non-believers down the road. "I really feel like the world just doesn't get it. They don't understand that the persecution of Christians is a major story, is a major issue. It's growing and it's a lead indicator of where oppression is coming for everyone else. Everywhere you look where there's a major outbreak in the world today, first it was Christians. That's what happened in Iraq. For ten years, they pushed Christians out (even before the rise of the Islamic State)," said Curry. "Mark my words, if the world doesn't wake up to this, it's going to come their direction," he said. Several African nations witnessed the most dramatic increases in Christian persecution over the past year. Kenya soared from 43 to 19 on the list. Djibouti rose from 46 to 24. Nigeria is now in the top 10 and Sudan jumped from 11 to 6. Curry says the reasons are pretty simple. "The Islamic extremists that have been residing within Africa are learning the lessons of the Islamic State. They're taking the tactics, the strategies of the Islamic State and seeing the success that they've had with this leadership vacuum in the Middle East from western governments. Now they're implementing it in Africa," said Curry, who says we were reminded again that no part of the world is truly safe. "We're not safe in the west from radical ideologies. Unfortunately, I believe in times to come, we're going to see attacks on churches in the west. We are seeing attacks in the west already. We saw one today in France," said Curry. As horrifying as Wednesday's massacre was inside and outside the offices of "Charlie Hebdo" in Paris, Curry says that is a daily occurrence for believers in many countries. "Just to put it in a little bit of perspective, we're mourning today the loss of 12 lives in France at the satirical magazine. Boko Haram kills 10 Christians every single day. If you average it out last year, every day Boko Haram executed 10 Christians," he said. Other noteworthy items on the list includes a drop from six to 12 for Saudi Arabia, but Curry says that's no reason to be encouraged about religious freedom there. "There's no freedom for Christians. There's no churches allowed for Christians. There's no distribution on Bibles or freedom for people to convert to Christianity if they so choose. People can't think for themselves and decide for themselves whether they're going to have faith or no faith and what that faith will be. It's a sad state of affairs in Saudi Arabia. They did drop, only because other nations were even more violent and even more oppressive than Saudi Arabia this year," said Curry. North Korea tops the list for the thirteenth straight year, while Somalia comes in second. Curry says North Korea is far and away the worst persecutor of Christians and the conditions are actually much worse than the World Watch List suggests. "Frankly, we have a difficult time documenting all the violence. We only report in the World Watch List what we can absolutely document. So when we say the number of Christians executed for their faith has doubled in the last year, many of the people who we believe were killed in North Korea are not even included in that number," said Curry. Two nations in the western hemisphere made the list. Colombia dropped from 25 to 35, but Mexico joined the list at number 38. Curry says the rampant violence aimed at priests and pastors by drug cartels is the main reason why. Even as persecution reaches undocumented heights, Curry says the positive and peaceful mindset of oppressed believers is truly inspiring. "What's so heartwarming is the human side of it. I was just talking with a widow today. She was widowed because Boko Haram attacked her husband, a Christian who was a lay minister in the church. They stabbed him to death and her response was so loving. It was just to forgive in the name of Jesus," said Curry. "When you see the power of the human spirit when people are following the words of Jesus, it's so inspiring. So there's hope because God gives hope but these situations are very dire in human terms," he said. |
| Fair-Weather Friends? |
| Tue, 6 Jan 2015 15:46:20 EST Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) will be Speaker of the House for the next two years, but one of the Republicans who challenged him for the post says it's only because a number of GOP members failed to come through in their promised opposition to Boehner. On Tuesday, Boehner secured 216 Republican votes on the first ballot, easily receiving more than half of the votes from House members present for the election despite the insurgent candidacies by fellow Republicans Daniel Webster (R-Florida), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) and Ted Yoho (R-Florida). Webster, who announced his candidacy just hours before the vote, received the most GOP votes other than Boehner. Yoho was the first Republican to announce his challenge to Boehner on Saturday. He says the hastily assembled effort to defeat Boehner couldn't accomplish its goal. "Obviously, things didn't turn out the way we had planned, but we put forth the effort and people spoke up and said what was on their mind. They elected Mr. Boehner as out next speaker. I look forward to working with him for the next two years to make this the best Congress ever," said Yoho. While being quick to admit the fight for the direction of the party is over for the moment in the House, he's disappointed in how we got to the results in Tuesday's House vote. "A lot of people talk, but when it's time to show up, their tune changes and I think that was evident today, but I am very proud of the people that did stand up, the 24 that went in public and stated where they stood on the leadership," said Yoho, who says an unidentified number of Republicans failed to follow through on their word during the vote. "I don't want to talk about any specific members but there are members that said, 'Well, if you hit 20 votes, we'll jump on and vote with you but if you don't have that many we're not going to.' When we hit [20 votes], you can't find them," he said. Yoho says Republicans who are frustrated with the present leadership but unwilling to oppose it have little grounds to complain over the next two years. "A lot of people like to complain, gripe and moan about how bad things are. If you're going to complain about it, do something about it. So the people that have been complaining and griping about Mr. Boehner and the lack of leadership and all that, they had a chance today to change that. They didn't. So from this point forward for the next two years, this should be a moot point. nobody should complain. We just need to get down to pass the best legislation we can," said Yoho. Despite the disappointment and frustration of Tuesday's vote, Yoho believes Republicans can get a lot of good legislation passed in the 114th Congress. "This is a new Congress. We've got a speaker in place. We just need to get to work solving problems for the American people. Our goal is to work and bring up that legislation that we can have input on and move forward on that," he said. For Yoho, the new legislative calendar starts with major legislative efforts to derail President Obama's unilateral action on immigration. In December, Yoho sponsored legislation declaring Obama's actions unconstitutional and non-binding. It passed in the House but was never voted upon in the Senate, which was then controlled by Democrats. The congressman says it will be introduced again in the coming days and Se. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) will lead the effort in the Senate. "That's a good bill for America and it reins the president back into the boundaries of the Constitution," said Yoho. "It's going to go to the president and the president is going to have to make a decision in front of the American people, 'I side with the Constitution or I'm going to vote against it.'" The funding for immigration enforcement and the rest of the Department of Homeland Security must be resolved before the end of February. Yoho says conservatives are ready for that fight too. "We're introducing a companion bill that strips all funding from any government agency and we're going to do what we can to block it from private agencies to process any work permits to people here illegally that come from the president's November 2oth executive movement that he did. No money from the federal government will be used to process any of those. I feel very sure that you'll see that pass," said Yoho. |
| King: I Can't Swear to Defend Constitution and Vote for Boehner |
| Mon, 5 Jan 2015 16:07:25 EST Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) is one of about a dozen House Republicans committing to oppose Speaker John Boehner's efforts to secure another term, saying he cannot in good conscience swear to defend the Constitution and then vote for Boehner. Boehner easily won the vote of Republicans in the upcoming Congress to continue as Speaker back in November, but his push to pass the "cromnibus" bill by recruiting Democratic votes is seen by King and other conservatives as the last straw for a leader they accuse of surrendering to President Obama on key issues and failing to honor his promise to do everything possible to stop Obama's unilateral action on immigration late last year. On Saturday, Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Florida) announced he would challenge Boehner in Tuesday's vote. The next day, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) threw his hat into the ring as well. Other conservatives, including King, have announced they will not support Boehner again. For King, the reason is simple. "We have an obligation to keep our oath of office and it requires that we support and defend the Constitution of the United States. It doesn't say to just defend the United States but the Constitution itself. When the president does violence to the Constitution and violates it as he has multiple times, then our oath to defend the Constitution becomes even more paramount," said King. King says it is the obligation of every lawmaker to defend the original intent of our founding fathers. "This is something we must protect and revere and restore. These are pillars of American exceptionalism, the principles of the separation of powers. You cannot have a president that assigns himself as the legislative power. he's done that over and over again," said King. How does Boehner fit into all this? King says the speaker has failed to vigorously defend the Constitution against Obama's power grabs. "I've tried to defend this Constitution and I've been blocked at many turns, often by the speaker's office and by the leader's office because they don't want the controversy. So now we've seen Obamacare fully funded out as far as the appropriations eye can see. We've seen the president's lawless, unconstitutional executive amnesty be funded until February 27. They've given away the Constitutional tools that we have to restrain this president," said King. The congressman says Boehner has made it very clear to Republicans that he has no intention of using the appropriations process to block what many GOP members believe to be unconstitutional actions. "He's told us in not quite uncertain terms we will not use the power of the purse to restrain a lawless, unconstitutional president. So if you take that tool away, you're just about out of tools you can use. This was very much envisioned by our founding fathers, that the power of the purse would be the most powerful tool that the Congress has. He has refused to allow us to use it. If we do that, we cannot defend the Constitution," said King. The last straw for King and the others looking to defeat Boehner was passage of the continuing resolution and omnibus bill known as "cromnibus" last month without taking a strong stand on funding of Obama's immigration actions. Boehner struck a deal with the White House and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to fund most of the government through September 2015 but fund the Department of Homeland Security only through February so the new GOP majority in Congress can weigh in on the amnesty question. King is convinced nothing will change in this fight if Boehner is still running the House. "There's no sign that if we play this movie over and over and over again, that it's going to turn out to be different," said King. While going public in his opposition to Boehner, King says he does not know who he will vote for. He says he has "no better friend" in the House than Gohmert and also has great respect for Yoho. King also sees Rep. Dan Webster (R-Florida) as having the qualities to be a fine Speaker of the House, although Webster has neither joined the race nor indicated he will oppose Boehner. GOP opponents of Boehner need to wrangle at least 29 Republicans to oppose Boehner and force a second ballot. Most media head-counting suggests about half the votes are there. King says he's less worried about the latest tally than communicating with as many members as possible before Tuesday's vote. "Once I've made up my mind on what I'm going to do, I've set about convincing others and the chips have to fall where they may. If there's a number out there then some will diminish it and say it's going to fall short. If the number is strong, they will turn up their efforts to try to twist their arms to get them to back off," said King. Two years ago, Republicans leaders stripped three GOP members of prime committee assignments over insufficient support for the GOP agenda. Do King and others fear there will be major consequences for their opposition if Boehner survives this challenge? "I expect there to be retribution. I anticipate it. It;s not what I would call fear. It's simply this. I fear not doing my duty," he said. King says that scenario presumes efforts to defeat Boehner will fail and he believes momentum is squarely on the side of Republicans looking for new leadership. "The attempt at retribution presumes that this is not going to be a successful effort. This is a growing number. There will be more people voting for a different speaker than there were last time. That number will be greater. I know that. Will that number be greater than 28 or 29? We don't know that yet. But if it is, then we don't have to worry so much about the retribution because we'll have a new speaker and that's the right result," he said. |
| 'This Is Going to Be An Interesting Two Years' |
| Tue, 23 Dec 2014 15:56:46 EST The 2014 midterm elections were largely a referendum on President Obama and Republicans should expect him to push more unilateral action over the next two years to avoid getting blocked by a GOP Congress, according to University of Virginia Political Science Professor Larry Sabato. Sabato directs the school's Center for Politics and "Sabato's Crystal Ball", which very accurately predicted the Republican gains in the House and Senate. By the time all races were decided, Republicans had picked up nine Senate seats to set up a 54-46 GOP majority come January. The GOP also added 15 House seats and will soon hold a 247-188 majority in that chamber. So why did Republicans have such a good year? Sabato says to look no further than the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. "Midterm elections, inevitably, are a reflection of the popularity or unpopularity of the White House. Remember, it's all about turnout. You always have a low turnout with midterm elections, so you always ask which side is more energized. Well, clearly Republicans were. They were angry at the White House. They had a long list of grievances after six years," said Sabato, who says Democrats didn't turn out their vote for a predictable reason. "Democrats were not excited anymore. The bloom is off the rose. That usually happens in the sixth year. It doesn't always happen, but it usually happens because by then the partisans of the guy in the White House realize that nirvana will not be occurring. You're not going to have all of those promises fulfilled that were made in the original election," said Sabato. As a result of the GOP controlling both sides of Capitol Hill, Sabato says Republicans should brace themselves for Obama's attempts to change policy unilaterally as he did on immigration in November. "Yes, this will be an interesting two years. I think there will be a fair number of executive actions, executive orders. There'll be all kinds of things that he will do independently because he knows he's not going to be able to give anything substantial through Congress," said Sabato. While debates continue over the constitutionality of such moves, further executive action by Obama is likely to come on issues that will please the liberal base of the Democratic Party but infuriate Republicans and many independents. That sets up a curious situation for the 2016 Democratic nominee, who most expect to be Hillary Clinton. Sabato says Clinton will try to run on her husband's record from two decades ago but avoiding Obama's unpopularity will be virtually impossible. "The nominee of the incumbent president's party has to bear witness for the incumbent president's actions. If the incumbent president is very unpopular at election time, it's awfully difficult to win that third term," said Sabato. For the next two years, Sabato expects little more than gridlock and he says the issues most likely to spark fierce battles are fairly predictable. "Immigration is one, clearly. Republicans will try to defund some of what President Obama had in his executive order. Obviously, the Congress is going to try and trim back Obamacare. They realize a full repeal would just be vetoed and they don't have enough votes in either house to override a presidential veto," said Sabato, who believes progress might be made in repealing specific Obamacare provisions, such as the medical device tax. In addition to battles with Obama and congressional Democrats, GOP leaders may also find themselves at odds with members of their own party and grassroots activists expecting bold conservative action. Sabato says this will be a delicate dance for incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who wants to keep the conference together and point to bills passed into law. "The solution is to find a certain number of things, for example a trade pact, that both houses and the president can agree on. You get four or five of those things done, you're able to say, 'You see, we weren't just the party of no. We weren't just refusing to cooperate. We accomplished these things,'" said Sabato. "At the same time, you have to keep the base happy, which means maybe you have votes on abolishing Obamacare . Of course, Obama would veto anything like that, but it would excite the base. It would prove to the base that their votes mattered and that they're being heard," he said. Of course, Congress will only have a few months before presidential politics grind most major legislative efforts to a halt and the media and the experts begin to focus on the 2016 field. Sabato says he and the crystal ball will be ready. "We're polishing it. We're getting it ready for the next cycle," he quipped. |
| 'It's A Badly, Badly Distorted View of the World' |
| Tue, 23 Dec 2014 15:08:52 EST In 2014, American foreign policy was dominated by challenges from ISIS, Iran, Russia and other adversaries around the world, and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton says the next two years could be even more volatile because of how the Obama administration is handling these current crises. Bolton has long seen Iran and it's advancing nuclear program as the greatest threat to U.S. national security. In November, talks for a long-term nuclear deal broke down but the U.S. pressed for talks to continue. Bolton says that weakens American leverage and Obama administration actions toward other bad actors suggest it is always prepared to take a bad deal. "If you're an American adversary watching what has been happening in the case of Cuba, Iran is saying to themselves, 'There are more concessions there for us to get. Let's just keep these negotiations going. They're desperate for a deal. They want what they would consider another foreign policy success.' So I think it only gets worse as the new year unfolds," said Bolton, who alleges Obama still operates from a deeply flawed impression of the United States and the rest of the world. "It's consistent with their ideological predilection and the belief that really it's America that's the problem. We were the problem in Cuba with our colonialist policy. We're the problem with Iran because if we just explained to Tehran that we don't have designs against them, they'll calm down and give up their nuclear weapons program. The same applies to North Korea. It's a badly, badly distorted view of the world and what countries are actually the source of instability and danger," said Bolton. The biggest foreign policy headache for the Obama administration in 2014 came through the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Obama dismissed the radical Islamists in January as Al Qaeda's jayvee team. ISIS subsequently captured Fallujah and Ramadi. By summer, Mosul fell into ISIS hands and soon Baghdad was in range. It was after the gruesome beheading of American hostages that Obama ordered air strikes to slow the ISIS advance and assist the Kurdish Peshmerga. At the same time it vowed to train moderate rebels in Syria to fight against ISIS there. Bolton calls the American response "inadequate" and believes ISIS is on the verge of establishing it's own state in the Middle East that will be a magnet for jihadist sympathizers and is already attracting thousands of westerners who have valid passports and could wreak havoc in their home countries. He says Obama's instincts on ISIS were all wrong. "I just don't understand what he thinks his strategy is. At the time of the Russian Revolution, Winston Churchill said, 'We should have strangled Bolshevism in its cradle.' That's what we should have done to ISIS. If it's allowed to continue to build up its control, bring new adherents in, train new military personnel, it it simply going to make dislodging or overthrowing them - as the president himself said 'degrading and destroying' ISIS - it's going to make it incalcuably more difficult and I'm afraid more costly in terms of human life," said Bolton. Before the ISIS threat burst into the headlines, most international attention was aimed at Russia and Ukraine. With tensions rising even during the Sochi Olympics, Russia subsequently annexed Crimea to itself through a symbolic vote among Crimeans. Russia is also arming and supporting rebels in eastern Ukraine. Bolton says American and European sanctions never bothered Russian President Vladimir Putin but other factors are hurting Russia and could make it more dangerous on the world stage. "The fall of oil prices has hurt Russia badly. That doesn't mean that Russia will necessarily behave in a more responsible fashion internationally. It may behave more recklessly in order to divert public opinion, to blame the United States to focus attention overseas. As we go into the new year, we're actually looking at a more dangerous relationship, potentially, with the Russians (and) more instability in Eastern Europe, not less," said Bolton. After watching the Obama administration engage with governments in Iran and Cuba that have traditionally been isolated, Bolton suspects there could be more of that as the final years of this presidency unfold. "I wouldn't be surprised to see the North Koreans try and open discussions to legitimize their nuclear weapons program, get diplomatic recognition from the United States. The possibilities are endless. I think we've got to worry about China and its designs in the east and the South China Sea," said Bolton. "It's going to be a long two years remaining in the Obama administration, unfortunately," he said. |
| Another Pair of Capitol Steps Christmas Favorites |
| Tue, 23 Dec 2014 14:52:40 EST Now that the blur of Christmas food and gifts are behind us, the reality of eating that much and spending that much is setting in. The Capitol Steps address your regrets in a fun way in "I'm Beginning to Look A Lot Like Santa" and "Juggle Bills." Our guest is Steps Co-Founder Elaina Newport. |
| Time for Major Tax Reform? |
| Tue, 23 Dec 2014 13:56:44 EST Partisan rancor set back bipartisan efforts to reform the U.S. tax system this year but activists are holding out hope that the incoming Republican Congress and President Obama can agree on ways to provide some relief to American businesses and bring greater clarity to the system for everyone. Retiring House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Dave Camp (R-Michigan) had been cobbling together legislation to spark tax reform but Republicans say President Obama's unilateral immigration actions further eroded their trust in him to negotiate in good faith or enforce anything Congress approves. Despite the friction between Obama and the GOP, National Taxpayers Union President Pete Sepp believes a golden opportunity still exists to get this done. "There's still a fair amount of hope. I think that's because most lawmakers, both Democratic and Republican, recognize that this tax system, especially on the corporate side, is becoming so complex that it's going to collapse under it's own weight," said Sepp, who even believes sweeping changes could be possible. "Tax reform, whether it's on a massive scale like completely scrapping the code or doing something like a comprehensive overhaul is on the table no matter what," he said. If anything substantive happens on tax reform in the coming months, it will likely be based on the course charted by incoming Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin). "He has said that he wants to review the way that tax reform is scored by the Joint Committee on Taxation," said Sepp, noting that the projections for revenue from the Joint Committee on Taxation are the numbers which guide many fiscal decisions in Congress. If there are changes in how reform is scored, Sepp believes that would create significant momentum to fix the system. "If he can convince his fellow members of Congress that we need to take into account the dynamic economic effects of tax reform in those revenue scores, I think we'll have a lot easier task in simplifying as well as lowering the rate," said Sepp. Sepp also believes the Senate Fiance Committee has a chance to make progress as well, citing a solid working relationship between incoming chairman Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and the ranking Democrat Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon). However, the window of opportunity may not be open for very long. With politicians and the press likely to be focused on the presidential campaign before the end of 2015, Sepp says it's imperative for the new Congress to jump on this right away. "I would say no more than 6-8 months (to get it done). If we don't see packages reported out of the House and Senate tax writing committees by the spring, we're going to be in trouble," he said. Sepp says the good news is that lawmakers don't have to start from scratch. He says the bill worked on by Chairman Camp is a good starting point and while it does contain some provisions he's not excited about and would like to see changed or removed. Even if Congress can agree on major reforms, Sepp says President Obama could still be a wildcard and a potential deal-killer in this process. "The devil will be in the details though, especially as the president unfortunately cranks up his rhetoric about big oil and wanting to take away what he perceives to be tax breaks or subsidies that really aren't there," said Sepp. As for his top priorities for reform, Sepp says corporate taxes have to be at the top of the list. It's an issue that Democrats and Republicans have appeared to be in agreement about in the past. "We're seeing a gradual recognition that the U.S.'s top income tax rate for businesses is simply uncompetitive compared to the rest of the world. The average among so-called OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries, our closest competitors, is about 25 percent. Here in the United States, the combined state and federal rate is about 39 percent. That is highly unattractive for businesses to either stay here or relocate here," said Sepp. Beyond that, Sepp is pushing hard for far more clarity in the tax code. "If we're not going to completely scrap the code in favor of a flat tax or a national consumption tax, then we need to have mechanisms built in to the tax system that will encourage simplification on a regular basis. We should have a four-year, automatic simplification process, where the public and private sectors get together, exchange ideas and pass into laws ways to keep streamlining the tax code. That way, the complexity won't build up over time," said Sepp. Also high on Sepp's agenda is scrapping whet he considers needless and burdensome taxes. "We also need to look at the way we treat investment. It is still problematic. We need to get rid of entire categories of taxes, like the Death Tax. So there's still plenty of work to do here," he said. |
| Remembering Famous Faces in Politics, Sports, Media and Business |
| Tue, 23 Dec 2014 09:43:51 EST As the year comes to a close, we take time to reflect upon those family members and friends who died in 2014. As we cope with the loss and hold on to cherished memories, there are others who died this year that we may not have known personally, but we knew their work and their ideas that impacted our world. In another segment, we appreciate the lives of those who touched us in the area of arts and entertainment, from movies to television to music and more. Now we turn our attention to those in politics, business, media and sports who left us in 2014. ARIEL SHARON WAS A BARREL OF A MAN WHO ROSE TO ACCLAIM AS A MILITARY HERO IN ISRAEL AND LATER SERVED AS DEFENSE MINISTER AND PRIME MINISTER. KNOWN FOR HIS NO-NONSENSE APPROACH TO TERRORISM, SHARON LATER SHOCKED MANY OF HIS SUPORTERS BY UNLATERALLY HANDING GAZA OVER TO THE PALESTINIANS. INCAPACITATED BY A MASSIVE STROKE FOR SEVERAL YEARS, SHARON DIED IN JANUARY. HE WAS 85. AS THE COLD WAR THAWED THROUGH THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MIKHAIL GORBACHEV AND RONALD REAGAN AND GORBACHEV AND GEORGE H.W. BUSH, GORBACHEV 19S MOST IMPORTANT SUBORDINATE WAS SOVIET FOREIGN MINISTER EDUARD SHEVARDNADZE. LATER ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA UPON THE COLLAPSE OF THE SOVIET UNION,SHEVARDNADZE DIED IN JULY AT THE AGE OF 86. IN HAITI, THE RENOWNED FRANCOIS 18PAPA DOC 19 DUVALIER WAS SUCCEEDED BY HIS EVEN MORE CORRUPT AND FAR LESS COMPETENT SON. JEAN CLAUDE 18BABY DOC 19 DUVALIER WAS FORCED INTO EXILE IN THE 1980S. HE WAS 63 WHEN HE DIED IN OCTOBER. IN AMERICAN POLITICS, THE REAGAN VICTORY IN 1980 ALSO BROUGHT THE FIRST REPUBLICAN SENATE MAJORITY SINCE THE 1950S. TENNESSEE 19S HOWARD BAKER, WHO RAN UNSUCCESSFULLY FOR THE GOP NOMINATION AGAINST REAGAN ASSUMED THE TITLE OF MAJORITY LEADER. WHILE FAR MORE MODERATE THAN REAGAN, BAKER SHEPHERDED THE NEW PRESIDENT 19S TAX CUTS THROUGH THE UPPER CHAMBER ALONG WITH OTHER KEY INITIATIVES. BAKER RETIRED IN 1985, ONLY TO COME ON AS REAGAN 19S CHIEF OF STAFF LATE IN THE SECOND TERM. HE LATER SERVED AS AMBASSADOR TO JAPAN UNDER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH. HOWARD BAKER WAS 88 YEARS OLD. WHILE REAGAN CERTAINLY HAD HIS WAY IN FRONT OF THE MICROPHONE, HE ALSO RECRUITED THE INTELLIGENT AND WITTY JAMES BRADY TO BE HIS PRESS SECRETARY. HIS TIME ON THE JOB WAS CUT SHORT AFTER JUST TWO MONTHS, WHEN THE ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT ON REAGAN 19S LIFE LEFT BRADY PERMANENTLY DISABLED AFTER BEING SHOT IN THE HEAD. THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS ROOM NOW BEARS HIS NAME. BRADY DIED IN AUGUST AT AGE 73. BRADY OFFICIALLY HELD THE TITLE OF PRESS SECRETARY FOR THE REMAINDER OF REAGAN 19S PRESIDENCY, BUT THE MAN WHO DID THE DAY TO DAY WORK FOR MOST OF THOSE YEARS WAS THE APTLY NAMED LARRY SPEAKES. HE DIED IN JANUARY AT THE AGE OF 74 JEREMIAH DENTON WAS A TRUE AMERICAN HERO. DENTON WAS CAPTURED AND HELD PRISONER AT THE INFAMOUS HANOI HILTON IN VIETNAM. HE NEVER BROKE UNDER INTERROGATION AND TORTURE. WHEN FORCED TO READ A SCRIPT ON TELEVISION, DENTON BLINKED MORSE CODE FOR THE WORD TORTURE, LEAVING NO DOUBT WHAT CONDITIONS WERE LIKE FOR U.S. PRISONERS. DENTON WAS THEN ELECTED TO THE U.S. SENATE FROM ALABAMA IN 1980. ALTHOUGH DEFEATED FOR RE-ELECTION FOR SIX YEARS LATER, DENTON REMAINED A EXAMPLE OF COURAGE AND GRACE AND BECAME AN OUTSPOKEN ADVOCATE FOR CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES IN HIS LATER YEARS. DENTON WAS 89. IT 19S PRETTY RARE FOR ONE TO CHANGE THE BALANCE OF POWER IN WASHINGTON, BUT VERMONT 19S JIM JEFFORDS MANAGED TO DO IT. FOLLOWING THE 2000 ELECTIONS, THE SENATE WAS SPLIT 50-50 WITH VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY 19S TIEBREAKING VOTE PUTTING REPUBLICANS IN THE MAJORITY. JEFFORDS WAS A LIBERAL REPUBLICAN STARTING HIS THIRD TERM WHEN HE DETERMINED THE PARTY HAD BECOME TOO CONSERVATIVE. HE BECAME AN INDEPENDENT AND CAUCUSED WITH DEMOCRATS, GIVING THEM THE MAJORITY FOR THE NEXT YEAR AND A HALF. JEFFORDS RETIRED IN 2006. HE WAS 80 WHEN HE DIED IN AUGUST. THE MOST COLORFUL MEMBER OF THE HOUSE FROM THE MID-1980S UNTIL HIS EXPULSION IN 2002 WAS OHIO 19S JAMES TRAFICANT. KNOWN FOR HIS OUTLANDISH SUITS, OBVIOUS TOUPEE AND 18BEAM ME UP 19 CATCHPHRASE AS HE RAILED AGAINST GOVERNMENT STUPIDITY, TRAFICANT WAS FORCED FROM OFFICE IN 2002 FOLLOWING HIS CONVICTION ON FEDERAL BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION CHARGES, FOR WHICH HE SERVED SEVEN YEARS IN PRISON. HE DIED FOLLOWING A FARM ACCIDENT IN SEPTEMBER. TRAFICANT WAS 73. BETWEEN BARRY GOLDWATER 19S PRESIDENTIAL RUN AND THE RISE OF RONALD REAGAN, NO ONE CARRIED THE CONSERVATIVE MANTLE MORE PROUDLY THAN ILLINOIS CONGRESSMAN PHIL CRANE. SERVING FOR NEARLY 35 YEARS IN THE HOUSE, CRANE WAS KNOWN FOR HIS FIERCE AVERSION TO BALLOONING FEDERAL SPENDING. ONCE, WHEN SHOWING THE AUTOMATED VOTING SYSTEM ON THE HOUSE FLOOR TO A NEW MEMBER WHEN DEMOCRATS WERE IN THE MAJORITY, CRANE QUIPPED, 18VOTE YES ON DEFENSE AND TO ADJOURN. VOTE NO ON EVERYTHING ELSE. 19 CRANE WAS 84. TWO HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL BIG CITY MAYORS DIED THIS YEAR. IN WASHINGTON, NO ONE WAS MORE POLARIZING THAN MARION BARRY. CONSIDERED A HRO BY THE BLACK COMMUNITY FOR HIS CIVIL RIGHTS WORK AND FOR GIVING BLACK BUSINESS MORE OPPORTUNITIES IN THE PAST, THOSE SAME ACTIONS DREW ACCUSATIONS OF CORRUPTION. BARRY ALSO DREW HEAT FOR THE SKYROCKETING MURDER RATE IN THE NATION 19S CAPITAL AND FOR AN EROSION OF CITY SERVICES. GETTING CAUGHT SMOKING CRACK ON CAMERA BY THE FBI IS WHAT HE 19LL BE BEST REMEMBERED FOR, ALTHOUGH IT DIDN'T STOP HIM FROM WINNING ANOTHER TERM AS MAYOR. BARRY DIED IN NOVEMBER. HE WAS 78. JANE BYRNE WAS THE FIRST AND STILL ONLY FEMALE MAYOR OF CHICAGO. HER TENURE IN THE LATE 1970S AND EARLY 80S WAS A NIGHTMARE FROM START TO FINISH. BYRNE LOST THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY IN HER BID FOR RE-ELECTION. SHE WAS 81 WHEN SHE DIED IN NOVEMBER. TOM MENINO RULED CITY HALL IN BOSTON FOR 20 YEARS AND WAS FAR LESS CONTROVERSIAL THAN BARRY OR BYRNE. SEEN PROMINENTLY IN THE WAKE OF THE 2013 BOSTON MARATHON BOMBINGS, MENINO WAS 71. BACK IN WASHINGTON, JOAN MONDALE, THE WIFE OF FORMER VICE PRESIDENT WALTER MONDALE, DIED IN FEBRUARY. SHE WAS 83. THE MAN WHO MAY HAVE DONE THE MOST DAMAGE TO THE REAGAN PRESIDENCY WAS IRAN-CONTRA INDEPENDENT COUNSEL LAWRENCE WALSH. HAILED BY THE LEFT AND REVILED BY THE RIGHT, WALSH DIED IN MARCH. HE WAS 102. ANOTHER MAJOR PAIN IN THE FINAL YEARS OF THE REAGAN WHITE HOUSE WAS THE SAVINGS AND LOANS SCANDAL. BUSINESSMAN CHARLES KEATING WAS AT THE EPICENTER OF THAT SCANDAL. HE WAS 90 WHEN HE DIED IN APRIL. ANOTHER EMBARRASSING REVELATION FOR THE GIPPER WAS THE PUBLIC ASSERTION THAT NANCY REAGAN CONSULTED AN ASTROLOGIST TO PLAN HER HUSBAND 19S SCHEDULE TO AVOID FUTURE ASSASSINATION PLOTS. REPORTS LATER CONFIRMED THE ASTROLOGER TO BE JOAN QUIGLEY. SHE DIED IN OCTOBER AT THE AGE OF 87. AND ONE OF THE MOST DESPISED MEN IN AMERICA DIED IN MARCH. FRED PHELPS, HEAD OF THE SO-CALLED WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH, LED LITTLE MORE THAN HIS OWN FAMILY AS THEY PICKETED THE FUNERALS OF SOLDIERS KILLED IN ACTION, CLAIMING THEY DIED AS PUNISHMENT FOR AMERICA EMBRACING HOMOSEXUALITY. PHELPS WAS 84. IN JOURNALISM, FEW NAMES LEFT A BIGGER MARK OR CHANGED THE PROFESSION MORE THAN BEN BRADLEE. THE FORMER WASHINGTON POST EDITOR GUIDED THE PAPER FROM A LOCAL DAILY TO ONE OF THE MOST PROMINENT VOICES IN POLITICS. BRADLEE LED THE POST THROUGH THE PUBLISHING OF THE PENTAGON PAPERS AND STEERED WOODWARD AND BERNSTEIN AS THEY EXPOSED THE WATERGATE SCANDAL. BRADLEE HAD BEEN SUFFERING FROM DEMENTIA WHEN HE DIED IN OCTOBER. HE WAS 93. GARRICK UTLEY WAS A LONGTIME NEWS ANCHOR FOR NBC. UTLEY DIED IN FEBRUARY AT THE AGE OF 74. BRUCE MORTON WAS THE CURMUDGEONLY CBS NEWS REPORTER THAT DUG UP THE REAL STORY BEHIND ALL THE TALKING POINTS. MORTON DIED IN SEPTEMBER. HE WAS 83. TERRI KEENAN WAS A SHARP BUSINESS REPORTER AND ANCHOR FOR CNN AND THEN THE FOX BUSINESS NETWORK. KEENAN DIED SUDDENLY OF A HEART ATTACK IN OCTOBER AT THE AGE OF 53. IN BUSINESS, TRUETT CATHY WOLD TELL YOU HE DIDN 19T INVENT THE CHICKEN, JUST THE CHICKEN SANDWICH. CATHY TURNED A COUPLE OF ATLANTA FOOD COURT STANDS INTO THE CHICK-FIL-A PHENOMENON. KNOWN JUST AS MUCH FOR HIS DEVOUT CHRISTIAN FAITH, PHILANTHROPY AND GIVING HIS EMPLOYEES THE DAY OFF ON SUNDAYS, CATHY WAS 93 WHEN HE DIED IN SEPTEMBER. EILEEN FORD BUILT THE RENOWNED MODELING AGENCY THAT BEARS HER NAME AND RULED THE INDUSTRY FOR DECADES. FORD WAS 92. THOSE MODELS HAD TO WEAR SOMETHING ON THE CATWALK. IF THEY WERE LUCKY, IT WOULD BE SOMETHING DESIGNED BY OSCAR DE LA RENTA. THE DESIGNER TO THE STARS DIED IN OCTOBER. HE WAS 82. IN THE WORLD OF SPORTS, ONLY ONE COACH HAS WON FOUR SUPERBOWLS IN THE NFL AND CHUCK NOLL DID IT IN A SIX YEAR SPAN. THANKS TO HIS STEEL CURTAIN DEFENSE, NOLL TURNED THE PITTSBURGH STEELERS FROM NFL AFTERTHOUGHT TO THE MOST FEARED FRANCHISE IN THE LEAGUE. THE HALL OF FAMER CHUCK NOLL DIED IN JUNE. HE WAS 82. THE LAST ORIGINAL AMERICAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE OWNER PASSED AWAY THIS YEAR. RALPH WILSON JR. OWNED THE BUFFALO BILLS FOR OVER 50 YEARS AND WATCHED THEM CLAIM TWO AFL TITLES BUT NO SUPERBOWLS, EVEN THOUGH THE BILLS WENT TO AN UNPRECEDENTED FOUR CONSECUTIVE TITLE GAMES IN THE 1990S. WILSON WAS 95. WILLIAM CLAY FORD OWNED THE DETROIT LIONS FOR OVER 50 YEARS BUT HAD ONLY ONE PLAYOFF WIN TO SHOW FOR IT. FORTUNATELY HIS AUTO BUSINESS ACUMEN WAS MUCH SHARPER. FORD WAS 88. MALCOLM GLAZER NOT ONLY OWNED THE TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS BUT THE MOST FAMOUS FRANCHISE THAT PLAYS THE OTHER KIND OF FOOTBALL 26MANCHESTER UNITED. GLAZER WAS 85. THE 1972 MIAMI DOLPHINS ARE STILL THE ONLY UNBEATEN TEAM IN NFL HISTORY AND THE QUARTERBACK WHO RARELY GETS MUCH CREDIT FOR THAT RUN IS EARL MORALL. MORALL STARTED MANY GAMES THAT SEASON IN RELIEF OF THE INJURED BOB GRIESE. HE ALSO APPEARED IN EARLIER SUPERBOWLS FOR THE BALTIMORE COLTS. MORALL WAS 79. IN BASEBALL, MANY CONSIDERED TONY GWYNN THE BEST PURE HITTER SINCE TED WILLIAMS. A STAPLE IN RIGHT FIELD FOR THE SAN DIEGO PADRES, GWYNN WAS MUCH BETTER KNOWN FOR HAVING ONE OF THE BEST LIFETIME BATTING AVERAGES IN HISTORY AND LEADING THE PADRES TO TWO NATIONAL LEAGUE PENNANTS. GWYNN DIED OF CANCER HE ATTRIBUTED TO YEARS OF CHEWING TOBACCO. GWYNN WAS 54. IN THE LATE 1940S AND EARLY 50S, IT WAS ALMOST A GIVEN THAT THE NEW YORK YANKEES WOULD WIN THE WORLD SERIES. ONE OF THE KEY FIGURES IN THAT RUN WAS SECOND BASEMAN JERRY COLEMAN. FAR BEYOND HIS EXPLOITS ON THE DIAMOND, COLEMAN SERVED AS A FIGHTER PILOT IN BOTH WORLD WAR II AND KOREA. HE LATER BECAME A HALL OF FAME ANNOUNCER FOR THE SAN DIEGO PADRES. COLEMAN WAS 89. RALPH KINER WAS ONE OF THE GAMES GREAT SLUGGERS FOR THE PIRATES, CUBS AND INDIANS IN A HALL OF FAME CAREER. BUT FOR OVER 50 YEARS, HE WAS ALWAYS LINKED TO THE NEW YORK METS, WHOSE GAMES HE ANNOUNCED FROM THEIR START IN 1962 UNTIL HIS DEATH IN FEBRUARY. KINER WAS 91. ONE OF THE TRUE CHARACTERS OF THE GAME WAS DON ZIMMER. POPEYE WAS KNOWN FOR MANAGING THE BOSTON RED SOX IN THEIR PAINFUL 1978 SEASON, GUIDING THE CHICAGO CUBS TO THE DIVISION CROWN IN 1989 AND SERVING AS BENCH COACH FOR THE GREAT YANKEE TEAMS UNDER JOE TORRE. ZIMMER WAS 83 WHEN HE DIED IN JUNE. JIM FREGOSI SPENT 18 YEARS PLAYING IN THE BIG LEAGUES BUT GAINED MORE FAME AS A MANAGER. BEST KNOWN FOR LEADING THE PHILADELPHIA PHILLIES TO THE 1993 NATIONAL LEAGUE TITLE, FREGOSI DIED SUDDENLY FROM A STROKE IN FEBRUARY. HE WAS 71. BOB WELCH HAD A VERY SUCCESSFUL PITCHING CAREER, HIGHLIGHTED BY TWO MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS. A YOUNG WELCH ENGAGED IN AN EPIC DUEL FOR THE LOS ANGELES DODGERS AGAINST YANKEES SLUGGER REGGIE JACKSON IN THE 1978 WORLD SERIES. WELCH WON THE BATTLE IN GAME TWO THAT GAVE THE DODGERS THE WIN EVEN THOUGH THE YANKEES WON THE SERIES. WELCH ALSO AMASSED AN AMAZING 27 WINS IN 1990 FOR THE OAKLAND A 19S 13 AN ACHIEVEMENT THAT EARNED HIM THE AMERICAN LEAGUE CY YOUNG AWARD. WELCH WAS JUST 57 YEARS OLD. ALVIN DARK WAS SHORTSTOP FOR THE 1954 WORLD CHAMPION NEW YORK GIANTS. LATER A MANAGER, DARK GUIDED THE OAKLAND A 19S TO THE 1974 WORLD SERIES TITLE. DARK WAS 92. OSCAR TAVARES WAS A VERY PROMISING STAR FOR THE ST. LOUIS CARDINALS, WHO HIT A KEY HOME RUN IN GAME TWO OF THIS YEAR 19S NATIONAL LEAGUE CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES. TAVARES WAS KILLED IN A CAR CRASH JUST DAYS AFTER THE SERIES ENDED. HE WAS JUST 22. ONE OF THE GREATEST BASKETBALL MINDS BELONGED TO DR. JACK RAMSAY. RAMSAY COACHED THE PORTLAND TRAILBLAZERS TO THE 1977 NBA CROWN. HE LATERSERVED FOR MANY YEARS AS A TELEVISION AND RADIO ANALYST FOR NBA GAMES. RAMSAY WAS 89. IN HOCKEY, PAT QUINN WAS A SUCCESFUL COACH FOR FIVE DIFFERENT TEAMS AND REACHED THE STANLEY CUP FINALS TWICE. HIS GREATEST TRIUMPH WAS LEADING CANADA TO THE GOLD MEDAL IN HOCKEY AT THE 2002 WINTER OLYMPICS. QUINN WAS 71. VIKTOR TIKHONOV WAS ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL HOCKEY COACHES IN HISTORY, LEADING THE SOVIETS TO THREE OLYMPIC GOLD MEDALS AND EIGHT WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS. HOWEVER, IT 19S THE ONE HE DIDN 19T WIN THAT HE 19S BEST KNOWN FOR. TIKHONOV WAS COACHING HE USSR WHEN IT LOST TO THE UNITED STATES IN THE MIRACLE ON ICE IN THE 1980 WINTER GAMES. TIKHONOV WAS 84. IT 19S HARD TO FIND A BIGGER WINNER IN HOCKEY THAN JEAN BELIVEAU. BELIVEAU PLAYED MORE THAN 20 SEASONS WITH THE MONTREAL CANADIENS, WINNING 10 STANLEY CUPS. HE LATER JOINED THE FRONT OFFICE AND HAD A HAND IN WINNING SEVEN MORE. BELIVEAU WAS 83. RUBIN 18HURRICANE 19 CARTER WAS A SOLID MIDDLEWEIGHT FIGHTER, BUT HIS GREATEST CLAIM TO FAME WAS BEING WRONGFULLY IMPRISONED FOR 20 YEARS FOR A MURDER HE DID NOT COMMIT. CARTER WAS 76. IN PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING, FEW BROUGHT MORE ENERGY OR FURY TO THE RING THAN THE ULTIMATE WARRIOR. HE WAS JAMES HELLWIG IN REAL LIFE. HELLWIG DIED SUDDENLY IN APRIL AT THE AGE OF 54. IN ADDITION TO JEREMIAH DENTON, THE NATION LOST MORE OF ITS GREATEST MILITARY HEROES THIS YEAR. LOUIS ZAMPERINI WENT FROM A REBELLIOUS YOUTH TO AN OLYMPIC RUNNER. SERVING IN WORLD WAR II, HIS PLANE WAS SHOT DOWN IN THE PACIFIC. AFTER WEEKS ADRIFT AT SEA, HE AND HIS FELLOW CREW MEMBERS WERE CAPTURED BY THE JAPANESE AND TREATED HORRENDOUSLY. ZAMPERINI THEN BECAME A DEVOUT CHRISTIAN AND EVEN FORGAVE HIS CAPTORS. HIS STORY IS TOLD IN THE BOOK AND MOVIE 18UNBROKEN. 19 ZAMPERINI DIED IN JULY. HE WAS 97. IT WAS THE ATOMIC BOMBS THAT BROUGHT AN EARLY END TO THE WAR AGAINST JAPAN. THE ENOLD GAY DROPPED THE FIRST HUGE BOMB OVER HIROSHIMA. THEODORE 18DUTCH 19 VAN KIRK WAS THE NAVIGATOR ON THAT FATEFUL FLIGHT. HE WAS 93 WHEN HE DIED IN JULY. CHESTER NEZ WAS THE LAST OF THE ORIGINAL NAVAJO CODE TALKERS, THE GROUP OF NAVAJO INDIANS WHO CREATED A CODE THE JAPANESE COULD NEVER CRACK. NEZ WAS 93. THE BAND OF BROTHERS WAS ONE OF THE MOST FAMOUS COMPANIES IN WORLD WAR II THANKS TO THE WRITINGS OF STEPHEN AMBROSE. ONE OF THE MOST WELL-KNOWN BROTHERS WAS 18WILD 19 BILL GUARNERE. HE DIED IN MARCH AT THE AGE OF 90. WALT EHLERS NOT ONLY SERVED ON D-DAY, BUT HIS HEROIC ACTIONS IN THE BATTLE OF NORMANDY EARNED HIM THE MEDAL OF HONOR FOR RESCUING A FALLEN SOLDIER AND RISKING HIS LIFE AGAIN TO RETRIEVE THE MAN 19S WEAPON. EHLERS WAS 92. |
| Legends Lost in Arts and Entertainment |
| Tue, 23 Dec 2014 09:09:31 EST 2014 was a memorable year in many ways, but just like every other year, there were man famous names and faces who died over the past 12 months, leaving us with only the memories. Today, we look back on those we lost in the arts and entertainment: HE SHOT TO STARDOM ON HAPPY DAYS AND MORK AND MINDY, BUT ROBIN WILLIAMS BECAME A LEGEND ON THEBIG SCREEN, IN UNFORGETTABLE ROLES IN FILMS SUCH AS 18DEAD POETS SOCIETY 19, 18MRS. DOUBTFIRE 19, 18ALADDIN 19 AND 18GOOD WILL HUNTING 19, FOR WHICH WILLIAMS WON A BEST SUPPORTING OSCAR. WILLIAMS STUNNED THE WORLD WHEN HE TOOK HIS OWN LIFE IN AUGUST. HE WAS 63. UNTIL WILLIAMS 19 SUICIDE, THE MOST SHOCKING HOLLYWOOD DEATH WAS THAT OF PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN. HIS OUTSTANDING ACTING WAS SEEN IN COUNTLESS ROLES FROM FILMS SUCH AS 18SCENT OF A WOMAN 19 TO 18THE BIG LEBOWSKI 19 TO 18CAPOTE 19, FOR WHICH HIS WON AN ACADEMY AWARD FOR BEST ACTOR. HOFFMAN DIED OF A DRUG OVERDOSE IN FEBRUARY. HE WAS 46. IN THE 1930S, THE BIGGEST MOVIE STAR IN THE WORLD WAS A PRECOCIOUS LITTLE GIRL NAMED SHIRLEY TEMPLE. ONE OF THE FIRST CINEMATIC CHILD STARS, TEMPLE WOULD LEAVE ACTING IN THE LATE 1940S BUT WOULD RE-EMERGE AS A DIPLOMAT DECADES LATER. SHE SERVED AS AMBASSADOR TO GHANA AND CZECHOSLOVAKIA UNDER TWO DIFFERENT PRESIDENTS. TEMPLE DIED IN FEBRUARY AT THE AGE OF 85 ONE DAY AFTER ROBIN WILLIAMS DIED, WORD CAME THAT THE LEGENDARY LAUREN BACALL DIED AT AGE 89. KNOWN AS MUCH FOR HER MAY-DECEMBER ROMANCE AND MARRIAGE WITH HUMPHREY BOGART AS FOR ROLES IN CLASSICS SUCH AS 18TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT 19, THE BIG SLEEP 19, 18HOW TO MARRY A MILLIONAIRE 19 AND 18THE MIRROR HAS TWO FACES. 19 MICKEY ROONEY ENJOYED ONE OF THE LONGEST CAREERS IN HOLLYWOOD. VAULTING TO FAME AS THE TEENAGE LEAD IN THE 1cANDY HARDY 19 MOVIES, ROONEY WAS A FIXTURE ON STAGE AND SCREEN FOR OVER 80 YEARS 13 ALL THE WAY UP TO A ROLE IN 18NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM. 19 MICKEY ROONEY WAS 93. ANOTHER ACTOR WITH DECADES OF EXCELLENT PERFORMANCES WAS JAMES GARNER. FIRST FINDING FAME AS BRET MAVERICK ON TELEVISION, GARNER ATTRACTED LEGIONS OF FANS WITH HIS TURN AS ROBERT HENDLEY, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE SCROUNGER IN THE SCREEN CLASSIC 18THE GREAT ESCAPE. 19 GARNER WENT ON TO MORE TV SUCCESS IN 18THE ROCKFORD FILES 19 ALONGSIDE MEMORABLE ROLES IN FILMS FROM 18SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL SHERIFF 19 TO SPACE COWBOYS. 19 JAMES GARNER DIED IN JULY AT AGE 86. ONE OF GARNER 19S GREAT CO-STARS IN 18THE GREAT ESCAPE 19WAS RICHARD ATTENBOROUGH. THE BRITISH ACTOR STAYED ACTIVE FOR MANY YEARS, AND IS ALSO REMEMBERED FOR HIS ROLE IN BOX OFFICE SMASH 18JURASSIC PARK 19. ATTENBOROUGH WAS 90. ELI WALLACH STARRED IN TWO OF THE MOST PROLIFIC MOVIES OF THE 1960S, 18THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN 19 AND 18THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY. 19 WORKING ALL THE WAY UP TO THE RECENT 18WALL STREET 19 SEQUEL, WALLACH DIED IN JUNE AT THE AGE OF 98. ONE OF THE MOST MEMORABLE FILMS OF THE EARLY 1960S WAS 18JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG 19, TELLING THE STORY OF THE NAZIS TRIED AND CONVICTED OF WAR CRIMES FOLLOWING WORLD WAR II. THE OSCAR-WINNING LEAD WAS THE WORK OF MAXIMILIAN SCHELL. ALSO AN ACCOMPLISHED PIANIST, SCHELL WAS 83 WHEN HE DIED IN FEBRUARY. RUBY DEE WAS AS WELL KNOWN FOR HER ACTIVISM FOR CIVIL RIGHTS IN THE 1960S AS SHE WAS FOR HER WORK ON SCREEN. BEST KNOWN FOR HER ROLES IN 18A RAISIN IN THE SUN 19 AND 18DO THE RIGHT THING 19, DEE DIED IN JUNE AT AGE 91. HAROLD RAMIS WAS EITHER IN FRONT OF OR BEHIND THE CAMERA FOR SOME OF THE MOST BELOVED MOVIES OF THE 1980S AND 90S. RAMIS DIRECTED 18CADDYSHACK 19, NATIONAL LAMPOON 19S VACATION, ANALYZE THIS 19 AND 18GROUNDHOG DAY 19 AND HAD KEY ROLES IN CLASSICS LIKE 18STRIPES 19 AND 18GHOSTBUSTERS 19. RAMIS WAS 69. MIKE NICHOLS WAS ANOTHER ACCLAIMED DIRECTOR. BEST KNOWN FOR 18THE GRADUATE 19, WHICH EARNED HIM AN ACADEMY AWARD, NICHOLS WAS ALSO BEHIND 18WHO 19S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF, SILKWOOD, WORKING GIRL AND THE BIRDCAGE. NICHOLS WAS 83 WHEN HE DIED IN NOVEMBER. BOB HOSKINS WAS OFTEN SEEN IN SUPPORTING ROLES, INCLUDING 18HOOK 19 ALONGSIDE ROBIN WILLIAMS. HOSKINS 19 GREATEST ACCLAIM CAME IN 18WHO FRAMED ROGERRABBIT? 19 HOSKINS WAS 71. ONE THE MOST ACCLAIMED MOVIE MUSICALS WAS 18THE SOUND OF MUSIC 19, WHICH ADAPTED THE STORY OF THE REAL-LIFE VON TRAPP FAMILY. ONE OF THE MANY REAL- LIFE VON TRAPP CHILDREN DIED THIS YEAR. MARIA VON TRAPP WAS 99. JOAN RIVERS WAS ONE THE MOST INSULTING PERSONALITIES ON TELEVISION BUT SHE ALSO MADE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE LAUGH AND WAS A TRAILBLAZER FOR WOMEN BOTH IN TELEVISION AND IN COMEDY. BEST KNOWN LATER IN LIFE FOR HER FONDNESS FOR PLASTIC SURGERY AND FOR CRITIQUING THE RED CARPET ATTIRE OF CELEBRITIES, RIVERS DIED IN SEPTEMBER AFTER SHE STOPPED BREATHING DURING A THROAT PROCEDURE. JOAN RIVERS WAS 81 IN THE 1950S TELEVISION COMEDY BROKE NEW GROUND WITH 18YOUR SHOW OF SHOWS 19. SID CAESAR WAS THE STAR WHO ENJOYED A LONG SHOW BUSINESS CAREER IN THE DECADES THAT FOLLOWED. CAESAR WAS 91. ON GILLIGAN 19S ISLAND, THE PROFESSOR 19S EXPERTISE ON JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING GOT THE CASTAWAYS OUT MANY DIFFICULT SPOTS AND GAVE THEM THEIR BEST CHANCES TO BE RESCUED UNTIL GILLIGAN INEVITABLY MESSED THINGS UP. THE PROFESSOR WAS PORTRAYED BY RUSSELL JOHNSON, WHO DIED IN JANUARY AT AGE 89. GILLIGAN 19S ISLAND WAS THE CREATIVE WORK OF SHERWOOD SCHWARTZ. HIS OTHER TV CLASSIC WAS 18THE BRADY BUNCH 19. ALICE WAS THE BRADYS 19 LOVABLE BUT SOMEWHAT ECCENTRIC HOUSEKEEPER, PLAYED BY ANN B. DAVIS. DAVIS DIED AFTER A FALL IN JUNE. SHE WAS 88. BUT NO TV BUNCH WAS MORE ECCENTRIC THAN THE ADDAMS FAMILY. KEN WEATHERWAX PLAYED YOUNG PUGSLEY ADDAMS. WEATHERWAX DIED IN DECEMBER. HE WAS 59. EFREM ZIMBALIST WAS A BELOVED STAR OF MULTIPLE SERIES. ZIMBALIST WAS THE LEADING MAN IN '77 SUNSET STRIP' AND 'THE FBI'. A DEVOUT CHRISTIAN, HE DIED IN MAY AT AGE 95. THE 1970S BROUGHT US SOME OF THE MOST BELOVED DRAMATIC CHARACTERS. ONE OF THOSE WAS PA WALTON ON 18THE WALTONS 19, WELL-PORTRAYED BY RALPH WAITE. WAITE DIED IN FEBRUARY. HE WAS 85. AMERICANS ALSO HAD GREAT AFFECTION FOR NELS OLESON, THE HEN-PECKED YET KINDLY MERCHANT ON 18LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRIE. 19 OLESON 19S CHARACTER WAS THE WORK OF ACTOR RICHARD BULL, WHO DIED IN FEBRUARY AT THE AGE OF 89. ANY MUSICALLY TALENTED FAMILY TAKING THE SHOW ON THE ROAD NEEDS A GOOD MANAGER. FOR THE PARTRIDGE FAMILY THAT JOB WAS HANDLED BY REUBEN KINCAID, WHO WAS PORTRAYED BY DAVE MADDEN. MADDEN APPEARED ON MANY OTHER TELEVISION SERIES AS WELL. HE DIED IN JANUARY AT THE AGE OF 82. ON WELCOME BACK KOTTER, MR. KOTTER HAD TO KEEP THE SWEATHOGS UNDER CONTROL. HIS WIFE, JULIE, HAD TO LISTEN TO HIS SILLY STORIES AT THE START OF MOST EPISODES. JULIE WAS PORTRAYED BY MARCIA STRASSMAN, WHO DIED IN OCTOBER. SHE WAS 66. DESIGNING WOMEN WAS A POPULAR SITCOM IN THE 1980S AND 90S. THE ONLY MAN REGULARLY COMMISERATING WITH THE WOMEN WAS ANTHONY BOUVIER, PLAYED BY ACTOR MESHACH TAYLOR. TAYLOR DIED IN JUNE AT THE AGE OF 67. DON PARDO 19S VOICE WAS SYNONYMOUS WITH SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE. HIS OLD SCHOOL DELIVERY NOT ONLY INTRODUCED THE CAST MEMBERS BUT ALSO INTRODUCED COUNTLESS SKETCHES AND PARODIES. WORKING RIGHT UP UNTIL HIS DEATH IN AUGUST, DON PARDO WAS 96. ONE OF THE MANY CAST MEMBERS PARDO ANNOUNCED OVER THE YEARS WAS THE TALENTED JAN HOOKS. SHE DIED SUDDENLY OCTOBER. HOOKS WAS 57. JIM LANGE WAS A VERY POPULAR DISC JOCKEY WHO GAINED EVEN MORE FAME AS A GAME SHOW HOST. BEST KNOWN FOR THE DATING GAME, LANGE WAS ALSO HOST OF THE SECOND INCARNATION OF NAME THAT TUNE. JIM LANGE WAS 81. MARY ANN MOBLEY WAS MISS AMERICA AND THEN HELD A VARIETY OF T-V JOBS, INCLUDING A ROLE ON THE FINAL SEASON OF DIFF 19RENT STROKES. MOBLEY DIED OF BREAST CANCER IN DECEMBER. SHE WAS 77. NO ONE ROCKED HARDER THAN JOE COCKER. BEST KNOWN FOR SONGS LIKE 'UNCHAIN MY HEART' AND 'YOU ARE SO BEAUTIFUL TO ME', COCKER LOST A BATTLE WITH LUNG CANCER IN DECEMBER. HE WAS 70. FOLK SINGERS WERE ALL THE RAGE IN THE 1960S AND MOST OF THEM ROSE TO FAME FOR THEIR MUSIC PROTESTING THE VIETNAM WAR. PETE SEEGER WAS NO DIFFERENT, BUT MANY POLITICALLY ACTIVE MUSICIANS VIEW HIM AS A TRAILBLAZER IN THAT ARENA FOR HITS LIKE 18TURN,TURN,TURN. 19 SEEGER WAS 94. THE EVERLY BROTHERS PERSONIFIED THE CLEAN CUT, FAST-PACED MUSIC OF THE EARLY ROCK AND ROLL ERA. WITH HITS RANGING FROM 'BYE BYE LOVE' TO 'WAKE UP LITTLE SUZY', FANS LOVED THE HARMONIES OF DON AND PHIL EVERLY. PHIL DIED IN JANUARY. HE WAS 74. FOR DECADES, YOU COULDN 19T GET TO THE TOP OF THE CHARTS WITHOUT HEARING IT FROM CASEY KASEM. NOTED FOR HIS DISTINCTIVE VOICE, HIS REQUESTS AND DEDICATIONS AND FOR BEING THE VOICE OF SHAGGY ON THE SCOOBY DOO TELEVISION SERIES, KASEM WAS SYNONYMOUS WITH THE TOP 40 COUNTDOWN. KASEM DIED IN JUNE AT THE AGE OF 82 IN THE MIDST OF A VERY UGLY CUSTODY DISPUTE BETWEEN HIS CHILDREN AND HIS SECOND WIFE. FEW POETS EVER ACHIEVED THE ACCLAIM AS MAYA ANGELOU. THE WRITER TURNED PROFESSOR EVEN RECITED A POEM AT THE FIRST INAUGURATION OF BILL CLINTON. SHE DIED IN MAY AT THE AGE OF 86. |
| Transgenders in the Military? |
| Mon, 22 Dec 2014 17:09:25 EST Attorney General Eric Holder says federal laws against sex discrimination in the workplace ought to apply to transgenders and activists already say they will push for an end to the ban on transgenders in the U.S. military. Last week, Holder quietly released a memo stating that laws interpreted as not applying to transgenders in the workplace need to be expanded. "Attorney General Holder announced today that the Department of Justice will take the position in litigation that the protection of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends to claims of discrimination based on an individual 19s gender identity, including transgender status. Attorney General Holder informed all Department of Justice component heads and United States Attorneys in a memo that the department will no longer assert that Title VII 19s prohibition against discrimination based on sex excludes discrimination based on gender identity per se, including transgender discrimination, reversing a previous Department of Justice position," the memo stated. The memo also included a quote from Holder, stating the shift in the Justice Department approach to Title VII is the latest step in affording equal protection under the law. 1cThis important shift will ensure that the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are extended to those who suffer discrimination based on gender identity, including transgender status, 1d stated Holder in the memo. 1cThis will help to foster fair and consistent treatment for all claimants. And it reaffirms the Justice Department 19s commitment to protecting the civil rights of all Americans. 1d An activist group called the American Military Partner Association immediately began pushing for an end to the ban on transgenders serving in the military. "The Supreme Court and the Attorney General have made it clear that workplace discrimination against transgender people is not only wrong, but unlawful," said AMPA President Ashley Broadway in a statement. "While the Defense Department follows a different set of rules, there is no valid reason that our transgender troops should continue to be prohibited from serving openly and honestly. The ban continues to harm our military families, military readiness, and ultimately the mission. The Secretary of Defense should do the right thing and immediately order the review of the current outdated regulations that he said he was open to back in May." Retired U.S. Army Col. Bob Maginnis has been directly involved in this debate for over 20 years. In 1993, he testified before the Pentagon's 1993 Military Working Group that eventually adopted the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" approach to the ban on homosexuals in the military. Maginnis also served as a senior adviser to Lt. Gen. John Otjen, the senior member of that working group. Maginnis says this policy would apply to people who have undergone surgery and those simply in conflict over their gender. "We're talking about people called transsexuals. In other words, they've had sex change surgery. Others are transvestites, they're cross-dressers. Others are drag queens and drag kings and people that just cross-dress for the entertainment," said Maginnis, who believes this is simply the latest item on the agenda for those who succeeded in overturning the ban on gays in the military. "People, by this description, would be allowed in the military to live accordingly. In other words, sex-specific facilities would be open to them. If they're a man in terms of physiology but a woman inside according to them, then they would be able to go into women-only facilities: locker rooms, restrooms, showers. The assignment of barracks would be in accordance with that. Then, of course, they would insist upon the surgery at taxpayer expense," said Maginnis. Maginnis encourages Americans to investigate the research on transgenders by Dr. Paul McHugh, the former chief of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University Hospital. McHugh's work concludes that sexual identity issues persist even for those who go through the surgery, some of whom seek same-sex partners of their newly chosen gender. Maginnis says it does the military no good to get involved in these issues. "These are confused people, unfortunately, and the idea is that you want to saddle the U.S. military with a particular group of people? We already have enough issues with sex-based issues. Why do we want to proceed in that direction?" said Maginnis. It's been four years since Congress passed legislation allowing gays to serve openly in the military. Maginnis says the impact is already clear. While lawmakers and the media are focused on the legitimate concern of men assaulting women in the military, another statistic is also very troubling. "What is under-reported is the fact that the most dramatic increase has been in male-on-male sexual assaults. The advocates in the Obama administration and elsewhere don't want to talk about those numbers are very credible," said Maginnis. Maginnis and others are also deeply concerned about what they see as the erosion of religious freedom in the military since the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Maginnis believes there is a link between the end of the ban and the limiting of religious liberties, but he doesn't believe one directly led to the other. "I think they're parallel. Certainly we've seen it fall (negatively) on Christianity as we've seen a change in the embracing of homosexuality in the military. As a direct result, we've seen the bashing of Christians who have a strongly held moral belief about what is proper and moral conduct," said Maginnis, who says chaplains who dare to speak out against homosexuality are treading on very thin ice. "If a chaplain speaks out against homosexuality, he often puts his own career in jeopardy in the military. That's what's beginning to be seen. People that are speaking out about Christianity in general and saying that the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ, they put themselves in jeopardy," said Maginnis. It remains to be seen whether Holder's shift in the interpretation of sex discrimination laws is ignored, will require congressional action to enact or whether the administration will try to change policy on its own. Maginnis says whether it's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' or the push to allow transgenders to serve openly, the agenda at work has nothing to do with military effectiveness. "They want us to dismiss all our strongly-held religious views about sexual issues and gender issues and accept anything as OK," he said. |
| Capitol Steps Christmas |
| Fri, 19 Dec 2014 16:23:18 EST The Capitol Steps ring in the season with two Christmas Carol parodies, as they poke fun at former Vice President Al Gore's ongoing insistence that the earth faces imminent doom from global warming and give Homeland Security's version of "The Night Before Christmas." |
| Sony's 'Slippery Slope' |
| Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:52:20 EST The Danish newspaper editor who published the cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban is blasting Sony for caving in to hackers demanding that it scrap a movie depicting the assassination of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un. Flemming Rose is foreign editor at Jyllands-Posten, the largest daily newspaper in Denmark, and is author of "The Tyranny of Silence: How One Cartoon Ignited A Global Debate on the Future of Free Speech." He published the Mohammed cartoon in 2005. Months later, the massive, deadly protests erupted in the Middle East in response to the cartoons. This week, Sony Pictures decided not to release "The Interview" after hackers threatened to carry out a 9/11 terrorist attack on theaters showing the movie. Rose is deeply disappointed in the decision. "I think it's a disaster. I think it's outrageous that Sony is caving in to this kind of pressure, even though I understand they would like to protect their people working for them," said Rose. "Sony is outsourcing the right to decide what is going to run in U.S. movie theaters to a dictator in North Korea." Far from solving the problem, Rose says succumbing to this sort of cyber bullying only encourages more of it. "It's a slippery slope. If you give in to this kind of intimidation and threats, you will not get less of this. You will get more because you tell the intimidators that it works," he said. Rose hopes Sony executives will have a change of heart and release the film. If they don't, he has some other ideas to mitigate the damage to the freedom of speech. "I think they should put it free online or they should call on every movie studio in Hollywood to do movies with similar plots," said Rose. Nine years ago, Rose was faced with a similar decision. After learning that the author of a children's book about Mohammed could not get an illustrator to work on the project over fears of backlash, he commissioned Danish cartoonists to draw the founder of Islam, both to see if the cartoonists would limit their own expression and to start a dialogue about self-censorship in Denmark. Rose says he never thought about nixing the idea, although he never expected the reaction the image of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban would have in the Middle East. The cartoon drew limited reaction for weeks. Three months later, Muslim groups in the Middle East launched protests in response. Over 200 people were killed. Rose still has no regrets for his decision and says there is no blood on his hands or on his newspaper. "People often say the cartoons triggered violence in the Middle East. I think that's a very unfortunate phrase. There were people who made a decision to commit violence. It bears no automatic or mechanical relationship between publishing cartoons that cause offense to some people and committing violence. It's a decision that individuals make and they should be held accountable for what they do," said Rose. Beyond that, Rose says standing up for freedom of speech and of the press is a vital for those who wish to preserve them and it's a lesson Sony and everyone else needs to embrace. "If one person stands up, it's very easy to silence him. But if one thousand, five thousand, ten thousand and even one million do the same thing, it will dilute the fear. You cannot go after one million people," he said. After Sony canceled the release of "The Interview" set for Christmas Day, some theater owners announced they would replace the film with "Team America: World Police," a profane film mocking then-North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il made by the creators of the "South Park" television show. However, Paramount Pictures quickly blocked any theaters from showing the movie. Rose says that only makes the problem worse. "At some point, nobody will be able to say anything. It will all cause some kind of offense. If people feel they get their way when they threaten when they are offended by something, this is an open-ended process that will end in a tyranny of silence," said Rose. After the cartoon controversy, Rose spent several years traveling the world and debating the importance of free speech versus respecting various cultures and other sensibilities. Rose believes the solution to what he faced and Sony is facing now is for people around the world to demand the freedom of speech. "This is a global debate and we need a global solution. I think that the global solution will be a global first amendment that free speech is a fundamental right in any society and it cannot be balanced by religious sensibilities or dignity or certain versions of history," he said. |
| Cuba Policy Shows Obama 'Switching Sides' |
| Wed, 17 Dec 2014 16:46:39 EST Former Reagan administration Pentagon official Frank Gaffney alleges President Obama's plan to pursue normal diplomatic relations with the communist regime in Cuba is yet another example of the president "switching sides" and embracing some of our most dangerous adversaries. On Wednesday morning, news reports announced Cuba was freeing jailed American aid worker Alan Gross after five years of captivity. Obama later addressed the nation, announcing that Gross and an imprisoned U.S. intelligence figure were released in exchange for three Cubans convicted of spying in the U.S. Obama also announced he was scrapping the longstanding policy of severed diplomatic relations with the Castro regime and pushed Congress to lift longstanding trade and travel embargoes to the island nation as well. The reaction has been bipartisan in both directions, with Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) enthusiastically endorsing the re-establishment of diplomatic ties and the opening of a U.S. embassy in Havana. However, Cuban-Americans like Senators Marco Rubio (R-Florida) and Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey) slammed the policy shift as a reward for Fidel and Raul Castro oppressing their people for nearly 60 years. Gaffney says this is a terrible move by Obama but not at all surprising. "I think this fits a larger pattern that the president has engaged in since coming to office of switching sides vis a vis America's enemies around the world and its friends. The examples of this are legion. He'd been romancing the Russians from the get-go, the Chinese, more recently Iran and now, of course, Cuba," said Gaffney, who also cited Obama's friendliness with non-state belligerents like Hamas, the Taliban and the Muslim Brotherhood. But why now? Gaffney says it's to throw the Castros a lifeline. "The Cubans are in desperate straits again. They, of course, lost their principal life support when the Soviet Union collapsed after President Reagan essentially took them down," said Gaffney. He says Cuba struggled mightily to find new benefactors and now they are in trouble too. "They found (late Venezuelan President) Hugo Chavez to keep the Castro regime a going concern. He's gone of course. Now, under his successor, the Venezuelan government is bankrupt and with the plummeting price of oil, neither the Russians nor the Venezuelans nor the Iranians are in a position to pick up the slack," said Gaffney, who alleges Obama came to the rescue of a communist regime in peril. "I think that the president has stepped into the breach to save the Castro brothers and their oppressive, authoritarian and communist dictatorship," said Gaffney. "[Obama] thinks that switching sides across the board is, if not in the interests of the United States, is consistent at least with his ambition fundamentally to transform this country." Gaffney says Obama's track record is clear in warming up to Russia and now easing sanctions against Iran and Cuba. He notes that Obama will probably sign pending sanctions against Venezuela and the timing of the new Cuba policy will allow American money to flow into Cuba and on to Venezuela. In his statement Wednesday, Obama said the U.S. policy has been in place since before he was born and therefore needed to change. He also argued that a more open diplomatic and economic relationship will be a good thing for the American and Cuban people because the previous policy never achieved it's intended goals. According to Gaffney, the refusal of many other nations to shun the Cuban regime did weaken the impact of our policy, but he says it was still effective enough to keep the Castros in check. "It is a principled position that has materially restricted the danger that the Castros have been able to pose to our interests and our friends in this hemisphere," said Gaffney. "[The new policy] is a betrayal of the people of Cuba, who I believe yearn for freedom and have been denied it as long as this president has been alive." Obama also contends that a closer relationship with Cuba will lead to the exporting of freedom and will empower the people to demand a better government. He cited the impact American outreach to China has had on our influence on that culture over the past 40 years. Gaffney says China is a great example of what we don't want to re-create. "Engagement with China has given rise to a nation that is now eating our lunch economically, has largely decimated our industrial base and is accruing a military capacity to threaten us both in the region and even here at home," said Gaffney. Moreover, he says engagement with China has not led to less repression of the people. "If that's the model, it will not produce transparency. It will produce a greater and more extended period of time, under which people who hate this country are able to remain in power and people who would love to be friends of this country remain repressed," he said. |
| Cuccinelli Rips Attacks on Cruz, Lee as Establishment 'Canard' |
| Tue, 16 Dec 2014 15:15:44 EST Many Republicans are furious at Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) for demanding a vote related to the president's unilateral action on immigration and allegedly aiding lame duck Senate Democrats with their agenda, but Senate Conservatives Fund President Ken Cuccinelli calls such criticism a "canard" and lauds the senators for standing up for the Constitution. Cuccinelli served as Virginia attorney general from 2010-2014 and was defeated for governor in 2013. Senate Conservatives Fund is loathed by most mainstream Republicans, since the group has recruited and endorsed conservative challengers to GOP incumbents in recent cycles. On Friday, the Senate was going through a series of motions to set up debate on the so-called "cromnibus" spending bill that funds most areas of government through September 2015 but forces a debate over money for Homeland Security in February. Sen. Lee unexpectedly objected, forcing senators back to Washington for weekend debate and a setting up a vote on the constitutionality of Obama's immigration policy sponsored by Sen. Cruz. In response, Reid not only called the Senate into a rare weekend session, but also adjusted the rest of the schedule for the lame duck session to focus on confirming controversial Obama nominees. Many Republicans are livid at Lee and Cruz for demanding a vote they say the GOP cannot win in a Democratic Senate and for giving Reid motivation to approve nominees who would not have been confirmed. "That's a canard and the people making it know it," said Cuccinelli. "The notion that one shouldn't fight to protect the Constitution in the acts of Congress is pretty appalling and God forbid we make them do it on a Saturday and stay late. That was really childish and sort of disgusting to watch." However, the actions taken by many in the GOP last weekend was far worse than the rhetoric aimed at their conservative colleagues. "What was even more disgusting is the 20 Republicans who didn't vote with Ted Cruz to declare the president's executive amnesty unconstitutional, even though in the last six weeks they've all said it is. Heritage Action has done a good job of compiling their statements to that effect and yet they voted the other way, probably because they were upset about being dragged in on a Saturday," said Cuccinelli. After a very dramatic effort to pass the "cromnibus" and avoid a government shutdown in the House two days earlier, Senate leaders in both parties were eager to avoid another funding cliffhanger. Cuccinelli sees that as another GOP failure and says his group will remember this vote when it evaluates Senate races in the future. "For those of us who care about the Constitution, that vote looms large. For people who just cared about whether the bill passed or not, it was a speed bump on the way," said Cuccinelli. Cuccinelli is also fighting back against the assertion that the vote on the Cruz point of order was meaningless because it couldn't pass. He says if Republicans had put principle over expediency, the vote could have put Democrats in a very awkward political position. "The Republicans didn't band together to force the Democrats to actually vote on the underlying issue and that is the funding of the president's executive amnesty. A lot of people said there's no way Republicans could win that. I don't believe that. If Democrats actually had to go on the board on that issue exclusively, a lot of Democrats would have been in very difficult political territory," said Cuccinelli. More Obama nominees have been confirmed over the past few days, including Dr. Vivek Murthy, who was confirmed as Surgeon General despite his activism on gun control issues. However, Cuccinelli rejects the accusation that Cruz and Lee are responsible for Murthy and other questionable nominees getting through. "(Majority Leader Harry) Reid had every intention of pushing the nominees that he moved forward because he had to fill the clock this week. Literally right now, at this moment while you and I are talking, was the original plan for Reid. That wasn't going anywhere and that didn't change. He just changed where on the schedule he did that," said Cuccinelli. The actions by Cruz and Lee followed on the heels of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) trying to rally opposition to the "cromnibus" because of changes to the Dodd-Frank laws. Cuccinelli says Warren received the same response from her leadership and Cruz and Lee did from theirs because establishment instincts run deep in both parties. "There is, unfortunately, in this country, a cabal of the leadership of both parties that doesn't really care about the little guy, doesn't care about the middle class," said Cuccinelli. "You know it was interesting to watch Elizabeth Warren fight over a banking provision, where the taxpayers are now on the hook for derivative trades with big banks. Nobody who cares about individual taxpayers and individual Americans should actually disagree with Elizabeth Warren. She was right. But it's more of the corporatist mentality in the establishment leadership of both parties that brushed aside concerns like that," he said. In the four years since Republicans won control of the House of Representatives but Democrats maintained a majority in the Senate, GOP leaders repeatedly stated there was only so much the party could do with a Democrat in the White House and Reid running the Senate. However, they promised big changes if Republicans were to control the Senate. That will happen come January and Cuccinelli says Senate Conservatives Fund will be looking for a very early sign that leadership plans to pursue conservative policies. "They're at least going to have to deliver to the president a complete repeal of Obamacare, which they all campaigned on, and watch what the president does. The notion that we're going to do the president's bidding for him (and) we're not going to send him bills he doesn't like because he might veto them is ludicrous. It literally abandons one's own voice in the process. If that's the case, what did we vote for on November 4?" said Cuccinelli. While legislative business will happen under GOP control across Capitol Hill next year, the work in Washington will soon be overshadowed by the 2016 presidential race. Candidates are already jockeying for position even though no one has formally entered the race. Cuccinelli expects a spirited GOP primary, but urges Republican voters to choose a conservative nominee if they want to be celebrating come November 2016. "In my lifetime, and I was born after Barry Goldwater, 100 percent of Republican nominees for president who ran as conservatives won. One hundred percent. And a hundred percent of Republican nominees for president who ran as not conservatives lost, a hundred percent. The most electable candidate is a movement conservative," said Cuccinelli. |
| 'The Flag Is the Message' |
| Mon, 15 Dec 2014 15:45:30 EST Terrorism expert Dr. Walid Phares says the terrorism that unfolded in an Australian cafe is indicative of Islamic terrorist groups focusing on much smaller targets rather than massive events like 9/11 and he says politically correct commentary during and after the crisis only makes the threat worse. Phares is a longtime professor of Middle East studies and is currently an adviser to the U.S. Congress on the Middle East and terrorism. His latest book is entitled, "The Lost Spring." Over 17 hours, a terrorist eventually identified as Mon Haron Monis held numerous people hostage at a Sydney, Australia, cafe and chocolate shop. After 17 hours, police stormed the cafe. Monis was killed but is believed to have killed two hostages before police stopped him. Phares says terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) are encouraging followers to carry out simple plots like this as opposed to grand schemes to kill hundreds of people. "What we see now is the infamous doctrine, which has been pushed by Al Qaeda and applied by ISIS, is death by a million cuts," sais Phares. "You don't have to have large operations involving large cells or multiple individuals. What you have to have is one jihadist. That person doesn't need to be connected to the organization. All that is needed is to inspire that person, to have indoctrinated that person or self-indoctrinated." According to Phares, both Al Qaeda and ISIS have issued statements in the past several months encouraging so-called lone wolf attacks against the United States and our western allies in an effort to end all western military action in Iraq and Syria. He says both groups have standing orders to carry out terrorism like the hostage crisis in Sydney. The standoff took on a new dimension when Monis covered much of the front window with a black flag with Arabic writing. Media in Australia, the U.S. and beyond immediately urged viewers not to jump to conclusions about the motivation behind the attack. Phares says the mystery over motive was erased as soon as the flag went up. "Where's the message? The flag is the message. Only the jihadists will use the flag in a violent action, not the Boy Scouts," said Phares. "They panicked when they saw the flag and said this was ISIS. In fact, this is a jihadi flag. It would apply to Al Qaeda. It would apply to Ansar al-Sharia. It would apply to ISIS. In this case, as I have studied well, it would even apply to the other side of the Sunni jihadists to the Shia jihadists, such as Hezbollah," said Phares. The flag's universal symbol of jihad is especially significant, given that Monis has dabbled on both sides of Islam's most contentious divide. "Yes he was born and raised as a Shia Iranian. He came to Australia and then he shifted. He became a Salafist according to his own website. So he's a very strange bird, who has mutated from one side to the other side of jihadism. The result is the same. He believes in the general action against the West, against Australia and against, of course, what he considers the enemy of the caliphate or the enemies of the jihadists," said Phares. Just as infuriating to Phares as the media's head-scratching over the motive behind the attacks is the instant hyperbole over the need to stop any anti-Muslim backlash. "The problem with uninformed, naive or misled reactions is that they create the backlash before it's created. They start to talk about Islamophobia and backlash against communities before this even happens," said Phares, who says the strongest backlash against radical Muslims is often from their own neighbors in Middle Eastern countries. In the hours since the hostage crisis began, activists on all sides have discussed their ideas for preventing future events like this. On the topic of guns, gun rights groups say more individual rights would put people in a better position to stop a lone gunman before they can do any serious damage. Gun control groups assert that more restrictions would stop people like Monis, who had a lengthy criminal record, from obtaining a weapon. Still others fear thick security could become commonplace at public gathering places if these sorts of attacks increase in frequency. Phares says none of those are the first line of defense. "Education, education, education. Before looking at guns, before looking at law enforcement, before looking at anything else, we need to educate our public. We need the President of the United States to deliver a speech on what this ideology is. We need Congress to legislate," said Phares. "Once that is done, then each has homework to do. Law enforcement are focusing on one issue. Civil society is part of it, and of course we're going to have NGOs of moderate Muslims who will go against the jihadists. It's a whole construct. Unfortunately, the leadership, the president and the executive branch, are not on the same page of this strategy as of now," he said. |
| 'This Was a Huge Surrender' |
| Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:17:12 EST The House of Representatives avoided a government shutdown Thursday night, but Rep. Tom McClintock says it came at the cost of letting the outgoing Senate Democratic majority have control over government spending for nine months after they lose power and he says Republicans relinquished their strongest weapon for confronting President Obama's immigration actions in the new Congress. "This was a huge surrender of the prerogatives of the Congress to bring this administration under control, which is what the American people clearly voted for us to do when we saw a nine seat shift toward the Republicans in the U.S. Senate," said McClintock. On Thursday night, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted 219-206 to approve a $1.1 trillion spending package that funds most of the federal government until the end of September 2015. However, it only extends funding for the Department of Homeland Security until February. The combination of an omnibus bill and a continuing resolution was tagged as a "cromnibus" bill. Nearly seventy conservatives voted against the plan. Fifty votes from Democrats put supporters over the top after heavy lobbying from President Obama and the decision of House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) to back it. McClintock says the "cromnibus" strategy never made any sense to him. He and other conservatives preferred a short continuing resolution into next year so Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress could lead the way on spending. "Instead of negotiating with the new Republican Senate that has has the imprimatur of approval of the American people, they decided they'd get a better deal, I don't know why, by negotiating with Harry Reid, (outgoing Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman) Barbara Mikulski and the Democratic Senate that voters just thoroughly repudiated," said McClintock, who says those rejected leaders have largely handcuffed Republicans for most of 2015. "So now, the cold, dead hand of Harry Reid and the Democratic Senate will be steering the new Republican Congress' spending priorities for the first nine months of the new Republican Congress," he said. According to McClintock, the rationale for the "cromnibus" strategy offered to him by GOP leaders was that they didn't want "fiscal distractions" interfering with policy priorities like approving the Keystone XL Pipeline in January. "First of all, these are not fiscal distractions. This is the entire spending plan of the United States government. There's nothing more fundamental than that. Secondly, there's no reason why you couldn't take up issues like Keystone at the same time," said McClintock. Leadership has argued that passing all funding for the rest of the fiscal year except for the Department of Homeland Security will allow Republicans to fight tooth and nail against what they see as Obama's unconstitutional amnesty afforded to some five million people in the country illegally. McClintock says that's unlikely to work either. "The problem is Homeland Security funds the entire border security programs such as it is. That's a hostage we're not going to shoot, so why would we want to choose a strategy that would require us to shoot a hostage that we're not going to shoot," he said, arguing that this approach only makes it harder to thwart Obama's actions. "It makes no sense. Had we maintained the choice over all of the budget we would have been in a much stronger bargaining position. I think this has greatly weakened out bargaining position going into that discussion in February," said McClintock. The congressman says the Republican approach should have been a simple continuing resolution lasting only a few weeks until the Republican majority takes hold in the Senate. "The better way to go was simply to adopt a three or four-week continuing resolution to keep the government open, put all the appropriations questions into the new Senate that's just been freshly approved by voters so that their priorities can be accurately reflected in the spending plan that will be locked in until October 1 of next year," said McClintock. Some of the greatest drama in the House played out during the vote for the rule allowing debate on the spending package. Normally just a formality, the vote dragged on as GOP leaders lobbied members to vote for the rule. The procedural hurdle was cleared after Rep. Kerry Bentivolio (R-Michigan) switched his vote and Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Indiana) finally cast his ballot with leadership. However, Stutzman later claimed he supported the rule only after leadership vowed to pull the "cromnibus" and put forward a simple short-term continuing resolution. The congressman alleges leaders reneged on that promise once Obama supported the plan and leadership concluded it could get the votes for passage from Democrats. McClintock says he knows nothing about that squabble, but he does admit to supporting the rule, noting his general approach is to support rules to protect the power of the majority to set the agenda. But Thursday's vote is one he'd like to have back. "In retrospect, I think the bill raised such important fiscal and constitutional issues that it shouldn't have been brought to the floor in its current form. I'm not going to sugarcoat it. Every now and then I make a bad vote. That was a bad vote and I regret it," said McClintock. Several conservative members were seething over the tactics used by House Speaker John Boehner and his leadership team to get the bill passed and made it clear they'd prefer that he wasn't speaker in the next Congress. McClintock is not happy with leadership but says making a change is easier said than done. "The problem with replacing John Boehner as speaker is you have to have a replacement that is competent to take that role. The problem is the people who were competent to replace Boehner were not willing to do so and the people willing to replace Boehner were not competent to do so," said McClintock. The congressman noted that no one inside the House GOP Conference challenged Boehner for the post last month. McClintock believes any challenge to Boehner going forward should play out in the conference and not on the House floor during the vote for Speaker of the House next month. |
| 'They've Largely Succeeded in Driving Out Christians' |
| Thu, 11 Dec 2014 16:38:54 EST Open Doors USA President and CEO Dr. David Curry says Christians are on the verge of extinction in Iraq but also that the intense persecution started long before the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Open Doors USA is one of the leading international organizations assisting persecuted Christians around the world. It has a team actively involved inside Iraq, but Curry admits ISIS clearly has believers there running for their lives. "I think they've largely succeeded in driving out Christians in many of these areas to the north of Baghdad," he said. While ISIS presents the most intense and most immediate threat to Christians in Iraq, Curry says Christians have been targeted ever since the Iraq War began in 2003. "Christianity has been under attack for a long time in Iraq. This has been more than just what's happened this summer. Over the last ten years, you've gone from what amounts to about a million Christians in Iraq to maybe a few thousand by some of our estimates," said Curry, who says physical conditions for Iraqi Christians are very bleak. "Our team is telling me on a daily basis that it's just very uncertain for these folks. Many of them moved two and three times even before the Islamic State. With that new (ISIS) push since this summer, there's a feeling that maybe there isn't a place for Christians in Iraq. So that's very discouraging to them," said Curry. Life for Christians throughout much of the Middle East carries dangers far beyond ISIS and much closer to home. Curry says Islamic culture poses a major threat to believers. "Culturally there are some issues that these Muslim countries are facing. A lot of times when you have someone from the Muslim faith who has converted to Christianity, there's pressure within the family. They can be ostracized. So you see not just violent outbursts like we've seen with Islamic State, but overall within the region there are more underground points of pressure on Christians or people who are seeking to convert their faith," said Curry. Over Thanksgiving weekend, Pope Francis visited Turkey and, along with the head of the Greek Orthodox Church, urged Muslim clerics and political leaders to promote religious tolerance and to protect religious minorities in their countries. Curry is thrilled to see the Pope speak out on the issue and believes is could very well do some good. "I think he carries a lot of influence and I think he's speaking for a lot of people that it is something that is important to healthy society, that we honor religious minorities. In this case, it's Christians within a Muslim context, but in many countries around the world religious minorities are persecuted and I don't think it makes for a good society. I know it's not healthy," said Curry. Will a dialogue with Muslim leaders actually lead to better treatment of Christians in Muslim countries? Curry believes it can. "I think we're wrong if we think that everybody within the Muslim community is reflected in the Islamic State. This is a splinter group. There are Muslims who would be willing to talk about and I think would welcome protection of religious minorities within their country. Remember, in some countries like India, Muslims are persecuted for their faith," said Curry. Curry says there are two things Americans can do to assist the persecuted Christians in Iraq and elsewhere. The first is to pray for them. "We encourage people to pray for the safety of these families and for these kids, that some security and stability comes to the region. We certainly are praying for that," he said. Donations are also welcome to pay for food, water and clothing for Christians on the run as winter sets in. Those interested can visit opendoorsusa.org. |
| Dems 'Wish to Disarm the CIA' |
| Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:54:42 EST Former CIA official Herb Meyer calls Tuesday's report by Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee nothing more than "intellectual junk food" that could get agents killed and says he wonders what activities are actually permissible for the intelligence community in the eyes of Democrats. In the wake of the report spearheaded by Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-California), supporters hailed it as an example of America admitting its faults and serving as an example of transparency to the world. Critics say it was a partisan exercise that could damage intelligence gathering operations and put the lives of American operatives in danger. Meyer says it probably both, but leaves little doubt which consequence is of greater importance. "On the one hand, good. We're Americans. We put things out. On the other hand, it's crazy to put this out. It's going to get people killed. There's absolutely no point to doing this," he said. Meyer served as special assistant to Reagan administration CIA Director William Casey. He was also vice chairman of the CIA's National Intelligence Council. Many experts credit Meyer as the first person to foresee the near-term collapse of the Soviet Union at that time. He contends the purpose of this report was to severely damage the intelligence community. "They wished to disarm the CIA. That was their objective and they probably accomplished a good deal of it. That was their point. That's what they wished to do before they lose power in the Senate," said Meyer. He says the fallout from this report will be hugely negative for intelligence professionals. "It's very destructive. Why should any CIA officer risk his or her life or his or her career to do something like this? It's a disaster," said Meyer, predicting negative effects among current personnel and to efforts to bring new people. "What CIA official in his or right mind would do something that a few years from now can destroy their career? You'd have to be crazy," he said. "Why would the kind of people who have the skill and talent and courage to defend our country, go to work for the CIA right now? Do you realize what this does for recruitment? It kills it." The damage to recruitment, he says, will never be fully known. "These are the kind of damages that get done that you can't measure statistically. You can't prove something didn't happen. But the kind of people who say, 'You know, I'd like to join the CIA and defend the United States,' they're not going to do that anymore," said Meyer Tuesday's report from Senate Democrats, and dubbed the "Torture Report" by most media outlets, chronicles the actions taken by CIA personnel and others in the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. Although much of the content had been released over the past several years, much attention is paid to tactics like keeping detainees in stress positions, depriving them of sleep, rectal feedings and three cases of waterboarding men suspected of withholding critical operational intelligence. Meyer says the report succeeded in creating sensational headlines but the report as a whole is an embarrassment to those who drafted it. "It's intellectual junk food. It's not very credible. It isn't a good piece of writing. If anybody submitted that as a National Intelligence Estimate, we'd have fired them. It reaches the conclusions before it gives you the evidence. In fact, they didn't even speak with the people who knew the facts," said Meyer. For Meyer, watching the criticism of the CIA in recent years, particularly by Democrats, raises an unanswered question. "For years now, Senator Feinstein and the others have been saying what they don't want the CIA to do, but they never say what they do want the CIA to do," he said, painting a very personal scenario for Feinstein to consider. "Let's say that the CIA finds out that a nuclear bomb has been planted in one of our cities. Just for fun, let's pick San Francisco, Senator Feinstein's hometown. We find out that there's a nuclear bomb planted. Our CIA agents over in Yemen capture one of the terrorists and say, 'Where's the bomb and when is it going to go off?' He won's say anything. So we ask him again and he says,'Allah be praised, Americans will die.' At this point, what does Senator Feinstein want the CIA to do?" asked Meyer. "I'd like her to answer that question, not to tell us what they don't want the CIA to do. What do they want us to do? And if the answer is nothing, then San Francisco is a pile of radioactive rubble," said Meyer. Another major debate resuming in the wake of this report is over whether enhanced interrogation techniques successfully elicited actionable intelligence or not. The report concludes the tactics were not effective but CIA leaders past and present insist they did. "I don't have any evidence other than that, but the people who did it have not only said they were effective, they've given us the details of what they've learned. They've made much of that public. All of that is completely ignored in the report without any evidence to the contrary. That's why it's just intellectual junk food," said Meyer. |
| Should Virginia Kill or Crank up the Car Tax? |
| Tue, 9 Dec 2014 15:38:04 EST More than a dozen years after leading a drastic reduction in Virginia's "car tax", former Gov. Jim Gilmore is fighting to protect the cuts and kill the tax altogether while members of both parties seek to raise it again to fund an ever-expanding budget. Despite Republicans narrowly control Virginia's Senate and hold a commanding edge in the House of Delegates, tax increases are being discussed in the Old Dominion. Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe is currently governor. Gilmore expects this push for a tax increase to fail but Republicans need to be much stronger than they have been to this point. "We certainly believe the House of Delegates will stand fast. We certainly hope that they do. In the State Senate, we've always had a problem that moderate to liberal senators in the Virginia State Senate want to continue to increase taxes and they never really liked the car tax cut, even though many of them were elected on it. That's a real problem," said Gilmore. In fact, this debate is flaring up again because of pressure from a Republican member of the senate. "This issue has been raised because an outgoing Republican state senator has said we ought to reach back in and get this money," said Gilmore. Gilmore was elected governor in 1997 and made elimination of the personal property tax, or car tax, his number one priority. The vast majority of states don't have such a tax, which annually charges vehicle owners a percentage of the blue book value. Gilmore says it was a major burden on Virginia families. "The car tax is charged by localities to individual people living in the cities and counties. The individual citizens get a bill every year in the mail, in which they're asked to pay a very substantial amount of money for the privilege of owning their automobile. This was a hated tax," he said. "Some people couldn't afford it. People who were in desperate straits were using their car to get to and from work. All of a sudden they were having to pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars for the privilege of owning their car. Young people were not able to pay it suddenly because of lower wages and were having to put it on credit cards," said Gilmore. Upon taking office in 1998, Gilmore successfully pushed a plan through the legislature to phase out the car tax over the next few years. Seventy percent of the burden had been wiped out when circumstances forced Gilmore and lawmakers to hold rates in place. "We stopped it because of the (2001) recession but we also built in a plan to make sure that the phaseout would continue and that the car tax would be completely eliminated. Sadly enough, Gov. (Mark) Warner, who came after me, never fulfilled his promise, never proceeded to finish the phaseout and there was no leadership in the legislature to do it either. So unfortunately, a remnant of that car tax exists today," said Gilmore. Far from making good on his vow to phase out the car tax, Warner froze the car tax in place while raising taxes elsewhere. "After I left office, Gov. Warner raised taxes on the people of Virginia, whining that the car tax cut was depriving the commonwealth of revenue. So they've been paid once for this car tax cut, sadly enough, and now they want to get paid again," said Gilmore. Some localities in Virginia did see a car tax rate increase as part of the 2012 transportation package, which critics describe as the largest tax increase in commonwealth history. That legislation was championed by a Republican governor (Bob McDonnell), a Democratic senate and a heavily Republican House of Delegates. Gilmore says the constant thirst for more tax dollars in Richmond comes despite an explosion in tax revenues over the past decade. He says as state coffers swell with tax payments, the government just wants to spend more and more. The proof, he says, is an annual budget today that is over 260 percent higher than it was when he left office in 2002. "The budget of Virginia has gone up dramatically in the last number of years. A little bit of money going into (car tax relief) regularly could have eliminated it totally and not one penny of additional money has gone into tax relief, even though the budget has grown from $18 billion to $47 billion dollars," said Gilmore. One of the key sticking points in eliminating the car tax is the money committed to cities and counties based on the original car tax rate. Virginia is still on the hook for reimbursing those localities for the difference in revenues lost as a result of the car tax cuts. Commonwealth officials now keep funds in reserve to reimburse the cities and counties, but that pile of money can often be irresistible to politicians. "That body of money is a very attractive target for members of the legislature who want to reach in there and get new money," said Gilmore. Gilmore says killing the rest of the car tax should be an easy decision for Virginia lawmakers and would set the stage for meaningful reform. "The car tax should completely go away. Then we could do a legitimate tax reform, where we do some revenue sharing with the localities and make sure education and law enforcement are well taken care of but the car tax goes away. That's what I believe the correct objective ought to be," he said. Frustration with Virginia Republicans flirting with a tax increase comes as conservatives watch the actions of Republicans in Washington with some uncertainty on issues from spending to confronting President Obama for his changing of immigration law. Gilmore says the GOP should not be condemned before they assume control of Capitol Hill next month. However, he does see one area of concern. "Let's see exactly what they do in January when they actually get their majority sworn in. I think the real danger here is that there will be so many different ideas and priorities that there's no unifying theme. That may be the danger," said Gilmore. The former governor says our current economic health gives the GOP a golden opportunity to create conditions for significant economic growth. Citing 92 million Americans still looking for work and monthly jobs reports stuffed mostly with part-time job creation, Gilmore says Republicans have their unifying theme staring them in the face. "Cut taxes appropriately, grow the economy and then really get this country moving again and add to a unified conservative Republican approach to government we can all agree on," said Gilmore. |
| No Greater Valor |
| Mon, 8 Dec 2014 15:33:21 EST Seventy years ago this month, American heroes successfully held the small crossroads town of Bastogne, repelling Nazi Germany's last chance at a settled peace and making total victory in Europe all but guaranteed. Acclaimed author and reporter Dr. Jerome Corsi lays out the incredible sacrifice of America's men in uniform and carefully explores the question of whether divine intervention is responsible for the Allies prevailing against seemingly insurmountable odds and in horrific conditions. His new book is entitled "No Greater Valor: The Siege of Bastogne, and the Miracle that Sealed Allied Victory." Corsi says the question has lingered in his mind since he was a young boy listening to his father and others discuss the seemingly miraculous events at Bastogne. "His friends, some of whom had fought at Bastogne, felt like there were a series of events that were almost like a miracle, that God's intervention had permitted them to stay alive. Otherwise, the expection was they would be overwhelmed by the Nazis. It was very unexpected that this small group held out long enough to delay Hitler's advance and actually turn the tide in the Battle of the Bulge," said Corsi. By early December 1944, the Allies thought total victory in Europe could be achieved by Christmas. Since the Normandy invasion six months earlier, they had slogged their way out of northern France and then steamrolled across the country and were about to plow into the heart of Germany. Knowing he had to make one more push to have a chance for a settled peace, Adolf Hitler ordered a massive tank assault on allied positions in eastern France and in Belgium in the Ardennes. The Allies hastily arranged defenses around the strategically important town of Bastogne. "It had eight roads crossing through it. It was a critical town to hold because if you wanted to move west from the Ardennes toward the Meuse River, going through Bastogne was the only efficient way to do it," said Corsi, who noted the Allies were completely taken by surprise. "Winter was setting in and we kind of stalled the offensive moving into Germany. We felt that Hitler had been pretty well worn down. The idea that he had all these tank divisions and could put this together was a completely surprise to Allied intelligence," said Corsi The German assault began on December 16. The ferocity required the call up of new forces without any notice, most notably those in the Army's 101st Airborne Division, which was resting in France after participating in the brutal and unsuccessful mission to cross the Rhine River, known as Operation Market Garden. "They went into action that night, driven all night long in these open trucks to Bastogne in the cold. They didn't even have winter equipment. They weren't adequately resupplied. They hardly had weapons or ammunition," said Corsi. Needless to say, the original defense posture around Bastogne was thrown together quickly and left something to be desired. Many of the arriving troops got weapons and protection from the cold from stunned service members in retreat. "They said, 'If you're not using that M-1, would you mind handing it to me' or, 'If you're not using that overcoat, how about giving it to me.' They resupplied themselves bravely on the run. When they got to Bastogne, they were the last troops to arrive, put in the line at exactly the right place with the 10th Armored (Division) to just stall the German advance until the defense of Bastogne could be organized," said Corsi. Regardless of the strategy, the sheer numbers suggested the Germans would be virtually impossible to stop. "It was about 15,000 Americans total that defended Bastogne and the Nazis had up to 50,000-60,000 in Panzer divisions trying to take Bastogne," said Corsi. If the disparity in men and weapons wasn't daunting enough, the brutally cold conditions presented as much of a challenge for U.S. forces as the Nazis did. "For eight days they held out, freezing, no food. They were down to taking their Life Savers and K rations and melting them with Sterno cans in order to make a little soup. That's all they had to eat," said Corsi. It's precisely because of overwhelmingly bad odds, little protection from the cold and lack of food that Corsi and others believe only God could have turned those circumstances into an Allied success. Corsi said it started with General George Patton turning to God as he raced his Third Army north to the Bulge. "Patton called the chaplain into his headquarters and said, 'I need a prayer for good weather.' The chaplain wrote a prayer. Patton printed it and handed it out to all of the troops in the Third Army and, remarkably, on the 23rd of December, the weather at Bastogne lifted enough that the C-47s could get in and do an air drop on Bastogne," said Corsi, who believes without that air drop, the Allies could not have held Bastogne. "They were down to one or two shells per artillery gun. This is one of the parts that was considered a miracle. The weather changed. No one expected it. Meteorologists had not predicted it. They just woke up on the 23rd and the skies were clear and they put the C-47s in the air," said Corsi. "If they had not resupplied Bastogne by air on December 23, I'm confident the Nazis would have overrun the American position at Bastogne. The 101st and the 10th Armored would have been killed or taken prisoner as POWs," he said. The clearing of the skies over Bastogne at precisely the right moment is one aspect of the story that many chalk up to God's intervention, but it's hardly the only one. Corsi says other seeming coincidences worked perfectly for the Allied advantage as well. "General (Anthony) McAuliffe, when he set out to Bastogne, originally thought he was going to Verbermont. That's where the original orders were, a different town in Belgium. But he made a side tour because he thought, Well, General Middleton, the corps commander's in Bastogne. I'll see him in person. When he arrived, about 5:30 that night, Middleton said, 'General McAuliffe, I'm sure glad to see you because your orders were changed and your unit is coming here.' Well, he didn't know that. He just made the right decision," said Corsi. The remarkable events continued from there, as the general set up an ad hoc assembly area for troops who were lost in the way to support the defense of Bastogne. "(McAuliffe) picked the perfect location from which to deploy the troops and the right order in which for them to arrive, even though he had no advanced knowledge," said Corsi. "And on and on and on his decisions went, which units to put where. It turned out to always be the exact right unit to meet the German attack that day. For eight days they held out." In the end, the Allies held at Bastogne and the Germans never punched through the bulge in the western front. By failing, Hitler lost his last chance at avoiding an unconditional surrender and World War II was essentially over in Europe. The courage and endurance of American forces, particularly the 101st Airborne Division, is a portrait in heroism. But for Corsi, the evidence adds up to God truly saving the day for the Allies. "All these acts of courage came together in a way that the men felt was exceptional. This was beyond what they'd expect from just good military planning or good fighting," said Corsi. |
| Minnesota Gender Games |
| Fri, 5 Dec 2014 15:32:16 EST Come August of next year, high school students in Minnesota will be permitted to play sports on teams with whatever gender they "identify" with, rather than what their biological gender would dictate, and a leading Christian family group believes this is a recipe for disaster. On Thursday, the Minnesota State High School League (MSHSL) officially adopted new policies that would require all public, private and even some religious high schools to accommodate transgender students, effective August 1, 2015. The decision came in the face of fierce opposition that delayed the decision by months. "They passed a policy that will allow students who identify as transgender to play on teams opposite their birth sex, which will almost certainly lead to them also accessing the locker rooms, bathrooms, even hotel rooms of the opposite biological sex. This is very problematic for many students, parents and even schools around the state," said Autumn Leva, director of policy and communications at the Minnesota Family Council. The Minnesota Family Council is one of the leading public voices against this change in policy by the MSHSL. Officials say there will be criteria to determine which students can qualify to play for teams of different biological genders. Leva and her allies offered one of their own prior to Thursday's vote. "We brought forward our alternative proposal that is in place in three other states. It would simply clarify that for the purpose of high school athletics, a student's sex is their birth sex and that they play on teams that match their birth sex, with the exception that already exists in state law that allows girls to try out for boys' teams (such as football or wrestling). Even though this is a valid and completely legal policy that's in place in other states, the High School League gave no attention to that proposal," said Leva. She says the clear public opinion on the matter didn't sway the league either. "Even though we brought forward a petition with close to 7,000 Minnesotans who prefer our solution to what the league is doing. Even public and private schools have signed on, saying this is what they wanted and the league didn't even give it any air time. So it's really been a pretty one-sided discussion," said Leva. Minnesota is the 33rd state to grant some sort of high school sports accommodation to transgender students. Leva says this wave happened very recently so it's too soon to chronicle the impact of the policies from around the country. She contends this is a major focal point of the gay rights agenda. Leva says state high school athletic associations are under pressure to conform from the The National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS), which is heavily influenced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). She points to guidance language from the NFHS that quotes GLSEN as proof that individual state groups like the MSHSL are being forced to fall in line. A bulletin from NFHS entitled "Developing Policies for Transgender Students on High School Teams" and dated November 21, 2014 reads: "Transgender students are those whose gender they were assigned at birth does not match how they identify their gender. A student might have been identified as a boy at birth, but now identifies as a girl, or vice-versa. Transgender students often report experiencing harassment and bullying from their classmates, as well as inaction from their teachers or coaches when they report being taunted or physically assaulted (GLSEN, 2011)." The MSHSL did adopt an exemption for religiously affiliated high schools, but Leva says that provides far less protection for those schools than the league would have Minnesotans believe. "The league actually narrowed the exemption, so now if a private Christian school is not directly affiliated with a particular denomination or a specific church, they are not protected under this policy. So they will have to comply. That's all of our independent Christian schools," said Leva. Even the schools that make that cut, says Leva, could very easily feel the consequences of noncompliance. "If a private religious school claims their exemption will they lose some standing in the league? Will they be forced to forfeit certain games? Will they be forced to allow visiting schools on their facilities to allow their students use facilities of the opposite sex. None of those effects of the exemption were clarified in any way," she said. Leva says the practical effects of this policy are both obvious and subtle. "Again, that will almost certainly lead to (transgender athletes) using the locker rooms of the opposite sex. So we've got students' privacy right implicated, putting students of opposite sex in very private settings, changing and using the restroom together. Obviously that's a huge concern to students and parents," said Leva. "We've got Title IX implications and discrimination against female athletes, since our state statutes make very clear that we separate female teams for a reason, to ensure that they have an equal and fair opportunity to compete. This policy really flies in the face of that provision," she added. There's also a health and safety component to criticism of this policy. Leva says the physical differences between the genders are undeniable. "The statutes have always recognized, and federal law as well, that there is inherent physical characteristics that are different between males and females. We need to take that into account for the fairness and safety of these girls. So what this new policy will do is say that actually doesn't matter and that biological boys can now play on girls teams so long as they say that they identify as a girl," said Leva. But what about the precedent that already exists allowing girls to play on boys' teams in sports like football and wrestling? Is that evidence this is not as big of a deal as Leva and others fear? Leva says the two situations are not comparable. "It goes beyond just having a girl complete as a girl on the wrestling team or the football team, since there's not a girls' football team. It goes into saying,'This girl is actually a boy and is competing as a boy on the football and wrestling team and should therefore have access to the boys' locker rooms, the boys' hotel rooms on away games. The implications of this are very real and very serious," said Leva. With the debate over policy over for the moment, Leva says it's now families and school leaders who have to make tough decisions. "It rests in the hands of parents, student athletes and schools to decide what they're going to do. The high school league is a volunteer association, though schools need to be a part of it in order to compete in state athletics. But they have a choice here to whether they're going to comply with this policy. The league has made it mandatory but the schools ultimately have a choice. Parents and student athletes also have a choice," said Leva. |
| Judge Napolitano: Amnesty Moves Warrant Impeachment |
| Fri, 5 Dec 2014 13:39:52 EST Fox News Channel Senior Judicial Analyst Andrew Napolitano is unimpressed by states suing the federal government over President Obama unilaterally changing immigration laws or by House Republicans pushing legislation to forbid Obama from moving forward in implementing his policies. Napolitano is also not urging lawmakers to defund enforcement of what many on the right consider amnesty. Instead, the former New Jersey Superior Court judge thinks Obama's actions warrant his removal from office. Earlier this week, 17 states, led by Texas Attorney General and Governor-Elect Greg Abbott, filed suit against the federal government. Napolitano says that's not going to get the job done. "They can file all the lawsuits they want and the court is going to say, 'Tell your client, Mr. Boehner, tell your client, Senator McConnell, that there's a perfectly acceptable remedy right there in the Constitution that's bloodless and they can do it by taking a couple of votes. It's called impeachment,'" said Napolitano. Republicans from leadership to the most rock-ribbed conservatives have all dismissed any speculation about impeachment since they clearly don't have the votes to convict Obama in the Senate and they believe it will backfire politically heading into 2016. Nonetheless, Napolitano finds that GOP position baffling. "For some bizarre reason that I have yet to understand, the Republican leadership in Washington believes that if they file articles of impeachment, this is going to elect Hillary president. What? That's a disconnect to me," said Napolitano. On Thursday, the House approved legislation authored by Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Florida) that forbids Obama from implementing any unilateral changes to immigration law. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) vows the bill will never reach the Senate floor on his watch. Napolitano believes the bill would never achieve its desired effect. "They could enact a statute that says all these executive orders are illegal and no one's to obey them. The president could veto that. Let's say they have enough votes to override his veto. They don't, but let's say they do. Let's say they override the veto and the statute becomes law without the president's signature. He's not going to obey that statute. He doesn't obey the laws that were in existence at the time he took an oath to enforce them faithfully. He's certainly not going to obey a statute that was written in order to regulate his behavior when he's already decided that his behavior is going to be the opposite of it," said Napolitano. Napolitano says the case for Obama acting unconstitutionally is very clear. "We have a lawless president who is saying to five million people, 'You want to stay here? Do A,B,C,D and E.' Where did the A,B,C,D and E come from? He made them up. They're not even in the statute as it now exists," said Napolitano. While Napolitano does not claim the votes exist to convict Obama, he contends the damage being done to our system of government by Obama circumventing Congress needs to be addressed. "That effectively denies the public its voice in Congress. When Congress writes a law and the president doesn't enforce it, and the president instead rewrites the law, nullifies the law or writes his own, all of which Barack Obama has just done, he is effectively nullifying Congress. If that's not an impeachable event, I don't know what is," said Napolitano. In his new book, "Suicide Pact: The radical expansion of presidential powers and the assault on civil liberties," Napolitano chronicles what he sees as the lawless grab of executive power by presidents throughout history. His examples include Abraham Lincoln detaining 3,000 reporters from northern states who were critical of his handling of the Civil War, Woodrow Wilson banning the speaking of German in public in the days of World War I and Franklin Roosevelt confiscating gold from American citizens before he had any legal grounds for doing so. But Napolitano saves half of his book to blast the war on terrorism policies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, including expanded NSA powers, due process denials and the targeting of American citizens in drone strikes. Immigration policy is largely seen as separate from the issues raised in "Suicide Pact," but Napolitano says it's further evidence of the insatiable desire of presidents to accumulate more and more power for themselves. "The essence of the book is when presidential lawbreaking is unpunished, unchecked and not stopped, presidents will continue to do it. And they will rely on the unpunished, unstopped, unchecked, unconstitutional behavior of their predecessors to justify it," said Napolitano. The judge firmly believes that on what he considers the biggest three issues facing America, Republicans and Democrats are largely in agreement and their biggest public squabbles are on the periphery. He says it's an opinion that's not well-received at the Fox News Channel but one he feels compelled to articulate anyway. "The three great issues of our day in my view are: Where do our rights come from? Both parties believe our rights come from the government because they have taken our rights away from us by majority vote. Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence and most Americans would tell you our rights come from our humanity," said Napolitano. "The second and third great issues of our day are war and debt and both parties believe in perpetual war and perpetual debt." If both parties are truly guilty of pushing America down this path as Napolitano alleges, what recourse do Americans have to reverse the tide? He thinks a different kind of president can set things on the right track and he has a candidate in mind. "The solution is probably to elect somebody like the fellow that wrote the forward in this book to the White House, but that would presume that there'd be a number of people who agree with him in both houses of Congress. I speak of (Kentucky Senator) Rand Paul," he said. "In my world view, when the Democrats and the Republicans are on the same side and it's always bigger, stronger government and smaller and lesser liberty, only a person who truly would break that mold will be able to break it. A middle of the road Republican or a middle of the road Democrat in the White House, a la George W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, will further this march towards totalitarianism, not stop and reverse it," said Napolitano. |
| 'They've Decided to Withhold Every Single Page' |
| Thu, 4 Dec 2014 15:31:03 EST Just days after admitting the existence of documents that show the IRS shared confidential taxpayer information with the White House, the Treasury Department is now refusing to hand over the papers due to what it calls privacy and disclosure issues. The announcement from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) comes even after afedral judge ordered the government to tuen over documents sought by the grassroots organization Cause of Action. The group's top attorney says this latest lack of cooperation was expected. "Sadly, I don't think that we're surprised that they did this. This has been a two-year fight, where they have stonewalled and stalled throughout. Despite getting a very favorable court order that would have forced them to tell us whether there were investigations and produce the documents, they've decided to withhold every single page," said Cause of Action Chief Counsel Prashant Khetant. The Treasury Department says it cannot hand over any documents because sensitive taxpayer information needs to be protected. Khetant flatly rejects that excuse. "We don't think that there's a valid argument there," he said. "We agree that taxpayer information ought to remain confidential but what they're doing is using it as a sword and a shield. Here they're attempting to block groups like us and taxpayers from knowing whose information has been targeted by the White House." Even without seeing a single document, Khetan says Cause of Action and other groups and individuals have already been vindicated their suspicion of the IRS and the Obama administration. "We thought all along that there had been targeting going on of individuals. What this lawsuit has accomplished is...we've gotten an admission that the IRS was sharing confidential taxpayer information with the administration and they're not supposed to do that," said Khetan. Khetan says this takes the scandal to a new height from the harassment endured by conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status. "We have, for the past few years, been focusing on whether or not the administration in the White House has been targeting groups or individuals. We all know through the Lois Lerner scandal that there was targeting of groups. We had thought that they had been targeting individuals as well. We started with a FOIA (Freeddom of Information Act request) both to the IRS and TIGTA, just to find out if there had been unauthorized disclosures of taxpayer information. Here we are nearly two years later and we've learned that there were," said Khetan. Where does the legal fight go from here? Khetan says the court is likely to side with Cause of Action and force the documents to be handed over, but he says it make take awhile and come with some conditions. "We go back to the same judge. In fact, there should be a filing very soon that will set out a briefing schedule. Unfortunately, that will take us into 2015. Ultimately, I would say that it's unlikely that we will get the documents in unredacted form and that may actually be OK because citizens have the right to not have their information disclosed, even to groups like us," said Khetan, who says lawmakers need to jump on this as well. "Congress really has the ability to get the documents, the same documents that we're seeking but to get them in unredacted form and to review them and maybe learn about who was being targeted and why," said Khetan. Khetan says Congress has done a lot of good work so far in peeling back the layers of this scandal, but there's more to do. "We've been pleased with some of the steps that have been taken, not just with this but even the broader IRS scandal of the administration targeting certain groups. What we'd like to see is Congress be even more active, particularly in 2015," said Khetan. "The government needs to come clean about obtaining private American taxpayer information. Our lawsuit has at least revealed the IRS is doing unauthorized disclosures to the White House. So the White House was looking at certain taxpayer information," said Khetan. |
| 'We Have to Reel This President In' |
| Wed, 3 Dec 2014 15:55:13 EST House Republicans plan to push the immigration funding fight into next Spring, when the GOP will control all of Capitol Hill, but one departing House member says lawmakers need to act more decisively to block President Obama's executive order on immigration. On November 20, Obama signed an executive order removing the threat of deportation for illegal immigrants whose children have legal status in the U.S. Official estimates suggest the orders would impact five million people but other experts believe the number will be much higher. On Tuesday, House Republicans charted a multi-layered response in advance of the debate to fund the government after December 11. The GOP plans to fund most federal government operations through the end of Fiscal Year 2015 but fund immigration enforcement programs only until early next year. At that time, with majorities in both the House and Senate, Republicans hope to deny funding for Obama's executive order and render it effectively meaningless. In addition, House Republicans are advancing legislation to overturn the order. The plan is attracting quite a bit of support from GOP lawmakers, but others insist it simply is not aggressive enough. "I don't agree with that approach. I think we ought to have a very short continuing resolution that goes just through January, that includes limitation language that keeps the president from putting in this unconstitutional executive action in place," said Rep. Paul Broun (R-Georgia). Broun decided not to run for re-election in 2014. Instead, he sought the GOP U.S. Senate nomination in Georgia but lost in the primary. His time in the House will end when the new Congress is sworn in next month. As one of his final acts, Broun says Republicans need to set the stage for their House and Senate majorities to take bold action early next year. "We need to have a very short-term CR, so that in early January a Republican Senate and a Republican House can actually put good Republican plans in place (and) good Republican policy in place to stop this runaway imperial presidency. He's acting like a dictator and it must stop," said Broun. "We have to reel this president in. He's acting in a very unprecedented way." On Tuesday, The House Homeland Security Committee grilled Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson over Obama's executive order. Much of the hearing consisted of Republicans blasting the president for allegedly changing immigration law on his own when it should be the work of Congress. Johnson insisted Obama had not created any new laws but was simply operating within existing laws. Broun finds the administration's argument ridiculous. "It's illegal. It's unconstitutional and it should not stand. Congress has the opportunity to stop it and we must do so," said Broun. "Secretary Johnson is an apologist for the president. He's going to promote whatever his boss, President Obama, says that he should be promoting," said Broun. In addition to believing that Obama's actions are clearly unconstitutional, Broun also rejects the administration's contention that the executive actions will be a step in solving our nation's immigration problems. On the contrary, the congressman says it will only make many aspects of illegal immigration much worse. "What they're opening up is a door, in my opinion, for much more illegal migration into this country. We're going to see a tremendous amount of fraud put forward," he said, referring to forged documents for both future illegals and those about to receive legal status. "Every single one of them not only breaks immigration laws but every single one of them break multiple other laws. They all have documentation that is fraudulent, so they're all guilty of fraud. Then when they have the opportunity to get a legal work permit or do something that will provide them some source of standing legally in this country, we're going to see that much more fraud. Jeh Johnson cannot answer those questions and he will not because there's no answers to them," said Broun. When considering the constitutional issues and the pragmatic effects of Obama's executive order, Broun says Republicans have no choice but to fight relentlessly to stop him. "What the president has done is absolutely against the law. It's against the Constitution. The president does not have the authority to do so and Congress needs to call his hand and hold him responsible," said Broun. Broun is preparing to leave Congress after seven and a half years in office. He was a surprise winner of a special election to replace the late Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Georgia). He quickly established a reputation as one of the most conservative members in the House and clashed with leaders in his own party on numerous occasions. Although he spent many years as a doctor prior to his foray into politics, Broun says he will continue devoting his time to the issues he cares about most deeply. "I stood firm for the American people, for liberty and the Constitution as the founding fathers meant it. We have to return to the foundation principles that both parties have been destroying. Both political parties have created government that's just totally out of control. It's spending money that we don't have and both political parties are guilty of creating this debt that's unsustainable," said Broun. "As I leave Congress, I'm looking for an opportunity to make a living as well as to stay in the fight for liberty and freedom and returning to those foundational principles. We have to return power to the states and to the people as the tenth amendment demands, and I'm going to stay in that fight," he said. |
| GOP Charts Course for Amnesty Pushback |
| Tue, 2 Dec 2014 15:45:29 EST House Republicans are launching a two-headed strategy to stop President Obama's executive orders on immigration that will both reject the president's actions with legislation while simultaneously targeting funding for their enforcement. Timing is essential in this strategy. Current funding for government operations is set to expire December 11. GOP leaders plan to move both parts of this strategy well before that deadline. Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Florida) is spearheading the effort to strike down the executive orders. His bill (H.R 5759) is known as the Preventing Executive Overreach on Immigration Act. "This president, what he is doing is unilaterally rewriting the law. He cannot do that," said Yoho. Last month, Obama announced he was removing the threat of deportation for those in the country illegally for five years or more and whose children have legal status in the U.S. They would also be able to obtain work permits. The congressman says his bill to rescind the Obama orders is straightforward. "This is something to block the executive order that he did November 20 and its retroactive from that date forward. It exclusively says that the president does not have the authority to go ahead and rewrite the laws. It brings out the authority of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, that says all naturalization laws are the sole responsibility of Congress, that the president can't step in there and unilaterally rewrite these on his own," said Yoho. Not only can Obama not enact new laws on his own, but Yoho says the president is failing in his constitutional responsibility to enforce the laws that are already on the books. He says his bill addresses that issue for Obama and future presidents as well. "This is not just for this president. This is from this point forward, to have a line drawn that says Congress is paying attention and we are going to abide by the Constitution and we're going to hold our presidents to that, as we should," said Yoho. Yoho says there is no appropriations component to his bill. That will be fought over in separate legislation. "Our bill will be a stand alone bill and it's not tied into funding. There's no threat of a government shutdown with the passage of this bill. The big thing is it stops a dangerous precedent that this president is doing from this point forward (and) for the next presidents, Republican and Democrat," said Yoho. In addition to Republicans firmly believing the Constitution is on their side in this debate, Yoho says the voters are in the GOP's corner as well. "The American people spoke loud and clear in the last election on November 4 and they're tired of unilateral legislation. They're tired of people stepping on the Constitution and what the president is trying to do is not solving the problem. It's making it worse," said Yoho. But will the Yoho bill pass? While House passage is virtually certain, critics say it will undoubtedly die in the Senate while Democrats control the chamber in this lame duck session. Without actually becoming law, some conservatives suggest this amounts to more talk instead of actions yielding results. Yoho does not see it that way and says he has a major asset in this battle that should not be underestimated. "That's not in my control. My control is to do the best legislation we can from the House. The American people can weigh in on this. That's why programs like yours are so important, to let the American people know that there is a way to stop the executive overreach of this administration. So what they need to do is call up their representatives, Republicans and Democrats, and say, 'We want this bill to pass.' If we can do that, (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid has to determine whether he wants to be the guy saying, 'Nope, we're not going to do this.'" said Yoho. While not as involved in planning the government funding legislation, Yoho says there are a number of ideas being considered. The most popular approach seems to be to fund the vast majority of government through the end of the fiscal year on September 30, 2015. The GOP would then push a short-term extension of funding at current levels for the Department of Homeland Security into the early weeks of the new Congress. At that point, with majorities in the House and Senate, Republicans would seek to forbid any federal dollars being allocated to implement or enforce Obama's executive orders. If a government shutdown looms under that approach, Yoho says the blame will rest entirely with Obama, both for putting Congress in this position and risking a shutdown. "Why did he go ahead and do the executive order now? Why did he wait until after the midterms? They had control of the House and the Senate (in 2009 and 2010). Why did they not do that then. This system's been broken for over 30 years. We don't need to rush into this and we don't need to do it this way. It's bad for America," said Yoho. "Then to tie this and say that he's going to veto this, he will be the one unilaterally deciding to shut down the government," said Yoho. |
| GOP: United Front or Civil War Over Amnesty? |
| Mon, 1 Dec 2014 16:04:20 EST The next ten days will decide whether congressional Republicans can unify behind a strategy to resist President Obama executive orders allowing millions of illegal immigrants to stay and work in the U.S. or whether the GOP will splinter over differences in strategy. The federal government is currently funded through December 11. By then, the Republican-controlled House and Democratic-led Senate must come to agreement on legislation to keep the government fully open. Both House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell have promised vigorous pushback for Obama's unilateral approach to immigration policy but both have also vowed never to allow another government shutdown. However, Federation for American Immigration Reform Communications Director Bob Dane says targeting the funding for Obama's policy makes the most sense and believes many conservatives in Congress agree. "I think a lot of members consider that the first and the best step. The downside is Republicans are worried about being blamed for a shutdown of the government. But I think they need to remember that it will be the Democrats in the Senate and the president who opt for a federal shutdown, not the Republicans. The House will have done its job. They will have presented a funding bill and stopped a lawless action and I don't think they have anything to apologize for," said Dane. Dane says he is fully aware of recent history and how Republicans have taken most of the blame in recent government funding impasses, but he contends there is something far bigger at stake in this fight than just policy and appropriations. "No member of Congress, whether they're in the House or the Senate, whether they are Republican, Democrat or independent, none of these members can let this usurpation of power be left unchecked. They may disagree about the issue. Certainly, we all have different approaches to the immigration issue. But in Congress, regardless of political stripes, they're all members of the same club. The one thing they should all agree on is the club rules and this president has violated those," said Dane. If Congress does not confront Obama over what most Republicans see as an unconstitutional act, Dane fears Obama will only be encouraged to take similar action again on immigration and other policies. He says starting the fight now at the funding stage could be critical in the months ahead. "It's a necessary step for Congress to demonstrate that they've exhausted all of their remedies to restore their power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization under Article I should impeachment become a necessary and a next step. It's sort of like if your dog has been barking. Before you can go to the judge, you've got to try to work it out with your neighbor and exhaust all remedies before you go for the big guns," said Dane. Dane says he is hopeful the Republicans can come to a consensus this week on the right way to proceed and demonstrate a unified front, but he contends that's easier said than done. "You've got a bit of division between Republican leadership who would just as soon that Obama's amnesty goes through and they have a clean plate to work with legislatively in the next year and the rank and file conservatives, who want very much want this action stopped," said Dane, who blames both parties for the state of our immigration system. He says Democrats are determined to put millions of government-dependent people on the path to citizenship and the voting booth. He accuses GOP leaders of pushing the business agenda of importing cheap labor to the U.S. Where any GOP consensus can be found will be seen in the next week and a half, but Dane says what happens will reverberate throughout the Republican Party for a long time. "I think the Republicans are going to have to find consensus on what the devil they're going to do. They've got to keep a civil war within their own party from happening. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell (are) very, very hesitant to fight Obama on this, far less than the rank and file," said Dane. |
| Why Prayer is Vital for Life |
| Tue, 25 Nov 2014 16:00:35 EST As Americans gather together this week and pause to give thanks to God for our many blessings as individuals, families and a nation, prayer seems to be held in lower and lower esteem, but Pastor Timothy Keller's new book says instinctively humbling ourselves before God is critical in our relationship with the Lord and in making our society as strong as possible. Keller is the founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. His latest book is "Prayer: Experiencing Awe and Intimacy with God." Long after starting his church, Keller confesses he still struggled to have a consistent prayer life. Around the time the 9/11 terrorist attacks struck his city, he and his family were going through other crises, including a cancer diagnosis for him. Keller says his wife challenged him to be much more diligent about prayer and drove the point home in an unforgettable way. "I was never disciplined enough about prayer until my wife gave me an illustration. She says, 'Imagine that the doctor told you that you had a fatal disease or it would be fatal if you didn't take a medicine. What if he said to you that every night at 11:00, you have to take a pill. If you forget or you don't take that pill, you'll be dead by morning.' She said, 'Would you ever forget that pill? Would you ever say oh, I was too busy or I just didn't remember it? No, you would never forget and you would never miss because you knew you had to," said Keller. He says the light went on about the critical importance of prayer at that moment. "The reason we're constantly saying, 'Oh, I got too tired' is because we really don't believe we have to pray. We really don't believe it. If we believed we had to pray. If we believed it was absolutely as necessary for us to make it in life and to have a relationship with God and to be what God wants us to be, if we see that it's absolutely necessary, we're going to do it every night. And you know what, the penny dropped for me," said Keller. According to Keller, there exists a tension in the approach to prayer of many people. One the one hand, he says, humanity is hard-wired to know there is a God who is infinitely more powerful than they are. "Most people have an instinct that there's something bigger out there and also that we are dependent on it. And in times of insufficiency, when we feel we don't have the wisdom, we don't have the ability, we don't have the strength to do something, when we feel insufficient we just instinctively reach out to that greater, higher power," said Keller. But if the instinct is there, why is it so difficult for even many devout believers to maintain a disciplined prayer life? Keller chalks it up to another human nature. "I think the instinct of prayer is there. At the same time, the practice of prayer on the other end is very, very difficult because we don't like being insufficient. That's the answer," said Keller. "When you're feeling insufficient, it leads you to pray, but nobody likes to stay in that condition. Because we want to be self-sufficient, we feel like we should be self-sufficient so we don't find prayer, in another sense, very comforting or satisfying. So it's instinctive but difficult because we are insufficient but we don't like not feeling self-sufficient," said Keller. Whose prayers does God actually hear? Keller says the Bible provides some interesting case studies on this question. He points to a Psalm that states, 'If I cherish iniquity in my heart, He will not hear me.' However, a passage in the book of Jonah shows unbelieving people in Ninevah crying out to God and being heard. In another account, God even answers prayer from the evil Israeli King Ahab. Keller says the truth on this issue is somewhat layered. "If you're not praying in Jesus' name, God is under no obligation to hear your prayer. If you don't have faith in Christ, if you're not praying in Jesus' name, He has no obligation to hear. But sometimes, just out of His Mercy and in His wisdom, He does," said Keller. The Bible is full of many different kinds of prayer. Prayers of thanksgiving, prayers of praise to God, prayers for God to act in a certain way and even prayers for the destruction of enemies can be found among others. There are different approaches to prayer throughout Christianity. Some believers insist on spontaneous prayer, others prefer heartfelt recitations of written prayers while still others follow a consistent structure of prayer without anything on paper. Which approach does Keller endorse? "Yep!" he quipped, clearly approving of all of the above. "Seriously, I mean that. Running through an acronym like adoration, confession, thanksgiving, supplication (ACTS), so it's a discipline. Just pouring your heart out. Just saying here's what's on my heart. Written prayers, where you actually take a prayer out of some prayer book. Spontaneous prayers. You really do need to do all those things. There needs to be a balance of that," said Keller. Keller's book also comes at a time of intense political division and a culture that appears to be coarsening by the day. Keller says prayer absolutely has a place in the solution but there's a bigger immediate challenge. "Our public culture now doesn't even respect religion much. They see it as a problem. At the very, very least, there needs to be respect for people of faith or we're really going to be going in a very, very bad direction," said Keller. He says there is no doubt a nation turned towards God and engaged in prayer would witness vast improvement. "The more people who turn to God in prayer, the more people that seek to follow His will, we're salt and light. There will never be a completely godly society. There couldn't be. There never has been. But the more people who are seeking Him, the more salt and light and the healthier society will be," said Keller. |
| Ferguson Rioters 'Set Us Back' |
| Tue, 25 Nov 2014 14:16:49 EST Americans frustrated with the the relationship between law enforcement and black communities have legitimate concerns, but a prominent conservative black attorney says the violent reaction to the grad jury decision in Missouri Monday set back efforts to improve the justice system and President Obama's comments and track record only make matters worse. On Monday, St. Louis County, Missouri, District Attorney Robert McCulloch announced the grand jury considering five separate charges against Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson determined the evidence did not warrant any indictments against Wilson in the August shooting death of Michael Brown. While city, state and national leaders pleaded for calm regardless of the decision, protests quickly turned violent and dozens of Ferguson businesses were looted or burned. However, no injuries were reported. Attorney Shelby Emmett is a member of the national advisory council for the Project 21 Black Leadership Network. She says there is deep-seeded mistrust of law enforcement in many heavily black communities, but she says nothing on Monday night helped to address them. "I think it's utterly shameful," said Emmett, who says she has her own painful experiences with law enforcement that help her identify with some of the exasperation in Ferguson. Nonetheless, she says there's a right way and a wrong way to express that frustration and far too many Ferguson protesters chose the wrong way. "Rioting and destroying your own communities has never, ever solved anything. I think the best way to approach this in a new era is for us as black people to become more involved in our communities, to join these police forces to start changing and having a positive impact instead of us always reacting," said Emmett. She believes Monday's nights violence and property destruction only made the racial challenges in the country greater. "I think how people acted last night just set us back in terms of a people and as a movement of supposedly wanting justice under the law and equal treatment. Too many of us are looking at this emotionally and not trying to look at this based off the law. And that's both sides. A lot of people were quick to defend the officer. A lot of people were quick to condemn him, based off simply nothing more than experience or personal resentments or attitudes," said Emmett. Attorneys for the Brown family, and others who thought an indictment of Wilson was appropriate, accuse McCulloch and his team of not being nearly tough enough on Wilson in his appearance before the grand jury. They also say prosecutors approached the process all wrong. Many times, prosecutors will present their strongest evidence of guilt in order to secure an indictment and then the entirety of the evidence comes into play at trial. McCulloch is under fire for bringing all of the evidence forward to the grand jury, but Emmett thinks it was the right thing to do. "What I would surmise that he was probably doing was, 'Look, we know that we're going to have these potential problems. There might be protests or there might be this. I'm going to give the jury every little teeny, tiny thing that we have, so nobody can say that we didn't show x or if we would have put x,y and z together instead of just x and y, they would have got an indictment.' I think he just wanted to put everything out there," said Emmett. Regardless of the decision, Emmett says the grand jury deserves credit for going about its work under extreme public scrutiny. "They had a lot to deal with. It wasn't just the case they were dealing with but also the social issues going on around it, the fears of protests, the threats. For them to still take this very seriously, which they did, instead of caving in to fear or being concerned with what could be the consequence, it's obvious that they took their job very seriously," said Emmett. Shortly after McCulloch finished his presentation of the grand jury's decision, President Obama made a statement from the White House. Obama sis the decision should be respected because it was the grand jury's to make. He also implored the protesters to remain peaceful, noting that Brown's parents had made the same plea. Other parts of the statement, however, highlighted the distrust he says many black Americans have toward police and the judicial system. "The situation in Ferguson speaks to broader challenges that we still face as a nation, The fact is, in too many parts of this country, a deep distrust exists between law enforcement and communities of color. Some of this is the result of the legacy of racial discrimination in this country," said Obama, who elaborated further on this point. "We have made enormous progress in race relations over the course of the past several decades. But what is also true is that there are still problems and communities of color aren't just making these problems up," he said. Emmett agrees that these are sensitive issues that need to be addressed and resolved to advance as a nation, but she blasted Obama's "horrible timing" with protesters already on edge. She further slammed Obama for squandering a unique opportunity to make progress on racial issues. "President Obama had a real chance to have a dialogue with everybody, just kind of put it out there, hold blacks accountable for us, hold everybody accountable for their own actions and have a real discussion. Instead he does the opposite. He waits for either a specific racial issue to happen or he allows it to become more of a racial issue than it should have been," said Emmett. She believes the nation is far more divided on demographic lines after six years of Obama as president and she says he deserves a good part of the blame. "The president is more so using people, using groups, be it illegal aliens, women, African-Americans. I think he uses these groups to push an agenda or distract. I don't think any of this is genuine on his part and actually wanting to address these issues that actually real, substantive and genuine. Emmett has a two-step approach that she believes would go a long way towards lowering tensions and fostering an honest national discussion. First, she says, is to get rid of some familiar faces. "First and foremost, we've got to rid of this idea that black people as a whole have some 'leader'. These fake leaders, your Al Sharpton and your Jesse Jackson, are so far removed from what their original purpose and worthwhileness was that they just need to go away. That's the first thing," said Emmett. She believes that first step would set the stage for a more productive national dialogue. "We all do need to have a real conversation about this. I grew up in a mixed household myself, so I understand how some people may be uncomfortable with it or you're taught that the polite thing to do is not address it. We just need to be honest and up front, but that conversation has to come from everybody coming from a basic understanding of is it going to start where we are today or are we going to keep looking back on the past," said Emmett. |
| Obama's Inner Circle Forces Hagel to Exit |
| Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:57:08 EST Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is on his way out and retired U.S. Navy Captain Chuck Nash says it had to happen as Obama's inner circle kept Hagel away from the president and Hagel then went public with numerous frustrations. Nash says it's just the latest development in a disjointed foreign policy that has not responded effectively to numerous international crises and seems determined to chart a dangerous course by doggedly pursuing a nuclear deal with Iran that does not make the U.S. or any of our allies any safer. The New York Times broke the story of Hagel's resignation Monday morning, but the paper made it clear the Obama administration was forcing him out the door. Unnamed White House personnel suggested Hagel "was not up to the job". Nash says Hagel was an odd choice from the start and believes Obama simply wanted a Republican leader at the Pentagon as cover for major spending cuts conducted through sequestration. Ultimately, however, Nash says Monday's news was inevitable as a growing frustration between Hagel and the White House became clear. "Somebody's got to go. The wheels are coming off all over the world. Things are in big trouble. Between the White House not having faith in Sec. Hagel and the discontent in the Pentagon, it's time for somebody new, no matter how much your heart is in the job," said Nash, noting that the nation is not well-served by a defense secretary kept at arm's length. "A lot of the senior (military) folks, they need a secretary who has the president's ear, so that when they want to do stuff, they can talk to the secretary and hash it out and have their views forcefully represented over in the White House. That's not what happened. President Obama surrounds himself with people he knows and trusts. That inner circle has his ear, and no one else," said Nash. The last straw, Nash believes, was a private disagreement between Hagel and National Security Adviser Susan Rice that quickly went public. "He sent a memo to Susan Rice two weeks before the midterms, saying, 'Hey, you're micromanaging us over here, nitpicking. We need to knock that stuff off,'" he said. Hagel then went on to give numerous interviews about national security policies that needed to change. While Hagel was not mentioned as the source in the stories, he was quickly discovered to be responsible and his days on the job were numbered. A handful names are already being suggested as possible replacements for Hagel, most of them experts from an academic perspective rather than military veterans. Nash says the nominee won't matter much unless the White House changes it's approach to the Pentagon. "Will there really be any policy changes coming out of the Defense Department when President Obama is not taking the advice and counsel but really driving things from the inner circle," said Nash The policy of great immediate concern to Nash and many other national security experts is the Obama administration's determination to strike a nuclear deal with Iran. A deadline for a long-term deal has come and gone with the Iranians rejecting most American overtures. Nash says it's clear the wrong side has leverage right now. "The Iranians are going to do what they're going to do. They realize that the administration is desperate for a deal. They're just going to keep playing this out. In the meantime, the clock is ticking. They're not even talking about getting together again for awhile," said Nash. "You've got Secretary Kerry running around and everybody's looking for a legacy. Right now, the legacy is that the world is burning up. They want to do something, get something, that they can stack up in the positive column." Nash says the past few weeks have shown an alarming lack of shrewdness at the bargaining table. "If you're doing a negotiation, what you don't do is say, 'OK, so here's the line in the sand. Here's the red line. OK, now we're going to extend it.' You just play right into their hands," said Nash. Another point of frustration for critics of the Obama administration's approach to Iran, is the critical concession that the U.S. and our allies are allowing ongoing enrichment, just not at levels Iran wants to pursue. Previous administrations have insisted on no enrichment whatsoever. "That's already a done deal. So now they have enrichment. Once you have that, then all you have to do, depending on the number of centrifuges equals time. The more centrifuges you have, the less time it takes to get the quantity of nuclear material that you need at the right percentage. That is a threshold you can break through very quickly," said Nash. While not certain of all the diplomatic twists and turns to come in the next few months, Nash believes the U.S. is headed down a familiar and troubling road when it comes to Iranian nuclear ambitions. "We're going to figure out that the Iranians have the capability when they set off a test device. Just like how we figured out the Indians had one, and how the Pakistanis had one and how the North Koreans had one. We talk and talk and talk and talk until they set one off. Then we go, 'Whoa. Now there are nukes. Now we have to treat them differently. Why? Because they're a nuclear power ," said Nash. |
| 'You Cannot Repeal 30 Million People' |
| Thu, 20 Nov 2014 16:05:17 EST As President Obama announces the details of his executive action to grant legal status to millions of people in the United States illegally, acclaimed documentary filmmaker Dennis Michael Lynch says this is the one Obama policy that will permanently damage America, and he says the only way to save the country is through steps no Republicans seem willing to take. Lynch is the creator of the border documentaries "They Come to America" and "They Come to America II". In response to reports that Obama will grant legal status to some five to six million illegal immigrants (and possibly many more), Lynch says he's devastated that this day has come but not at all surprised. "It's one of those things where you always knew it was coming. You just never thought it would arrive. It's sort of disheartening knowing that it's here. It's disheartening because I know that the impact of this is going to be far greater than any sound bite can explain," said Lynch. Nonetheless, Lynch tried to put into words what Obama's actions will mean for the U.S. in the near and long term. "Americans are screwed. I mean we are screwed with what's going on right now," he said, suggesting the implementation of what he considers amnesty has a far different impact than even Obama's signature legislative accomplishment. "Obamacare can be repealed. You're watching it break down. I knew this would happen a year ago that it wouldnever last. It was just a house of cards waiting for a big gust of wind and the wind is coming. But you cannot repeal 30 million people. You can't repeal 20 million people. You can deport them...You can't repeal them. You can't give them amnesty and then take the amnesty away. It's literally impossible and that's what fundamentally transforms a country," said Lynch. Lynch also believes this priority dwarfs all others from Obama's perspective. "This is the one thing that stains America and you can't get the stain out. To him, this puts his face on Mount Rushmore, so he's going to fight to the death for this. This is his baby," said Lynch. "He doesn't give a damn what happened in the election two weeks ago. You think he gives a damn? He doesn't give a damn at all. He doesn't care if this hurts Hillary in 2016. He doesn't care about anybody but himself." For Lynch, the permanent damage to the country comes in two major ways, far worse job opportunities for Americans and much weaker national security. He says an already sluggish job market for American citizens will get far more depressing. "If that (illegal immigrant) was hanging sheet rock illegally and now they've got a work permit, they could start going for the jobs they otherwise were not able to get last time, ones that need a driver's license, one where you have to be on a payroll correctly. They're going to start applying for jobs like UPS and the postal service and security guards and at the TSA. You name it, they're going to start going for those jobs, and they're going to get them," said Lynch, who says that trend will only lead to many more American citizens relying on government assistance because they cannot find work. As for his national security concerns, Lynch says he is stunned at how soon the lessons of 9/11 have been forgotten. "This is devastating. It totally ignores everything written in the 9/11 Commission report. It's as if the president took a match to it and just lit up the 9/11 Commission report as if there was no report and as if there was no 9/11. We're going to be giving legal documentation to illegal aliens in this country. And it's not going to be five million by the way. It's going to be far more than that," said Lynch. While Lynch is thoroughly exasperated with Obama, he also has little patience for most Republicans. He believes the full-throated opposition of the GOP to Obama's executive orders is an example of "too little, too late". "They're half the problem. They were closing their eyes for years and years and years as they were taking campaign donations from big lobbyists who were supporting big businesses. They too were in it for the cheap labor. They're just as guilty as anybody else," said Lynch. The filmmaker is livid with both mainstream Republicans and staunch conservatives. Lynch savaged Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) for appearing on the Fox News Channel Wednesday night and vowing to use every constitutional tool available to stop Obama actions. While Cruz voted against the 2013 Gang of Eight bill in the Senate, Lynch says the senator offered an amendment that would have increased the number of hi-tech work visas by 500 percent. Lynch says there are only two things Republicans can do to slow the impact of the executive orders, but he admits even those would have limited impact. The first is the much-discussed strategy to defund government effort's to enforce the new orders. "They will have to fight him through the purse and even that is not going to completely do it because Obama has already planned for this. He knows what steps they're going to take and he obviously has his counter plan to that. You don't go on national television. You don't make this sort of move like he's making if you don't have a full script written out," he said. The most effective tool, he says, would be electing a president fully committed to uprooting these executive orders upon taking office. Still, he says that won't erase all the damage. "The next president would have to override his amnesty. Even then, if you override his amnesty, you're still never going to be able to put all the sand back in the bottle," said Lynch. He also says this approach requires a Republican nominee who understands the severity of the issue. "It's such a Herculean effort that it would take an amazing, amazing human being to stay the course and be able to do that," he said. "None of the guys in the GOP have the guts to do it. Half the guys in the GOP want to give amnesty. You think Jeb Bush, if he gets in, he's going to say, 'Yeah, I'm going to reverse the amnesty?' He's going to say, 'It's an act of love. Let's give out more work permits,'" said Lynch. Lynch himself has publicly stated he's considering a presidential bid in 2016, mentioning the idea just weeks ago to Fox News Channel host Megyn Kelly. Does this new scenario push him into the race? "After today, I'm almost ready to call up Megyn Kelly and say I'm doing it," he said. Lynch believes his candidacy would be a long shot due to the GOP and the media being disinterested in him. He says a massive grassroots army would be needed to make such a bid worthwhile. |
| Dershowitz Slams Obama's 'Moral Equivalence' on Synagogue Murders |
| Wed, 19 Nov 2014 15:53:58 EST Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz is unloading on President Obama's "moral equivalence" in the wake of Tuesday's shocking terrorist attacks at a Jerusalem synagogue that left five people dead, three of whom were Americans. The acclaimed defense attorney also accuses Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas of inciting the bloodshed. On Tuesday, terrorists stormed the synagogue in the Har Nof neighborhood in West Jerusalem. Using axes, knives and guns, the terrorists savagely interrupted morning prayers, killing three rabbis, another worshiper and a police officer. Police eventually killed the two terrorists. In his statement, President Obama condemned the attacks and said the deaths of three Americans meant shared grief between the U.S. and Israel. However, he was quick to urge all sides to renounce violence. "Tragically, this is not the first loss of life that we have seen in recent months. Too many Israelis have died. Too many Palestinians have died," said Obama, who urged both sides to work together to "lower tensions." Dershowitz says that was exactly the wrong thing to say. "It was moral equivalence. It was the wrong statement. It had all the wrong tone. It had all the wrong content. At this point in time, you unilaterally condemn only the Palestinian Authority and Hamas for incentivizing and inciting this kind of thing. You don't bring it together with how many Palestinians may have died because they were being used as human shields," he said, noting that the terrorist groups are fine the U.S. and others in the world equating their actions with those of Israel. "Hamas is happy with moral equivalence. It gives them a kind of legitimacy that they don't deserve, the kind of legitimacy that Bishop (Desmond) Tutu and Jimmy Carter had given them but I would expect more of our president," said Dershowitz. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were quick to point to point out that Abbas condemned the attack. Dershowitz says that condemnation came after great pressure from the U.S. and that Abbas deserves the lion's share of the blame for the attacks themelves. "Abbas is largely responsible for this. He talked about Jews 'infecting' the Temple Mount. He called for Muslims to protect the Temple Mount. He basically incited this. Did he intend it? Probably not, but his words carry very great power," said Dershowitz. While the denunciation of the attacks by Abbas may have been grudging, Dershowitz points out that Hamas and Palestinians in the street made it clear they enthusiastically support such barbarism. "After this horrible, horrible massacre, immediately there was dancing in the streets in Gaza, in Ramallah, in Bethlehem and Nablus and celebration of these murders," he said. "Although the great tragedy occurred in the synagogue, the most important events occurred before - the incitement - and after - the glee. How did the world respond? Spain unilaterally voted in parliament to recognize the Palestinian State without asking them even to stop terrorism," said Dershowitz. However, he says the most common reaction worldwide was indifference. "United Nations? Silence. Most of the Arab states? Silence. We're not seeing condemnation. We're not seeing outrage from many of the European leaders," he said. Dershowitz praised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for forcefully denouncing the attacks but also for imploring Israeli citizens not to seek vengeance on their own. The international response to the murders was so tepid that Netanyahu implored world leaders to speak out. Dershowitz says if the roles were reversed, it would be a much different story. "Can you imagine if an Israeli soldier had walked into a mosque and had murdered four imams at prayer? The entire world would be aflame about this. We see very little condemnation (about Tuesday's terrorist attacks). You see the usual ritual, formalistic condemnation, but you don't see the kind of outrage that one would expect. And you don't see the kind of outrage that one gets when Israel builds an extra bathroom or living room somewhere on the West Bank," said Dershowitz. The Middle East has long been viewed in the West as a problem that cannot be solved. Dershowitz says the Palestinians are undertaking a strategy to make sure it never does. "The Palestinians are trying to turn this into a religious dispute, not a political dispute. Political disputes can be resolved by compromise, but if you think your god has told you not to allow Jews to have a nation-state of their own...it's very hard to compromise with that situation," he said. Dershowitz says what's worse than grisly acts of terrorism is the fact that it's working to turn world opinion to the side of the Palestinians and others. "Why are the Palestinians so popular today on academic campuses, at the UN and in European capitals? Because they have used terrorism over and over and over again. Nobody's heard of the Kurds because they haven't used terrorism to a great extent. The Kurds, there are much more of them and they are much more worthy of a state than the Palestinians and the Tibetans. But they're getting nowhere because terrorism works and it brings groups to the attention of the world. If we don't stop terrorism in the Middle East, it's coming to a theater near you because it's an effective tactic today, unfortunately," said Dershowitz. World opinion has long tilted heavily against Israel, even when American presidents have vigorously defended it. Dershowitz admits the U.S. can only do so much to reverse that, but he says there's one thing the Obama administration can do in the coming days to prevent terrorists from scoring a major victory. "They have to make a good deal with Iran or no deal. You can't make a bad deal with Iran. Iran is the greatest exporter of terrorism in the world. They're dancing in the streets too. If you think it's bad to have a few terrorists with axes and guns and knives walk into a synagogue, just wait until terrorists begin to have nuclear weapons. That will happen if Iran has a decent deal that will allow it to become a threshold nuclear state," said Dershowitz. |
| 'Sword of Damocles' Hangs Over Amnesty Fight |
| Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:01:06 EST Iowa Rep. Steve King says the unconstitutional granting of amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants is one promise President Obama actually intends to keep and he says the Republican Congress must be ready to do what it takes to stop it from happening. The day after major Republican wins in the midterm elections, Obama reiterated his vow to act alone on immigration policy. While not detailing what his executive orders would entail at that time, subsequent reports indicate the centerpiece of Obama's initiative would grant legal status and issue work permits to the parents of U.S. citizens and children already legalized in some way. Estimates suggest that would legalize anywhere from 4.5 to six million illegal immigrants. While immigration has been a divisive issue among Republicans over the past couple of years, King says GOP lawmakers are virtually unanimous in fighting what they see as an unconstitutional power grab. He's less certain Republicans are willing to to whatever it takes to win the fight. "I think we're really solid. Those on the Republican side that would give the president a pass for usurping constitutional authority are very few. But how far are they willing to go to block this president?" asked King. King has been a leading voice of opposition to granting legal status to people in the country illegally. He says he can remember where he was and the disappointment he felt when President Ronald Reagan signed the 1986 amnesty into law. The congressman says Obama's agenda is infinitely worse and he fears the president is dead set on taking action on his own. "The president has a very long string of broken promises but this, I think, is going to be the promise he actually keeps. He is poised to violate the Constitution and create his own immigration law out of thin air. He has no constitutional authority to do this," said King, who believes Obama's insistence on this issue boils down to one thing. "He thinks a high percentage of them are just undocumented Democrats and the next phase would be to document them so that they can vote," he said. How does King conclude the president's actions would be unconstitutional? "Not only does Article I set aside all legislative power to the United States Congress, but also an enumerated power is to provide a uniform rule of naturalization. That's Congress' authority and there are multiple court cases that identify that Congress sets immigration policy," said King, who says Obama has already flagrantly violated his authority on other decisions on immigration policy. "He didn't have legal authority to issue the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, also known as DREAMers) memo," said King. "And he didn't have the authority to do the Morton memos, which waive prosecution for those whom the president considers not to be a violent threat to society," said King. Obama defenders accuse critics of the impending executive orders of employing selective outrage. They say many previous presidents have effectively removed the threat of deportation for some illegal immigrants. King admits there is some legal discretion granted to the president on immigration matters but Obama's apparent course of action takes things to a completely different level. "The president has authority to manage asylum and to manage refugee status. That target of refugee status is something like 75,000 a year. (That's) nowhere near the five to six...million that we would end up with. I don't think there's any comparable precedent anywhere," he said. King suggests out very system of government is at stake in this debate. "What he's poised to do is step up in front of a press conference someday in the near future, take the Constitution, separate out Article I, the legislative authority (and) all the things that set up the United States Congress, look at us all and tear Article I out of the Constitution, fold it up, put it in his shirt pocket and say, 'I'm also the legislative branch of government.' That's what he's doing," said King. "This is a constitutional crisis that is hanging over our heads like the Sword of Damocles. Congress must block this president. It is our duty to do so," he said. "The president is holding a right hostage to an ultimatum. We have a right to secure borders, a right to expect an demand that our president enforce the law. But he's giving us an ultimatum. Congress can either pass amnesty or he's going to commit it by a constitutional violation," said King. So what will the Republicans do to stop it? One thing House and Senate GOP leaders have ruled out is any sort of government funding showdown. That's a promise King wishes they hadn't made. "We've had some leadership say there's not going to be a government shutdown. I don't know how they can declare that. It was the president that shut the government down a little over a year ago. So they can't make a promise that the president would be in charge of keeping," said King. King isn't eager for another showdown over appropriations but he also isn't very impressed by some of the ideas floated by GOP leaders either. One is simply to extend current funding levels in all areas of government until the end of the fiscal year on September, 30, 2015. "That would give all the funding to the president and would take away our tool to restrain him by cutting off the funding to implement or enforce his unconstitutional act," said King. Another possibility is passing government funding at existing levels but revisit funding for immigration enforcement in the new Congress and take it out through a process known as recision. "After money is appropriated, we can go in and claw it back so to speak. That proposal overlooked the idea that a recisions bill would have to have a presidential signature," said King. King has already drafted a bill that would automatically cut out funding for unconstitutional immigration actions by the president, both past and future. "It's a bill that self-enacts. If the president violates the Constitution or issues a policy that reduces immigration enforcement, it requires that he certify that it's constitutional and that it doesn't diminish enforcement. Otherwise, it automatically shuts off the funding, not only for his policy going forward, but retroactively to the DACA component and the Morton memos that are part of the beginning of this immigration constitutional crisis," said King. Beyond that, King is ready for whatever it takes to win the political fight. "That might be cutting off the funding. That could be effective. Another one that we might have to do is censure the president. That's happened once before in the history of this country. That doesn't take us down the full route that Bill Clinton experienced. That would be the last resort," said King. The congressman stressed again the fight over executive authority vs. enumerated powers for the Congress will determine the fate of our form of government. "This constitutional republic cannot survive if we have a president who is going to defy the constitution and his own oath to it. Every member of Congress takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, House and Senate. We have a duty too. That duty is to defend the Constitution," said King. |
| 'They Were Just Being Deceitful' |
| Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:57:53 EST President Obama says Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber was "some adviser who never worked on our staff" and said the lengthy debate over the law proves there was compete transparency with the American people, but Georgia Rep. Tom Price calls the president's characterization of events as "fiction" and "deceitful." A political firestorm erupted last week when a frustrated American citizen began posting videos of M.I.T economist and Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber boldly explaining how the law was passed due to a lack of transparency on key issues. In the videos, Gruber said the administration deliberately hid the fact the individual mandate amounted to a tax and that young and healthy people would pay higher premiums to cover the cost of care for older, less healthy people. Most damaging was Gruber's assertion that the "stupidity of the American voters" allowed the sleight of hand to work. This past weekend, President Obama addressed the controversy during a press conference at the G-20 Summit in Australia. In response to a question from Ed Henry of the Fox News Channel about whether his administration misled the American people, Obama quickly distanced himself from Gruber. "The fact that some adviser, who never worked on our staff, expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with in terms of the voters, is no reflection on the actual process that was run," said Obama. Price says Obama is vigorously trying to rewrite history. He says Gruber was "instrumental" in the drafting and marketing of Obamacare. "This wasn't a peripheral actor. I've shared the stage with Jonathan Gruber when we were debating this piece of legislation in 2009 and 2010," said Price, who asserts all key players at the time knew Gruber was at the forefront of the Obamacare effort. "He was a principal adviser, paid over $400,000 by this administration. He wasn't on the White House staff but he was a contract employee to the administration for this piece of legislation. We would make these accusations that, 'You weren't being honest, weren't being truthful with the American people. You're trying to say the taxes won't be increased when we know that they will.' They were just being deceitful," he said. Price says Obama's attempt to deny the obvious following Gruber's admissions is especially infuriating. "The president then continues this fiction that he didn't know who this guy was. That's nonsense. Jonathan Gruber has been to the White House on over a dozen occasions over the past couple of years and the White House knows exactly who he is. He was their individual, who helped be the architect for Obamacare. It's just so sad that the president, again, believes that the American people are naive and aren't able to handle the truth," said Price. In Australia, Obama insisted there was no way the health care debate, which lasted more than a year, was anything less then completely transparent. "We had a yearlong debate," said Obama. "Go back and look at your stories. The one thing we can't say is that we did not have a lengthy debate." Price says Obama is right about the drawn-out debate but not much else. "Well, it was a long debate. The problem is that one side of it, his side, the president's side wasn't telling the truth," said Price. "When one side isn't bound by the truth, they can say anything they want. That's exactly what the president did. That's exactly what his administration did, and that's why it was able to pass the House of Representatives. They were not transparent and the American people were hoodwinked and I believe many in Congress didn't know what they were voting on and should be held accountable," added Price. Come January, Republicans will have a commanding majority in the House and either a six or eight-seat majority in the Senate. Price wants to see the whole law scrapped but says there are many things the Republicans will look to peel away from the law as long as Obama is in office, including the employer mandate and the medical device tax. He says he's an eternal optimist about Obama conceding to some changes in the bill ultimately isn't sure if Obama will show any cooperation on the issue. As for the overall GOP strategy, some party leaders say a full repeal effort is a waste of time because they cannot muster the votes to override a presidential veto. Others, including Price, believe a vote on full repeal is essential towards keeping the promise of Republicans to repeal the law, in addition to efforts to remove individual components of the law. "I think you've got to pass a full repeal piece of legislation though both the House and the Senate so the American people know who the good guys are on this issue and who's standing in the way of what the American people want. The American people want this law repealed," said Price. The congressman is the leader of the effort to draft legislation designed to replace Obamacare when and if the current law is repealed. "We call it the 'Empowering Patients First Act'. We're currently working on the next iteration of that, that we will introduce shortly after the first of the year. So there are ways to solve the challenges of health coverage, health costs, the insurance difficulties that people have and we can decrease the costs significantly in the health care arena. We can do all of that without putting Washington in charge of a doggone thing," he said. |
| 'We Can't Let Obama Become A Dictator' |
| Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:22:58 EST Legendary conservative activist Richard Viguerie is imploring Republican leaders in Congress to do whatever is necessary, including impeachment or refusing to fund parts of the government, to stop President Obama's plan to unilaterally legalize up to six million illegal immigrants through executive action. Viguerie pioneered the use of direct mail in political campaigning in the 1960s and 1970s. He is now the chairman of conservative hq.com. His most recent book is "Takeover" The 100-Year War for the Soul of the GOP and how Conservatives Can Finally Win It." Reports this week suggest the president is planning to grant legal status to the parents of children who are U.S. citizens or already have legal status. Viguerie is among a large consensus on the right that the president's actions would be unconstitutional, but there is great divide on what the Republican response ought to be. For Viguerie, stopping what he considers amnesty means using every tool in constitutional toolbox. "The Republicans should use all means available to oppose this effort, including impeachment as well as shutting down the government, if that's what it takes to protect our form of government. We can't allow Obama to become a dictator," said Viguerie. "A failure to use all legal means to oppose his illegal amnesty efforts that's being rumored about here would be a sign of serious sign of weakness on the Republican leaders' part. And it would embolden the Democrats to continue to act outside of the Constitution," he said. Last week, both House Speaker John Boehner and incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell lashed out at Obama's plans to legalize millions of people through executive action. McConnell likened it to waving a red flag in front of a bull. Boehner said Obama was playing with matches and was bound to get burned. Both leaders shied away from the defunding strategy, however, leaving Viguerie wondering how committed they are to stopping it. "The Republican leaders pretty much have always talked a tough game, but the Democrats have always been able to roll them. I don't think we're expecting much more than just more talk from the Republican leaders," said Viguerie. Both of Viguerie's suggestions carry risks, as Republicans leaders and rank-and-file members have states. Impeachment could easily be seized by Democrats as Republicans wanting to gain power for no other reason than to try to remove Obama from office and would play effectively to the Democratic base. Similarly, they see the threat of a government shutdown as a public relations nightmare that cost the party greatly in the mid 1990s and again last year until the horrific rollout of Obamacare overshadowed the controversy. GOP officials believe another shutdown would turn popular opinion back in favor of the president, meaning the amnesty would eventually still stand and Republicans would get slaughtered in 2016. Viguerie isn't buying any of it. "That is a patently nonsensical argument because the government was shut down for 16 days last year and it had zero effect on the election results. What had an effect on the big election victory the Republicans had last week was opposing amnesty. The voters gave the Republicans a big victory, expecting them to provide leadership and stop Obama," said Viguerie. "Republican leaders, if they take impeachment off the table and shutting down the government off the table, they are left toothless and will have defanged themselves and given Obama free reign to not only grant amnesty but pretty much anything else he wants," said Viguerie. One option mentioned by Boehner is to take the president to court to challenge the constitutionality of his actions. Viguerie is not impressed. "And will you send a strongly-worded letter also? That's weak and toothless," he said. In addition, Viguerie believes confrontational Republican action would trigger strong public support and maybe even some help from Democrats. "A lot of Democrats will support this action too because this is now threatening our form of government," he said. However, Viguerie ultimately expects Obama to tone down his actions and Republicans to let him do it. "I expect the president will probably do something less than what he has indicated he will do and the Republican response will be a lot more rhetoric and less action," said Viguerie. If that happens, Viguerie expects this to badly inflame tensions between conservatives and Republican Party leaders. "Lincoln told us, the Bible tells us, a house divided cannot stand. Right now, we have a major divide between the supporters at the grassroots of the Republican Party and the Republican leaders in Washington. This is just going to make the situation worse," he said. |
| 'Congress Needs to Keep the President on A Very Short Leash' |
| Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:00:23 EST President Obama's plan to grant legal status to some five million illegal immigrants through executive action is unlawful, goes directly against the will of the American voters and should be resisted by Congress in any way possible, according to Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). Vaughan also says a brand new CIS report showing both legal and illegal immigrants adding disproportionately to the Medicaid rolls and costing billions of dollars shows now is the time to employ greater scrutiny on who comes into the country, rather than open the gates to millions of illegals. On Wednesday, reports surfaced that President Obama is preparing a ten-point immigration reform plan that he intends to implement through executive action. In addition to facilitating legal status for highly sought after specialists in a variety of technical fields and advocating for pay raises for Immigration and Custom Enforcement officials, the centerpiece of the Obama plan is to grant legal status to some 4.5 million people in the U.S. illegally is their children were born here or given legal status. The clear message from the administration is that it does not want to rip apart families by removing illegal immigrants while allowing legal ones to stay, but Vaughan says that argument is deeply flawed. "The only thing separating these families is their choice is their choice to be here illegally," said Vaughan, suggesting the way to keep families with illegal immigrants together is to send all of them back to the nations from which they came. "In many cases, the U.S. citizen children they have were born here to illegal parents. They haven't been here a long time. We're talking about small children. They don't have meaningful ties to this country. The best thing for them to do is to accompany their family member back to their home country and get on with their lives," she said. Vaughan says many Americans feel tremendous compassion for the dire conditions many immigrants faced in their own countries, but that doesn't mean the solution is to open the floodgates into the U.S. at a time of domestic economic challenges. "People are very sympathetic to living conditions in other countries, but the answer is not to just let everyone come here regardless of our laws. We have Americans who are out of work in those very same kinds of jobs. We also have four and a half million people waiting their turn to come in through the legal immigration system, who have been sponsored by U.S. citizens or American companies who need their skills. Those people should have first access to being able to live here," said Vaughan. Besides staunchly opposing the Obama immigration agenda, Vaughan says she is stunned at the political tone deafness on display with Obama. "It's really shocking that this is at the top of his agenda after an election in which American voters resoundingly rejected these kinds of policies and sent a message to their elected representatives that immigration enforcement of the laws we have is much more important than providing amnesty for such a large number of people," said Vaughan. "It's really surprising that he would move forward on something so unpopular and would have such a negative effect on American workers, on legal immigrants and on public safety in our communities," she added. Congressional Republicans are furious with Obama's plans for unilateral action. Some have threatened to use the upcoming omnibus spending bill to fund the federal government as leverage against executive action on immigration and possibly defund government departments tasked with enforcing immigration policy. Vaughan hopes the GOP pursues that and any other tactic that could stop Obama in his tracks. "Congress clearly needs to keep the president on a very short leash because what he is planning is most definitely something that is beyond his authority and certainly contrary to congressional intent and public opinion. So they need to use whatever authority they have," said Vaughan. Polls suggest the vast majority of Americans do not want Obama to act unilaterally, but many Republicans are hesitant for use the "power of the purse" to force Obama's hand, fearing a another possible government shutdown over the issue which could cost the GOP the moral high ground on the issue and stain its ascension to the Senate majority. Vaughan believes withholding funding in response to Obama's executive action would be welcomed by most Americans. "If they have to use their funding authority to keep the president from doing something that would be such a mistake for our country, I think the public would back the members of Congress who do that," she said. Last week, Obama said he was tired of waiting for Congress to act on immigration reform but suggested any reforms passed in the future would trump his unilateral action so critics had little to worry about. "That's not how our democracy works. The president doesn't get to say, 'I'm going to do this. Catch me if you can. Pass your own law to overturn it.' That would also be unfair to the people he's dangling this amnesty in front of and saying, 'Okay, I'm going to give you amnesty. I'm going to make Congress take it away from you.' That's just political gamesmanship," said Vaughan. Adding fuel to Vaughan's case is a new study CIS released Thursday morning, showing that immigrants (both legal and illegal) constituted 42 percent of new enrollees into Medicaid since 2011 at a cost of $4.6 billion. Vaughan says somewhat difficult to determine how much of that influx comes from illegal immigrants. "We don't know exactly. Part of the reason is because there are so many people in this kind of limbo-like status, because of presidential amnesties and and deferred action programs, who have been living here illegally. They don't qualify for a green card but they are allowed to get a work permit and a Social Security numbers so states will enroll them in health care programs," said Vaughan. While the immediate fight in Washington is over illegal immigrants, Vaughan says flaws in our legal immigration policy are contributing to the surge of legal immigrants onto the Medicaid rolls. "A lot of the immigrants that we have been accepting, and a lot of the people that we've been giving legal status to, are not able to be self-sufficient. The main reason for that is our country does not have a labor shortage, so wages are not going up. So they're going to be dependent on government programs like Obamacare. That means any huge executive action or amnesty or increases in illegal immigration is going to be costly for taxpayers," said Vaughan. |
| Obama's Raw Climate Deal |
| Wed, 12 Nov 2014 16:04:05 EST While the Obama administration trumpets an "historic" agreement on carbon emissions with China, a leading climate expert says our economy would have to collapse to comply with the terms of the deal but President Obama's main goal is to make it difficult for the next president, Congress and the courts to strike down his many environmental regulations. While in China for the Asia-Pacific Economic Summit, Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping came to an agreement that would have the U.S. reducing its carbon emissions between 26 and 28 percent from 2005 levels. The Chinese, meanwhile vowed to try to peak their emissions by 2030 and attempt to get 20 percent of its energy from "zero carbon emission sources" by that same time. As the deal was announced, Obama's Twitter account stated: "This is huge: The United States and China have just agreed on an ambitious new joint plan to cut carbon pollution." Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Christopher Horner says the deal means business as usual for China but would force the U.S. to make draconian changes over the next decade. "It promised massive reductions, which nobody knows how you could get to barring serious economic collapse on the part of the U.S. This is even after the hydro-fracking boom. Even assuming you kill coal dead, nobody knows how you get to where he's talking about, which of course will be someone else's problem," said Horner. "You sort of want to be on the other side of the negotiating table from people who view things like this as victories. It was hardly that." Horner believes handcuffing the next president is the real motivation here. "What he's seeking to do is bind the next president and the next president's (Environmental Protection Agency), this Congress and the courts to say, 'You know what? You really can't undo my EPA rules. They're now part of something larger. They're embedded in a promise to the world and I'd like the court's to recognize that.' While it sounds crazy, it's called customary international law and there's always a chance," said Horner. Previous attempts to commit the U.S. to reduced carbon were soundly rejected in the 1990s, when the Clinton administration embraced the Kyoto Accords, but the U.S. Senate unanimously approved a non-binding vote warning Clinton and then-Vice President Al Gore that any such deal would be dead on arrival. The Constitution states the Senate must ratify any proposed treaties with a two-thirds majority. Horner says Obama's plan is to declare that this agreement is not a treaty and is not subject to Senate approval. "This is probably the most intriguing and disturbing aspect of this. For more than twenty years, the executive, no matter what party he's from, and the Senate have recognized that this is part of the treaty process. It needs to be part of the treaty process. We have a system and this goes through it. Now that the treaty process makes it clear that they never would ratify such an agreement, the president said, 'This isn't a treaty. Next year won't be a treaty, simply because I'm calling it not a treaty,'" said Horner. "What they're doing is side-stepping the system. He's side-stepped it without legislation to regulate and now he's hoping to get a treaty by calling it not a treaty to avoid a loss in the Senate. It's very problematic," he said. However, just because Obama tries to contend it's not an actual treaty does not mean that's how the Senate has see it. "It's a non-binding sense of the Senate resolution (he can't veto it) in response to a non-binding non-treaty, saying, 'You're freelancing in a legally meaningless way. You're not speaking for the United States and no court or other country should take this as an expression of U.S. intent.' That is the equivalent of the Senate saying, 'No, it is a treaty,'" said Horner. If that were to happen, Horner is convinced the Senate would have much stronger legal ground than the president. "This desire to say, 'Look, we've embedded our rules in promises to the rest of the world' falls apart because the Senate is saying, 'In fact you didn't. You are not speaking on behalf of the United States. The Senate has a role in speaking on behalf of the United States under advise and consent. We're saying you're speaking without our word. You don't want our advice, you certainly don't get our consent,'" said Horner. This strategy does not surprise Horner. Like the president's unilateral approach to immigration policy, he says Obama is acting alone on climate policy despite the clear opposition of the American people. "This was an issue in a lot of campaigns. [Billionaire environmental activist] Tom Steyer organized $85 million, which is almost teachers' union money of $100 million to make climate what they called the winning issue this year. Those candidates all lost. Two survived. No candidate embraced the issue. They were doing this so the candidates wouldn't have to and the voters rejected it," said Horner. |
| Connecting with Heroes |
| Tue, 11 Nov 2014 15:36:36 EST As Americans consider ways to thank and help veterans of all generations, a Navy wife and war reporter suggests simply listening to them and caring about them means more than we can ever know, particularly those recently returning from combat and for their caregivers. Kristin Henderson is also the communications director at the Yellow Ribbon Fund and is one of 40 contributors to "Stories around the Table: Laughter, Wisdom, and Strength in Military Life." She says the book is an important window for non-military families into what life is like for those who serve and for their families and serves as an example of how to relate to those returning from the horrors of war. "Stories are how we connect with each other and it's also how we make sense of our experiences. It's crucial on so many levels. On a personal level, when I tell you a story about what's happened to me, and you listen, that's deeply affirming that what happened to me matters. It also, in the process of telling the story, helps me make sense of the experience. For the listener, you learn. You get to walk a mile in the other person's shoes," said Henderson. Not only does this sort of communication help families and neighbors connect, but on a wide scale helps the general public take an informed view of the national security challenges facing the nation. "That's so important because the military takes its orders from civilians and civilians need to understand the limits and possibilities on the military side. And the military side needs to stay connected to the civilians they serve," said Henderson. The affection of the vast majority of Americans for the nation's veterans and active duty personnel is obvious and a welcome change from the scandalous treatment of veterans returning from Vietnam some 40 years ago. But despite the best of intentions, Henderson says people without a direct connection to the military often have no idea what those families go through. "It's hard for people to imagine, particularly for people on the home front, how that dominates your life when you have a loved one in a war zone. I remember during my husband's first deployment to Iraq, I was visiting my sister and she was living in a completely civilian community, I was outside and ran into a neighbor. The neighbor said, 'Oh, you have a husband in a war zone. Your husband's in Iraq. What's that like?' Talking to her, I began to realize I was the closest thing to the military that she knew. She knew nobody else," said Henderson. She says there are some do's and don'ts when it comes to having meaningful conversations with veterans and their families but the best thing you can do is provide a listening ear. "If you just listen compassionately without judgment you really can't go wrong. One of the big things people often ask returning veterans is, 'Did you shoot anybody? Did you kill anybody?' That's always a no-no. Basically, if you're interested and caring, you'll be alright," said Henderson. Henderson says that approach works in the war theater as well as at home, In 2008, she embedded with U.S. Marines on a remote mountaintop in Afghanistan's Helmand Province. She was struck by how glad the Marines were to see her interest in their story. "We got up to the top and we spent about an hour up there and the Marines up there showed me around. There's just half a dozen up there at a time. As we were leaving, one of the young Marines pulled me aside and said, 'Ma'am, I just want to thank you for coming up here and seeing what we do. Not many people would do that," said Henderson. "When he said that to me, I was so moved and it made it all worthwhile to me as well. That's essentially what you're doing when you listen to other people's stories without judgment and in a way that's caring and in a way that tells them you think what happens to them matters, whatever your political opinions may be," she said. But understanding veterans and their challenges on the home front can also be difficult. Henderson's husband, Frank, is a U.S. Navy chaplain who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. His final assignment was at the combat hospital at Kandahar Air Field. While there, he was tasked with preparing the bodies of Americans killed in combat for their journey home. When he returned to the U.S., it was a rocky couple of years as Henderson says her husband was still "numb" from the experience. She says a neighbor jokingly shouted "boo" to surprise Frank, and his war zone instincts caused an intense reaction. "It's physically painful. The startle reflex comes from being in a war zone. You're always on alert for danger and the brain literally gets locked open in that mode, that ready to fight or fight mode. So a lot of adrenaline gets released when you're startled and it can be extremely painful. We'll, when he had an extreme reaction to someone saying "boo" to him, they thought that was pretty funny and they laughed and laughed and said, 'Good thing you weren't carrying an AK-47.' That's what not to say," she said. As this was going on, Henderson and her husband spent one Fourth of July with service members recovering at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. In an essay for "Stories around the Table" entitled "Alive Day", Henderson explains how they got into a huge fight on the way to the facility but being with others dealing with far more severe issues was deeply therapeutic for them. "When we got there, we were focused on other people instead of ourselves. It was kind of the psychologically wounded helping the psychologically wounded, the blind leading the blind. When you reach our and help that way, when you volunteer with non-profits like the Yellow Ribbon Fund or Operation Homefront, which is benefiting from sales of this book, you help yourself as much as you help the people that you're trying to help," she said. Henderson believes psychological wounds are often far more challenging than obvious physical wounds and makes reaching out to caregivers a critical mission as well "Getting to know these families of the wounded and seeing how many sacrifices they make (leaves a tremendous impact). I mean these moms and wives primarily, they get that call that their loved one's been injured. They drop everything. They rush to the hospital like Walter Reed. They may be there for weeks. They may be there for years if their loved one is gravely injured. They lose their job. They lose a huge amount of benefits and pay for years. They may be caring for children at the same time or they may or they may have to farm their kids out to other family members," said Henderson. "If I hadn't worked there, I wouldn't know those stories. So it's really important to share those stories so that everybody knows," she said. |
| Obamacare Lies Blown Wide Open |
| Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:39:34 EST A new video clearly depicts Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber admitting the law was intentionally vague so the administration could deceive the public on key components and take advantage of the "stupidity of the American voter." The conservative group American Commitment discovered Gruber's comments in YouTube video filmed at an event in October 2013. The comments came less than three weeks into the chaotic open enrollment of the federal healthcare exchange. Nonetheless, Gruber offered an unguarded view of the White House approach to the health care debate in 2009-2010. "This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure that CBO (the Congressional Budget Office) did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scores the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK. So it's written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law that made it explicit that the healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed," said Gruber. While the tactics may infuriate opponents who repeatedly stated the bill would do those things, Gruber's attitude toward winning over enough of the public to get the law approved was even more blunt. "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass," he said. Gruber was unapologetic in taking that deceptive approach. "I'd rather have this law than not," he said. "Yeah, there's things I wish I could change, but I'd rather have this law than not." Galen Institute President Grace-Marie Turner says Gruber not only confirmed many of the conservative Obamacare criticisms but revealed the ugly side of how this administration pursued its signature legislative priority. "This kind of validation from Jonathan Gruber, the architect of this law, is really shocking; that he would admit that the only way they would possibly be able to get this passed was basically to lie to the American people," said Turner, who says those fears have been confirmed by the intensifying disapproval numbers for the law as more details become known. "The more people find out about the law, the more they were realized how they were duped with all of the promises. The thing I think is really telling is that this is the guy who really helped shape and craft this law. For him to say the only way they could get it passed was through trickery is astonishing," said Turner. Turner also believes Gruber's attitude is indicative of the entire administration's approach to health care and other policies. "I really think that it's part of the whole philosophy, the whole philosophy that health care is just too complicated for people to figure out for themselves and all these smart elites need to figure it out for us," she said. Gruber's comments came in response to Wharton School of Business Professor Mark Pauly imploring Washington to be as transparent as possible with the public. "(Gruber's) saying, 'No, no, no. The American people are so stupid we have to do this for them.' It's a basic elitist attitude. 'We know best and the American people are too stupid to know what's right for them.' Now we hear it on tape," said Turner. Turner is confident the incoming Republican congress can make significant dents in the law in order to restore more "balance" to the system. She believes eliminating the employer mandate will be first on the agenda, followed by efforts to repeal the medical device tax and other taxes. |
| The Plan to Thwart Executive Amnesty |
| Thu, 6 Nov 2014 15:58:32 EST President Obama is still planning to issue executive orders on immigration policy that could possibly grant legal status to millions of illegal immigrants, but conservatives in the U.S. Senate are planning to cut off funding to implement the changes if Obama makes good on his vow. At a Wednesday press conference, Obama said he planned to issue his orders before the end of the year and will be acting within his authority. When asked if such action would poison any hopes of a cooperative working relationship with the Republican majorities in the House and Senate over the next two years, Obama said if Congress passes a reform plan that he approves, then the legislation would trump his unilateral actions. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) flatly rejects Obama's plan and his argument. A constitutional attorney in his private career, Lee says it's not difficult to determine whether Obama's actions would pass constitutional muster. "No. Absolutely not. He doesn't have the power to issue green cards to people who are not eligible for green cards under the law. The first clause of the first section of the first article of our Constitution says that all 'legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives,'" said Lee. "Those words aren't just there for decoration. They mean something. The founding fathers put in place a government was one in which the laws made at the federal level will be made by the people's elected representatives. He doesn't have the power to contavene those, not without Congress passing a law to change those laws," said Lee. As a result of Obama's intention to push forward with executive actions on immigration, Lee and five other Senate Republicans sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. They urged Reid to withhold funding for the executive branch in the upcoming continuing resolution if Obama does act and promised to fight for it themselves if Reid did not agree to help the Lee says the power of the purse is the strongest weapon lawmakers have to stop an unconstitutional policy in its tracks. "We think that Congress needs to do everything it possibly can to oppose President Obama's threat to undo existing immigration law by executive order. We believe that Congress needs to use its power of the purse to withhold funds from any effort on the part of the president to issue green cards to people who aren't eligible for them under the law," said Lee. Congress needs to act to keep the government funded past December 11, but Lee's strategy is almost certain to draw accusations that he and his conservative allies are threatening to shut down the federal government in order to get their way on an issue. It's the same charge lodged by Democrats and some Republicans when Lee and Cruz led an effort last year to keep funding for the new health care law out of appropriations for Fiscal Year 2014. Lee calls the suggestion that he is threatening to shut down the government "absolute nonsense." "I don't think it's too much to ask and the American people don't think it's too much to ask to say we're agreeing to fund government. We ought to be able to attach at least a mild restriction that says, 'By the way, we want you to follow the law and not violate the law with the money we're appropriating," said Lee. On Wednesday, incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) strongly urged President Obama not to act on his own with respect to immigration policy, likening such a move to waving a red flag in front of a bull. However, he also vowed no government shutdowns on his watch. "Those two comments aren't necessarily mutually exclusive or in conflict with anything that I'm saying," said Lee. Lee says beyond listening to Republicans in Congress urging him not to act unilaterally, Obama needs to listen to the millions of voters who spoke this week. "He needs to consider what he's doing to the American people, whose voices have just been heard loudly and clearly and who deserve to have their voices make a difference in Washington when they go to the polls," said Lee. The senator believes it is up to Congress to change immigration law. He remains adamant that a one-size-fits-all approach is doomed to failure and that this process must take place one step at a time. "We need to pass one piece of legislation that would strengthen our border and call for the completion of the entry-exit system that Congress has been calling for since 1996. We need another bill that will update and modernize or reform our legal immigration system, bringing our visa programs into the 21st century," said Lee, who believes seeing results on those issues sets the stage for addressing other concerns. "Once those two things are in place, meaning once they're legislated and implemented, I think we'll be in a much better position to figure out how best to deal with the people who are here illegally already in a manner that's compassionate but also respects the rule of law," he said. |
| What Follows the Wave? |
| Wed, 5 Nov 2014 15:57:14 EST Republicans are basking in the glow of a coming Senate majority and electoral gains across the board, but the public's rejection of President Obama is a leading factor that gives the GOP a chance to prove it can lead over the next two years. Frank Donatelli was political director in the Reagan White House. He is now chairman of GOPAC, a Republican organization designed to train and elect Republicans at the state and local levels. Republicans picked up at least seven seats to claim the majority in the coming Congress. They may have nine new seats by the time the new Senate convenes in January. Even more surprising than the gains were the margins of victory in states that were considered too close to call. The GOP's Tom Cotton defeated incumbent Republican Mark Pryor by 16 points in Arkansas, Republican leader Mitch McConnell cruised to a double-digit win over Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky, Cory Gardner enjoyed a comfortable win over incumbent Mark Udall in Colorado and Joni Ernst won by eight points in Iowa. Republicans dodged a runoff in Georgia with a convincing victory by David Perdue. The lone endangered Republican, Pat Roberts of Kansas, ended up winning re-election by ten points. Donatelli says there's only one way to describe the results. "It clearly was a wave because the Republicans did better in virtually every targeted race than the polls said they would do. What that shows is that in the end undecided voters broke for Republicans. That's the classic definition of a wave," he said, noting many factors were at play but one dwarfed the rest. "Republicans had very good candidates, but the theme of this election at the federal level was clearly that the country was not satisfied with the progress of the current administration or that the current administration is making on solving the country's problems and so they tried something else. Something else was the Republicans. I mean it's pretty simple in that regard," said Donatelli. The huge gains were not limited to the Senate campaigns. House Republicans are adding at least 14 more members to their majority with several races considered too close to call. The GOP also dominated the governor's races. Democrats worked feverishly but failed to oust Scott Walker in Wisconsin, Rick Scott in Florida or Rick Snyder in Michigan. Greg Abbott dominated the Texas governor's race over Wendy Davis and the party even scored convincing wins in the deeply Democratic states of Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts. Donatelli says the frustration with the Obama administration even translated to the state races. "To defend in purple states or swing states or, even in some cases, blue states, Republican governors and Republican state legislatures is very impressive. I think it does speak to the scope and breadth of the Republican win last night," he said. The GOP clearly achieved it's congressional goals on Tuesday night, but Donatelli says that's just the first step. "It's an opportunity for Republicans at the federal level. They now have a majority in both houses and it'll be up to them to perform for the next two years and convince the voters that Republicans have better solutions to the country's problems," he said. As McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner navigate the new waters, they face the challenge of satisfying the base of the party who showed up in huge numbers on Tuesday and appealing to middle of the road voters who are needed for a national victory in 2016. "It's a balance. Political parties are coalitions of people with hopefully like-minded interests but have differences and certainly have difference in tactics as to how they want to proceed," said Donatelli. "A lot of this is herding cats. You've got to listen to everyone, hear their concerns and put majorities together." Donatelli believes the balance will be successfully struck as a result of experienced leadership in both the House and Senate. "Republicans are lucky to have Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, two experienced legislators and coalition builders leading those chambers. We're very, very fortunate to have those individuals," said Donatelli. As for the likely GOP agenda, Donatelli says GOP leaders need to decide what they can get done and what they can't over the next two years. "I know that Leader McConnell and Speaker Boehner are very anxious to see what issues they can find common ground on and then try to move them through the legislature. I think a major change of direction is going to have to take a new president and a new election in 2016," he said, but urged Republicans to be aggressive in pursuing what does have a shot at becoming law. "There's certainly no reason why we need to waste these next two years. There is a possibility to find common ground and move forward incrementally to show the public that the federal government can still work," said Donatelli. Donatelli expects a GOP-controlled Congress to pursue free trade deals, tax reform, an energy package including authorization of the Keystone XL Pipeline, retirement security and at least partial repeal of the president's health care law on aspects such as the medical device tax and the employer mandate. "There are a lot of things out there that I see you could possibly put Democratic support together with the Republican majority to see if we can get workable solutions," said Donatelli. |
| Shaheen's Election Day Scandal |
| Tue, 4 Nov 2014 13:14:12 EST With just hours until the polls close in the very tight New Hampshire U.S. Senate race, newly revealed memos indicate incumbent Democrat Jeanne Shaheen was in direct communication with one of President Obama's most trusted IRS officials about increasing the agency's scrutiny of conservative organizations applying for tax-exempt status and the chairwoman of New Hampshire's Republican Party says the news is reverberating across the Granite State. "People are talking about it all over the state, of course. It is shocking to see that our own United States Senator Jeanne Shaheen engaged in this sort of behavior, using a federal agency, the IRS, to target American citizens for their political beliefs," said New Hampshire GOP chairwoman Jennifer Horn. "We haven't seen anything like this, as you know, since the Nixon era. It's shocking and disappointing to all of us in New Hampshire." The memos obtained by The Daily Caller show that Shaheen was in direct contact with IRS Chief Counsel William J. Wilkins, who has previously been labeled "the president's man at the IRS." It appears the contact started in March 2012, when Shaheen wrote to Wilkins on behalf of a small group of Democratic senators, including Chuck Schumer of New York and Al Franken of Minnesota. In the letter, Shaheen aggressively urged Wilkins and others at the IRS to change the standards by which groups self-identifying as "social welfare organizations" would be judged for tax-exempt status. According to The Daily Caller, the senator called for setting limits on political spending for the groups and mandating that a majority of total spending must be on non-political matters. She also wanted the IRS to get much more detailed information about how the groups were financed and place restrictions on how much donations to the organizations could be written off. In April 2012, Shaheen got a response from Wilkins: "We will consider proposed changes in this area as we work with Tax-Exempt and Government Entities and the Treasury Department 19s Office of Tax Policy to identify tax issues that should be addressed," he wrote Horn says Shaheen already had baggage on this issue but this memo proves her involvement even further. "We've been talking about this issue throughout this race. The senator signed the letter. She was one of just a handful of senators who thought it was appropriate to send the letter to the IRS, asking them to target these conservative organizations. So out voters are well aware of it. Obviously this brings it a step further, which is why it is reverberating the way that it is here," said Horn. "What this new memo exposes to us is the level of coordination that appeared to be taking place between the IRS and Sen. Shaheen on these issues. This is something that is very serious and will continue to grow and be a problem long after this election is over. All we can hope is that folks in New Hampshire get out and make sure that when she's investigated for this, it's not as a sitting U.S. senator from New Hampshire," said Horn. However, Chairwoman Horn is also a an issue herself in the final days of the campaign for comments Democrats allege amount to advocating violence. On Sunday, at a rally attended by GOP Senate nominee Scott Brown, gubernatorial nominee Walt Havenstein and congressional candidates Frank Guinta and Marilinda Garcia, Horn implored Republican supporters to make this as big of a wave election as possible and continued to push the metaphor. " 1cThis is our time. We need to crush it. We need to grab it, run with it, push their heads under over and over again until they cannot breathe anymore, until the elections are over on Tuesday night and we 19ve won it all, 1d said Horn on Sunday. New Hampshire Democrats immediately pounced. 1cThis type of inflammatory language tells you everything that you need to know about the status of the New Hampshire Republican Party, 1d New Hampshire Democratic Party Communications Director Julie McClain said in an emailed statement to msnbc. 1cThere 19s no excuse for this kind of violent rhetoric. 1d Horn says she was never advocating violence and Democrats are simply trying to distract voters any way they can. "It was a get out the vote rally with hundreds and hundreds of our best activists. In the larger context, we were talking about a wave and how you make waves happen. There's clearly no intention there and no suggestion for harm to anybody, said Horn. "The likely reason that the Democrats would like to chat about that is, honestly, a desperate attempt on the eve of an election that's just not going the way they hoped it would go." Horn says the GOP ground game is better than ever and she's cautiously optimistic about Brown pulling off the upset of Shaheen tonight. However, she says it's simply too close to call. |
| Schlafly Rips Obama's 'War on Women' |
| Mon, 3 Nov 2014 15:53:28 EST As Democrats make women's issues the center of many statewide races around the country and allege Republicans want to take away their personal freedoms, conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly says President Obama is the one truly guilty of waging a 'war on women' for suggesting mothers who stay at home to raise their kids are making a choice the government does not approve. She also says this attitude from the political left is nothing new, but despite decades of demeaning stay-at-home moms, she says more and more women see the value in leaving the workforce for a time to invest in their kids. Schlafly's comments are latest in the firestorm of criticism following Obama's remarks Friday in Rhode Island. While stumping for the Democratic candidate for governor, Obama lobbied for higher quality day care options at lower prices but clearly left the suggestion that placing kids in day care is preferable to moms or dads staying home to raise them while the other spouse works outside the home. "Sometimes, someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. And that 19s not a choice we want Americans to make," Obama told the crowd. After years of Democrats accusing Republicans of holding women back, Schlafly says it's the Democrats who are once again showing their true, hostile colors to moms. "It's absolutely ridiculous to say that Republicans are waging a war on women. Obama's speech in Rhode Island shows that he's the one starting a war on women," said Schlafly, the founder and president of Eagle Forum best known for leading the grassroots effort to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s and 80s. "Who gave Obama the right to decide what career choice women will be allowed to make. What kind of country do we live in. We assume he's speaking for the administration and the evidence is abundant that he meant exactly what he said. He does not want women to have the choice to take care of their own children or got take a job and put their kids in day care," she said. As infuriating as Obama's comments are to Schlafly, she says he's not saying anything the feminist movement hasn't been pushing for generations. "He wants to deprive women of the choice of taking care of their own children. He's not the first one to say that. That is straight down the line feminist ideology. In fact, it was first said by that big mama of women's lib, Simone de Beauvoir, who taught all the college courses as a founder of feminism. [She] said, 'No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise their children, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one and we don't believe any women should have that choice,'" said Schlafly. Schlafly said the attitude of the feminist movement toward moms who stay at home to raise their kids is one of disgust and disdain. "[De Beauvoir] thinks any woman who stays at home with her kids is a parasite and we've got to get her out in the workforce, so she can pay taxes and the government can take care of her kids," said Schlafly. "The feminists have always wanted to have all kids in day care. They tell women that taking care of small children is belittling and not worthy of the time and talent of an educated woman. [Obama] has completely adopted the feminist line," said Schlafly, asserting that feminists and other liberals are always in favor of growing government and making people dependent upon it and subsidized day care and universal pre-kindergarten are current examples of that. According to Schlafly, feminists are failing in their efforts to convince women that rearing children full-time is a waste of their time. "The number of women who are wanting to stay home, at least when their kids are young, is increasing. The percentage is getting bigger. This must befuddle the feminists quite a bit," she said. In addition, Schlafly asserts that scholars are observing a rise in hypergamy, which is the practice of intentionally marrying someone who makes enough money to provide for the family so one spouse (usually the wife) can stay home with the children. She says other studies prove the long-term value of a parent staying at home to raise and educate their children. "We've spent all this money on public schools. They've been saying for years that the reason for the gap between the high-achieving and the low-achieving kids is poverty. Now, the new information is gap is whether they have a mother and father or not. That's what makes the difference between the high-achieving and the low-achieving kids," said Schlafly. Not surprisingly, Schlafly is hopeful that conservatives will score major victories in elections across the country on Tuesday, particularly in the Republican Party's quest to control the U.S. Senate. She says GOP control is critical for one reason above all the others. "This election is going to decide who controls the Supreme Court. There'll be some upcoming appointments and we don't want Obama to have any more. He's already packed the court as well as he can. We don't want him having any more appointments to the Supreme Court," said Schlafly. |
| Bet on a Republican Senate Majority |
| Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:08:18 EST With just a few days until the midterm elections, one of the most accurate political forecasting groups says the Republicans are poised to win the majority in the U.S. Senate and strengthen their existing majority in the House of Representatives. Sabato's Crystal Ball is the product of University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato and his team at the school's Center for Politics. On Friday, the Crystal Ball headline told readers to bet on a Republican majority in the Senate. Forecasters believe seven to eight seats held by Democrats will fall into GOP hands in the next Congress. According to Crystal Ball Managing Editor Kyle Kondik, there are a trio of factors working against Democrats this year. "It's a combination of the terrain and the president's unpopularity. I guess the third factor is just the very consistent trend in American history that the midterm is generally not good for the president's party," said Kondik. When it comes to Obama's impact on the race, Kondik says there's no question he's an albatross around the necks of Democrats in competitive races. "Midterms are often a backlash against the president's party. This year is no exception, particularly when the president is unpopular as Obama is. You sort of put those two together and the Republicans are poised for a pretty decent night," said Kondik. The map is also a major advantage for Republicans. The huge Democratic wave of 2008 flipped several red state Senate seats into the Democratic column. Kondik says those states appear to be reverting to form this time around. "The Democrats are very much overextended on the Senate map. It was last contested in 2008, which of course was a very good Democratic year. It's pretty natural in American politics for there to be kind of a surge. That was the Democrats in 2008 and then it declined, particularly six years later in the second midterm of a two-term president. Just structurally, the Republicans were set up well," said Kondik, noting seven states defended by Democrats are usually deep red. "Most of those states were deeply Republican states that went for Romney in 2012. It looks like Republicans are going to win most of them eventually. Louisiana, they're probably favored in, but that state is going to a run-off in December. Crystal Ball projects the GOP to score easy wins in open seats in West Virginia, South Dakota and Montana, where Democrats are retiring. It also projects Republican pick-ups in Arkansas, Iowa, Colorado and Alaska. Louisiana and Georgia also lean to the GOP, but no projections are being made since both races are expected to see run-offs since no candidate is expected to claim a majority of the vote. Polls suggest Republicans are narrowly but consistently ahead in Iowa, Colorado and Alaska and Kondik says when one party is badly outperforming the other, the close races have a tendency of turning out the same way. "Generally speaking, if your party's doing poorly nationally, a lot of the seats get wiped away," he said. Kondik says Democrats could still pull out wins in one or more of those states. On the other hand, he says the Crystal Ball is predicting Democratic wins in tight races in North Carolina and New Hampshire but one or both could easily end up won by the Republicans. The sole toss-up to be decided on Tuesday is in traditionally-Republican Kansas, which is also one of the few races where an incumbent Republican is in trouble. Kondik says it could be a huge night for Republicans, but believes they'll ultimately lose some winnable races and take a narrow majority into the new Congress in January. "I don't think the Republicans are going to have as big of a night as is possible. I think the maximum number of seats they could come out with is 55, which is (a pickup of) 10. I don't think they're going to get that. I think it's going to be closer to 51, 52, 53 seats. Obviously, Republicans came in hoping to win the Senate back. A few days out, I think they look in pretty good shape to do that," he said. Very little attention has been paid to the battle for the House of Representatives since virtually all analysts expect the Republicans to keep their majority and probably add to it. Kondik says the vast majority of House districts tilt heavily towards one party or the other. Out of 435 seats, only 22 are deemed competitive. The Crystal Ball expects the GOP to gain nine seats, which would give it 243 seats to the Democrats' 192. "I think that'd be a pretty decent night for Republicans. I think Democrats are worried it could go higher. Republicans, on the other hand, are worried it could go lower," he said. The one area where the Crystal Ball suggests Democrats have a chance to gain seats is in the governor's races but even those gain would be modest. Kondik says the Democrats look better in many of these races for the same reason Republicans are poised for success in the Senate contests. "When we go back six years in the Senate, Democrats have a good year and now they're overextended. Well, you go back four years in the governor's races and of course that was 2010. The Republicans won a lot of new governorships and now they have to defend those governorships," said Kondik. |
| Capitol Steps Midterm Medley |
| Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:59:40 EST With midterm elections looming on Tuesday, Democrats are trying to prevent a good Republican year from turning into a major wave. The Capitol Steps take us inside the apprehension of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Joe Biden as Election Day draws near using music ranging from Les Miserables to the Jackson 5. Our guest is impressionist Mark Eaton. |
| Another Udall in Danger |
| Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:49:40 EST While Colorado Sen. Mark Udall is on the ropes in his bid for re-election, his cousin, New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall, is now trying to fend off the momentum of retired U.S. Marine Corps Col. Allen Weh, who is near or within the margin of error in the latest polls. Just a week ago, Udall led Weh by 16 points. Since then, an Albuquerque Journal survey shows a seven-point race (50-43) while a Vox Populi poll released Monday suggests a 47-43 Udall lead. Weh says another poll has the margin down to two percentage points. Weh says there are good reasons for the eleventh hour momentum. "We've presented a sharp contrast to Tom Udall. It's been done based on his record. I've made no personal attacks on the man and don't intend to and don't have to," said Weh, citing the economy, health care, national security and "other lesser-related issues in New Mexico" as the areas of sharpest difference. "On every one of those, Tom Udall's on the wrong side of the issue. He cast the deciding vote for Obamacare that stripped $716 billion out of Medicare and that's starting to hurt seniors right now as we speak. That was a train wreck. He made it worse," said Weh. On the economy, Weh says the two couldn't be more different because they come at issues like economic growth and job creation from opposite directions. "He's been a career politician. He's never created a job or saved a job in his life. I created a business and I can relate to that and I can relate to helping stimulate our economy and what it needs to have done to do that," he said. However, Weh may be most frustrated with Udall's performance on national security issues. Weh is a retired United States Marine Corps colonel, who was awarded a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, three Purple Hearts and five Air Medals among other honors for his heroism in combat. The 71-year-old Weh served the nation in uniform in Vietnam, the Gulf War, Somalia and the Iraq War. He is appalled by Udall's foreign policy and military records both personally and professionally. "On national security, no contest. He's never served in uniform a day in his life. In fact in 1970, when he graduated from college, he decided to go to England to avoid service in Vietnam. That may not matter to a lot of people, but I'll tell you what. It matters to a whole lot of Vietnam veterans," said Weh. This is the arena Weh sees himself having the greatest and most immediate impact if elected to the Senate. He believes President Obama needs to get congressional authorization for a long-term military campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), but first he says we need a real plan to win. "We don't have a comprehensive strategy. The national command authority, the president, has not woken up to the fact that this is an existential threat to the United States and acted accordingly. He's dealing with it almost in a way to just make it go away," said Weh, who says Udall has been marching in lockstep with Obama. "Unfortunately, my opponent, Tom Udall, votes with him 94 percent of the time and on matters of national security hasn't broken with him. So when the president's failed leadership, or leading from behind at best, Tom Udall's never had the political courage to step up and say, 'Hey Mr. President, you're the commander-in-chief. You've got to do what's right to keep America safe and America's families safe." He hasn't done that," said Weh. The 26-year Marine Corps veteran says his voice is badly needed in the Senate. "That particular part of my life is going to be put to good use. Right now there's only one combat veteran in the United States Senate (Arizona Sen. John McCain). If I'm elected, I'll be one of two or three," said Weh, referring also to Iraq War veteran Tom Cotton who is the GOP nominee in Arkansas. "That's not a whole lot of men who've had that experience," he said. Another national security flash point also happens to be in New Mexico's backyard as the debate over border security and immigration reform continues in both parties. Weh describes the borders as porous and directly blames the president for allowing it to happen. "We've got to secure the border and that's the responsibility of the executive. This executive, this president, this administration does not want to secure the border or else it would have or it could have," said Weh, who sees one decision above all others hindering border security and another instance of Obama and Udall seeing eye to eye on key policy. "When Barack Obama took office, he suspended construction of the remaining fence that had been authorized in 2006, which by the way, when in the House of Representatives, my opponent Tom Udall voted against," said Weh. The colonel says we only need to look to the Middle East to see the impact a fence can make on security. "The fence is necessary in those built-up urban areas, much like the fence has been very effective in Jerusalem to prevent terrorists from coming into Israel," he said. "The border as it is now is essentially porous simply due to the decisions and actions of this administration," said Weh. The Udall campaign is returning fire on a number of issues. Like most Democratic candidates this year, Udall is accusing Weh of waging a war against women. In addition, he is hammering the GOP nominee for suggesting he was fine with a four dollar minimum wage and alleging Weh is hostile to working families. Weh says that line of attack is a clear distortion of the truth. He calls it "gotcha politics" and says he is actually taking an innovative approach to the issue by pushing an increase in the minimum wage for Americans 26 years and older but eliminating it altogether for those younger. "The traditional party line of Republicans is we're opposed to the raise. I said I'm not opposed to raising the minimum wage. It hasn't been raised in 6-7 years. Cost of living has gone up. We ought to raise it. But in exchange for that, I'd want a two-tiered system. We've got a terrible youth unemployment problem in this country. It's particularly bad in New Mexico. Twenty-four percent of Hispanic youths are unemployed. When you have that kind of condition, what you get is a sharp rise in juvenile delinquency and crime," said Weh. "So instead of a kid having a job, if he gets involved in juvenile delinquency in a criminal act he's got a strike against him for life instead of a hand up. In that context, I said, 'So what if he's working at Burger King for four bucks an hour? He's got a job and he's off the streets and out of trouble and he's learning something,'" said Weh, who believes this episode raises even more questions about Udall. "They had a tracker recording me in that group and then they took that little sound bite and they made an ad on it. That's the problem of politics today. I challenged him yesterday in the debate. He brought that up. I said, 'Tom, whay don't you engage in a conversation? Why don't you be constructive in a dialogue to solve the teen unemployment problem. All you care about it gotcha politics,'" said Weh. Weh says New Mexico may be a blue state but it's not a deeply liberal state, stating the Democrats there are blue-collar, gun-owning types who have elected Republicans to the Senate and the governor's mansion in recent years. As for a final message, Weh hopes the people of his state relate to him, his story and his vision. "I'm a normal guy. I came from a middle class background, worked my way up and have enjoyed the American Dream. I want that opportunity for everybody and I'm willing to go to Washington to put common sense to work," he said. |
| Muhammad Ali vs. Pee Wee Herman |
| Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:23:17 EST Middle East expert Dr. Mike Evans is ripping the Obama administration for profanely disparaging Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and for constantly misunderstanding who the real troublemakers are in the region. On Wednesday, an online piece in The Atlantic quoted an unnamed "senior Obama administration official" who labeled Netanyahu as "chickenshit" for only being interested in his own political security rather finding common ground with adversaries in the region. 1cThe bad thing about him is that he won 19t do anything to reach an accommodation with the Palestinians or with the Sunni Arab states," the unnamed official told The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg. "The only thing he 19s interested in is protecting himself from political defeat. He 19s not (Yitzhak) Rabin, he 19s not (Ariel) Sharon, he 19s certainly no (Menachem) Begin. He 19s got no guts. 1d Evans says there is a great deal of frustration with Netanyahu inside the Obama White House and the reasons are pretty simple. "Obama is wanting Netanyahu to surrender leadership to him and he won't do that. Those two have never got along. This goes back further than Obama. It goes back to the Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton days. I know. I was there in Washington," said Evans. "It's a problem because of (Netabyahu's) ideological right leanings. His hero was Ronald Reagan. He's ideologically right to the core and this is the heart of the problem he said," said Evans, who also asserts Obama knows he cannot match Netanyahu intellectually. "Netanyahu is a Muhammad Ali in the ring against a Pee Wee Herman. He's a heavyweight," said Evans. "He's the smartest leader on the planet IQ-wise. His IQ is 185. He's absolutely brilliant, one of the most articulate leaders in history. Obama can't compete with him," he said. In addition to the vastly different political ideologies, Evans says a major frustration for the Obama administration is that Netanyahu simply won't bow to its demands when it comes to the Palestinian question. "He has told them from the beginning, 'I will not accept a Palestinian state that has an army, that has treaties and is armed. I'm not going to define a Palestinian state that way.' He's never changed. That's always been his policy. They know that and they don't like it. (Netanyahu) won't bend," said Evans. According to Evans, the Obama administration is also quietly fuming over Israel's increasingly close relationship with Saudi Arabia as they both try to prevent a nuclear Iran. "The Sauds are not friends of Obama. They're not happy with Obama's policies on Iran. They're not happy with Obama's policies on Syria. And, shockingly, the Sauds are very happy with Netanyahu. So the Sauds have aligned themselves with Netanyahu with plausible deniability. It's happening behind the scenes and it's over Iran," said Evans. The disparaging comments are not the only source of tension between the U.S. and Israel this week. The State Department is catching heat for sending condolences to the family of Mohammad Abu Khdeir, a Palestinian with U.S. citizenship who was killed by Israeli Defense Forces as he allegedly prepared to throw Molotov cocktails at cars on an Israeli highway. Abu Khdeir was buried wearing a green Hamas headband. Nonetheless, State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the U.S. did not view Molotov cocktails as an act of terrorism. Evans is horrified by this mindset, but not surprised. "They don't look at them as terrorists. They didn't look at them as terrorists when they were firing thousands of rockets into Israel. They think that they need education and money. By the way, we've given them a lot of it. (Secretary of State John) Kerry did the biggest fundraiser in my knowledge that's ever happened for the Palestinians and raised billions for Hamas in Gaza. To do what? To reward them," said Evans. "This was completely insane. It's the kind of things that get people killed, appeasement. The more you appease them, the more they think you're afraid of them and the more they take advantage of you," he said. |
| Vote Fraud Fact and Fiction |
| Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:19:33 EST With critical midterm elections just days away, stories have arisen in multiple states suggesting voter fraud may be afoot, but a leading conservative advocate for fair elections says some of these concerns are greatly exaggerated while others are worthy of further scrutiny. In just the past two weeks, Project Veritas released undercover videos of liberal activists tacitly or openly condoning voter fraud on mail-in ballots. Thousands of non-citizens are feared to be on the voting rolls in North Carolina and reports surfaced of voting machines in Cook County, Illinois, registering votes intended for Republicans on the Democratic side. True the Vote is an organization dedicated to ensuring integrity in elections through updated voter rolls, requiring photo identification for voters and other measures designed to guarantee only eligible voters are taking part in our political process. It has been very visible in it's battle with the IRS over unwarranted scrutiny into the group's application for tax-exempt status. Of those three controversies, True the Vote Communications Director Logan Churchwell says the Colorado story is the most alarming. The Project Veritas video shows progressive interest groups encouraging undercover reporters to fish mail-in ballots out of trash cans, fill them out and mail them in. One activist even directed Project Veritas to a predominantly black neighborhood where apartment buildings would have many unused ballots in the trash. "One thing that Project Veritas seems to be very keen at is trying to expose the corruption that could lead to crime. It looks like, yet again, there is that willingness that people are willing to play games in order to tilt the election in their favor. It's important that we continue to show that that kind of corruption is out there, it could occur and to be vigilant against it," said Churchwell. As for the North Carolina story of non-citizens being on the voter rolls, Churchwell says this is a classic example of why state and local officials have a solemn duty to verify that each person on the list is eligible to vote and failing to do that job compromises the system. "This is what happens if you don't stay on top of your data and you're not constantly verifying that. That requires action on the government's level and the citizens holding it to account," he said. However, Churchwell doesn't necessarily see anything sinister in the Tar Heel State. "Yes, there were about 150 or so people that are shown to be non-citizens with no legal status in the United States but got their way onto the voter rolls out of a pool of 10,000. They've got to figure out if there were more of that 10,000 that fit into that same category," said Churchwell, who believes there may be a simple explanation for how those non-citizens got added to the rolls. "In North Carolina, if you're applying for citizenship and you're in the normal pipeline, you can get a driver's license too. What they've got to figure out is of those 10,000 potential illegal aliens on the voter rolls, we have to figure out if some of those people were actually in the pipeline for citizenship and had actually been granted it. So the jury is still very much out on the North Carolina issue," said Churchwell. In Illinois, Cook County has a long reputation for political corruption, but Churchwell says machines registering votes for the wrong candidate or wrong party is not a sign of corruption and is very easily corrected. "You're going to hear many stories about how a machine malfunctioned when someone went to vote. This happens all the time. It probably doesn't get reported as much as it occurs," he said. "All that's required is that you raise your hand and tell the election judge or whatever they're called in your community, 'This machine doesn't seem to be working right.' They can do a very quick recalibration, probably right there on the spot and reassign you to a different booth so you can vote correctly the way you intended to," he said. In short, stories of malfunctioning machines should not trigger conspiracy theories. "A lot of people freak out when they see their votes change on them. Then the mind begins to wander on what all could be causing it. You do not need to panic," he said. |
| U.S. Approaches Energy Independence Despite Obama Policies |
| Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:10:12 EST Those plunging gas prices you see are the result of a stunning oil and natural gas boom in the U.S. that is increasing supply, creating good jobs and making us less dependent upon countries that hate us, and Heritage Foundation Chief Economist Stephen Moore says all of it comes in the face of fierce opposition from the Obama administration. Over the past several weeks, gas prices have plummeted across the country, falling well below three dollars per gallon in some part of the country. Moore says it's the result of an oil and gas bonanza across the U.S. that is leaving OPEC no choice but to slash prices to compete. The irony, however, is that it's an economic windfall the White House wished wasn't happening. "This is the biggest story of the American economy overt the last six years. It dwarfs everything else. The United States of America is becoming energy dominant, something nobody would have predicted six years ago and it's happening under a president who hates this industry," said Moore, who said the explosion in energy production could be much greater if there was an ally in the White House. "Barack Obama hates the fossil fuels industry. He hates coal. He hates oil. He hates gas because he's so tied at the hip with radical environmentalists. So it's astonishing we've been able to produce this much oil and gas with a president who doesn't like the industry. Imagine how much faster this would grow if we had a president who wanted to nurture the industry and make it grow faster," he said. In addition to a number of Environmental Protection Agency regulations aimed at various sectors of the energy industry, the case for Obama as an opponent of this trend has been the stark reduction in permits to explore for energy on federal lands since he took office. The vast majority of the boom, they say, are the result of permits granted for private lands and most of those were approved in the George W. Bush administration. "The president has been trying to take credit for this but I think most people realize he will not build the Keystone Pipeline. He's got an EPA that is trying to regulate and strangulate this industry out of business. He will not allow drilling on federal lands. I think it makes it difficult for him to take credit for this boom," said Moore. An even greater oddity, according to Moore, is that Obama is hostile to the industry, even though it's probably the reason he won a second term as president. "If it weren't for this energy boom, the president never would have been re-elected in the first place. No way, because the economy would have still been in a recession. So it saved his skin. It's technology and oil and gas that are really driving our economy right now. I think even the president understands that," said Moore. Nonetheless, the growth in the energy sector in recent years has been remarkable. Moore says American progress has radically altered the status quo when it comes to the energy markets. "This great country of ours has become one of the dominant oil and gas producers in the world. In just the course of the last five or six years, we've increased oil and gas output by over 60 percent, which is an enormous increase. We have now surpassed Russia as the number one natural gas producer in the world and we're about to surpass Saudi Arabia as the number one oil producer in the world," said Moore Moore calculates the recent plunge in gas prices is the equivalent of an annual $75 billion tax cut for the nation. And he says those prices may very well go even lower. "We've seen a 25 percent decline already, so I wouldn't be surprised if we saw gas prices go as low as maybe $2.50 or $2.60 a gallon, which would be very welcome relief," he said. In addition to cheaper energy costs, Moore says there are several other major benefits for the U.S. At the current pace of growth, he says, the U.S. could reach that elusive goal of energy independence rather soon. "By my calculations, within five or six years, the United States of America could be energy independent. That is we will be exportint oil and natural gas rather than importing it," said Moore. By diminishing and possibly eliminating our dependence upon foreign energy, Moore says our enemies will lose a lot of their leverage on the world stage, from Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons to many other areas. "ISIS is getting five to six million dollars a day from petro dollars, so if we can produce more oil and gas here in the United States, it's a good way to defund the terrorists who are trying to kill us. It's also a good way to put a nail in the coffin of OPEC, which has controlled the price of oil now for 40 years. No longer does it have that pricing power," said Moore. Back at home, he says booming energy production means a lot of good job opportunities for Americans struggling to find work. "These are good-paying jobs. We're talking about welders and drillers and people who are pipe-fitters and truckers and construction workers. We're talking about jobs that are paying $60-$100,000 a year. These are good, blue collar, middle class jobs that we're producing hundreds as we're becoming energy independent," said Moore. "There's nothing not to like about this picture," he said. |
| 'This is Where the Real Story Actually Begins' |
| Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:07:20 EST A federal judge has dismissed two lawsuits filed against the Internal Revenue Service and Lois Lerner by forty conservative organizations that claim they were harassed by the government over applications for tax-exempt status because of their political leanings, but one leader of this legal fight says the battle is really just beginning and it may not even be fought in a courtroom. On Thursday, federal District Judge Reggie Walton, a George W. Bush appointee, dismissed suits suing the IRS for improper intrusion into the sensitive donor information and private communications within the groups. Walton also rejected efforts to collect damages from the IRS for all the legal and accounting fees piled up by the organizations as they tried to comply with the unlawful scrutiny. In the end, Walton concluded there was "no harm done" since the groups ultimately received their tax-exempt status. One of the groups leading the charge against the IRS is True the Vote, an organization dedicated to clean elections through updating voter rolls and tougher voter identification laws. True the Vote Communications Director Logan Churchwell says that logic was new to his group. "It's a fascinating sign of the times when you see that because the judge can reason and he can justify that the ultimate remedy that the court could have offered under the law itself would have been our tax status, which they gave us only after we decided to sue them. A question we'll never know is if we hadn't filed a lawsuit and we just sat there and took it, would we have actually gotten this tax status?" said Churchwell, who says the fate of the tax-exempt application is not the biggest issue in this case. "Anyone that's ever dealt with the IRS or any federal agency knows that the process is worse than the actual outcome. It doesn't matter whether you have a fine or any kind of penalty at the end. It's dealing with the process. It's having to lawyer up, get more accountants, collect all of your receipts, whatever is required of that. That can really cause problems," said Churchwell. "In our case, we had trouble fundraising. We had trouble organizing and gathering volunteers because every time we felt like we were getting something going when it came to our actual mission statement, we were having to go and find more Washington attorneys to help us defend ourselves against the IRS," he said. Churchwell says as aggravating as the process was for True the Vote, it could muster the resources to fight back while others could not. "True the Vote was fortunate. We had enough support. We had the wherewithal to actually bring the fight to the IRS and force our application to be approved. There are dozens if not hundreds of other little tea party groups or any other group that decided, 'Hey, we just want to organize. We want to do so legitimately under the tax code. If we can't afford to fight this battle to use our first amendment rights, we're going to mail it in. We're done,'" Churchwell explained. True the Vote acknowledges Judge Walton's decision but strongly disagrees with the logic behind it given the questionable revelations that have unfolded since the story first came to light a year-and-a-half ago. At that time, the IRS apologized for the targeting, blamed low-level staffers in Cincinnati for the improper actions and vowed it would never happen again. Churchwell says a lot has happened since then to throw cold water on that narrative. "To get from there to where we are today with lost emails and learned to what extent people were targeted and how wide of a scheme this really was, all to find out that you had to have an internal report to force the story into the open. Otherwise it probably never would have seen the light of day and anyone that said otherwise would probably be called a crackpot for even thinking the IRS would do such a thing," said Churchwell. "Today, we learned just how wide of a scandal this turned out to be and every avenue that's been taken to try to seek justice ends in this same place. 'Well, the IRS admitted their wrongdoing. They've said they've changed their ways. Let's just move on,'" he said. For True the Vote, Thursday was not a good day but it's far from the end of this saga. "It's a setback. Based on how we've seen the IRS play out, we've come to expect the unexpected. But we continue to look at all of our options. This isn't where the story ends. You might even say this is where the true story actually begins," he said. But what exactly is beginning? "We're coming to a breaking point in this country, True the Vote believes, where American citizens just aren't going to put up with it anymore. Our founder, Catherine Englebrecht, put out a statement that said if citizens really want to make a difference on this, then we need to stop relying on the inspector generals of the bureaucratic departments of the executive branch and we need to start doing some of their work for them," said Churchwell. "We need to be building a resource where, if you have a problem with a federal bureaucracy or you feel you were being treated unfairly, then citizens need a resource to call upon and have a variety of options available to them. True the Vote's founding leadership is more than happy to help see that kind of movement grow up out of this news and offer any insight that it can," he said. |
| 'This White House Has Got to Stop Lying' |
| Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:59:09 EST New reporting shows the Obama administration released illegal immigrants accused of violent crimes including murder despite various officials repeatedly insisting only those with very minor infractions were set free while they waited for deportation or for their cases to be resolved in court, and Rep. Louie Gohmert says it's time for the president to tell the truth and for Americans to be protected. The congressman is also seething over reports from earlier this week that the administration seems to be ramping up to legalize a massive number of people in the U.S. unlawfully. Obama administration officials ranging from former Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton to former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney assured lawmakers, reporters and the public that the 2,200 illegal immigrants released from detention last year either had no other crimes on their records or were extremely minor. On Thursday, USA Today reported on records it discovered showing illegal immigrants accused of kidnapping, sexual assault, drug trafficking and even homicide "It is the first obligation of the federal government to provide for the common defense, and that's against all enemies foreign and domestic. If everybody in the world loved Americans, we'd be great. If everybody in America loved America, we'd be great. But that's not the case. We owe the American people better and this administration and this White House has got to stop lying," said Gohmert. According to Gohmert, officials in Texas long disputed the official immigration numbers offered by the federal government. He says this latest revelation is more proof that suspicion is well-founded. "We've been reporting for months now, just based on Texas numbers, that the federal immigration numbers were a lie. They were just absolutely a lie. We knew in Texas there were tens of thousands more than [Citizenship and Immigration Services] was admitting. So this really documents that Texas was right all along and that the American public had been lied to," he said, asserting that repeated lies from the government greatly damage the foundation of a country. "Unfortunately, when you have an administration who's been caught in one lie after another, it just destroys the faith that people might have in the government," said Gohmert. While deeply disappointed, Gohmert says he is not at all surprised because the forces tasked with holding the administration accountable refuse to do their jobs. "This is what happens when you have a Congress that protects the president from being questioned about lies, protection from being brought and made accountable for lost lives and lies about those lost lives," said Gohmert. "That's what we've had in (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid. No matter what we've demanded, what we've voted for, what we've passed in the House, Harry Reid has stood in defiance and protected the president. Then we have a Supreme Court that has a majority that really doesn't want to deal with the president when it comes to things he's been dishonest about," he said. However, Gohmert says stories like these also put the burden on the American people to demand better of their government. "I keep bringing up the old age that is eminently true that democracy ensures a people are governed no better than they deserve. So if people in the United States want better government, they have got to get Harry Reid out of the way as majority leader. You do that by going and voting and get Republicans in the Senate, give us more authority, get us people that will elect strong leaders in the House and Senate. Then we can use the Constitution to stop the illegality that's going on in the executive branch," said Gohmert. According to the USA Today story, government officials contend they never intended to allow illegal immigrants charged with violent crimes to walk free. They say much of it happened because of funding issues that were largely out of their control. Gohmert strongly denounces the idea that more money was all that was needed to stop dangerous people from being released. He says it is factually and politically disingenuous. "They have not wanted a lot of money to spend on deporting people because they don't want to deport them. They've got plenty of money to do their job," he said, pointing out how the administration has defied the clear demands of Congress when it comes to spending on immigration enforcement. "Under the Bush administration, there was four billion dollars appropriated for part of the fence (real and virtual) and (former Homeland Security Secretary) Janet Napolitano said, 'You know what, we've decided we don't want to do that. We'll use the money somewhere else,'" said Gohmert, noting again that key allies of Obama stand in the way of true accountability. "They refuse to follow the law. They refuse to spend money where it's dictated. They do what they want and with Harry Reid standing in the way of enforcing the law and Eric Holder providing the president the biggest criminal defense firm in America, he's been able to get away with it. This administration has. It's got to stop," he said. The news on illegal immigrants accused of violent crimes being released from detention follows on the heels of reports earlier in the week, suggesting the president is preparing for a massive extension of work permits to people in the U.S. illegally. Breitbart.com reports that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services are bracing for a "surge scenario" of up to nine million work visas in a year. The total contract could possibly legalize anywhere from four to thirty-four million people in the near future. "I think when we see this kind of request, despite the dishonesty of (White House Press Secretary) Josh Earnest on behalf of the president that obviously this is what they planned to do. They planned to legalize millions of people that are here illegally. They are going to turn this country inside out," said Gohmert, who believes the administration is orchestrating much of what we have seen this year, including the massive influx of illegal immigrants, including many minors across our southern border this past summer. "At the first of this year, this administration sent out for contracts for people who would be able to transport thousands and thousands of people from the Texas border. Low and behold, it turned out that's exactly what happened in the months ahead. The administration said, 'Gee, we didn't really anticipate this.' Yes they did. It was in their initial request," he said. Especially galling to Gohmert is what he sees as the president's unconstitutional attempts to unilaterally change immigration policy because Congress won't give him the legislative changes he wants. "He continues to refuse to do his job (of securing the border) and says, 'Not only am I not going to do my job that's legally required, I'm going to start legislating, which is not my job," he said. If Republicans gain control of the House and Senate and Obama goes through with executive action on immigration, Gohmert says the Congress will hit the administration hard in the wallet. "If he does that, we have got to cut off massive billions and billions of dollars to the White House and the executive branch. That is the power of the purse. When the executive branch is acting illegally, then you quit providing any money whatsoever to allow them to continue their illegality," said Gohmert. |
| 'We'll Change the Direction of the Country' |
| Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:08:03 EST Recent polls suggest former Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land is trailing Democratic Rep. Gary Peters in the state's open U.S. Senate race, but Land says she will close the small gap and win because intrusive government is crippling her state and her opponent is nothing more than a "rubber stamp" for Harry Reid and the Obama agenda. "It's going to go down to Election Day. We always knew that. This is a very close race. This is a close state. We're working hard to talk to the voters, ask for their vote and tell them we'll change the direction of the country," said Land. Land describes Michigan as a purple state, although voters there have elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate only once since 1972. The seat is up for grabs in Michigan since six-term Democrat Carl Levin announced he would not seek re-election this year. Land served as a Republican secretary of state from 2003-2011, while Democrats controlled the governor's office and the state legislature. Peters is a three-term congressman from the Detroit suburbs. If elected, Land says her experience of working with people in both parties would be a benefit to Michigan and to the nation. She says one immediate benefit of her election would be to improve the odds that Republican ideas see the light of day on the Senate floor. "The biggest hindrance to all of this is Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada). He has not allowed over 400 bills to come up from [the House of Representatives] to vote on in the Senate, everything from energy security and the economy to jobs and all of that. We need to change the direction of the Senate, so that we can vote on these bills up or down and send them to the president," said Land. She says electing Peters would result in more of the same in Washington. "Gary Peters would just be another rubber stamp for Sen. Harry Reid. We'd be in the same situation we are today. We need to change the direction of this country. He does not support balancing the budget and cutting and making sure the government works for the people. He's had a history of voting for taxes. He talks about that he supports women but yet he pays women in his office 67 cents on the dollar," said Land, who also accuses Peters of supporting the outsourcing of American jobs through various votes in Congress. According to Land, the Obama presidency has been bad for Michigan for a number of reasons, but she says the state is especially wounded by a flood of environmental regulations. "In our state, we have the manufacturing industry, farming and tourism. Now we've got the [Environmental Protection Agency] putting in new regulations that put the pedal to the metal on greenhouse gases and making utility companies up costs. It's going to increase costs for not only manufacturers but also for individuals with their home utilities," said Land. The GOP nominee also says she is committed to getting the nation's fiscal house in order and says step one in congressional accountability is make members feel the pinch if they don't get their jobs done. "We need to balance the budget. I propose that if we don't pass a budget that's balanced that you don't get paid in the Senate until you do," said Land, who says eight years in statewide elected office prepared her for the task. "As secretary of state, we went through the dark days of Michigan, where Gov. (Jennifer) Granholm and Congressman Peters' (an official in the Granholm administration) policies lost over 800,000 jobs in our state. We said we need to reduce and consolidate every program that we have. So we looked at literally every program, eliminated programs, looked at positions when they came open when people retired or left and went from 2,100 employees down to 1,500 without any layoffs. We reduced our whole operation by over 20 percent and kept out costs down," said Land. When asked where she would start trimming at the federal level, Land believes there is an obvious candidate for cutting a lot of spending. "Obviously, the biggest thing is Obamacare. That is a huge cost and it doesn't work. It's been a disaster and that would be the first place to go," she said. "We need a health care system that works for Michigan and our country, one that's portable and that you can buy with pre-tax dollars, one where the costs are competitive because you can purchase it across state lines and making sure you can keep that doctor-patient relationship," said Land. The Real Clear Politics average of polls suggests Peters leads by nine points, but pollsters are also stunned by the huge number of still-undecided voters less than two weeks before voters go to the polls. Land says the choice of direction for Michigan couldn't be clearer. "Whether it's outsourcing, raising taxes or not balancing the budget, that is not good for Michigan and would not put Michigan first. I'm going to go down there and put Michigan first," said Land. |
| Gay Marriage Forces Coming for Churches Next |
| Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:04:04 EST Idaho State Sen. Steve Vick says one city's efforts to force a Christian wedding chapel to perform same-sex marriages in his state is a blatant violation of the Constitution and he is seriously considering legislation to get the state government out of marriage entirely because he fears churches will be the next target in the aggressive homosexual agenda. Earlier this year, a federal judge ruled Idaho's constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman was unconstitutional. While that decision was placed on hold during the appeals process, officials in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, informed Hitching Post wedding chapel owners Donald and Evelyn Knapp that they would be required to perform same-sex ceremonies or face jail time and fines if the court's decision stood. Last week, the Supreme Court allowed same-sex marriages to go forward in the state. The Knapps have operated the Hitching Post since 1989. They are bible-believing Christians who refuse to participate in ceremonies they believe are clearly condemned in scripture. A legal fight is already underway, but Sen. Vick says he and the local community are outraged by the Coeur d'Alene's treatment of the Knapps and anyone else seeking the free exercise of their faith. "It's very disappointing to me that they would require a Christian business owner to do something that violates their religious convictions, which I believe are protected by the first amendment to the United States Constitution," said Vick. "Most of the reaction that I incurred has been from disappointment to shock that [the city] would do that." Vick has plans to meet with the Knapps later this week to discuss their ordeal. In the meantime, he expects the state legislature to address the issue. Vick admits there is no concrete legislation in place yet but many lawmakers strongly believe the state needs to take action. The senator is personally investigating two approaches, the second of which may come as a major surprise to other conservatives. "One is to try to re-establish the standing of those who have deeply-held religious convictions," said Vick. "Another potential avenue that I'm exploring is just eliminating marriage licenses in Idaho." Vick admits eliminating state sanctioning of marriage would be a big step and he is only beginning to explore that option. Still, he says the response so far is very positive. "I have discussed it with just a few people. I don't have a bill drafted or anything. I have discussed it at some of the town halls I've been at. It actually seems to be fairly well-received. In my opinion, if we're not allowed to determine the standards for a marriage license, then maybe we should just not issue them," said Vick. The senator says these are the kind of things states must consider since the will of the voters are being rejected in the federal courts. "I believe the only way the Supreme Court will hear it is if a different circuit court rules differently. I haven't seen that yet, but if another circuit ruled that a state could keep on their books a constitutional amendment or a statute that says marriage should be between one man and one woman, then I think the Supreme Court would have to hear it. Other than that, I think these rulings will probably stand," said Vick, referring to the high court refusing to hear appeals from multiple states after judges struck down voter-approved constitutional amendments establishing traditional marriage as law. While Vick remains concerned for Christian business owners like the Knapps, he believes efforts to force believers into approving and participating in same-sex weddings are already targeting the church itself. "I believe the next step will be to say that churches themselves cannot discriminate. They cannot discriminate and the church will have to marry same-sex couples and not be allowed to say anything. Clearly they're going after the freedom of the church's speech through the hate speech statutes," said Vick. For Vick, officials in Coeur d'Alene and elsewhere are guilty of assaulting freedoms that are the cornerstone of our nation. "I still believe [they] are requiring someone to violate a long-held and well-established religious conviction. It's not like somebody established a new religious conviction to discriminate. This is a well-established belief that's been held by most of the people in the Christian church for over 2,000 years. So, I don't know that the state should be involved in choosing who's rights to violate," said Vick. |
| Why Klain Can't Be Trusted |
| Mon, 20 Oct 2014 15:31:01 EST President Obama's new Ebola czar was hired for the purpose of "massaging news" for political purposes much more than he was to coordinate the federal response to the disease appearing on American soil and his involvement in the Solyndra mess is proof, according to former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy. "It's not a good sign when they bring somebody in to coordinate an effort whose chief talent is massaging bad news for political purposes. Klain, from all accounts, is a very bright guy and he's probably very good at his job. But I don't know that when what the country's worried about is an Ebola outbreak, his particular skill set is what people were looking for in a coordinator," said McCarthy, a New York Times bestselling author, who recently released "Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama's Impeachment." Since the White House announced Klain as the Ebola response coordinator on Friday, plenty of critics have pointed to Klain's lack of medical experience and his partisan history on matters ranging from the 2000 Florida recount to the Democratic strategy against the Supreme Court nomination of Clarence Thomas in 1991. However, McCarthy believes another illuminating chapter of Klain's time in Washington was his handling of the Solyndra controversy in the early years of the Obama administration. In a piece for National Review Online, McCarthy revisits the story of Solyndra, a solar panel manufacturer based in California and he says there are some eerie similarities between Klain's actions as Solyndra was imploding just before the 2010 midterms and what he is likely to do in response to Ebola coming to the U.S. In October 2010, despite the infusion of $535 million in taxpayer assistance, the company was about to go under. Solyndra officials told the Obama administration it was about to go public about it's financial woes and the need to cut jobs. Klain, serving as chief staff for Vice President Joe Biden, was having none of that just days before the midterm elections. "It was reported to Klain and Valerie Jarrett among others that around October 28 they were letting 20 percent of their workforce go and closing one of their big plants. The next thing you know, the Department of Energy ends up putting a lot of pressure on Solyndra and they delay the announcement until the day after the election," said McCarthy. So what is the parallel to Klain's appointment to lead the Ebola response effort? "I think it's a cautionary tale about what Mr. Klain's real job is here, which is basically to massage news, particularly with a new round of midterm elections on the horizon, to manage when news gets disclosed so it will have the least damaging political impact," said McCarthy. However, the former prosecutor says the whole Solyndra tale reveals far more than that about Klain and the Obama administration as a whole. In 2005, President George W. Bush signed the Energy Policy Act. Among other things, the law allowed the federal government to engage in venture capitalism with taxpayer dollars with the goal of boosting green energy businesses. Solyndra applied for federal assistance then but was denied. "Even though the administration was anxious to get on that bandwagon, it shunned Solyndra. The main reason was it's business model was, as one analyst put it, a complete and total disaster. It was hemorrhaging money. It really didn't have any prospects of becoming viable, much less profitable," said McCarthy. McCarthy says the federal government's attitude toward Solyndra changed drastically in January 2009. "Within a week of Obama taking office, their application was back in business again. One has to conclude that has something to do with the fact that the backer of Solyndra was the family foundation of a major Obama donor," he said, referring to the family foundation of Obama donor George Kaiser. This time, with environmental advocates in power and Klain serving as Biden's chief of staff, Solyndra's application was speedily approved, but it didn't change the financial outlook for the company. "It's business model was such that it couldn't compete with Chinese companies that were able to deliver solar energy with much more efficiency and for much less money. As a result, this company continued to hemorrhage money," said McCarthy. When hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars failed to stabilize Solyndra, the next step was to seek market financing by going public and selling shares of the company. That never happened, however, because a legally-mandated audit revealed a fiscal mess that accounting firm Price Waterhouse Coopers described as a "going concern". Even with that backdrop, the Obama administration continued to publicly highlight Solyndra as a model for robust American economic growth. "[The audit] happened a couple of months before President Obama famously came to Solyndra and touted it as a great company that was going to have these wonderful ramifications throughout the economy," said McCarthy. This is also the time, emails show, that Klain became directly involved in advancing the glowing Solyndra narrative despite the mounting evidence that it was a house of cards. Prior to the speech, presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett saw the financial state of the company and sought counsel from Klain as to whether Obama should still go there. "Basically, Klain said, 'Look, I'm comfortable with it. The president touted ten of these companies. Chances are a couple of them might go belly-up. That's just what you have to do. You have to take these risks.' It seems to me, when you read the email about it, he was sort of cavalier about the fact you could have massive, catastrophic failures of these companies that are flush with taxpayer funds," said McCarthy. But the worst part of the story the taxpayers getting shortchanged upon Solyndra's implosion. The Energy Policy Act mandates that if a company receiving taxpayer funds goes under, the taxpayers (the U.S. Treasury) were to be first in line for reimbursements when a company's assets were sold. "In this instance, what the Obama administration did was to allow that part of the law to be essentially waived. They restructured the deal so that Solyndra backers were able to get priority over the taxpayers," said McCarthy, noting well-connected donors got in line ahead of the public for at least the first $75 million of the reimbursement. That, says McCarthy, is criminal. "They went out of their way and beyond the parameters of what federal law wants done in order to protect the backers from the consequences of their horrific investments," he said. |
| Vitter: 'Pathetic' CDC Director Must Be Fired |
| Fri, 17 Oct 2014 16:24:02 EST Louisiana Sen. David Vitter is ripping President Obama's "political" choice to be the administration's Ebola response coordinator and says Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Thomas Frieden needs to be fired and the U.S. Congress should be reconvened to pass travel restrictions on people linked to the African nations hit hardest by the Ebola outbreak. On Friday, just hours after saying he hadn't decided whether to appoint an "Ebola czar", Obama tapped Ron Klain for the job. In that role, Klain will report to National Security Adviser Susan Rice and Homeland Security Adviser Lisa Monaco. Klain served as chief of staff to former Vice President Al Gore and held the same position from 2009-2011 for Vice President Joe Biden. Klain may be best known for his role with the Gore campaign during the Florida recount following the 2000 presidential election. The choice leaves Vitter confused and unimpressed. "I'm still looking for (his) health care background. Maybe it's there. I'm still looking for that. In terms of a manager, he quite frankly seems more of a political manager than a strong policy manager," said Vitter. Regardless of the appointment of Klain as the response coordinator, Vitter says it is imperative that Obama relieve Frieden from his position as head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). "I think his response to the crisis has been pathetic. I think that was underscored again yesterday with his testimony before the House committee. He didn't have strong, clear answers and he hasn't had strong, clear actions. So he's not the leader we need. President Obama needs to fire him and have a strong, competent leader at the CDC and elsewhere who can lead this effort," said Vitter. According to Vitter, there are three glaring reasons why Frieden has lost credibility and must be dismissed. "Number one, the CDC has not been competent and proactive in terms of helping the hospitals involved with adequate protocols. We now know, after all this happy talk about strict protocols, that they weren't in place anywhere near in time that they had to be," he said. Even worse, says Vitter, was the stunningly bad advice given to Dallas nurse Amber Vinson, who checked in with the CDC before boarding a flight following her work with now-deceased Ebola patient Thomas Eric Duncan. "They made horrible mistakes in other cases, like telling the second person who came down with the disease, who had contact with the patient, that she could go on a flight because her fever was only 99.4 (degrees) instead of 100.6. That's ludicrous. Then she went on a flight and was obviously in contact with dozens or hundreds of people who were distributed all around the country," said Vitter, who also faults Frieden for not doing more to keep the threat out of the U.S. "Dr. Frieden has been very, very weak on travel restrictions. I think he's letting political correctness trump caution and common sense," he said, clearly frustrated by the entire administration's refusal to impose a temporary travel ban on transportation to and from the African nations hit hardest by Ebola. "President Obama has to get real and immediately look at travel restrictions. That was a key element of the successful strategy that isolated and then eradicated the Ebola epidemic in Africa in the 1970s. We need to learn from that positive experience," said Vitter. And the senator is not just talking about flights directly into or out of Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone. "I think we need to think of it in terms of individual travel restrictions, not just flights. You can end direct flights and still have folks in through Europe or elsewhere. So I think we need to talk about travel restrictions into the U.S. and barring certain folks from certain countries," said Vitter, who is strongly urging congressional leaders to call members back to Washington to pass legislation to restrict travel. "I've called for that with Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) today. I think we should be back now. I think we should get back as soon as possible. I think we need to talk about these important things , starting with travel restrictions," he said. Public trust in the federal government was already quite low. Vitters says it may very well plummet further and that would be very understandable given how recent headlines show the government not being up to the job on key issues. "I think it's adding to an already dismal lack of confidence, and I don't blame the public. They see over and over and over again these huge sprawling bureaucracies which have become incompetent or worse, like the IRS and all of their scandals, like the (Veterans Administration) and the CDC and other federal agencies with Ebola," said Vitter. However, a new wrinkle to this debate is conservatives wondering if criticizing the competence of the CDC and other federal agencies is a tacit GOP admission that big government is OK so long as the leaders can do their jobs well. "Though there are fair criticisms of the CDC 19s handling of Ebola, by giving into the temptation to point fingers at Obama, Republicans run the risk of reinforcing the idea that any crisis or perceived crisis can be handled if only there were a better person in charge. And this could cut against many of the arguments that conservatives usually make about the inherent problems with federal bureaucracies," wrote Washington Examiner columnist Philip Klein. Vitter says there are some things the federal government is supposed to lead on and this is one of them. "I do think in a national situation like this , CDC as a federal agency is the right entity to have a big role. Certainly, talk about travel restrictions has to come from the federal government. Individual states can't do it. So I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with how all of this has been decided and executed by the Obama administration," he said. |
| Secret Service Man |
| Fri, 17 Oct 2014 16:14:42 EST There are plenty of issues giving the Obama administration problems these days, from Ebola to ISIS to a rough outlook for the midterm elections. Now there's one more concern: the Secret Service allowing a guy to jump the White House fence and waltz in the front door. The Capitol Steps take us inside the chaos with the an updated version of "Secret Service Man." Steps impressionist Mark Eaton is out guest. |
| Why Warner Must Go |
| Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:14:24 EST Virginia Sen. Mark Warner is not the bipartisan lawmaker he promised to be when running for office in 2008 and his recent actions call his ethics into question along with his voting record, according to Republican U.S. Senate nominee Ed Gillespie. Warner was a very popular governor in the Old Dominion from 2002-2006 and easily won an open Senate seat in 2008. While still the favorite for re-election, Warner's once massive lead is now down to the high single digits according to some recent polls. Gillespie says it's because voters in a swing state like Virginia expected Warner to follow through on his promises to reach out to all sides and Warner has failed that test. As for the Warner record, Gillespie says voters only need to compare the quality of life in the state to what it was six years ago. "Since Mark Warner took office, for every net job created, two Virginians have gone on to food stamps. There are 65,000 more women living in poverty today. And as a result of his deciding vote for Obamacare, 250,000 of us will have our insurance plans canceled this year. We can do better. This is the result of bad policies and my policies would turn things around," said Gillespie. Another challenge for Gillespie and other Republicans in recent years is a heavier Democratic presence in the electorate, especially in the fast-growing Washington, D.C., suburbs and in the Hampton Roads area in the southeast part of the state. After years of GOP domination in Virginia at the presidential level, President Obama carried the commonwealth twice and last year voters selected former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe as governor. Gillespie believes Virginia is still a swing state and believes it will swing to the right this year. "That pendulum is swinging back and I see more intensity and enthusiasm among Republicans and independent voters are very frustrated with the direction of the country right now and so are soft Democrats. I believe we're going to get a lot of soft Democrats to vote for me on November 4 as well as a big turnout among Republicans and a majority of independents," said Gillespie. One issue that could change the dynamics of the race is the growing controversy involving Warner's efforts to persuade a state senator from resigning. Democrat Phil Puckett decided to resign so that his daughter would be eligible for a more prestigious judicial appointment in the state that was not available while he was in office to due to anti-nepotism laws in Virginia. With the state senate evenly split and Puckett's vote potentially critical in McAuliffe's efforts to expand Medicaid, McAuliffe's chief of staff, Paul Reagan, told Puckett he could have anything he wanted. Warner spoke with Puckett's son and admits "brainstorming" about ways to keep Puckett in office, including the possibility of a presidential appointment for Puckett's daughter to the federal bench. Puckett ultimately resigned anyway, but Gillespie says Warner's actions are deeply troubling. "For Mark Warner to get in the middle of that about maybe we can get your daughter a job with a federal contractor or maybe a an appointment to the federal bench (is) very deeply troubling. We know the impact that federal judges have in our lives and in our system," he said. "There are a lot more answers that remain to be answered and Virginians deserve an answer to these questions before November 4 from Mark Warner," said Gillespie. As for Gillespie's agenda, repealing and replacing Obamacare is right at the top of his list. "We all have concerns about Obamacare. I think it was a huge mistake. I said so at the time. I said it would kill jobs, raise our health care costs and hurt our quality of care. I was right about all those things, but I want to replace it with patient-centered, market-oriented reforms that will work," he said. Gillespie recently released five key principles that should guide health care reform. He advocates tax break for employers and refundable tax credits for individuals to make coverage more affordable. He believes there should continue to be assurance for people with pre-existing conditions that they can get covered, and he calls for shopping for health care insurance across state lines to drive up competition and bring costs down. "I believe Virginians deserve a choice. I have said from the beginning I'm going to run on these five things. These are the things I will do as our next senator. If I don't do them, hold me accountable. In the same way, I'm saying Mark Warner should be held accountable for not doing the things he said he would do," said Gillespie. When it comes to jump-starting the economy and restoring fiscal sanity to Washington, Gillespie is pushing a three-pronged approach. He says sparking economic growth would increase revenue and reduce the number of Americans dependent upon government assistance. He would also push hard for entitlement reform and start cutting away at the federal budget. "Every federal program needs to be subject to scrutiny. We need to eliminate some, phase some out, pare some back and of course there's a lot of wasteful spending that needs to be cut. An inspector general's report found there was six billion dollars in unaccounted for, wasteful spending, nobody can even tell you where it went, at the State Department alone last year. So there's a lot of things we can do," he said. Gillespie also addressed two divisive issues within the GOP, immigration and the definition of marriage. On immigration, Gillespie says Obama, like many other issues, has his approach all wrong. "One of the things that's wrong with the Obama-Warner policies is that the federal government's doing too many things better left to state and local governments and the private sector and failing at too many things the federal government ought to be doing well," said Gillespie. He says securing the border should be achieved before pursuing any other reforms. Gillespie favors finishing construction of the border fence, which he point out Warner voted against. He also advocates much tougher enforcement of expired visas. However, he says when those things are accomplished he does support issuing new visas to illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. provided they pass criminal background checks, pay back taxes and prove they can support themselves and their families. On marriage, Gillespie says he favors a federalist approach. "I believe states are the proper purview for those decisions. But my view has not changed. I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, but I do not support a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution," he said. |
| Obama Stall Doesn't Hide Soaring Health Costs |
| Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:19:10 EST President Obama's attempt to hide the cost of healthcare in the coming year until after the midterm elections will not obscure the financial strain already impacting millions of families and Obamacare could end up being a decisive issue in the fight to control the next U.S. Congress, according to health care policy expert Grace-Marie Turner. In the wake of last year's disastrous Obamacare roll-out in the weeks leading up to the November elections, the administration quietly postponed the start of enrollment for 2015 until November 15, nearly two weeks after midterm elections that will determine the majority in the U.S. Senate next year. "It really is quite cynical to have started the re-enrollment date on November 15, when last year they started it on October 1. They don't want people to be enrolling and seeing their higher premiums before they head to the polls," said Turner. Despite the administration's efforts to keep health care costs off the political radar screen, Turner says the truth is already getting out. "We've already seen premium increases in many states and, unfortunately, many of the swing states. You're seeing double digit premium increases," said Turner. "In some places, you're even seeing 10-20 percent rate hikes. Some other states you're seeing them level off, but remember this is on a base of an average increase of 41 percent in the individual market last year." Premium increases may be a big headache for millions of people in the coming weeks, but Turner says the problems run a lot deeper than that, starting with a huge number of Americans likely to lose their current plans once again. "Those people who renewed one more year because their plans were grandfathered, that expires in most cases at the end of this year. What that means is people are going to start getting cancellation letters. Some of them have already started getting them now. Most of them have to be in the mail by 60 days before the policy cancels, which is right about the time of the elections," said Turner. She says other people will be without coverage because their employers simply won't be able to afford it. "Workers are being cut back on their hours so that employers don't have to pay the fine for not providing health insurance. We saw WalMart recently saying they're going to drop health insurance entirely for its part-time workers who work fewer than 30 hours a week. So they can go to the exchanges. Well, it's going to cost them more with higher deductibles. It's going to be worse coverage," said Turner. For those finding themselves on new plans or just paying more for the old ones, Turner says the cost increases don't stop there. "Many people are finding that their average deductible, the amount of money that they have to spend out-of-pocket, before insurance even triggers in, is now in the Obama exchanges about $5,000 a year. So people are seeing higher deductibles, higher co-payment, higher costs, fewer doctors. And they are not happy," said Turner. Obamacare is not getting much attention in the national media as the midterms loom less than three weeks away, but Turner says that obscures how big of an issue this still is for millions of voters. She says national and international crises may be dominating the headlines but voters aren't forgetting how much they have to pay for health insurance under this new law. "Yes, it is an issue in the elections, in the congressional elections and the senatorial elections. I think that we may find that it actually becomes a deciding vote of whether somebody says, 'Oh, it's really fine. I voted for it,' or whether their opponent is saying, 'I'm going to go back to Washington and we're going to take care of this because we realize how much harm this law is doing,'" said Turner. There is some debate among Republican candidates around the country as to whether full repeal is the way to go if the GOP takes control of the U.S. Senate or whether a piecemeal approach is best. Turner says the latter is a more shrewd approach. "They're going to tackle specific issues. I think you'll very likely see a repeal of the medical device tax. You'll see perhaps a relaxation and extension or even repeal of the mandate on employers and on individuals," she said, explaining that going bit by bit at least has some chance of succeeding while Obama is in office. "The president's not going to sign anything anyway for the next two years to repeal the whole law. but if you get enough Democrats supporting repeal of specific provisions, he may be forced to sign them as part of bigger legislation or you could get such big margins that you have a veto-proof majority," said Turner. She says GOP control of Congress would give the party an excellent chance to explain and prove to the American people how they would pursue market-based reforms when and if a Republican is elected president in 2016. |
| Schlafly Excoriates Obama over Ebola |
| Tue, 14 Oct 2014 13:57:51 EST Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly is unloading on President Obama for what she sees as a "dereliction of duty" in failing to protect Americans from the threat of the Ebola virus, going so far as to blame him for the Texas nurse now battling the disease and saying this is the worst moment of his presidency. Schalfly is the president of Eagle Forum and spearheaded the fight to to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s and 1980s. She is also a syndicated columnist. Her latest book is "Who Killed the American Family?" Over the weekend, 26-year-old nurse Nina Pham was diagnosed with Ebola after tending to now-deceased Ebola patient Thomas Duncan, despite wearing protective gear. President Obama is under increasing pressure to ban flights to and from west Africa until the crisis is under control, but the president and other officials are resisting those demands. Schlafly thinks she knows why. "Obama wants to be a citizen of the world and he acts like he wants to be nicer to every other country than to the United States. He doesn't want to do anything that acts unilaterally for the United States. I think it's just an outrage. I think of all the things he's done, this is the worst," said Schlafly, who elaborated on what she sees as the ramifications of Obama famously declaring himself a "citizen of the world " in 2008. "For example, he denies that the United States is an exceptional country, and we are exceptional. We've built the greatest prosperity and the greatest freedom in the history of the world. That's why everybody wants to come here. That's so obvious," she said. "[Obama] wants all these UN treaties, these bureaucratic busybodies to direct our life. Everything he's doing is for the globalist concern. It's not for America," said Schlafly. Schlafly has long argued that our immigration policies are inviting economic ruin and national security risks into the U.S. Now she says the threat of disease from Ebola, enterovirus and tuberculosis should make border security an even more obvious priority. "I think it does add severely to our problem. The American people are really outraged about Obama letting these people into our country. He doesn't have to let them in," said Schlafly, saying the Ebola problem on American soil is one of our own creation. "Years ago, we set up Ellis Island off of New York City so that people who wanted to get into our country could be retained there until we found out they were disease-free and able to support themselves and otherwise OK to come in. Now they just let them all in and say, 'Well, that's out problem,' But it wasn't our problem until Obama made it our problem," said Schlafly. For Schlafly, the initial U.S. approach should be fairly obvious. "I think the best and simplest and fastest way is to say we will not accept anybody who's coming from those countries in west Africa that are so badly infected. We just don't let them get off the plane," she said. Political momentum for "comprehensive immigration reform" stalled considerably after a wave of unaccompanied minors flooded America's southern border this past summer. Schlafly believes the additional concern over diseases coming from Africa and Central America should be the end of any questions over border security, but she isn't sure that's the case. "Well, I hope so, but the scuttlebutt was (Obama) was just going to postpone it until after the election and then do it by executive order. Of course, the Constitution gives immigration power to the Congress. It doesn't give it to the president," said Schlafly. Republicans were largely split over the Senate version of immigration reform for the bulk of the current Congress. Just prior to the summer recess, however, House Republicans passed what many consider to be tough border control legislation that was ignored in the Senate. GOP leaders and many immigration activists contend the party got the message after the summer border crisis and is no longer interested in the comprehensive approach. Schlafly isn't so sure. "The Republicans are still floundering around, not sure what they want to do. We took a survey of all the polls that these candidates seem to believe in. They show it's really suicide for the Republican Party if we don't close down our borders and don't stop any talk of amnesty," said Schlafly. She says any way you look at it, granting legal status to illegal immigrants and failing to really secure our borders is inviting disaster. "Amnesty would not only kill the Republican Party, it would damage our country immensely. We bring in all these people who want to take jobs away from our native Americans. Now, of course, we know it's bringing in disease too," said Schlafly. |
| 'It's Not an Air Campaign' |
| Mon, 13 Oct 2014 15:37:26 EST Retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney says the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) continues to advance on Kobani and Baghdad because there is no meaningful air campaign being conducted by the United States and the terrorist army will only gobble up more territory if that policy doesn't change. McInerney is also accusing Turkey of duplicitous actions that help ISIS wipe out the Kurdish population, leave Turkey guilty of genocide and should cause NATO to reconsider Turkish membership. Reports in recent days show ISIS advancing and even controlling parts of Kobani, a populous city on the Syria-Turkey border. Similar progress is seen by ISIS outside Baghdad. After approximately two months of U.S.-led air strikes, the enemy is still moving forward. Gen. McInerney says there's a very good reason for that. "It's not an air campaign. People have got to understand these are hitting just three targets a day, mayne up to five. We just are not using air power. Now if we were doing 200, 500 or 1,000 like an air campaign is, then you would see significant results. This is not an air campaign. The Pentagon hasn't even given it a name," said McInerney. What's less clear to the general is why there's such a limited number of bombings. "I think it has all to do with politics. I don't know exactly why except maybe the Democratic base does not want to see an aggressive air campaign. It bewilders me, because I think it would help the president and the Democrats politically if they looked decisive," he said. Kobani has been in the news the past several days. As ISIS forces closed in and began controlling parts of the city, the Obama administration stressed the strategic insignificance of the city. McInerney strongly disagrees. "I think it's very significant and somewhat surprised why the administration would say that (because of) its strategic location with Turkey, its strategic location with Syria and controlling that area. If they take Kobani, they take that whole sector and you've got from Mosul all the way up to Kobani that has become part of ISIS. That is a very significant swath of territory," said McInerney. While the ISIS offensive plays out near its border, Turkey's actions in recent weeks often seem contradictory. Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan's actions range from calling on the United States to commit ground forces to the fight in Syria to reports his government is giving logistical aide to ISIS as it clashed with Kurdish forces. McInerney believes Turkey is playing both sides. "The Turks are playing a very dangerous game in a very duplicitous role. They want to see the Kurds destroyed. They do not want to see the Kurds in Syria, Turkey and Iraq come together and have a Kurdistan. So they are really participating in genocide of the Syrian Kurds in Kobani," said McInerney. "Unfortunately, it appears that U.S. officials are somewhat in agreement with them. That's one of the reasons I think they have such a paltry air campaign," he said. According to British newspapers Independent and Daily Mail, over 200,000 Kobani residents have already fled into Turkey. For those that remained, the results have been ghastly. The Daily Mail quoted Amin Fajar, a 38-year-old Kobani resident, who recently fled the city and related the atrocities committed by ISIS. "I have seen tens, maybe hundreds, of bodies with their heads cut off. Others with just their hands or legs missing. I have seen faces with their eyes or tongues cut out - I can never forget it for as long as I live," Fajar was quoted as saying. The Independent relayed the story of Belal Shahin, who also escaped from the ISIS advance through Kobani and shared his story with MSNBC. He says the horrors are many and the world seems determined not to notice them. "ISIS came into the villages. They beheaded people as well as animals. They took animals and girls; they left nothing. Even animals don;t do what ISIS are doing They are doing these things and it's not acceptable," said Shahin to MSNBC. "But the whole world has blocked their ears in order not to hear. And they've become dumb. There's nothing to stop them," he said. The latest confusion out of Turkey unfolded on Monday, when National Security Adviser Susan Rice said Turkey had granted permission for the U.S. to carry out strikes against ISIS from Incirlik Air Base in Turkey. However, Turkish officials later said no deal was done and that negotiations were merely ongoing. McInerney believes the world needs to pay attention and loudly condemn Turkish collaboration with ISIS and that the country need to pay a severe diplomatic price. "We should call out to the world what Turkey is doing and how Turkey is participating in genocide. They are no longer, in my opinion, a credible NATO partner," said McInerney, who then elaborated on how Turkey could be removed from the alliance and why it would be deserved. "I think you've got to warn them and you start taking votes if they don't change their attitude and what they're doing. They've got all those tanked lined up overlooking Kobani from a hill in Turkey. They could easily, easily defeat ISIS forces there and yet they haven't lifted one finger to try to help them. They haven't even let the Kurds move munitions through Turkey into Kobani to help support Kobani," said McInerney. However, the general says the most immediate issue is the status of the air campaign. He says the ISIS march will continue without a much more concerted effort from the U.S. and our allies. "We do not need ground forces on the ground. This is a Muslim problem. Let them provide the ground forces. We will provide the air forces. If we don;t do something and we aren't decisive, if we don't put the right amount of precision air power in there 24/7, then ISIS is going to win in that area," said McInerney, who says the consequences of that would be disastrous. "That has some very negative long-term implications against the United States. We do not want them to get that oil wealth in that part of the world. That could be very deleterious to the whole stability in the Middle East. But we've also got to get the Arabs, the Iraqis, the Saudis, the Kurds, the Jordanians to be stepping up and to take them out," he said. |
| Obama Concessions Fuel Iranian Nuclear Dream |
| Fri, 10 Oct 2014 16:28:16 EST Thanks to a preoccupation with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and a string of diplomatic concessions from the Obama administration, Iran is closer than ever to producing nuclear weapons and the United States and our allies have little leverage remaining to demand it change course. That's assessment of former Clinton administration official Lawrence J. Haas, who served as spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget and as communications director for then-Vice President Al Gore. He is now a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council. For the October 7 edition of U.S. News & World Report, Haas authored a column entitled "Giving Iran the Store." In a subsequent interview, Haas says there are many foreign policy headaches for the Obama administration in the Middle East and beyond, but he says actions over the past six years, and especially the past several months, suggest preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is far too low on the White House list of international priorities. "The prospect of a radical regime in Tehran with nuclear weapons remains the number one nightmare scenario for the United States, not just in the region but perhaps around the world. We are not giving it nearly enough attention as we were two years ago or four years ago and certainly not nearly as much as we should be today," said Haas. "We should not be distracted. This remains a top priority and we're not giving it the attention it deserves," he said. Haas says the Obama administration is responsible in many ways for placing the U.S. in a weaker and weaker position with respect to Iran. Both the Bush and Obama administrations had policies of adamant opposition to any uranium enrichment by the Iranians, but Obama eventually abandoned that in favor of a plan to allow enrichment while keeping close tabs on how was enriched and at what levels. He says the weakness is prompted in part for the desire to proclaim some good news from the Middle East. "[Obama] and Secretary of State John Kerry have become ever more desperate for a victory out of that region. The victory they would really like these days is a negotiated agreement with Iran over its nuclear program. That has led to some of the very bizarre and awkward negotiating tactics that they've been using of late," said Haas. According to Haas, after giving ground on the enrichment question, the Obama administration concessions only snowballed from there. "In the course of recent months, the amount we would allow them to enrich has gotten ever larger. The more that Iran has enriched fuel at a certain level, the faster it can convert that fuel to uranium that can be used in a nuclear weapon," said Haas. "The more centrifuges we allow to be in place, the more we allow them to enrich at higher quantities, the closer they can be to a nuclear weapon on their own timetable and that's very dangerous," he said. The real head-scratcher for Haas is why this parade of concessions happened when the U.S. had the stronger hand just a year ago as a result of effective U.S. an international sanctions. "The Iranian economy was really flat on its back. I would argue that had we squeezed a little bit harder that economy could have been close to collapse," said Haas. "Had the economy collapsed there could very well have been an uprising, a revolt to overturn that regime. I'm not predicting it definitely would have happened but at least it was an open possibility. So we had tremendous leverage a year ago." But at the moment Iran was feeling the economic pinch, Haas says the U.S. inexplicably let it off the hook. "Through some of the economic relief we've given them, their economy has rebounded to a tremendous extent. While the sanctions that are still in place are still hurting them to some extent, they're no longer in dire straits. Their economy is growing again. Their inflation is way down. Their currency is way up. Their stock market is way up," said Haas. "So as their economy continues to improve, we have less and less leverage," he said. "Frankly, what is it that we're hanging over their heads anymore. With an improving economy, we're not really in a position to say to them, 'OK, you desperately need us to ease up on the sanctions.' They not longer desperately need us to ease up on the sanctions," said Haas. Haas says it will be tough, but there are ways to put the heat back on. He suggests the U.S. allow the temporary agreement to expire in November and then reapply the crippling sanctions to get diplomatic momentum headed in the right direction again. But he doesn't expect Obama to do anything like that. "I don't think this administration will be willing to do that but I think that if we ever want to regain the leverage that we once had, we to once again pursue a very stringent sanctions policy, backed up by the legitimate threat of force against their nuclear sites. Otherwise, they have nothing to fear from us, and they're not going to cut a deal and eventually Iran will have nuclear weapons," said Haas. Haas, a longtime Democrat, says Obama entered the presidency with the wrong attitude towards the Middle East. "President Obama came to office clearly believing that a reduced U.S. footprint in the region and elsewhere around the world would lead to a more collaborative, more collegial, more peaceful world. Clearly, just the opposite has been true," said Haas. "What he has learned is that when America does not lead, the world becomes a messier, more dangerous place. Now the chickens are coming home to roost and we're dealing with a lot of stuff in the region that's very messy. It is not entirely his fault, but it is partly his fault that that region has become messier," he said. |
| Stuck in The Middle East Too |
| Fri, 10 Oct 2014 16:19:59 EST President Obama wanted nothing more than to leave Iraq and never look back, but the rise of ISIS is dramatically changing those plans. This week, the Capitol Steps eavesdrop on President Obama bringing in George W. Bush for advice on the crisis. Our guest is Capitol Steps Co-Founder Elaina Newport. |
| Midterms Ripe for Voter Fraud |
| Thu, 9 Oct 2014 14:08:15 EST With critical midterm elections less than four weeks away, the failure to scrutinize voter registrations and clean up voter rolls leaves our system vulnerable to voter fraud, and a Justice Department whistleblower says the Obama administration is actively trying to stop states from bringing records up to date and ensure only eligible voters are casting ballots. J. Christian Adams further asserts that voter fraud does occur and is indirectly responsible for the passage of Obamacare. Adams is author of "Crimes Against the Republic: How the Democratic Party's Voter Fraud is Fundamentally Transforming America." He left the Justice Department early in the Obama administration and has regularly spoken out about what he considers to be partisan actions by Attorney General Eric Holder on voting and other civil rights issues. Two flash points he frequently mentions are the DOJ's decision not to prosecute the New Black Panther Party on voter intimidation charges in 2008 and the battle between Holder and several states over requiring photo identification to be presented before being allowed to vote. However, Adams says there's a much bigger problem than either of those matters. "We have millions of people on the voter rolls who are not eligible to vote, millions of people who are not actually valid registrations. Absolutely nothing is being done about that from the government's perspective. Only private organizations have done anything about it. Eric Holder, of course, is the attorney general who could do something about it but does not," said Adams. According to Adams, there are all sorts of people influencing our elections who have no business casting a ballot. "There are dead people. There are foreigners. There are non-citizens. There are people who are duplicate registrations. They registered in more than one state. Sometimes they even vote in more than one state," said Adams, noting the case of Wendy Rosen, who ran for Congress in Maryland and voted in her own primary there and in Florida. So why aren't the rolls cleaned up? Adams says in many jurisdictions, there's literally no scrutiny of voter registration forms. "They just get put on the rolls. They aren't verified. When states like Florida tried to do the citizenship verification, or states like Georgia, all these groups, including Eric Holder sprung up to sue them to try to stop them from checking to see if they were really citizens. So the states that do try to check for verification, frequently find themselves on the bad end of a lawsuit," said Adams. "This is something the Justice Department seems perfectly comfortable with. The status quo is something the department is totally comfortable with. Why that is is not something I have an answer to," he said. While Adams says Democrats are especially resistant to cleaning up the voting rolls, Republicans bear their share of guilt as well. "Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller actually defended this. He was sued by Judicial Watch and True the Vote for having dirty voter rolls. The state was sued and he put up a vigorous defense and fought back. So in many places, Republicans are part of the problem," he said. What cannot be quantified, however, is just how widespread the problem is and how many fraudulent votes are cast. "We don't know how prevalent it is but we know it does happen. That's the big point. Do people cast ballots, who are not entitled to cast ballots? The answer to that question is unequivocally yes. The answer to that problem is to get the voting rolls cleaned up," said Adams. But Adams stresses that a small number of fraudulent votes can make a big difference in key elections and is indirectly responsible for President Obama's biggest legislative achievement. "Al Franken (D-Minnesota) is in the United States Senate because of voter fraud. He won that contest by 312 votes, but there was 1,099 illegal votes cast by felons. Every single felon who was contacted by the Minnesota media said that he voted for Al Franken," said Adams. "So we have a senator in the U.S. Senate because of voter fraud, and guess what? That senator was the sixtieth vote for Obamacare. So we actually have Obamacare because of voter fraud," he said. Adams would also like to scrap election day registration. He believes it provides a massive opportunity for fraud and was a critical factor in Franken's capturing of a Senate seat. "That's how Al Franken won the election, because all of these felons showed up to vote. They registered to vote but they weren't eligible to. So election day registration makes it hard to police the validity of who's casting ballots," said Adams. Democrats may be leading the charge against update voting rolls, but Adams had a surprising answer when asked about the how much this effort is coordinated among Democrats. "Not at all. It doesn't need to be coordinated. This is not some sort of centralized, coordinated effort. This is just simply laziness, atrophy and refusal to do your job," he said. Adams says many things need to happen to bolster the integrity of our elections, but competent state election officials are a critical first step. "Awareness is the first step, knowing where the problems are, having elected officials like Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler (and) Brian Kemp in Georgia and Tom Schedler in Louisiana. Having secretaries of state who know what the problem is and being willing to fix it are step one," he said. |
| GOP Labeled 'Cowards' on Marriage |
| Wed, 8 Oct 2014 12:23:28 EST The vast majority of Republicans are "cowards" for disappearing in the marriage debate as soon as the polls started showing more support for the legalization of same-sex marriage and a leading traditional marriage defender says it is "ridiculous" and "stupid" for many in the GOP to declare the debate over following the Supreme Court's actions this week. On Monday, the Supreme Court stated it would not hear appeals from traditional marriage defenders in five states, meaning same-sex marriages could immediately begin in those states and set the stage for legalization in several others. A decade ago, Republicans across the nation were very vocal in defense of traditional marriage and championed state constitutional amendments across the country. Led by President George W. Bush, the GOP even promoted the Federal Marriage Amendment to protect states against what Republicans considered activist judges. Many political observers credit the marriage issue for saving Bush's 2004 re-election bid Voters in California voted for traditional marriage as late as 2008, but public opinion began to shift around that time and a plurality of Americans now claim to be supporters of same-sex marriage. Vocal GOP defense of traditional marriage has waned over that same time. Only two U.S. senators spoke out following Monday's announcement, with both Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) saying the courts had effectively usurped the will of the people in many states. Cruz is also planning to introduce a constitutional amendment allowing states to define marriage for themselves. Besides Lee and Cruz, the only pro-traditional marriage Republicans to speak out were Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and GOP governors Bobby Jindal (R-Louisiana) and Mary Fallin (R-Oklahoma). Virtually all other Republicans are remaining silent or even distancing themselves from the issue. Ed Gillespie was chairman of the Republican National Committee in 2004 and heartily endorsed the marriage amendment at the time. Now running for the U.S. Senate in Virginia, one of the states impacted by Monday's decision, Gillespie was asked about the issue in a debate held in the wake of the Supreme Court's news. "When I was chairman of the Republican National Committee, the platform called for a federal marriage amendment," said Gillespie, according to a Politico report on the debate. "As chairman of the RNC, I stood for the platform. but I'm talking now about my policies...[and] while I believe marriage is between one man and one woman, I don't believe that it's the role of the United States Senate to enact a federal marriage amendment," he said. While Gillespie says he doesn't agree with how the courts have dealt with the issue, he suggested the debate is settled in Virginia. "The court has ruled on this," Gillespie said in the Politico report. "It is the law in Virginia today, and as I believe that a federal law is the proper approach, then of course I accept the decision of the Supreme Court not to take up this decision of the circuit court." Others on the right also see the court's actions as the final salvo in this cultural battle and believe it's time for conservatives to move along. On Monday's edition of "Special Report" on the Fox News Channel, anchor Bret Baier asked, '"Is this it?" Commentator and former anchor Brit Hume thinks it is. "I think this it it, Bret," said Hume. "I think that while the Supreme Court didn't really take up the issue today, leaving intact these rulings against the bans, and given the public opinion where it stands, there's just no political momentum really on the other side of the issue." Hume said he sees no way for traditional marriage supporters to forge a majority coalition, given the trends in both political parties. "There is now a constituency in both parties that is for this. You have, of course, may liberals who favor it. They constitute most of the Democratic Party, and you have the libertarian element of the Republican Party, which is an important part of the Republican Party," said Hume. Mathew Staver is the chairman of Liberty Counsel and has represented the traditional marriage position in in many states around the country. He is appalled at the suggestion that Supreme Court has effectively ended the political debate over marriage. "That's ridiculous. In fact, you can't have anything such as marriage or life over as a political issue. It's [absolute] stupidity to have that kind of an opinion. You cannot just simply sit back and allow the Supreme Court or any justice or any judge to undermine something as basic and as fundamental and as necessary and as important as marriage," said Staver, who is furious what he sees as the GOP wilting on this issue once it stopped being an easy political winner for the party. "They're cowards, and if Republicans don't stand up for this, the party will become a non-issue and there will be a third party that will ultimately take its place. That's what happened with the issue of slavery and there's no party that's immune from the situation," said Staver. While many Christians and other social conservatives look back to George W. Bush as a beacon of moral clarity on the issue, Staver says the Bush record is really one of great disappointment that triggered the GOP distancing itself from this issue. "You know, George W. Bush mouthed his support of marriage, but when he got re-elected on the marriage and pro-family ticket back in 2004, Karl Rove and George W. Bush stood on the sideline. That's when they could have pushed forward with a constitutional marriage amendment, but they chose not to. They chose instead to go forward with Social Security reform, which was not part of his platform. Marriage and life were and they decided to stand back,&quoquot; said Staver. The Washington Post reported that even before Monday's action by the Supreme Court, Republican strategists were advising their clients to steer clear of the marriage debate because they see it as a political loser for conservatives in light of several years of polling momentum in support of same-sex marriage. Staver is unimpressed. "Just because polls change, that doesn't make the marriage issue change. You can't change gravity because a number of people want to fly and get rid of gravity. You can't change marriage and what it is (it's ontologically the union of a man and a woman) simply because some people think that their vote is over or the winds of change have come," said Staver, who says some in the GOP may want to put their fingers back in the wind to discover the polls are shifting back a bit. "You're starting to see the polls switch back the other way. In fact, Pew Research recently showed that there has been a substantial decline in support for same-sex marriage. I think you're going to continue to see that," he said. "Politicians who govern themselves by polls and popularity have no business leading anyone," said Staver. |
| 'The Beginning of the End of Western Civilization' |
| Tue, 7 Oct 2014 15:46:52 EST Monday's Supreme Court decision to effectively legalize same-sex marriage in at least eleven more states by not hearing appeals from traditional marriage advocates is not an act of judicial restraint but a dereliction of duty from a court that started the avalanche on this issue last year, according to Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver. On Monday, the court announced it would not hear appeals from five states that approved state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Same-sex couples challenged those laws in federal court and won at the appellate levels. Staver says this avalanche of litigation started last June, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court striking down parts of the Defense of Marriage Act so that same-sex couples married in states where it is legal could receive federal benefits due spouses. Federal judges then used that ruling to declare the limiting of marriage to one man and one woman to be unconstitutional. Five different states sought to keep their own laws in place by appealing to the Supreme Court. Staver says the court did plenty on Monday by doing nothing. "In this particular case, the decision not to act is a decision to act. Here we had five cases pending before the Supreme Court on the issue of marriage. They knew by not acting, that would mean that these five states and the eleven states within those jurisdictions all would be effected. This would then spread same-sex marriage out throughout the country. So they knew exactly what they were doing," said Staver. The court never gives a reason for refusing to hear an appeal, but Staver believes the court rejected them because the three conservatives on the court (Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) knew they couldn't win and didn't want to see a sweeping decision come down from the court next year. "I believe they were reading (Justice Anthony) Kennedy as going the wrong way. Consequently, rather than having the Supreme Court take a case which they knew was going South with Kennedy as the fifth vote, they decided not to take the case," said Staver. For Staver, this decision says far less about marriage than it does about the integrity of the judicial system. "I think what's on trial is the Supreme Court of the United States and the entire judiciary. When the people begin to lose confidence in this judiciary, including and beginning with the Supreme Court, then those entities lose their power, said Staver. "When they lose the confidence of the people, they lose their legitimacy. I think that's where we are teetering right now around the country on this issue of marriage," he said. Public support for same-sex marriage has increased dramatically in the past decade, with even many libertarian-leaning Republicans backing the movement. Staver rejects their major arguments in the wake of the court's decision not to hear the appeals, starting with the notion that this was an act of great judicial restraint. "They started it and they should ultimately stop this destruction of marriage. What we're talking about is the basic foundation of our society. Same-sex marriage as a policy matter says that we're going to create this relationship and encourage people to aspire to it. We're going to protect it," he said. "And by the way, boys, you don't need fathers. Girls, moms are absolutely irrelevant to you because it's a fatherless or motherless relationship," said Staver. Another common libertarian argument is that traditional marriage advocates should not feel threatened by same-sex marriage because it poses no harm to heterosexual marriage. Staver says that's simply false and uses the history of the Netherlands as evidence. "When they began same-sex unions, marriage began to disintegrate. This will actually effect marriage. Less people will get married because it's not going to be that unique relationship. When less people get married and you have more children out of wedlock, like you have in the Netherlands and you're starting to see here, when you destabilize the institution of marriage you make the economy poorer and you make the society unstable," he said. "That's exactly what we're having. That's what we're going to see here in America and around the world. When you tinker with the very basic foundation of family and you can assume that gender doesn't matter, you will ultimately effect the rest of society and the strength of that civil government," said Staver. Staver also asserts that far more is at stake in terms of basic American freedoms and even life as we know it. "It is a direct assault and collision on religious freedom. It happened before. It continues to happen. We're going to see it increase. This is something that I believe is the beginning of the end of western civilization. You can't simply redefine and pretend that marriage and ontological differences between men and women do not exist. This will have consequences," said Staver. Staver says the fight on this core issue will never end. He says there is still more litigation to come but the front line will soon be facing American churches. "The question is will the church ultimately rise for this occasion. If it doesn't, then the church is in bad shape. I think it's time for the church and for people of faith and moral values to stand up to this judicial tyranny. This is a system that has broken and we can't allow it to macromanage social policy as important as marriage," said Staver |
| 'The Race to Save Our Century' |
| Mon, 29 Sep 2014 15:26:24 EST The devaluing of individual human lives is responsible for the past century being the bloodiest in human history and puts our civilization in peril, with both collectivists and "radical individualism" contributing to the problem, according to acclaimed filmmaker Jason Scott Jones. Jones, best known for his gripping film, "The Stoning of Soraya M., is also the author of "The Race to Save Our Century: Five Core Principles to Promote Peace, Freedom and A Culture of Life." In his book, Jones posits that since the start of World War I a century ago, mankind has slipped further into a state of "subhumanism" that is increasingly indifferent to the fate of individual lives. "Subhumanism is really the culmination of various ideologies of evil that have collided and amalgamated into this new ideology that denies the incomparable dignity, beauty and worth of the human person. From 1914-2014, it's been the most violent, bloody period in human history, with horrible genocide and total war," said Jones. Jones cites five contributing factors that he sees as stepping stones to subhumanism, including the total war concept of targeting entire populations instead of just the military, racism and nationalism and utopian collectivism. Those concepts are seen as characteristics in the 20th century horrors of the holocaust, Josef Stalin's USSR, communist China and the Killing Fields of Cambodia. However, Jones also says subhumanism results from the western tendencies of "radical individualism" and "utilitarian hedonism." "Those two are probably the most difficult to talk about as Americans, because those are the ideologies of evil that afflict our culture," he said. For years, Jones considered himself libertarian in nature, but has since concluded that approach devalues life from the opposite end of the spectrum from totalitarian states. "When we look at today in the United States, with divorce ripping our families apart, the devastation of pornography and the horrible crime of abortion, we see what happens when we deny the true dignity of the human person and deny our inter-connectivity as part of the human family, he said. Jones says while collectivists and fierce individualists disagree on virtually everything, they hold one thing in common that is very destructive to society. "Individualists and utopian collectivists both agree that the only two realities in society are the state and the person. As conservatives and as Christians, we understand there are these beautiful institutions, these natural institutions in civil society, that are intermediaries between the person and the state: the family, the church, community organizations. These are very important to a humane society," said Jones. However, he believes these critical institutions are under constant assault, especially from an ever-intrusive government. "The family's been ripped apart. We don't even talk about the family anymore. We talk about the nuclear family, but, really, the nuclear family is nothing but the family decaying. The nuclear family is just one step away from a completely broken home," said Jones. "The church has been pushed completely out of civil society. The church can't be involved in adoptions anymore. The federal government is forcing them to get out of medicine or get involved in the abortion business," he said. Jones also offers six "whole-life principles" as a guide for reversing the cultural slide, starting with a renewed appreciation for each human life. "It is reclaiming and re-asserting the idea that each and every human being, every person, has this incomparable dignity, beauty and worth, whether it's a child with Down's Syndrome in the womb of her mother, whether it's an elderly person at the very end of life, whether it's the poor, whether it's the children who happen to be in war zones on the other side of the world," said Jones. He further claims that deep respect for each life stems from a transcendent moral order. Jones says many in society get very uneasy at the notion of there being a higher law than the ones in the U.S. code but when push comes to shove we all know it's true and history provides many examples. "After World War II, they wanted to try these Nazis for crimes but they hadn't broken any laws. They, in fact, followed the laws to the 'T'. So the West, again, begrudgingly has to acknowledge there's a law above the laws of man. I think it's important that we acknowledge that to prevent the next holocaust rather than finally, begrudgingly acknowledge it to try those who perpetrated the crimes against humanity," said Jones. Other principles highlighted by Jones include extolling the moral unity of the human family and developing a humane economy. But he says the road back starts with honoring life and he says the current abortion debate actually provides a golden opportunity to do that. "It's obviously the greatest tragedy in the United States today when one out of three of our children are destroyed by abortion. But it gives us a real opportunity, a milestone to aim for: full legal protection for the human person from the moment of their biological beginning. It is the beginning, the first real milestone into a culture of life, love and beauty," said Jones. He also believes that fighting tirelessly for the institutions of the family and church will strengthen society and serve as a vital check against the state's efforts to control more and more aspects of our lives. "If we look at the 20th century, from Stalins' Russia to Mao's China to the Khmer Rouge, they had to decimate those intermediary institutions between the state and the person. I think this is a crucial step in promoting a humane society," said Jones. "We don't need to ask the federal government's permission to build a strong, vibrant family, to be involved in our local community or to be involved in our church," he said. But how does this change happen after a century of descent into subhumanism? Jones says it's all about how society is engaged on the issue. "I think being involved in the arts and education and mass media gives us the opportunity to communicate ideas pretty quickly. We just have to be bold and proclaim them and have a sense of urgency," said Jones. "I wrote this book more than just to give answers but to really just create in folks the burning sense of urgency. Things are beginning to unravel, but we do not need to despair. We have everything we need to create a culture of life," he said. |
| 'He Has Done A Lot of Damage' |
| Fri, 26 Sep 2014 15:27:52 EST Eric Holder ran the most politicized Justice Department in U.S. history, did enormous damage to the rule of law that will be nearly impossible to reverse and actively worked to make voter fraud easier, according to a former DOJ official who recently authored a book on Holder's years as attorney general. Hans von Spakovsky served as counsel for the assistant attorney general for civil rights during the George W. Bush administration and later served two years as a member of the Federal Elections Commission. He is now manager of the Heritage Foundation's Election Law Reform Initiative and co-author of "Obama's Enforcer: Eric Holder's Justice Department." On Thursday, Holder announced he was stepping down after nearly six years on the job but will stay until the Senate confirms his replacement. While Holder and President Obama characterized his tenure as attorney general as a time of making sure equal rights were afforded to all Americans, von Spakovsky says Holder's true legacy is clear and troubling. "He has politicized the department to a degree never seen before. I think he has done a lot of damage, not just to the Justice Department but to the impartial and objective administration of justice, which is what the Justice Department is supposed to do and hasn't been doing for the last six years," said von Spakovsky. In "Obama's Enforcer," von Spakovsky highlights a multitude of issues he sees as proof of this politicizing. Holder controversies include allegations of refusing to enforce laws with which he disagrees, failing to aggressively investigate allegations of IRS abuse of conservative groups, coddling radical Muslim organizations and harassing reporters from Fox News Channel and the Associated Press. There are two other flash points that von Spakovsky sees as especially troubling. When asked which actions of Holder did the most damage to the nation, he reflexively mentioned a gun-smuggling sting gone bad that led to the murders of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexicans and Holder being held in contempt of Congress by the House of Representatives. "I think when people die, you have to say that is the greatest damage. That takes us back to Operation Fast and Furious. An American border agent died directly as a result of a reckless operation that allowed guns to get into the hands of Mexican drug dealers. Eric Holder's directly responsible for that and that's why he was held in contempt by the House, the first and only attorney general in history to have that happen," said von Spakovsky. "I think it will be a stain on his legacy. I don't care who you are. You cannot explain away the death of an American and, frankly, what may be hundreds of Mexican citizens that are a direct result of a law enforcement operation conducted under Holder's supervision," he said. In addition to refusing to enforce laws on the books, including the Defense of Marriage Act, Holder also actively sought to block states from implementing laws designed to prevent voter fraud, such as requiring voters to present photo identification. Holder explained his position as one looking out for the poor and disenfranchised from measures that threaten to take Southern states and others back to the days of blatant discrimination against minorities and others. von Spakovsky doesn't believe that. "He has waged a war, literally a war, on election integrity and tried to stop voter ID laws. He keeps losing, but he has made it extremely costly for states to try to put in basic, common sense measures like voter ID. It seems like he really wants to promote and make sure that voter fraud is easy to commit, which is a terrible legacy for an attorney general," he said. Voting and civil rights presented the very first controversy of Holder's tenure, when his dropped voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party, even after the group pleaded no contest to the charges. His actions on racial issues also marked one of the final controversies of his tenure, as he weighed in on the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri. "It bookends, starting with the New Black Panthers. And how do we end? We end with him going in and saying, before an investigation has even been done, that race was at the root of what happened in Ferguson, Missouri. That shows how he views everything through a racial prism," said von Spakovsky. An even bigger problem for von Spakovsky is that the work by Holder is not easily reversed. "It's lasting damage and extremely difficult to change it back," he said, pouring cold water on the notion that a conservative attorney general could make things right again. "They have basically bent and broken civil service laws and put radical left-wing lawyers and political cronies and Democratic donors into civil service positions. As a result of that, these people will be there in the next administration, even if it's a Republican administration. They will continue to push the same kind of procedures and policies that Holder put them in there for in the first place," said von Spakovsky. How much of a return can Americans ever expect to a Justice Department that is faithful to impartial enforcement of the laws? "The most good we can expect from a future attorney general is one who comes back in and says, 'We are going to fairly administer justice and we're going to do it on a non-political, non-ideological basis.' Frankly, anyone in the department with any interest in doing it differently should resign. If they try to engage in that kind of behavior, they'll be terminated," said von Spakovsky. Possible replacements for Holder are rumored to range from Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, who is a former DOJ official, to current Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. Whoever it is, von Spakovsky doesn't expect Obama to pick someone much different from Holder. "I suspect the president's going to want someone who continues the same kind of behavior as Eric Holder and one who will keep the lid on the way Holder has: for example, refusing to turn over documents in Operation Fast and Furious, refusing to conduct a real criminal investigation of the IRS. That's exactly the kind of person I expect the president to nominate," he said. von Spakovsky says the Senate schedule will not allow for confirmation hearings before the midterm elections. If Republicans win the majority, he expects Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to try to confirm the president's choice in a lame duck session at the end of the year. "So if [Holder] doesn't resign now and they don't get somebody confirmed in December, Holder would probably be set to stay there through the end of the president's term," he said. |
| 'He Needed to Be Impeached' |
| Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:15:22 EST Attorney General Eric Holder says he will resign as soon as his successor is confirmed, and Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert says Holder needed to go a long time ago for politicizing every issue from Fast and Furious to the fight against radical Islam. Holder is one of the longest-serving attorneys general in U.S. history and has hinted at retirement several times in recent years. His tenure is one of the most controversial in history, with Holder drawing fire on issues ranging from civil rights to the treatment of reporters and the level of cooperation with Congress to the intensity with which he investigated issues embarrassing to the Obama administration. For most conservatives, there are no tears at Holder 19s departure. 1cI 19ve made no bones about it. I felt like he needed to be impeached. He lied to Congress. He 19s just a guy that needed to be gone, 1d said Gohmert, a member of the House Judiciary Committee and a former judge in Texas. 1cThe attorney general is supposed to be the highest-ranking law enforcement officer, not the highest-ranking blocker and tackler for the president. It seems like his whole term as attorney general he has been covering for the White House and covering for his own department, 1d said Gohmert, who believes Holder 19s legacy will be a dubious one. 1cHe will have been successful in keeping facts that in some cases will lead to crimes being able to be proved that were committed. He 19s covered 18em up. He 19s kept 18em covered up. We 19ve never had an attorney general that flaunted the law this much, 1d he said. While Gohmert is thrilled to see Holder leave, he is a bit suspicious about the timing. 1cBecause of the timing, I can 19t help but wonder if this is the president 19s attempt to change the subject from the horrors that Obamacare has caused to people 19s health care and the dismal economy and the world falling apart because of this president 19s foreign policies or lack thereof, 1d he said. Gohmert says there are many issues throughout Holder 19s time as attorney general that trouble him greatly. One is his role in Operation Fast & Furious, a plan designed to smuggle guns to Mexican drug cartels with the purported purpose of tracking the guns to the cartels and helping Mexican authorities break them up. Instead, the government lost track of the guns, which were subsequently used in the murders of hundreds of Mexican citizens and U.S. Border Patrol Officer Brian Terry. Gohmert says Holder 19s stonewalling of the congressional investigation is inexcusable. 1cFast and Furious should have had all the details come out years ago, but he has completely thwarted those materials coming out to the public. He has been in contempt and is, as I speak to you, in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a lawful subpoena for documents, 1d said Gohmert, referring to the June 2012 vote to make Holder the first person in his position ever held in contempt of Congress. However, of all the issues on which he 19s battled with Holder, Gohmert says one stands out from all the others. 1cOne that is very troubling to me is his lack of investigation and enforcement of the laws of the land as it pertains to radical Islam, 1d he said, asserting, among other things, that the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombing could and should have been prevented. 1cThe FBI under his watch got a heads-up from Russia that (Tamerlan) Tsarnaev had been radicalized. As best I can tell, they didn 19t do anything but talk to Tsarnaev and talk to his mom and said, 18Well, They say he 19s not radical so we 19re OK. 19 If Holder 19s department had done a proper job, the Boston bombing would not have had to have occurred, 1d said Gohmert. While his criticism of Holder on the issue of radical Islam started with the Boston bombing, it certainly doesn 19t end there. 1cRather than investigate (radical Islam), they partnered with them. They had community outreach programs with them. They still have those programs. They have been responsive to CAIR 19s and ISNA 19s demands. Federal courts have found that those two organizations are fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Islam, 1d he said. 1c[Holder] 18s been helping to lead the charge to support and be sensitive to what these supporters of radical Islam want him to do. I think that is going to reap benefits for radical Islam for the future, until we have a president that 19s serious about going after them and not just bombing some empty buildings when nobody 19s there, 1d said Gohmert. As for Holder 19s successor at the Justice Department, Gohmert says he has some very simple criteria. 1cI don 19t just hope. I hope and pray that this president will appoint somebody who will help bring America together, that will be completely color-blind and religious-blind in their approach to justice, unlike this attorney general. I hope he will appoint somebody that really cares about enforcing the law fairly across the board for everybody. If he does that, I will think it is fantastic, 1d said Gohmert. Does the congressman believe that will happen? 1cI don 19t know, 1d he said, soberly. 1cThat 19s my hope and prayer and I 19m not giving up hope on it. 1d |
| 'It's Not About Climate' |
| Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:08:02 EST As President Obama tries to rally the world to embrace his agenda to curb carbon emissions, Weatherbell Chief Forecaster Joe Bastardi is condemning the "prostituting" of climate science by Obama and others to further what he considers a political agenda. On Tuesday, Obama addressed the United Nations Climate Summit, saying the world needs to confront the effects of man-made climate change and that no responsible nation can sit on the sidelines while the condition of the earth hangs in the balance for future generations. He also says the U.S. is one of the nations most responsible for the rise of carbon dioxide levels and, in turn, global temperatures. Bastardi believes this is all a smokescreen. "This is not about the weather. It's not about climate. It's not about science. Those things are being used to further another agenda. And as someone who has loved (weather) all his life, it's really disheartening to see this going on in my country," said Bastardi. He believes the real purpose of the climate change movement was on display in the People's Climate March, which took aim at Wall Street and big business earlier in the week. "The mask came off. It's about destroying capitalism, destroying freedom as we know it," said Bastardi, who earlier this week suggested climate science was 'prostituted' by global warming activists. "I really believe this is an agenda-driven situation, and it's frustrating to me. People got mad at me because I used the word 'prostituted'," said Bastardi. "Something I love is now being used for a completely different thing. If there was one positive about that climate march, if you go and look at the people marching and the signs they had up, it should be obvious that it's not the climate they're concerned about. It's the destruction of the American way of life as we were taught: the competitiveness, the capitalism, that type of thing where the individual has the chance to pull himself up. That's what I believe this is about," said Bastardi. Bastardi says a dead giveaway that the movement is a fraud can be seen in the evolving terminology of the cause. "Why would you trust anybody that changed 'global warming' to 'climate change'? If you were playing somebody in a baseball game and suddenly he decided to change it to ping pong because he was getting beat, why would you get involved with them?" asked Bastardi. "If you look at the thirty-plus excuses now that they have for this so-called pause in warming...over two-thirds of their excuses are natural excuses. Oh, the sun's not doing this. Oh, the volcano. Oh, there's this or that. It's hard to believe this whole thing is occurring," he said. According to Bastardi, one of the biggest reasons this political movement gained traction is because the media refuse to investigate the basis for it. "The media is complicit in this. They don't even bother looking. It's astounding as a 59-year-old man, remembering all the things that the media uncovered and went after, how they just march along like sheep. I don't get it. I really don't," said Bastardi. "You have to tell the truth, even if you believe you have the greater truth. You have to look at the facts. The media and everybody else have to get on to this thing because, in the end, what's going to happen is if you don't have energy to drive the lifeblood of your economy, your economy's not going to go anywhere," he said. As for the science, Bastardi says it's pretty well established what causes temperature fluctuations. "Nature, not man, rules the climate. You can do the math. It's common sense to understand that the sun, the oceans and stochastic events far outweigh what CO2 can possibly do. It's boxed in effectively. It's one-one hundredth of the greenhouse gases, the most prominent being water vapor," said Bastardi. Bastardi says the global warming movement's contention that human activity leads to more carbon dioxide that leads to higher temperatures is already proven false. In recent years, CO2 levels continued to rise even as temperatures cooled, refuting the famed "hockey stick" of Dr. Michael Mann which predicted temperatures would rise with no end in sight. Bastardi says climate history is even more definitive. "I'd like the president or anybody else to explain to me how we had an ice age at 7,000 parts per million. If you actually looked at the geological time scale and the relationship of CO2 to temperatures, I don't understand how you can be driving home this point that the United States, or anybody else on the face of the planet, is to blame for so-called climate change," he said. As for the leveling off and even reduction in average temperatures in recent years, Bastardi says actual data is a death blow to Obama and other activists. "All we need to do is watch the temperatures now over the next 10-20 years. As the Pacific began to cool, temperatures leveled off. The Atlantic's going to cool. They'll fall even more. I made the statement back in 2007, that by the year 2030, they'll fall back to where they were back in 1978, the start of the satellite era and when the Pacific went into its warming cycle," said Bastardi, who also dismisses the concerns of activists that rising ocean levels threaten the lives of tens of millions of Americans in coastal areas. "Seven inches a century of so-called sea level rise along our coasts is well within natural realms if you look at how far the ocean has varied up and down over the geological time scale," he said. "So when these people say these things, you can sense the frustration in my voice. It takes me ten seconds to refute them. I could go right to something that shows the opposite going on," said Bastardi. When confronted by arguments like Bastardi's, global warming activists contend those are fringe views and that there is near unanimous scientific consensus. In his State of the Union Address this year, President Obama declared that "the science is settled." Bastardi says that's another canard. "Over 31,000 degreed scientists signed against the Kyoto Accords, 9,000 of them Ph.D's for goodness sake. Why doesn't anybody bring that up?" he said. However, Bastardi says some statistics do tell the story of the impact of fossil fuels and the industrial era have had on the United States, and he urges Obama to examine them. "Mr. President, take a look. The only true hockey sticks from fossil fuel are in per capita GDP for each human being on the earth and life expectancy, which has shot up. Both those things have shot up in the age of fossil fuels," said Bastardi. |
| ISIS 'Will Never Be Destroyed' |
| Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:04:09 EST Retired U.S. Navy Captain Chuck Nash says radical groups like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) can never be completely eradicated and any meaningful degrading of the terrorist army will only come with competent ground forces working in tandem with powerful airstrikes like we saw Monday night. Nonetheless, Nash is impressed by the performance of U.S. forces this week in the first airstrikes conducted in Syria and is pleased to see Arab allies, particularly Sunnis, joining the fight. Late Monday, the Pentagon confirmed that the U.S. was carrying out the first wave of airstrikes inside Syria. War planes with precision-guided munitions and multiple U.S. Navy vessels firing a variety of missiles took part, with varying levels of assistance from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. By all accounts, the strikes were on target and avoided civilian casualties. However, Nash says Americans should have no illusions about what our military efforts can and cannot accomplish in taking the fight to ISIS. "It will never be destroyed. The violent element is in the DNA of Islam. It's in their documents. Moderates and radicals read the same documents and draw their inspiration from the same religious texts. It will never disappear. It can only be degraded," said Nash, who is also a military analyst for the Fox News Channel. According to Nash, air power can be very effective, but it has the greatest impact when accompanied by competent ground forces that can take the fight to the enemy's ground forces. He says the U.S. learned that the hard way in the NATO campaign against Serbia in the late 1990s. In that campaign, without guidance from the ground, U.S. pilots were very focused on striking Serbian tanks, only to discover they were decoys. "Unless you have a ground force to oppose a ground force, there's no reason for that other ground force to coalesce into a defensive position and become dense enough to become a lucrative air target," said Nash. Finding effective ground troops in this campaign could prove difficult. U.S. officials say it will take up to a year to get moderate Syrian rebels prepared to fight ISIS. Iraqi forces continue to prove they are not up to the task. This past Sunday, ISIS militants successfully smuggled explosive-laden humvees onto an Iraqi base in Anbar Province. Once detonated, up to 500 Iraqi soldiers were lost. Nash says the Iraqis will need to shape up in a hurry if they are to be used effectively against ISIS. "They're going to have to get competent leadership at the officer level. They do have some good troops in the commando units, the special forces units that we've trained. Those guys are good but there just aren't enough of them. The regular army infantry that the Iraqi forces have are not properly led, not properly equipped. The events of last Sunday showed that," said Nash. Even if the Iraqi military improved drastically in the coming months, Nash sees little alternative but to have U.S. personnel at the front to coordinate the air campaign. "There have to be boots on the ground at some point that are working on the same goals as we are. I'm not saying they have to be U.S. boots necessarily. We're either going to have Title 10, some people in uniform who are used to working with U.S. aircraft, or Title 50 where they are chopped from the military to another agency where they're on the ground," said Nash. "But call them Americans on the ground. Sooner or later, there are going to be Americans on the ground. Otherwise, we're just going to be chasing ghosts," said Nash. Nash also sees a couple of significant positive developments in the wake of last night's bombings, especially the involvement of five Arab nations in the mission: Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. An even more 'critical step,' he says, is that Sunnis in the region are ready to confront other Sunnis. "The critical step is admitting and going out to defend, in their own populations, the fact that these Sunni countries are in combat against a Sunni unit in this ISIS group. They're taking on the risk of having internal problems, internal terrorist acts or demonstrations in their own countries," said Nash. While Monday's strikes are just the beginning of a campaign the U.S. admits will take years, Nash also reminds Americans to marvel at just how good our military is at what it does. "We make this look really easy. It's not. There's a lot of skill, a lot of practice. The experience of war over time has educated the people who are flying the airplanes and planning the missions. It makes it look easy but it's fairly complicated," he said. How complicated is it? "The big thing is getting everything to work as it's supposed to work. You plan on it to work and then you come up with back-ups if things go wrong, if the weather intervenes, if this group is running late because they got off late. How late can you get off and still make the mission? What are the fall back positions? Is everybody communicating or is somebody in a ducting layer, where you can't hear them?" said Nash. "There are all kinds of things that can happen in the environment and in human performance that can really throw a monkey wrench into things. So when things go smoothly, everybody says, 'Well, that's the way it's supposed to work.' But it's hard to pull off," he said. |
| Heated Politics, Cooler Temperatures |
| Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:00:31 EST Obama administration officials and liberal activists are promising bold action this week through the the United Nations General Assembly and the People's Climate March, but a climate expert says the left is desperately trying to find momentum for a movement beset by conflicting science and increasing international skepticism. Secretary of State John Kerry repeatedly lists the confrontation of climate change at the very top of America's diplomatic agenda. While addressing foreign ministers of the largest economic powers, Kerry stressed the climate as a priority yet again. 1cWhile we are confronting [Isis], and we are confronting terrorism and we are confronting Ebola, this also has an immediacy that people have come to understand, 1d said Kerry, as reported by the UK newspaper the Guardian. 1cThere is a long list of important issues before all of us, but the grave threat that climate change poses warrants a prominent position on that list. 1d There's a good reason for Kerry to keep stressing climate change at the UN, even as crises posed by ISIS, Ebola and Ukraine dominate most foreign headlines. Major foreign powers are getting more skeptical of the science and the agenda. The latest devastating blow comes courtesy of the second-largest nation on earth. "The prime minister of India ordered a private commission to look into it. They basically came out and said, 'Look, even if your very narrow possibility of a half a degree temperature rise over 50-100 years is true (we don't think it is), we've got greater priorities. We've got people starving to death. We've got people that are unemployed.,'" said Dr. Tim Ball, a former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. "That shifted the moral high ground, which is very significant," he said. Another major setback for the Obama administration and other global warming activists is the diminished role of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which was designated to collect the carbon taxes. Ball says that tax was supposed to be implemented at the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009 but plans were derailed by the leaked emails from the climate institute in East Anglia. At the same time, nations with no interest in pushing the climate agenda are creating a rival to the IMF. The BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa and many smaller nations) are even bracing for the eventual collection of carbon taxes by the IMF. "They've already set up a loan fund to counter the IMF," said Ball. Over the weekend, the People's Climate March took to the streets of New York City. By Monday, the demonstrations had turned violent, with several arrests being made. Actor Leonardo DiCaprio is the face of the UN's climate activism. Ball says the whole operation is a charade borne out of sheer desperation. "They're losing every which way on this issue. That's why when these leaders such as India said, 'We're not going to New York. We're not going to be part of your silly game,' the only choice they had left was to go to star power and appeal to celebrities. This is why they appointed Leonardo DiCaprio an ambassador of peace," said Ball. "What has global warming got to do with peace? ISIS is about peace, but global warming isn't," said Ball, noting that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Al Gore both won Nobel Peace Prizes for issues that he sees as having no connection to the quest for world peace. "This is all part of the politics of what's going on with the marching and what's going on in New York," said Ball, author of "The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science." Climate change activists disagree with Ball's contention. They argue climate change is imperiling the world's key resources and that leads to conflict in places like Syria. Ball doesn't buy it. "I'd love to know what they're specifying as the climate change that has caused the Syrian economy to suffer. If that's true in Syria, why isn't it true in other countries around there? These are just specious, alarmist arguments that are absolute nonsense," said Ball. In addition to emerging economies like India prioritizing economic growth and job creation about emissions standards, Ball says science continues to be a major hurdle for the global warming movement. He says more and more reports on temperatures and ice levels undermine the premise that carbon dioxide levels lead to a warmer planet. "The evidence keeps coming forward, and at some point, the public is starting to realize. The arctic ice is precisely that. It was just five years ago that NASA and Al Gore were both saying there will be no summer ice in the arctic in 2013. It's turned out to be absolutely wrong. In fact, there's more ice than there was two years ago, and the same with Antarctica. So this evidence cumulatively, and every single bit of it, contradicts their hypothesis," said Ball. Reports in recent weeks suggest the Obama administration plans to team with like-minded governments and agree to new climate measures. Knowing such policies could never get approval from two-thirds of the U.S. Senate, the administration plans to attach the new policies to a 1992 treaty and claim such amendments don't need Senate ratification. Ball says he hopes Congress stops it anyway. "The ultimate control of bureaucracy is in the funding. Hopefully, Congress will get the power and the sense to cut off the funding to the UN, cut off the funding to the EPA," he said. Ultimately, Ball also wants to see those he believes to be fostering climate hysteria held to account for being so wrong. "These people at the IPCC should be held accountable. These people that are saying this is the problem and that's the problem, they're never held to account. That's the real frustration with the public nowadays. These people just throw a bomb in a room and walk away," said Ball. |
| 'We Don't Have A Strategy' |
| Fri, 19 Sep 2014 15:37:56 EST Retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen Tom McInerney says the U.S. has no strategy yet in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), is about to arm the wrong people in Syria and that our efforts are headed for disaster if President Obama calls the shots on when and where to bomb. In congressional hearings this week, Pentagon and State Department officials tried to make the case for the Obama vision of a fight against ISIS, from building a coalition to arming Syrian rebels to insisting no American troops would be involved in ground combat. Lawmakers in both parties expressed skepticism that the strategy was clear or likely to be effective. "Well, we don't have a strategy. That's why they're not impressed. What is the strategy? We've flown 176 missions in thirty-some days and we have attacked a few piddling targets. We ought to be flying 200 sorties a day and hitting 200 targets a day. So. we don't have a strategy," said McInerney, who rose to U.S. Air Force Assistant Vice-Chief of Staff during his distinguished career. "The president talks about degrading and destroying ISIS. Right now we're irritating ISIS, but we certainly don't have a campaign to degrade them and clearly don't have a campaign to destroy them," he said. McInerney's frustration with administration is only compounded by Thursday's Wall Street Journal report suggesting Obama plans to be personally involved in plotting any air strikes against ISIS inside Syria. 1cThe U.S. military campaign against Islamist militants in Syria is being designed to allow President Barack Obama to exert a high degree of personal control, going so far as to require that the military obtain presidential sign-off for strikes in Syrian territory, 1d reported the Journal. "I had to fly missions into Hanoi during the Vietnam War that had that same kind of oversight by Lyndon Johnson. It is doomed to failure. The president ought to give clear guidance of what he wants to do, not how to do it," said McInerney. However, the general does believe U.S. air power can do 90 percent of the work needed to eviscerate ISIS. "If you look at the lines of communication that they have, they are clearly in a very vulnerable area. There's not a tree from the Syrian border to Mosul. It's not much different from the Iraqi border up to Raqqa (Syria), which is the headquarters for ISIS. This is ideal for our precision strike and our air dominance," said McInerney, who says the U.S. needs to go all out in destroying our enemy. "I'm not saying we don't need ground forces, but I am saying that we have the intelligence. We have weapons that we can put in the right window and the left window and we need to change the rules of engagement and have 'shock and awe' if you will and go violently against them and not be overly concerned about the collateral damage," he said. McInerney is not holding his breath. He does not expect Obama to embrace a full-out assault on ISIS anytime soon. "The president has a campaign that is a political campaign. He does not have a campaign that destroys ISIS. The generals are talking about a campaign to destroy ISIS. Until they get in sync, until this election is over. I don't see them doing anything that is really satisfactory," he said. On Thursday night, the U.S. Senate approved a continuing resolution that includes funding for the arming and training of "moderate" Syrian rebels. The House of Representatives backed the plan on Wednesday. McInerney says experts like retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely tell him that the U.S. is planning to arm the wrong rebels but that there are trustworthy factions trying to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The general says previous efforts to arm the rebels have only made ISIS stronger. "Remember, we ended up sending weapons from Benghazi to Turkey to Syria that ended up in ISIS' hands. we helped create ISIS and we do not want to duplicate that again, i.e. supply weapons to radical Islamists," said McInerney. Even if we arm reputable Syrians, McInerney sees two major problems with the plan. First, the top priority of all rebels is to depose Assad, not to confront ISIS. Second, he says the 5,000 rebels we're trying to arm and train are no match for an ISIS army that grows by the day. "Five thousand is not enough to do this. They're going against somewhere between 30,000 and I've heard a number as high as 50,000," said McInerney. "So 5,000 Syrian fighters, that's going to take six months to a year to arm, are not going to have an impact on any campaign." "We have got to be very careful who we align with in Syria, because there are too many pitfalls. We have seen we do not understand how that part of the world works very well," he said. |
| 'This Is A Big Mistake' |
| Thu, 18 Sep 2014 16:00:57 EST California Rep. Tom McClintock is ripping President Obama over reports he will personally oversee the bombing of ISIS targets in Syria and believes the bipartisan vote to arm and train Syrian rebels for the fight is a "big mistake." The U.S. has been conducting air strikes against ISIS in Iraq for weeks. However. according to The Wall Street Journal, Obama is planning to be directly involved in plotting air strikes across the border in Syria. "The U.S. military campaign against Islamist militants in Syria is being designed to allow President Barack Obama to exert a high degree of personal control, going so far as to require that the military obtain presidential sign-off for strikes in Syrian territory," reported the Journal. "Defense officials said the strikes in Syria are more likely to look like a targeted counter-terrorism campaign than a classic military campaign, in which a combatant commander picks targets within the parameters set by the commander in chief," it stated. Rep. McClintock says our own history proves this is a terrible idea, citing the actions of President Lyndon Johnson a half-century ago. "That's exactly what LBJ did in Vietnam and it was disastrous," said McClintock, who believes that approach will work no better with Obama calling the shots. "This president apparently feels qualified to make every judgment for the military commanders in the field. That's not going to end well," he said. In contrast, McClintock says Winston Churchill provides the example of how a leader should act in times of war. "(Churchill) was a brilliant mind. The guy invented the modern tank. He would always argue and throw up ideas to his military commanders. As opinionated and brilliant as he was, never once during World War II did he ever override a judgment of a commander in the field," said McClintock. Another key aspect of Obama's plan to defeat ISIS is to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels. On Wednesday, the GOP-led House of Representatives voted 273-156 to approve the plan. The majority of the bipartisan support came from Republicans, but they didn't get any help from McClintock. "I voted no. I think that this is a big mistake. I think it runs a great risk of backfiring on us. The Free Syrian Army (FSA) that the administration plans to arm is a marriage of convenience among a lot of Islamist factions that have a long history of collaborating with the Islamic State," said McClintock. "In fact, the single purpose of the Free Syrian Army is not to destroy the Islamic State. It's to destroy the Syrian government that is right now actively fighting against the Islamic State," he said. As a result, McClintock fears this plan will only end up putting American weapons in the hands of some of the world's worst actors. "The equipment we're providing to the FSA could easily be turned against the Syrian government, which would weaken regional opposition to the Islamic State or it could end up being turned over to the Islamic State . We just watched that happen," said McClintock, pointing to ISIS capturing massive amounts of weapons the U.S. gave to Iraqi security forces. The congressman says history not only discourages presidents from micromanaging air strikes but from forging alliances with disreputable Muslim groups in the Middle East. "We need to be clear that alliances among Islamist Middle East factions is at best precarious, can shift overnight, and quite often we end up discovering that our allies are our enemies," said McClintock. The Obama administration says no American troops will be used in a ground combat role but Secretary of State John Kerry also says no other nation has been asked or volunteered to provide those forces. McClintock says this approach risks disaster because there's only one way to fight a war. "The president is unwilling to commit ground troops. I believe the country is unwilling to commit ground troops. That's probably wise right now. If you're not prepared to back our troops with the full and complete resources of our country (and) back our troops with the full might and fury of the nation, you shouldn't go in in the first place," said McClintock. The current reality in the region offers no good guys. The radical Sunnis in ISIS are currently fighting to topple the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria. They are also hated and opposed by Iran, the world's leading sponsor of terrorism that is also in hot pursuit of nuclear weapons. So which side poses the greater threat to the U.S.? "At the moment, the Islamic State is a great threat for two reasons. Contrary to what the president told us, it is Islamic. It is fundamentally Islamic and it has all of the elements of a state. It's that combination of factors that make it so dangerous. They have declared their intention very clearly to insert a fifth column into the United States and wage jihad against Americans on American soil," said McClintock, who believes we're rolling the dice on supposedly moderate rebels while much greater vulnerabilities are ignored. "Here we are, sitting fat, dumb and happy with a wide open southern border, a barely enforced northern border and unenforced visa laws. If there is a terrorist attack on American soil through our porous southern border, I think this administration is going to have a lot of explaining to do," he said. McClintock says there is a right way to take the fight to ISIS. He listed four components, including a serious approach to border security. "We have got to secure the border. That is where the Islamic State is directly threatening the United States to wage jihad on American soil," he said. When it comes to air strikes, McClintock applauds the campaign that's already underway but believes it needs to be ramped up to send ISIS a clear message. "I think it's appropriate to order immediate and significant and focused retaliatory strikes against the Islamic State in response to specific acts that it commits against American interests. That's basically what Ronald Reagan did in Libya and it worked," said McClintock, who says Washington also needs to take serious action on two fiscal issues. The world is rapidly becoming much more dangerous and unstable and our military budget's got to be adjusted to meet that growing danger. And we've got to recognize that the precarious fiscal condition of our government has now become a matter of vital national security. Before you can provide for the common defense, you've got to be able to pay for it," he said. Finally, the congressman says the U.S. must foster a much closer relationship with the one partner in the region we can rely upon in all seasons. "We do have one reliable, time-tested and true ally in the Middle East. It's Israel. We should make sure they have all the equipment and supplies and assistance that they need and that they have the unqualified support of the United States government when they have to take action for their own security, as they recently did in Gaza," said McClintock. |
| The Paper Coalition |
| Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:24:12 EST The Obama administration appears to be building a "paper coalition" that seems willing to do little more than cheer the U.S. on in the quest to destroy the terrorist army known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), but a leading terrorism expert also says we should be willing to try arming moderate Syrian rebels in the effort if they can be identified. President Obama has stated repeatedly that the U.S. will lead a "broad coalition" in the fight against ISIS, and the administration now says 40 nations have promised assistance of some kind. However, in testimony Wednesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State John Kerry says no nations have been asked to provide ground troops and no nations have volunteered for the job. "It troubles me. It is a paper coalition to date. I'm not sure, other than rhetorical support, what we're actually going to get. I actually thought money would be a help from places like Saudi Arabia. I think we should look into some financing for this effort," said Foundation for the Defense of Democracies President Clifford May. "We also know, most distressingly, that certain of the most important actors in that region, say Turkey, a NATO ally, is refusing to help," he said. Turkey, long a secular Islamic state, is growing increasingly radical., most recently with it's rhetoric towards Israel in the battle against Hamas in Gaza. May says Turkey is refusing the U.S. to use our own air base on Turkish soil to launch any sort of air strikes against ISIS. The Turkish government is also refusing to take any action to stop illicit oil sales by ISIS. "It's a very shaky coalition at best. We don't want (Syrian President Bashar) Assad in it. He is a client of Iran. We don't want Iran in it, though Iran is fighting the Islamic State. This is why we need a complex strategy. This is why it's tough. This is why the idea of the coalition is sort of fanciful at this moment," said May. President Obama is asking Congress to authorize spending for the arming and training of moderate Syrian rebels, such as the Free Syrian Army, in an effort to have local forces carry out the ground combat against ISIS. Critics assert that there may be no trustworthy elements of the moderate rebels and that rebels are more concerned with deposing Assad than fighting ISIS. May says this is a very thorny aspect of the U.S. approach to ISIS. "This is why this game has to be seen not as checkers but as chess and maybe three-dimensional chess. It is not as simple as saying the enemy of my enemy is my friend. In most cases in the Middle East, and certainly in this case, the enemy of my enemy remains our enemy," said May. "We need more than tactics, more than giving weapons. We need a strategy and that strategy should be to weaken or, to use Obama's phrase, to degrade and ultimately destroy all our enemies in this region, all of the various rival jihadi forces . The last thing we would want, for example, would be to be fighting the Islamic State as the air force of the Islamic Republic of Iran," he said. Nonetheless, May believes if there are some rebels we can trust, it makes sense to have them carry a share of the load. "I would hope that in these past three-and-a-half years (since the Syrian revolution began) the CIA has done a lot of vetting and knows who our real friends are. If they have some, sure, give them some weapons. Be careful which weapons and monitor carefully how they utilize them," said May. |
| 'Absolutely, Taxpayers Are Funding Abortion' |
| Tue, 16 Sep 2014 15:58:36 EST A new government study shows that the vast majority of insurance companies do not itemize abortions on medical bills and charge for them separately, meaning taxpayer dollars are paying for abortions through the Affordable Care Act. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) study found that 17 of 18 insurers it studied did not itemize elective abortions on the medical bills for Americans enrolled in plans through the health care reforms, also known as Obamacare. The report explicitly states it did not review whether federal subsidies were used to pay for the abortions, but pro-life activists say there's no other conclusion to reach. "Absolutely, taxpayers are funding abortions," said former Colorado Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, who is now vice president for government affairs at the Susan B. Anthony List. The group is dedicated to electing pro-life women to public office. "This report is very damning. It shows that when the president said there wouldn't be abortion coverage in this, that taxpayers wouldn't be funding it, that's not true," she said. The Associated Press reports that in response to the GAO findings, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a statement saying it "acknowledges that additional clarification may be needed" on the law. Musgrave says clarity has been elusive on this part of the law from the very beginning. "This is the administration that said, 'We're going to be the most transparent administration in history.' Here we are now. People, whether they're pro-life or pro-abortion, can't figure out if abortion on demand is included in their coverage," said Musgrave. Taxpayer funding of abortion has been hotly debated ever since the Supreme Court's 1973 decisions legalizing abortion. In the late 1970s, then-Illinois Rep. Henry Hyde successfully pushed for a change in federal law to ban taxpayer dollars from being used to pay for abortions. It soon became known simply as the Hyde Rule. The law remained that way until the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. The resolution's language convinced pro-life lawmakers on both sides of the aisle that it would legalize taxpayer-funded abortions. President Obama and other Democrats insisted that wasn't the case. The final bill only passed the House after Obama promised to sign an executive order clarifying that the Hyde Rule was still in effect. "At the last minute, this administration cut a deal with pro-life Democrats, who said they were pro-life but they voted for Obamacare that violates the Hyde Amendment. Supposedly, this little accounting gimmick was going to take care of that. Now this report from a non-partisan government watchdog says that taxpayers are funding abortion," said Musgrave. According to Musgrave, no one should be surprised the executive order was meaningless and the GAO report is another reminder that the law never should have been passed in the first place. "Obamacare could have been stopped if pro-life legislators had held. Look at where we are now. My mom told me never to say I told you so, but here we are," she said. Musgrave says the GAO study is not the first sign of taxpayer-funded abortions resulting from Obamacare but is simply the latest evidence. She says administration officials have ducked the question for years. "When then-Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius was testifying, there were members of Congress that asked for this information on transparency and questions about the surcharge. She said she would get that information to them. Evidently, the information is still not available," said Musgrave In addition, she says even pro-life Democrats know the executive order didn't stop taxpayer-funded abortions. "It took individuals like (former Michigan Rep.) Bart Stupak a little while to be surprised that the executive order was worthless. Now, even he acknowledges that. He was the leader of the so-called pro-life Democrats that could have stopped Obamacare," said Musgrave. While hindsight may be instructive, what options to pro-life activists and the large majority of Americans who opposes taxpayer-funded abortions have in trying to reverse this part of the new law? "The only way to ensure that we have a remedy for this is the immediate passage of the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act. Right now, it's being blocked in the Senate by Harry Reid. You have to realize the Obama administration has had years to deal with this problem. They've refused to do it," said Musgrave, who believes the right election results could move the bill at least one step closer to becoming law. "After November, it is very likely that we will see a Senate that will be willing to do that and take up this legislation and then give it to the president. We'll see if he's going to stay true to what he said years ago," she said. First, she says, we need a Republican majority in the Senate. "There are key races that will determine which party controls the United States Senate and whether legislation like the Unborn Child Pain Capable Act will be heard that are really at play in this," said Musgrave. Susan B. Anthony List is heavily targeting incumbent Democratic Senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Kay Hagan of North Carolina. Musgrave says regardless of their rhetoric, all of them consciously voted for taxpayer-funded abortions. With Louisiana being the most pro-life state in the U.S. and Arkansas second, she says abortion in the context of Obamacare could be a major issue in those races. Musgrave also says the group is targeting Colorado Sen. Mark Udall for his Obamacare vote and for even being opposed to a partial birth abortion ban. Despite the many challenges in policy and politics, Musgrave says she is very bullish that the pro-life cause will ultimately win this debate. "It's a great time to be pro-life. Science is on our side. People are starting to understand issues like the unborn child being capable of feeling pain. They don't want their tax dollars going for abortion. They recoil at the thought of sex-selection abortion. So these senators in many of these states are out of touch," said Musgrave. |
| 'Please Stop Helping Us' |
| Mon, 15 Sep 2014 16:05:50 EST Many black Americans are making bad choices from having children out of wedlock and embracing a violent inner city culture that keep them from reaching their potential and liberal government policies are encouraging them to make those bad decisions, according to Wall Street Journal editorial board member Jason Riley. Riley is author of "Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make it Harder for Blacks to Succeed." Instead of encouraging black people to dream big and take responsibility for their actions, he says liberal politicians and civil rights leaders are more interested in telling them who to blame for their condition. "They want to keep the focus on white behavior, not black behavior. That's the agenda of the black leadership today, from the NAACP to Al Sharpton to Jesse Jackson, we're not talking about black behavior. All the bad black outcomes we see are a result of white racism. That's their narrative and they want to stick to it," said Riley. As policy experts debate the effectiveness of Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty", Riley says the path to advancement is the same for black people as it has been for all other demographics: less government assistance and more individual achievement. "Blacks must ultimately help themselves by developing the same habits and behaviors and attitudes that other groups in America had to develop in order to rise here. To the extent that a government program or policy, however well-intentioned, interferes with that self-development it does more harm than good," said Riley. "I argue that blacks have been subjected to a lot of policies that aren't doing them any good by interfering with the necessary self-development that needs to take place. For instance, trying to replace a father in the home with a government check is not helpful, but that's what a lot of these welfare policies have attempted to do over the decades," he said. If the pathway to societal advancement is well-established, why are so many in the black community choosing not to take it? "I think the left has done a brilliant job of convincing blacks that government is good for them and the more government the better. So you get an over-dependence on government among blacks, both in terms of jobs in the federal government, the military, the post office, civil service jobs or in terms of handouts like food stamps and welfare," said Riley. According to Riley, this problem is evident in countless areas of society. However, in just two examples he says we can see the damage done by the liberal approach to black Americans. Riley believes the first step toward addressing many ills of blacks is to get fathers back in the home. He says study after study shows that problems from criminal behavior, to drug use to dropping out of school is greatly worsened when fathers aren't living with their kids and active in their lives. "You name it, there's just a lot of bad things that happen when dads aren't around and that's what you have as the norm in black communities. As late as 1960, two in three black kids in this country grew up with a mother and a father in the home," he said. "Today, more than 70 percent do not. You can draw a straight line between that fact and a lot of the problems you see in the inner city, in these communities where these young black men have no sense of what it means to be black or a man. And it's because there's no one around to teach them that," said Riley, who says the problem is made worse when people are condemned for urging responsible parenthood. "When Bill Cosby wanted to talk about this a little while back, he got his head handed to him from the left, saying he was elitist, he was talking down to blacks, he was condescending. Even when Obama on occasion and his wife have talked about absent fathers and the bad outcomes associated with that, they get slammed by the black left," said Riley. Another major issue is crime, says Riley. He says liberals and the media constantly focus on relations between blacks and the police and issues like racial profiling. Riley says the glaring issue is rampant black criminality, but few are interested in addressing it. "Blacks are about 13 percent of the population but are responsible for about half of all murders in this country. Until that changes, you're going to have tensions between the black community and police. Blacks are arrested at numbers two to three times their numbers in the population for all manner of violent crime, all manner of property crime in this country," said Riley. "Until that changes, racial profiling is going to be an issue. People, black and white, are going to view young black men suspiciously so long as crime rates are what they are," he said. While the black vote is overwhelmingly Democratic, Riley asserts many black people are very frustrated with how Democratic leaders and prominent black figures approach key issues like education. "Today you have civil rights leaders siding with the teachers' unions who, of course, put the interests of the adults in the school system ahead of the interest of the kids. A disproportionate number blacks get hurt that way by being stuck in the worst schools, even though polls have shown overwhelmingly for decades that parents, and poor parents in particular, favor school vouchers, favor charter schools and so forth," said Riley. Riley says reaction to criticism of the conventional liberal approach to the black community comes in two forms. He says the elitists have no tolerance for him or any other black conservatives who dare to to challenge the system. "I like to joke that black conservatives get put on the couch. You know, Justice (Antonin) Scalia is just wrong as far as the left is concerned, or maybe a little evil. But Justice (Clarence) Thomas is a sellout, Uncle Tom, self-hating. They put him on the couch and psychoanalyze him," said Riley. However, he says many black people have responded very favorably to the criticisms and recommendations outlined in his book. "I think a lot of blacks don't self-identify as conservatives but they agree with a lot of what I'm saying, particularly on the cultural stuff. Church leaders, business owners, parents who struggling with trying to shield their kids from this culture, the rap music and all that, the materialism and the violence, they get what I'm saying. They understand this is something blacks are going to have to take care of on their own," said Riley. |
| 'They're Just Terrific' |
| Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:22:53 EST American military personnel are smarter and savvier than previous generations but they share the same love for country and desire to take the fight to the enemy, according to Bing West, the tireless embed reporter who has chronicled the work of our men and women in uniform throughout the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the U.S. marks 13 years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the last anniversary where significant combat forces are expected to be in Afghanistan. West has just published his sixth and final book detailing his time embedded with Americans in this war, entitled "One Million Steps: A Marine Platoon at War." West, a 74-year-old Vietnam veteran and former assistant secretary of defense, says he committed his time and risked his life time after time to tell a story that had to be told. "I thought somebody had to tell the story who had been in combat at the same level that they were. The generals and colonels hadn't been because they came up after Vietnam, so I thought I could go back with these platoons and try to explain to people what it's really like down there and what they're really doing," said West. "One Million Steps" traces the six-month assignment of a Marine platoon of the Third Battalion of the Fifth Marine Regiment in a small but deadly place called Sangin District in 2010 and 2011. "It was the hardest battle of the war. More British troops, before the Marines got there, and more Americans were killed in Sangin than any other place in the country," said West. West says there's a good reason why that sliver of Afghanistan was so much more violent than the rest of the country. "The basic reason was the Marines and the British had gradually squeezed the Taliban tighter and tighter in Helmand Province, which was the heartland of the poppy fields that supply 90 percent of the heroin and opium to the world," said West. "The Taliban had great finances there. Gradually they were squeezed more and more and finally when they got to this one district called Sangin, the Taliban said, 'They're not going to take this from us.' So that's what caused the battle," he said. The platoon created lodging by "hacking caves out of farm walls". West says a key three-mile stretch of the area was covered in thick vegetation, reminding him of Vietnam. He says the limited pathways were also natural targets for Taliban-placed land mines and other improvised explosive devices. That made for careful, tedious patrols. "We went single file on these patrols with generally about 14 or 16 Marines on each patrol. The point man was watching out for the mines and he had a mine detector. He would drop bottle caps. The last Marine in line would pick them up and the rest of us made sure we walked right on the bottle caps where the point man had swept for mines," said West, noting that even with such caution, the platoon suffered heavy casualties over the six months. "On average we found one or two mines a day and probably killed about one Taliban a day. But this went on for 200 days. The platoon had begun with 52 men. Of the original 52, only 27 were standing at the end," he said, marveling at how well the unit adapted to casualties. "In the book, I try to explain how...they found the courage every day, kept the courage to keep going, and how they kept raising up leaders. When one leader would be hit, and we lost some terrific leaders, the next leader would take over," said West. Being in close quarters with American forces 30-40 years after the end of the Vietnam War, West says this generation is even more impressive in some ways then those he fought alongside decades ago. "They're smarter than we were. They're more questioning of authority but the authority at the lower levels has a way of communicating back and forth with them about what they're doing it. They plan better and they have a recognition of how to use technology that no one can match," said West, giving an example of one major high-tech tool our forces now use. "The way we use air on a battlefield, when we're allowed to use it, is astonishing. We can see every individual on a battlefield from 10,000 feet. We now have a way that the soldier on the ground is looking at the same picture. So they have higher technology. They are more intelligent, and they're just as dedicated as they were in the past," said West. While in theater, West had Marines fill out a survey covering many different topics. The Marines were rather pessimistic about the present and future in Afghanistan. The vast majority said the people of Afghanistan either couldn't be trusted or were easily bullied by the Taliban. A majority expects the country to be a mess not long after the U.S. leaves. Nonetheless, in a unit where many members were killed or wounded, 92 percent of the survivors said they would do their service all over again. West chalks that up to a special mentality that can be found in our heroes in uniform. He shared part of what he told the Marines when given the chance to address them by the platoon commander. "You know that you joined because there was something in you that said, 'I want to be a warrior.' I'll tell you what, anyone who wants to come back with me now, I can speak to the general and I can get you out of here. Who wants to come with me? Of course, no one raised his hand. I laughed and I said, 'You see what I mean?' recounted West. "You like to complain. You bitch a little bit but you know you love being here because you're having an adventure that only one of a thousand will ever have," he said. "There is such a thing in our culture as some people who believe they were born to be warriors. That doesn't mean they spend their lives in the service, but it does mean they're willing to go out and fight for us and go back into civilian life and be able to say, 'Yes, I fought for my country,'" said West, who is greatly encouraged by the impact he expects these Marines to have on America in the future. "When you look at these young men and women that are volunteering, they're just terrific. So I have high hopes for where we're going," he said. |
| The War We Refuse to Win |
| Wed, 10 Sep 2014 16:18:12 EST Choosing nation building over victory and refusing to take any action that might have the slightest chance of endangering civilians puts our troops in a position that makes progress almost impossible in Afghanistan and exposes the poor judgment of political leaders and military commanders who have no personal experience in combat. That's the conclusion of Reagan administration Pentagon official and prolific military embed reporter Bing West, in his new book, "One Million Steps: A Marine Platoon at War." West also scolds President George W. Bush for becoming obsessed with nation-building and President Obama for thinking our enemies would go away if just stopped fighting them. In the book, West recounts his time with a Marine Corps platoon patrolling Sangin District, the deadliest area in Afghanistan. West describes Sangin as a place where the Taliban retreated after being forced back from other parts of the country. The dense vegetation made it very hard for Marines to see the enemy, but the rules of engagement made it even more difficult. Due to intense protests from the Afghan government whenever civilian casualties occurred, the U.S. went to tremendous lengths to prevent future deaths from happening. In doing so, West says our commanders tied the hands of our soldiers and Marines in unreasonable ways. "I am one of the few who doesn't hold in high respect our four-star generals who most others know by household names, because I believe that those generals never understood the nature of the war. They told us that we would go over and persuade the population to join the side of the government and to become democrats and it never happened," said West. "They said in order to do this, we had to avoid any civilian casualties. The generals said to do that, you will have positive identification (PID) before you take a shot. Well, the fact of the matter is the other side isn't stupid," he added, noting that those rules didn't stand up very well to the reality on the ground. "Usually, in a firefight you very rarely see the other human being. You only see him for about a second or two and then he's gone again, because he's hiding to stay alive and you're hiding to stay alive. The notion that you needed positive identification, we all knew on the lines, everyone from a lieutenant colonel on down, that you really couldn't do that," said West. The rules only got worse from there. When he was commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal further tied the hands of American forces by ordering they could not attack any compound unless they knew for a fact no civilians were present. "You can't be a squad leader as a four-star general," said West. "The fact is when we were getting fire from a compound, 99 times out of 100, we knew from being in that area that was where the Taliban were and where the people were not. And yet our orders were that we weren't to return fire and certainly we weren't to use artillery or air." West says these rules constantly put our forces in a defensive posture, but the red tape didn't stop there. In "One Million Steps," he reveals that each battalion had an attorney on staff. Troops engaged with the enemy were required to call into battalion headquarters and get legal permission before artillery and air power were authorized. "Sometimes you would call for air, honestly I had this happening. You'd end up in this debate between the sergeant who's standing next to you on the phone and the lawyer who's back at the battalion and the air officer who's back there and the pilots in the air. You'd all be talking back and forth about, 'Well, are you really taking enough fire that I can really bomb? Are you really sure [no civilians are] there.' All of this was done with the best of intentions, but we went entirely too far," said West. How did the U.S. military end up tying its own hands? West says part of it came from leaders asking troops to do things those commanders had never done. "It's the civilians and the generals having a wrong-headed view of war. Most of our generals have never been at war. Most of them were colonels or generals when the war began. They have never fired at anybody in anger," said West, who says President Bush had good intentions but set the stage for great frustration in Afghanistan. "President Bush started it by basically saying we owe liberty to these people. What? I didn't understand this and I fundamentally opposed what we were doing when I was out there. We said we could go to these Iraqis and Afghans who are Muslims and say, 'We're form the West and we're here to show you there's a better way of doing things,' and they would become democrats and we would build their nations for them. That was injudicious. As a result, we've reaped a bad harvest," he said. West, who is a Vietnam veteran, says the approach in Afghanistan should have been much simpler. "If you're going to fight people because they're your enemy and they've killed you, go over and kill those who have killed you and stop right there. Don't go any farther. Now we've reaped the whirlwind and we're back into Iraq because we left it too early after we did all this. Now we're back to fighting these guys again," he said. While West slams Bush for his focus on nation-building, he faults Obama for letting his political ideology trump sound policy. "He did not want to be involved in wars and he told us, 'I'm just stopping these wars.' Well hello? If the other guy's still trying to kill you, you can't just stop a war. So he made the great mistake of pulling us out of Iraq and I'm very worried that he's still promised that we're pulling out of Afghanistan completely. If you allow those who intend to kill you to plot when they're going to kill you, you're going to get killed," said West. West is very critical of Obama's semantics in how he addresses the ISIS threat. Obama repeatedly insists there will be no "boots on the ground". West says a thousand of our forces are already there. He says the government can officially designate the troops to be under CIA command and thus deny we have ground forces there. With respect to the big picture, West says Obama and his team obviously haven't thought about the long term goals. "We haven't figured out the political end game. We go in and we destroy Islamists. Who are we going to destroy them with? We're going to destroy them with the Sunni tribes. Why are we doing this? Because the Baghdad government is Shi'ite and aligned with Iran and they were oppressing the Iraqi Sunnis when we left. So what are these Iraqi Sunnis going to do when they retake their country?" asked West. "If you listen to President Obama, he's going to tell you that this is reuniting Iraq under the Shi'ite government in Baghdad. No it's not. If we have this conversation two years from now and the Islamists have been driven out, that the Sunnis announce they're going to have their own state. I don't think we've thought through where we're going in this war," said West. |
| Get Ready for the 'Refugees' |
| Tue, 9 Sep 2014 16:35:13 EST President Obama plans to legalize millions of illegal immigrants by granting refugee status to people coming to the U.S. unlawfully from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador even though they shouldn't qualify, according to a prominent black conservative. "It's been leaking out for quite a while and they've already announced their plans in terms of numbers of refugees they're allowing in, even though they're already over that number," said Joe Hicks, co-founder of Community Advocates Inc., a Los Angeles-based think tank. He is also a former executive director of the Greater Los Angeles chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and is a member of the Project 21 black leadership network. According to the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Service within the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. law defines a refugee as someone "located outside the United States," has "special humanitarian concern," "demonstrates that they were persecuted or fear prosecution" and "is admissible to the United States." Hicks says people from Latin America may be in dire straits but don't meet that criteria and Obama's efforts to unilaterally change the criteria "turns the whole notion of refugee on its head. "Prior to Obama, the notion of a refugee was someone who was fleeing war or some similar kind of circumstance in their home countries. No doubt there's very bad conditions in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, as it is in Mexico and in much of central and South America," he said. "But as long as I can remember...those nations were experiencing poverty and violence, but not from wars. These are endemic to those nations' cultures. So to claim that this is some new rationale to allow these immigrants to stay in the country based on a refugee status makes no sense because those nations have always had conditions of poverty and gang activity," said Hicks. If Obama were to go through with designating millions of illegal immigrants as refugees they could well be on the path to citizenship. Hicks argues against blanket amnesty for an an entire nation or region of the world. "There is no automatic right to come to this country as a refugee. We have to make the determination. The government and the proper authorities have to look at all of these cases and determine if or if they do not measure up to prior standards, which have normally been held almost as international standards of what a refugee is," said Hicks, who argues the flood of young people illegally crossing the border came prepared to appeal for refugee status. "These kids coming across the border (are) virtually reading from a script to border agents because they know the proper language to use. 'We're fleeing poverty and violence.' Those were the two words they would routinely use. They've been put in detention and in some cases resettled all across the country. So it really does make a mockery out of the process," he said. Hicks also studies the impact that the cheap labor provided by these illegal immigrants will have on our economy. He says young and low-skilled black workers are already hardest hit in this economy and Obama's plan would make things far worse. "Black low-skilled workers and black workers in general continue to be affected by the recession. They suffered longer and deeper under this recession. Their unemployment numbers are still above the norm by a fairly disproportionate level," said Hicks, arguing that illegals already have a leg up on American citizens on the job front. "There are parts of this country where you can go into fast food restaurants where there is a high percentage of Latino illegal labor available. You simply cannot find a black kid working in a fast food restaurant. Go on a construction site in many parts of this country. You can't find black workers working at those sites because Latino workers have simply depressed the wages," he said. Hicks says Obama granting refugee status to millions who shouldn't qualify for it will only lead to more frustration among black workers. "Yes, they will be harmed. Project 21's view is that will not be something that most black workers welcome if five to 15 million new illegal aliens are made legal by the stroke of the pen by this president," he said. Only 31 percent of Americans approve of Obama's handling of the immigration issue. Some think he's going much too far while others are frustrated he's not moving faster or being aggressive enough. The number is not likely to get any better as Obama delays his executive action. But Hicks says the president's lack of action should not be interpreted as Obama being rudderless on the issue. "I don't think he's confused. I think he knows exactly what he's trying to do and he's doing it for political reasoning. I think a lot of Americans will be outraged that he didn't simply bring his argument before the people, in this case before Congress and make his best case to try to get Congress to act. Presidents are not like a child. You don't always get everything you want," he said. |
| Obama's 'Absurd' Amnesty Approach |
| Mon, 8 Sep 2014 16:05:56 EST President Obama's decision to postpone executive action on immigration policy is entirely political and is not only designed to salvage the midterm elections but prevent amnesty from being torpedoed as an issue for years to come, according to Center for Immigration Studies Executive Director Mark Krikorian. One of the leading activists against what he considers a bipartisan push toward amnesty, Krikorian is also correcting what he sees as Obama's badly misleading statements about the current state of our southern border and this summer border surge. Earlier this summer, Obama promised to act unilaterally in response to the illegal influx of young people from Mexico and other Latin American countries. He promised a plan at or shortly after Labor Day. On Sunday edition of 'Meet the Press,' new host Chuck Todd suggested the delay in executive action was designed to help Democrats struggling to hold onto their majority in the U.S. Senate. Obama said "that's not the reason" but later admitted "the politics did shift mid-summer" because of the attention to the border crisis. Krikorian says there are two major issues at work and both are clearly political. "If he were to unilaterally, lawlessly amnesty millions of illegal aliens, which is what he is planning to do, the Democrats would lose the Senate. It would pretty much be guaranteed. It's already pretty close and that would be like throwing a hand grenade into the election," said Krikorian, who says there's an even bigger danger for Obama to act before Election Day than just risking a GOP Senate majority. "By doing this big amnesty before the election, he would make the midterm elections a referendum on amnesty and increased immigration," he said. "By making the election a referendum on his amnesty and immigration plans and losing, (it) sends a message to the public and to politicians that essentially the people have spoken and this is something they don't want," said Krikorian, believing lawmakers would then avoid the debate at all costs. In the 'Meet the Press" interview, Obama also tried to assure Americans the surge of young people entering the country is now under control and the border in general is secure. "The number of people apprehended crossing our borders has plummeted of the course of the decade. It's far lower than it was ten years ago. In terms of these unaccompanied children, we've actually, systematically worked through the problem so that the surge in June dropped in July and dropped further in August. It's now below what it was last year," said Obama. Krikorian says there are two major problems with the president's characterization of this summer's crisis. He says the latest numbers of young people entering the country illegally are down over the past couple of months but many experts attribute that to people waiting for the weather to cool down so they can avoid crossing deserts in the dead of summer. Second, he says people need to understand the president's definition of working through the problem. "They've worked through it by letting tens of thousands of illegal immigrants stay. Supposedly they're going to have hearings, which they may or may not show up for, hearings that are scheduled now for 2017, 2018, 2019. Do you think some teenager who has a hearing three years from now is actually going to show up and say, 'OK Sir, you can deport me now?' It's complete fantasy." said Krikorian. He says the number one reason why there will likely be another surge is because this one was a huge success. "What they did was wave in tens of thousands of illegal immigrants because they had the opportunity to do so. They very fact that they did that is one more example of this administration's out-of-control lawlessness," said Krikorian. When and if Obama does issue executive orders to change immigration laws, Krikorian expects it to focus on two priorities: legalizing many who are here illegally and loosening the rules on future immigration. When it comes to addressing those illegally in the U.S., Krikorian says people need to be clear that what this administration will propose is amnesty. "What the president is suggesting is actually giving work cards, Social Security numbers, drivers' licenses to illegal aliens. That is amnesty. What they're talking about is giving it to the parents and siblings of people who got this DREAM Act amnesty, which he lawlessly announced two years ago, and potentially to all illegal aliens who have U.S.-born kids," said Krikorian. When it comes to paving the way for easier immigration in the future, Krikorian says the president would once again be violating the constitutional separation of powers. "It would be the president making up bogus interpretations of immigration law in order to dramatically increase the number of illegal immigrants coming into the United States beyond the one million each year that we already get. You may think that's a good idea. There are people who do. I don't, but that's a plausible decision. But it's not the president's decision to make on his own," said Krikorian. Despite some progress, Krikorian says now is not the time for any of what Obama is pushing. "We have so much fixing to do there that the idea we have now done everything we need to do to fix the border and fix the rest of our immigration system is absurd," he said. |
| Don't Change the Redskins |
| Fri, 5 Sep 2014 16:49:21 EST The battle over the name of the NFL's Washington Redskins continues to rage. The vast majority of Americans support the team keeping its mascot but many Democratic lawmakers and interest groups have declared it to be racially insensitive and demand that it be changed. The Capitol Steps are here to find common ground. Out guest is Steps co-founder Elaina Newport. |
| Holder's Latest Gun Grab Plan |
| Fri, 5 Sep 2014 15:04:11 EST Advancements in gun technology could soon increase safety by responding only to authorized users, but Attorney General Eric Holder is embracing the innovation only as a means of declaring every other firearm illegal. That's the contention of Frank Miniter, author of "The Future of the Gun." Miniter also shared how the media bias surrounding gun issues is perpetuated and why liberals and the media almost always lose the big national debates over guns. In the book , Miniter explains how we may soon be able to purchase firearms that recognize their owners and only function in their hands. However, he says it's about to become the latest flash point in the battle over the Second Amendment. "We're starting to see electronics embedded into guns. The smart gun controversy is out there, where a gun can actually recognize a user and then not work for someone who's not authorized through that gun to use it," said Miniter. "The anti-gun movement wants to make that mandatory. By making it mandatory, it would make every gun available now illegal." "Attorney General Eric Holder had a conversation with one of the makers of one of the smart guns, Bill Gentry of Kodiak Arms. Holder was going on about possibly using the government to authorize it and have that sort of control. Bill Gentry said, 'Wait a minute, Mr. Holder. If you try to mandate my technology, I will burn it down,'" said Miniter. "This is the level that this is separating between gun owners and those who understand this topic and some on the government side who see this as an effort ton control it." When this debate erupts, Miniter says he fully expects the mainstream media to dutifully align themselves with the gun control movement. In the book, Miniter interviews longtime Washington Post movie critic Stephen Hunter and CNN co-founder Jim Shepherd. Both men discuss how they changed from endorsing gun control to embracing gun rights. Miniter says Hunter in particular gave him valuable insight into why there is so little balance in coverage of gun issues. "I asked they think this way and what we should do. He said, 'There's a groupthink, especially with young reporters. They believe in consensus. They believe in conformity. Stepping outside that conformity puts an individual by themself. That would take them out of that pack and they wouldn't get the promotions in the newsroom,'" said Miniter. Miniter says a stories of Americans using guns to defend themselves from burglars and would-be attackers as they wait for police to arrive would seem to be a compelling case for gun rights, but not in our media. "That sort of individualism is hard for a consensus reporter who is used to conformity and going along with a group's values to stomach. [Hunter] said only the most brave can actually look at that and understand it," said Miniter. While Democrats have successfully passed gun control legislation in states where they control the legislature and the governors' offices, gun rights groups prevail the vast majority of the time at the national level. Gun control advocates accuse the lawmakers of being servants of the National Rifle Association (NRA). Miniter tagged along with an NRA lobbyist working on Capitol Hill. He says the secret of the NRA's success is not complicated at all. "Over and over, what I found out is they only have sway because they have about five million NRA members and there's about a hundred million people in the United States of America that own a firearm and understand it is a practical right. Many of them vote that issue on those means. Congressmen listen when you walk in with that size of a constituency," said Miniter. "That's the power of the NRA. It's the American people. It's not some other dark, mysterious thing," he said. Another frequent argument from gun control supporters is that only law enforcement should be armed. Miniter says the biggest opponents of that approach are law enforcement officials themselves, noting that many sheriffs in New York, Colorado and Maryland are refusing to enforce new laws they consider an infringement of the people's right to bear arms. According to Miniter, police cannot be everywhere and responsible citizens deterring crime through the possession of firearms helps to keep a well-ordered society. He also relayed a conversation with Wicomico County, Maryland Sheriff Mike Lewis, who long ago started the Baltimore Police Department's drug interdiction movement. "I asked him, 'In all those years and all the bad guys you've arrested, have you ever arrested a good guy with a gun who used that gun illegally?' He thought about it a minute and said, 'Actually, I haven't. Every single time I've arrested somebody that's been prosecuted and found guilty, they always had that gun illegally,'" said Miniter. In addition, Miniter says the scant data that exists on gun owners authorized for concealed carry suggests those people are virtually never a problem. "It's rare to find someone who has a concealed carry permit using that gun in an illegal way. In fact, there's some studies that show they actually use them less in crimes than police officers do. Those are small samples, so it's hard to say that exactly. But that's how really safe they are," said Miniter. Besides defending the track record of lawful gun owners, Miniter says gun restrictions never have the intended effect. "Those gun bans won't stop crimes. Rifles are used in less than three percent of murders as it is. An armed citizen just isn't using those guns that way. It's the unlawful person, the criminal, who is getting those through very different means. The only way to really fight the crime is to go after the bad guys, not the guns," he said. Ultimately, Miniter contends that gun rights spawn more freedom, innovation and ensure that our military and police forces have top of the line weapons. He says that can be seen as early as the American Revolution. Because of high civilian demand for guns, the quality of firearms in the colonies and eventually in the hands of colonial soldiers was vastly superior to those used by the British. In fact, the minutemen could be as accurate from 300 yards as the British were from 75. "Right there, they started off on the right foot and that connection between freedom and American citizens and our private arms makers and the military and our police has always been a real connection. In fact, most of the firearms used over time and today were first used and made for civilians before it went to the military," said Miniter. "This has always been a connection between civilians and the military. Breaking that connection, a lot of special forces and other people have told me, would harm our ability to fight for freedom around the world," he said. |
| 'I Don't Think This Is Rocket Science' |
| Wed, 3 Sep 2014 16:42:35 EST Conservatives have facts and logic on their side but will not get anywhere with female voters until those principles are combined with empathy and an explanation of how their ideas would help the lives of individual people, according to former Hewlett-Packard CEO and former U.S. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina. Fiorina is the founder and head of the Unlocking Potential Project, a group dedicated to grassroots engagement of women on core issues. Her comments come in the wake of a new poll commissioned by right-leaning interest groups Crossroads GPS and American Action Network. The survey showed female voters still are not receptive to the messaging from the Republican Party. Respondents characterized the GOP as "intolerant," "lacking in compassion" and "stuck in the past." A narrow plurality of married women do side with Republicans but single women of all ages prefer the Democrats by roughly a 40-point margin. Fiorina says conservative women need to engage their friends because the case against continuing down the liberal road should be pretty simple. "We need to stick with facts and data. The facts are on our side and this why Democrats continue to hurl what I call shameless, baseless propaganda, because they don't have the facts," said Fiorina, noting that the record of the Obama presidency has been anything but beneficial to women. "More women are living in poverty than ever before. Women are bearing the brunt of the results of Obamacare. Women are not losing access to birth control as the Democrats claim, but they are losing access to their doctors. They're losing access to their hospitals. They're losing access to procedures that their doctors may be recommending," said Fiorina. "It is women and children who are being slaughtered by terrorists. It is women and children who are suffering in addition to soldiers of war. On the question of education, which women care deeply about, it is the teachers unions who are fighting against pay for performance. It is women as parents who lack choices in how to educate their children," she said. "I don't think this is rocket science," added Fiorina. Why is the Republican Party having such a difficult time connecting with women? Fiorina sees two key reasons. "I think the Democrats have very successfully used the 'War on Women' rhetoric to play up on women's fears. They're doing it again this election cycle. They used it very effectively in 2012. Unfortunately, in 2012, we never pushed back. We allowed Democrats to categorize women as single-issue voters, to categorize women as caring only about reproductive rights," said Fiorina. She says the other problem is how the right presents its messaging. "Women don't respond well to judgmental kinds of commentary. Women like to be persuaded by other women they know. I think our tone has to be empathetic. I think it has to be non-judgmental. I think we have to engage women in a grassroots effort," said Fiorina. The Unlocking Potential Project is focused on getting conservative women to intentionally engage their friends, co-workers and fellow church members in thoughtful discussions of the issues. Fiorina says the 2012 campaign showed that connecting on a personal level is the key to victory. "In 2012, Mitt Romney won on every issue the exit polling data shows. But he lost by 62 points on the question of 'cares about someone like me.' Had he lost that question by 30 points he'd be president," she said. Fiorina says one good place to start chipping away at that chasm is to engage women on all the issues they care about. "We're not an interest group. We're a majority of the country. Women care about every issue. They care about job creation. They care about health care. They care about terrorism. They care about security. They care about education, etc. One of the things we need to do is stop talking at high-level policy and start talking in a way that connects to a personal life," said Fiorina. She then used the example of taxation and regulation, suggesting an abstract discussion would do little good but for a woman interested in starting her own business, those issues could be intensely personal. "In some states, it'll take you 472 days to get through all the regulations and the permits. You might give up. That's more than a year. If you make it through that process, you're going to confront a tax code that's extremely complex, thousands of pages. You might give up again because you can't afford an accountant and a lawyer. That's the impact at a personal level of over-taxation and over-regulation. That's the way we have to speak to women, in a way that connects to their lives and their issues," said Fiorina. Fiorina says the perceived lack of personal empathy and the actual lack of an effective ground game are the two biggest impediments for the right in engaging women with conservative ideas. She asserts that the only way for conservatives and Republicans to narrow the gender gap is to change minds one at a time. She says doing the same thing cycle after cycle and hoping for different results is never going to work. "If our party talks way up in the air, if our party comes across as judgmental, as lacking in empathy, as lacking in understanding of people's real issues and problems, then we're going to lose," said Fiorina. |
| Obama 'Dithering and Blithering' on ISIS |
| Tue, 2 Sep 2014 16:05:04 EST Islamic militants purportedly beheaded American journalist Steven Sotloff and are now threatening to kill a British hostage if American air strikes continue, and a former Pentagon official says the ISIS rampage will continue as long as President Obama remains paralyzed by indecision and fails to declare America's goals with respect to the terrorist army. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) threatened to kill Sotloff in the same video depicting the beheading of American photojournalist James Foley less than two weeks ago. In addition to forcing Sotloff to denounce the U.S. before his murder, the masked executioner condemns the U.S. for the ongoing air campaign and for assisting Kurdish forces in reclaiming the key dam near Mosul. "You, Obama, have but to gain from your actions but another American citizen. So just as your missiles continue to strike out people, our knife will continue to strike the necks of your people.We take this opportunity to warn those governments that enter this evil alliance of America against the Islamic State to back off and leave our people alone,' said the ISIS figure, believed by UK intelligence to be former British rapper Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary. "It's pretty evident that ISIS has effectively declared war against the United States. We have not taken any decisions that are aimed at decisively defending our interests, our people or our allies abroad. That's really the whole thing," said Jed Babbin, who served as a deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration. "People keep bleating about how we don't have a strategy. Well sure, we don't, but the reason we don't have a strategy is President Obama has dithered and blithered for so long. He does not have the decisions made. You need to make the decisions on policy first. You need to decide what your goal is, what you want to have as the result of your actions, before you can have a strategy. He doesn't do that," said Babbin, who says Obama's indecision on this issue is not unique to this week or the past couple of months. "We have reports that through the president's daily intelligence brief, he has known and ignored specific intelligence about ISIS for about a year. What does it take to get this guy off his indecision and into the game?" asked Babbin, ISIS has gobbled vast swaths of land in both Syria and Iraq. Babbin says without decisiveness from Obama, we'll only see more of the same and the terrorists will be harder to stop. "The danger to us is going to continue to grow. There are going to be more people trying to come into the United States. Effectively our borders are pretty much open. God forbid, but we may see another big terrorist attack here as a result of not closing the borders and not doing anything really to put ISIS back on its heels," said Babbin. What should be the stated goals of U.S. policy and strategy with respect to ISIS? According to Babbin, our objective should be nothing short of its annihilation. "We should destroy, as best we can, everything ISIS has. As an example, we see B-roll on television all the time of tanks flying the Al Qaeda flag, trucks flying the ISIS and Al Qaeda flags. Every single vehicle that is moving anywhere in Iraq or Syria flying that flag ought to get hit with a 250-pound bomb. That's the whole point. That's what you do. That's what we should do and obviously we're not doing it," he said. Mirroring some homeland security measures recently adopted in Great Britain are also appealing national security steps in Babbin's mind. He says keeping terrorists out of the country, whether foreign or domestic, is a great idea. "If you go abroad and you join the army of another nation, and I would argue ISIS or Al Qaeda...under our law you lose your citizenship. Why shouldn't we be enforcing that? Why shouldn't we be doing that in a way that prevents these people from coming here and doing to America what they're trying to do in Iraq and Syria?" said Babbin. Babbin says despite Obama's penchant for keeping his finger in the wind, decisions like this are the job of the president and not Congress. In fact, his estimation of the congressional role to play in this crisis is exceedingly low. "There would be a role for Congress if Congress had not rendered itself irrelevant to pretty much everything that's going on these days. They could be urging the president on. They could be bringing up the idea of whether we want, for example, a declaration of war against ISIS. They could do things like that. They're not because they are what they are and they're not particularly relevant these days," said Babbin. Babbin credits the tough, pointed comments of British Prime Minister David Cameron for motivating ISIS to threaten the life of a British hostage in the wake of Sotloff's death. He says the terrorists may be concluding Obama isn't even worth their time. "Because Obama has made himself irrelevant to these things, why should ISIS care about Obama any more than Putin does? He's taken himself out of the picture," said Babbin. |
| 'Throw Political Correctness in the Garbage' |
| Thu, 28 Aug 2014 15:00:27 EST Radical Islam expert Brigitte Gabriel says ISIS is capable of anything from shopping mall shooting sprees to nuclear attacks in the United States and believes the best way to ward off calamity is for Americans to wake up their elected officials and demand they "throw political correctness in the garbage can" and confront the radical threat as it truly exists. Gabriel was a victim of terrorism in her native Lebanon. She is founder and president of actforamerica.org and is author of numerous books, including "They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It." She says the danger to the U.S. posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, is significant but says the threat is nothing new. "We know that radical Islamists have been trying t attack the United States. It doesn't matter what organization they identify with, whether it's Al Qaeda or ISIS or whatever name du jour that's exciting and dominating the news," said Gabriel. "Since President Obama became president, we have arrested on American soil 226 home grown terrorists. And that was before ISIS." She does acknowledge a significant difference with ISIS: the deep pockets of the terrorist army. Gabriel says those kind of resources can finance a whole lot of trouble for the U.S. and other western nations. "ISIS has their hands on biological weapons. They have captured the oil fields. They have their hands on nuclear material. And they certainly have the money to be able to buy the technology to put missiles together with nukes on top of them or be able to smuggle something into our country. We cannot afford to let our president, even though he is blind to the issue, to let the issue go ignored," said Gabriel, who adds that ISIS can strike a devastating psychological blow to Americans with far less complicated plots. "It doesn't take a mega-attack. All they need is a few crazies to strap bombs to their bodies and walk into malls in different states across the United States. That would literally strike terror in the hearts of Americans," she said. The Obama administration and many other public officials and organizations are taking great pains to insist ISIS does not speak for Islam or any other religion. Gabriel says Islam and radicalism are seamlessly intertwined throughout the past 1,400 years. "They are basing their actions on the words of the Quran. What IS is doing right now is no different than what Prophet Mohammed himself did," she said. "They are using scriptures from the Quran. For example Quran 8:12 talks about striking fear into the hearts of disbelievers. Therefore, cut off their fingers and toes because they disobeyed Allah. So what ISIS is doing is no different than what any other group or devout followers of the Quran will do," said Gabriel. She says we've seen with numerous radical Muslim groups just since the 2001 terrorist attacks. Gabriel pointed to mass executions and stonings in Afghan soccer arenas by the Taliban, the Al Qaeda beheading of Daniel Pearl, the terrorist beheadings of Nick Berg and 35 other people in just one year in Iraq and the horrific murders, rapes, abductions and church burnings carried out by Boko Haram in Nigeria. "When you look at these different groups across the world, whether they are Al Shabab in Somalia, or Boko Haram in Nigeria, or Lashkar-e-Taiba in India, or Hamas in Gaza, or Hezbollah in Lebanon or Al Qaeda. The name doesn't matter. They all are operating out of the same manual, sharing the same ideology and the same goal," said Gabriel. Speaking of Hamas, Gabriel says the recently announced cease-fire in Gaza is nothing but a chance for the terrorists to regroup and eventually pose a greater threat than before. "Israel has got to decapitate Hamas and destroy its infrastructure. Otherwise, Hamas is going to come back stronger than ever. It may take them a year, two years, three years. They're going to come back and we're going to see the same thing," said Gabriel. Act for America is hosting its annual security conference in Washington, a three-day event beginning on Septmeber 11. Gabriel says our elected officials need to understand the gravity of the terrorist threat facing our country and the urgency with which it must be confronted. However, she says it's up to the American people to make sure Washington takes notice and takes decisive action. "The American public must come together and put pressure on our elected officials to throw political correctness in the garbage where it belongs and start speaking the truth about the threats we are facing," said Gabriel. "(We need to) remind our elected officials as to the importance of securing the United States, securing American lives, protecting American cities and doing what is right to fight evil." Part of that, says Gabriel, is working to thwart the rise of home grown terrorists. She says rudderless young people are especially attracted to the cause. "What we're suffering in the west today is the lack of structure in the family, the lack of guidance. Many families are broken. Young people feel disenfranchised," said Gabriel. "What Islam offers is a way to tell you how to live your life, down to the simple things and how many times you can wash your hands and how many times to pray and everything to that detail. That's what they're attracted to. "A lot of people are also resentful of America. A lot of the youth are very easily drawn to very attractive recruitment videos on the internet," said Gabriel, noting that ISIS is even recruiting people most would consider the least likely to join their cause. "Right now ISIS is focused on recruiting women on the internet, offering them safety and security and stability and a home life if they would come and marry a jihadist and take care of a jihadist's needs," she said. |
| Tea Party Embraces Border Security |
| Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:17:40 EST Multiple new polls show tea party activists see the border crisis as the most important issue of the 2014 midterm elections and the movement once known for its insistence upon less spending and smaller government is ready to make border security a critical issue heading into November. Surveys from Gallup, The Polling Company and the Tea Party Patriots show immigration as the top issue for voters in 2014. Democrats historically have an edge in the debate due to their insistence that the vast majority of those in the country illegally are good people trying to make a better life for their families and they are deserving of a chance. However, the recent flood of illegal border crossings have changed some opinions, including those of congressional Republicans. GOP leaders from the Republican National Committee to House Speaker John Boehner to 2012 Republican Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan consistently pushed for comprehensive immigration reform in the wake of President Obama's re-election. Their plans were scuttled by GOP House members earlier this year. By July, while the border crisis raged, a majority of Republicans seemed very hesitant to move in that direction. Tea Party Patriots President Jenny Beth Martin says she things Republicans officially got the message. "What we saw happen at the end of July in the House of Representatives showed that the House of Representatives were finally listening to the people and doing what the people want. People do not want amnesty granted to people who have broken the law and come to our country illegally," said Martin. According to Martin, grassroots tea party activists see immigration as a bedrock issue this year both on grounds of economic fairness and the rule of law. "While the economy is slightly improving, there are more people who are underemployed than have been in many, many years in this country. The thought of bringing even more people into the country to compete for jobs that Americans that are still having trouble finding is very concerning," said Martin. "You watch what has happened at the border and the way people are coming across the border, ignoring the rule of law and being unfair to those who have actually obeyed the law to immigrate to the country on a legal path to citizenship. Americans are concerned about that. We understand America is a nation of laws, not a nation of men," said Martin. She says that legal path is the not only the key to observing the rule of law but a winning political argument against the Democratic case for compassion towards illegal immigrants. "There is a legal path to citizenship already. There are people who come to this country because they truly do want a better life for themselves and for their family. They want to pursue the American dream. They respect our country and they respect the rules and laws that are in place already," said Martin. "It's not fair or just or right to those people who are obeying the rules to allow somebody else who has disrespected the rule of law special privileges and allow them to cut in line in front of those who have been waiting patiently," she said. Martin also expects a fierce backlash from American of all political stripes if President Obama makes good on his promise to address illegal immigration through executive action, which some believe could mean authorizing work permits for up to five million people in the U.S. illegally. Martin says Americans expect Washington to follow the Constitution. "Americans want to the president to work with Congress. They don't want the president acting without working with Congress. We have a system in place where we have elections for members of Congress and we have elections for the president. Those elections have consequences. Sometimes that means you can't get your way," said Martin. Martin is upbeat on the midterm elections, despite numerous fierce battles between tea party candidates and the national Republican Party. The Mississippi GOP primary, in which incumbent Thad Cochran edged challenger Chris McDaniel in a particularly nasty runoff, is emblematic of a frayed relationship between the GOP and grassroots activists. Still, Martin says both sides agree the immediate goal for both groups is winning in November. "There is certainly a major divide and it's going to take some time to resolve that. In the next 60-70 days, as we're looking toward the November election, I think that tea party activists and people within the Republican leadership can agree that the one thing we need to focus on is how can we stop the president's agenda from continuing in the United States Senate. And how can we get the Senate functioning again so that they're voting on bills that the House has passed," she said. "The way to do that is to change the majority in the United States Senate," said Martin. |
| 'We Haven't Reached the Goal' |
| Tue, 26 Aug 2014 15:58:18 EST Retired Israeli Brigadier Gen. Elihu Ben-Onn says Israelis welcome a long-term cease-fire with Hamas even though the major objectives were not achieved and that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is paying the political price for failing to achieve a quick, clear-cut victory. In addition, Ben-Onn says the United States is seen as a diminished player in Middle Eastern affairs. The Obama administration repeatedly spoke up for Israel's right to defend itself but also regularly expressed outrage over the civilian deaths in Gaza. "We really appreciate the Americans for their support for the state of Israel, but it is clear that President Obama is not as strong as other presidents were before. So there's a feeling that's in the Middle East now that the United States is not such a strong figure as it used to be in the past. I hope the United States will be able to rebuke this image," said Ben-Onn. On Tuesday, Israel and the Palestinians agreed to a long-term cease-fire brokered by Egypt. Israel's stated goal heading into the 50-day conflict was to deny Hamas the ability to threaten Israeli citizens with rockets. As the ink dries on the cease-fire, Hamas still has rockets capable of hitting Israel. Ben-Onn says the Israel people are relieved to see a possible end to the fighting at least for a time. However, he says there is also a clear understanding of the results of the operation. "It is clear that after 50 days, we haven't reached the goal we planned about," he said. That performance is unacceptable to the Israeli people and Prime Minister Netanyahu is already paying a political price for it. In the early days of the conflict, Netanyahu's approval rating stood at 82 percent. Fifty days later, a new survey from Channel 2 in Israel shows the him with just 38 percent approving of him and 50 percent actively disapproving. Ben-Onn is not surprised. "Fifty days, that's the reason, that's the answer. The Israelis have a history and legacy that when you have an enemy like Hamas, we can stop the hostility and fire within a couple of days," said Ben-Onn, referring to very quick military victories in the 1967 Six Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War. "They believe the government and the prime minister can deliver the goods in one week or two weeks, but after 40 days or 50 days and Hamas can still target Israeli cities and villages, not only near the border but far away near Tel Aviv. It is clear that the popularity of the prime minister will go down because the people are used to having a very clear and clean victory. In this case, that's not the situation," said Ben-Onn. Instead of forcibly disarming Hamas, Ben-Onn says there are now a series of questions left unanswered about the future of Gaza and what lies ahead for Israel and Hamas. When it comes to Gaza, he says there are several possibilities moving forward. "What will be the future with these people? Can Israel leave after one week or two weeks or six months? Will Egypt go back and take responsibility in the Gaza Strip as it used to be until 1967. This question, I must tell you, is still unsolved," said Ben-Onn, noting Hamas has big decisions to make as well. "Does the Hamas regime understand that after such a war that they will never try again to attack Israel, and that now, after a big and hard lesson that the Israel Defense Forces taught them, with so many casualties and so much damage that they will not dare to shoot again? Or will they try to do it once more?" asked Ben-Onn. The general admits the region could return to the cycle of rocket launches that triggered Operation Protective Edge, but he says there is a possibility of some peace and quiet on the border for awhile and he points to the aftermath of Israel's 2006 war against Hezbollah in Lebanon as proof. "We have more than eight years of cease-fire and a balance of deterrence between us and Hezbollah on the Lebanon border. They don't dare to shoot . I believe that's what will happen now with Hamas. When they understand they are short of ammunition, short on supplies, short on cash money and the people are not happy with this regime, they will not start firing again," said Ben-Onn. |
| The Enemies Within |
| Mon, 25 Aug 2014 16:04:02 EST British intelligence has reportedly identified the terrorist responsible for beheading American James Foley, prompting fears of homegrown Islamic State sympathizers striking in the west and American experts insisting it's time for politicians and the media to stop sanitizing the threat we face and where it comes from. Reports suggest that hundreds of people holding American passports may be fighting alongside the Islamic State, or ISIS, in Iraq and Syria. The number of Europeans assisting the terrorist army could be well into the thousands. American Freedom Defense Initiative President Pamela Geller says, if anything, the real numbers are probably worse. "I think the numbers are probably low, because they haven't taken the threat terribly seriously for the past ten years. They've been discounting and completely avoiding or omitting the motive," said Geller, who is not shocked that some Muslims in western nations are attracted to ISIS. "It's not surprising at all that Muslims in the west would express support for the Islamic State. The idea of a caliphate transcends national allegiance and goes beyond anything current. It goes back to the beginning of Islamic history," said Geller. According to Geller, Muslim immigrants come in with a very different attitude than most who yearn to live in the west. "Many Muslims come to the west with a ready made model of society, of government that they believe is superior to what is currently in place," she said, noting most immigrants throughout history come not to change the west but to embrace it. "Immigrant populations, whether from eastern Europe, whether from Asia, they would come to America for freedom. That was the idea of the shining light on the hill, it's freedom, it's individual rights. This is the uniqueness of America. This us what makes American exceptionalism exceptional. It's individual exceptionalism," said Geller. One of the biggest problems for western nations is that they've largely allowed Muslims to export their vision for a nation to their adopted homelands, most notably through implementation of Sharia Law. "The Muslim population, for example, in France is over ten percent. You see outside of Paris...it can be very frightening. The no-go zones, the Sharia zones, where firefighters and police cannot go. They are many times lured by particular criminal activity into these zones, only to be ambushed. We see it in the UK, increasingly, the imposition of Sharia Law. And people think it can't happen here, but it is happening here," said Geller. Geller says American examples of capitulation to the Muslim agenda include mandatory prayer breaks at major companies like Heinz and Hertz and Muslim cashiers at Target and Walmart being excused from handling non-Halal meats. She says Muslim employees of Disney insist on wearing hijabs but objected when Disney tried to incorporate the head covering into costumes. "It starts off with demands and then accommodation and more demand and so on and so on. We are at stage two, Europe is stage three. You look somewhere like Sudan. That's stage five of the islamization of a particular country. It's drip, drip, drip, drip. That's how it's happening," said Geller. "As you can see, the islamization of the workplace, of the public school, of the public square, of the national dialogue, where literally the media is self-enforcing the Sharia. They will not criticize Islam. They will not offend Islam," she said. So how can western nations prevent their people from becoming victims of home-grown radicals? Geller says it starts with educating the public, starting with an honest critique of a press that won't tell the truth. "The biggest weapon that the enemy has in their arsenal is the media," said Geller. "The key is educating the public. First, they must understand who and what they're up against. They don't because it's like they're Helen Keller and someone moved the furniture." "We cannot defeat an enemy that not only do we not understand but we dare not say its name. This is what we have to do first and then we can strategize how you can defeat jihad," she said. Geller says President Obama is a prime example of trying to deal with a threat while simultaneously obscuring where the threat comes from and the ideology behind its actions. "He's woefully unprepared to face the threat of the Islamic State. He can't even say it. He said it has nothing to do with religion. Their name is the Islamic State. I don't know if he's clueless. I don't believe he's clueless. I believe he's complicit because we've seen him align with the jihad force in Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, in Libya with Al Qaeda-linked groups, in Gaza with Hamas. You know, Hamas is ISIS in Gaza," said Geller. Obama deserves much of the blame for the rise of ISIS, according to Geller, who says the president has botched virtually every step of addressing this threat. "He created the threat of the Islamic State by leaving Iraq precipitously and giving an opportunity to this group. He has denied it has anything to do with Islam, despite its name. He has denied that the Foley killing has anything to do with the U.S., despite the fact that the Islamic State has made explicit threats, that Foley was beaten more than any other of the hostages because he was American, that Foley was literally was hung and crucified on a wall because his brother was a member of the U.S. Army," said Geller. "This shows that Obama is encased in denial and willful ignorance. This is not a recipe for success or a sign that he's prepared to deal with the threat," she said. |
| Mister Greenspan |
| Fri, 22 Aug 2014 16:50:43 EST This week Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen delivered more discouraging news about the prospects for robust economic growth in the near future. The Capitol Steps long for the days when the world swooned over Alan Greenspan, even though he didn't turn out to be much of an oracle either. Our guest is Steps impressionist Mark Eaton. |
| The Welfare Explosion |
| Fri, 22 Aug 2014 15:49:42 EST Over one-third of Americans are receiving means-tested federal benefits, and Heritage Foundation analyst Rachel Sheffield says the federal government is poised to vastly increase spending over the next decade and actually measures the success of public assistance programs by the number of people using them. On Tuesday, the U.S. Census Bureau released statistics showing nearly 110 million Americans lived in households receiving benefits from one or more welfare programs at the end of 2012. That amounts to roughly 35.4 percent of the population. The data show the programs with the most beneficiaries include Medicaid (nearly 83 million people), food stamps (more than 51 million)and the Women, Infants and Children program (22.5 million). Sheffield says while the 2012 numbers do not represent a huge leap from recent reports, they do confirm the sheer size of our public assistance expenditures. "This is about one-third of the American population that receives some type of means-tested welfare benefit, which is a huge number. We have a welfare system that continues to increase in cost. There are 80 different federally means-tested welfare programs, so it's a very large welfare system," said Sheffield, who believes the government has a very wrongheaded approach to determining the success of these programs. "Unfortunately, the federal government tends to measure welfare success by the number of people that are receiving benefits. I think that's really the key issue here, that mentality that a huge welfare system is a successful welfare system," said Sheffield. "If we look at things like the food stamps program and other programs, they actually try to pull as many people onto the program as possible. They have recruiting procedures. They advertise to get people onto these programs. That certainly shouldn't be the goal. The goal should be to help individuals become sufficient rather than to be on welfare," she said. The near future suggests things will only get worse for taxpayers. Sheffield says Obama planned welfare spending makes recent expenditures pale in comparison. "We're headed towards a much larger welfare system. We're projected under President Obama's plan to spend $14 trillion on welfare in the next decade. We've spent $20 trillion over the last five decades on welfare," said Sheffield, who fears the much higher spending will be a major drag on our economy. "I don't have any hard numbers, but if we're spending $14 trillion on welfare in the next decade and we consider things like Obamacare and other large government programs, that's certainly going to contribute to the opposite of our economic well-being," she said. Sheffield also accuses the Obama administration of giving Americans less incentive to find work and eventually free themselves from public assistance, namely by unilaterally removing work requirements from the landmark 1996 welfare reform law. She says restoring those work requirements would be a major step towards shrinking America's welfare expenditures and beginning a solution to a culture of dependency. "First of all, it's about basing the welfare system on the principle of self-sufficiency, reforming policy so that we're encouraging able-bodied adults to work and become self-sufficient. Right now, the vast majority of welfare programs don't include any type of a work requirement. So inserting work requirements into programs like food stamps that encourage able-bodied adults to work or prepare to work, or to look for work as a condition for receiving assistance would be a critical reform," said Sheffield. According to Sheffield, the food stamps program is a perfect example of the government providing the wrong incentives. "We've also seen, for example in the food stamps program they're pushing policies that make it easier for people to get on the program and to stay on the program," said Sheffield. "There's a very minor work requirement in food stamps that the Obama administration has allowed states to waive. We've seen this even greater push from the Obama administration to get rid of what few work requirements were there," said Sheffield. |
| Obama Policies Imperil Black Families |
| Thu, 21 Aug 2014 15:26:59 EST Black Americans are right to be angry about their economic condition, but the leader of a prominent black conservative group contends the blame belongs with misguided government policies and agitators who distract people from the real problems. Demonstrators have taken to the streets in Ferguson, Missouri, in the wake of Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson shooting and killing 18-year-old Michael Brown on August 9. The protests focus not only on the specific case and the larger debate over relations between law enforcement and the black community but also over the perceived economic inequality between races. Basketball legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar wrote a piece for time magazine suggesting that any sort of major racial conflict in America would have less to do with race and more about economic disparity and class resentment. Black conservatives agree that economic conditions are definitely a factor in the frustration we're seeing. "There is some resentment that exists but I think we're seeing resentment that is being stoked and encouraged. It's mostly based on the economic standing that people find themselves in," said Horace Cooper, co-chairman of the Project 21 National Advisory Board. Project 21 describes itself as the "National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives." Cooper believes black Americans have suffered great economic hardship in recent years and the people they turn to for leadership do not provide anything but excuses. "There is no doubt that under the present administration's stewardship it has been harmful for Americans, and black Americans have felt it particularly painfully," said Cooper. "Unfortunately, rather than have a conversation about the good intentions behind the policies that have hurt so many, there's been an ongoing effort on the part of agitators like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to engage in a distraction effort and to say to people who are genuinely unhappy about their situation that it is somehow a broader indictment on America that's important," he said. Is there concrete data showing black Americans are being dealt a worse economic hand during the Obama years? Cooper says it's really not even debatable. "Black home ownership is sharply down. Black unemployment is sharply elevated. Black Americans' savings accounts are dramatically lower. There's almost been a 40 percent loss in total equity value among the typical black family compared to what they had during the eight years of the Bush administration," said Cooper, who says Obama has been promoting the wrong solutions to the economic challenges of black Americans and everyone else. "Black Americans need jobs, opportunity, investment, education far more than they need free health care, unemployment extensions or the other network of social services that this administration is putting forward," he said. Cooper says the best way to create jobs is to create inviting conditions to start a business. He says the administration is not doing that and is instead content to misdirect the frustrations of black Americans. "When people are setting up their shops in places like Ferguson, they are trying to offer services to black, white and brown. They find themselves doing that on an uphill push because of the policies of this administration," said Cooper. "Rather than acknowledge that, we're hearing talk that the real problem in America today is that black Americans, black men in particular, face the threat of being gunned down by the law enforcement community. That's untrue. The data doesn't show that," said Cooper. In addition, Cooper rips Obama for removing the most significant work requirements from the landmark welfare reform laws. Cooper says that simply rewards "indolence" and punishes work by telling people you can get what you need without working for it. He also says the Obama administration is aiming its civil rights agenda in the wrong direction. Rather than put its energy into advancing gay marriage, Cooper says a far greater need is raising well-educated young people of all races. "If you were to say, 'Where are the real problems facing America today?' there are fare more people who recognize that the educational attainment issue is a greater need than any of the other so-called civil rights that progressives want to talk about," said Cooper. In addition to making substantial policy changes, Cooper urges black Americans to make some changes on their own. He recommends embracing core principles that led to thriving black communities prior to the late 1960s, starting with respect for the law. "In 1950, 1955 and 1960, when you look at the data points, here's what you see: black Americans are far less likely to be convicted and incarcerated as felons than the broader community. Today, that number is exactly the opposite," said Cooper, adding that another priority needs to be intact families. "We also see that in 1950, 1955 and 1960, that the out-of-wedlock birthrate was lower in the black community than it was in the rest of the community. Today, that number is entirely going in the wrong direction. Some two-thirds to 70 percent of all black children are born out of wedlock. You can't continue down that pathway," said Cooper. He says instead of championing government services as the answer to problems in the black community, the president should be holding up his marriage and family for other black Americans to emulate and proclaim as the ideal way to steer their kids toward a promising future. "That's not the message that we hear. What we hear is that America itself is unfair to people of color. That's harmful and that's destructive," he said. The performance of the media in the Ferguson story is also a major irritant for Cooper, who says Americans are missing out on key aspects of the story because of a political agenda. "We're not actually seeing the real story. The shop owners, black, white and brown, who are being terrorized and who are having their property looted," said Cooper. "The media has not been helpful in all of this. The media has had a rush to judgment to create the impression that the whole story is all about how America is unfair, how police officers will go out of their way to harm innocent people. Whatever the story ends up being, this is a far more ambiguous case, a far more mixed case then what the media would have us believe," said Cooper. He suggests an additional casualty of the approach to this story by the media and other players is to obscure just how much racial progress we've seen in the U.S. "Lots of progress has been made in my lifetime and most Americans, black and white, would agree with that. Yet, that is being pushed aside to stoke the resentment where people see that they're unhappy and it's not clear why they're unhappy, but these agitators help give them a reason to do that," said Cooper |
| Will Conservatives Stay Home? |
| Tue, 19 Aug 2014 15:49:27 EST Former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer says conservatives are tired of being marginalized and taken for granted within the GOP and the party needs to prepare for more Election Day disappointments if they don't produce candidates the base can enthusiastically support. Bauer sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2000. He previously served as chief domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and is now president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families PAC. In a Sunday Washington Post story highlighting the agitation of social conservatives toward GOP leaders, Bauer described the difference between the two groups as a "chasm". He says that divide is felt by far more than the values voters. "The chasm is not only between the Republican Party establishment and social conservatives but the party establishment and conservatives generally," said Bauer. "I'm talking almost daily with economic conservatives, conservatives that believe in a strong national defense, those that are pro-life and pro-family. There's a general feeling that the party just isn't fighting hard enough against liberalism here in Washington and seems too uncertain with the message and with the themes that the party says it care about," said Bauer. According to Bauer, conservatives are not only looking for proud defenders of the unborn and traditional marriage but Republicans committed to smaller government, less regulation and other kitchen table issues. He says far too many in the GOP are far more interested in racing to the middle than standing firmly on conservative principles. "On all these issues, all too often, party officials who have been around for awhile tend to muddle the differences between them and the Democratic Party," he said. Three of the past four presidential elections show the nation to be very divided politically. Bauer says Republicans cannot afford to take any votes for granted. He says the party needs conservatives to win. "Whichever side can turn out its core supporters is likely to win not only the elections this November for control of the Senate and the House of Representatives, but they're likely to go on and win the presidency in 2016. If the Republican Party cannot get it's most loyal, committed voters, the voters that take most seriously the planks in the Republican platform, they're going to underperform this November and underperform in 2016," said Bauer. In his comments to the Washington Post, Bauer made it clear that conservatives have no intention of being ignored long-term. "Values voters have been treated as the stepchildren of the family, while the party has wanted to get on with so-called more electorally popular ideas," he told the Post. "The Republican base will not tolerate another candidate foisted upon us as a guy who can win." In his interview with us, Bauer said conservatives were told they had to support John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012 because they were the only candidates who could win. He says the results of those elections demonstrate conservatives have little interest of holding their nose to vote for who they see as the lesser of two evils. "Several million self-identified conservatives just didn't go vote. If the nominee is not somebody that makes the base of the party's heart beat faster, they just won't show up and that will result again in another election that swings the country further to the left," he said. Republican strategists accuse conservatives who stay home of biting of their noses to spite their faces. They argue that while conservatives might not have been enamored with Romney, he would be a far better alternative to President Obama on virtually every issue. Bauer says that's not the way it works for many conservatives. "They are moved by analyses about what they should and shouldn't do. They simply look at the candidates and say, 'OK, who's the candidate that represents what I believe?' If they don't see a candidate that represents what they believe, particularly on the things they care they most about, they're just not moved by the argument that this guy will be a little less worse than that guy," said Bauer. Bauer also challenges the notion that elections are won by catering to the middle of the electorate and keeping as quiet as possible on hut-button social issues. He says history tells a much different story. "There are strong and influential voices in the Republican Party promoting the idea that Republicans haven't done well in elections because of issues like the sanctity of life , religious liberty and traditional marriage. I believe the polling evidence is the exact opposite of that," said Bauer, who contends the GOP cannot point to any recent major electoral win by shying away from conservative principles. "They have no track record. They have no record of success. In fact, the most popular presidential candidate the Republicans have nominated in modern history was Ronald Reagan, who was roundly condemned by the party establishment as being too right wing and too conservative. But he won landslide elections," said Bauer. Another frequent argument from Republican officials is that public attitudes are changing on key issues like marriage, where the traditional marriage position once held a wide edge. Now polls are largely even over whether same-sex marriage ought to be legalized and millennial voters are overwhelmingly in favor of changing the definition. Bauer believes rather than shrinking from the debate, Republicans need to marshal a passionate defense of traditional marriage. "Instead of sticking your finger up in the air, trying to figure out which way the wind's blowing and suggesting that you have to abandon an issue because the polling has changed, how about instead making the public policy argument about why marriage should be between a man and a woman and why children need mothers and fathers ?" said Bauer. He says if Republicans simply went by polls, then they should be in favor of tax increases on the wealthiest Americans and be opposed to any sort of reduction in Social Security payments to help save the system. With the midterm elections less than 80 days away and jockeying for 2016 already underway, Bauer says recent history can already tell the the outcome depending upon how the Republicans approach the campaign. "The party needs to nominate in key races, including the presidential race in 2016, solid conservatives that are not ashamed or embarrassed about their views, people that are willing to make the entire case for economic conservatism, values conservatism and a strong national defense. If they don't do that, then I think once again they'll be frustrated by results on Election Day," said Bauer. Despite his frustrations, Bauer says he maintains Reagan's sunny optimism that the party will come together and move the country in a more conservative direction. And he believes highlighting the divides between various liberal factions will help to depress the Democratic turnout. "Many of the constituencies in the Democratic Party have conflicting interests. If we're united and we start pointing out the differences on the left, then I think we have a good chance to be successful on Election Day," said Bauer. |
| Federal Charges Likely Coming in Ferguson Case |
| Mon, 18 Aug 2014 15:53:28 EST A former Justice Department official says politicizing of the justice system is at an all-time high and he expects federal charges to be filed in the shooting death of Michael Brown regardless of what local prosecutors do. Hans von Spakovsky served in the civil rights division of the Justice Department during the George W. Bush administration. He is now a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and co-author of the new book,"Obama's Enforcer: Eric Holder's Justice Department." He says the Obama administration's track record on deciding which cases to prosecute and Friday's Texas indictment of Gov. Rick Perry are just the latest evidence that ideology is driving the justice system at multiple levels of government. "Eric Holder has completely politicized the Justice Department. As we can see, unfortunately, this is happening in other places like the Travis County (Texas) D.A.'s office. That should concern every American. I don't care what their political background is because that is a threat to everyone's liberty and everyone's freedom when that kind of power is used for political purposes," said von Spakovsky, who expects federal charges to come in the Brown case. "I am fearful that they will try to pursue a federal case even if there's no evidence to justify it, because of the fact that they really see everything, including Eric Holder, through the prism of race even when race is not a factor in a case or an incident," said von Spakovsky. Von Spakovsky says the Justice Department is right to monitor the case but should only intervene if the local authorities fail to conduct a proper investigation or if there is evidence that the the shooting was part of a direct attempt to deprive Brown of his civil rights. For the most part, he says, DOJ seems to be treading lightly. "If they go into this and interfere with the local investigation, that's when it becomes a problem. It doesn't look like they're doing that yet as of now," he said. Holder has already dispatched a Justice Department team to investigate the case and over the weekend ordered a a private federal autopsy of Brown's body on top of the two already done. The latter directive is puzzling to von Spakovsky. "That one I frankly didn't really understand. That may be an overstep on the part of the feds. There's no evidence of any kind that the local coroner's office cannot do a proper autopsy. I'm not really sure what excuse Holder has for ordering a second one, because the only reason to do that is if you're questioning the validity and the competence of the local. There's no evidence to show that they don't know what they're doing," said von Spakovsky. Tensions in Ferguson remain at a high level more than a week after the Brown shooting. Gov. Jay Nixon (D-Missouri) has ordered the National Guard to Ferguson to maintain order renewed clashes between protesters and police. Given the atmosphere and the fierce opinions on both sides of this case, is it even possible for officials to reach a conclusion that's acceptable to all sides? "There is if everyone will calm down and slow down. What needs to happen is a very thorough, very detailed investigation of the facts, which would include looking at all of the audio and video tapes of any kind that are available. Before anyone comes to any conclusions about what happened and whether or not the police officer was acting properly," said von Spakovsky, who says President Obama and Holder have largely been measured and proper in their comments. "The president and others, like Eric Holder, [have] said there's no excuse for the kind of looting and violence that has occurred. That is absolutely right. That is something the leadership of the country, like Barack Obama, need to be telling to people in Ferguson," he said. Von Spakovsky says the politicizing of the judicial system is seen on all levels, most recently by the Travis County, Texas, indictment of Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas). On Friday, a grand jury charged Perry with abuse of power for threatening to veto funding for the Travis County district attorney's office and then making good on the threat. Perry raised the veto threat after Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg was convicted of drunk driving and registering a blood-alcohol content approximately three times the legal limit. He threatened to withhold $7.5 million in state funding for the district attorney's office unless Lehmberg resigned. He vetoed the funding bill after she refused. Ste Democratic Party officials are demanding Perry's resignation, but many Republicans and even prominent liberals such as David Axelrod and Alan Dershowitz say the case is very thin. Von Spakovsky is even more blunt. "To call this indictment frivolous would be giving it too much credibility. It comes from an office that has a very unfortunate past history of using and abusing its power for political purposes," he said. The same office brought campaign fundraising charges against then-U.S. House of Representatives Majority Leader Tom DeLay. The case resulted in one conviction for DeLay, but that verdict was thrown out on appeal. Travis County prosecutors also brought charges against then-U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison shortly after her election. "That case was thrown out 30 minutes after the trial started. So this is an office with a very bad reputation," said von Spakovsky, who added there is no way for a Texas governor to abuse their power when it comes to vetoes. "It is not a legitimate charge. The governor of Texas has unlimited, unbridled power under Section 14 of the Texas constitution to veto a bill for any reason or no reason. What this office is trying to do is take a political conflict and turn it into a legal case and they have no basis for doing so," he said. According to von Spakovsky, the Holder Justice Department and the Travis County District Attorney's office are just the tip of the iceberg on politicizing justice. "From everything I've seen, it looks like it's getting worse. These are not the only examples of this. There are others going on around the country," he said. |
| 'They Need to Wake Up' |
| Fri, 15 Aug 2014 16:03:42 EST Both sides deserve blame in Ferguson, Missouri, and President Obama could do a lot more to calm tense situations like this, according to prominent Vanderbilt professor and conservative activist Carol M. Swain. A lifelong Democrat who left party after becoming a Christian, Swain says Republicans have also lost their way and the American people need to take back their country. This week, the shooting death of Michael Brown and the resulting rioting and protests have dominated media coverage. Swain says the situation got out of hand because of mistakes made on both sides. "The vandalism and a lot of the looting we've seen before. We've also seen Al Sharpton come to the scene and then the media descend upon the city. I think it's a serious problem with black youth and the police. I think the fault lies on both sides because it's important for parents to teach their children how to react to police. At the same time we want to monitor police behavior to make sure that there isn't brutality and racism taking place," said Swain, who is concerned about the increased militarization of police departments. "I am concerned about the military artillery and equipment in the city. But I'm more concerned about it because I think there's some other cities around the country where we've seen tanks and a lot of military activity. For all we know, this is something that the government is behind. It could be used against other citizens, not just in that particular riot situation. I'm glad the issues are coming to the forefront. I think they're much larger than Ferguson, Missouri," said Swain, who is also author of "Black Faces, Black Interests." Swain is not overly impressed with President Obama's public comments on the unrest in Missouri, but she does think he's striking a better tone than he did in the wake of the Henry Louis Gates arrest in 2009 or the Trayvon Martin debate in 2012. "He's been more cautious than in the past. In the past, he's been quick to jump to the conclusion that it's all racism when he didn't know the facts," said Swain. However, she says the president could be taking a stronger stand against lawlessness, regardless of the reason. "I think he could help the situation a lot by appealing to the black community and maybe even the journalists as well. I think with the black community, they need to know that rioting, looting, violence, is never an appropriate response. It's not an effective method of protest. I think it hurts the entire black community," said Swain. Swain was born into poverty as one of 12 children. She was a married, teenage mother with two children who did not finish high school. However, she later received her GED and received degrees from five different colleges and universities. Swain received her law degree from Yale and her Ph.D from the University of North Carolina. As a black woman raised in dire financial straits, she would seem likely to be a solid Democrat. And she was, until life took her in a different direction. "Like most blacks, I was born a Democrat and I was a Democrat most of my life. In 2000, I had a Christian conversion experience that sort of shifted me (politically) a little bit. I did not align with the Republican Party until 2009 and it was bit by bit. At some point, I decided I could no longer be a Democrat because of all the policy stances that are contrary to Judeo-Christian values as I understand them," said Swain. As she evolved politically, Swain had no intention of becoming a public activist. She says it came about naturally. "I never sought to be involved in politics, but I see issues like immigration, the national surveillance, the national security problems. Often, I don't hear people speaking out, and I believe that part of my responsibility is to speak," she said. "I speak out about issues because I believe our nation is at a critical point. I think we the people need to stand up, take responsibility for the condition of the nation and we can't point fingers at other people. It's our responsibility. It's our country. We have to fight for it," said Swain. Swain may have switched party allegiances in 2009, but she is far from satisfied with the performance of the GOP. The author of ""Be the People" sees Republicans too often holding a finger in the wind to determine how regain power. "The Republican Party has lost its way. I think it has an identity problem. It doesn't know what it wants to be. It believes it has to become the Democrat Party to stay in power. I believe that's a serious mistake," said Swain. "The Republican Party has not stood up for the Constitution in Washington as far as I'm concerned. All this noise now about impeaching the president. They should have been screaming when the president first started abusing executive privilege. I think the Republicans have not stood up because they want to do it too. When they're in power, we're not going to get that much change," said Swain. If Republicans do control all of Congress next year, Swain says she will not be encouraged by rhetoric before or after Election Day but by actions taken by those in office. She says the first step to better leadership is holding current officeholders to account at the polls. "Because the system is set up the way it is in Tennessee and other parts of the country, there's almost nothing the voters can do. I think that's unfortunate.We have to have a system that's responsive and in which we can hold incumbents accountable," said Swain. For Swain, accountability does not stop once the primary votes are counted. "In some of those cases, I think we have to do the ultimate. Punish them in the November elections, even if means that our own political party fails to win in that particular state. The only way to hold politicians accountable is to hold them accountable all the way through the cycle," she said, noting the only voters can set the nation in a new direction. "They need to wake up," said Swain. |
| Catching the Catfishers |
| Thu, 14 Aug 2014 15:49:42 EST Russian hackers recently stole 1.2 billion internet passwords and alarmed millions of people around the world, but one of the Pentagon's top cyber-security experts says there are far more sinister online threats and you may be leaving you and your family vulnerable through your activities on the world wide web. Whether it's an effort to gain access to bank accounts, steal your identity or lure you into divulging volumes of personal information, criminals are looking to exploit Americans at every turn in a practice known as "catfishing". But what is it? "What it essentially means is someone is lying to you in the online domain, whether it's something innocuous like adding a couple of inches to their height or taking away a few pounds from their weight or whether it's something much more insidious by someone lying to you about who they are, whether it's a predator or someone trying to lie to you to get information to steal your identity," said Tyler Cohen Wood. Wood is a cyber branch chief at the Defense Intelligence Agency. She is also author of "Catching the Catfishers: Disarm the Online Pretenders, Predators and Perpetrators Who Are Out to Ruin Your Life." She says there several things that should give you pause about your online connections. "Some of the red flags are simple things like: If this person you're talking to won't Skype with you or have a video conversation, that's a red flag. If someone will not send you a photograph in real time that's a red flag too. That could indicate they took a photograph from someone else's site," said Wood. "I also recommend if they do send you a photograph and it's just one photograph, that you do a Google Image Search so you can determine if that photograph appears on someone else's Facebook site or any other of their social media," she said, noting there are other warning signs as well. "You also want to look at their social media and make sure that the social media makes sense. Make sure that they have friends, that they have regular banter with those friends and they don't just have a bunch of filler friends and it didn't look like they just created the social media in one day. Those are just some of the red flags you want to look for," said Wood. As you take time to scrutinize the validity of your new cyber friends, Wood says you also want to be very protective of your own personal information. "You want to not put up personal identifying information. You don't want to have your address or the exact location of where you work. If someone's trying to steal your identity, all they need is your birthday, your name and an address that you've lived at," warned Wood. "I go through in my book how to protect yourself from giving away that information. A lot of times we give away this information without even realizing that we're doing it by using location services or just self-disclosure of information," she said. In addition to the obvious information you shouldn't be sharing with most people, Wood says there are other "digital crumbs" to avoid for individuals and business owners. "One of the greatest risks to businesses protecting their intellectual property and corporate IP is the fact that we no longer just sit in an office. We're always on the go. People use their personal smartphones for business or their tablets. There's something that I've called application permission creep. That's when the personal applications you use on your phone extend the permissions that they should be allowed," said Wood, who says there are solid ways to address this problem. "You can go to the permission settings, regardless of android or iPhone and see what permissions the applications that you use have. You would be surprised. A lot of applications on android will have permissions to view your text messages, your contact list, the things that you've stored on the phone. They have full access to sell that data. A lot times contact lists or the things you say in text messages are corporate intellectual property, so I recommend businesses really look at the applications their employees are using on their phones and look at the permissions that those have," said Wood. But what should you do if those preventative steps fail and your personal information is compromised or you discover a "catfisher?" "That's when you contact authorities. You can also contact the social media site that you're using because a lot of them have bullying or protection laws so they can help disable the account. But i would definitely capture all the information and contact your local authorities," said Wood. She says the teenage daughter of a friends was able to spot a fake romantic interest posing as a 17-year-old boy. When confronted, the person stopped communicating, but Wood says the confrontation spoiled a chance to identify the perpetrator. "If they had chosen to contact the authorities, the social media site they were using or the (internet service provider), a preservation letter could have been sent and we could have determined who this person was if that was the route they decided to go down," said Wood. |
| Will Gay Marriage Be Legal in Virginia Next Week? |
| Wed, 13 Aug 2014 16:01:15 EST A federal appeals court is refusing to stay it's rejection of Virginia's constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman, meaning same-sex marriage will take place and be recognized in the commonwealth next week unless the Supreme Court intervenes. The three-judge panel of the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a request from Prince William County Clerk of Court Michele McQuigg for the judges to hold off enforcing its decision until the legal fight ends,most likely at the Supreme Court. Without action from the Supreme Court, same-sex marriages will be legal and recognized in Virginia starting August 20. Traditional marriage defenders say Wednesday's decision by the three judges is clear evidence they see themselves advancing a political cause. "It's a clear case of judicial activism. This is a no-brainer that you stay the decision. This has never been heard before in an appellate court like this and never heard before the United State Supreme Court, so the consequences are chaotic," said Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver, who has defended traditional marriage in several states. "If in fact they don't stay the decision and people go get marriage licenses and then the case is overturned, then all those licenses are invalid. They're not worth the paper they're written on. So it's a no-brainer that they would stay this. The only reason they wouldn't is because they're ideologues." Staver goes even further, saying one of the key pillars of our American system is eroding as this legal debate over marriage persists. "I think what we're seeing is not marriage on trial. We're seeing the judiciary on trial. The only power they have is in the confidence of the people. If the people lose confidence in the courts, then the courts lose their power," said Staver. "They certainly lose power or gain power only when the people respect their decisions. When they act like this, how can you respect a decision by these activist judges," said Staver. The good news for traditional marriage defenders is that the Supreme Court will most likely issue a stay until the justices can consider the many different state cases themselves. That's the prediction of McQuigg's attorney. "Approximately seven months ago, the Supreme Court unanimously stayed a nearly identical federal court decision in a case that is materially indistinguishable from this one," said Alliance Defending Freedom Legal Counsel Ken Connelly. "By unanimously staying that case, we believe the Supreme Court essentially signaled to all lower federal courts that they must take similar steps to preserve the enforcement of these laws until the Supreme Court itself definitively resolves the issue," he said. Connelly says even Virginia Attorney Mark Herring, a fierce advocate for same-sex marriage, supports a stay until the Supreme Court rules on the issue. Upon taking office in January, Herring immediately announced Virginia would no longer defend the traditional marriage amendment its constitution and would instead be actively pushing for it to be struck down. Connelly says it's hard to know what impact Herring's actions have had in this case since many courts around the nation have ruled the same way. However, Staver believes Herring has played a role and considers his actions deplorable. "I think it's a big impact. The attorney general of Virginia ought to do his job. His job is to enforce this constitutional amendment. If he has a moral or some other objection to it, then he should step aside and let someone else do an aggressive defense," said Staver, who says any other lawyer would get in serious trouble for doing what Herring has done to the people of Virginia. "In any other area, if an attorney actually turned on the client and argued the opposite of what the client wanted, that attorney would be subject to sanctions. That attorney would be subject to professional responsibility ethics challenges and discipline," he said. Since the Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 2013, courts across the nation have used the decision as the premise to strike down traditional marriage laws and amendments. Connelly says those courts are badly misreading the Supreme Court's ruling, noting the justices found DOMA "unusual" because it was the first time the federal government waded into the issue of marriage. He says that same argument cannot be made in the Virginia case. "There is absolutely nothing in Virginia's marriage law regarding man-woman marriage or any other state's laws regarding man-woman marriage that are unusual. They have been in place, in all cases, before the states even came into existence. The marriage laws come up from the English common law and marriage itself predates the state, not just the United States but states in general around the world," said Connelly. "Virginia has always provided for man-woman marriage and only man-woman marriage, so it's not taking anything away. There's nothing unusual about Virginia's laws," he said. While Staver agrees that the legal argument strongly favors traditional marriage, he is not confident in the Supreme Court seeing it that way when the case finally gets there. "I have no confidence in the Supreme Court on this particular critical issue. Frankly, if the Supreme Court were to take up gravity and determine that the laws of gravity were no longer good for us, that they were good for the founders but we've evolved past that, what kind of an opinion would that be? I think that's the same thing with marriage," said Staver. Staver also has words of warning for right-leaning politicians and other conservative activists who keep silent on the issue or even consider embracing same-sex marriage as the polls lean in that direction. "Those who remain silent will ultimately remain accountable, just as much as Democrats who advocate to the contrary. This is not an issue on which you can remain silent, any more than you can remain silent in Nazi Germany. That was a moral issue. There was a moral imperative there of the dignity of the human being. You can't remain silent there and expect no consequences. Nor can you remain silent or advocate to the contrary with regards to the undermining marriage as the union of a man and a woman," said Staver. |
| Degrade or Defeat ISIS? |
| Tue, 12 Aug 2014 15:54:37 EST Concerned Veterans for America CEO Pete Hegseth says President Obama needs to decide whether he wants to degrade or defeat the terrorist army controlling much of Syria and Iraq and he says defeat will require American troops returning to Iraq. Hegseth's comments come just four days after Obama authorized limited air strikes to protect U.S. assets and personnel in the Kurdish capital of Irbil and humanitarian missions to aid religious minorities persecuted by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. "It is very narrowly tailored right now. The question is whether or not it is enough to turn back an ISIS threat which is growing and gathering," said Hegseth, a former U.S. Army officer who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He says this threat must be addressed if we hope to avoid the development of a radical state that poses a threat to the rest of the world. "ISIS is a well-equipped, radical organization that has stated its desire to attack the American homeland and our interests. In many ways, it is a worse environment than pre-9/11 Afghanistan," said Hegseth, who says the terrorists are poised to consume a lot more territory if they are not stopped very soon. "These ISIS folks are modern-day Nazis. They are dedicated to killing anyone who doesn't believe exactly what they believe and exterminating them. You would see substantial consolidation of gains in the north and I think you would see a renewed focus on Baghdad," he said. According to Hegseth, the choice facing the Obama administration is whether to contain or eliminate the threat posed by ISIS. And he says those options require very different actions. "There's a big difference between degrade and defeat. In order to stop and degrade their momentum, you're going to have to continue air strikes. You're going to have to send equipment to the Peshmerga, and you're going to need to embed advisers. It's not enough just to have advisers on post gathering intelligence. You need to have them targeting in the field alongside indigenous forces, whether that's the Peshmerga or the Iraqi army," said Hegseth. Hegseth admits degrading ISIS would be far less of a commitment than wiping them off the map, but he says allowing ISIS to exist in any form carries significant threats. "We could degrade and deny them for a substantial amount of time. The problem is you've got a lot of places where they can still plot, train and execute. The fear for us as Americans or western Europeans is that you have hundreds of Americans and many, many hundreds of western Europeans with passports who have traveled to Syria and Iraq through Turkey. We don't have a full account of how many there are getting training, getting intelligence, getting expertise and then heading back to their home country. That's what makes this such a scary scenario," said Hegseth. Hegseth believes ISIS need to be obliterated, but says it will mean taking steps the vast majority of Americans don't want to take. "If you want to defeat them, if you believe this is a threat that is too significant to ignore and just degrade, you're going to need U.S. boots on the ground. That's just a fact. Now whether that's divisions, I leave that to generals who do the war planning, but a significant level of troops on the ground will be required to displace ISIS from what they've gathered so far," said Hegseth, who believes total defeat of ISIS is the only realistic policy goal. He also says the previous gains in Iraq were worth fighting for and worth pursuing again. He says the failure of the Obama administration to secure a status of forces agreement in 2011 was catastrophic. "When we left and didn't leave a residual force and gave away our diplomatic leverage, you saw (Iraqi Prime Minister ) Maliki hedge toward Iran and start to marginalize opponents. When ISIS made their march on Iraqi elements with no U.S. support, they faded away," said Hegseth. Hegseth, who saw some of the worst of the sectarian violence in Iraq, says he knows the public has little stomach for troops to return to Iraq and most soldiers aren't eager to go back either. Still, he says those who served recognize what's at stake. "I think the folks that are the least war weary are the folks who have seen war, not because we want it but because we understand how if you don't meet these threats head-on, they just manifest themselves more dangerously," said Hegseth, who says Obama needs to decide soon what his policy goal is with respect to ISIS. "The longer we we wait, the more we defer the problem, the worse the consequences are down the road, which is why I hope this administration will take this more seriously and make some tough choices but that's not been in their DNA so far," said Hegseth. |
| 'They Don't Want to Actually Secure the Border' |
| Mon, 11 Aug 2014 16:10:45 EST The southern U.S. border is largely unprotected and American leaders simply lie to the public when they claim otherwise, according to a new video from Project Veritas. The report also depicts a border county sheriff in Texas declaring the border fence to be a joke, border patrol agents doing everything but patrolling the border and wondering if President Obama even cares that there is even an unguarded footbridge in his county that connects the U.S. and Mexico across the Rio Grande. Project Veritas President and Founder James O'Keefe crossed the shallow, narrow river a total of five times and twice in video, one dressed as Osama bin Laden to emphasize how terrorists could exploit lax border security. In his first crossing out of costume, O'Keefe takes just a few seconds to cross the Rio Grande. "I don't see a single federal officer anywhere, no walls, no guns, no people" says O'Keefe upon reaching shore on the American side in the video. His efforts are shown immediately after video clips of Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and former Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano all insisting the border was very secure. In our subsequent interview, O'Keefe says the message of the video should be pretty clear. "I think the message here is that border security is national security and that the American people don't really understand just how bad it really is. The political representatives are lying to them. The president is lying. Senator Reid is lying. Members of Congress are lying and misleading people. If a person who's dressed up as a terrorist can walk across the border in broad daylight with no federal Border Patrol agents to be found, I think the president is violating his oath," said O'Keefe. The video was shot in Hudspeth County, Texas, in the western part of the state. O'Keefe says the county is a microcosm of security problems across the southern border, ranging from small, separate components of the unfinished border fence to a footbridge connecting the U.S. to Mexico to a river that takes only a few seconds to cross. O'Keefe is joined in the video by Hudspeth County Sheriff Arvin West. The sheriff didn't directly answer when asked by O'Keefe whether President Obama is aware of the security problems in his county. "It doesn't matter whether he knows it's here. Does he care? says West. As for the border fence that President Obama once declared to be almost finished, O'Keefe says Sheriff West and other border security advocates know that's not true. "The sheriff intimated the fence is a joke. They don't think there's a fence. If you watch the video, there are these 20-foot high iron pillars that are attached to a concrete base. That goes on for about three miles and then just abruptly stops. You can walk around it," said O'Keefe, who says Sheriff West believes he knows exactly what it would take to secure the border in his county. "He said we could secure this border with about 75 guys. He currently has 12 deputy sheriffs in Hudspeth Couty for a 78-mile stretch. Remember, Congress is thinking about allocating three billion dollars. With just 75 deputies, that's far, far less than three billion. He could secure an entire stretch of that border. So he's giving a practical solution. Of course, given the way this government works and the way this country works, they'll never look for that practical solution because they don't want to actually secure the border," said O'Keefe. O'Keefe says another alarming result of his conversation with Sheriff West was to learn there are plenty of Border Patrol agents on the payroll, but most of them are nowhere near the border. "The federal border patrol is not on the border. They're inland, they're elsewhere. They're not actually protecting the border," said O'Keefe. Some observers of the video accuse O'Keefe of breaking the laws of two countries by publicly depicting how to illegally cross the border. He's not sure what Mexican officials might do but says the U.S. Border Patrol has already issued a statement claiming they simply cannot be everywhere at once. O'Keefe isn't worried about prosecution in the U.S. at all. "What laws are people referring to? What law has been enforced on our border? There is no law," he said. Project Veritas is well-known for its hidden-camera investigations of Planned parenthood, ACORN, National Public Radio and how easily voter fraud can be committed without photo identification. As with those probes, critics say O'Keefe is finding the exception rather than the rule when it comes to our borders. He says that's ludicrious. "It's pretty amazing the lengths my adversaries will go to undermine and discredit me and what we expose at Project Veritas. I don't think that people are necessarily surprised by the notion that people can cross the border. I think it's important to show people in the most outrageous way that this is the way it is," said O'Keefe. O'Keefe says Project Veritas hopes to act as a uniting force in the country because he believes people of all political stripes do not want to perpetuate a system that allows terrorists to waltz unimpeded into the country. He hopes people will demand answers from their lawmakers and from the president. O'Keefe says Obama is facing an important moment and his group will be ready to hold him accountable. "What is his response to what we've shown? How is he addressing the issue of terrorists sneaking across the border? How are his solutions going to prevent what I just did from happening again? Maybe I'll go and do it again. Maybe after his solution, I'll go across, pose as ISIS or as if I have Ebola and we'll see what happens then," said O'Keefe. |
| Liddy Gives Inside Story on Watergate |
| Fri, 8 Aug 2014 15:48:36 EST Saturday marks 40 years since Richard Nixon resigned the presidency over the Watergate scandal. The saga began more than two years earlier, in June 1972. A group of political operatives known as the plumbers broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate complex in Northwest Washington. What many Americans do not know, however, is how the plot started, what the plumbers were looking for in the DNC headquarter, why they got caught, and how the man lionized by liberals for breaking the scandal wide open actually deserves much of the blame. The leader of the plumbers was G. Gordon Liddy, a former FBI special agent and official in the office of the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP). In 2012, while a talk show host and colleague of mine at the Radio America network, Liddy detailed how the road to the Watergate break-in began. "I was down in the office of what came to be known as the plumbers. I was called by Egil Krogh, who was an assistant to John Ehrlichman, and he said, '(White House Counsel) John Dean wants to pitch you on something and I think I ought to be there.' That's because nobody trusted John Dean. So I went up to Dean's office. He said that he wanted an intelligence operation to operate against the Democratic Party in the 1972 election," said Liddy. "He wanted me to be in charge of it and Mr. E. Howard Hunt, whose background was CIA, to be assisting me. He said he wanted an all-out, full-bore offensive and defensive intelligence operation," he said. Liddy and Hunt came up with multiple elaborate plans to gather intelligence on the Democrats, but their superiors rejected most of them simply because they were too expensive. Finally, a pared-down plan received the green light. So what were they looking for? In 1972, President Nixon was bracing for a re-election fight against Democratic Sen. George McGovern. While many believe the plumbers were looking for campaign secrets and strategies, Liddy says the break-in had a very different goal. "The FBI was investigating not one, not two, but three separate call girl operations back then. The assistant United States attorney who was in charge of that was a man named John Rudy. He testified that the FBI came to him and said, 'We have found a connection between (the DNC and) the call girl ring that's being run out of the Columbia Plaza Apartments, which is across the street from the Democratic headquarters," said Liddy. The plumbers carefully scouted for a way to slip into the DNC offices without being noticed. They soon determined the nighttime cleaning crew was the weak link in the security because they failed to use a key to lock and unlock the headquarters every time they came in and out of the offices. That provided a way in but also led to the team being discovered. "We watched what they did and they put tape across the spring-loaded lock so they could bump it back and forth and that's what we did. The security guard came by and he saw the tape. And he said, 'Oh geez, they've done it again.' He ripped it off and started making his rounds again. We put the tape back on and that was our mistake. He came around again and saw the tape a second time. He knew the clean-up crew had left. So then the question in his mind was, 'Who put the tape on there? Wait a minute, we've got a problem.' And he called the police," said Liddy. While Watergate did not engulf President Nixon until after his re-election, Liddy was arrested and later convicted on multiple counts. He was sentenced to prison in January 1973. Between his arrest and his sentencing, Liddy became a household name for refusing to say a word about the Watergate plotting. Liddy says his silence was based on a very simple premise. "It concerned me that it was a threat to the administration. I wanted to preserve the administration of Richard Nixon and I knew that if I didn't talk, it would secure those above me. So I didn't talk but Dean cracked and talked. That's what brought down Richard Nixon," said Liddy. Through his eventual testimony to Congress, the Watergate plot was exposed by the very man Liddy says ordered the "all-out, full bore offensive and defensive intelligence operation" in the first place. Liddy already held Dean in exceedingly low esteem. when word of Dean's actions reached Liddy in prison, he says it simply confirmed what he already knew. "I said to myself, 'This is consistent with what we've always known about Dean.' What do I mean by that? When I first went over to the White House, Donald Santarelli, the deputy attorney general, said, 'Beware Dean. Beware Dean.' He said, 'Dean's the type of guy that you'll be typing away on an idea you have. Dean will come over and ask what you're doing and then you'll tell him. Then it's lunchtime and everybody will go to lunch except Dean. Dean will stay back, not have lunch, type up a memo with your idea and submit it. He's an idea thief," said Liddy. G. Gordon Liddy served more time in prison than any other figure associated with Watergate. His sentence was commuted by President Carter after nearly five years of incarceration. He soon became a prolific author, actor and then a radio talk show host for some 20 years. More than 40 years after the Watergate saga began, Liddy made it clear he has few regrets about the episode. He says he had good reasons to break the law and those reasons have since been validated again and again. "I saw Democrats as being dangerous to the country. I see the Democrats now as being even more dangerous to the country. I wanted to prevent them from being able to damage the country further. So I chose to make use of the special knowledge that I had as a result of the FBI and so forth. That was it," said Liddy. |
| 'This Meets the Test of Genocide' |
| Thu, 7 Aug 2014 15:17:19 EST The leading voice for human rights in Congress is blasting President Obama for doing nothing as Christians and other religious minorities face slaughter, starvation, rape and other atrocities at the hands of the Al Qaeda branch known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Virginia) says the evidence is clear that ISIS is on a murderous rampage throughout parts of Iraq and Syria and action is needed urgently. "It's very dire. The administration has known this and they've done nothing. In fact, the president put together a genocide prevention board back in April 2012. Well, genocide is taking place. This meets the test of genocide against an ethnic group. The ethnic group are the Christians. The ethnic group are the Yazidis. It also is a crime against humanity which meets the whole UN test. Yet, the administration has watched this and done fundamentally nothing," said Wolf. "We're saying do something. Act. Act. Act. People are without food. They're without lodging. They're without medicine," said Wolf. Reports from aid groups and others in the region depict horrors on a grand scale aimed at Christians and others. Another group in great peril are the Yazidis, a sect with ties to Zoroastrianism and other religious traditions. Wolf contends some 200,000 Yazidis were forced to flee their homes. Tens of thousands of them sought refuge on Mt. Sinjar without provisions and with summertime temperatures soaring far above 100 degrees. Nina Shea is an international human rights attorney and Christian religious freedom advocate with the Hudson Institute. In a piece written for National Review Online, she cited a shocking report from the Assyrian Aid Society of Iraq. "Yesterday 45 children died of thirst. Some families throw their children from the top of Sinjar mountain in order not to see them die from hunger or thirst, or not to be taken by the terrorists. 1500 men were killed in front of their wives and families, 50 old men died also from thirst and illness. More than 70 girl and women including Christians were taken, raped and being captured and sold," the group reported. Chaldean Christians are also a major target for ISIS in northern Iraq. Businessman Mark Arabo detailed the grisly atrocities for CNN. "There is a park in Mosul where they actually beheaded children and put their heads on a stick and have them in the park," Arabo told the cable channel. "More children are getting beheaded, mothers are getting raped and killed and fathers are being hung." Additional reports suggest ISIS is making considerable military progress and seem to have captured a critical river dam near Mosul that controls much of the water supply to a wide area. All of this is even more frustrating when considering ISIS is making this advance largely with American-made tools of war that were abandoned by the Iraqis. "They have humvees. They have automatic weapons. I heard they even have Black Hawk helicopters. I'm not sure they know how to fly them. But it is basically a nation-state now that you're faced with and they have a lot of money." said Wolf. Rep. Wolf says strong leaders do not just sit back and allow these kinds of horrors to proceed. "The administration says they're going to lead from behind, which means they're going to follow. I don't know that I could tell you why they're not acting. I think if we had somebody like President Reagan or President Truman. They would act. They would do something. We're not talking about military activity. There's a lot of things that can be done with regard to that, but the Christian community is waiting for someone to help them," said Wolf. "I think the president has to speak out. I think it was Martin Luther King who said, 'You understand the silence of your enemies but you don't understand the silence of your friends. I think the president has to speak out," he said. The congressman says ISIS needs to be confronted now or its agenda could succeed "all the way". He says the immediate threat ISIS poses to the U.S. and our allies is much greater than many realize. "Some of them are going to come to the United States perhaps. There are over 115 Americans with American passports that are fighting with ISIS, Americans who could fly back into the United States. There'll be nothing on where they were and they won't say where they've been. They fly to Turkey. From Turkey they go south and they joined ISIS. You have almost 2,000-3,000 western Europeans with British passports, French passports. They could fly here to the United States," said Wolf. So what could or should the Obama administration be doing? "There are a number of things the U.S. could do. One, thank the Kurds for defending the Christians and the Yazidis and urge them to continue to do it. Two, help with some of the foreign aid. Re-program money, giving some to Catholic Relief, World Vision, Save the Children to bring the basic necessities there. Three, allow the Kurds to sell their oil," said Wolf. "This administration has a ship in the Galveston harbor. They won't let it unload, because they say the oil belongs to the Maliki government in Baghdad. If the Kurds can't sell the oil they can't have any supplies. They can't defend anybody and the last couple days, the Kurdish military have been withdrawing. As a result of that, you see what's taking place yesterday and again today," he said. In addition to the obvious humanitarian crisis, Wolf says a tremendous amount of religious history for Christians and others is threatened or already destroyed by ISIS. "More biblical activity took place in Iraq than any other country in the world other than Israel. Abraham is from Iraq. Esther 'for such a time like this', in Ninevah they blew up Jonah's tomb over a week and a half ago in Mosul. Daniel, a great man of the Bible, is buried in Iraq. And yet, no one's saying anything," said Wolf. On Thursday, Wolf sent another letter to the White House, demanding action from the president. "We cannot pretend these atrocities aren 19t taking place; there are now videos on the Internet being promoted by those sympathetic to ISIS proudly displaying their brutal and grotesque slaughter and abuse of Christians, Yezidis and other religious minorities in Iraq," he wrote. "Your administration is aware of what is going on, yet you are doing nothing. Just what is the point of having an 'Atrocities Prevention Board 1d if it takes no action to prevent or stop atrocities? When was the last time this board has met? Has the board even been convened to address the genocide taking place in Iraq?" Wolf wrote. "It is now clear to the nation and the world that your words were hollow; your 'presidential directive' apparently was nothing more than a token gesture. You will come to sincerely regret your failure to take action to stop the genocide in Iraq. Your conscience will haunt you long after you leave office. Mr. President, say something; do something," Wolf concluded. |
| The Lessons of Afghanistan |
| Wed, 6 Aug 2014 16:36:20 EST The failure of the United States to recognize radical Islam as the driving force behind terrorist attacks in Afghanistan and beyond makes it impossible to address the problem and will quickly lead to instability there once we're gone, according to a former Pentagon official who has spent countless days embedded with U.S. forces. Bing West is a Vietnam veteran who served as an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and was frequently embedded with American troops, usually Marines, in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition to accusing the U.S. of turning a blind eye to radical Muslims, he is also ripping political and military leaders for what he considers their wrongheaded strategies and tactics throughout the past 13 years. Security concerns arose again on Tuesday with the news that U.S. Army Major General Harold Greene was killed by a Afghan soldier during a training program. Despite multiple stories of this type of killing in recent years, West says the problem is not with the program but with the true motivation for these attacks. "The problem in Afghanistan goes to the heart of the conflict that unfortunately the administration will not admit. This is a religious-based conflict. This is terrorism by dedicated Islamists who have committed to a jihad against the west and against all their enemies. They believe it ferociously and it is at the soul of their being," said West. West says there are plenty of trustworthy, hard-working Afghan soldiers, but he says even Afghan-Americans charged with obtaining intelligence from these Afghan fighters struggle to distinguish the good from the bad. "I've spoken with a lot of them and said, 'Look, can you tell a Taliban? Can you tell a genuine Islamist who's out to kill you?' And they said, 'Absolutely not. They lie so well.' Then they went on to say many times they don't even know what they're going to do themselves," said West. "You see a man praying, but just because he's praying doesn't mean he's on a jihad, but some of them are, and the very best people we have cannot differentiate ahead of time," he said. He says the Obama administration is ignoring this obvious motivating factor at the nation's peril for the sake of its cultural agenda. "There's this liberalism gone amok, notion of secularism where you cannot admit that religion plays any part in anyone's life," said West, noting that even the admitted terrorist attack at Ft. Hood by Maj. Nidal Hasan was labeled "workplace violence" by the Army. "It's extended far beyond the Obama administration, this denial that a person can be motivated by his religion. It's It's frightening. Therefore, if you say that, you're considered to be some sort of bigot," he said. West says all Americans are suffering as a result of a relentless effort to protect the reputation of Islam. "You have no way of making it legitimate to do investigations based upon religion or ethnicity. Therefore, everybody from a 90-year-old grandmother has to take her shoes off to go through the machines, etc. to get on an aircraft. We absolutely, resolutely refuse to look at the truth of who's trying to kill us," said West. As the U.S. gets closer to removing the vast majority of our forces from Afghanistan, West believes it's clear our long-term strategy was deeply flawed from the beginning and gave the benefit of the doubt to political and military leaders who didn't deserve it. "I think we went entirely too far in Afghanistan. I love our troops. I spent all that time out there. My next book is all about how brave the troops are. but I do not stand up and applaud our generals sent us down the wrong path," said West, adding that even the most acclaimed military leaders are not held in high regard by the ones who matter most. "We have certain generals like Gen. (David) Petraeus and Gen. (Stanley) McChrystal that we say are huge heroes. Well, down at the platoon level you have a different view. I believe that some of our famous generals were naive, so naive that the troops at the bottom know they are naive," he said. "They were just wrong about Afghanistan and Iraq...If you're going to fight the tough guy, you have to want to go into that battle to kill him and to win, none of this stuff about saying you're out to win the hearts and minds of people. That's not war. You go into war, you have to be determined to fight," said West. What is likely to happen in Afghanistan when the U.S. leaves? West says the chaos will descend rather quickly. "The fissures in that society run so deep that regardless of what we do as we pull out, there's going to be continued violence. Pakistan is determined that they are going to have a government that they can tell what to do. Therefore, the idea that there's going to be any kind of peace in Afghanistan simply isn't true," he said. However, West is also confident that Afghanistan will not pose the same kind of threat to the United States that it did leading up to the 9/11 attacks. "The notion that Afghans are going to be attacking the United States isn't true either. If we have a problem with Afghans, just don't give them visas. We don't have to go through all this stuff of building nations to prevent somebody from coming to the United States and taking pilot lessons," said West. |
| Constitutional Showdown on Amnesty |
| Tue, 5 Aug 2014 16:03:12 EST A leading border security advocate says Democrats are panicking over the immigration debate because their number one argument for reform has imploded in recent weeks, and he says the bill House Republicans passed on Friday is vital because it sends a clear message to President Obama that Congress makes the nation's laws. House Republicans provided considerable drama on the issue last week. Leaders initially called off a vote on a border security bill because they didn't have the votes. After members started heading for the exits, they were ordered to come back and consider an amended bill that eventually passed on Friday. Center for Immigration Studies Executive Director Mark Krikorian freely admits the House bill will never become law, but he says it serves a far important function beyond this debate and this year's elections. "There's a tug of war going on between Congress and the president over who gets to make the law. The Constitution's pretty clear on that. That's why it starts with Congress and the presidency only comes after Congress. Yet, the president seems to be saying that if Congress doesn't pass the legislation that he demands, that he is just going to go ahead and do it on his own," said Krikorian. "So even though the House bills, especially the one on this executive amnesty, obviously are not going to be passed under this Congress because Democrats run the Senate, it was a very important political marker making clear that Congress is not going to just lie down for the president's usurpation of the separation of powers," he said. While no legislation will pass anytime soon, Krikorian is convinced the immigration has changed drastically as a result of the recent flood of illegal border crossings. He says the news has Democrats badly flustered and looking for a new argument to pass comprehensive reform. "The whole premise of it was that the border is pretty much fixed, that we more or less have control and that now we can move on to clearing the decks, fix the problems that were created by past bad policy and move forward. The problem is the border crisis exposes that as false. We haven't yet fixed our immigration enforcement problems so how can we even talk about amnestying people who are already here. I think that resonates with lots of people, even people who are open to the idea, at some point, of amnesty down the road," said Krikorian. Last week, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) said he believed recent events at the border and on Capitol Hill triggered a genuine change in perspective for his party's leaders. "Our leadership has changed. I think they've come to a more realistic understanding of where the Republican constituency is," he said. "I think that events have caught up with the decision makers in Washington. Now, at least the decision makers in the Republican Party are together and they're going in the right direction," said Rohrabacher. Krikorian was a fierce critic of GOP leaders for much of the immigration debate. Now, he also believes they see the light. "The Republican leadership in the House initially wanted a much softer approach, weaker language, all of that stuff. You know, just the kind of thing you would expect from (House Speaker John) Boehner and his crew. The backbench members of Republicans in the House as well as a pretty clear public push back, and not just from conservatives but lots of independents, convinced them this is really something they really needed to stand up to the president on. So I'd say Congressman Rohrabacher probably had that right," said Krikorian. In addition to the House bills making a statement about which branch of government makes the laws, Krikorian is also impressed by the principles they espouse. Two bills were passed and Krikorian says both would put the nation on the right track. "One was some extra money plus some changes to the law to make it easier to return illegal alien minors than it is now. So that was a positive step and it was a much tighter piece of legislation than the one they had considered the day before," said Krikorian, noting the other was aimed directly at the White House. "The other thing they passed was essentially a rebuke to the president, who has unilaterally and illegally amnestied half a million people on his own authority and is threatening to do it for millions more without any input from Congress. They essentially said, 'We want to cut money off for this. You're not allowed to do that,'" he said. No one in Washington holds out hope for the GOP-controlled House and the Democratic-led Senate to find common ground on the issue. President Obama is now vowing to act on his own, and Krikorian has some educated guesses on what Obama would like to do. "The word that's coming out is that he's going to amnesty, and I mean amnesty by giving work permits, Social Security numbers and everything short of a green card, to potentially several million people. They're talking about maybe as many as five or six million, which would probably be the most sweeping executive power grab in our history, certainly in peacetime," he said. However, Krikorian predicts Obama will tread lightly just weeks away from midterm elections that already look like bad news for his party. "I think he's going to do something smaller before the election so as not to rock the boat too much politically. After the election, especially if the Republicans take the Senate, he might then try to slip through a much larger amnesty by decree, without any input from Congress," said Krikorian. |
| Rise of the Libyan Caliphate |
| Mon, 4 Aug 2014 15:24:44 EST Jihadists in Benghazi are declaring themselves part of an Islamic caliphate just days after tribal warfare forced American diplomatic personnel out of Libya over fears for their safety. With most of the world focused on foreign crises like the Israel-Hamas conflict and the Russian influence in Ukraine, the State Department quietly announced the withdrawal of U.S. embassy staff on July 26. Barely a week later, the fate of the war-torn country appears even more bleak. "There has been a rapid deterioration over the past couple of weeks. (Friday) in Benghazi, the Ansar al-Sharia group, which of course was involved in the attacks on our special mission compound in Benghazi, have announced an Islamic Sharia state, a portion of a caliphate. They have taken over Benghazi and declared Islamic law," said author and reporter Ken Timmerman, author most recently of "Dark Forces: The Truth About What Happened in Benghazi." Timmerman says the fighting between radical Islamic groups is steadily intensifying and the conditions on the ground simply became untenable. "The country is descending into chaos. I think this was a foreseeable thing. I've been talking to people who have been at the U.S. embassy recently, who have been engaged in the security procedures. They told me this was a disaster waiting to happen," said Timmerman, who did have a bit of praise for Secretary of State John Kerry while jabbing his predecessor. "Secretary Kerry at least had the foresight to evacuate the embassy, unlike Hillary Clinton, who left our people out to dry on September 11, 2012," he said. According to Timmerman, the rapid unraveling of stability in recent weeks is particularly noticeable and alarming. "In Tripoli you still have ongoing fighting. The international airport has been bombed and shelled repeatedly. Aircraft have been destroyed on the ground. Libyans are basically isolated from the rest of the world. The country is going to hell in a hand basket," he said, noting that all of this was avoidable because there was no need to force Col. Moammar Gaddafi from power in 2011. "The Obama administration engaged in the sabotage, an undermining of a regime in Libya that was no threat to the United States whatsoever. Gaddafi had given up his weapons of mass destruction. He had destroyed his ties to terrorist groups. He was helping the United States in the war on terror. Was he a nice guy? No, he wasn't. Were people in political prisons? Yes, they were. Were thousands jailed? No. He was a thug. He was a dictator, but he was not a threat to the United States and, frankly, he wasn't even a threat to the Libyan people," said Timmerman. "We overthrew him and the result of that was predictable. It was getting these Islamist groups, these jihadi groups, who we helped to arm by the way. We helped to arm them, in Benghazi and elsewhere. They took over the country, and since then they've been fighting for control," he said. Much of "Dark Forces" details how the toppling of Gaddafi led to a massive amount of American-made weapons winding up in the hands of the world's worst actors. Timmerman says the risks posed to the U.S. and our allies may well end up being the most troubling legacy of our involvement in Libya. "The weapons that we delivered to the Libyan opposition, the anti-Gaddafi forces, leaked into the Jihadi networks around the world," said Timmerman, noting that surface-to-air missiles have been tracked to Sinai, Gaza and even the shooting down of an American helicopter in Afghanistan. "This is a clear threat to U.S. security interests around the world and I think it's something that's got our officials in the intelligence community and even in the military very worried," he said. In his book, Timmerman details about 2,500 Russian-made surface-to-air missiles disappeared from Libya's arsenal after Gaddafi was killed. He says what happened next was even more troubling. "I was able to document in "Dark Forces" that about 800 of them wound up in this jihadi arms bazaar in northern Niger. That's a country in Africa, just below Libya. They were upgraded with CIA batteries and then traded amongst various jihadi groups and wound up in the Sinai, Gaza and elsewhere. That's 800 missiles that are out on the loose," said Timmerman. In early 2011, the so-called Arab Spring was proclaimed as a wave of freedom as protests engulfed nations like Egypt, Libya and, eventually, Syria. With chaos gripping Libya, civil war and an Islamic state raging in Syria and Egypt emerging from a two-year battle with the Muslim Brotherhood, Timmerman says the early evaluations of the Arab Spring are less than rosy. "While it may have had some liberal, pro-western leanings in the beginning, it was quickly dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, quickly dominated by jihadi forces and, in fact, has ushered in an era of darkness across the Arab world," said Timmerman. |
| Inside the House GOP Border Battle |
| Fri, 1 Aug 2014 15:53:31 EST One of the most prominent amnesty opponents in the House Republican Conference says he supported the original border bill, backs the new one as well and believes the legislation will give the American people a clear choice between the parties on immigration policy heading into the November elections. Friday's vote was scheduled after GOP leaders failed to muster enough votes to pass the original bill. Members were on their way home for summer recess when they were called back to work again on the legislation. Following a meeting of Republican members Friday morning, passage of a revised bill was largely expected by the end of the day. Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-California) made headlines last year by suggesting House Speaker John Boehner should lose his leadership position if he ever brought an immigration bill to a vote without having a majority of House GOP members ready to support it. The congressman says he supported the original legislation. By Friday afternoon, Rohrabacher was waiting to see the final language of the revised bill. "It's the same bill as what we had before and the other bill was a step forward. Many of us have been fighting the good fight against the nonsense we have in terms of immigration policy. I was going to vote for it," said Rohrabacher. For Rohrabacher, the plan included two of his top priorities. The first is stronger border security. "We are going to make sure that the National Guard can play a legal role at the border when it's necessary to call upon them. When they do, the federal government will take that expense because protecting the border is a federal responsibility," said Rohrabacher, who is also pleased the bill rolls back recent laws mandating that every young person coming across the border be processed. "It was eliminating a loophole in the law that had been placed there by legislation a long time ago that was aimed at human trafficking but set up a loophole that was actually giving due process rights to people who just ended up at our doorstep. That's why we were ending up with such a flooding, a swarming of young people at our border," said Rohrabacher. He says the failure to pass the bill on Thursday was the result of some confusion other conservative members had over specific language in the bill. "There was some wording of the bill that some of our more conservative members felt was not as effective as we could have had it and might lead to some confusion," said Rohrabacher. "They insisted on getting together last night and they worked out the proper wording. That's what we are going to vote on today and I have no doubt that it will pass." Rohrabacher says he still isn't sure what the wording problems were. "That was the biggest problem that I had with these people. When I asked for specifics, they really couldn't give me things. When they tried to, it didn't make sense to me," he said. Other conservative criticisms of the bill include the failure to address President Obama's unilateral 2012 decision to offer legal status to young people in the country illegally, providing their parents brought them here against their wills while they were minors. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) also demanded that Central Americans entering the country illegally be treated the same as Mexicans committing the same offense. King says that provision was fixed in the updated bill. While fellow anti-amnesty stalwarts such as Rep. King and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) found the original language unacceptable, Rohrabacher says he respectfully disagrees with their tactics from Thursday. "I don't vote against a bill because of what's not in it. I think that that's irrational to do that. That way you would vote against every bill because there's something you can add into every bill that's going to be more positive. You take a look and you say, 'Is that bill a step forward. Had they killed that bill for that particular reasoning, it would have been a great disservice to our country because then the positive things wouldn't get in," said Rohrabacher. Thursday was largely a public relations nightmare for the GOP, with leaders briefly giving up on hopes of passing a bill they previously said was vital an planning to take it up again in September. However, Rohrabacher says this debate and the current border crisis are both serving to unify the House Republicans on the issue of immigration reform. "The circumstances and historic events have been happening that have crystallized in people's minds what this issue of illegal immigration really is. I have, time and again, said this is not just the president. The president hasn't brought on this border crisis. It's the president as well as the Republican leadership. We're going down the wrong path," said Rohrabacher, noting that he repeatedly told his GOP colleagues embracing concepts like legalizing young illegal immigrants would lead to a flood of kids at our southern border. "Our leadership has changed. I think they've come to a more realistic understanding of where the Republican constituency is," he said. "I think that events have caught up with the decision makers in Washington. Now, at least the decision makers in the Republican Party are together and they're going in the right direction," he said. Passage of the bill, he says, puts Democrats in a very awkward position. "The Democrats are going to suffer because of this because there are a lot of Democrats who are saying, 'Hey, What's the president's answer? He's going to give away work permits to millions of people who have come here illegally? What is that going to do to the working people of our country who are unemployed now?'" said Rohrabacher. Senate Democratic leaders vowed to reject the original House bill and left Washington before the House voted on Friday. President Obama reiterated on Friday that he would veto either of the House bills if they somehow made it through the Senate. So what can the GOP gain by staying in town to pass a bill that will never become law? "The best thing we need to do as Republicans is say, 'This is what we've passed. This is what our policies would be. Compare it to the Democrats and then you vote. American voters vote and decide what direction our country goes.' In that way, this bill has served it's purpose well," said Rohrabacher. |