Listen to “Fiscal Conservatives Furious over Farm Bill” on Spreaker.

This week, the Republican House of Representatives and the Republican Senate easily approved a new, five-year Farm Bill, but conservative critics are enraged at the cost and structure of the legislation.

Club for Growth Vice President of Government Affairs Andy Roth says Republicans in Congress barely made any efforts to rein in spending or beef up work requirements for food assistance programs contained in the bill.

Roth says the original House version made some progress in those areas, but any good parts were stripped out in the final version that he expects President Trump to sign.

He says the spending approach was simply irresponsible.

“This was a bill that really didn’t have a score.  They just learned about how much it would cost right before the Senate voted.  Even then, the scorekeepers at the Congressional Budget Office said they still weren’t done counting.  So Congress rushed this bill through, in a lame duck Congress mind you, without even knowing the full ramifications of the bill,” said Roth.

“Lawmakers in Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, were more beholden to special interests than to taxpayers,” said Roth.

Listen to the full podcast to hear why Roth thinks the Farm Bill is a relic of the Dust Bowl era that’s no longer necessary, how the new Farm Bill is worse than the last one, and why the subsidies will go to big agribusinesses that don’t need them while small family farmers often get the shaft.

Listen to “Reining in the Executive, ‘Weekly Standard’ Folds, Cohen’s Imaginary Legacy” on Spreaker.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are glad to see some liberals embracing the conclusion that the executive branch – and the presidency in particular – has accumulated far more power than our founders intended.  They just wonder whether lefties will still have these concerns once one of their own is in the White House.  They also regret the news that the “Weekly Standard” will soon cease publication.  And they’re a bit bewildered as President Trump’s personal attorney-turned-adversary, Michael Cohen, tells ABC News that he hopes his legacy will be that he helped to unify the nation.

Listen to “Theresa May Survives: Now What?” on Spreaker.

On Wednesday, British Prime Minister Theresa May survived a no-confidence among her fellow Conservative Party members of Parliament.

While May survived, the margin was far from convincing. Over a third of her own party expressed no confidence over her rocky handling of the Brexit effort.

But without an election hanging over her head, what can May do to build confidence and where will the UK head on Brexit after the latest effort failed to pass the House of Commons.

Listen to our conversation with Anglosphere Society Founder Amanda Bowman as she discusses these issues and why she shudders to contemplate where Great Britain would go if the Labour Party’s Jeremy Corbyn ever became prime minister.

Listen to “New GOP Rep. vs. Vaccines, Taxing Text Messages, Pelosi's Power Ploy” on Spreaker.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and and Greg Corombos of Radio America find themselves drowning in crazy martinis again today.  They slap their foreheads as a new GOP congressman from Tennessee – who is also a doctor – appears to tell a constituent that he’s hesitant to accept the government’s denial that childhood vaccinations cause autism and says he thinks the Centers for Disease Control have “fraudulently managed” data on the issue.  They also rub their hand with glee at the possibility of political inroads with young people as Democratic regulators in California consider a tax on text messaging and then consider some far more annoying aspects of modern communication that ought to be taxed.  And they can only smile as Nancy Pelosi somehow jumps on the bandwagon for term limits in the Democratic leadership in exchange for four more years as Speaker of the House.

Listen to “‘It Was All A Fairy Tale:’ UN Radically Raises Cost of Climate Battle” on Spreaker.

In 2015, United Nations officials and leaders from around the world congratulated themselves on the Paris Climate Accords, which committed nations to significant reductions in carbon emissions and compelled the wealthiest nations to help fund similar efforts in developing nations.

Now, just three years later, the UN says those commitments are not even close to sufficient to confront human-caused climate change, so they’re asking nations to pony up even more resources to confront the threat to our climate.

So how did everyone get the price tag so wrong just a a short time ago and why is the estimate so much higher now?  We ask Rob Bradley, CEO at the Institute for Energy Research.

We also ask Mr. Bradley whether the French tax revolt is a sign that even liberal nations are fed up with the costly climate agenda, and whether there’s any renewable source now or in the foreseeable future that could even come close to providing the energy we get from oil, gas, and coal.

Listen to the full podcast with Robert Bradley to get an informed update of where we really are in the energy and climate debates.

Listen to “Oval Office Debate, Brexit Chaos, Avenatti’s Folly” on Spreaker.

It’s a very busy day on the Three Martini Lunch.  We begin by thanking Townhall.com for highlighting our podcast and close by discussing the sentencing of former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen and the most popular Christmas movies in various states (three states get it right and Nevada, of course, is very wrong).  In between, we tackle three big martinis.  We applaud President Trump for keeping the cameras rolling in Tuesday’s border wall discussions with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and plead for more transparency in our government.  We groan as a no confidence vote for British Prime Minister Theresa May unfolds after her failure to get a Brexit plan approved.  And we shake our heads as a judge orders Stormy Daniels to reimburse President Trump nearly $300,000 in legal fees, but attorney Michael Avenatti says it’s not a win for Trump because he’s really sure he’ll win his other case against Trump.

Listen to “Mueller, Cohen, and Trump: Where Are We and What’s Next?” on Spreaker.

On Friday, the office of special counsel Robert Mueller released memos which shed more light on guilty pleas from President Trump’s private attorney, Michael Cohen.

Among other confessions, Cohen is pleading guilty to campaign finance violations. Those violations are assumed to be hush money payments to adult film performer Stephanie Clifford (known professionally as Stormy Daniels) and former Playboy model Karen McDougal.

Those payments were deemed illegal because Cohen’s money was deemed an in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign. While candidates can spend as much as they want on a campaign, their supporters cannot. And the memos seem to suggest that Cohen accuses of Trump directing the payments in violation of federal campaign laws.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy made headlines with a FoxNews.com column suggesting it is likely that Trump will face campaign finance charges after he leaves office.

And all this leads to several questions:

How strong is Trump’s assertion that the payments were private transactions and not a violation of the law?

Why do some people accused of campaign finance violations wind up in prison for years while others just get a fine?

Should we be surprised that Democrats are now talking about impeachment even though we knew about Cohen’s allegations before the midterm elections, when Democrats insisted they would not be gung-ho for impeachment if given the majority again?

There are still no charges against Americans related to alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 elections. Would we have seen something by now if Mueller had found evidence of such a conspiracy?

Listen to the full podcast to hear Andy McCarthy’s insight on these and other critical questions.

Listen to “Mitch Allows A Vote, Trump & Time Magazine, MSNBC & the Next Chief of Staff” on Spreaker.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America react to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announcing there will be a vote on the criminal justice reform bill known as the FIRST STEP Act.  They also discuss Time magazine’s selection of Jamal Khashoggi and other murdered and persecuted journalists as the “Person of the Year” and take time to explain that no one can equate President Trump’s treatment of the media to the murders and imprisonment for the press in other parts of the world.  And they assess  MSNBC hosts Stephanie Ruhle and Ali Velshi being appalled that each person supposedly being considered by Trump to be the next chief of staff is a white male.

Listen to “Planned Parenthood and the Supremes” on Spreaker.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from Kansas and Louisiana, which are trying to stop Medicaid funds from going to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood.

Four justices must endorse hearing a case for it to come before the high court.  In this case, only Justices Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, and Neil Gorsuch voted to hear the appeal.  Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with the four more liberal justices in rejecting the case.

The news triggered intense debate within the pro-life movement about what this decision means.  Some believe this is a huge win for Planned Parenthood and its allies and a sign that the court isn’t as socially conservative as they hoped.  Others point out that the rejection of the appeal was based on standing and procedure and was not the merits of the case, so the battle will be postponed to another day.

Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver sees both sides of the debate.

“They’re both right.  On the one hand it is a win for Planned Parenthood,” said Staver.  “On the other hand, it is a procedural, statutory issue that doesn’t rule on the merits.  It doesn’t give us any indication where this majority court stands on the issue of abortion or Planned Parenthood in particular.”

While the Supreme Court issues majority and dissenting options on cases it handles, the justices are not required to give reasons for accepting or rejecting a case.  And while the six justices refusing to hear the case aren’t offering an explanation, Justice Thomas was very forceful in denouncing their ruling.

Thomas points out that different appellate courts have rendered conflicting opinions in this debate over Medicaid funding being used for abortions.  That’s usually when the Supreme Court will intervene, but not this time.  And Thomas believes the court is looking the other way because they know what an explosive issue this could be.

“Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty. If anything, neutrally applying the law is all the more important when political issues are in the background,” wrote Thomas, noting that the Constitution grants justices lifetime appointments precisely so they cannot be swayed by the politics of the day.

The reaction from Thomas is one of the reasons many pro-life advocates are worried.  Staver understands their concerns, but he urges his friends not to overreact.

“It’s not a ruling in favor of abortion.  It’s not indicating where the Supreme Court is heading on abortion or Planned Parenthood.  It is only a procedural ruling.  At the end of the day, it benefits Planned Parenthood no doubt but I still think there’s a lot more down the line,” said Staver.

Listen to the full podcast to hear Staver’s reaction to some pro-life activists comparing Justice Kavanaugh to former liberal Justice David Souter.  He also explains why the court could be making critically important abortion rulings in this term.

Listen to “No Takers for Chief of Staff, Heisman Winner’s Tweets, Time Magazine’s Lame List” on Spreaker.

Jim is back! Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America celebrate Jim’s return from the National Review cruise with three crazy martinis. First, they marvel that President Trump is having trouble finding someone willing to serve as his chief of staff. They also grumble as USA Today decides to tarnish Kyler Murray’s Heisman Trophy win by reporting that he had a few tweets that were unkind toward gays – when he was just 15 years old. And they roll their eyes as Time magazine unveils their ten finalists for “Person of the Year.”