Listen to “Trump’s Emergency, AOC’s Economics, Weld 2020” on Spreaker.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America criticize President Trump’s unusual press conference decision to declare a national emergency to work around Congress and free up $8 billion for a border wall – although they appreciate his desire to confront illegal immigration and smuggling. They also react to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez cheering Amazon’s decision to scrap plans for a new headquarters in New York, agreeing that crony capitalism is bad but marveling at how little she seems to understand about basic economics. And they yawn and laugh as former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld launches a GOP primary challenge to President Trump.

Listen to “Battle Over the Border: What’s in the Bill and the Emergency Declaration?” on Spreaker.

President Trump says he will sign the bipartisan budget bill providing almost $1.4 billion for border security but he will also declare a national emergency to give himself greater latitude for addressing the issue.

The legislation is expected to pass both chambers of Congress as very few lawmakers have a stomach for another government shutdown, but some of the president’s strongest allies are not happy with the contents of the bill.

“This certainly is not as acceptable as was advertised or previewed as recently as Tuesday. There are a number of concerning provisions,” said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.

Vaughan is fine with less money than Trump wanted. She is not OK with local governments having the power to prevent wall construction in their jurisdictions or providing legal protection to many smugglers because of language designed to shield those responsible for unaccompanied alien children at the border.

As for Trump’s emergency declaration, Vaughan expects a limited expansion of executive power.

Listen to the full podcast to hear Vaughan explain why Trump really has no choice but to sign the bill and what this deal means for the next round of the immigration debate.

Listen to “McCabe vs. Rosenstein: Who’s Telling the Truth?” on Spreaker.

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe says there were meetings at the Justice Department in the days after President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey over whether to invoke the 25th amendment against Trump.

According to McCabe’s new book and his interview with Scott Pelley of ’60 Minutes,” department officials surmised which cabinet officials would support Trump and which would deem him unfit for office. McCabe also says they discussed having Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein wear a wire when meeting with Trump.

Rosenstein has pushed back vigorously if not specifically. He says there was no serious discussion of wearing a wire and that he sees no reason to invoke the 25th amendment against Trump.

So who, if either of them, is telling the truth? What does it say about the Justice Department at the time of Comey’s firing? And what does it tell us about the larger Trump investigation?

We discuss all of those questions and more with former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, who is now a contributing editor and columnist at National Review Online and a Fox News Channel contributor. McCarthy also offers his reaction to Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee concluding there is no direct evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 campaign.

Listen to “Simple Math Taxes Harris, Omar vs. Abrams, Cocaine Mitch Confounds Dems” on Spreaker.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America applaud the Washington Post for calling out California Sen. Kamala Harris for her absurd contention that smaller tax refunds mean you’re paying more in taxes.  They also play the entire insane questioning of longtime foreign policy official Elliott Abrams by Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar and marvel at her ignorance of U.S. history and bizarre badgering of the witness.  And they get a kick both out of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell planning a floor vote on the Green New Deal and bill sponsor Ed Markey fuming that Republicans are going to hold a vote on his legislation.

Listen to “Do Smaller Refunds Mean Higher Taxes?” on Spreaker.

Some Americans are shocked to discover that their tax refunds are lower than before the Trump tax cuts, leading certain politicians and media outlets to question whether the middle class really got hit with a tax hike.

California Sen. Kamala Harris, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, was among those to push the narrative.

“The average tax refund is down about $170 compared to last year. Let’s call the President’s tax cut what it is: a middle-class tax hike to line the pockets of already wealthy corporations and the 1%,” tweeted Harris.

The Washington Post Express ran a story focusing on middle class families stressed out by their smaller-than-expected refunds and fuming that Trump didn’t really raise their taxes. Only at the end of a thirteen-paragraph story did the Post reveal that those feeling ripped off were actually pocketing more money as a result of the tax cuts.

National Taxpayers Union President Pete Sepp says the facts show the vast majority of Americans got a tax cut.  In fact, 90 percent of Americans making between $40,000-$200,000 per year are expected to see lower taxes.

So why are the refunds smaller?

“The reason why some refunds appear to be lower, and we’re talking about less than 10 percent lower, is that much of the tax cut already showed up in bigger paychecks throughout 2018.

“When you take the bigger paychecks from 2018, combine it with the refunds that people are seeing now, you’re still getting a net tax cut.  The problem is people have come to depend on large tax refunds to do things like make major purchases or pay down debts or put more money into savings.  That something you could be doing all during the current tax year,” said Sepp.

The Post has now published more analysis directly stating that most taxpayers did in fact get a tax cut.

Listen to the full podcast to hear Sepp’s message for politicians and media suggesting smaller refunds mean higher taxes and why he says big tax refunds are actually worse for you than owing or paying nothing at tax time.

Listen to “California’s $77 Billion Blunder, What’s so Bad about DUI’s? Booker’s War on Meat” on Spreaker.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America react to California Gov. Gavin Newsom greatly scaling back high-speed rail in the state, proving once again that the concept is not the dream solution that liberals think it is.  They also slam New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez for being outraged that people entering the U.S. illegally and illegal immigrants caught driving drunk are treated like criminals.  And they have fun with New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker declaring that meat consumption is destroying the planet and that he wants to make the existing model of the food system obsolete.

Listen to “Sasse Explains Why Dems Refuse to Ban Infanticide” on Spreaker.

Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse vows to press forward on a federal ban on infanticide, says opposition is rooted in the big dollars of the abortion industry, and believes many critics are convincing themselves that active killing of newborns is wrong but passively killing them is not.

Last week, the U.S. Senate failed to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act by unanimous consent.  Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray objected, saying the bill is unnecessary because infanticide is already illegal.  Later she suggested there was more to the bill than requiring care for a baby born alive after an abortion.

Sasse authored an op-ed in USA Today on Tuesday, imploring readers not to think of infanticide as a partisan issue.

“Every single public servant should be able to say it’s wrong to leave newborn babies to die. Sadly, that’s not happening,” he wrote.

In a Tuesday interview with Radio America, Sen. Sasse says he is genuinely surprised that there is any opposition to his Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

“If there’s anything the U.S. Senate ought to be able to get done 100-0, it’s something like this, stating the basic truth that babies that are born alive deserve a fighting chance at life,” said Sasse.

Sasse has been pushing he bill for two-and-a-half years but says there is much greater urgency after the New York law that repealed requirements for medical personnel to take all possible steps to care for babies that survive abortions.

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam was under fire on this issue before his yearbook scandal pushed the infanticide issue off the front pages.  In a live interview, Northam said babies that survive abortions should be resuscitated if that’s what the family wants and then kept comfortable while a discussion ensues – presumably about whether to continue to provide care for the newborn infant.

The Virginia abortion bill was defeated but Sasse finds Northam’s comments telling in how opponents are parsing the issue.

“I think they would draw a distinction between active and passive.  They say, ‘Well, if these babies survive an abortion, no one is proactively taking a pillow and putting it over the baby’s face and smothering them to death.  Since we have laws against murder already, that is infanticide.  And the passive tolerance of these babies being killed, that’s a different thing and we don’t need any protections for that.'”

“That logic breaks down entirely when you consider the fact that a 12-month-old baby would also die if you left her out in the elements to die by exposure.  By the way, in human history, lots of cultures have done abhorrent things like that.

“The Aztecs and the Greeks both practiced infanticide.  If they thought a baby was undesirable, if she had birth defects, they would leave them out in the cold to die.  So their argument here is that passive killing is not really that big of a problem.  Only active killing needs to be prohibited.  That’s total nonsense,” said Sasse.

Sasse says the refusal of many Democrats to stand up for babies even after they are born is more understandable when you follow the money.

“A lot of these folks are motivated by the zealotry of an abortion industry that makes lots and lots and lots of money off the status quo,” said Sasse.

Sasse says he will keep pushing his legislation in the Senate, although it could take months or even years to get a floor vote.  But he wants ever member of the Senate and the Democratically-controlled House to be on the record about where they stand on infanticide.

“Love is bigger than politics and everybody with a heart should believe that we should be able to have consensus around a common sense, pro-compassion, pro-science fact that a baby that’s born alive deserves a fighting chance,” said Sasse.

“We have a moral obligation to provide the same sort of care for those babies that would be provided to any other baby at that stage of gestation.”

Listen to the full podcast to hear Sasse explain why the celebration of late term abortion legislation in New York was a perversion of a unifying symbol and offer his full analysis of Gov. Northam.

Listen to “‘It’s a Massive Grab for Government'” on Spreaker.

Regardless of the shifting contents of the Green New Deal, a former Texas lawmaker and energy policy expert says the agenda would greatly increase the cost of living for Americans and hides the fact that renewable technologies like wind and solar create large amounts of radioactive waste.

“It’s a massive grab for government.  The plans keep changing .  You see papers getting pulled off of websites that reference cow farts.  I’ve said since last year that  the next thing you know they’ll be coming after our food supply.  That’s exactly what was published on a website by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and then later pulled down.

“This is really just about growing government, taking control from the people and really changing us from a representative republic to a socialist country,” said former Texas State Rep. Jason Isaac, who is now Senior Manager and Distinguished Fellow of Life: Powered at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Isaac also says this hardly the time for another New Deal, since the original version from President Franklin D. Roosevelt came at a time of economic peril.

“Now we’re in this economic force, this time frame where record-low unemployment, wages are going up.  Great things are happening in our country so now the last thing we need is a New Deal and certainly not a green one,” said Isaac.

America recently became a net exporter of energy, which Isaac says is raising the standards of living around the world.

“What we’ve seen over the last ten years, as more people get access to energy, we’re seeing poverty decrease.  We’re seeing life expectancy increase.  We’re seeing illiteracy decrease.  We’re seeing wonderful things because more people around the globe are getting access to our energy,” said Isaac.

He also warns that other nations have already traveled down the path towards a green economy.  He cites Germany, where residents see their energy bills tripled and the nation dependent upon Russia for energy.

“Could you imagine paying three times what you’re currently paying for your electric bill.  I couldn’t.  I couldn’t stand for it.  It wouldn’t fit in my budget.  That would be a major impact on Americans, and it would impact the least among us more than anyone,” said Isaac.

While Ocasio-Cortez says a green economy is the wave of the future, Isaac cautions that renewables cannot begin to make up for the energy demand covered by oil, gas, and coal.  In addition, mining for the rare earth elements needed for the renewable industry creates its own environmental problems.

“For every ton of rare earth elements that you get, you produce one ton of radioactive waste.  You just don’t hear about that ever.  So, every time we promote wind and solar, we’re actually promoting radioactive waste,” said Isaac.

Listen to “Senate Says No Collusion, McSally…We Have A Problem, Fake Apologies” on Spreaker.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America welcome reports that Senate Intelligence Committee Republicans and Democrats agree that there is no direct evident showing a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016.  They also shudder for GOP Senate prospects in 2020 as astronaut Mark Kelly, husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, announces he will run against Arizona Sen. Martha McSally next year.  And Jim sounds off on the insincere apologies offered by the likes of Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam and Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar.

Listen to “Remembering Rep. Walter Jones” on Spreaker.

Longtime North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones died on Sunday and is being remembered for his fidelity to God, his constituents, and the Constitution.

Jones was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994 as part of the Republican Revolution, but just two years after unsuccessfully running as a Democrat.

Mainstream media outlets are summing up Jones as the member who once wanted to rename french fries as “freedom fries” after French opposition to the war in Iraq but later recanted his support and became a fierce critic of overseas military operations without congressional authorization.

His aversion to deficit spending led him to oppose many spending bills pushed by Republican House leaders.  At one point, former House Speaker John Boehner stripped Jones of a plum committee assignment for bucking his party too often.

Former Kansas Rep. Tim Huelskamp, who is now president and CEO of the Heartland Institute, also lost a committee assignment for defying GOP leaders.  He calls Jones a “man of honor.”

“He stuck by his principles, which unfortunately is not a very common trait these days in many areas of politics,” said Huelskamp.

Huelskamp says Jones always focused on whom he was serving.

“There were two things he always focused on in representing.  One is to represent “them,” and that would be his constituents, and one is to represent Him.  That would be Jesus Christ.  He always kept “them and Him” in mind.

“Often times it was to the consternation of the Republican Party in Washington because he didn’t follow the party line,” said Huelskamp.

Huelskamp says his friend also had a deep reverence for the the document every lawmaker vows to defend.

“When he talked about the responsibilities of Congress, he wasn’t just talking about the House and Senate.  He was talking about what Walter Jones’ responsibilities are in the Constitution.  He took that to heart and was a fantastic member of Congress, particularly because of his commitment to his constitutional oath of office,” said Huelskamp.

Listen to the full podcast to hear Huelskamp discuss Jones’ change of heart on the Iraq War and other dust-ups with GOP leaders.