Radio America Online News Bureau

News & Politics

Austin Bomber Dead, Fiscal Conservatism is Dead, Congratulate-Gate

by


Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America briefly grouse about D.C.area drivers in inclement weather before sipping their martinis.  Then, they welcome the end of the Austin mail bombing horrors as the suspect apparently blows himself up as police close in on him.  They also fume as the GOP-led Congress pursues yet another omnibus spending bill with virtually no fiscal restraint in sight, leading Jim to declare that “fiscal conservatism is dead.”  And they sigh as President Trump defies his staff to congratulate Vladimir Putin on “winning” his election and because a disgruntled Trump staffer then leaked classified information to the media.

Share

Supremes Take on Free Speech and Abortion

by

The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday over a California law requiring pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to post information about how to obtain abortions, a requirement that the pro-life movement considers a direct infringement on free speech.

However, the pro-life side is also optimistic that the court will rule in its favor.

The legal battle is over a 2015 California law known as the FACT Act, which forces openly pro-life centers to prominently display information on how to get an abortion.

The sign reads: “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care and abortion for eligible women.”  It also provides contact information to learn more about abortions.

“This case really isn’t about abortion or Roe v. Wade.  It’s about free speech.  It’s a basic question about whether the government can compel private speakers to speak a message that they disagree with or, frankly, they just don’t want to say for any reason,” said Denise Harle, a legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the plaintiff in the case, known as National Institute of Family Life Advocates vs. Becerra

“American’s can’t be forced by the government to promote messages that conflict with their beliefs.  The first amendment guarantees that free speech means that Americans cannot be compelled to speak or forbidden to speak,” said Harle.  “California has enacted a law forcing pro-life speakers to advertise for the abortion industry.”

Harle offered more details on what message the signs convey.

“The sign has to be in 48-point font in the waiting room.  It actually gives a number to call,” she said.  “The law says it has to be clear and conspicuous placement in multiple languages that tells them where to get a free or low-cost abortion.

“If they call that number, they will actually be referred to Planned Parenthood or another abortion clinic,” added Harle.

The FACT Act also makes advertising difficult for the pro-life facilities.

“The law also requires for certain centers to put in every single one of their advertisements this 29-word disclaimer in multiple languages and it makes it completely impossible for them to do internet advertising, newspaper ads, billboards,” said Harle.

In addition, Harle says the law applies only to explicitly pro-life pregnancy centers.

“It only applies to pro-life speakers, which I think is so concerning about this law.  It exempts all other doctors.  It exempts out all for-profit health care providers.  And it exempts out the non-profit general community clinics if they aren’t primarily pregnancy focused,” said Harle.

Legally speaking, Harle says the law places a tremendous burden on the clinics.

“It interrupts the pro-life center’s message to women.  Not only is it confusing, but it’s a severe burden on the consciences of these centers that exist solely to defend life because they believe life is precious and encourage childbirth.  For the government to force them to promote abortion is just completely wrong,” said Harle.

Harle says working on this case has been a joy because of the pro-life convictions of the directors and volunteers at the centers.  But she says they are wrestling with conscience issues over this law.

“This law just adds layer upon layer of burden.  So not only are the clinic workers having their consciences burdened, they have a really serious decision about whether to work in a place that post signs promoting free abortion,” said Harle.

“Can you imagine having your whole existence being based on pro-life views and yet having to be a billboard for free and low-cost abortions,” she added.

It could also dry up resources for such centers.

“Donors are burdened with a conflict.  What am I doing now if I’m supporting these centers but they’re having to advertise for abortion.  Is this something I can continue to support?” said Harle.

At the Supreme Court Tuesday, the four liberal justices seemed to argue that pro-life centers ought to be required to inform patients of other options since that is the rule for abortion clinics as well.

The remaining justices seemed sympathetic to the argument that these signs conflict with the first amendment, with Justice Anthony Kennedy accusing the law of “mandating speech.”

Harle believes the oral arguments bode well for her clients.

“We’re very hopeful that we have several justices who agree that that’s a basic first amendment violation,” she said.

If the court sides with California, Harle says the consequences would be chilling.

“There almost seems to be no limit  to what a government could do if it doesn’t like a certain viewpoint.  If they don’t like a certain advocacy group or ideology and it’s going to impose these burdensome on them, that is going to silence and suppress free speech.

“Anyone on any side of any issue should be really concerned about a government that has that much power,” said Harle.

Standard Podcast [ 9:32 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

Maryland School Shooting, Driverless Disaster, Nixon Challenges Status Cuomo

by


Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are horrified to see another high school shooting, this time in Maryland, but they are gratified to see the school resource officer intervened quickly to neutralize the shooter.  They also react to the news of a driverless vehicle killing a pedestrian in Arizona and explain why humans behind the wheel will always make more sense than a computer.  And they pop the popcorn as “Sex and the City” actress Cynthia Nixon mounts a liberal primary challenge to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Share

Cabinet Secretary Ethics Woes: Corruption, Confusion or Both?

by

Several members of the Trump cabinet are under scrutiny for alleged ethics violations after reports of using taxpayer dollars for personal travel or spending huge sums of money on office furniture, and a government waste watchdog says much clearer ethics rules would make a huge difference.

Several Trump administration cabinet officials have raised eyebrows.  Former Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price resigned last year after reports of using taxpayer dollars to take private flights to various events.  Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin are under fire for questionable travel expenses.  Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Housing Secretary Ben Carson are facing questions about lavish spending on office decor.

So do stories like these suggest the cabinet secretaries have a stunning disregard for taxpayer dollars or is it the result of a labyrinth of confusing ethics rules that leave these officials wondering what can be charged to the government and what can’t?

Citizens Against Government Waste President Tom Schatz says these stories make for good political fodder but there’s more than meets the eye.

“Taxpayer-funded travel has always been an easy target for both sides to try to score political points.  The problem is no one knows what prior administrations did , how they spent the money, (and) what the budget amount might be for the various activities,” said Schatz.

“It’s easy to point out a few trips here or there that might look like something’s wrong.  But again, no one knows what the prior secretaries did.  There’s no way to know whether any of this may be within the rules, which also differ – not just between different administrations but even among agencies,” said Schatz.

And how is it that one administration has no idea what rules the previous one enacted?

“All of this information is really inaccessible.  There’s no searchable database to find out how often federal officials use taxpayer-funded travel, how much it costs, whether it’s necessary, whether it’s done on military aircraft or private planes.  It’s confusing.  It’s disorganized,” said Schatz.

And while Congress is not at the centerpiece of the recent stories, Schatz says that’s where responsibility ultimate lies for establishing a clear set of rules.

“Congress is ultimately at fault for how much money is being spent because they approve the budget.  This recent budget deal increases spending 14 percent.  We continue to suggest that Congress find ways to cut spending, to offset these increases if it’s that critical to increase defense spending and non-defense spending,” said Schatz.

Members of Congress seems to have a better handle on what their ethics rules are but Schatz says there’s still way too much wiggle room.

“There is nothing that shows the list of congressional travel.  There is no committee vote.  There is no transparency about what the legislators are supposed to accomplish.

“One thing that did occur over the years is they stopped taking spouses and staff to the Paris Air Show, but why are they going at all as members?  What happens with the results of these trips?  What’s the legislative activity that follows?” asked Schatz.

Schatz is doing more than complaining about the lack of transparency.  He and National Taxpayers Union President Pete Sepp launched an effort to bring clarity to the process following the Price resignation last year.

“We asked taxpayers to sign an online petition to demand detailed transparency on who was traveling, the mode of transportation, who is traveling with the public official, the purpose of the trip, the compilation of an annual report – including the cost associated with military aircraft and personnel – and then put it on one website that covers all federal agencies so that everyone can see what is going on.

“Then it might be more sensible to say, this individual or that individual or this agency or that agency is or is not doing something that violates the rules.  And I think uniform rules would also be very helpful,” said Schatz.

But will Congress actually address any of this?

“It would be nice if this happened, but like everything else in Washington, it’s just inertia, whether it’s the bureaucracy or whether it’s Congress itself after the issues with Sec. Price.

“They talked about having Chief of Staff John Kelly sign off on cabinet-level travel, but that still doesn’t address the inconsistent and fragmented reporting of travel rules and the exact costs that are associated with the travel.  That still probably wouldn’t be available,” said Schatz.

Standard Podcast [ 7:21 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

McCabe Mania, Media Notice Austin Bombings, D.C. Lawmaker’s Conspiracy Theory

by


Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America have whiplash from all the media hyperbole in the wake of Andrew McCabe getting fired, almost all of it from people who have never read the inspector general’s report.  They also hammer President Trump for gloating about McCabe’s ouster and McCabe for suggesting his firing was a political hit job from Trump when multiple DOJ officials recommended it.  They also applaud the media for finally noticing a series of bombings in Austin, Texas, which have killed or injured several people in a story reminiscent of the Unabomber.  And they have some fun with D.C. city council member Trayon White alleging that the Rothschilds control the weather to bring calamity to American cities and then swoop in to pay for the cleanup and take control of the cities.

Share

Navy Considering Atheist Chaplains

by

The U.S. Navy is considering allowing atheists into the Chaplain Corps, a move that even the Obama administration opposed and that Christian conservatives say would squander precious resources and open the corps to almost anything in the years ahead.

“I do think it would be really deleterious,” said Family Research Council Senior Fellow Chris Gacek.

This is not the first round of this fight.  In 2015, Jason Heap filed suit to become a Navy chaplain after the Defense Department rejected his request because he sought to affiliate with a pair of humanist groups instead of a religious denomination.  The Obama administration fought Heap’s lawsuit and won but Heap is making the push again.

This time, the U.S. Navy seems more open to the idea.

“The Defense Department won all the cases against Jason Heap so you would think that they would leave well enough alone and, therefore, there wouldn’t be a problem in the future.  But there is a board called the Chaplain Appointment and Retention Eligibility Advisory Group that is recommending that the Navy accept him as a chaplain.

“So even though he couldn’t get it through the courts or through other processes, there’s another group of faceless bureaucrats that have an agenda and are trying to push it through,” said Gacek.

Gacek argues that if the Navy allows an atheist chaplain there’s no telling where that decision could lead.

“What’s the limit?  There’s no reason to think it would just be stuck at one or that you wouldn’t have more of them or all sorts of people coming in here who are just basically yoga instructors,” said Gacek.

“It’s like saying the pastors and priests division has to accept atheists.  A does not equal B here.  It’s like having square wheels or something.  It’s kind of hard to imagine you even have to have this debate.

“It’s important I think to maintain the integrity of the institution.  We’ve had chaplains since 1775, when George Washington himself had Congress establish the chaplains,” said Gacek.

While the Navy considers and possibly advances this idea, Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., 22 other senators and 40 House members are pushing back.  Gacek says that pressure and possible appropriations riders on funding could force the Navy’s hand on this.

Gacek says he’s surprised this idea has any oxygen at all in a Republican administration.

“If you had a sensible Secretary of Defense and they were in charge of these things, this would be taken care of.  It’s sort of amazing that this is happening in the Trump administration,” said Gacek.

In addition to pointing out the logical inconsistency of an atheist chaplain, Gacek says scarce resources for the Chaplain Corps would stretched even thinner for those identifying with a specific faith or denomination.  He says those chaplains are vital in ministering to people far from home.

The Chaplain Corps is already strained.  Gacek says eight years of Obama’s cultural agenda took a heavy toll.

“In the Obama administration, you had certain social agendas being pushed.  There were people who wouldn’t accede to the idea of same-sex marriage.  I can imagine it’s only getting worse with all these new gender categories they’re trying to cram down everybody’s throat.

“Since the Bible has a set idea about sex, there being only two of them, and there being only two genders, this isn’t really going to fly for a lot of people,” said Gacek.

Share

Truth About Haspel, Dems’ Anti-Pelosi Canard, Flake’s Tired Act

by


Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America shake their heads as ProPublica issues a massive correction to confirm that President Trump’s nominee to be CIA director didn’t oversee the waterboarding of terrorists after all and that the original reporting was based on assumptions.  They also sound the alarm on all the supposedly moderate Democrats running away from Nancy Pelosi as they run for seats in competitive or right-leaning districts.  News flash:  If Democrats win the House, Pelosi will be speaker.  And they roll their eyes as Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake says the refusal of Republicans to denounce Trump suggests maybe the GOP doesn’t deserve to lead.

Share

‘Not Just About Abortion, but Discrimination’

by

The abortion debate has intensified in recent days as pro-choice activists push back against a series of new state laws banning abortion due to a pre-natal diagnosis of Down Syndrome, but a leading pro-life voice says such abortions are nothing more than “genetic discrimination” and a disturbing sign for our culture.

In recent months, North Dakota, Indiana, Ohio, and Louisiana have adopted laws banning abortions because the unborn child is found to have Down Syndrome.  The legal pushback is already underway, and Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus stirred up a fierce response by defending the decision of most mothers to abort such children.

“I’m going to be blunt here: That was not the child I wanted. That was not the choice I would have made. You can call me selfish, or worse, but I am in good company. The evidence is clear that most women confronted with the same unhappy alternative would make the same decision,” wrote Marcus, who never had an abortion in such circumstances but said she would have.

Dr. David Prentice is vice president at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, which is affiliated with the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List.  Prentice confirms that the vast majority of babies with Down Syndrome are aborted, and he says this takes the abortion debate down an even uglier path.

“This is not just about abortion.  This is about discrimination.  This is a genetic discrimination where you are saying just because these little kids have a particular set of chromosomes – in particular they have one additional chromosome – that that makes them essentially unworthy of life,” said Prentice.

“We’re starting to parse out here, pre-natally, who has a life worth living or not.  It hearkens back to some of the horrific genocides of the past, that simply because someone was different, we’re just going to kill them.

“Well, now that hunt is going genetic and it’s going into the womb,” said Prentice.

Prentice says this could lead to abortions based on other characteristics discovered in the womb, including short stature or nearsightedness.  He says a chilling parallel is sex-selection abortion in places like China, where the one-child policy ended up in the abortions of at least 160 million girls.

He says the idea of ending a life in the womb because it may not be the child you envisioned is horrifying to him.

“As a society, we shouldn’t accept any kind of discrimination and certainly not pre-natal, where we’re going to kill somebody before they even have a chance to be born,” said Prentice.

He says our culture is in big trouble if we start to reject children because they are not exactly what we ordered.

“This becomes commodity shopping.  I want this kind of baby, I want this kind of baby and I’m just going to return them, so to speak, if they don’t match up.  Again, it is horrific in this thought that we are rejecting somebody just because they don’t measure up to our own particular desires,” said Prentice.

Prentice says many women are convinced to abort their babies based on statistics suggesting their children will have severe health challenges, a low IQ, and live much shorter lives.  He says those statistics are long outdated and the average life expectancy for a child with Down Syndrome is about 60 years old.

He also says the families that choose to welcome these children are overjoyed with their lives.

“It’s something like a 95-98 percent rate of happiness and satisfaction with their lives.  Their brothers and sisters love them.  Their parents love them.  I think in one case you might say that this extra chromosome actually imbues them with additional love,” said Prentice.

Prentice is not about to speculate how the Supreme Court may eventually rule on the challenges to the state laws.  But he has a simple message for any judges who hear this case.

“Do they deserve a chance at life or should we be discriminating a lethal discrimination against them?  My hope is that they will rule on the side of life,” said Prentice.

If they don’t, Prentice says our culture will be much darker.

“That reflects on our relationship with all members of our species, not just unborn children.  If we really consider other people simply ends to our own desires, we’re in a really sorry state,” said Prentice.

Standard Podcast [ 9:50 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

U.S. Hammers Russia, Carson’s Big Spending, Bowling Ball Test

by


Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America applaud the Trump administration for slapping sanctions on Russia and salute UN Ambassador Nikki Haley for calling out Russia’s chemical weapons attack against a Kremlin critic in Great Britain.  They also chew out Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson for not keeping a better watch over the effort to spend more than $31,000 on a dining set and for possibly misleading the public about it.  And they roll their eyes as President Trump tells GOP donors that Japan engages in unfair trading practices by dropping bowling balls on the hoods of U.S. imports and deeming them unfit for sale in Japan.

Share

Preparing Police for Mass Shootings

by

As the media focus on the thousands of students walking out of school Wednesday to protest gun violence and demand gun control legislation, a longtime officer and police academy director says a critical element of stopping or limiting mass shootings is finding the right people to become police officers and training them well.

Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School did have armed security when a former student killed 17 people on Feb. 14, but resource officer Scot Peterson did not enter the school when he determined shots were being fired inside.

Many critics branded Peterson a coward for his inaction, but 21-year Illinois police officer Randy Petersen (no relation) says it’s more complicated than that.

“Maybe it’s not a cowardly person but someone who is unsure of themselves, unskilled, haven’t been trained up properly.  Anytime you have something like that, we can have this situation where we shoot people that we don’t want shot or we don’t shoot people that need to be shot,” said Petersen, who also directed one of the largest police academies in Texas and is a senior researcher at Right on Crime.

“To go to the point where we have a police officer that is either incompetent in their physical skills, their defensive tactics skills, their shooting, they’re not going to have confidence and a lack of confidence can get you to a point where an officer either fails to act or overreacts,” said Petersen.

Petersen says a special type of demeanor is needed to be an effective police officer.

“We want a blend of these two qualities where a person is not overly excitable, not easily offended, but at the same time very competent and very capable,” said Petersen.

He says finding those qualities ought to be a high priority in the hiring process.

“We can train people to fight.  We can train them to be good at sports.  We can train them for an event, but we don’t know how they’re going to perform before they actually do it.  What we can do is, during hiring and testing, we can have an idea of what we’re looking for an officer to be able to do,” said Petersen.

However, Petersen admits the vast majority of police officers never fire their weapons during their careers, so how can there be any certainty how they’ll perform under pressure?

He says training drills can be very effective.

“You’d be surprised at how realistic your role players, if you have good ones.  Some of the technologies we have can really re-create the situations you can get in the training academy or in inservice training.  You can get a real picture for how someone’s going to respond,” said Petersen.

“You can put them under pressure where the stress levels will give them that adrenaline dump, make them scared, make them nervous, make them physically exhausted, right up to the point to where the real situation is going to be just a little bit different,” said Petersen.

He says the key question is what police departments are wiling to do about the officers who can’t do the job well.

“The problem becomes whether or not we’re willing to weed out people who can’t.  In a lot of situations I think that we don’t.  We don’t weed out the people that we recognize and say, ‘I think this person’s not going to be able to do this,'” said Petersen.

Petersen says the problem is often not with the police departments but with the powerful allies of the officers not measuring up to the job.

“The union can make it difficult in a lot of states to terminate an officer that either has a lot of complaints filed against them or is basically incompetent.  A lot of times they can end up getting their jobs back.

“It’s not that police agencies themselves are hesitant to get rid of them.  Sometimes they fire them and they come right back on the job,” said Petersen.

While Right on Crime does not endorse any particular legislation to address mass shootings, Petersen says armed school security officers can be a good thing, but only if proven to be capable of handling a crisis of that magnitude.

He also says those officers can be limited in their effectiveness on a large piece of property.

“A police officer that’s on a sprawling campus still may have to run all the way across the campus to get to it, which may only take a matter of a minute or two but that’s a minute or two that we have active shooting going on.  By the time the officer gets there, they may be winded.  That changes the dynamics of being able to shoot and fight skillfully,” said Petersen.

On the issue allowing teachers to carry guns if they want to, Petersen says it may make a big difference when seconds count.

“Having administrators and/or teachers that are armed would be keeping in line with the doctrine of active shooter training because you’re going to have people with guns on scene faster to intercept that person,” said Peterson.

Standard Podcast [ 11:42 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share