Radio America Online News Bureau

News & Politics

Gillibrand’s #MeToo Mess, Hillary Nixed Firing of Harasser, Trump’s Worst Enemy

by


Alexandra DeSanctis of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America give a quick preview of what they look forward to at the spectacle known as State of the Union before dishing out martinis.  Then, they shake their heads as New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand first demands that President Trump resign over sexual harassment allegations and then immediately starts waffling when Meghan McCain brings up the Clintons.  They also express disgust at Hillary Clinton after Clinton’s 2008 campaign manager reveals that she recommended that Clinton fire her faith adviser following credible accusations of harassment in 2007, only to have Hillary reject that idea and give the adviser a slap on the wrist.  And they point out that stories of President Trump’s pettiness are driving away people who might otherwise be inclined to support him, the latest example being an ugly and pointless exchange between Trump and the recently ousted Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe.

Share

Toensing Reacts to McCabe Exit, Rips Politics at FBI

by

Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe is abruptly leaving his position just weeks before his scheduled retirement, triggering a frenzy of speculation from the left and the right, but a former federal prosecutor says McCabe is just one part of a baffling approach to the Russia investigation by the FBI and the Justice Department.

Another Monday stunner is the revelation, reportedly in the FISA memo from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein ordered surveillance former Trump campaign figure Carter Page based on the dossier compiled by former British agent Christopher Steele and funded for months by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Word of McCabe’s rapid exit was first reported Monday afternoon.  Democrats and many mainstream media figures quickly wondered whether President Trump forced McCabe out given some critical tweets in the past.  Conservatives quickly tied the news to FBI Director Christopher Wray viewing the highly touted FISA memo on Capitol Hill over the weekend.

So far, no concrete answers have been given, but former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Victoria Toensing strongly doubts Trump ordered this move.

“It’s all speculation as to whether it was Wray.  I can’t imagine it was Trump because Trump probably wanted him out of there months ago.  That’s my reaction.  Why now?  So little so late,” said Toensing.

Toensing notes that McCabe has amassed enough sick leave and vacation time that he can stop working now and still receive full retirement benefits, leaving her to conclude this development may have nothing to do with politics at all.

Toensing is highly critical of McCabe on multiple fronts, starting with his allegedly soft handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation.  Even though McCabe recused himself from the probe while his wife was running as a Democrat for state office in Virginia, Toensing says the failure to record Clinton’s testimony or put her under oath was inexcusable.

She is also furious over what she’s sees as McCabe’s slick manner in getting former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to talk with the FBI.

“He called Flynn’s office and said, ‘The FBI would like to talk to you,’ and made it appear like the talk was going to be about personnel and background.  Instead, the FBI showed up with Peter Strzok and surprised the general with, ‘What did you say to the Russian ambassador?'” said Toensing.

Strzok is the agent removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team for persistent Trump-bashing.

Toensing says the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email probe and the failure to put any guardrails on Mueller have deeply damaged the reputation of the FBI and the Justice Department.

“I’ve worked with the FBI and I’m such a great admirer of their professionalism.  I’ve worked with them as recently as the last month at the local level,” said Toensing.

“But the hierarchy came in and took over.  That’s a shame and it’s effecting their credibility.  There’s a recent poll where 49 percent of the people think the FBI is hiding information from Congress.  That’s not good.  The FBI should be wanting to get it out, not hiding it,” she said.

What hierarchy is Toensing referring to?  Specifically, she lists McCabe, former FBI Director James Comey, former President Barack Obama, and former Attorney General Eric Holder.

She says the revelations to date on “unmasking” of figures in the Trump campaign proves Obama was deeply involved in all of this.

“The new Trump administration people found evidence of the Obama White House unmasking the Trump campaign and listening in,” said Toensing.

“The Trump NSC staff found those documents and that’s how (House Intelligence Committee Chairman) Devin Nunes was called up to the White House to review documents that he them revealed and the Democrats went after him for revealing classified information,” said Toensing.

While McCabe’s departure cannot be tied to the FISA memo immediately following the reports of his departure, the memo is apparently the source for revealing that Rosenstein used the FISA powers of the United States to spy on Carter Page.

Toensing says that news demands answers.

“[Page] was an American citizen, traveling to Russia which is what he did.  This is what he did.  He had Russia as an interest.  Why was he being surveilled in any way whatsoever?” asked Toensing.

Toensing says Rosenstein has even more to answer for, including how he based a decision to keep tabs on Page based on a dossier that has at least partly been discredited.

“I would have hoped that he would have looked behind that dossier and gotten some kind of cooperation, rather than just a document by a political adversary.  I would have hoped that he would have asked, ‘What is the basis for this document saying all these things?'” said Toensing.

“I signed FISA warrants when I was at the Justice Department.  I know how to go behind the facts.  So I would have hoped he had done that,” said Toensing.

She also blames Rosenstein for allowing the Russia investigation to get diverted from its original purpose, virtually from the start.

“Whatever the Russians did to our election should have been investigated [as a counter-intelligence matter], not as a criminal prosecution.  So by setting up a special counsel to make a criminal investigation, Rod really went off the reservation,” said Toensing.

 

Standard Podcast [ 11:25 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

America Backs 20-Week Abortion Ban, Wolff’s Haley Smear, Hillary’s Grammy Cameo

by


Alexandra DeSanctis of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are deeply disappointed that the Senate is unlikely to pass a bill banning the vast majority of abortion past 20 weeks of pregnancy, but are heartened that most Americans support the restrictions, including a majority of Democrats and a majority of women.  They also hammer “Fire and Fury” author Michael Wolff for his sleazy efforts to suggest that U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley is having an affair with President Trump and they praise Haley for her clear and dignified denials.  And they roll their eyes as the Grammy Awards telecast shoehorns Hillary Clinton reading an excerpt from “Fire and Fury” into the show, a move made even more baffling in this #MeToo environment by recent reports that the 2008 Clinton campaign took no action against Hillary’s faith adviser for sexual harassment.

Share

Trump Blasted from Right Over Immigration Blueprint

by

Immigration policy conservatives are giving President Trump’s immigration reform blueprint a thumbs down after the plan moves to the left on two key issues, leaving activists fearing a more timid final bill and no end in sight to the dangerous flood of illegal immigration into the United States.

The Trump framework focuses on four key areas: spending $25 billion on border security including additional portions of a wall, extending legal status and a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants who either enrolled in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program or are eligible for it, limiting chain migration to only spouses and minor children, and ending the visa lottery.

The Center for Immigration Studies, or CIS, sees two major problems with Trump’s more moderate approach: a sudden embrace of amnesty and a refusal to tighten the screws enough on chain migration.

CIS Research Fellow Andrew Arthur says Trump’s offer of a pathway to citizenship goes far beyond the DACA recipents and will ultimately include way more than 1.8 million.

“We’ve seen similar proposals in the past.  There have been amnesties floated, amnesties passed.  Inevitably, the number of people who end up being granted is higher than the number that was anticipated.

“Inevitably there is going to be a certain level of fraud in this process.  Logically, you’re going to have to identify that you’ve been in the United States since a [certain time] and the documents you can offer are generally fairly vague,” said Arthur.

And by including illegal immigrants who are not part of the DACA program, Arthur says Trump is inviting a bureaucratic nightmare for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service.

“If it was simply the 690,000 DACA people, USCIS already knows who those people are and can do a one to one match.  When you’re talking about an additional 1.1 million individuals, that’s going to require brand new files being opened, documents being reviewed, and the fact is USCIS just doesn’t have the bandwidth to do that work right now,” said Arthur.

Arthur is generally pleased with the movement to limit chain migration, keeping it to spouses and minor children, as opposed to current law which allows adult children, siblings, and parents.  However, he says Trump is making a big mistake in how he wants to implement the plan.

“The problem is that the framework will also make these changes prospectively, not retroactively.  It’s going to process through the four million people who are currently in that backlog, people who have had petitions filed on their behalf and who are awaiting a number in order to apply and go through the process of being vetted,” said Arthur.

“That’s a pretty big concern of ours because of course you’re going to end up potentially giving an additional four million people status,” said Arthur.

But while some conservatives are wary of Trump’s plan, most Democrats are greeting Trump’s policy retreat with full condemnation.

“Dreamers should not be held hostage to President Trump’s crusade to tear families apart and waste billions of American tax dollars on an ineffective wall,” said Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who says Trump is reaching for a hardline immigration agenda on the backs of young people.

Arthur is not surprised.

“That’s just plain sanctimony.  I could have anticipated what Dick Durbin was going to say and I could have written it myself,” he said.

Democrats and liberal immigration activists accuse Trump of clamping down on legal immigration because of his efforts to limit chain migration and kill the visa lottery.  But Arthur says there’s a very good reason for imposing limitations.

“The proposals set forth in the framework are necessary changes that we need in order to ameliorate the problems that got us here to begin with.  The fact is there are huge loopholes in the law that allow unaccompanied alien children to show up at a port of entry.  They don’t even have to enter illegally.

“Once in the United States, United States government officials complete the work of the smugglers that brought them to the border to begin with and reunite them with family members or friends or other individuals in the United States who will take care of them.  This is a huge problem and it’s a huge magnet that draws minors to the United States,” said Arthur.

Why is that a huge problem?  Arthur says that magnet leaves kids vulnerable to unspeakable horrors at the hands of their smugglers so long as the parents of those kids think their children are virtually guaranteed a chance to live in the U.S.

“The people who engage in these activities don’t simply smuggle people for money.  The fact is they rob, they rape, they hold people ransom for money.  They do that with children as well.  Turning off that magnet is an absolutely crucial element of any plan that’s going to grant any kind of amnesty to any population of DACA people,” said Arthur.

Arthur sees positives and negatives for the political path forward on immigration.  He’s deeply concerned that Trump’s willingness to compromise at the outset will ultimately lead to a far worse bill.

“Inevitably, bills like this are a race to the bottom.  If you say (you’re going to allow) 1.8 million people who got here on X date, why not people who got here on X date plus one year, or (if we accept) people who came here below the age of 16, why not people who got here below the age of 18,” said Arthur.

At the same time, he says some House conservatives are not happy with Trump’s plan and may be able to improve it.

“There are some individuals in the House who are vociferously opposed to any plan like this.  You can anticipate that those individuals will attempt to pare back the amazingly generous proposal that the president has made,” said Arthur.

While he has serious problems with Trump’s concessions, Arthur says Democrats are foolish to demonize a major outreach on Trump’s part.

“Quite frankly, if the Democrats don’t take this deal and end up scuttling it, this is going to be on their heads,” said Arthur.

Standard Podcast [ 10:48 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

Trump Doesn’t Fire Mueller, Left Freaks Over DACA Concession, Left Coast Lunacy

by


David French of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are amused by the media frothing over President Trump allegedly trying to have Special Counsel Robert Mueller fired seven months ago, while largely overlooking the fact that Mueller wasn’t fired.  They also discuss President Trump’s major concessions on amnesty in his his immigration legislation framework – concessions that haven’t stopped his critics from accusing the president of being a white supremacist who is tearing apart families.  And they throw up their hands as the majority leader in the California State Assembly proposes penalties of six months in jail or $1,000 fines for any waiter who gives a customer a plastic straw without being asked.

Share

Humans Now Accused of Making the Earth Cooler

by

After insisting for more than three decades that human activity was driving the earth’s temperatures to dangerous levels, climate scientists and activists now contend that same activity is keeping us artificially cool and that cleaning up our atmosphere will leave us feeling the heat.

On January 22, an online article for Scientific American makes the claim that certain parts of the pollution created by human behavior are actually preventing us from feeling the impact of the other emissions we spew into the air.

“Pollution in the atmosphere is having an unexpected consequence, scientists say—it’s helping to cool the climate, masking some of the global warming that’s occurred so far.  That means efforts worldwide to clean up the air may cause an increase in warming, as well as other climate effects, as this pollution disappears,” wrote Chelsea Harvey for the Scientific American story.

“New research is helping to quantify just how big that effect might be. A study published this month in the journal “Geophysical Research Letters” suggests that eliminating the human emission of aerosols—tiny, air-polluting particles often released by industrial activities—could result in additional global warming of anywhere from half a degree to 1 degree Celsius,” added Harvey.

So after years of telling people their activity is responsible for the climate we experience, climate activists are now claiming our behavior is responsible for not feeling what we’ve supposedly caused?  Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Christopher C. Horner is not buying it.

“To put it gently, it is a more recent, if recycled, way of trying to explain how their lurid climate projections have not come to pass,” said Horner, who also served on President-Elect Trump’s landing team at the Environmental Protection Agency during the transition.

“They’re now saying, ‘My models, which I said were OK, on which we were supposed to base economic policy…were actually wrong.’  That’s what they’re saying here.  They’re just saying, ‘My models are wrong and this is my excuse,'” said Horner.

He says the climate change movement is scrambling to explain dire predictions that simply have not materialized.

“All of the claimed warming has failed to arrive.  There seems to have been a several-decade plateau, Yes, we have El Niño and La Niña Years, but the projected warming hasn’t occurred,” said Horner.

Horner says these supposed experts are flailing and now claim any weather event is directly related to human activity throwing the planet’s climate off course.

“In just 2014, the New York Times wrote ‘The End of Snow.’  They do this every mild winter.  Then severe winter returns with a vengeance and a great sense of humor and they write ‘More Snow in A Warming World, the Science is Clear.’  That’s an actual headline, just a year after writing ‘No Snow in A Warming World, the Science is Settled,'” said Horner.

And he says it’s not just an issue when winters vary in severity, noting the same response happens with natural disasters.  Horner says former Vice President Al Gore responded to the devastating hurricane seasons of 2004 and 2005 by proclaiming that the climate problems he warned us about had arrived and the destruction we saw was the new normal.

For more than a decade after that, no major hurricanes made landfall in the U.S..

“So the lack of hurricanes was somehow attributable to catastrophic man-made global warming.  ‘Which time are you lying?’ I suppose is the question.  The increase in storms, the absence of storms, is it everything?  Even when it’s just right, Goldilocks, is that because of your faith in catastrophic man-made global warming?” asked Horner.

And he says faith is exactly the right term to use for the climate change movement insisting every climate shift and weather event proves their point when none of their projections come true.

“It’s a non-disprovable hypothesis, which means it’s a faith.  Their religion requires them to reach for whatever happens outside the window,” said Horner.

“Nothing they’ve ever proposed would detectably impact the climate.  This is something I come back to every time because the rest is just this increasingly bizarre sideshow,” said Horner.

Horner says environmental activists and academics routinely tie themselves in knots on these issues, including President Obama’s last EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy.

“(She) testified that there would be no impact on the world’s temperatures from her rules.  Then after Boston’s most severe winter two years ago, she said, ‘This most severe winter is because of carbon dioxide.  If you let these EPA rules stand we won’t have these storms anymore,'” said Horner.

He says the polar bear scare turned out to be another dud.

“As a famous EPA memo I found said, ‘Make it about children struggling to breathe.  That’s what people care about because the polar bear stories aren’t persuading people,'” said Horner.

“As you know, polar bear populations plummeted from somewhere below 5,000 to nearly 30,000, so that one had to go,” laughed Horner.

But what about this new claim that human activity is creating greater aerosol levels that mask the true damage to our climate?

“What we’re now hearing is, ‘The reason it’s not as warm as we promised is because of aerosol pollution.’  It’s something of a paradox for them because which is it that you want to address?” said Horner, who believes this is yet another effort to control the narrative and advance political goals.

“Do you want cleaner air?  That’s not what global warming is about by the way.  Global warming is about controlling the reliable, affordable, abundant energy sources,” said Horner, noting that the certainty of the scientists masks just how much they want to change our lives.

“You cannot impact the world’s temperature.  Their models agree on that.  You’re talking about 1900 levels (in the amount of emissions prescribed).  The old PBS show about the house on the prairie, not ‘Little House on the Prairie’ but ‘Prairie Living,’ that’s what you’re talking about.  You know, the good old days of drudgery, disease, and infant mortality.  What a throwback,” said Horner.

Share

Brighter House Outlook for GOP? Why Would Trump Talk with Mueller? Kerry 2020?

by


Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America cheer up a bit following Jim’s exhaustive study of all the House seats held by retiring Republicans, a report which concludes the vast majority of those seats are likely not in danger of flipping to Democrats.  They also wonder what President Trump would possibly have to gain by talking with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who seems plenty eager to pounce on process crimes as much or more than crimes directly related to the purpose of his investigation.  They have some fun with the news that former Secretary of State John Kerry told a Palestinian official that he is “seriously considering” a 2020 presidential run.  And they get a kick out of reports that the ill-fated XFL appears to be making a comeback in a couple of years.

Share

Tax Cuts Triggering Major Boom? Left Coast Libs Push Tax Hike, Meehan’s Mess

by


Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America welcome comments from Bank of America Chief Executive Brian Moynihan suggesting the recent tax bill will trigger “massive new investment” in the United States, likely leading to economic growth and more jobs.  They also skewer a plan from two state Democratic lawmakers in California who are pushing a ten percent tax hike on businesses making more than a million dollars to help offset the alleged damage the federal tax plan is doing to the middle class.  They also unload on Pennsylvania Rep. Patrick Meehan, a married Republican lawmaker who used taxpayer dollars to settle a dispute with a female staffer he allegedly made romantic advances towards.  Meehan pathetically insists it was not a romantic overture, just that they were soulmates.

Share

House Judiciary Chairman: There Is No DACA Deadline

by

The author of the House of Representatives bill to clamp down on illegal immigration and address the fate of people brought to the U.S. illegally as children says there is no reason for lawmakers to rush immigration legislation and says his goal is to make sure the nation never faces an illegal immigration crisis again.

Senate Democrats tried to attach immigration legislation to efforts to keep the government funded past January 19.  Three days later, they agreed to fund the government in exchange for a promise that an immigration debate would begin prior to the next funding deadline of Feb. 8.

At issue is the fate of roughly 700,000 people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.  President Obama granted legal status for anyone who enrolled in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, through executive action in 2012.  In September, President Trump announced the executive DACA program would end in March 2018.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., is author of the Securing America’s Future Act.  He says despite some lawmakers waving frantically at the calendar, Congress does not need to race to get legislation done.

“We should take our time and not feel we’re compelled to do anything by any deadline.  There is no deadline.  February 8 is not a deadline to solve this bill.  It is a deadline to keep the government funded but not to solve this problem.  March 5, the deadline the president has set, can be changed if necessary,” said Goodlatte, who also notes a federal judge has ordered a stay on Trump’s order.

“We should use all the time that’s necessary to get this done right and not a minute longer,” said Goodlatte.

The Goodlatte bill and the Senate’s Gang of Six legislation differ significantly in many ways.  It allows current DACA enrollees to receive legal status for three years, which they can renew in perpetuity.  The bill does not offer them a pathway to citizenship, and it grants no legal status to people eligible for DACA but failed to enroll.

The Senate plan offers a pathway to citizenship  to DACA recipients as well as the other so-called “Dreamers.”  It also confers legal status on the very parents who broke the law to bring their families to the U.S.

Goodlatte’s plan would also greatly limit chain migration to only spouses and minor children, kill the visa lottery, authorize whatever is necessary to beef up border security, and make overstaying one’s visa a crime.

Goodlatte says his legislation comes from a very straightforward premise.

“We agreed we would negotiate on four points: security, chain migration, ending the visa lottery, and DACA.  That’s what my bill does,” said Goodlatte.

He also explained his mindset in crafting the legislation.  He wants “a fair way way to deal with the problem created by President Obama in this unconstitutional program and ended by President Trump.”

“But then [Trump] turned around and said these individuals need a solution and Congress should do it.  We provided that in our bill,” said Goodlatte.

He also wants this to be the last time Congress has to deal with the immigration mess.

“We also are the only plan that addresses Speaker Ryan’s concern and that is that we not allow this problem to happen again,” said Goodlatte.

While the Senate and the media focus on the Gang of Six bill, Goodlatte says he has assurances from Republican House leaders that his legislation will come to the House floor.  He says before that time, he plans to educate his colleagues on why all of the various enforcement mechanisms are required and why he thinks they will be effective.

Goodlatte is ready to defend his bill, starting with his refusal to grant DACA enrollees a pathway to citizenship.

“We don’t object to people who are DACA recipients finding an opportunity to get a green card and U.S. citizenship as long as they follow the existing law like anybody else who has followed the rules and come here legally,” said Goodlatte.

“Under our bill, DACA recipients would be allowed to live in the United States  permanently with three-year renewables but indefinitely.  [They can] work in the United States, own a business in the United States, travel in and out of the country and if they find a way under the normal law to qualify for U.S. citizenship that’s fine, but not a special pathway to citizenship,” said Goodlatte.

He says the parents who perpetrated the crime of illegal immigration should not be rewarded in any way.

“I am not unsympathetic to the situation, but it is a situation that their parents created for them and one we have to respond to with that in mind.  In other words, take care of them but don’t give them an opportunity to petition for those same parents who were responsible for coming here illegally in the first place,” said Goodlatte.

In exchange for granting legal status for DACA recipients, Goodlatte’s bill clamps down hard on chain migration, ending the practice of an immigrant sponsoring many extended family members to come into the U.S.  It also ends the visa lottery.

“The visa lottery is a crazy program that gives 55,000 people green cards every year, not based on family relations, not based on job skills, but based upon pure luck.  That is totally unfair and it is a national security concern as well,” said Goodlatte.

When it comes to border security, President Trump has made it clear that there will be provision for a border wall or he will not agree to DACA legislation.  Goodlatte says Republicans are in agreement on what that means.

“There is a need to repair fences, to extend the wall and build a wall in some places, particularly in high population areas and in high crime areas where there is a lot of smuggling going on.  You do not need it where there are mountains, where there are large deserts, or where there are rivers,” said Goodlatte.

But he cautions enforcement advocates that there is a lot more to preventing the influx of illegal immigration than just the wall.

“That is one tool but it doesn’t at all address the 40 percent of [illegal immigrants] who come into this country legally and them simply ignore the laws and overstay their visas.  Nor does it address the people who come into the country illegally  and are not trying to evade the border patrol but are actually going to them and turning themselves in,” said Goodlatte.

He says those people are then released into the U.S. and told to show up for a court hearing, which they rarely do.

Goodlatte’s bill is officially known as H.R. 4760.

Standard Podcast [ 9:53 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

‘This Wasn’t About Abortion, It Was About Infanticide’

by

Live Action President Lila Rose says President Trump is off to a “promising” start on pro-life issues but she says the president and Congress must do what it takes to defund Planned Parenthood at a time when Democrats are voting in favor of “infanticide.”

Still in her twenties, Rose has been a leading pro-life activist for a decade, starting when she was 15.  She gained notoriety for videotaping her experiences posing as a pregnant teenager at various Planned Parenthood facilities.

One year into the Trump presidency and 45 years since the Supreme Court legalized abortion nationwide, Rose gives the administration a decent grade on pro-life issues.

“I think the last year has been promising.  I would use that word, especially the folks that he’s surrounded himself with, and the appointments he’s made, and the confirming of Justice Gorsuch.  These are good signs,” said Rose.

“I think it’s good that he showed up to speak from the Rose Garden at the March for Life.  I think his appointments are good on [Health and Human Services].  The head of the Department of Justice is now investigating Planned Parenthood.  These are good things, but we really have to achieve the biggest thing, which is stopping the government forcing of taxpayers to fund abortion chains,” said Rose.

“We are urging to administration to really lean on Congress to make sure they get that bill to ensure that we’re not funding the biggest abortion chain (Planned Parenthood) $1.5 million every day,” added Rose.

Republicans did try to include defunding of Planned Parenthood in various forms of Obamacare repeal or reform legislation, only to be thwarted by the likes of Republican Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.

Rose does worry that congressional leaders and members may be more eager to promise defunding Planned Parenthood than to actually do it.

“I am concerned about lip service and I think others in the movement are concerned.  This is a really hard thing to do.  You basically have to break 50 votes.  Depending on how the rules are changed or amended, you could get the vice president to weigh in and be the tiebreaker in the Senate.

“There is a path to do it.  It’s a matter of is this going to be the most important thing for the administration when it comes to upholding the first human right and protecting human life in this country,” said Rose.

While Rose and other pro-life activists pressure lawmakers to make defunding Planned Parenthood a priority, she is appalled by how Democrats approached Friday’s House vote on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

The legislation would require medical personnel to do whatever possible to save the life of a baby if he or she emerges alive from the mother’s womb following an attempted abortion.  It reinforces existing policy on this front but also adds criminal penalties, including up to five years in prison for failing to pursue life-saving measures.

The bill passed, with all Republicans voting for it, but 183 of 189 Democrats opposed it.

Planned Parenthood denounced the bill.

“Medical guidelines and ethics already compel physicians facing life-threatening circumstances to respond. Doctors and clinicians oppose this law because it prevents them from giving the best care to their patients. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists strongly opposes this legislation, calling it a “gross  interference in the practice of medicine,'” said a PLanned Parenthood statement.

Planned Parenthood official Dana Singiser took it even further.

“The political agenda here is clear: to take away access to safe, legal abortion,” said Singiser in the same statement.

But Rose says this vote just shows how radical Democrats are on abortion now.

“I think it just shows the insanity of the Democratic Party today, which is really going to hurt them in elections the more word gets out.  This bill, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, wasn’t even about abortion.  It was about infanticide.  It was about protecting children who have been born and who deserve to be protected,” said Rose.

“The fact that Democrats in a huge voting bloc, tried to reject a bill that would protect against infanticide is extremely troubling.  Look, most of the electorate – including in the Democratic Party – want at least some restrictions on abortion.  That’s the majority of Democrats, including Democrat women,” said Rose.

Rose says Democrats are increasingly marching to whatever tune Planned Parenthood is playing.

“They help elect these people so even though these folks try to mislead voters to say that they were more moderate or they cared about human rights or do what was best once in office, their elections are being funded by Planned Parenthood.

“They’re going to march to the beat of their drum, even if that beat ultimately includes shooting down protections against infanticide,” said Rose.

One of the major themes at Friday’s March for Life was how science is on the side of the pro-life movement, most especially with the advancements in ultrasound technology, but in other ways as well.  Rose says the arguments that life begins at birth or viability should determine personhood are relics from years past.

“If you create an arbitrary line at birth, then you are killing children who are viable before birth, children that are separated by inches of a birth canal from human rights protections.  It’s arbitrary.  It doesn’t make sense,” said Rose.

And she says science is winning the viability debate as well.

“Viability is being increasingly moved backwards.  Children can now survive outside the womb with medical assistance a little past 21 weeks.  That’s incredible.  The more we develop our medical technology, the more and more that viability line will change.  People are realizing it’s an arbitrary line and that life, as science reveals, begins at the moment of conception,” said Rose.

Rose says the pro-life movement has a lot of momentum right now both politically and to some extent in the courts.  However, she does contend Congress needs to seize that momentum and end taxpayer subsidies for Planned Parenthood for this Congress to be a true success.

She also claims cultural momentum, pointing out that more Americans are pro-life and young people a major reason why.  Rose also says the personal stories of mothers who carry difficult pregnancies to term and the testimonies of former abortion clinic workers are making a big difference in changing minds around the nation.

Standard Podcast [ 11:32 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share