Radio America Online News Bureau

News & Politics

Syria Scared Straight, Republicans Retreat on Repeal, Dunkirk Diversity Drama

by

David French of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America applaud the “tough guy” stance that President Trump and Defense Secretary James Mattis are taking in deterring further chemical attacks in Syria. They dive into the complications surrounding the healthcare debate, as Mitch McConnell scraps the vote on the most recent GOP bill and many of the Republicans opposed believe the government should be doing more. Finally, they discuss the PC complaints that the new Dunkirk film — a historical World War II drama  — is “too white,” even though the vast majority of soldiers involved were white.

Share

Ex-INS Official Hails Court Ruling on Travel Ban

by

The law is very clear that the president has the power to exclude any person or group of people from entering the United States and the Supreme Court was right to rule in his favor, according to a former high-ranking Immigration and Naturalization Service official.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected appellate court decisions striking down President Trump’s executive order that calls for a 90-day travel ban from six nations with significant terrorism problems.  The justices lifted some of the injunctions against the executive order and agreed to hear oral arguments on other components later this year.

Temple University School of Law Professor Jan C. Ting served as assistant director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service at the Justice Department during the George W. Bush administration.  He says the Supreme Court’s stark reversal from the lower court decisions is striking.

“The unanimity of the high court was surprising.  Even the liberal wing of the court concurred in the judgment that the positions of the lower courts in striking down the ban were overly broad,” said Ting.

He fully expects the court to rule in Trump’s favor on the outstanding issues as well given what Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a separate opinion that both concurred and dissented from the majority opinion.

“It seemed like the travel ban was very likely to be affirmed by the high court on the merits when the high court gets to that point, and I think that’s reflected in the unanimous decision of the high court to push back on the lower court injunctions,” said Ting.

Ting has weighed in at various points of the travel ban debate, pointing out that Trump’s first version was perfectly legal based on existing U.S. statute, specifically 8 USC 1182(f).

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate,” the statute reads in part.

Ting says that makes this fierce political battle an open and shut case.

“The law is very clear.  The president has the authority to exclude any alien from the United States for any reason and for any period of time the president chooses.  That is unmistakably clear,” said Ting, noting the ruling is a rebuke to lower courts straining for reasons to block the order.

“The role of the courts is and ought to be very limited.  These are political questions, whether people should be excluded from the United States.  The political branches of government, the Congress and president together, should be making these decisions,” said Ting.

Critics often call the executive order a Muslim ban and cite first amendment concern.  Ting says that argument simply doesn’t hold up.

“I think it’s pretty clear that there’s not a religious issue there.  I mean anyone who reads the first amendment can see that we’re not establishing a religion in a travel ban,” said Ting.

Furthermore, he asserts that non-citizens in other countries don’t have constitutional rights.

“The notion that people who are outside the United States who are not citizens have some rights that they can assert under our Constitution is, I think, an erroneous claim.  Those issues will all be decided when the high court rules on the merits,” said Ting.

“It would be startling if people outside the United States had some constitutional right either to come to the United States or, frankly, whether they could assert any constitutional rights while as non-citizens outside the United States,” said Ting.

“We think the United States is an exceptional country, but our Constitution is not so great that it governs people all over the world who are not citizens,” he added.

In it’s decision, the Supreme Court allows people to travel to the U.S. from the six nations listed in the executive order only if there is a clear connection for them in this country, ranging from a new job to admission to a college or university or if they have close family in the U.S.

Alternatively, the ban remains firmly in place for those without such connections.

Ting finds the distinction unhelpful.

“I’m with the three dissenters (Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito), who say this is going to give rise to a lot of unnecessary litigation before we get to the merits.  It’s really not necessary.  Since it’s going to be overturned anyway, why don’t we just restore it in the interim?” said Ting.

He says the answer to that can probably be found in in the man who leads the high court.

“I think we see the hand of Chief Justice Roberts here.  He’s trying to preserve the dignity of the court and he would like to have unanimous opinions,” said Ting.  “He negotiated this compromise just to get everyone on board so the Supreme Court could speak with one voice, heightening the respect of the high court and its decisions.”

 

Standard Podcast [ 10:34 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

CNN Eats Crow, GOP’s Healthcare Headache, Sanders Scandal, Serena Slighted?

by


David French of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America discuss the resignation of three CNN reporters after the redaction of a deceptive story on a top Trump advisor. They also express frustration over the tactics of Senate Republicans as the debate over the new healthcare bill escalates.Then, they decry the double standard, as it provides little coverage of the FBI’s bank fraud investigation of Bernie Sanders’ wife. And they defend John McEnroe’s controversial comments on NPR that while Serena Williams is the best women’s player of all time, she would struggle greatly on the men’s tour.

Share

‘A Tremendous Day for Freedom’

by

Religious liberty activists are celebrating Monday, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled decisively in favor of a Missouri church that sued the state, alleging it was wrongfully denied state grant money for a playground upgrade in violation of the free exercise clause of the first amendment.

The 7-2 decision in favor of the church included liberal justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer joining with the four conservative justices and moderate Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion authored by Chief Justice John  Roberts.  Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a stinging dissent that was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Trinity Lutheran Church applied for state funds being offered by the state to upgrade the surface of playgrounds to rubber made from shredded tires.  The request was denied by Missouri officials, suggesting the money would constitute state endorsement of of a particular religion or denomination.

Chief Justice Roberts says Missouri held Trinity Lutheran Church to an unconstitutional standard.

“The State in this case expressly requires Trinity Lutheran to renounce its religious character in order to participate in an otherwise generally available public benefit program, for which it is fully qualified. Our cases make clear that such a condition imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion that must be subjected to the “most rigorous” scrutiny,” wrote Roberts.

“The State has pursued its preferred policy to the point of expressly denying a qualified religious entity a public benefit solely because of its religious character. Under our precedents, that goes too far. The Department’s policy violates the Free Exercise Clause,” he added.

” [T]he exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion,” concluded Roberts

The Alliance Defending Freedom worked with Trinity Lutheran on this case.  Senior Vice President of U.S. Legal Advocacy Kristen Waggoner says this was a huge verdict for the cause of religious freedom.

“I think today’s decision is a tremendous day for freedom.  The court ruled very clearly that discrimination against people of faith and religious groups is unconstitutional,” said Waggoner.

Waggoner says this was discrimination pure and simple.

“In the text of the law, the state was discriminating against this church because of who it was.  The government can’t do that.  Neither the establishment clause nor the free exercise clause permit class-based discrimination against people of faith and that’s exactly what this was,” said Waggoner, noting that the state’s argument could be extended to deny fire and police protection from churches.

Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver says this decision is even more pivotal than that.  He says a decision in favor of Missouri would have massive consequences in arenas ranging from education to health care.

“That would mean that vouchers – when parents provide vouchers to a school of their own choice – could be blocked across the country,” said Staver.

“It also could mean that, in fact, hospitals that are religiously affiliated, particularly those that are affiliated with churches…could be disqualified from treating Medicaid and Medicare patients for the same reason,” said Staver.  “The good news is that’s not the direction the court went.”

Waggoner sees Monday’s decision as a ray of sunshine after what she sees as a long string of high court rulings against religious and she hopes a new trend is beginning.

“Over the course of the last two years, we’ve seen a number of bad laws and bad lower court rulings that have eroded our freedoms.  Today’s decision, I think, that that pendulum is swing back towards freedom, which benefits everyone,” said Waggoner.

She also says the gravity of this decision can be seen in the intensity of Sotomayor’s dissent.

“This case is about nothing less than the relationship between religious institutions and the civil government—that is, between church and state. The Court today profoundly changes that relationship by holding, for the first time, that the Constitution requires the government to provide public funds directly to a church,” wrote Sotomayor.

“Its decision slights both our precedents and our history, and its reasoning weakens this country’s longstanding commitment to a separation of church and state beneficial to both,” she added.

Staver says Sotomayor has a wrong understanding of history and of the Constitution.

“The intent of the Constitution never ultimately wanted to put this huge separating wall so that you can’t ever have any interaction.  The first amendment is designed to prevent an establishment of religion, a preferential treatment of religion or a religious denomination over another, not equal treatment,” said Staver.

Staver also challenges another assumption Sotomayor made in her dissent.

“Today’s decision discounts centuries of history and jeopardizes the government’s ability to remain secular,” wrote Sotomayor.

Referencing one of the nation’s early justices, Staver says secularism was never understood to be the posture of government in the early days of the republic .

“Justice Joseph Story said that the first amendment was designed to encourage religion, so far as it’s not incompatible with the rights of conscience.  It was designed to prohibit rivalries among denominations …not to remain secular,” said.

Story served on the high court from 1811-1845.  Staver says if that’s not an early enough interpretation of the government’s relationship with religion, the founders themselves were pretty clear as well.

“Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, all the founders, they consistently said that the people had to be religious and moral.  Therefore, people needed to be taught Christian principles even in the public schools, so they would have a moral people, so that our liberty would be preserved,” said Staver.

“It’s frankly shocking (for Sotomayor) to suggest that this is centuries of history that the government is to remain secular.  That’s absolute nonsense,” he added.

Neither Staver nor Waggoner appear concerned about the debate among the more conservative justices about the scope of this ruling.  The majority opinion includes a footnote from Roberts that seems to limit the decision to the present circumstances.

“This case involves express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing. We do not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination,” he wrote.

In a concurring opinion, newly-minted Justice Neil Gorsuch acknowledged the specifics of the case but argued that the ruling had farther-reaching impact.

“Of course the footnote is entirely correct, but I worry that some might mistakenly read it to suggest that only “playground resurfacing” cases, or only those with some association with children’s safety or health, or perhaps some other social good we find sufficiently worthy, are governed by the legal rules recounted in and faithfully applied by the Court’s opinion,” wrote Gorsuch.

“Such a reading would be unreasonable for our cases are “governed by general principles, rather than ad hoc improvisations,” he wrote.

Waggoner sees the debate over the footnote as a “red herring” offered up by people looking to diminish the decision.  Staver hailed Gorsuch’s approach.

“It is a great opinion by Gorsuch because it shows that he is committed to the original understanding and intent of the Constitution,” said Staver.  “I think it really bodes well for the future that we’ve got a great justice who is precise and will be committed to the original understanding of the Constitution,” said Staver.

Both lawyers were also pleased to see the Supreme Court agree to hear to case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Right Commission.  It’s at the center of the conscience debate that will set a major precedent in determining whether artistic merchants can decline certain projects if those jobs conflict with their closely held personal beliefs.

Christian vendors declining services for same-sex ceremonies are at the heart of this debate at the moment.  Waggoner says that case cuts to the core of freedom in America.

“What we’re finding is that Christians who are in the creative profession are being forced to choose between their professions and their business and their beliefs on marriage,” said Waggoner.

“Every American should be free to choose the art that they create and they shouldn’t fear unjust government punishment for not agreeing with the government’s ideology on any issue, especially marriage between one man and one woman,” said Waggoner.

Standard Podcast [ 8:33 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Standard Podcast [ 12:02 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

‘This Has Become A Question of Us, Not Them’

by

North Korea murdered Otto Warmbier and a fierce response is needed, says a prominent expert on China and North Korea, but he warns the increasingly belligerent actions of the communist regime are a result of the U.S. failing to hold it accountable for more than two decades.

Earlier this month, North Korea released Warmbier after imprisoning him for 16 months.  He spent the vast majority of that time in a coma and died just days after returning to Ohio.  North Korea claimed Warmbier’s coma stemmed from a bout of botulism and that he was released on humanitarian grounds.  U.S. doctors found no evidence of botulism.

“At this point, we have to go with the overwhelming evidence and that is indeed an issue of murder,” said Gordon Chang, a leading scholar on China and North Korea and the author of “Nuclear Showdown:  North Korea Takes on the World.”

“There is just no other explanation for a healthy 22-year-old – then a 21-year-old – would end up in a permanent coma and then death.  We have to just follow the evidence and just realize that the North Korean explanation is not accurate,” said Chang.

“It may have been guards who got overzealous, but it probably was an order from the top of the regime to send a message to the United States,” said Chang.  “It was as horrific as we can think.  This is a good reminder when we start to talk about negotiating with the North Koreans of who we are actually dealing with.”

On Friday, the North Korean regime vigorously denied torturing Warmbier, insisting it provided him medical care and then released him on humanitarian grounds.

“Although we had no reason at all to show mercy to such a criminal of the enemy state, we provided him with medical treatments and care with all sincerity on humanitarian basis until his return to the U.S.,” the foreign ministry said, according to state-run Korean Central News Agency.

The North Korean government also claimed it was the biggest victim in this story due to an alleged smear campaign by the U.S. and South Korea to accuse it of torture.

 

“It’s a typical North Korean response that it’s all the Americans’ response.  Any problem in the world can be traced to Washington.  This is just the way that they operate.  They’re certainly not going to accept any responsibility for the treatment of Otto Warmbier, although they had total custody of him since January 2, 2016,” said Chang.

While the actions of Kim Jong-Un’s regime infuriate the Trump administration, Chang says increased North Korean aggression is simply a result of the U.S. doing virtually nothing in response to provocations for decades.

“We have not imposed costs on North Korea for their brutalized treatment of Americans: the seizure of the (USS) Pueblo in 1968, the shoot down of the Air Force EC-121 with the loss of 31 lives.  Again, no penalty was imposed.  We never do so, so of course the North Koreans think they can kill us,” said Chang.

“Yes, the North Koreans are villains, but this has become an issue not of North Korea.  It’s become an issue of the American response to North Korea, he views of the American policy establishment, the views of American administrations – Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives,” said Chang.

“The north Koreans will continue to act in this way until the United States imposes some costs.  So this has become a question of us, not them,” he added.

And what is an effective response?

“Regardless of what they think about North Korea, the Trump administration needs to impose costs on Pyongyang.  We need to do that because we cannot allow anyone to kill anyone with impunity,” said Chang.

He believes going after North Korean money would send a crystal clear message.

“I think the most important thing would be to cut North Korea off from the global financial system by cutting North Korea off from Chinese banks, which are participating in illicit North Korean commerce and North Korean crimes,” said Chang.

In addition to providing an appropriate wake-up call to North Korea, Chang believes China would also receive the message loud and clear.

“If were to start to do that, I think that we would start to see a new Chinese attitude, much more positive and much more cooperative.  But until we are willing to take political risk and show political will, they’re going to continue with their support of North Korea.  They’ve weaponized North Korea against us.  We have not responded,” said Chang.

He says demonstrating diplomatic backbone is vital for U.S. national security.

“It’s becoming essential for the United States to show the rest of the world that, first of all, we’re going to enforce our own laws regardless of what we think about China or North Korea policy,” said Chang.

“Second, we need to send a message to the Chinese that for the first time since 1994 that we are serious about protecting the American homeland.  We haven’t done that, and because of that Beijing and Pyongyang haven’t taken us seriously,” he said.

President Trump has said the approach of previous administrations toward North Korea does not work, but he has yet to lay out a new policy.  In the meantime, Chang says we’re still getting pushed around.

“So far they’ve adopted the policy of their predecessors and they’re, again, getting no results from the Chinese.  I don’t know if the president has genuinely been taken in by Beijing or whether he’s just giving them enough rope and he’s decided he’s eventually going to do something on his own,” said Chang.

Standard Podcast [ 10:41 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

Pelosi Persists, Health Care Headache, Trump Tape Twist

by

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America discuss House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi feeling the heat from members of her own party after Tuesday’s loss in Georgia, but they are excited to see her determined to keep her job despite being a drag on the party. They also express concern over the new Senate Republican health care bill, which Democrats were already protesting and has some Republicans on edge as well. And they speculate on President Trump admitting he knows of no tapes of his conversations with former FBI Director James Comey.

Share

‘This Is A Rescue Effort’

by

Senate Republican leaders revealed their closely guarded health care bill on Thursday, predictably outraging Democrats and leaving some conservative senators insistent that the bill doesn’t go far enough.

Known officially as the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017, the legislation kills Obamacare’s individual mandate, scraps many of the current taxes on the books, and gives more power to the states to define the health care market.

On the flip side, the bill increases subsidies over what House Republicans approved last month and offers a slower phasing out of Medicaid expansion.  Both plans keep the Obamacare provisions of forbidding insurance companies from rejecting patients with pre-existing conditions and allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ policies until age 26.

Some of the top conservative health care policy leaders are effusive in their praise.  Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity President Avik Roy says, “If it passes, it’ll be the greatest policy achievement by a GOP Congress in my lifetime.”

Galen Institute President Grace-Marie Turner also likes the plan, noting that it addresses the four areas she believes must be dealt with as a result of Obamacare’s many problems.  Specifically, she says any final product must provide a safety net, create a bridge to new coverage, allow states greater flexibility on regulations, and reform Medicaid.

“This bill does all four of those key things,” said Turner.  “Yes the Senate moves the dials in slightly different ways and they learned from the reaction to the House bill, particularly in the way the refundable tax credits were structured for people who need help in purchasing coverage.”

Turner admits the Senate bill spreads taxpayer dollars around more liberally than the House plan.

“Young people, people that are in lower income categories and people (nearing) Medicare age will get more help than they would have through the House bill,” said Turner.

That approach extends to Medicaid as well.

“It gets back to a more normal way of spending the federal-state match for Medicaid spending, but it does it over a longer period of time.  So the states have more time to adjust to reductions in their Medicaid payments,” said Turner.

“But they are also going to have a lot more flexibility with this bill than they would have otherwise had.  Obamacare just basically added millions more people to a faltering Medicaid program instead of building in reforms,” she added.

While many on the right see the legislation as a significant improvement over the status quo, some changes must be made if Republican leaders want the votes needed to pass it.  Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Mike Lee, R-Utah, Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, and Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., say they cannot back the bill in its present form because it doesn’t do what the GOP promised to do the past four election cycles.

“Currently, for a variety of reasons, we are not ready to vote for this bill, but we are open to negotiation and obtaining more information before it is brought to the floor,” the senators said in a joint statement.

“There are provisions in this draft that represent an improvement to our current healthcare system but it does not appear this draft as written will accomplish the most important promise that we made to Americans: to repeal Obamacare and lower their healthcare costs,” they added.

Turner says she is encouraged by the language of the statement and expects their concerns to result in a stronger bill.

“I think the leadership knows they are going to have to make tweaks and adjustments to this bill.  Fortunately, we’re now sort of out of the policy realm and we’re in the vote-buying realm.  ‘What do you need, Sen. Paul?  What do you need Sen. Johnson, etc. to be able to vote for this bill,” said Turner.

“We saw on the House side they made it better when people started to push back strongly,” said Turner.

She also says the underlying arguments from the four senators are spot on but she says the parameters for moving this legislation make things more complicated.

“They are right that we’ve got to do more to get costs down and to give people more choices.  But they’re also so constrained by this process they have to go through, this reconciliation process, to be able to pass this with 51 votes, means that everything in the bill has to directly pertain to federal spending and federal taxation,” said Turner.

“That means that it’s really hard to get to the regulatory structures through this bill, which is why I think we need to think about this as a first step – breaking the logjam – so we can begin a process of making changes that effect this one-sixth of our economy so that we can begin to move forward to give people the choices that they want.  but we can’t do it on the Obamacare platform,” said Turner.

Turner says with Medicare and Medicaid on the books, the conservative goal of wrenching health care away from the clutches of government will remain just that.  However, she says the key provisions allowing more latitude to the states is a major step in the that direction.

“There’s always going to be a federal footprint.  The question is whether it’s Bigfoot and it crushes the health sector or whether it has an appropriate footprint of helping people in need while allowing the private market to work,” said Turner.

The greatest howls of protest came from Democrats, who denounced the bill as cruel and likely to kill many people the moment it was released.

“That sort of tells me they were against it before they even knew what was in it,” said Turner.

While fully aware of the partisan divide in Washington and the Democrats’ intention to defend President Obama’s signature domestic achievement, Turner is stunned that Democrats are fine with what Obamacare is doing to health care right now.

“Are they really defending Obamacare, that has caused health insurance costs to double for an individual since the year before this law was passed, 140 percent higher for families.  You have many counties that are at risk of having no options for people to use.  Obamacare has not worked,” said Turner.

“There have been no changes in any meaningful way, other than one regulation, for the Trump administration or this Congress to precipitate this.  This is failing of its own right,” said Turner.

Given the current numbers in the Senate, Turner believes this legislation is about the best the GOP can do on its own and that lawmakers must act.

“This is a rescue effort and they’ve got to get this done,” she said.

Standard Podcast [ 11:26 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

Pro-Life Court Victory, FBI Strikes Out, Social Media Gestapo

by


Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America celebrate with the pro-life community over the news that a California court is dropping 14 of 15 charges against activists David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, whose undercover videos show Planned Parenthood illegally selling aborted baby body parts. They also express concern over the FBI’s reluctance to state that the Alexandria shooter was politically motivated. And they discuss reports that German police are raiding homes and interrogating people over controversial social media posts.

Share

Scope of Iranian Missile Program Exposed

by

Iranian ballistic missile tests are seen as blatant evidence that the regime there continues to pursue nuclear weapons and the Iranian resistance is now detailing the scope and aggressiveness of the missile program.

On Tuesday, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, or NCRI, unveiled new evidence to explain that far from Iran ratcheting down it’s threat to the Middle East and the world, it has been accelerating its effort ever since it became clear the West was committed to making a deal back in 2015.

“Tehran had decided (before the the nuclear deal was finalized) to step up their efforts on the missile side of their rogue behavior, namely expanding both the production of the missiles but their readiness to deploy them and make them operational,” said Alireza Jafarzadeh, deputy director of the NCRI’s U.S. office.

Jafarzadeh says the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, is taking a bigger role in the missile program through the Aerospace Force.

“It used to be called the Air Force of the IRGC, basically having helicopters control airports and all of that.  Since a few years ago, they changed the whole structure into Aerospace Force, meaning the dominance is with the missile program.  Most of their work is the expansion of the missile program,” said Jafarzadeh.

The new report, gathered through intelligence sources in Iran who are hostile to the regime, shows a vast network of facilities working on the missile program.

“We managed to identify, so far, 42 different locations around the country that are dedicated to their missile program, and they include sites that are engaged in the design, production, testing, and launching their missiles,” said Jafarzadeh.

The 2015 Iran nuclear deal did not force Iran to make any concessions with respect to ballistic missiles, but Jafarzadeh says the current efforts do violate United Nations Security Council resolutions against Iran missile development.

He also asserts that the revelations expose violations of the nuclear deal since many of the ballistic missiles only serve one purpose – to carry nuclear warheads.

“One of the troubling things we found out during our investigation was that there was a direct connection between the nuclear weapons program of Iran and their missile program.  These are not two separate entities,” said Jafarzadeh.

Jafarzadeh says one of the bases on the list, Semnan, is a smoking gun of collaboration between the nuclear weapons program and the advancement of missile capability.  He says the agency tasked with weaponizing nukes, STND, is joined at the hip with the missile program at Semnan.

“We found out that every week there is a high-level delegation from STND going from Tehran to Semnan, doing some activities and coming back.  So that’s a very troubling thing,” he said.

He also says the new intelligence sheds even more light on just how cozy Iran is with North Korea.

“The other element we found out was the extensive connection and collaboration between North Korea and Iran on their missile programs, to the extent that North Korean experts, when they travel to Iran to help the missile program, they stay at the private residence area that the regime has allocated for the North Koreans.  They don’t check into some hotel,” said Jafarzadeh.

“Vice versa, the Iranian missile experts travel to North Korea and spend time and exchange ideas and views and expertise,” he added.

The locations of these missile bases are also very suspicious, according to Jafarzadeh.

“Most of the sites focusing on production were in the central part of the country near Tehran.  All the sites related to launching and operations were either on the western border of the country, which brings them closer to their targets in Europe and the western side of the world, or the southern part of the country near the Persian Gulf,” said Jafarzadeh.

“That makes the Iran regime much more accessible to the Persian Gulf countries, making very clear the objective of their entire missile program.  It’s not for defensive purposes.  This is meant to intimidate.  This is meant to dominate,” he said.

“And most importantly, on top of all of these things, it is meant to give the Iranian regime the ability to build the bomb and to be able to carry it.  That is to say building a nuclear warhead.  That is their ultimate objective,” said Jafarzadeh.

Standard Podcast [ 14:35 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

Karen Handels Ossoff, Dems’ Post Georgia Disarray, Holder Hints At 2020

by

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America celebrate Republican Karen Handel’s win over Democrat Jon Ossoff in Georgia’s special congressional election. They also enjoy watching Democrats fight publicly over what went wrong in a race that was supposedly a referendum on President Trump and a model for winning back the House in 2018. And they react to the news that former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder plans to be much more visible in his “resistance” to President Trump and might run for president in 2020.

Share