Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America cheer the successful test of a missile defense system targeting intercontinental ballistic missiles. They also appreciate former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper once again confirming that he saw no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. And they are excited by initial reports that President Trump plans to withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement, but are confused after Trump himself suggests a decision has not yet been made.
News & Politics
‘Written Out of History’
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, says some of the most important names associated with the push for limited government at our nation’s founding have been shoved out of history and the effort has coincided almost perfectly with America’s push for a bigger and bigger federal government.
Lee, who was just elected to a second term in the U.S. Senate, is the author of “Written out of History: The Forgotten Founders Who Fought Big Government,” which he says is designed to give adults and children a better idea of what the vision of our founding fathers truly was. Lee says limited government isn’t some anachronistic vestige of the colonial era, but the fundamental premise of our system of government.
“It’s very important for parents to emphasize to their children at a young age that that’s the whole reason why we have a constitution is to limit the power of government. Those limits need to mean something, but they can only be meaningful if we recognize them, enforce them, and talk about them,” said Lee.
Reiterating the famous James Madison quotation that if men were angels, no government would be necessary, Lee says we do need government, but not one that smothers the people who rule over it.
“It’s important for us to remind our children that they should respect government. Government is a good thing. It is a tool for good, as long as it remains subject to the limitations brought about by elections,” said Lee, who says the book is not meant to address current partisan squabbles but return America’s focus to the point of government as envisioned by our founders.
“I’m talking in this book about advocating any particular conservative vs. liberal or Republican vs. Democratic agenda. What I’m talking about here is returning power back to the people, allowing more of the people in America to have access to more of the kind of government they want and less of the government they don’t want,” said Lee.
“That’s what our founding-era principles do and that’s what they could do for us if we were to follow them more consistently,” said Lee.
Lee says the founders are of greater interest these days, even to young people, as result of the smash Broadway musical, “Hamilton.” In addition to the performance, Lee says there is always fascination with that part of our history.
“They respond this way in part because the American people intuitively understand something about the founding generation. They understand that generation knew something about who we are as a people and that we have a lot to learn if we learn from their stories,” said Lee.
And Lee says getting American to understand the lessons from our founders, especially the less known figures, is the point of the book.
“I knew there were a whole lot of founding fathers that the American people know little or nothing about, in part because they don’t fit our modern, progressive narrative. I wanted to reintroduce the people to those stories,” said Lee.
According to Lee, that “modern, progressive narrative” has been chipping away the key figures and principles of the American founding for generations.
“We tend to remember those whose narratives fit with our world view from our day. Over the last 80 years or so, we have – within our public education system and our higher education system – seen a big push toward a centralization of power. People are taught to have a whole lot of faith a whole lot of confidence in the federal government, almost as if it were endowed with certain deity-like qualities,” said Lee.
He says it is no coincidence that the push to adjust history to fit more of a big government narrative began about the same time our own leaders were pushing for great expansion of federal powers.
“There’s nothing coincidental about it at all. The fact is that since the New Deal the American people have been asked to simply trust government, to have faith in government almost as they would in God. That narrative isn’t supportable by the facts. It’s not supportable by history,” said Lee.
As such, Lee believes his book is ideal for high school or college graduates who likely heard little to nothing about the virtues of limited government.
“These are things not likely to have been taught in any high school or college history course, for the simple reason that they conflict with this modern narrative that says that government in general is great, you don’t need to fear it as much as some people might think and the federal government in particular can be trusted,” said Lee.
In the book, Lee highlights multiple figures forgotten or marginalized by history, starting with an unlikely figure from before the American founding.
“I chose, for example, Canasatego, the Iroquois Indian chief who hardly ever gets mentioned but in many respects is the father of American federalism, this concept of vertical separation of powers that says most of the governing is supposed to take place at the state and the local level,” said Lee.
“A few powers are given to our federal government in Washington, but everything else is supposed to remain with the people. That’s the essence of the 10th amendment and the rest of the Constitution even prior to the 10th amendment,” said Lee.
Lee also focuses on Aaron Burr, whose legacy goes far deeper than killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel.
“We forget about the fact that one of America’s most revered presidents (Thomas Jefferson) actually became quite dangerous in the case of Aaron Burr, had him prosecuted based on a perceived political fit of rage and very nearly won, but the Constitution held out and Aaron Burr was found not guilty,” said Lee.
“This is a reminder to us that even a revered man like Thomas Jefferson could abuse power and tried to abuse power,” said Lee.
Lee is also struck by how similar the debates over the intrusion of government are today compared with the founding era.
“Back then they were intrusions that, prior to the revolution, were considered against the right of Englishmen as established by laws of England, using things like Writs of Assistance, whereby law enforcement personnel would kick down doors, search people’s homes just looking for anything they might want to find to use as evidence against someone,” said Lee.
“This is one of the reasons why we ended up with protections found in the 4th amendment requiring that any searches be conducted pursuant to warrants and that those warrants be substantiated by probable cause and a warrant signed by a judge,” said Lee.
Lee says he is well aware of the conditioning Americans have undergone over the past 80 years to expect and accept big government, but he believes the momentum can be reversed.
“The hardest part is getting people to think about it, to talk about it, to read about it in books, to talk about it around the dinner table. Because once you have that part done, you can quickly move and bring about real change, the kind of change that returns power to the people,” said Lee.
No Sleep Lost for Mattis, Kushner’s Curious Contacts, Kelly’s Caution on Terror
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America applaud Defense Secretary James Mattis for telling CBS News that he doesn’t lose sleep over anything but makes other people lose sleep. They also scratch their heads over Jared Kushner allegedly discussing a secret communications channel with Moscow during the Trump transition and wonder why a real estate guy is dealing with national security. They shudder a bit as Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly says people wouldn’t leave the house if they knew what he knows about terrorism. And they are not exactly teary as they discuss the death of former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega.
Breaking Down the Budget Battle
President Trump’s budget proposal for the coming fiscal year is coming under fierce criticism from Democrats and the media but a House Budget Committee member who spent 20 years as a college economics professor is impressed by Trump’s goals while warning that the president will need to address entitlement spending at some point.
The Trump administration released it’s $4 trillion budget proposal while Trump himself was overseas. It calls for robust increases in national security spending while calling for considerable cuts to various government departments. Democrats have labeled the budget as cruel and likely to cause children to die. Republicans warn the final appropriations bills probably won’t look much like the Trump plan.
Rep. Dave Brat, R-Virginia, spent 20 years as an economics professor at Randolph Macon College. He believes Trump is generally on the right track.
“Overall, I’m impressed, It’s got the big pieces in the right place,” said Brat. “The major piece I like is the policy aimed at getting three percent growth. That will solve a lot of problems going forward,” said Brat, while praising the policies Trump is clearly emphasizing in the budget.
“It pluses up the military. It tries to clean out the swamp. It reduces some bureaucracy. It balances in 10 years. All of these are good conservative policies,” said Brat.
Brat says the Trump plan is a great improvement over what the Democrats are proposing. In fact, he says they have no solutions at all.
“As a visionary document, we’re moving in the right direction. Across the aisle on the Democrat side, they haven’t even ever put forward a budget that balances, not even in a 75-year window,” said Brat.
Brat and other Republicans admit getting what they want in the appropriations process won’t be easy since Senate rules require at least eight Democrats to approve any spending bills. But while Democrats can gum up the process, Brat is acutely aware that voters will not accept failure when it comes to fiscal discipline.
“We should compromise but we shouldn’t give away the store. In my view, the other side has given away the store too often. On our side, we need to clean up some of this, rearrange the (entitlement) programs so the kids get sustained benefits over their lifetimes. We’ve got to get the economy moving and some of that requires discipline,” said Brat.
“So our side gets hit hard but we need to step up to the plate and take it. That’s our job and the American people expect us to get it straight,” said Brat.
But what about Democrats alleging children will die as a result of the Trump budget? That allegation was especially targeted towards a proposed $800 billion in Medicaid cuts. Brat says that’s dishonest reporting of the facts.
“The Democrats call them cuts. They’re cuts from the baseline. Medicaid still keeps increasing. It just doesn’t increase at the pace it was going at, and that pace is bankrupting the country,” said Brat. “Lot of politics going on right now but not much substance offered by the other side. They’re great at hurling the insults but they’re short on the economic studies,” said Brat.
He also says White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney made it very clear how he want about finding places to cut in the Fiscal 2018 budget.
“He said, ‘Look, there’s no mystery. It’s just like running a business. You look at each of these programs one by one by one and you compare the benefits against the cost.’ He made it very clear the safety net is not in question,” said Brat.
Brat says Democrats and Republicans need to realize that calling for a trillion dollars in cuts is just the tip of the iceberg.
“Some on the left are giving us a hard time over trying to save a trillion dollars or so, but even if we save one trillion that leaves you with another hundred trillion dollar shortfall with Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, etc,” said Brat, who says failure to address the key entitlements will make 10-year spending cuts seem like loose change.
“Either you reform them and update them or else the kids get nothing. The left is acting like ‘draconian’ cuts are going to hurt people. Those cuts are nothing in comparison to the mandatory piece,” said Brat.
He says the clock is ticking loudly and time is short before entitlements engulf the entire budget.
“Those mandatory programs will account for 100 percent of all federal revenues in about 15 years. That’s not a typo. All federal revenues will be spent only on the mandatory. That means there’s no money for the military, transportation, running government,” said Brat.
With that kind of looming fiscal crisis, Brat says the only path forward is to get every able-bodied adult into the workforce, and that’s where tax reform and tax cuts come in. He says the demonizing of so-called supply side economics is bizarre.
“That term is used as a pejorative right now in D.C., supply-side tax cuts. I taught economics for 20 years. The demand side is all the people out there called consumers. The supply side is also everybody out there that works for a living in business. That’s the supply side,” said Brat.
He says it’s time for Washington to embrace the supply side again, since pumping up the demand side was a major flop.
“We’ve tried demand side stuff. We’ve had bailouts, etc. that pumped money back into people’s pockets. It gives you an instantaneous jolt, but if you’re serious about getting the economy growing you better incentivize business. Trump probably won the election on that,” said Brat.
Brat believes doing tax cuts and tax reform right will set the stage for economic growth, which is the best hope for avoiding fiscal disaster in the near future. He says tax cuts give businesses reason to hire, thereby beefing up the labor participation rate and bringing in more federal revenues through taxes.
“If we solve that one it’s huge,” said Brat. “I think a lot of the worries go away if we get this economy rolling again.”
Lessons from Montana, Coptics Slaughtered Again, Bloom County Blunder
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America discuss Republican Greg Gianforte’s win in the special Montana congressional race a day after he roughed up a reporter and how Democrats are still looking for their first win at the ballot box in the Trump era . They also mourn the Islamist slaughter of dozens of Coptic Christians in Egypt and point out the West is still oblivious to the fact that we are at war. And they’re stunned that anyone actually fell for the fake letter to Bloom County cartoonist Berkeley Bloom that was supposedly sent to him by President Trump’s lawyer.
Montana Meltdown, Loose Lips Shame U.S. Intel, Impeachment Election?
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America react to reports – and audio – of Montana GOP House candidate Greg Gianforte getting physical with a reporter, who claims Gianforte body slammed him and broke his glasses. They also shake their heads as Manchester police stop sharing intelligence on Monday’s bombing with U.S. officials after several sensitive items were made public. And they groan as Washington Post columnist David Ignatius has already decided that the 2018 midterm elections will be all about whether to impeach Trump because he is just so very sure that Robert Mueller will recommend impeachment, Trump won’t resign and Republicans won’t pursue impeachment on their own.
Voter ID Irony Nails Dems, Ossoff Takes the Lead, Right Response to Terrorism
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America enjoy watching California Democrats fight over who won the election to be the next state party chairman, with supporters of the losing candidate alleging lax voter identification enforcement. They also wince as Jon Ossoff moves to a seven-point lead over Karen Handel in the special House race in Georgia. And they sigh as the Manchester terrorism attack elicits more generic calls for unity rather than identifying the obvious motivation for such heinous attacks.
‘This Is the Difference Between a Culture of Life and a Culture of Death’
British Prime Minister Teresa May says it is hard to comprehend why anyone would want to indiscriminately kill so many innocent people at Monday’s concert in Manchester, but terrorism victim and expert Brigitte Gabriel says there is a clear explanation for why this happens and she also blasting the UK for worrying more about diversity than condemning radical Islam in the wake of the attack.
On Tuesday morning, Prime Minister May condemned the attacks and was at a loss of words for how anyone could want to kill children.
“We struggle to comprehend the warped and twisted mind that sees a room packed with young children not as a scene to cherish but as an opportunity for carnage,” said May.
Gabriel, president of Act for America and author of “They Must Be Stopped,” says there is a clear explanation for such a mindset.
“This is the difference between a culture of life and a culture of death. The reason this Islamic radical would target such a location is because they look at things differently than we do,” said Gabriel.
In the case of Monday’s Arianna Grande concert, Gabriel says Islamic radicals and westerners see the event very differently. Whereas most people in the West view the concert as young people having fun on a lovely night, she says our enemies see something very different in Grande and her fans.
“He sees a skanky young, what they call a bad word, somebody dancing on the stage with a bunch of wannabe, will be as they grow up, women that will become just like her who are of no value. He saw no value in their life and that’s why he killed them,” said Gabriel.
The terrorist is identified as 22-year-old Salman Abedi, the son of Libyan refugees. Gabriel says this appears to be another example of refugees coming west and refusing to embrace the culture of their new home.
“These refugees who are coming into our western countries are not really assimilating, even though we give them homes, we give them jobs, we give them money, and we welcome them with open arms,” said Gabriel.
“These radicals are not grateful. A radical like this person, even though he was taken in, he was given refuge, given money, given support by the tax dollars of the parents of these same girls that he blew up,” said Gabriel.
While condemnation among UK leaders has been swift, Prime Minister May and others have been quick to ascribe responsibility to the bomber alone. In her statement, May did not address the larger threat posed by radical Islam.
Greater Manchester Chief Constable Ian Hopkins was quick to cheer the diversity in the city and promised reprisals for any mistreatment of specific groups.
“More than ever, it is vital to have diverse communities that make Greater Manchester such a strong place that actually stand together and support each other,” said Hopkins. “We will, therefore, not tolerate hate towards any part of our community. Should communities be suffering from hate incidents or crime, then I would please urge them to report it to us.”
Gabriel is disgusted by that approach.
“We are tired of being lectured about, ‘Oh, this is not a time for hate.’ Who’s hating anybody? If there is any hate directed towards anybody it’s from that Islamic radical and the Islamic radicals that support him, that harbor him, that finance him, that encourage him, that encourage him to go out and kill innocent, young, beautiful young girls, enjoying a beautiful evening,” said Gabriel.
She says there is great unity where it ought to matter most.
“We are already diverse. We are already unified as people who love freedom. We come together as Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and everybody who loves our freedom and condemn the terrorist attacks conducted in the name of Islamic terrorism,” said Gabriel.
“It is Islamic terrorism. It is not Buddhist terrorism, Mennonite terrorism, Maronite terrorism, or any other terrorism other than Islamic terrorism,” said Gabriel.
Gabriel says British officials and anyone else who chooses to ignore the central issue in these attacks is begging for more of them.
“If Europe is going to continue going down the path of speaking nonsense and empty words and feeling sorrow and seeing the British flag reflected on the Eiffel Tower on everybody’s Facebook and #WeStandwithEngland and #We StandwithManchester, that doesn’t change anything. It’s about time they come up with solutions for how they’re going to control the problem. Otherwise, they’re going to end up getting exactly the same thing,” said Gabriel.
So what are those solutions? Gabriel says all governments need to ramp up their technological expertise to keep up with terrorists and, preferably, stay a step or two ahead of them. She also recommends greater scrutiny of where incitement breeds, starting with the mosques.
“Start monitoring the mosques. A person cannot live in a vacuum. A person like this, who is very devout, is a part of a community that harbors and preaches that kind of violence,” said Gabriel.
“When you attend mosques in Europe on any given Friday, they are talking about killing the infidels and going on jihad. It has already been documented how radical Islamic mosques are, especially in Europe,” said Gabriel.
She says social media is another area where counter-terrorism officials must get serious.
“Start working with the communities of social media and the companies that own social media, where they can immediately crack down on all these people that are posting these things on their websites or tracking them as saying something suspicious on Twitter,” said Gabriel.
She says without getting proactive, people like Abedi – who was reportedly known to police – are harder to stop.
“The lesson for us is where there is smoke there is fire. If there is anybody being monitored by the FBI, by the CIA, by the intelligence community, whether here or any other country in the world, if somebody is on your radar do something before it’s too late,” said Gabriel.
Manchester ‘Carnage,’ Trump Targets ‘Losers,’ Resisting the Fortress Mentality
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America react to the horrific terrorist attack that killed at least 22 people and was aimed at young concertgoers in Manchester, England. They also discuss President Trump’s characterization of terrorists as “evil losers” and some of the social media reaction to the deadly blast. And they point out how difficult it is to stop an attack like this and why the instinct to turn every public gathering place into a fortress is not the right answer.
Is U.S. Oblivious to Muslim Invasion?
The man who unsuccessfully challenged House Speaker Paul Ryan in a Republican primary last year is now releasing a documentary highlighting what he sees as a threat to the United States through a coordinated Muslim migration strategy.
Paul Nehlen is host of “Hijrah: Radical Islam’s Global Invasion.” He is also the author of the forthcoming book, “Wage the Battle.”
Nehlen says hijrah can refer to multiple ideas, ranging from leaving sin behind to Mohammed’s journey from Mecca to Medina. However, he says Islamic texts clearly speak about strategic migration.
“Hijrah means ‘migration in the name of Allah,'” said Nehlen, who says the ultimate goal is to populate non-Muslim nations to the extent needed to impose Sharia law.
“The hijrah is one way of spreading the Sharia, spreading the law of Islam, this political doctrine, to land where Islam isn’t. That’s what this documentary covers. It talks about the bigger picture here of what we saw here . It stems directly from their fundamental texts,” said Nehlen.
He says hijrah is another method by which Muslims can earn their salvation.
“Quite unlike a Christian, who believes you can’t earn your way in and only by the grace of God are you granted access to heaven through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, Muslims believe they can earn their way in. They believe they have to earn their way in,” said Nehlen.
In addition to explaining hijrah in his documentary, Nehlen says he made the film to counter the conventional wisdom offered by the media.
“What is portrayed in the mainstream media is so far from the truth that what I learned prior to and during my campaign compelled me to make this documentary to expose it for what it is and really to point out the massive hypocrisy in our refugee resettlement mechanisms in this country,” said Nehlen.
Specifically, Nehlen takes aim at the nine voluntary agencies, or volags, that facilitate refugee resettlement in the U.S.
“[They] receive over a billion dollars to resettle people who are predominantly – almost exclusively – Muslims into this country,” he said.
And he says the financial research he’s done shows more refugees admitted to the U.S. mean a lot of money for the volags.
“I researched these nine volags and all of their top people – I researched five deep into their salaries – and they’re making six-figure salaries. In fact, the highest-paid individual is making over $650,000 a year,” said Nehlen.
“When you have a profit motive that large to bring people in and you’re making more money by bringing more people in, you can’t argue that this is a humanitarian-only issue. This is a profit-driven issue,” he added.
He also claims not all the volags are as they seem based on their names.
“You have groups that have very Christian-sounding names, but the reality is they are being co-opted by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. They are working on behalf of the United Nations, which is clearly working at odds to the United States,” said Nehlen.
Nehlen says this concern over a de facto Muslim invasion is not just theoretical. He says the apprehension of a suspicious person photographing the Chesapeake Bay Bridge years ago ultimately led to a trove of unvarnished Muslim Brotherhood documents.
He read from one that directly references strategic migration.
“The process of settlement is a civilization jihadist process with all the word means. The Iquan, Arabic for Muslim Brotherhood, must understand that their work in America is kind of a grand jihad, eliminating and destroying the western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that is it eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions,” read Nehlen.
Nehlen is strongly urging Congress to pass HR 377, the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act.
“It will roll back 60 years of work the Muslim Brotherhood has done,” said Nehlen.
Defenders of refugee resettlement and general Muslim migration contend the vast majority of Muslims are looking for a peaceful opportunity to pursue physical and financial security for their families. However, Nehlen says polling shows more than 50 percent of Muslims in the U.S. want to see Sharia law trump the Constitution as the final legal authority in the U.S..
“We are seeing Islamist Muslims who are reading directly from their documents and doing what is prescribed in their documents. It is inarguable. You cannot argue that this religion is being perverted. It is not being perverted. It is being practiced in a fundamental way to spread Sharia around the world,” said Nehlen.
And he says giving ground at the margins is a sure-fire way to lose the fight.
“There is no reason that a country should give up its culture, its heroes, its holidays, its traditions in order to make way for a new culture, new traditions, new holidays, new heroes. That’s not what a nation state is all about. I for one will not stand by and watch it happen,” said Nehlen.