News & Politics

The congressman who led the effort to impeach outgoing EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says he is very encouraged by Donald Trump’s choice to lead the agency and says he looks forward to an EPA that abides by the Constitution and a Congress that provides clear parameters for it to follow.

Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., says the job of the EPA, and the government as a whole, is to steward our resources in a way that protects the earth while allowing free energy markets and supplies to flourish.

“We need an all of the above energy policy.  Clean coal, gas, all of those should be on the same par as solar, geothermals, and wind.  This administration has cosen to pick winners and losers.  That’s been problematic in the cost of energy that goes back to the consumer,” said Gosar.

Last week, Trump nominated Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA.  It was a a decision that made liberals and environmentalists livid.

“Having Scott Pruitt in charge of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is like putting an arsonist in charge of fighting fires. He is a climate science denier who, as Attorney General for the state of Oklahoma, regularly conspired with the fossil fuel industry to attack EPA protections,” said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune in a statement.  “Nothing less than our children’s health is at stake.”

Former Obama Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer sounded an even greater alarm.

“At the risk of being dramatic, Scott Pruitt at EPA is an existential threat to the planet,” tweeted Pfeiffer.

Gosar says the left needs to understand how it has bent and broken the law to advance it’s agenda.

“I think it’s interesting the far left starts throwing names around, when they should be looking in the mirror at the damage they’ve caused.  The rules that have come out of this EPA have been egregious and onerous and not embedded in statute,” said Gosar.

He says likes Pruitt’s track record of challenging the EPA when he believes it has overstepped its authority.

“He has gone forward with numerous suits against the EPA that have prevailed at the federal level and even at the Supreme Court.  So I think that this is a great pick in regards to getting back to reason within the EPA and I’m looking forward to a common sense application of how we do things constitutionally by legislation,” said Gosar.

In many of the statements from environmental groups, Pruitt is hammered on the issues of clean water and clean air.  Those criticisms refer primarily to Pruitt pushing back on specific rules such as Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, and cranking up the standards on power plants that critics believe could put the coal industry out of business.

WOTUS is especially critical in Arizona, and ultimately became the issue through which Gosar pursued impeachment charges against McCarthy.

“The EPA decided to change their definition and jurisdiction of waters of the U.S., when in fact there were parts of five Supreme Court rulings that told them they couldn’t,” said Gosar. “It also usurps states’ rights and local authories who have authority over surface ground water and water that’s bestowed to the states,” said Gosar.

He says similar overreach can be seen on the much higher restrictions on carbon emissions.

“We set one standard and we were trying to meet that standard and the EPA turned around and changed the goalposts on the field, saying, that we’re going to go even further in picking winners and losers.  Some of these standards have no basis in science and no basis in regard to application as well.  It also trumps state sovereignty in regards to that application,” said Gosar.

With Republicans controlling the executive branch and both chambers in Congress, Gosar is hopeful a much more restrained, constitutional approach to environmental policy will be possible.  Rolling back rules and regulations can be burdensome, but Gosar points out that the courts have already done some of that work.  He says Pruitt, if confirmed, will also have considerable discretion.

“Some of these can go away by the intent of the EPA administrator, by saying, Listen, we’re not going to go with these until Congress gives us further direction,” said Gosar.

He also says Congress can have a great impact through the power of the purse.

In addition, the congressman expects a much less confrontational atmosphere.

“If we can work together effectively, we could actually see a much more adaptive and empowering type of EPA that works with states and local municipalties, instead of beating them over the head with a bat,” said Gosar.

To make it work, however, Gosar says GOP leaders must make good on their promises on regulations, spending and more.

“The onus is on leadership.  There have been solutions on the table and they have stalled them.  From that standpoint, it’s also up to me to put them in that position where they either sink or swim – that they do what’s right or suffer consequences if they don’t follow through,” said Gosar.

 

Former Reagan administration Pentagon official says the CIA contention that Russia actively tried to help Donald Trump win is thus far devoid of any actual public evidence, yet the political firestorm makes a fair congressional probe much harder to achieve.

In recent days, both the Washington Post and New York Times reported the CIA is now convinced that Russia was not just trying to meddle in our democratic process but was actively working for the election of Trump.  The Times report admits there is no concrete evidence for the charge but states that intelligence officials believe there is a considerable amount of circumstantial evidence.

At this point, the CIA is not alleging that Trump or his campaign colluded in this alleged Russian plot or that Russia in any way impacted voting or vote counting on Election Day.

Nonetheless, Trump critics are sounding the alarm.  While admitting the vote itself was not tampered with, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest says it’s obvious who benefited from Russia’s alleged mischief.

“You didn’t need a security clearance to figure out who benefited from malicious Russian cyberactivity,” said Earnest during Monday’s press briefing. “The President-elect didn’t call it into question, he called on Russia to hack his opponent. He called on Russia to hack Secretary Clinton. So he certainly had a pretty good sense of whose side this cyberactivity was coming down on.”

Congressional leaders have agreed to hold hearings into the issue next year, although Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., rejected the idea of creating a special committee to do the work.  He says the intelligence panel is well-suited to do the work.

But while lawmakers prepare to dig into the issue, some are going so far as to call for new elections and Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta wants electors to receive an intelligence briefing prior to voting Dec. 19.

The latter reactions are more than a bit hysterical, according to Frank Gaffney.  He is the president of the Center for Security Policy and served as an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration.

“It’s fragmentary at best.  At worst it’s a lot of hearsay,” said Gaffney.

“What the public knows is very limited.  It really comes down to some press accounts based on unnamed sources in the CIA, people talking about briefings they had from CIA or FBI or others,” said Gaffney.

And he says the reaction on the political left is going to make getting real answers much more difficult.

“This has now become so laced with politics that it may corrupt any such investigation.  When I say laced with politics, this is, on the one hand, a case of a partisan agenda unmistakably to call into question Donald Trump’s election,” said Gaffney.

He points to Obama’s Jan. 20 deadline for the investigation as another sign of politics.  He says this probe should be allowed to run it’s course through the relevant agencies and Congress.

Gaffney labels Trump’s approach to Russia as “benign” but notes the Obama administration also did it’s best to make nice with Russian President Vladimir Putin – especially in the early years of this presidency.

“These are the very who in the outgoing administration of Barack Obama have done much to appease and pander to Vladimir Putin.  It’s a confused situation to say the least,” said Gaffney.

However, Gaffney says we do need to get to the bottom of whether a foreign power was trying to meddle in our election.

“We certainly don’t want foreign governments – the Russians, the Chinese or anyone else – engaging in interference on our elections, and I think we need to understand that the Russians, Chinese and others are both capable of doing this and probably have done it in the past,” said Gaffney.

The United States has influenced its share of elections and regime changes through the years.  The Obama administration is widely believed to have worked for the defeat of Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel and for the election of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Gaffney says there is a litmus test for interfering.

“It’s generally bad practice to be interfering in the elections of your friends.  Where there are opportunities to help friendly people in what would otherwise be hostile nations, I think that’s something that’s in the national interest to do,” said Gaffney.

He also says regardless of what is learned as the investigation into Russia’s actions unfolds, Americans should be well aware that Putin presents a major threat to the U.S. by means ranging from cyber warfare to military actions and from nuclear threats to disinformation and economic warfare.

“Putin is a dangerous adversary, not a man we can safely do business with. As long as he is president of Russia, I fear that there will be needless and potentially dangerous hostility emanating from the Kremlin and harming our interests and perhaps our security,” said Gaffney.

He notes the Center for Security Policy recently published a book on the threat Putin poses to the U.S.

The woman who effectively authored the ‘Heartbeat Bill’ in Ohio  is pressuring Gov. John Kasich to sign the bill and not worry about whether the courts will find the law constitutional.

On Dec. 6, both chambers of the Ohio legislature added the “Heartbeat Bill” language to existing legislation.  Faith 2 Action President Janet Porter says the provisions are pretty simple.

“If a heartbeat’s detected, the baby’s protected.  That’s the bill.  It’s got a life of the mother exception, but it basically says once you’ve got a detectable heartbeat, we’re going to recognize that heartbeat in the same we would recognize the heartbeat of any other human being,” said Porter.

The detection of a heartbeat varies from pregnancy to pregnancy, but most can be detected between 4-6 weeks after conception.  Porter says that’s a definition of life that everyone just accepts once someone is out of the womb.

“We’re going to acknowledge it and we’re going to kick in legal protections at that point.  It’s a universally recognized indicator of life.  Why should we ignore it when it comes to the very young?” said Porter.

Porter is quick to clarify that she believes life begins before a heartbeat is detectable but she believes this legislation moves the law much closer to the moment of conception.

“We’re not trying to say heartbeat is when the life begins.  We’re simply saying that’s an indicator we should recognize,” said Porter, noting many more unborn lives can be saved this way.  “If we can’t rescue them all out of the burning building just yet, let’s carry out as many children as we can,” said Porter.

Most abortion debates in recent years have centered around the point of viability.  Some place that at the end of the second trimester.  Pro-life activists often push for a ban after 20 weeks of pregnancy.  Porter says heartbeat is a better marker.

“Even the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has said it’s ‘more consistent and certain than viability and that marker is heartbeat,” said Porter.

She also says heartbeat detection is a very critical indicator of whether the unborn child will survive.

“Science has shown us that if you’ve got a detectable heartbeat in an unborn child, there is a 97-98 percent likelihood that that child will survive to live birth,” said Porter.

Gov. Kasich has given no indication whether he will sign the bill.  It will be come law on Dec. 16 if he does nothing.  Only vetoing it would stop the legislation.  Some reports suggest Kasich is worried about signing a bill that he believes would have trouble winning in court.  Porter says that shouldn’t be his concern.

“Why in the world would Gov. Kasich say, ‘I need to kill the bill because the court might kill the bill.’  That’s absurd.  We just want the governor to do what he is elected to do: protect human life, fulfill the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives,” said Porter.

She also points out Ohio wouldn’t need to spend a dime defending the law since Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver has promised to provide representation for free.

The Eighth Circuit did strike down a nearly identical bill out of North Dakota in recent years.  However, Porter says a closer look suggests this law would have a fighting chance in court.

“The Eighth Circuit is bound by precedent.  They’ve got to follow what the Supreme Court has already said in the past.  But what the Eighth Circuit said is, ‘Hey, Supreme Court, take a look at this one.’  They asked the court to review it.  The court said no,” said Porter.

She also says this law could serve a vital purpose even if it is struck down in court.  Porter says Ohio led the way by passing the first ban on partial-birth abortions and lost at the Supreme Court but inspired a movement that saw 30 other states pursue the issue and eventually win at the high court.

“We are doing what the Bible says is exercising the persistent widow principle.  You keep pounding on the door and God says that even an unjust judge will give us the justice we seek,” said Porter.

She urges all pro-life Americans to pray for Gov. Kasich to sign the bill.  She also strongly encourages like-minded Americans, regardless of where they live, to call Kasich at 614-466-3555 and tell him to sign it.

Two Washington, D.C., security guards are taking a labor union to court, alleging workers voted to stop allowing dues to be taken out of their paychecks but the union keeps taking the money more than a year later.

Troy Golson and Yasir Maatoug are security guards at the Ronald Reagan building in the nation’s capital.  They are employed by Coastal International Security and took the jobs with understanding that compulsory dues would be taken from their paychecks by the International Union of Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America, or SPFPA.

In November 2015, being dissatisfied with the representation being provided by the SPFPA, the two employees and their colleagues held a deauthorization vote to free themselves and their income from the mandates of the union.

“A deauthorization election is where the employees get together and they petition to have a vote on whether or not the contract will include a clause that requires them to pay union dues or fees to get or keep a job,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Committee, which is representing Golson and Maatoug in this case.

“In 24 states across the country, and including the District of Columbia, you can be required to pay union dues or fees to get or keep a job.  This contract that covered these employees had that provision.    They thought they weren’t getting the representation they deserved or were paying for,” said Mix.

“So they decided to use what is their right under the National Labor Relations Act to deauthorize the forced collection of dues from this union,” added Mix.

The workers overwhelmingly voted to deauthorize the SPFPA from extracting dues from paychecks in November 2015.

“The union and the employer should stop collecting the dues.  There’s no authorization for this money to be taken out of their paychecks and forwarded to the union by their employer.  Yet, since 2015 after this vote, this particular union continues to demand these workers pay these dues to keep their jobs,” said Mix.

That is why Golson and Maatoug are pursuing legal action more than a year later.

“As far as we know, [the dues] are still being taken out and that’s why we filed the lawsuit, to stop that and to bring it to the attention of the National Labor Relations Board and make sure that they understand that these workers have successfully gone through the process that is laid down by the National Labor Relations Act to take this action.  Yet, they’re not getting the union to adhere to what the rules are,” said Mix.

Mix says the SPFPA acknowledges the vote took place.  However, the union does not accept the results because it did not take place during the proper “window period” to make such an adjustment to the existing contract.

Mix says that’s nonsense.

“That’s not true under deauthorization.  Deauthorization says once we say you can no longer take our money, you can’t.  It’s a little higher standard to get to and the unions don’t like it, but in this case a majority of the workers said that.  Yet, the union won’t accept their desire to get out of this forced payment of fees,” said Mix.

According to Mix, deauthorization votes don’t happen often, largely because many workers don’t know their rights.

“Generally the workers don’t know of their rights and certainly the unions aren’t informing them of their rights to deauthorize the union,” said Mix.

He notes that right to work laws in the 26 other states forbid union membership and compulsory dues payments as a requirement to get and keep a job.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America correct the record on Tuesday’s faithless elector story and how the new information makes his actions far worse.  In today’s martinis, they react to a Time magazine piece suggesting people stop paying taxes if a president is ever elected again without winning the popular vote.  They also debunk the liberal fantasy that Democrats can somehow confirm Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court before the senators elected last month get sworn in on Jan. 3.  And they slam Pres. Obama for his incredibly misleading statement about terrorism on U.S. soil during his administration.