Greg Corombos of Radio America and David French of National Review applaud Judge Andrew Hanen for excoriating Justice Department lawyers for repeatedly lying to the court about Pres. Obama’s executive immigration actions. They also slam NBC’s Andrea Mitchell for saying Juanita Broaddrick’s rape allegation against Bill Clinton has been “discredited.” And we shake our heads as a North Carolina school district plans to eliminate valedictorian and salutatorian honors because it creates “unhealthy competition.”
News & Politics
‘Women Like Me Will Become Obsolete’
Congress appears unlikely to require women to register with Selective Service as part of new defense legislation, but the idea is quickly gaining in popularity in both parties and a retired female U.S. Marine Corps gunnery sergeant says it’s because lawmakers and policy don’t know what they’re talking about.
Late last year, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced all ground combat roles in the military were open to women. Multiple service chiefs subsequently stated they believe the new policy ought to require women to register with Selective Service, meaning they could be conscripted into ground combat roles if the U.S. ever brought back the draft.
To the surprise of many, multiple Republican presidential candidates indicated they would back the the idea. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., then proposed an amendment to the current defense bill. The amendment passed, even though Hunter opposed it. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., then added the provision to the Senate defense bill. The issue was put on the back burner, however, when the House Rules Committee stripped the Hunter amendment from the final version.
But the momentum of the idea of requiring women to register for the draft is unmistakable. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says he supports the idea.
“We’re talking here about registration for Selective Service, should we ever go back to a draft. And given where we are today, with women in the military performing virtually all kinds of functions, I personally think it would be appropriate for them to register just like men do,” McConnell stated on May 17.
McConnell was quick to add he does not think the draft needs to be re-instated.
The fact Congress came so close to the new requirement is appalling to retired U.S. Marine Corps Gunnery Sgt. Jessie Jane Duff, who is now a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research. She says lawmakers failed to oversee the Obama administration’s policy move.
“I actually don’t think Republicans even understand the issue. There was a nine-month study done by the Marine Corps and the study results were not even reviewed by the [Senate] or House. They were not even reviewed by Congress,” said Duff.
She says there is plenty of blame to go around when it comes to people in power who dropped the ball.
“The letter from Gen. (Joseph) Dunford that actually stated the key points of why they were seeking an exemption from putting women in ground forces was ignored by Sec. Ash Carter, was ignored by the Secretary of the Navy. And the House and Senate never challenged the Pentagon for changing the policy,” said Duff.
Duff says while few in Washington failed to protest the Obama administration decision, the public was left in the dark.
“Meanwhile, the American public was sitting at home eating dinner, not even realizing that their daughters, who are on active duty right now can now involuntarily be assigned to the infantry,” said Duff.
She says politicians are more concerned about appearances of equality than remembering the purpose of ground combat.
“They’re looking at it as, ‘Oh, women are so capable. They’re performing in all jobs. What they’re failing to understand is that the draft is to replace combat roles, not support roles. It is to replace your infantry and ground units. And the whole purpose of our infantry and our ground units is to literally cut the throats or shoot the heads off of your enemy,” said Duff.
“Women overall are not capable of performing to the same levels as men are. It’s been proven time and time again,” said Duff. “We obviously, genetically are designed completely differently. We have roughly 40-45 percent less muscle mass. We have 20 percent less lung capacity,” said Duff.
Duff stresses that only women who have been anywhere close to front line combat can assess whether women should be in those roles at the “tip of the spear,” rejecting support for women in combat from the likes of female veterans Rep. Martha McSally, R-Ariz., and Rep. Tammy Duckworth, R-Ill., who served in the air.
“I did go on the humps with the men. I did do the marches. I did wear those packs. I understand that over long, sustained periods of time, the female body breaks down faster,” said Duff. “Why would you want your daughters, your sisters, your mothers in hand-to-hand combat with ISIS? That’s what it’s going to boil down to,” said Duff.
“Why are you setting women up for failure instead of success. Women like me will become obsolete,” added Duff.
Duff uses athletics as an example of why this is a terrible policy, pointing out that colleges have both men’s and women’s teams in most sports. She says there’s also a reason there are no women in the major professional sports.
“Why aren’t women in the NFL? Because we want to win. If anyone thinks that running around with 120 pounds of gear in ground combat for six to seven months at a time because they’re doing forward operations, long-term operations on the ground, kicking down doors, seeking out the enemy,” said Duff.
“Do we want an NFL team that wins or do we want to start having quotas for the most important measures of our life – our national security, combat readiness. This is not an equal opportunity issue. This is a combat readiness issue,” said Duff.
She says the Marine Corps, the only branch to oppose the move to insert women into direct ground combat roles, is also the only branch to research the issue.
“Four hundred women went through infantry training on the enlisted side. Only 35 percent of them graduated, whereas 98 percent of the males graduated. What happened to that other 65 percent. Women get injured at a six to ten times higher rate more than men,” said Duff.
Other service leaders, including Navy Sec. Ray Mabus, dismissed the study as flawed and supported the Obama administration move.
“People tried to say these studies are flawed. Then show me the evidence that they can do it. We have no substantiating evidence that demonstrates that the women can sustain themselves with those packs, with that gear, with those weapons. We have none,” said Duff.
So why were the Marines the only branch to oppose the change?
“The Marines are the least of the politically correct people and not afraid to tell you what reality is,” said Duff.
Duff says 92.5 percent of women currently in uniform do not want to be engaged on the front line. And she says she would have a very difficult time urging any young woman to join the military now.
“Honestly, how could I look a young lady in the eye and say, ‘Go in the Marines or Go in the Army now,’ because she could, if she’s one of those top physical performers, could be assigned involuntarily to one of these units,” said Duff.
Three Martini Lunch 5/19/16
Greg Corombos of Radio America and David French of National Review welcome Donald Trump’s list of prospective Supreme Court nominees but groan as he is already suggesting his nominee might still be someone else. They also note the end of Mitt Romney’s quest to find someone to run against Trump and Clinton. And they dissect New York City’s law insisting people address each other by names and titles of their preferred gender identity – the fines for refusing are immense.
Christian Artists Fight Law Demanding They Serve Same-Sex Weddings
Two Christian artists are launching a preemptive challenge to a Phoenix, Arizona, ordinance, requiring all expressive businesses to service same-sex weddings and refrain from publicizing any beliefs that could be deemed offensive to protected classes of people.
Breanna Koski and Joanna Duka own Brush & Nib, a business that specializes in hand-painting, hand-lettering and calligraphy. The business provides wedding services ranging from invitations to all sorts of wedding day decor, along with services for many other special events. But as a result of their Christian beliefs, Koski and Duka will not accept work for same-sex weddings.
As a result, the women fear they will soon be cited by Phoenix authorities under § 18.4(B) of the city code.
The ordinance, as admitted in Koski and Duka’s motion, “bars public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of a person’s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability and from making any communication implying people will be discriminated against or are objectionable because of these protected traits.”
Koski and Duka are largely fine with that language, but their motion, filed by their attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom, says the city’s interpretation of the ordinance is very troubling.
“That basically means because our clients create art for opposite-sex wedding ceremonies, they have to do so for same-sex wedding ceremonies, so really compelling them to create artwork that is against their artistic and religious beliefs,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel John Scruggs, who is directly involved in this case.
Beyond that, Scruggs says the city interpretation won’t even allow expressive professionals from explaining their beliefs due to the possibility of someone in a protected class could construe the message as discrimination.
“[The ordinance] says that any business cannot issue ‘any communication that implies someone is unwelcome or objectionable or not solicited.’ If our clients wanted to express their religious beliefs about one-man, one-woman marriage, that could certainly imply that someone who is seeking a same-sex marriage is objectionable,” said Scruggs.
He says the penalties for violating the ordinance are very severe.
“If our clients violate the law, they could suffer up to $2,500 (in fines) for each day they violate the law and also six months in jail for each day they violate the law,” said Scruggs.
The City of Phoenix has not cited Brush & Nib for violating the ordinance, so Koski and Duka are filing a ‘pre-enforcement’ suit against the city.
“The city has not attempted to force a lawsuit against us yet. But it clearly does apply to our clients. In fact, the city has already interpreted and essentially enforced the law against similar entities,” said Scruggs.
So why go to court when he city hasn’t pointed the finger at Brush & Nib? Scruggs says Koski and Duka don’t want to be looking over their shoulders every day to see if the government is after them.
“Obviously, when you hear, ‘If you violate this law, you’re going to go to jail for a long time and you’re going to suffer these severe financial penalties,’ (this is) the only sane thing a person would do in that situation. They wouldn’t violate the law. They wouldn’t wait around to go to jail. They would challenge the law and ask the court to declare this unconstitutional,” said Scruggs.
Scruggs says the Constitution is clearly on the side of his clients.
“The government makes a bad art critic. It really infringes on artists’ rights and the rights of all citizens,” said Scruggs.
“It’s really an egregious form of regulation on speech and that’s why it’s really important to stress this case is really about artistic freedom: the freedom of artists to create in accordance with their beliefs and to express and explain their art on their website,” added Scruggs.
Scruggs points out Koski and Duka are not opposed to welcoming gay and lesbian customers, it’s attaching their abilities to a particular event that troubles their consciences.
“Our clients willingly will serve people of all different sexual orientations, races, religions, whatever. It’s not about the person, it’s about the message that their art is promoting,” said Scruggs. “That shows this isn’t about discrimination. It’s about creating art that only promotes certain beliefs.”
Phoenix officials have yet to respond to Koski and Duka’s challenge but vow to do so. Scruggs expects this all to be handled by the court within the next few weeks, and he is looking forward to the fight.
“We welcome that challenge. We want to get before a court as soon as we can to make our legal arguments. We feel very confident that the right of free speech prevents the government from telling artists what they should and shouldn’t create,” said Scruggs.
Three Martini Lunch 5/18/16
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are pleased to see Donald Trump is not a drag on Kelly Ayotte thus far in New Hampshire. They also slam Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other Republicans for wanting to require women to register with Selective Service. And as Trump says he would speak with Kim Jong-Un, we preview what that meeting might look like.
Bureaucratic, Inefficient TSA Causing Security Delays
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson warns air travelers to prepare for much longer than usual airport security lines, but a Transportation Security Administration watchdog says this mess is simply a matter of the government failing to manage its resources responsibly.
On Monday, Johnson stood at Ronald Reagan National Airport just outside Washington and told passengers to expect longer than expected wait times as the Transportation Security Administration, or TSA, expedites hundreds of new personnel into service to speed up the security process. In Chicago, passengers were told to arrive three hours prior to departure,
The TSA claims that congressional action has led to the elimination of some 4,500 personnel over the past few years and the agency simply doesn’t have the manpower to keep up, but that’s just spin according to Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute. He also run Cato’s “Downsizing Government” blog.
Edwards says the TSA is littered with problems, starting with its existing personnel.
“Annual surveys of federal government employees find that the TSA and the broader Homeland Security Department have some of the poorest morale in the federal government. The TSA has a high turnover rate for their screeners, which is not good for morale and is not good for security,” said Edwards.
But perhaps even worse is TSA’s penchant for directing its ever-increasing budget into the wrong areas.
“TSA has spent many billions of dollars on things that don’t work. As a result, they’ve starved their budget from hiring more screeners to reduce congestion,” said Edwards.
He says the most glaring example is one of TSA’s most controversial projects.
“Remember those full-body scanning machines that were in airports for years that essentially showed nude pictures of passengers as they got screened?” asked Edwards.
“Those things were eventually withdrawn because of civil liberties concerns. People didn’t want to see their nude bodies when they went to the airport. But those things have been found to not really work at all. It’s fairly easy to slip guns and plastic explosives through those machines,” said Edwards.
Another major problem, says Edwards, is the inability of such a large bureaucracy to adapt to differing needs at different airports.
“As a government bureaucracy, the TSA has a very inflexible workforce. Unlike a private company, where if they saw one of their facilities or one of their cities get a lot more business and a lot more demand, they’d move workers over there. They’d hire more part-time workers to fill surges in demand. Government bureaucracies don’t do that. They have fixed numbers of people at these airports and they don’t adjust them like any normal private business would,” said Edwards.
He says airports do have the option to boot the TSA and go with private security. He says only 15-20 airports do that and actually perform better when secret tests are conducted to see whether weapons or explosive materials get past security.
“Airports are allowed to opt out of TSA screening and some of them have been looking at that recently because of the huge congestion at the airports,” said Edwards.
He says things work much more smoothly north of the border.
“In Canada, all major airports have private screening. There’s a number of different expert companies that specialize in airport screening. They get three-year contracts to do particular airports. If they don’t do a good job, if they don’t have high security, they get fired. The next time around, a different company gets the contract,” said Edwards.
While U.S. airports do have the ability to ditch the TSA and hire private security, Edwards says the Obama administration is making it much tougher to do that.
“Congress has had to slap down the administration a few times to get them to allow airports to go private. In the original legislation that created TSA, House Republicans slipped in this provision that airports could petition the Department of Transportation to go private, but the Obama administration has made that very difficult,” said Edwards.
Three Martini Lunch 5/17/16
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review discuss the financial collapse of Burlington College thanks to Bernie Sanders’ wife. They also react to Marco Rubio’s Twitter mockery of Washington Post stories quoting sources supposedly close to Rubio. And they enjoy watching Democrats worry that the chaos in Nevada over the weekend could spill over to the national convention.
Little Sisters See Supreme Court Ruling as ‘Win-Win’
The Supreme Court ruled 8-0 on Monday that it is sending the legal cases involving religious organizations and the Obamacare contraception mandate back to lower courts for resolution, a decision that an attorney for the Little Sisters of the Poor calls a “win-win.”
The case, Zubik v. Burwell, is a legal battle over whether the government can force religious organizations to provide contraception coverage in their health plans if that coverage violates sincerely-held beliefs.
The justices ruled they would not be ruling on the merits of the case at this time.
“In particular, the Court does not decide whether petitioners’ religious exercise has been substantially burdened, whether the Government has a compelling interest, or whether the current regulations are the least restrictive means of serving that interest,” the court stated in an opinion that was not ascribed to a specific justice.
While the Obama administration says it is “gratified” by the decision, most court watchers summarized the ruling as the justices punting the issue back to the lower courts. But the Little Sisters don’t see it that way at all.
“To the extent that this is a punt, this is a punt that gives the Little Sisters great field position,” said Daniel Blomberg, an attorney with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents the Little Sisters. “It puts them in a place that we can get to a solution that frankly isn’t a win-loss, it’s a win- win.”
“Today was a big win. It was the unanimous decision that we’ve been hoping for and it protects the Little Sisters of the Poor from having to violate their religious beliefs or pay massive fines,” said Blomberg.
While the court did not rule on the merits, Blomberg says its actions demonstrate the justices are not okay with with groups like the Little Sisters being in the government’s cross hairs.
“Several lower court decisions had gone the wrong way and they were forcing the Little Sisters to choose between their faith and fines and they were massive, crushing fines. The Supreme Court today said, ‘No, we’re not going to do that. We’re going to send this back down to get reconsidered because the government has admitted it has other ways of accomplishing its mission without forcing the sisters to violate their beliefs,” said Blomberg.
Blomberg says the court also played a pivotal role in the early stages on this case.
“[The Little Sisters] had to run to the Supreme Court because the government was so aggressively pursuing them and requiring them to violate their faith or pay massive fines. Justice (Sonia) Sotomayor issued an opinion saying, ‘No, let’s put the brakes on this. Let’s give more time to think about it.’ Then the full court said you can’t fine them while this case is proceeding,” said Blomberg.
Despite its recent reputation, Bloomberg says the Supreme Court has ruled on the side of liberty on this issue several times in recent years.
“We’ve had several other decisions since that time and they’ve all gone the same way. They’ve all rejected the government’s arguments and they’ve all provided protection for the Little Sisters and other religious ministries,” said Blomberg.
So why is the White House welcoming this decision?
“Of course the government’s spinning,” said Blomberg. “You can read the clear text of the Supreme Court’s order yourself. It says you don’t get to fine the sisters to make them do what you want. It does say that you have to find a solution that actually accommodates their religious beliefs,” said Blomberg.
He also says the Obama administration is constantly changing it’s position in this case.
“The administration hasn’t changed its views in this matter just once, not just twice, not just three times and not just four times. They have changed their position ten times in the course of this litigation. Every time they’ve changed their position, they’ve still managed to say, ‘Whatever else we do, we want to force the sisters to pay millions of dollars in fines if they don’t do what we want,'” said Blomberg.
But given the lower courts siding with the government most of the time, why is Blomberg so confident the decisions would be different this time around?
“Every one of those decisions have been erased. They’re gone. The court sent a very clear signal that those decisions were going down the wrong path,” said Blomberg, who points out the government also confessed to the justices that it could apply the mandate without impacting the Little Sisters.
While the legal battle continues, Blomberg says he remains deeply impressed by the Little Sisters themselves.
“They are amazing human beings. It’s been a pleasure and an honor to work with them. We’ve gotten to know them on a personal level and . They couldn’t be more sincere,” said Blomberg.
Obama Bathroom Action ‘Unconstitutional,’ Part of Bigger Goal
The Obama administration launched another offensive in the battle over public accommodation Friday, telling all public schools to allow students to use facilities based on their gender identity instead of their biological sex, a directive that Liberty Counsel President Mathew Staver says is blatantly unconstitutional and part of a larger Obama goal of rubbing God out of the public square.
Officials at the Justice and Education departments released a letter providing “guidance” as to how school districts should comply with the policy. The letter also made it clear that states or schools that did not fall in line could face federal lawsuits or a denial of federal education funds.
“Under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, schools receiving federal money may not discriminate based on a student’s sex, including a student’s transgender status. The guidance makes clear that both federal agencies treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of enforcing Title IX,” stated the latter.
Staver says the idea that lawmakers considered gender identity in the context of sex discrimination 44 years ago is absurd.
“Common sense says that in 1972, no one was thinking that ‘sex’ included somebody’s fictitious mind games of thinking they are the opposite gender,” said Staver.
Not only does he believe Congress did not intend the expanded definition of sex, but Staver points out that lawmakers have repeatedly defeated attempts to make such a change to Title IX.
“(The Obama administration demand) eviscerates the statute and has nothing to do with its intent. In fact, Congress, multiple times over the past 10-15 years, has rejected attempts to include sexual orientation or gender identity in any of the federal laws. They’ve specifically rejected those attempts,” said Staver.
He also urges parents and all citizens to carefully watch how local officials react to the government’s demands.
“If any school buckles to this nonsense, we encourage families and communities to hold those school officials and those school boards accountable for the sexual assaults that no doubt will come in light of these policies and agendas,” said Staver.
While many conservatives fear another long court fight will result in another disappointing decision from the Supreme Court, Staver is confident the administration will lose this battle.
“It absolutely is contrary to the law. They’re making it up as they go. They’re going to lose this in a legal challenge,” said Staver.
Nonetheless, Staver is alarmed by the impact of the government pushing this agenda on the nation.
“It shows how radical this agenda is, to accommodate a sexual, evolutionary, anarchist kind of agenda that you can think, therefore you are something that you’re really not, over the well being and interest of students, over the well being, interest and protection of religious freedom. They really couldn’t care less,” said Staver.
In some states, the threat of withholding federal aid is primarily a hit to programs providing meals to underprivileged students. Staver says holding that funding as a bargaining chip is especially galling.
“It is the top priority agenda for this administration. They don’t care whether little boys are girls have their school lunches. ‘Fine, they’re not going to eat but we’re going to allow boys to go into the girls’ restroom, shower rooms and locker rooms.’ That’s their agenda. It’s actually very perverted and, frankly, dangerous,” said Staver.
As troubled as he is by this policy effort, Staver says the larger goal of Obama and his allies is even more frightening.
“They want to abolish the concept of gender, so there is no male and there is no female. It’s all a product of your mind,” said Staver. “Whatever you want to be then you ought to be treated that way. That’s Never Never Land. That’s George Orwell’s ‘1984.’ This is turning reality into some kind of fiction-based living situation,” said Staver.
Ultimately, he says the left is trying to scrub God and morality from American life.
“The reason they want to abolish gender is because they also want to remove any kind of moral construct regarding human sexuality. Ultimately they want to abolish gender so they can abolish the very notion of the creator God himself, who created you and I in His image. Male and female, God created you and I, distinctly different yet complementary,” said Staver.
The Justice Department order says any student can identify as the opposite gender of their biological sex with consent from his or her parents and the school must comply. In addition, the school is not allowed to seek any sort of verification.
“A school may not require transgender students to have a medical diagnosis, undergo any medical treatment, or produce a birth certificate or other identification document before treating them consistent with their gender identity,” the letter reads.
Staver says the government is effectively cheering people on in their mental illness.
“Let’s just be frank. This is not normal. This is a mental disorder, just as much as anorexia or bulimia, or even much worse, apotemnophilia, someone who thinks that they are a disabled person inhabiting an able body. Yes there are people who think that way. Those are not normal,” said Staver.
He says catering to people struggling with their gender is the same as enabling those other disorders.
“It certainly doesn’t help to suggest that it’s normal. It’s not, any more than it would be suggestive that, ‘Even though you want to regurgitate your food even though you’re not overweight, that’s okay. We’re going to do something that protects that.’ That just doesn’t help the individual,” said Staver.
Three Martini Lunch 5/13/16
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review cheer a federal court ruling that the Obama administration acted unconstitutionally in funding additional assistance for people enrolling in Obamacare. They also rip the Obama administration for its unconstitutional decree that all public schools must let students use bathrooms and locker rooms according to gender identity rather than biology. And they shake their heads as Chelsea Clinton’s husband has to close a hedge fund in which he convinced investors to bet on a big Greek economic recovery.