News & Politics

One of the nation’s leading pro-life groups is celebrating its work towards toppling Republican Rep. Renee Ellmers this week and now the Susan B. Anthony List is preparing to stop Hillary Clinton from becoming the next president.

On Tuesday, Ellmers became the first incumbent member of congress to lose in a 2016 primary.  Ellmers was soundly defeated by fellow GOP Rep. George Holding as a redrawn district pitted two sitting members of the House.  Holding scored 16,999 votes, while Ellmers received 7,527.

Conservative and Republican opposition to Ellmers had been intensifying for years, as she routinely sided with Republican leaders and failed to fight President Obama’s unilateral immigration action.  But it was her actions in January 2015 that put her in the cross hairs of the Susan B. Anthony List and other pro-life activists.

“Congresswoman Ellmers led the charge to derail the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.  This was common sense legislation to stop abortion after five months.  It has majority support among Americans.  Women support this bill in higher numbers than men.  It was scheduled for a vote on the day of the March for Life 2015,” said Susan B. Anthony List Communications Director Mallory Quigley.

Quigley says Ellmers began undermining the bill weeks earlier.

“Congresswoman Ellmers started to make a fuss in the media, saying that millennials don’t support this issue.  They don’t support this legislation, and this shouldn’t be among Republicans’ top few legislative priorities,” said Quigley.

As the vote got closer, Ellmers then amended the basis of her opposition.  She spoke out against an abortion exception beyond 20 weeks for rape victims because she did not want those patients to be required to show a police report alleging the rape prior to proceeding with the abortion.  Backers of the provision pointed out that no such paperwork was required prior to 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Quigley says Ellmers not only succeeded in scuttling the vote but triggered fierce media criticism of the bill.

“She contributed to this media firestorm, taking attention away from the horrific reality we were trying to draw America’s eyes to: the fact the U.S. is one of only seven nations to allow abortion on demand after five months,” said Quigley.

As a result, the Susan B. Anthony List, which works to elect pro-life women to public office, took an unprecedented step.

“Because that betrayal was so profound, we had to take action and endorse against her.  It was the first time in our history that we’ve endorsed a pro-life man over a pro-life woman in a Republican primary,” said Quigley.

It wasn’t just an endorsement.  The group also blitzed North Carolina’s second congressional district, going door to door to tell thousands of GOP voters why Ellmers was unacceptable to them.  Quigley says their work made a big difference.

“Almost 40 percent of the people that originally said to the activists that they were supporting Renee Ellmers changed their minds and said they were less likely to vote for her after learning about her role in derailing the pain capable bill,” said Quigley.

She says taking the time to speak with voters is quickly becoming the most effective campaign tool.

“You can’t really measure what the impact of a TV ad is, especially in the age of NetFlix and DVR.  For us to know that we actually reached 12,571 people by election day was a powerful statement for the pro-life movement.  This is where we thrive, in person to person interaction,” said Quigley.

When Holding’s overwhelming victory was secured, Quigley and her colleagues rejoiced.

“We could not stand for what she did back in January (2015) and the damage she caused to the pro-life movement, so we were glad to see her defeated on Tuesday,” said Quigley.

Now the Susan B. Anthony List turns its attention to the general election, in races all over the nation and in the race for the White House.

On Tuesday, Hillary Clinton secured the delegates needed to make her the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.  In her speech, she claimed the legacy of the women who fought for women’s suffrage, which, of course, includes Susan B. Anthony.

“Susan B. Anthony, if she were alive today, would not recognize the position that Hillary Clinton has taken as being the pro-woman feminist,” said Quigley, who says Clinton is not the pro-woman candidate because she couldn’t care less about women who disagree with her on abortion.

“Hillary is all about being her kind of woman.  She does not leave open the possibility that there is a majority of women in America who think that it’s not okay to build up their rights on the broken rights of their unborn children,” said Quigley,

During the Republican primaries, Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser joined several other pro-life leaders in denouncing Donald Trump as not a reliable pro-life candidate.  But with Hillary Clinton and pro-choice Libertarian Gary Johnson as the only other options drawing any support, Quigley says the group’s tune on Trump has changed.

“Donald Trump has made very firm commitments to the pro-life movement that he has reiterated several times,” said Quigley.  “He said that will nominate justices to the Supreme Court who will be pro-life.  He actually used the term pro-life, which is to go a step further than others who would just say a ‘strong constitutionalist,” said Quigley.

She says he has also made commitments to support defunding Planned Parenthood and passage of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

While Trump was not the group’s preference earlier this year, Quigley says the match-up with Clinton is a no-brainer.

“Hes certainly said some things that were indefensible but I think ultimately what matters is policy and the court,” said Quigley.

“[Clinton] wants to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which would be the most pro-abortion position that any politician has ever taken, even to the left of Barack Obama, to force taxpayers to fund abortion on demand.  There may be some questions about Donald Trump, but Hillary Clinton is a sure thing,” said Quigley.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are pleasantly surprised that White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest referred to the FBI probe of Hillary Clinton as a “criminal investigation.”  They also blast the Ninth Circuit for ruling that there is not constitutional right to carry a gun in public.  And they scoff as the Wall Street Journal and USA TODAY report Donald Trump is a deadbeat in paying many employees and contractors.

A leading gun rights activist is blasting the liberal Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as demonstrating a “totalitarian mindset” after judges there ruled that Americans do not have a constitutional right to carry concealed firearms in public.

The court issues the decision on a 7-4 vote.

“The protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public,” read the majority opinion.

That’s news to defenders of the second amendment.

“I am really delighted to have been enlightened by the majority because I missed that part in the second amendment that says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Obviously, the copy of the Constitution I have left out that part about unless they’re carrying it concealed in public,” said Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt.

He says the court’s reasoning ought to alarm all citizens.

“The Ninth Circuit is clearly showing the mentality of a totalitarian mindset.  They were the very kind of people that our forefathers objected to and sent letters of remonstrance to King George saying, ‘You got it wrong.  Stop doing this.’  King George was tone deaf and we know how that turned out,” said Pratt.

Pratt is also quick to note the same judges who want to restrict firearm possession in public don’t have to worry about their own protection.

“They all have security where they to to work.  No problem.  They’re protected by folks with guns.  It’s just the rest of us that don’t seem to matter.  And that really sticks in our craw too,” said Pratt.

The case arrived at the appeals court after multiple California citizens challenged their local sheriffs over order to demonstrate “good cause” as to why they needed to carry a firearm in public.  The same debate is playing out in city politics in Washington, D.C. and other jurisdictions.

On Thursday, the court vigorously defended local authorities demanding “good cause” for gun owners to carry in public.

“Because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public, any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry — including the requirement of ‘good cause,’ however defined — is necessary allowed by the Amendment,” the ruling stated.

Pratt find that unconstitutional and repulsive.

“The good cause requirement is really the invitation that’s been given by lawmakers for a long time to the bureaucrats to be as arbitrary as they wish,” said Pratt, suggesting such latitude gives sheriffs and other government officials the ability to grant permission to friends and donors and stalling or refusing on the petitions of others.

“Nobody has good cause in the minds of these bureaucrats because they just don’t like the idea of people carrying guns.  Of course, neither did George III,” said Pratt.

Gun Owners of America filed a brief in the case, pointing to data that strongly suggests allowing Americans to carry leads to less crime.  Pratt says the evidence is clear.

“In jurisdictions where people are able to carry concealed virtually without any limitation…those are the low crime areas of our country,” said Pratt.

He says where law-abiding people cannot carry firearms in public is where we find the daily carnage.

“It’s rules and laws like they’re trying to uphold in San Diego that have produced such a wonderful, low-crime area like Chicago,” said Pratt.

Pratt worries that if this ruling were upheld by the Supreme Court that it would make criminals out of good people who would continue to carry guns to protect themselves and their families, regardless of what a court says.

But he also says the issue makes the political fight over the complexion of the Supreme Court far more real.  Pratt wrote weeks ago that while he has great reservations about Trump, he knows exactly what we will get with Hillary Clinton.  He says this news crystallizes the issue even more.

“We at least have the hope that Donald Trump might make appointments that are people somewhat respectful of the Constitution.  If Hillary Clinton is president, we can pretty well guarantee that the jihad against the Constitution will continue and escalate as far as the courts are concerned,” said Pratt.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review hope Rep. David Jolly follows through on dropping out of the Florida U.S. Senate race and tries to stop Charlie Crist from getting elected to Congress.  They also blast the new Republicans for Hillary PAC for actively backing a candidate who will do nothing Republicans will like.  And they shake their heads as Hugh Hewitt now comes out and says Donald Trump is a disaster and the Republicans need to stop him.

A key figure in the conservative movement who railed against Donald Trump in the Republican primaries now says any action by conservatives other than a vote for Trump is equivalent to a vote for Hillary Clinton and surrendering the Supreme Court to liberals for at least the next 30 years.

But Richard Viguerie also has some tough love for Trump, saying the presumptive GOP nominee has hurt himself badly over the past month when he should have been using those weeks to consolidate support and convincing donors he’s a serious candidate.

Viguerie has been in the conservative movement for well over 50 years and pioneered the use of direct mail in political campaigns.  He is now chairman at ConservativeHQ.com and author of “Takeover: The 100-Year War for the Soul of the GOP and How Conservatives Can Finally Win It.”

On Tuesday, Trump swept the final Republican contests and is now well beyond the 1,237 pledged delegates needed to secure the nomination.  Clinton, meanwhile clinched the delegates needed for the Democratic nomination, although Bernie Sanders is staying in the race in hopes of convincing enough super-delegates to switch to his campaign.

But barring a major surprise, the November race boils down to Trump vs. Clinton.  As a result, Viguerie says conservatives have to pick one or the other.

“If you’re not supporting Trump, you’re supporting Hillary.  The idea of hiding behind euphemisms like being a spoiler, that means you’re supporting Hillary,” said Viguerie.

He says there are enormous negative consequences for conservatives if Clinton is elected president.

“Hillary’s not the only one on the ballot this November.  The Supreme Court for the next 30 years is on the ballot.  The second amendment is on the ballot.  Religious liberty is on the ballot.  Open borders is on the ballot.  It’s either Donald Trump or all those things will happen and we probably will lose our country,” said Viguerie.

While Trump has succeeded in consolidating more than 80 percent of Republicans according to recent polls, many staunch conservatives are repulsed by Trump, for reasons ranging from his personal conduct, to his recent conversion from liberal position on a host of issues to concerns he doesn’t understand many issues and has no interest in learning about them.

Viguerie says those are not good enough reasons to resist Trump.

“It’s not a close call.  I don’t understand what they’re talking about.  Trump might be wrong 20 percent of the time or 30 percent of the time.  He might be wrong 40 percent of the time.  Hillary is going to be wrong 100 percent of the time,” said Viguerie.

Viguerie says he understands where those critics are coming from.  He enthusiastically backed Ted Cruz and wrote several columns critical of Trump.  But he says the circumstances are clear.

“Donald Trump was not my first, second, third, fourth, fifth choice, but’s he’s now the only option that we have.  Yes, he’s going to make some wrong decisions.  He’s going to appoint some people we’re unhappy with.  But he’s not going to be wrong 100 percent of the time,” said Viguerie.

He believes the next four years will be a nightmare for Republicans personally if Hillary Clinton wins.

“Hillary and the Democrats will try their best to destroy Republicans in the coming four years.  They will use the police power of government to do that,” said Viguerie.

But while Viguerie implores conservatives to get behind Trump, he says the GOP standard bearer has been a huge disappointment since clearing the field over a month ago.

“He’s probably lost ground in the month since we last talked.  He’s had a big, open window here of about five weeks head start on Hillary and it looks like he’s pretty much blown it.  He’s probably gone backwards even more than standing still,” said Viguerie, who says Trump needs to take the lead in uniting the party.

“It’s not really up to everybody else to come together.  It’s really up to him to lead, and we haven’t seen much leadership in that area quite frankly,” added Viguerie.

Viguerie wants to see progress in two key areas, beginning with Trump upping his game to convince donors, who will be necessary, that his campaign is worth the investment.

“The people who will be contributing that money need to see that he is a serious person, that he’s going to run a serious campaign.  By his antics so far, he hasn’t indicated that he’s really serious about running a serious campaign,” said Viguerie.

He also says Trump needs to unveil more people who will hold prominent positions in a Trump administration.

“As I’m fond of saying, personnel is policy.  You can promise the sun, the moon, the stars and believe it, but if you only appoint big government-type Republicans, Wall Street types, big business types, our issues are over.  We’ll have lost,” said Viguerie.

Viguerie believes the race is winnable for Trump given his proven ability to connect with voters and Hillary Clinton’s political baggage.  He says a critical step will be for Trump to choose a running mate that Republicans across the board can applaud.

“That’s kind of the ballgame.  If he muffs this one, if he makes a mistake on the VP choice, I’m not sure he can unite the party.  Uniting the party is the number one ingredient necessary to win in November,” said Viguerie.

At ConservativeHQ.com, Viguerie is in the midst of a multi-part series on prospective running mates that would be good choices for Trump.  The list includes the likes of Newt Gingrich and Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., but Viguerie says he will reveal his game-changing recommendation in his Friday column.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review love seeing that Bernie Sanders plans to make life miserable for Hillary Clinton until the Democratic convention.  They also cheer the defeat of Rep. Renee Ellmers in a Republican primary.  And they wonder how long Republican leaders can denounce comments from Donald Trump while still urging people to vote for him.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Ian Tuttle of National Review relish Bernie Sanders saying he isn’t conceding anything until after the delegates and superdelegates vote at the convention.  They also shake their heads at news that a Trump operative left an intimidating message with David French’s family as he considered an independent presidential bid.  And they groan as Trump surrogate Jeffrey Lord calls House Speaker Paul Ryan a racist for saying Trump’s comment about Judge Curiel was racist.

Economists were shocked Friday when the May jobs report showed only 38,000 jobs were created last month, and the former chief economist for the Labor Department says slow economic growth is dragging down hiring thanks to excessive government regulations and the negative impact of minimum wage increases around the country.

The 38,000 jobs were created in a month where experts thought 162,000 jobs would be created.  Only 25,000 of those jobs were the private sector.  Even with the Verizon workers strike playing out, the number is dismal.

“Even if those had been counted, the amount would have been woefully low, only about 60,000 private sector jobs.  Employers, for whatever reason, decided they were cutting back, especially on low-skilled workers,” said Diana Furchtgott-Roth, who served as the top economist at the Department of Labor from 2003-2005.  She is now a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and directs the Economics 21 program there.

She also says there are very clear reasons employers are cutting back, starting with a sluggish economy.

“Job gains have been decreasing for seven or eight months in a row, ever since October.  These are linked to slow GDP growth,” said Furchtgott-Roth.

She notes GDP grew just 0.8 percent in the first quarter of 2016.  The two quarters before that showed 1.4 and two percent growth.

“If you have a steady decline in GDP growth for several months in a row, it is going to eventually pick up into employment.  Employment is a lagging indicator.  Employers don’t lay off as soon as they see a decline in demand because they want to see if it’s real and hiring new workers is difficult,” said Furchtgott-Roth.

Furchtgott-Roth says the data also show that low-skilled, poorly educated Americans are the ones suffering the most.  She adds that the push for a higher minimum wage is a disaster for those people.

“It’s primarily low-wage workers that are dropping out (of the labor force).  There was practically no change for workers with a BA and above, which suggests that these increases in the minimum wage are having an effect.  If you’re worth $7.50 an hour, no one’s going to pay you fifteen dollars an hour and you’re going to be left jobless,” said Furchtgott-Roth.

Another major issue grinding the gears of the economy is the ever growing list of demands on employers from the federal government.

“What we’re seeing is this onslaught of regulations from the Labor Department.  Regulations on who has to be paid overtime, regulations on whether a franchised employee is an employee of the franchise or an employee of the parent company, regulations on independent contractors,” said Furchtgott-Roth.

She cited another regulation as emblematic of the government’s invasive reach.

“There’s even a regulation that says if a company hires an attorney to advise on labor issues, the name of that attorney has to be made public.  All those other attorneys’ clients and the amount paid to the labor lawyer by all these clients (must be disclosed).  So With regulation after regulation coming back, it’s not surprising that companies are deciding that maybe less hiring is better than more,” said Furchtgott-Roth.

But while job creation slows down, wages also remain stagnant.  Furchtgott-Roth says there is some misunderstanding here.  While wages are not rising very much, total compensation is on the rise.  The problem is it doesn’t end up in our wallets.

“Wages are just one part of the compensation package.  Employers often provide pensions, benefits, sick leave, maternity leave, health care.  With these other kinds of benefits getting more expensive, the most notable is health care after Obamacare, something has to give.  It’s often the cash wage,” said Furchtgott-Roth.

She says the frustration is compounded when employers spend more to provide health coverage to employees instead of raising wages only to leave employees with higher medical bills because of rapidly rising deductibles.

So what would trigger greater economic growth and lead to more job creation and higher wages?  Furchtgott-Roth says several approaches are proven winners.

“The empirical evidence has just demonstrated that lowering taxes and lowering regulations would have the most effect.  If we can roll back some of these regulations on employers, they would be more likely to hire,” said Furchgott-Roth.

“If we could lower our top tax rate, our corporate tax rate, from 39 percent, which is the highest in the [Economic Organization for Co-operation and Development] to something like the OECD average or something below it – that’s 24 percent or lower – we would attract a lot more investment from abroad and we would encourage companies to bring back earnings which right now are stuck offshore,” said Furchtgott-Roth.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review applaud David French for his patriotism and are relieved he is not jumping into the ugliest presidential race in a long time.  They also slam Bernie Sanders for only now discussing allegations of Hillary Clinton doing favors at the State Department for foreign governments that donated to the Clinton Foundation.  And we discuss Donald Trump ripping the judge in the Trump University case as a Mexican, Newt Gingrich rebuking Trump and Trump being upset with Gingrich.

A high-level foreign policy adviser for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton is wrong to assert that Trump is unqualified to be commander-in-chief or lacks the the temperament for the job and he says Clinton’s record as secretary of state should be the most worrisome foreign policy consideration in this campaign.

Dr. Walid Phares is a longtime terrorism expert and professor of Middle East studies.  He is also an accomplished author.  He role as a foreign policy adviser for Trump was made public in recent weeks.

Clinton delivered a blistering attack against Trump’s foreign policy statements in her speech on Thursday, while also alleging her likely general election opponent lacks the character for the job.

“Like many across the country and around the world, I believe the person the Republicans have nominated for president cannot do the job,” said Clinton.

Phares says there’s no doubt Clinton knows more people on the international stage and has more experience dealing with vital issues, but he says her track record is one of failure.

“Once given all this power and all this ability to receive information, what did she do?” said Phares.  “Look at Libya in flames, Syria in flames, Iraq exploding, the Iran deal not working, ISIS not dismantled.  The plans are not working.  Of course, the reset button that she brought to Moscow led to major crisis with Russia in Ukraine, in Crimea, let alone the rise of jihadi homegrown cells around the world.”

“So if you base your judgment on how she strategically positioned herself, at least in the region let alone other regions in terms of North Korea or Russia, then we think it would be much better to have another candidate become president of the United States,” said Phares.

Aside from alleging Trump doesn’t understand the the nuances of foreign policy, Clinton also said the GOP standard bearer lacks the temperament for the job, even suggesting Trump could start a war over an insult.

Phares rejects the notion that Trump’s temperament disqualifies him from the job on two fronts.  First, he calls it “naive” to judge someone’s temperament for the job based on what is said in the heat of the campaign.  Second, he says Trump’s career proves he does have the gravitas for the job.

“Because he has been a person who has been in the center of a network for over 20 years – true it’s not a political network but it’s an international business network – meeting with politicians, meeting with decision-makers.  He has the actual temperament to become the president of the United States,” said Phares.

Among other criticisms, Clinton also attacked Trump for not having any concrete policy ideas on some of the thorniest foreign policy issues in the world.

“Donald Trump’s ideas aren’t just different.  They are dangerously incoherent.  They’re not even really ideas, just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds and outright lies,” said Clinton.

Phares says the true test of leadership is what people do once they’re faced with the relevant information.  On that front, he says Trump is clearly stronger than Clinton.

“If Mr. Trump were given the same information about Libya, that Ansar Al-Sharia and other groups that we were arming and training were actually jihadists, would he have accepted that the U.S. arm them and train them?  Would he have accepted the policy we had on Libya?  Would he have accepted that those weapons would be traveling to Syria and later on create the context for ISIS? No,” said Phares.

He wasn’t done.

“Would he have accepted, with the same information given to him by the negotiators or the intelligence community, that a deal would be cut with the Iranian ayatollahs and $150 billion would be sent to them?  Of course not,” said Phares.

“It’s about your judgment when you are dealing with a strategic organization.  She had her strategic organization at the State Department.  he had a strategic organization with multinational companies.  We saw that the results were very different,” said Phares.

Phares says Trump is already receiving briefings from retired military officers and former intelligence personnel.  His formal national security briefings will begin after he becomes the Republican nominee next month.

But Phares says Trump’s approach to complex issues as he studies them is encouraging to him.

“He is very inquisitive.  He will ask many, many questions,” said Phares. “There are two types of questions that are important that many people who met with him over the many years and months with regard to these international issues (point out).  Not just many questions.  He always asks the downside of a solution and the alternative to this solution, which tells me that’s how a decision-maker should behave.”