Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are doubly depressed as Hillary Clinton, a proven disaster on the world stage, makes some accurate assessments about Donald Trump being completely unprepared to be commander-in-chief. They also groan as the May jobs report comes in way below expectations. And they unload on the thuggish, hard left protesters who assaulted Trump supporters Thursday night in California.
Pro-life activists are finding common cause with media organizations and even some pro-choice supporters in an effort to stop California legislation they say would not only wound the cause for life but strike lethal blows to the first amendment to our Constitution.
At issue is AB 1671 authored by State Assemblymember Jimmy Gomez, D-Los Angeles. The bill, already approved by the appropriations committee, would ban secretly recording conversations with health care providers and releasing them via media or social media in any way. Violators, and anyone who assists them, could face substantial financial penalties and jail time.
“The bill will ultimately provide penalties up to $10,000 and a year in jail for anybody who would not only film a ‘confidential conversation,’ which has a very broad definition, with any Planned Parenthood or abortion facility or abortionist, but also anyone who distributes that footage,” said Live Action President Lila Rose, who herself rose to prominence posing as a pregnant teenager in undercover videos at Planned Parenthood facilities.
She says the implications of this law, if passed, are chilling.
“That means of Radio America or Fox News or even CNN were to somehow play any part of that video, they as distributors of it and reporting on it, would also be held liable and be up for criminal penalty,” said Rose.
And it’s not just the media outlets who could be prosecuted. Anyone who retweets such a video would be fair game.
“This isn’t just about the individual investigative journalist. This is about anyone on social media, anyone in print or news or broadcasting, who then goes on to publicize what the findings of the investigative journalists were. It’s an incredible assault on freedom of speech, quite frankly, and, of course, freedom of the press,” said Rose.
Rose says there is no doubt the legislation is an urgent reaction to last year’s undercover videos from the Center for Medical Progress, in which Planned Parenthood officials casually discuss killing unborn children and discuss the price for babies’ body parts.
“It’s absolutely in response to the word getting out about Planned Parenthood’s abusive activities. That includes CMP’s blockbuster exposing of Planned Parenthood in California, and executives like Dr. Mary Gatter in Pasadena discussing the sale and manipulation of the abortion procedure at Planned Parenthood in order to have more sellable parts,” said Rose.
The bill passed 14-6 in committee. Rose cannot say the fight against the bill will be successful given the liberal makeup of the California legislature and the many pro-choice lobbyists in Sacramento. Still, she is encouraged by some unlikely allies in this particular fight, such as the California Newspaper Publishers Association, the California Broadcaster’s Association and even the Motion Picture Association.
“All of them are opposing the bill, saying ‘This is crazy. This means if we publish any of this footage, all of a sudden we are culpable and we are going to be up for criminal penalty,” said Rose. “It’s not American. It’s not democratic and it’s certainly not constitutional.”
While the immediate battle is concerning enough, Rose sees this fight as the latest manifestation of the left trying to criminalize and ostracize speech that opposes liberal doctrine.
“It’s really dangerous to see this thread in our country that’s expanding, where a group of people do not think straight, are not logical and have certain ideologies. In the name of tolerance, they’re shutting down any voice that comes up against them. It’s a full-out battle in our country right now for hearts and minds and we all need to be fighting that battle,” said Rose.
She says the group’s recent videos succinctly explaining what happens during abortions have received 44 million views in the past 90 days. Rose says Live Action is looking to bring it’s pro-life message to millions of Americans one at a time.
“We really need to put the building blocks in place so that people know the truth: the truth about abortion, what it does to the child, how it hurts women. They know the truth about the abortion industry. We give them those fundamental facts in a strategic, compelling way. Then we can win elections and then we can change the course of the nation, but it starts one heart and one mind at a time,” said Rose.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review enjoy watching Hillary Clinton continue to struggle in her battle with Bernie Sanders. They also groan as 50 percent of Americans and 71 of Democrats says Hillary should stay in the race even if she is indicted. And they slam ESPN writer Howard Bryant for being aghast that police and military are often featured at pro sports events.
A former Clinton administration official is slamming the Obama administration for looking the other way on Iranian human rights abuses and ballistic missile developments all for the sake of protecting the president’s nuclear deal and, by extension, his legacy.
Lawrence J. Haas served as communications director for Vice President Al Gore during the Clinton years. He is now a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council and is author of the new book “Harry and Arthur: Truman, Vandenberg, and the Partnership that Created the Free World.”
Haas also recently authored a scathing column for U.S. News and World Report on what he sees as Obama turning a blind eye to Iran’s brutality against its own people. He says the reason is obvious: it’s all about preserving the Iran nuclear deal.
“It was so important to the administration, starting with the president to get this deal that they don’t want to level any sanctions. They don’t want Iran in essence to disavow the deal and disavow what they consider to be one of the president’s major legacies,” said Haas.
As a result, Haas says Iran, already emboldened by stronger relations with the world’s most powerful nations and raking in $100-150 billion in sanctions relief, feels it can repress its people with no fears of reprisal. In his column, he cites a harsh prison sentence for a human rights activist and the hanging 13 people in a single day including one in front of children. Perhaps most galling is 99 lashes for boys and girls who held a graduation party that included some dancing and at which some of the girls removed their headscarves.
“They are letting Iran do essentially whatever they want on human rights, on ballistic missiles, on terror sponsorship, on regional mischief and mayhem. No matter what Iran does, the administration is so determined to save this nuclear deal, to prevent Iran from walking away, that they’re letting Iran get away with literally murder on a whole series of fronts,” said Haas.
He says this leaves the U.S. in a pathetically weak position.
“We are in the worst conceivable situation. We cut this deal, which is very problematic, and we continue to look away every time Iran acts outrageously on some front. We are in a very subservient position and that’s not where the United States should be,” said Haas.
Instead of turning a blind eye and hoping Iran doesn’t back away from the deal, Haas says the U.S. must be willing to pull the plug.
“If you yourself as a negotiator are not willing to say that you yourself are going to walk away from the deal unless Iran does certain things, then you’re always going to be at their beck and call,” said Haas.
In 2015, when the Obama administration was lobbying Congress not to reject the nuclear deal, Haas says officials promised lawmakers from both parties that it would be willing to impose sanctions over human rights violations. It made the same promises over Iran’s ballistic missile program (which was ultimately left out of the agreement), terrorism sponsorship and more.
“They made promises that they would crack down on Iran if they saw problematic behavior on a series of fronts, including, most recently, human rights. As we see and as I document in this piece for U.S. News, they’re completely ignoring the evidence that’s right in front of them,” said Haas.
“Every time Iran does something, the administration says, ‘Well, it needs to be worse.’ It’s already horrific. It’s already outrageous. And it’s particularly outrageous that the administration is not doing anything about it,” said Haas.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review discuss the media’s detestable reaction to the mere suggestion of a David French presidential run. They also dissect the growing battle between Donald Trump and the media. And they groan as another opinion piece suggests this whole election could still end with Paul Ryan as the next president.
The Environmental Protection Agency wants to raise the amount of biofuels in our gasoline once again, but an energy industry executive says the move could severely damage most of our vehicles, reduce the amount of energy per gallon and add to the national economic uncertainty.
The Obama EPA recently unveiled its proposal for the 2017 Renewable Fuel Standard. The administration says the call for additional biofuels is part of its ongoing effort to reduce dependence upon fossil fuels and develop cleaner burning energy sources.
But that’s not how the energy industry sees it at all.
“The new rule continues to push us toward breaching the blend wall. That is our big concern here and that is reaching above 10 percent ethanol in the fuel mix. ,” said American Petroleum Institute Downstream Group Director Frank Macchiarola.
He says on paper the new Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS, would still keep biofuels below the 10 percent threshold, but demand levels could actually drive the percentage above 10 percent. He says that could be a death sentence to the engines of most personal vehicles in the U.S.
“What AAA has said is that up to 90 percent of the vehicles on the road are not compatible with higher-blended ethanols such as E15. The more you push toward that, the greater the potential threat is to your fuel system and to your engine,” said Macchiarola.
Far from embracing higher biofuel levels, the American Petroleum is asking Congress to significantly lower them or scrap the RFS altogether. Macchiarola says the original legislation came in response to conditions that no longer exist.
“We’re asking Congress to repeal or significantly reform the RFS. Our basic argument here is that when the RFS was passed ten years ago that the energy world looked very different here in the United States,” said Macchiarola.
He says the energy conditions in the U.S. have effectively made a 180 degree shift in the past decade,
“We were a net importer of energy. We were increasing our dependence on foreign oil. Our production levels had flattened and were in decline,” said Macchiarole. “Fast forward ten years, we’ve had this shale revolution in both oil and natural gas and we’re the world’s leading producers of energy.”
As if the potential damage caused by breaching the blend wall weren’t concerning enough, Macchiarola says there’s a deeper economic downside too.
“The one thing about this mandate that is certain is the uncertainty every year. There’s nothing more damaging to economic growth, in my judgment, than an uncertain business environment,” said Macchiarola.
He says the uncertainty will run from the refineries to automakers to “anybody who is looking at input costs.” And consumers are not immune either.
“On the consumer side it creates uncertainty at the pump,” said Macchiarola, who points to a Congressional Budget Office report showing that higher biofuel content could lead to a 26-cent hike per gallon of gas.
And all for less energy.
“Those higher-blended ethanol fuels have less energy content. That means people are driving less between each stop at the gas station,” said Macchiarola.
There is legislation underway on Capitol Hill that would forbid the EPA from ever exceeding the blend wall. It’s sponsored by Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, and Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vermont. Macchiarola anticipates a bipartisan consensus on the issue because interests on both sides see problems with the RFS proposal.
“Environmental groups, both from an air emissions standpoint and a land use standpoint, are really concerned about a proliferation of corn-based ethanol,” said Macchiarola.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review welcome Katie Couric’s reluctant admission she doctored the footage in her anti-gun documentary. They also shake their heads as the Libertarian Party proves once again it’s not ready for prime time. And they roll their eyes as Bill Kristol insists he has a new candidate ready to go but won’t announce them yet.
While Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald takes heat over his comparing of veteran wait times for health care to waiting in line at Disney parks, veterans groups say there hasn’t been much progress since the wait time scandal first erupted two years ago.
“Not much has changed,” said Concerned Veterans of America Analyst Shaun Rieley, who served ten years in uniform and did tours in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.
But Rieley says anyone looking for quick or easy fixes will be disappointed.
“There’s just real structural issues at the VA that can’t really be fixed in a couple of years and can’t really be fixed by just the changing of the secretary,” said Rieley.
“A lot of these problems are systemic to the VA system overall. There’s a problem with VA being flexible enough to meet the demands of veterans as demographics change, as they move around, as they age and require more care,” said Rieley.
He says there are two major problems that endanger the health of veterans, starting with just getting into the system.
“Delayed care is denied care and denied care is bad care,” said Rieley. “It’s disingenuous to say the care is really great if you can get it. Part of the meaning of great care is being able to have access to it,” said Rieley.
But is the care always great once you get access? Rieley says that’s another problem.
“Part of the problem is it’s so inconsistent, whereas in one area the VA might be really, really great but in another area it might be really poor quality,” said Rieley.
He says the whole VA system stifles progress.
“I think they are set up to fail. No matter how good their intentions are, the structure of the system too often undermines their ability to do their job,” said Rieley.
Concerned Veterans for America is encouraging presidential hopefuls and members of Congress to pursue restructuring of the VA.
“We recommend VA be pulled out of the Office of Personnel Management system, a federal government-controlled system for civil service, and that the governance be put in the hands of a non-profit-style board of directors,” said Rieley.
“It would bring a lot more accountability to the employees. It would allow it to function as a health care system that is chartered by and funded by the federal government, rather than a bureaucracy that is attempting to give health care,” said Rieley.
A former Navy SEAL says he is honored to have served with his elite unit but is incredibly frustrated by a military bureaucracy that ties the hands of service members, slapped him with trumped up charges and tried to sully his reputation after leaving the U.S. Navy.
Carl Higbie is author of the brand new book, “Enemies, Foreign and Domestic: A SEAL’s Story.” Higbie served two tours in Iraq in a SEAL unit. He says the second tour aggravated him and his comrades because overly cautious commanders refused to let them go on any missions.
“It was extremely frustrating. We were sitting over there as a SEAL fighting force. This is what we were designed to do. We weren’t allowed to action missions,” said Higbie.
“The reason we weren’t allowed to do anything was because the military at that time, because of Barack Obama had become so politicized and so top-heavy in their bureaucracy, they wanted to end the war, but they didn’t want to end the war by actually fighting and winning it. They wanted to end the war simply by calling us the victors.”
Higbie says the civilian leaders and the top officers lost sight of what the military is for.
“We’re soldiers in the United States Military, the most lethal fighting force the world has ever known. We are there to put bullets in bad guys. We are not there to win hearts and minds. We are not there to rebuild schools, as we have been tasked to do recently. We are there to kill the bad guy,” said Higbie.
At the very end of that deployment, Higbie’s and his fellow SEALs finally got a mission: to capture the high-value target known as Al-Isawi, otherwise known as the “Butcher of Baghdad.” Al-Isawi was responsible for killing U.S. forces and hanging their corpses from a bridge in Fallujah years earlier.
Thanks to elite skill and precise intelligence, the mission went splendidly. Al-Isawi was captured alive. Higbie says one SEAL mate deserves the most credit.
“The hero of the mission is Matt McCabe. This guy tackled the butcher on target. [Al-Isawi] had a gun, so [McCabe] was within his legal authority to shoot him. But McCabe knew if he was to tackle this guy and bring him back that we’d be more likely to get good intelligence to potentially save American lives,” said Higbie.
But shortly after Al-Isawi was placed in custosy, the nightmare for the SEALs began. The prisoner showed officers blood on his clothes and Navy commanders decided the SEALs were to blame. They demanded to know who struck the prisoner. The entire team insisted none of them had.
“I’m 240 pounds. This guy was six feet, 130 pounds. If I had hit him, he would have known about it. And we had an oral surgeon testify to the fact that there was no abuse here this was a self-inflicted bite wound. NCIS cleared us. Our SEAL leadership chain of command is the one that hung us out and it was a travesty,” said Higbie.
How much blood were we talking about?
“Maybe a quarter of a teaspoon? Your gums bleed more when you brush your teeth,” said Higbie.
While defending themselves against false accusations, Higbie still wondered why anyone would really care if they had roughed up Al-Isawi.
“Who cares anyway? Even if we did abuse this guy, who cares? That’s the problem. We’re developing into such a politically correct nature that our troops are getting sacrificed at the altar of political correctness,” said Higbie, accusing bureaucrats of losing the war by being so careful as to avoid any bad press.
Next, the Navy tried to get Higbie and his SEAL friends to turn on one another. It didn’t work.
“They thought they could break us by offering us plea deals or promotions if we ratted each other out. But nobody did anything here. That’s the fundamental fact,” said Higbie.
All the SEALs were encouraged to subject themselves to a general’s punishment to avoid courts martial. All the SEALs rejected the offer and they were all exonerated.
After returning home, Higbie put his frustrations on paper, penning “Battle on the Home Front: A Navy SEAL’s Mission to Save the American Dream.”
The military requires all such books to be submitted for review to make sure no classified material is included. The review is to last no more than 30 days. After two years of waiting, Higbie published the book anyway. At that time the government listed a number of possible violations in the manuscript, although not in writing. That resulted in another legal battle, which Higbie also won.
Next came the Navy’s treatment of Higbie’s exit from the military.
“They offered me an honorable discharge to get out early. I took it. Six weeks after leaving the military, they downgraded my discharge to a general (discharge), which is illegal. You have to attend a court martial or an Administrative Separation Board. Both of those are due process. They had the opportunity to do it. They didn’t,” said Higbie.
Another fight was on.
“After two years of fighting, we won with a 5-0 appellate court decision in my favor to overturn my discharge back to honorable,” said Higbie.
Higbie says he wrote the new book to prove you can challenge the government and win but that you must by very well prepared. As for the current state of the military, he says politicians who were elected by people who never served in the military need to let the military do the job it was meant to do.
“Our military has been and always will be the most deadly fighting force the world has ever known, but you have to take the handcuffs off,” said Higbie. “It is the command leadership that is unwilling to fight this war.”
“You need war fighters and door-kickers to make these decisions on site. And you need to let us do it,” said Higbie.
Despite the myriad battles with the Navy, Higbie cherishes the time he spent with his unit and says he will never stop fighting for what is right.
“I was not the biggest, fastest, strongest, best, sharpest guy in my unit by any stretch of the imagination. There were a lot of guys that were better than me and guys I learned a lot from. To have the ability to serve with such a unit is such an incredible experience. That’s why I fight for the principles I do in my books because I genuinely believe they’re worth fighting for,” said Higbie.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are pleased to see the mainstream media covering the State Dept. report slamming Hillary Clinton and thrilled they are being tough on her. They are not at all surprised to see Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe lying in an effort to explain away his FBI investigation. And they rip Katie Couric for using false footage in her anti-gun documentary to make gun rights supporters look like they have no reasons to oppose background checks.
