Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review enjoy Greg Gutfeld needling his colleagues over their soft “town hall” interviews of Donald Trump. They also blast the notion promoted by GOP operatives and donors that House Speaker Paul Ryan will somehow emerge as the nominee at a contested convention. And they groan as Trump says it’s “very unfair” that he has to win a majority of the delegates to become the Republican nominee because the original field was so big.
A 1981 New York Times item quotes Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders as saying he doesn’t “believe in charities,” an outlook that one expert says is common in socialism and would destroy civil society.
In September 1981, the Times reported on comments then-Burlington Mayor Sanders made at a charity event:
“For the kickoff of the 40th annual Chittenden County United Way fund-raising drive in Burlington, Vt., the sponsors considered themselves fortunate to have as guests Mayor Bernard Sanders of Burlington and Gov. Richard Snelling of Vermont,” reported the Times.
“But the charity workers heard the sort of things they wanted to hear from only one of their guests.
“‘I don’t believe in charities,” said Mayor Sanders, bringing a shocked silence to a packed hotel banquet room. The Mayor, who is a Socialist, went on to question the ”fundamental concepts on which charities are based” and contended that government, rather than charity organizations, should take over responsibility for social programs,'” the article stated.
Joe Loconte fiercely disagrees. Loconte teaches Western Civilization and American Foreign Policy at The King’s College in New York City. He has also held positions with the Heritage Foundation and the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington. From 2001-2003, he was also an informal adviser to the George W. Bush administration’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.
“It’s no surprise that Bernie Sanders then, and I think even now, really has no real respect or regard for civil society. This is the problem with socialism. It sees such an overwhelming, intrusive role for the state at all levels, there’s no room left for the voluntary society,” said Loconte.
He says the history of America shows civil society as a indispensable part of what makes America great.
“Those associations, those charities, those faith-based organizations that have always been the lifeblood of American democracy have always contributed to this truth as we describe the United States. It’s exceptionalism. Near the heart of American exceptionalism is this vibrant, independent civil society,” said Loconte.
Loconte says Americans have always understood instinctively that neighbor helping neighbor builds better communities than relying on the government to solve problems. He says Europe is learning this hard lesson right now.
“The overweening state cannot meet human needs, cannot address our deepest moral and social problems. It just can’t do it and Bernie Sanders, apparently, has just not learned a thing from American history, from European history and not even the present crisis,” said Loconte.
From the very start of America, private charity and a vibrant civil society set us apart from the world, according to Loconte. He says Alexis de Tocqueville rightly observed this in his famous “Democracy in America.”
“He sees something in America that he doesn’t see in Europe. What he sees is individuals coming together in associations to tackle problems together, common problems. So he sees a moral energy, civic energy, religious energy used to try to produce a more just and humane society,” said Loconte.
He says socialism threatens every bit of that American fabric.
“That’s the genius of a vibrant, independent civil society. It’s something that socialists like Bernie Sanders cannot and will not understand. Not only will they not promote it if they get into real positions of power and responsibility in government. They will hinder it. They will undermine it. Ultimately, they’ll destroy it,” said Loconte.
Loconte says it’s all about socialists devaluing the individual.
“At the end of the day there’s this logical and even theological problem. Bernie Sanders is not just a proclaimed socialist. He’s an atheist, a secularist. It seems to me the history of ideologies rooted in secularism shows at the end of the day there’ll be a distrust and even contempt for the individual,” said Loconte.
“Individual freedom, individual responsibility and human rights. That’s where it’s going. Basic human rights will always be compromised under a socialist regime. That’s the historical record. It’s not even debatable,” said Loconte.
He says civil society and personal charity will plummet the more government gets involved and determines right and wrong.
“The larger government gets in terms of regulations, its intrusiveness, its attempt to have one-size-fits-all imposed on groups and organizations, to force people into its militantly secular way of thinking: That’s simply going to undermine and weaken civil society. We can’t afford that now when we think about our great social problems, where the breakdown of the family is so near the heart of all of them,” said Loconte.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review discuss how state conventions and arcane rules matter a lot in the final GOP delegate math. They also groan as many members from the tea party wave of 2010 are already planning to leave and resume their normal lives. And they unload on Bernie Sanders for his 1981 comment that he doesn’t “believe in charity.”
Former House Select Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra says evidence suggests radical Islamist groups, including ISIS, are on the brink of posing a far greater threat to part of Africa and the Middle East and the resulting chaos could add even more upheaval to western Europe and the United States.
Hoekstra, R-Mich., is now affiliated with the Investigative Project on Terrorism, or IPT. On Friday, he and IPT Executive Director Steve Emerson authored an opinion piece at FoxNews.com, pointing out the increased terrorist carnage and where we can expect ISIS and other radical groups to apply pressure. They suggest without a major shift in strategy, Islamist groups will burrow farther into Africa, bringing misery to countless more people. Emerson and Hoekstra also believe ISIS could soon apply enough instability to threaten regimes like Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Hoekstra says sheer statistics over the last decade suggest such calamities could be in the offing.
“From 2006-2011, there were roughly 3,300 people who were losing their lives each year as a result of radical jihadist attacks. By 2014-2015, that number has grown to roughly 28 or 29,000 people per year. The numbers don’t lie. We’re losing this war,” said Hoekstra.
Hoekstra also says the amassing of land, which the radicals consider caliphates, is another major concern.
“A terrorist organization is actually controlling a fairly large piece of geography. In the Middle East, they control the geography of large parts of Syria and Iraq. In northern Africa, they control a large part of Libya,” said Hoekstra.
He says control of those areas means a much greater threat for people everywhere.
“They’re using these bases to expand their reach in the Middle East, into northern Africa. More frightening is they’re using these locations to plan, prepare and train and export jihadist ideology and fighters and weapons into western Europe,” said Hoekstra.
Unsurprisingly, Hoekstra is not impressed with the Obama strategy against ISIS. He says it must be much more direct and much more aggressive.
“Number one, we need to recognize the threat for what it is. It’s radical jihadism. We need to put a full military force. This is not a relentless military campaign against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. It’s a half-hearted effort to confront a very, very deadly threat,” said Hoekstra.
On the tactical side, Hoekstra advocates much more assistance in arming the Kurdish fighters clashing with ISIS as well as the Sunni tribes inside Iraq. But he says real progress won;t come until the U.S. declares radical Islam the problem instead of cozying up to it.
“This is an administration that has embraced the radical jihadist movement, at least front groups for them. They embraced the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. They embraced the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya, in both cases with disastrous results,” said Hoesktra, noting Obama has endorsed radical to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria as well.
He says it is critical for the U.S. and out allies to understand the central role of the Muslim Brotherhood in fomenting unrest and terrorism.
“We need to confront this enemy and recognize that the Muslim Brotherhood is the organization that all these organizations come from. It’s kind of like the breeding ground for all these other organizations,” said Hoekstra. “Believing you can engage with radical jihadist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and that they will then change their behavior is very much a flawed strategy.”
Following the ISIS attacks in Brussels, President Obama reiterated that Americans should not view ISIS as an existential threat. Hoekstra says that’s wrong and not at all helpful.
“It may not be an existential threat to the United States today, but those are the same kind of things that the people in Europe were saying 10-15 years ago,” said Hoekstra. “There’s a lot of people in Europe right now who are believing it is an existential threat to their way of life.”
Hoekstra says the U.S. is careening down the same road.
“We’re headed down the same path that Europe is if we don’t change our behaviors and our strategy relatively soon,” added Hoekstra.
So which of the remaining presidential hopefuls had the best grasp on confronting the the threat of radical Islam? Hoekstra says the worst choice is the woman who helped create the mess we’re seeing in the world right now.
“You’ve got Hillary Clinton, who is the architect of engaging with the Muslim Brotherhood and would in many ways continue the same policies and strategies that this president has in place. We can’t have four more years of this strategy if we want to protect America,” said Hoekstra.
What about the top two candidates on the GOP side?
“You’ve got Donald Trump that you’re not sure exactly what’s going to happen. I think Ted Cruz clearly sees radical jihadism as a threat but I’m not sure that he’s got the depth and the background to articulate an effective strategy,” said Hoekstra.
Hoekstra backs John Kasich for president and believes he would be strongest on this issue as well.
“I think John’s got the depth of background and experience and he recognizes the threat. I think he’s most prepared to deal with the threat that is out there on day one,” said Hoekstra.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review react to both of their organizations being acquired by the Trump Organization. They’re also stunned as FBI Director James Comey says his questioning of Hillary Clinton not only closed the investigation but revealed her to be the the most truthful polygraph subject he’s seen. And they react to a new study showing the judgment of Nevada voters far exceeds citizens in the other states. Quite a start to the new month.
Nearly two years after the veterans’ health care scandal broke, hardly any meaningful change has occurred and now reports suggest a growing number of vets aren’t just having to wait for care but are being told they are ineligible.
The latest black eye for the Department of Veterans Affairs is a new report from the veterans group Swords to Plowshares, showing that more and more vets are being denied access to the VA system because of “bad papers,” the military term for anything less than an honorable discharge.
The report indicates that veterans since 2001 are more than twice as likely to be denied medical benefits for an “other than honorable” discharge than their counterparts from the Vietnam era and four times as likely as those who served in World War II. All told 10 percent of Marines have been denied under these circumstances while the rate across all branches stands at 6.5 percent.
In real numbers, 125,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are being denied care due to “bad papers.”
Even those who regularly advocate for veterans admit this can be a thorny issue for the military.
“You can understand why the Pentagon and the VA would have to draw a distinction between the nature of the service and the nature of the benefits, so if you were kicked out of the military for terrible conduct, there’s a consequence potentially on the backside with your VA benefits,” said Pete Hegseth, a veterans advocate, who served both in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is now a Fox News Channel contributor.
At the same time, Hegseth says the government’s policy punishes a lot of veterans for conduct that stems from their service to the United States.
“The problem becomes maybe you went to Afghanistan, suffer from post-traumatic stress and act out when you come home, which leads to a dishonorable discharge. Now you’re barred from VA benefits, but you’re the very person that needs those VA benefits. A lot of those people are falling through the cracks,” said Hegseth.
And sometimes the lesser status on a discharge is just bureaucratic.
“In some cases, we see ‘other than honorables’ given out much more quickly because a medical discharge or another form of discharge is either lengthier or more costly for the military,” said Hegseth.
He explained some of the red tape games that get played.
“Sometimes the military’s taking the easy way out. They’re just pushing people out the door because they don’t want to have to deal with it. And maybe there’s a cost trail they don’t want to deal with,” said Hegseth.
“You also have the the other side of the coin, where a veteran may be at the end of their service. They’re given an option to say, ‘Hey, you can either go down the medical discharge route and it might take a couple years because of all the paperwork and all the things that come with it. Or you can just jump out right now and get an ‘other than honorable’ and maybe you’ll get access to VA benefits,” said Hegseth.
He says many who took that gamble are now really hung out to dry.
“The problem is that line has shifted, so people who thought they qualified for benefits no longer do. As a result, they’re caught in the middle,” said Hegseth.
This would be enough of a headache for the VA, Hegseth says, but it still has a mountain of reforms to implement following the waiting time and falsified records scandal that rocked the department in May of 2014.
“Layer on top of all that the utter dysfunction of the VA, which can’t even care for the honorably discharged in a timely manner. Now they’re trying to deal with folks who have a questionable paperwork trail, maybe some barriers to entry because of their service and the nature of their discharge. It leads to them waiting longer with more uncertainty,” said Hegseth.
Has any progress been made at the VA in two years?
“Very little, unfortunately,” said Hegseth. “Veterans now have a choice card but they still can’t use it as widely or as rapidly as they would want. There’s been almost no accountability for those responsible for the wait list manipulation scandal. Veterans continue to wait for a long time,” said Hegseth.
“All the while, Congress has been incapable of the larger, deeper reforms that are ultimately necessary,” said Hegseth, who says there is hope for some legislation to pass this year. “If it doesn’t happen in this Congress, it means more vets waiting for a longer time at a dysfunctional VA that hasn’t changed.”
Why isn’t is happening?
“Mostly a combination of government unions, the AFGE, that want nothing to change and lobby very hard and are very powerful inside certain quarters in the halls of Congress. They’re blocking this. The VA bureaucracy is ferocious in trying to stifle anything that looks like change,” said Hegseth, who also says even some veterans groups are afraid to alter the status quo.
“There’s just powerful special interests like in any other area who want things not to change,” said Hegseth.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review applaud CNN’s Jake Tapper for calling out Obama’s hypocrisy on media coverage of politics and reminding viewers that Obama has stiff-armed the press more than any president since Nixon. They also shake their heads as a new Clinton vs. Trump Electoral College projection shows Hillary with an easy win. And they groan as Fox News and BuzzFeed fail to redact Michelle Fields’ personal information before showing her police report, leading to harassing phone calls to Fields who no longer feels it’s safe to be in her apartment.
A week after North Carolina lawmakers passed legislation defining who can use which bathrooms on government property, Lt. Gov. Dan Forest is vigorously defending the law against fierce criticism from LGBT activists and some businesses by saying it protects women and girls and actually grants new accommodation to transgenders.
Widely known now as House Bill 2, or HB 2, the legislation was approved 82-26 in the North Carolina General Assembly. State senators approved it 32-0, although 11 Democrats decided not to vote and another six lawmakers were absent. Republican Gov. Pat McCrory signed the bill on March 25.
Lt. Gov. Forest said the city of Charlotte left lawmakers no choice but to act.
“This isn’t something the General Assembly brought up brought up. The city council in Charlotte brought this up, against legal counsel’s advice and against the advice of a lot of folks. They went beyond their constitutional authority and tried to create a public accommodation law in the city of Charlotte,” said Forest.
“That is expressly a responsibility of the state. The city of Charlotte and municipalities don’t have the legal authority, based on our constitution, to establish public accommodation law,” said Forest.
In addition to overstepping it’s legal authority, Forest says the Charlotte council pursued a very troubling policy.
“The Charlotte ordinance said that the business community had to to comply with this ordinance. They said it was sex discrimination to have men’s room and women’s room labels on your doors,” said Forest.
When state officials started hearing from sexual assault victims, the effort to reverse the Charlotte ordinance picked up far more steam.
“We have had multiple calls from women who had been sexually abused in a bathroom in a facility like that, who were literally being traumatized by even the thought of that going into law in North Carolina. We stepped up to address it because it was going to go into effect and become the law in Charlotte on April 1. That’s why we had to go into special session,” said Forest.
Conservative lawmakers and family organizations became even more alarmed after discovering that one of the leading advocates for the Charlotte ordinance is a registered sex offender. At the time, Chad Sevearance-Turner was president of the Charlotte LGBT Chamber of Commerce. The Charlotte Observer, citing a story in the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, reports Sevearance-Turner was convicted by a jury for fondling a 15-year-old boy while he slept in 1998. Seaverance-Turner was serving as youth minister in Gaffney, South Carolina, at the time. The boy was a church member.
The actual text of the Charlotte ordinance only made things worse for concerned citizens. Forest says the language made bathrooms and changing areas open to virtually anyone.
“The giant loophole they created was that this ordinance would then allow any person to enter any bathroom at any time. A man can enter a women’s bathroom, a women’s locker room, a shower facility. They could enter a girls’ bathroom, a girls’ locker room. A sexual predator could enter in there, somebody that is a pedophile could go into a girls’ or women’s bathroom” said Forest.
Forest says the ordinance only required the person to identify as a member of a particular gender, and to have completed or be in the process of gender reassignment.
He says despite the protests, HB 2 does a few very simple things, starting with who can use which bathrooms.
“What HB 2 did was say that men have to use men’s rooms and women have to use women’s rooms in the state of North Carolina,” said Forest.
At the same time, he says people identifying as transgender benefit too.
“What this bill did is it created accommodation for people that are transgender, for people that view their gender differently than other folks,” said Forest. “It also provides the opportunity for single-stall unisex bathrooms. Anywhere that you want to place them.”
Forest says unlike Charlotte, the HB 2 only applies to government buildings and schools. Business owners are free to make their own decisions.
And he says that’s not all.
“If you go fully through the process of being a transsexual, then go get your birth certificate changed and you go to whatever bathroom you are assigned at that point based on your birth certificate,” said Forest.
As for the critics alleging discrimination and bigotry and businesses threatening to leave the state, Forest says there’s nothing new about this firestorm.
“This is the same cast of characters that we’ve seen before. We saw this same cast of characters in Houston, when Houston dealt with this problem and had to turn down the same kind of ordinance a year or so ago. Same cast of characters we saw during our marriage amendment battle here in North Carolina,” said Forest.
Forest contends the businesses were pressured to get on board through aggressive tactics from the most powerful lobbying arm of the LGBT agenda.
“It’s being driven by folks like the Human Rights Campaign, which has a significant in with human resources departments in these companies, who then have an in with their diversity team at these companies as well. They write a letter and they give it to a CEO or an executive and that executive signs it and sends it out to their employees,” said Forest.
He says a little prodding reveals the “activist” business leaders don’t really have a firm understanding of the legislation.
“I called them up and I said, ‘Have you even read the bill?’ And they said no, they hadn’t read the bill but they were handed this to send out to their employees. It’s a shame that’s the way it works, but that is the way it works,” said Forest.
The most famous corporate blowback came from the NBA. Charlotte is slated to host the 2017 NBA All-Star Game, but the league says this law may impact those plans.
Forest finds the NBA’s protest especially odd.
“The irony of that is that there is the NBA and the WNBA. They don’t allow men to play in the WNBA and I’m sure they don’t allow men to go into the women’s locker room after the games either. But they somehow think North Carolina is discriminatory because we want to protect women and children from predators in the bathroom,” said Forest.
He says the protests reveal who is truly intolerant.
“Really, what this leftist ideology and this leftist agenda says is, ‘You better subscribe to our way of thinking or we are going to come after you.’ They don’t let up. They keep on coming. That’s really unfortunate that people can’t sit down in a room and figure out how to get along,” said Forest.
Social conservatives have been plenty frustrated with Republicans in recent years for not standing as firmly as promised on issues ranging from marriage to religious freedom. Forest says even with the heat from opponents and the media, there was no thought of backing down from this effort.
“You will never go wrong by doing the right thing. There may be consequences to pay for doing the right thing. Those consequences may be political and there may be a group of people who say, ‘We don’t want you to be their lieutenant governor again.’ I’m fine with that. If I do the right thing, I really don’t care about the blowback or whether I get elected again,” said Forest.
He says the most disappointing part of this fight has been the reckless disregard for the truth from the left.
“The real shame of it is people don’t care about the truth anymore. The truth doesn’t matter in America anymore. That’s really unfortunate because all of the debate that’s coming against HB 2 in North Carolina is based on a bunch of fictitious matter,” said Forest.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review react to all three Republican hopefuls refusing to promise they will back the eventual GOP nominee. They also discuss Donald Trump’s comments on Michelle Fields after Trump’s campaign manager is indicted for grabbing Fields earlier this month – and notice how Trump’s comments on women seem to be unnerving some of his most ardent supporters. And they react to the way Ted Cruz handles questions from a hostile press.
The sponsor of the Georgia religious freedom legislation vetoed by Gov. Nathan Deal says he is “extremely disappointed” in Deal after lawmakers bent over backwards to craft a bill to satisfy the governor and the business community and protect limited freedoms for clergy and institutions of faith.
“I think the message the governor sent with the veto is that it’s open season on people of faith in Georgia,” said State Senator Josh McKoon, sponsor of Georgia’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
He says the veto especially stung after the governor’s office had been directly involved in the crafting of the bill.
“This bill was the result of a lot of negotiation between house and senate leadership. The governor’s office was involved, as was he business community. We certainly felt like we had a achieved a compromise that was acceptable to all sides,” said McKoon.
After the bill passed easily in both chambers of the Georgia legislature, a fierce public relations campaign rose up to oppose the bill, especially among big businesses. Movie studios threatened to stop filming in the state if the act became law and the NFL said it could negatively impact Atlanta’s chances of hosting the Superbowl in a few years.
“I think the governor caved to pressure from the business community, from largely empty threats from out-of-state companies that were suggesting that they would withdraw or reduce their business in the state if the legislation passed,” said McKoon.
Most baffling to McKoon is how much he and his allies “watered down” the original bill to appease Gov. Deal and businesses.
“We had done everything we’d been asked to do to just try to get a modest protection for houses of worship, religious schools and religious non-profits. If we can’t protect those in a state that’s run by the Republican Party, it was was a very bad day for people of faith in Georgia,” said McKoon.
The original bill had protections for vendors like photographers, florists and cake bakers who believe serving a specific event would violate their consciences. But that was stripped to win the backing of Gov. Deal and business leaders. McKoon and other sponsors also agreed to allow the law to be trumped by any federal or state law addressing discrimination.
McKoon says the original bill was much stronger.
“We really narrowed the focus of the bill in terms of who would be protected. We sort of went from a wide-open person definition that would apply to any flesh and blood individual, any for-profit business, really any entity at all to a very narrow definition that was just primarily limited to house of worship, religious schools and religious nonprofits,” said McKoon.
The fight is not over. Given the lopsided majorities in the Georgia legislature, supporters of the bill are trying to override Deal’s veto.
“People are continuing to work on that issue to see if there’s the necessary support to override the governor’s veto. I think we’ve got the numbers in the state senate to do it,” said McKoon.
However, 120 votes are needed to override a veto in the Georgia House of Representatives. Republicans hold 118 seats, so at least some Democratic support would be needed.
Gov. Deal’s office has not been in touch with McKoon since the veto was announced. But McKoon says Deal’s reasoning given at his press conference was weak.
“The governor said he didn’t think this law was necessary and suggested people of faith were inappropriate to seek government relief for protection of the right of free exercise. I just shook my head at that. I don’t understand the rationale at all,” said McKoon.
“He made a reference to the founders in that the founders left this issue alone. Obviously the founders thought it was important to attach the first amendment to the Constitution, which explicitly protects the right of free exercise,” said McKoon.
McKoon calls a lack of protection for free exercise of religion “unhealthy for our state” and says Deal is caving to the insatiable demands of the far left.
“He talked about [his veto] coming from a place of wanting to welcome people. I think what’s he’s done is he’s welcomed radical, far-left activists that want to establish a religion. The religion they want to establish is one of atheistic secular humanism,” said McKoon.
McKoon says he will also be pushing for a strong statement of support for religious freedom legislation at the Georgia Republican convention in June.
