Greg Corombos of Radio America and Ian Tuttle of National Review enjoy hearing Bill Clinton call the last eight years “awful.” They react to the horrific terrorist attacks in Brussels and President Obama’s listless response. And they unload on Obama for his moral equivalence between the problems in Cuba and the perceived flaws in the U.S.
President Obama visited Cuba with much pomp and fanfare over the past two days, but critics say Obama’s efforts to thaw nearly six decades of severed ties with the communist regime there gives cover to the brutal repression of political dissidents and rewards the Castro brothers for doing nothing to clean up its human rights record.
On Sunday, Obama touched in Havana, becoming the first sitting U.S. president to visit Cuba since 1928. On Monday, Obama drew controversy by standing at attention in Revolution Square in front of a giant mural of murderous Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara.
He later held a joint press conference with Cuban dictator Raul Castro, who blasted the U.S. for its record on race and poverty, demanded the return of the Guantanamo Bay naval base and insisted Cuba held no political prisoners.
Obama has asserted for months that normalizing relations with Cuba is a better way to effect human rights changes, rather than continuing a policy of isolation. But one of the leading voices against communism says Obama is simply giving cover to the Castros.
“Nothing has changed since Fidel Castro came to power with Raul almost 60 years ago now,” said Lee Edwards, chairman of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation and a distingushed fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
Edwards says the facts on the Castro regime are clear and brutal.
“We’ve had 100,000 Cubans that have been arrested and imprisoned in the most terrible of conditions. Some 20,000 have been executed, according to the “Black Book of Communism,” said Edwards.
Edwards says those numbers often get downplayed by the left under the assumption that the vast majority of those atrocities were conducted during and shortly after the revolution in the late 1950’s. He says that’s simply not true.
“Since recognition of last year, 8,000 Cubans have been detained for political reasons. Just in January of this year, 1,474 were detained for political reasons. So nothing has changed,” said Edwards.
The New York Times confirms the increase in political detentions, noting more than a thousand arrests each in January February and over 500 in the first half of this month. Other reporters witnessed the arrest of dissidents in advance of Obama’s arrival Sunday.
The photo of Obama and his delegation standing in attention with the mural of Che Guevara behind them is stirring fierce reaction among his critics. Edwards says Guevara may be a cult hero among some, but his true record is nothing more than being Fidel Castro’s personal hit man.
“In point of fact, he was a cold-blooded murderer and was Fidel Castro’s personally appointed executioner. He would just say, ‘Take care of him, Che.’ And Che would go out and shoot him,” said Edwards.
Monday’s press conference also worried Edwards, as a result of Obama being very careful not to offend his host while Castro offered a stream of criticisms against the U.S.
“Obviously, the president has chosen a policy of accommodation and detente, rather than a policy of peace through strength, which is what Ronald Reagan initiated and successfully implemented during the Cold War,” said Edwards. “With ideological opponents like the Castro brothers, you’ve got to be firm and strong and deal from strength.”
He says any instinct Obama may have to see the Castros as honest brokers is a huge mistake.
“As an old, expert anti-communist used to say, ‘You can trust the communists to be communists.’ That is to say that they will lie and they will cheat and they will steal if you let them do so,” said Edwards.
Edwards also believes this visit and acknowledgement of the Castro regime will have other chilling effects, starting with the Cuban dissidents.
“They must be distraught. The must be discouraged. Fifty of them were arrested today prior to to meeting,” said Edwards.
He also says other communist and authoritarian leaders see Obama’s actions as their green light for mischief.
“They’re saying, ‘Ah, this is just what we hoped and expected. If we take the strong position then the Americans will kowtow.’ If I were China right now, I’d be saying, ‘What can I do to test Americans in the South China Sea,'” said Edwards.
And he says China is not alone.
“If I’m (Russian President Vladimir) Putin I’m saying, ‘What can I do to test the resolve of the U.S. in places like the Baltic countries and Poland,'” said Edwards. “I’m sure they must really be toasting each other and toasting Raul for being able to show up the United States.”
But why would Obama continue to honor his side of the effort to normalize relations if Cuba is making no progress on its human rights record. Edwards believes it’s part gamble and part ego.
“They’re just hoping and praying and maybe they’ve go tone eye on Mr. Obama’s legacy as well, thinking things are going to get better,” said Edwards, who says that’s a prescription for failure.
“As (George) Santayana said, ‘If you don’t study the past, you’re condemned to repeat it. Here we are, not realizing that we’re dealing not with a political party or with a couple of politicians down there. We’re dealing with communists. We’re dealing with Marxist Leninists, who have an ideology that motivates all of their actions. Unless you understand that and begin with that, you’re not going to be able to make any progress,” said Edwards.
The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is committed to making all Americans aware of what the spread of communism brings: misery and death on a grand scale.
“People do not know that nearly 100 million people – men, woman and children – died in the twentieth century and they’re still dying in places like North Korea and Vietnam as a result of standing up against communism. That record must be maintained. Those people must be remembered. They must not be forgotten. We intend to make certain that they’re not,” said Edwards.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Ian Tuttle of National Review shake their heads as John Kasich says he would consider Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court if Kasich becomes president. They also rip Pres. Obama for legitimizing Cuba’s repressive communist regime and even posing in front of Che Guevara. And they unload on Hillary Clinton for suggesting she can be trusted to defend Israel’s security.
One of the top human rights advocates in Congress is applauding the Secretary of State John Kerry for labeling ISIS atrocities as genocide, but he says the designation should have come much sooner and there is evidence the Obama administration is deliberately concealing the horrific human rights records of other nations in order to advance other priorities.
This week, the House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution declaring ISIS guilty of genocide. Kerry followed on Thursday by delivering the genocide verdict that some have been begging for for years.
“I and others have been asking for almost three years that such a designation be made. It was very clear right from the start. I had a hearing back in 2013 and made it clear that Christians especially are being targeted for forced conversion. If they don’t convert to Islam they are killed, raped, beheaded and have other atrocities committed upon them,” said Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., a top member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and chairman of its human rights subcommittee.
He says the genocide has been obvious a long time.
“It absolutely fits the genocide convention definition. What was the delay?” asked Smith.
Smith is now demanding to know what the administration plans to do about the genocide. But he worries that the existing Obama track record on human rights abuses elsewhere around the world is proof that it’s just not a high priority.
Next week, Smith will hold hearings into allegations the U.S. is not only failing to act against human rights violators but is actually helping them cover up their deeds.
“I have a big hearing next Tuesday on how Obama has falsified the analysis of fourteen countries when it comes to human rights and this terrible modern-day slavery of sex and labor trafficking in order to curry favor with those countries,” said Smith, listing China, India, Oman, Cuba and Malaysia as examples.
He says it may well get even more disturbing.
“The Reuters wire service Friday, in an incisive investigative report, showed that they did it deliberately in order to achieve some other goal totally unconnected to just speaking truth to power about their despicable human rights records,” said Smith.
It’s that track record that has Smith doubtful that Obama will do much of anything to follow up on the ISIS genocide declaration.
“Fast forward to what’s happening right now, delay is denial again and I’m very, very concerned they’re likely to dither and not do something that would have a meaningful impact,” said Smith.
Specifically, Smith is asking the U.S. to lead an effort to create a special war crimes tribunal through the United Nations Security Council. He says such tribunals have proven most effective in war-torn places like Rwanda, Sierra Leone and the former Yugoslavia.
“We need to build a pressure to say no more impunity (for ISIS perpetrators) and we need to hold these people to account,” said Smith. “This doesn’t guarantee an end to the war or anything like that, but it brings accountability to the process. It starts putting people behind bars, hopefully for the rest of their lives,” said Smith.
Smith firmly believes that establishing tribunals would not only bring punishments to those apprehended but also act as a deterrent for other ISIS terrorists.
“What has happened with those tribunals especially is that individuals never thought they would be caught. They thought they could act with impunity. This gives us the opportunity to be turning lower level people on bigger fish who are committing these horrific crimes,” said Smith.
He says David Crane, the lead prosecutor at the Sierra Leone tribunals, is already collecting evidence of which ISIS members are responsible for specific acts.
Smith says the U.S. should steer far and wide of leaving this matter in the hands of the International Criminal Court.
“Crane gave expert insights and testimony about how flexible, aggressive and how capable these ad hoc regional tribunals are. The International Criminal Court, which has been up and running for 14 years, has two convictions. The three regional courts have had well over a hundred convictions,” said Smith.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review enjoy seeing the lawyers for fired Benghazi Committee staffer remove the accusation that partisanship on the committee led to his termination. They also react to speculation that Pres. Obama’s increased support for Hillary Clinton means she will never be indicted over her private server. And they unload on Mike Huckabee for saying conservatives opposing Trump are only worried about their paychecks and need to suck it up and get in line behind Trump.
Longtime pollster and strategist Pat Caddell says we may not only be headed towards a contentious Republican convention but that fed up voters in both parties and beyond are so furious we may soon see a dramatic and permanent shift in the political landscape.
“As I predicted a year ago, I said this was going to be 1968 on steroids in terms of surprises, hopefully not the deaths. And I think it’s lived up to that,” said Caddell, who was one of the young advisers that helped propel Jimmy Carter to an unlikely victory in 1976.
Despite firmly remaining a Democrat, Caddell has also been a withering critic of his own party, including President Obama and Hillary Clinton.
The rise of Donald Trump to clear front-runner status in the GOP field is the biggest surprise in the 2016 campaign, but Caddell says it’s symptomatic of something even bigger.
“We are entering a new political paradigm and the political class and the media just don’t understand or recognize it,” said Caddell. “There may be a third party coming, a major one before this is over.”
Caddell’s analysis comes as a group of grassroots conservative met Thursday to discuss how to prevent Trump from securing the Republican nomination, either at the ballot box or at a contested convention.
Trump has said that if he has a commanding lead in delegates, even if he doesn’t have the majority, there should be no question he should be the nominee. He predicted “riots” if he were denied While Caddell didn’t address the potential for chaos, he largely agrees with Trump’s analysis.
“I think if they try to have a convention where they try to take the nomination away from a clear front-runner, it will blow the Republican Party up,” said Caddell.
But what is meant by a clear front-runner? Trump used a 600-700 delegate lead as a an example when warning the GOP against denying him the nomination, but how close does it need to be for Caddell to consider Ted Cruz a viable option at a contested convention?
“They would need to be fairly close to him,” said Caddell, declining to give a specific margin.
While Caddell believes choosing a candidate who does not lead the delegate race would stir major controversy, he is especially appalled at the suggestion of the GOP choosing a non-candidate as a consensus choice. Earlier this week, former House Speaker John Boehner said current Speaker Paul Ryan would be a good nominee if no one could win a majority of delegates.
“The notion I most think is ridiculous is somehow you’re going to take the nomination away and give it to someone who didn’t run this year,” said Caddell. “The notion you’re going to use the fact a lot of delegates are chosen by state committees and whatever, to change the rules and have someone parachute into this race is an insanity.”
He says there is no doubt that Trump has the political establishment very concerned.
“A lot of the opposition to Trump is that he is a standing threat to the old order, to the corrupt arrangements and other things. That is at the heart of the opposition here,” said Caddell, who says while Trump is a larger-than-life personality, it’s the voters who are perpetuating this movement.
“Donald Trump hasn’t created this situation. The voters have created this situation. They created it because they are angry at the broad establishment, as is most of the country,” said Caddell.
The establishment is certainly not friendly towards Trump, but many grassroots conservatives recoil from him as well, due to what they consider his sudden conversion on a host of core issues and what they consider a coarse and crass personality.
Caddell says neither group opposed to Trump has really figured out why he’s so popular.
“They don’t understand what he is motivating and what there is in the country. That’s why I think they’ve been losing,” said Caddell.
“He speaks to the things they’re concerned about: a country in decline, the trade deals,” said Caddell, who says Trump’s repeated assertions that he is beholden to no special interests is extremely effective right now.
But while the GOP is in turmoil, Caddell says his fellow Democrats aren’t faring much better.
“This is a party that’s playing with it’s own version of suicide. They have a candidate (Hillary Clinton) who may well be knocked out of this race by her legal problems. If not, they’re going to haunt her and they’re only the beginning of the problems she’s got,” said Caddell.
Clinton beats Trump in most head-to-head polls and both have immense unfavorable ratings. However, Caddell says Democrats should not expect to coast to victory if Trump is in fact the nominee.
“She keeps changing her positions. She looks desperate,” he said. “I don’t think they’re in for a treat either. Democrats have got to ask themselves, ‘Why are you nominating somebody with this kind of baggage?'”
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are pleased to see conservatives beginning to coalesce around Ted Cruz. They applaud the State Department for declaring ISIS guilty of genocide but scold the administration for apparently not planning to do much about it. And they react to a Trump supporter telling CNN that convention riots could be a good thing and that they would not be negative riots.
President Obama nominated appeals court judge Merrick B. Garland to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, and a conservative legal expert says Garland is about as good of a a choice as Republicans could hope for but should still decline to consider any nominee until after the November elections.
Wednesday morning, Obama introduced Garland as his nominee in a Rose Garden ceremony. The 63-yearold Garland is the chief judge on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Obama’s choice caught many people by surprise.
“I think it’s deeply political,” said Ethics and Public Policy Center President Ed Whelan, who clerked for Scalia and later held prominent posts on Capitol Hill and in the Justice Department.
“The White House, if it had its druthers, if it had a Senate Democratic majority, would have gone with someone who is much more aggressively left-wing to excite the base among other things,” said Whelan.
Garland was believed to be on Obama’s short list in 2010, when the president ultimately nominated Elena Kagan to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens. While not at all urging Senate action, Whelan says Garland does have some strong qualities.
“At the risk of engaging in the soft bigotry of low expectations, I do think that Judge Garland is about the best one could hope for from this president. That doesn’t mean that Republicans should act at all, much less confirm,” he said.
“Merrick Garland is a remarkably intelligent, very decent man. He deserves to be treated with respect in the process,” said Whelan. “I think in all respects he comes across as a very standard liberal, again one of very high ability.”
Democrats and the mainstream media instantly labeled Garland a moderate who is unquestionably qualified for the high court. Observers say his opinions on the appeal court show he is generally tough on criminals and defers frequently to police and to the executive branch on matters of expanded power.
Gun rights advocates are not at all happy with the idea of Garland on the Supreme Court. In 2007, a three-judge panel of the D.C court of appeals voted to overturn the ban on handguns in the District of Columbia. Garland subsequently voted to send the case to the full appeals court.
In a statement, Gun Owners of America Executive Director Erich Pratt says that vote alone should disqualify Garland.
“He supported the DC gun ban in 2007, voting to reconsider the Heller case after a three judge panel had ruled against the ban.
“Hence, we don’t have to speculate as to how Garland would vote on Heller if confirmed to the Supreme Court. He’s already voted against Heller once before, thereby showing he’d effectively rip the Second Amendment from the Constitution,” said Pratt.
While experts debate Garland’s record in nearly two decades on the appeals court, Whelan says that paper trail is largely irrelevant.
“The particular cases that come up before any lower court, with Supreme Court precedent guiding them, are not going to provide the clearest indication of anything really. The New York Times has an interesting graphic today, predicting that Merrick Garland would end up slightly to the left of Elena Kagan and would consolidate a five-justice liberal majority to make the court more liberal than it’s been in 50 years,” said Whelan.
Bottom line, says Whelan, beware of anyone labeled a moderate.
“Anyone who is presented as a moderate, as Ruth Bader Ginsberg was back in 1993, ends up becoming a solid member of a liberal majority. I see nothing in Judge Garland’s record that would make me think it would be any different with him,” said Whelan.
But all assessment of Garland’s record for the next seven-and-a-half months is sheer academics for Whelan. He says Republican senators are taking exactly the right approach.
“I think this is a seat that needs to remain vacant through the election. I think Senate Republicans have drawn entirely the right line. If the American people choose to ratify the direction in which Merrick Garland would take the court, they have the opportunity to do that in November. The Senate could act on his nomination afterwards if it chose to,” said Whelan.
On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, reaffirmed that their refusal to consider the nomination had nothing to do with the person chosen by Obama but was simply a matter of giving Americans a voice on this critical issue through the ballot box.
A few GOP senators struck a different tone, with Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., saying he is ready to give the nomination his consideration. A handful of other Republicans said they would be willing to meet with Garland.
Whelan is not worried about Republicans keeping a united front.
“I think it will be difficult to keep together. Meeting with a judge is a trivial step for an individual senator to take. I don’t think that’s going to reflect any cracking of the coalition,” said Whelan.
One unexpected wrinkle in the plans of Senate Republicans wanting to wait for a president of their own party to win the White House is the emergence of Donald Trump as the most likely nominee at this point. Whelan says that shouldn’t alter GOP strategy at all.
“I have no particular confidence that Donald Trump would make strong nominations to the Supreme Court. But the chance that he would support a conservative is far higher than the chance that President Obama or a President Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would,” said Whelan.
“There’s no significant downside to letting this play out,” he added.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Ian Tuttle of National Review discuss Tuesday’s sweeping wins for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and the realities going forward in both parties. They also assess what went wrong for Marco Rubio in the 2016 race. And they slam Trump for suggesting he must be given the nomination even without a majority of delegates or there will be riots.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review react to Hillary Clinton saying no Americans were lost in Libya. They also discuss Ben Carson endorsing Trump and saying if he’s bad president it will only last four years. And they have fun with Trump taking a shot at his friend Chris Christie to discuss how John Kasich has been out of Ohio a lot.
