Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are glad to see conservative Mary Katherine Ham added to the panel for Saturday night’s GOP debate. They also discuss just how bad Rick Santorum is as a surrogate for Marco Rubio. And they get a good laugh out of Hillary Clinton claiming she can’t be part of the establishment because she’s a woman. All that plus our Superbowl picks.
News & Politics
Two Military Chiefs Call for Women to Register for Draft
Less than two months after the Obama administration ordered women to be eligible for ground combat, the chiefs of two military branches say it’s time for women to register for Selective Service, meaning civilian women could find themselves assigned to the front lines if a national emergency requires the reinstating of the military draft.
The issue arose this week at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing as Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., asked the service chiefs to share their thoughts about gender-integrated basic training. As the discussion ensued, the top-ranking leaders of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps openly endorsed requiring women to register.
“I think that all eligible and qualified men and women should register for the draft,” said Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley.
“Every American who’s physically qualified should register for the draft,” echoed Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Robert Neller.
“This is a logical conclusion that is likely to be imposed by a federal court because the administration has unilaterally changed the rules. Congress has not been involved with this, except to say, ‘Well, what are you going to decide executive branch, Mr. President, Mr. Secretary of Defense?’ They’ve got it backwards. Congress should decide this issue,” said Donnelly.
The United States has not had a military draft since the early 1970’s, so how significant is this push for women to start registering for it?
“If we get into a national emergency, requiring a re-institution of a draft, women will be involved in it,” said Donnelly, noting the purpose of a draft is to procure “combat replacements.”
The comment from Gen. Neller surprised some since the Marine Corps vigorously opposed the Obama administration decision to make women eligible for ground combat. Donnelly thinks Neller’s response was a missed opportunity.
“I expected Gen. Neller to give a solid explanation of the rationale for the disagreement between the Marine Corps and the Secretary of the Navy on that point. I realize his boss is sitting right next to him, but he missed the opportunity to put on the record why the Marines have always had separate gender training, why it is superior and why it should not be changed,” said Donnelly.
Donnelly says the Marines separate men and women during basic training so as to eliminate all possible distractions while “making Marines.” After basic training, the sexes do go through many training programs together.
The Marine Corps also conducted an exhaustive scientific study to quantify the toll of combat on men and women. It was the centerpiece of its case against putting women into ground combat. However, the administration overruled the Marines.
As the implementation of the Obama administration policy proceeds, Donnelly says it important for everyone to know what it does and what it doesn’t do.
“The executive branch announced women would be subject to direct ground combat assignments, including the infantry, on an involuntary basis. This is very important. It’s not a matter of being allowed into combat or permitted as a career opportunity. Once you sign up, you’re subject to the same orders as the men,” said Donnelly.
Donnelly believes adding women to any potential draft to be “militarily disastrous and administratively unworkable. She says only a “tiny minority” of women would meet the physical requirements for combat and the military would have to spend huge amounts of time and money to weed out those who are unfit.
She says the data compiled by the Marines proves what everyone knows but no one wants to admit.
“Women and men are not physical equals in direct ground combat. Physical differences matter: Speed, the ability to carry heavy loads, to march long distances, to have accurate marksmanship at the end of that march. Fatigue matters,” said Donnelly.
“All these issues and realities were scientifically measured by the Marine Corps in field exercises over nine months. The truth that came out of those exercises remains. The truth always remains the truth, but the administration is trying to sweep all of that under the rug,” said Donnelly.
Ultimately, Donnelly fears involving women in fierce ground combat is a disservice to them and those around them.
“It’s really not a fair thing to do. It may be equal but it’s not fair because in direct ground combat, women do not have the physical capability and equal opportunity to survive or to help fellow soldiers to survive. I hope we never have to reinstate the draft, but if we do, young men are better equipped to deal with that than young women are,” said Donnelly.
The Center for Military Readiness is asking 2016 presidential candidates to commit to reconsidering this policy. The questionnaire also asks if hopefuls will push back against the LGBT agenda in the military and fight to uphold the religious liberties of service members, among other issues. So far the response has been sparse, with only one active candidate responding.
“We received responses from Sen. (Ted) Cruz. His answers were right down the line and he added additional comments about women in land combat. We’re still waiting to hear from Donald Trump, from Sen. (Marco) Rubio, from several of the other candidates. We’re going to keep asking because it’s up to the next president of the United States to deal with these issues,” said Donnelly.
Former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn., also returned the survey with the same answers as Cruz. Santorum left the 2016 race on Wednesday.
Donnelly has a final message for early state voters.
“You need to look at that survey and your favorite candidate has not responded yet, you need to ask that candidate, ‘Where do you stand on women being ordered into the infantry, co-ed basic training being changed into the version where sexual misconduct increases? Where do stand on Selective Service and drafting young women in a future national emergency?'” said Donnelly.
Three Martini Lunch 2/4/16
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Ian Tuttle of National Review welcome a new Gallup survey showing more states have a distinct tilt towards Republicans than Democrats, a massive change since 2008. They also rip Pres. Obama for speaking at a mosque with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, praising Muslims without mentioning the problem of radicalism and once again lecturing Americans about how intolerant we are. And we start to feel bad for Jeb Bush as he actually tells a town hall crowd to clap after one of his answers.
Pro-Life Leader Responds to Violence
Pro-life activist Jill Stanek is speaking out after her home appeared to be vandalized by political opponents, saying violence is a hallmark of the abortion movement and a sign of a major momentum shift in the debate over unborn lives.
“We were on vacation last week and got home Sunday night. Our front window was broken in our living room. Then we found a package that had been caught up in our curtains,” said Stanek, who serves as national campaign chair for the Susan B. Anthony List, which works to elect pro-life women to office.
“We opened the package. Inside was a big piece of cinder block and a note that included an expletive I won’t mention,” said Stanek.
The message read, “Quit the Pro-Life Bulls–t.”
Stanek has been very active in pro-life circles for many years. She famously confronted then-State Senator Barack Obama over his opposition to to legislation that would require life-saving treatment for babies who survive abortions. She was also among the leaders of a Capitol Hill sit-in last year demanding congressional action on the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which bans the vast majority of abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
Although she is quick to put the act in perspective, Stanek admits this was a new experience for her.
“In the scheme of things, it’s not a big deal, especially when you compare it to what pre-born babies go through, but it’s the first time I’ve been the subject of vandalism since I’ve been in the pro-life movement,” said Stanek.
Hers may not be an isolated case.
“I was asked not to speak publicly about this but there is another activist in the Chicago area who had a cinder block thrown through his window Wednesday or Thursday but there was no note, so they’re not sure if it was related or not,” said Stanek.
In the bigger picture, Stanek also says pro-life students around the country are frequently attacked.
“On college campuses, a pro-life group cannot erect a display these days without it being vandalized. That’s just the way it is. We’re seeing attacks like this as the other side realizes it’s losing and resorting to what it knows best – violence,” said Stanek.
On one hand, Stanek says the timing is odd because she has been keeping an unusually low profile in recent months as she goes about her work for the Susan B. Anthony List. But on another level, she is not surprised at all.
“We know that the foundation of the pro-abortion movement is violence. Their modus operandi is to kill pre-born innocent babies, defenseless babies. So that’s their starting point,” said Stanek.
But she also sees specific reasons why the pro-choice movement feels threatened right now. In addition to a litany of pro-life laws being passed in states with Republican governors and legislatures, she says there is one flashpoint of the national abortion debate that has abortion advocates very nervous.
“There is a big front that we are very close to a breakthrough on and that’s defunding Planned Parenthood,” said Stanek.
Earlier this year, Congress approved a defunding bill. It was vetoed by President Obama, but Stanek says opponents are alarmed at how close this is to happening.
“We are talking about defunding Planned Parenthood to the tune of almost $500 million, half a billion dollars a year. The only thing standing in the way is a pro-abortion president. If we elect a pro-life president, (by) this time in 2017 Planned Parenthood will be defunded,” said Stanek.
She says the impact of that would be huge.
“The Democrat Party knows that if Planned Parenthood goes down, which it would if it lost half of its funding, it would be almost a fatal blow to the Democrat Party and the pro-abortion agenda. They consider Planned Parenthood an organization that’s too big to fail,” said Stanek.
She says that fear may be leading to more extreme tactics like she endured.
“We’re not just talking about greed. We’re talking about ideology and we’re also talking about politics. Those three together are definitely fodder for an uptick in violence,” she said.
“We are definitely on the offense right now and they feel it,” said Stanek.
Three Martini Lunch 2/3/16
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are glad to see Bernie Sanders considering a challenge of the results in Iowa since no one has seen any vote totals. They’re sorry to see Rand Paul’s libertarian voice leave the campaign trail but they are happy he is now focusing on his effort to win re-election to the Senate. And they rip Donald Trump for his Twitter rant accusing Ted Cruz of fraud in Iowa and demanding a redo or for all Cruz votes to be nullified.
‘It’s an Earthquake’
Sen. Ted Cruz won the Iowa caucuses thanks to an unparalleled turnout machine and an adherence to principle that won over voters in a state reliant on big government programs, according to former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a fierce Cruz ally.
On Tuesday, Cruz defied the final polls and won the GOP caucuses with 28 percent. Previous front-runner Donald Trump finished second at 24 percent and Sen. Marco Rubio finished a close third at 22 percent. All other candidates failed to reach double digits. Cruz leaves Iowa with eight delegates. Trump and Rubio won seven each. Ben Carson earned three and Rand Paul and Jeb Bush each secured one.
Heading into the caucuses, all of the final polls showed Trump with a lead of five to seven points. Even the entrance polls at the caucuses predicted a narrow Trump win.
Cuccinelli was in Iowa making calls and knocking on doors to get Cruz backers to the polls. He says the pollsters and the pundits got schooled by the people.
“Going into Iowa, every single pundit I saw on CNN and Fox, every single one was wrong. Every single one. Everybody hearing that clearly? Every single one,” said Cuccinelli, who says the political “experts” suffer from group think and reinforce each other’s conventional wisdom.
“They don’t know any more about this than you or I or anybody else do. Most of them have never worked on a campaign. They just get caught up in the same narrative and they spit it back out,” said Cuccinelli.
He’s also stunned by the overthinking among the pundits, particularly the narrative that Marco Rubio is somehow the big winner for coming in third as opposed to Cruz who won.
“What you’re hearing with the Rubio piece after the fact is just more media narrative. They all say it to each other and then they turn to the camera and say it. Ted Cruz won last night,” said Cuccinelli. “When Marco Rubio wins a state somewhere, then we’ll have something to talk about.”
So how did Cruz not only win but win comfortably when record turnout was supposed to spell victory for Trump? Cuccinelli says it all came down to the grassroots.
“I am a grassroots guy and I can tell you, they had a well-oiled machine running there in Iowa. They did a great job,” said Cuccinelli, noting the Cruz campaign spent weeks and months building relationships with voters.
What encourages Cuccinelli even more is that Cruz has the same approach in all of the upcoming states.
“No other campaign on the Republican side can match that kind of institutional infrastructure, and Ted has been building it all the way into the March states. So this is not, like for (Rick) Santorum and (Mike) Huckabee a one-shot wonder where they put all their chips on Iowa and weren’t ready for anything beyond that. Ted is ready,” said Cuccinelli.
Cuccinelli believes Cruz ought to be commended for other aspects of the campaign as well, most notably refusing to embrace ethanol mandates and subsidies.
“Ted Cruz is the first candidate in the history of the world for either party to oppose ethanol subsidies and win the Iowa caucuses,” said Cuccinelli.
Instead of pandering, Cruz called for an end to all government favors in the energy sector.
“His explanation of no mandates, no picking of winners and losers by Washington, really resonated with Iowans. Of course, corn is a big deal to them but they understand that Washington is broken and that if you’re going to give goodies away, like sugar subsidies in Florida for instance, then you’re never going to fox the problem. It’s got to be all or nothing,” said Cuccinelli.
In visiting with Iowa voters over the weekend, Cuccinelli says even the people who didn’t Cruz respected his stand. He used the story of a Jeb Bush supporter as an example.
“She said, without me prompting her, ‘I’ll tell you what I like about Ted Cruz is he does what he says he’s gonna do and he sticks to his principles,'” said Cuccinelli.
Now that Cruz and Rubio are getting the post-Iowa buzz, voters will be looking even more closely at both of them. Other than their high-profile battles over immigration, what are the major differences between two candidates who describe themselves as constitutional conservatives.
Cuccinelli sees a couple major differences, starting with the people who surround the two senators.
“[Rubio] doesn’t have movement conservative staff when you compare it to Senator Cruz, who has wall-to-wall movement conservatives in his office. Personnel is policy,” said Cuccinelli, who also sees differences in how passionately the two candidates pursue the issues they ran on.
“Of all the other things Marco talked about on entitlements and everything else when he was running for the Senate, it was all so inspirational but he hasn’t tried to do any of it. Ted, running for the Senate, addressed a number of issues. He has followed up with those positions and pursued them aggressively, even when it cost him, even when it made him unpopular with the leadership,” said Cuccinelli.
Three Martini Lunch 2/2/16
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review enjoy three good martinis. They applaud voters for vaulting conservative Ted Cruz to victory in Iowa and Marco Rubio to a strong third place finish. They enjoy the spectacle of a dead heat between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. And Jim has some strong words for candidates who have no chance yet refuse to end their campaigns.
Three Martini Lunch 2/1/16
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review enjoy Hillary Clinton’s latest feeble attempts to explain away her email scandal. They also enjoy Bernie Sanders suddenly becoming interested in the email/server scandal. And they slap the Cruz campaign for stupidly sending out a mailer to voters suggesting they had broken some law for not voting as much as they should.
‘Nobody Is Pure on This Issue’
Several Republican presidential candidates were bloodied over their shifting positions on immigration reform in Thursday’s debate, but a key voice in the debate says all of the candidates seem to be edging to a more conservative position on border security and what to do about people in the U.S. Illegally.
In the debate, candidates Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were confronted with montages of their own statements that seemed to contradict what they’re saying now. Rubio was quoted from 2010 saying that an earned pathway to citizenship was code for amnesty yet he backed such a pathway in the 2013 Senate immigration bill.
Cruz was asked to explain statements from 2013, when he tried to amend the immigration bill by banning citizenship for people in the U.S. illegally but allowing them to become legalized. Cruz insists that was a poison pill designed to show how unreasonable Rubio and the other sponsors were and that he has never really backed a path to legalization.
Center for Immigration Studies Executive Director Mark Krikorian says everyone has blemishes on this issue.
“Nobody is pure on this issue. not Trump, not Cruz, not Rubio, not Jeb. They’ve all shifted their positions,” said Krikorian.
But he says they are are all flip-flopping in an encouraging way to him.
“They’ve all shifted their positions in the right direction. They’ve all become more hawkish on immigration as the public concern over the issue has become clearer and harder and harder to deny,” said Krikorian.
But not all flip-flopping is created equal. Krikorian says Jeb Bush is the least credible on the issue but doesn’t see Bush as still having a shot at the nomination. Among the top tier of candidates, he says Rubio has the most to answer for because of his involvement in the Gang of Eight legislation.
“I’m not sure that people are going to forgive and forget that and I’m not sure that they should. In a sense, no matter what he says, it’s important that somebody who does the kind of thing Rubio did be punished politically no matter what he thinks now. In other words, that there be a price exacted so that other people in the future will think twice about doing what Rubio did to help Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama,” said Krikorian.
Krikorian is also thrilled the issue is getting so much attention in this campaign. He says Donald Trump deserves credit for pushing the issue to the forefront but not as much credit as Trump gives himself.
“Even if he weren’t in the race, not just Republicans but independents and even lots of Reagan Democrats, are really concerned about this immigration issue. It would be coming up. There’s no question about it but Trump is right. He has gotten so much traction talking about this that the other candidates have been scrambling more than they would have been scrambling otherwise,” said Krikorian.
While voters must determine the sincerity of the candidates, Krikorian says Americans have made it clear what they want on immigration.
“The only way the public would ever accept amnesty would be if we fixed the problem first,” said Krikorian. “Plug the hole in your boat first before you talk about how you’re going to bail it out.”
But Krikorian says candidates and the media have missed the most critical immigration issue – defining the extent of legal immigration.
“The more important issue is how much legal immigration do you think the United States wants to have. We have tens of millions of Americans who want to work and can’t find work,” said Krikorian.
‘This Is Very Telling’
Just three days before the first votes are cast in the 2016 presidential campaign, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is on defense again after the State Department refused to release 22 emails kept on her unsecured server because they contain highly sensitive information.
State Department sources says the 37 pages of emails contain Special Access Program information, some of the most closely guarded secrets in our government.
“This is very telling,” said former U.S. Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy, who is now with National Review and is the author most recently of “Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.”
McCarthy says this doesn’t radically change the scope of the FBI investigation into Clinton’s server since we already know more than 1,300 emails contained classified information and have been released with the sensitive parts redacted. Still he believes this highlights the seriousness of Clinton’s actions.
“With respect to these 22 (emails), there is actually a blanket prohibition on disclosure and the reason is that they fear there are other copies of these emails out there,” said McCarthy.
“If they release any part of them, whoever may have those emails will have it confirmed to them that you’re dealing with a Special Access Program national security intelligence matter,” said McCarthy.
He says tipping anyone off to such information could have horrific consequences.
“When that kind of stuff gets revealed and people work backwards or go to school on the information that’s out there, that can result not only in the compromise of important sources of intelligence but also potentially in the killing of people who are spies or covert informants,” said McCarthy.
The Clinton campaign calls the State Department decision “overclassification run amok” and insists bureaucratic infighting over what qualifies as classified is all that’s happening in this story.
McCarthy dismisses that assessment and says this is the latest evidence that ought to give voters great pause this year.
“As a candidate, I think it makes even less appropriate for her to be given an even higher position of public trust,” said McCarthy.
The Obama White House also waded into the Clinton investigation on Friday, with Press Secretary Josh Earnest downplaying the likelihood that Clinton will face any legal trouble for her actions over the server.
“That’s not something I’m worried about,” said Earnest. “Some officials have said she is not the target of the investigation and it does not seem to be the direction in which it is trending.”
McCarthy finds that statement puzzling.
“The political parts of the government, including the White House and the White House staff, shouldn’t know what’s going on in the Justice Department’s investigation,” said McCarthy.
McCarthy also says Earnest is using slippery language by saying Clinton is not the “target” of the investigation. He says in the legal community the term “target” or “subject” is reserved only for situations when a grand jury has begun to investigate a specific person. Since there is no grand jury, McCarthy says Earnest’s statement is meaningless.
He says the FBI should not be rushed by the political calendar but he also says this probe really shouldn’t take that long.
“A classified information case is easier to investigate than other kinds of cases in the sense that the arguments either where they belong or they’re not. They were either transmitted to people who shouldn’t have had them transmitted to them or they weren’t,” said McCarthy.