Archives for December 2012

Massive protests filled the streets of Cairo in recent weeks following the announcement from new Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi that he was greatly expanding his powers and that they would not be subject to judicial review.

Many of the same demonstrators who demanded more freedom and the resignation of Hosni Mubarak almost two years ago angrily rejected Morsi’s power grab.  Eventually, Morsi relented and declared he would not pursue the expanded powers.

But before anyone expects a tidal wave of freedom in Egypt, Arabs for Israel Founder Nonie Darwish says there’s no such thing as a free Muslim country.

“The Islamic system, wherever it is, whether in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, doesn’t matter.  You can only have two forms of government” said Darwish.  “It can only be a theocratic Islamist government like Iran and Saudi Arabia or a military, semi-secular dictatorship that have a double face.  They appear as Muslims but really they are tyrants.”

Darwish says all these debates over whether to follow Sharia law are disingenuous because all Muslim nations officially adhere to it.  The only question is whether Sharia is enforced.

“A Muslim head of state has to rule by Sharia under Islamic law, and all these constitutions in the Middle East have an article that states Sharia law is the law of the land,” said Darwish.  “Sharia states that any Muslim head of state that does not want to rule by Sharia becomes an apostate and illegitimate and should be removed from office.  The number one duty of a Muslim head of state is to do jihad against non-Muslim countries.”

As a result, Darwish says any Egyptian leader pursuing policies Americans approve would run into major problems very quickly.

“If a Muslim head of state, let’s say Morsi, wakes up one day and says, ‘I want to be a real democrat.  I want to rule for freedom, equal rights for women, equal rights for Christians, make a peace treaty with Israel and end the jihad against Israel,’ what’s going to happen to Morsi the next day?  He’s going to be assassinated exactly like what happened to (former Egyptian President Anwar) Sadat.”

The notion of Muslim liberals should not be encouraging to the U.S. either.  Darwish says the popular notion is that these people are reformers, but she says that’s not true at all.

“Don’t be fooled by the words ‘liberal Egyptians,'” she said.  “Some of these liberal Egyptians are the most tyrannical and socialist, many of them are very anti-semitic.  They are not for rights.  They are not for the peace treaty with Israel and they attack any president who has good relations with America.”

Darwish says Morsi has taken tremendous heat inside Egypt for getting good reviews from the United States for his role in brokering the recent Israel-Hamas cease-fire, with one newspaper calling him a “puppet of America”.

Darwish notes that she is no fan of Morsi or the Muslim Brotherhood but claims he should not be forced from office now but rather in fair elections when his term is over.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Daniel Foster of National Review Online are pleased to see Hillary Clinton not planning to run for president in 2016.  They’re also disgusted that the son of disgraced Virginia Rep. Jim Moran brutally assaulted his girlfriend and the congressman is involved in an obvious cover-up.  And they’re almost speechless as the government arrests an illegal immigrant sex offender in the office of New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review like the RNC goal of bringing some order to the primary campaign debate chaos.  They also condemn the violence of organized labor thugs in Michigan as lawmakers approved right to work legislation.  And they comment on some of the most bizarre theories floating around as to how the world will end next week to comply with the supposed Mayan prophecy.

Two lingering headaches in America’s foreign policy took on new dimensions this week as North Korea fired a missile over Japan and launched a satellite and the U.S. formally recognized the Syrian opposition in its battle against President Bashar al-Assad.

Retired U.S. Army Major General Paul Vallely was deputy commanding general for the Pacific and also returned from consultations with military officials from the Syrian opposition.  He says Assad’s days are numbered.

“Assad will fall.  The information I got from the Syrian generals that he’ll either be evacuated with his family to Russia or probably most likely to Iran,” said Vallely, who estimates Assad will be gone within 30-60 days.

He says the rebels are successfully attacking airfields and have essentially shut down the main airport in Damascus, although Iranian planes are still getting in to provide much needed supplies to the beleaguered regime.

One of the complicated aspects for the U.S. in this war is the odd combination of partners in the Syrian opposition, which ranges from those truly seeking a freer, more stable society to verified elements of Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical groups.  Vallely confirms those Islamist elements are part of the mix but he is confident the good parts of the coalition are in position to assume control when Assad falls.  In his meetings with some 75 opposition leaders, Vallely says he came away feeling good about what will replace Assad.

“Nine of those were Syrian generals, high level generals that worked for Assad who defected and now control the Free Syrian Army, which controls about 65 percent of the opposition forces,” said Vallely.  “So you’ve got a number of groups over there – Islamists, radicals – but you also have members of the Free Syrian Army who are looking for freedom and looking for a future Syria.”

Vallely says he was very impressed with the people he met with and those people are representative of the vast majority of of the Syrian opposition.

“I felt very comfortable with the commanders that I met with.  They’re not Islamist or radicals.  They detest Hezbollah.  They detest Al Qaeda,” said Vallely.

Nonetheless, Gen. Vallely says the radical minority elements of the opposition will try to assert themselves when Assad falls and it is imperative that they fail.  He says this has gotten more complicated in just the past few days as money is now pouring in to support an effort by radicals to take control.

“I got word yesterday that one of the reasons Qatar and Saudi Arabia are supporting the Muslim Brotherhood is because if they can take over like they’ve tyaken over in Egypt, they can control a whole new pipeline across Syria into the Mediterranean near the port of Tartus and Latakia,” said Vallely.  “That has not been exposed yet.  The first time I’ve exposed that is on your show today, so that’s new information.”

Vallely says the opposition is worried that Assad may deploy chemical and biological weapons as his grip on power continues to slip.  He says Assad is already bombing hospitals and other population centers.  40,000 people have died and another 200,000 have fled the country.

On North Korea, Vallely says we’re seeing the same story play out that we saw in the Clinton and Bush administrations.  He says while the western nations try to negotiate with a Communist regime willing to starve its own people, the North Koreans are establishing themselves as more serious players on the international stage – all with the full blessing of China.

“They’re a proxy of China.  Everything that they do China knows about and basically supports them in what they’re doing,” Said Vallely.  “So they like to sound the bugles and beat the drums every once in awhile so everyone in the world knows they’re alive over there.”

Vallely says the successful launch will also tighten the North Korean relationships with Russia, Iran and the current Syrian government.  He says what’s also clear is that U.S. is not willing to do much of anything about an increasingly dangerous and competent regime.

“We’re pretty much a paper tiger when it comes to threats like North Korea,” said Vallely.  “So it’s trying to influence the international community, that they can stand up and be a missile power and develop nuclear weapons.  At the same time, the West is very weak when it comes to standing up to a lot of threats today, including our government.  Just coming back from over in the Middle East, you know we just have no credibility anymore.”

2012 was a very bad year for opponents of the Obama health laws as they suffered an agonizing loss at the Supreme Court and blew an opportunity to change course on Election Day.

Nonetheless, efforts to stop or at least slow the implementation of key provisions continue.  State leaders, religious officials, national Republicans and even some national Democrats could play critical roles in this effort.

Grace-Marie Turner is president of the Galen Institute, one of the leading health policy organizations in the country.  She says the conditions are clearly not ideal for Obamacare opponents, but she says there are glimmers of hope on the Congressional front.

“The Speaker (John Boehner) has made it very, very clear that while it’s going to be very difficult if not impossible to repeal the law as long as President Obama is in the White House, because he’d veto it, they have a lot of power to investigate and to defund,” said Turner.  “This administration needs more money to set up these federal exchanges, these marketplaces around the country because states are refusing to do it.  And they need money to do that.  Well, if the House doesn’t appropriate it then what’s the administration going to do?”

Turner points out that Obamacare was trumpeted as a one trillion dollar cost over 10 years.  That projection has already ballooned to $2.6 trillion and the program isn’t even up and running yet.  She says the administration may try to use some accounting tricks and that’s where the GOP-led House can play a key role.

“If they take it from a bucket that’s designed to be spent for something else and they spend it on that, then the House is going to need to investigate that,” said Turner.

Repeal of certain components within the Obama health laws are also possible.

“There are some parts of this law for which there is bipartisan support for repeal, including the medical device tax,” said Turner, alluding to a growing concern among Senate Democrats over the impact of that tax.  “Also, this Independent Payment Advisory Board that is going to become the Medicare rationing board.  There’s support on both sides of the aisle for (repeal of) that hatchet attempt and effort to cut back on health care costs.”

But given the make-up of the incoming Senate and President Obama’s re-election, is there really a chance something like the Independent Payment Advisory Board could be scrapped?

“Absolutely.  A lot of Democrats, including people very much on the left end of the continuum are saying that they do not believe that a bunch of 15 un-elected, unaccountable bureaucrats should have control over literally hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare spending,” said Turner, who says a growing number of Democrats also fear the almost complete lack of legislative or judicial oversight for the panel once it’s up and running.

Turner admits such an effort at repeal would require two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate since President Obama would be sure to veto the bill.

As for the resistance movement outside of Washington, Turner says the signs are everywhere.  She says many people are making the simple decision to pay the $95 fine for not purchasing health insurance instead of spending over $5,000 on a policy, businesses are also finding it much easier to drop coverage and pay the fine than provide the coverage mandated in the law and nearly half the states are refusing to set up new health care exchanges.  And Turner says the vocal opposition of the Catholic Church to the contraception mandate is a key player in all of this as well.

“You’re seeing this Obamacare resistance movement starting with citizens and businesses and religious leaders and states, all saying we can’t comply with this law and we’re going to find a way around it,” said Turner.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Daniel Foster of National Review cheer the impending Right to Work laws in Michigan.  They also shake their heads as more and more horrible details emerge from Obamacare.  And they discuss whether some Republicans are guilty of the same identity politics used by Democrats when they advocate for Tim Scott to be appointed to the Senate because he’s black instead of because he would be a fantastic senator.

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear arguments next year on two critical cases related to the definition of marriage.

One case stems from California, where a federal court struck down a 2008 state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  Also under consideration by the justices will be the constitutionality of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage in the traditional manner for the purpose of government functions.  The act also allows the individual states to determine their own individual definitions for marriage.

Both these cases will come before the Supreme Court in the spring and a decision will likely come down in June.  Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver says this development brings good news and bad news and he’s not at all confident that the court will make what he believes to be the right decision.

“I’m pleased that California’s not going to have same-sex marriage,” said Staver, noting that the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the Prop. 8 case would have enshrined gay marriage as the law in the Golden State.  “On the other hand, I’m never comfortable with the Supreme Court on issues such as this because you never know what they will do.  We saw this with Obamacare.  Of course, going back 40 years roughly, we saw this in 1973 with abortion.  If they were following the rule of law and the Constitution, no question it’s a no-brainer.  The Constitution clearly does not sanction same-sex marriage nor does it prohibit a state from passing a Constitutional amendment like California did that affirms the definition of marriage.  But this is the Supreme Court and these are justices that don’t necessarily find themselves adhering to the rule of law – at least some of them – and consequently, you have to have a bit of concern when you go up to the high court on this issue.”

Staver says it’s very possible and maybe even likely that the Court will look for a way around issuing some landmark ruling and instead come to a much smaller verdict that questions whether the U.S. House of Representatives has standing to pursue it’s appeal of the rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act or whether supporters of Proposition 8 are in a position to properly take their case to the Supreme Court.  If either or both appeals by traditional marriage backers are denied based on standing, the justices may never even get to the merits of the cases.  Staver says that would lead to a rather confusing situation.

“That would leave in California only the district court decision which is for the northern district of California.  So only the northern part of California would be under this ruling,” said Staver.  “The central and southern part of California would not and certainly would not go across the borders of California.”

Similarly in the Defense of Marriage case, Staver says rejecting the appeal on standing would limit the ruling to the southern parts of New York.

“That would make an odd situation, but it would certainly limit the impact of this decision,” he said.

Politics have favored traditional marriage forces until very recently.  Backers of man-woman marriage succeeded in the first 32 states where this battle was fought.  On November 6, however, voters in three states ratified state laws legalizing gay marriage and a fourth state rejected a traditional marriage amendment.  Staver says popular sentiment should have no impact on the deliberations of the justices but he’s not holding his breath.

“Some of these justices no doubt may ultimately put their finger up in the air.  If they did, they would see that the vast majority of states have passed constitutional marriage amendments,” said Staver.  “When you add that to the statutory amendments you’ve got over 40 states that have passed these amendments.  Clearly if you’re weighing them in the balance, the majority of states ultimately win, not what we just saw in November.”

If the Supreme Court does end up issuing a far-reaching decision, Staver is not optimistic given the current complexion of the court with four reliably liberal justices and moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the majority opinion in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case that struck down anti-sodomy laws and opened the door to the gay marriage movement.

“I’m not real excited about taking this up there and having the very essence of our society, the first form of government, marriage decided by one swing vote.  That’s concerning to me and it should be concerning to everybody.”

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty are pleasantly surprised to see a liberal New York Times columnist agree that some government programs encourage people to stay in poverty rather than motivate them to rise out of it.  They also shudder as the food stamp rolls swell by more than 600,000 in just three months – to 47.7 million.  And they have some choice words for Newt Gingrich after he suggests the GOP is incapable of competing with Hillary Clinton in 2016.

America will fall off the proverbial fiscal cliff in less than four weeks unless Congressional Republicans and President Obama find common ground.

But Georgia Rep. and House Republican Policy Committee Chairman Tom Price says President Obama’s unwillingness to have serious negotiations is undermining the process and is a disservice to the American people.  He says all the attention is focused on tax rates for the rich but he says the avalanche will involve much more than that.

“Look this is tax rates, it’s spending, it’s pro-growth policies, it’s the Alternative Minimum Tax, the Death Tax, capital gain, dividends, the sequester, all of the things related to health care with the ‘Doc Fix’ and the like.  So this is huge,” said Price.  “Sadly, the president has moved this into the direction of just politics, about two levels of tax rates on people that he believes are ‘too successful.'”

Price says American voters delivered a pretty clear message about bipartisan cooperation in November but the President wasn’t listening.

“The country wanted divided government.  It didn’t want one-party government.  But it wanted us to get back to work and solve these challenges,” said Price.  “Sadly, he continues to be basically in campaign mode.  That’s not leadership.  That’s not the kind of leadership that will allow us to solve these challenges.”

The congressman increasingly fears President Obama doesn’t even want to strike a deal and that he may be content to fall off the cliff.

“In my most cynical moment, I step back and say, ‘I guess he does want the taxes to go up and he wants the spending to go down in the area of our national security,” said Price.  “It really is destructive to the economy and that’s why we’re so concerned.  This will be harmful to real people.  This isn’t just some fictitious challenge out there.  These are real people’s lives that are going to be effected in adverse ways with the destruction of jobs and decreased opportunity within our economy.”

Price is not only frustrated by what he perceives as Obama dictating the terms of any deal but that neither party seems ready to do what needs to be done most – cutting spending and reforming entitlements.  He says even the most recent offer from House Speaker John Boehner doesn’t address the biggest issues.

“No.  The proposal that’s currently on the table from our side actually just plugs the current challenge that we have, but it doesn’t solve the issue,” said Price.  “The president has refused to even consider solving the issue.  We spend about $3.5 trillion annually in this country.  $2.5 trillion of that – ballpark figure – is Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and interest on the debt.  So unless we solve the challenges in those arenas by saving and strengthening and securing those programs, we will never get our fiscal house in order.  What that means is that we will never get jobs created or a vibrant economy going.”

Rep. Price is not a fan of tax increases in any form but he does believe raising taxes on the wealthy through closing deductions would cause less damage to small businesses than a direct hike in marginal rates.  In fact, Price says any marginal rate increases are out of the question for him personally and the vast majority of GOP members.

Another issue drawing fierce discussion on Capitol Hill is the decision of a House Republican steering committee to strip four conservatives from committee slots – two from the House Budget Committee and two from the House Financial Services Committee.  Unnamed sources say the moves were made when the four members failed to obey party leaders in backing the 2011 debt ceiling deal that led to the fiscal cliff.  Three of them also rejected the House GOP budget authored by Paul Ryan.  Price says whatever motivated leaders to shake up the committees, it’s not a good thing for the party.

“In the big picture it’s probably not helpful,” said Price.  “This is a time when unity of purpose is extremely important and I think that anytime we divide ourselves, fight amongst ourselves it’s not helpful,” said Price.  “The folks on the left of the ideological spectrum, they are the ones standing in the way of real progress.  It’s not the folks in the Republican Conference in the House of Representatives.”

The Capitol Steps have fun with multiple stories this week.  First, in “Twinkie, Twinkie,” New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie pours out his heart over Hostess closing operations.  In the holiday parody, “Have Yourself a HanakwanzaChristmas,” the Steps lampoon the politically correct effort to remove all distinction from any holidays at this time of year in the fear of offending someone.  Our guest is Capitol Steps star and co-founder Elaina Newport.