Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are hopeful that the decision by The Washington Post to start charging online readers will result in diminished influence for the liberal paper. They also sigh as the jobs created in November are vastly outnumbered by the people who quit looking for work. And they have little patience for NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell floating the idea of banning kickoffs.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are disappointed that South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint plans to resign in January to take over leadership of the Heritage Foundation. They also rip House Speaker John Boehner for stripping four conservative members of Congress of key committee assignments because weren’t loyal enough to GOP leaders. And they cringe as reports suggest Syrian forces could soon unleash chemical weapons against the rebels.
House Speaker John Boehner is working feverishly to find common ground with the Obama administration to avert to coming fiscal cliff, but the Speaker and his lieutenants may have an even bigger problem now that four conservative lawmakers have been stripped of key committee positions for not being loyal enough to the GOP leadership.
The decisions came from a Republican steering committee tasked with making committee assignments. The panel stripped Kansas Rep. Tim Huelskamp and Michigan Rep. Justin Amash from the House Budget Committee. Arizona Rep. David Schweikert and North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones were given the boot from the House Financial Services Committee. Their specific transgressions aren’t clear, but all four members voted against the 2011 deal to raise the debt ceiling and three of them voted against the House GOP budget authored by Paul Ryan because they didn’t think it brought the nation’s finances into balance quickly enough.
In reality, the four members have not been told why they lost their committee assignments since no one has reached out to explain this decision.
“I was given no reason, none whatsoever,” said Huelskamp, who was also stripped of a post on the House Agriculture Committee, ending more than 100 years of a Kansas being on that panel. “It’s just pure crass politics. It’s petty and vindictive.”
A further sign that these moves serve as a message to the rest of the conference to obey orders is the cryptic message from Boehner that he “hopes” more decisions like this will not have to be made.
“Clearly the removal was seen as a punishment, and then when the leadership says ‘others may be at risk’ it’s clearly meant as a warning,” said Huelskamp. “You’ve got 240 votes currently in the Republican House – a good strong majority. Three or four votes does not make a difference, but you can use those three or four folks to warn the remainder of the conference.”
The congressman says he has no heard one word from any of top House GOP leaders and they have even avoided conversations with him on the House floor. But while there has been no official explanation for the committee changes, Huelskamp sees an eerie coincidence.
“The deal that the Speaker intends to negotiate and finally present to Republicans is going to be one that’s likely to violate the principle of not raising taxes,” he said. “On Friday I released a video. I meant it. On YouTube you can find that where I reiterated my pledge to not raise taxes. Less than a business day later is when I got the phone call that ‘you’re off of the budget committee.'”
Huelskamp says the decision of the steering committee is not final and must be ratified by the full GOP delegation. He is also among the conservatives not pleased with the role of incoming Republican Study Committee (RSC) Chairman Steve Scalise on the steering committee. The RSC is the coalition of House conservatives, and includes over 50 percent of the Republicans in the House.
“Frankly, the steering committee that makes these decisions, Mr. Scalise is on there,” said Huelskamp. “They had a litmus test. They had a list of key votes they used to make their decision. We are asking them to release that list of votes to the public and to the membership. So far they refuse to do that. They’re apparently not courageous enough to indicate exactly how they made that decision. Actually, I haven’t seen a member of leadership that’s actually indicated what the reasons were and they haven’t told me either.”
While the committee changes could be rejected, the odds of that are fairly remote. Regardless, Huelskamp says these sorts of tactics won’t change how he does his job.
“I can speak for every one of my colleagues that was removed,” he said. “This is our voting card. I’m holding my voting card in my hand and I don’t turn that over to any member of leadership or any other member of Congress. It’s mine and I have a sacred bond with 700,000 constituents. We are clearly being punished by the way we use this card. That’s a real disappointment. We were promised a different type of Republican leadership two years ago and it’s descended into the same command and control that we’ve seen far too often in Washington.”
It’s not just the four “punished” Republicans who are upset by this move. Huelskamp says there are members on both sides of the aisle who are recoiling at this move. His constituents in Kansas are even more irate.
“Folks are furious. This is exactly what they’ve come to expect out of Washington of either party,” he said. “If you’re a man or woman of principle and you want to vote the way you tell your people. This is exactly what I told them I would do and this is what I told leadership how I would vote. Same way for Mr. Amash and Mr. Schweikert. And then be knocked down and punished for doing what you said you’d do. I think we need a lot more of that – not to punish those who said what they would do. Whether you’re Democrat, Republican, liberal or conservative, let’s just have a little more integrity.”
The congressman says this brazenly political move also violates core Republican values.
“Republican leaders are going to punish conservatives because of the conservative votes. It’s because of the votes, and everything else is, I believe, just a smokescreen of trying to reach an end that I think will violate a clear Republican principle,” said Huelskamp.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review appreciate Bob Costas admitting one mistake about his anti-gun commentary. They also react to a Detroit councilwoman demanding a bailout from President Obama in exchange for the city overwhelmingly voting to re-elect him. And they’re disappointed that Wall Street seems uninterested in the outcome of the fiscal cliff debate.
NBC sportscaster Bob Costas is trying to clarify comments he made during Sunday night’s broadcast that America’s gun culture is partly to blame for the murder-suicide perpetrated Saturday morning by Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher.
Costas now says he’s not in favor of repealing the second amendment or denying people the right to own firearms for the purpose of protection or hunting. However, he claims there’s no need for anyone to have a virtual arsenal of weapons or to have any automatic or semi-automatic guns.
Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt says Costas was wrong in his premise on Sunday night and is just as wrong in his attempts to clarify his position. He’s especially dubious of Costas alleging that guns escalate volatile situations into deadly ones.
“I appreciate his pointing out the problem of guns escalating situations, because I’m frequently having to rebuke my own guns and tell them to just chill out and stay in the holster,” mused Pratt. “That’s really silly to impute some kind of ability like that to a firearm. What he’s hoping to do is blame anything or anybody but the criminal who made the decision to be a criminal.”
Pratt noted the extensive history of Belcher engaging in domestic violence and contends that a man of Belcher’s size and strength could have easily killed Kasandra Perkins with a kitchen knife or a baseball bat once he became determined to kill her. Pratt says the problem wasn’t that Belcher owned a gun. It’s that Perkins didn’t.
“The fact that (Belcher) might have had more than one gun, that other people have more than one gun, that’s really not the point,” said Pratt. “The point is she didn’t have a gun. There weren’t enough guns present. That’s something that the anti-self defense crowd never wants to engage – that a lot of these crimes don’t happen when the criminal mind realizes that the one thing that causes them pause might occur. Namely, ‘I might get hurt or killed if I commit this crime.'”
Pratt says that immediate deterrent is vital because someone ready to kill isn’t really concerned about a looming prison sentence.
“They don’t care about jail later on. They’re mad right now and they want to kill right now. They’re not thinking about the future. These are not future-oriented people,” said Pratt, mentioning that people affected by drugs or alcohol are not going to be reasoned with. “In the areas of our country where the laws make it easiest for people to go about in public carrying concealed firearms – or openly for that matter – those are the areas where the violent crime rates are the lowest. (Costas) has it completely wrong. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Both in the particular case where this woman might be alive today had she had a gun and the the general proposition that more guns means less crime is a statistically researched fact.”
And Pratt says the reverse is proven true as locations with the strictest gun control laws often see the highest murder and crime rates. He says these laws simply encourage criminals.
“You’re telling them their victims are not likely to be able to respond effectively,” said Pratt. So that’s been the experience of these anti-gun cities.”
Pratt cited Washington, DC, as a prime example of his argument. He says when the nation’s capital had a complete gun ban in place, the murder rate was 25 for every 100,000 residents. In just the few years since the Supreme Court struck down the ban as unconstitutional, that rate has dropped to nine murders for every 100,000 residents.
“That only lets people in the District of Columbia have guns in their homes, so home invasions clearly have plummeted,” he said. Pratt contends that if the court had allowed conceal-and-carry in the district, the murder rate would decrease even further.
Costas says another reason for his concern over guns is that he’s never seen a story where an athlete stopped a violent act because he was armed. However, the broadcaster says there are more stories than he can count like the one surrounding Belcher. Pratt says Costas simply isn’t supported by the facts and asserts that the vast majority of crimes thwarted by the mere brandishing of a firearm usually go unreported.
“There’s some 4,000 instances a day when an American uses a gun to stop a criminal attack,” said Pratt, who says accounts of self-defense usually only get attention in local media. “A lot of things just don’t even get reported to the police, let alone to the newspapers. Once somebody has chased away a criminal they don’t really want the bother of going to the police.”
The U.S. military is not only the world’s most powerful fighting force but it’s also responsible for some of the most significant humanitarian service in the past two generations.
That role largely found its genesis in Operation Dust Off, a concerted military venture in Vietnam to rescue troops and civilians in harm’s way. Retired U.S. Army Gen. Patrick Brady is Medal of Honor recipient and was a critical figure in the humanitarian success of the war. He tells the story of the humanitarian work in Vietnam in his book “Dead Men Flying: Victory in Vietnam The Legend of Dust Off: America’s Battlefield Angels.”
“The great thing about the Vietnam War was the humanitarian effort that went on over there – something that the media never covered,” said Gen. Brady. “The tip of the spear in that was the “Dust Off” pilots, rescued some one million souls – men, women, children, enemy, friendly, a few scout dogs. If you were hurt, we were going to come get you.”
Brady’s book pays tribute to Major Charles Kelly who orchestrated Operation Dust Off and ultimately gave his life for this country. Brady says the missions served as the template for the rapid response rescue missions of today’s military. He says many lives were saved and many people in Vietnam are still grateful for the compassion of the Americans.
“Thanks to Dust Off, if you were shot in the jungle of Vietnam your chances of survival were greater than if you were injured on a highway in America. Remarkable remarkable survival rates in that war,” said Brady. “In previous wars we just bombed and destroyed everything in our way including civilians. In Vietnam, in the heat of the battle (the American GI) was still building medical facilities, vaccinating those kids, educating them, adopting them and doing everything in every way to care for and care about those people. In my trips back, I can see the kids have grown up. They appreciate it very much. They’ve treated me very, very well. They’re wonderful people.”
Brady describes the pioneering strategies for rescuing Americans and Vietnamese alike and the toll it took on his unit.
“We developed techniques to get into the battlefield day or night, in weather. In my case, my faith was a great help to me. The good Lord showed me the way to do it in the fog and in the weather,” said Brady. “Of course our primary mission was Americans. That’s why we were there, but if there were civilians hurt we had enough resources to take care of them as well.”
“We had 40 men, a small detachment. We had six helicopters. At any one time, three of those would be flyable because of maintenance and we had one shot up about every four to five days,” said Brady. “Twenty-six Purple Hearts. Of those 40 men, 26 were shot. Some of those were repetitious. In a nine and a half month period, we carried over 21,000 patients. Do the math – three aircraft. There was 100 other Dust Off aircraft in country doing the same thing. So we were able to provide those people with treatment and medical care that they’d never seen before.”
Gen. Brady also said Major Kelly and his subordinates flew into villages and provided basic medical care to many different people in Vietnam. He says it’s regrettable that the Communists won the war but he sees a brighter day ahead for Vietnam.
“I think Communism is pretty much dead there. They just don’t know what to do with the corpse,” he said. “Eventually those people will emerge. They are a very productive people, and they’re going to do great things.”
America recorded two victories in Vietnam, according to Brady. In addition to the stunning humanitarian accomplishments, he says American troops won every battle they fought and the politicians in Washington are the ones who lost the war.
Brady says it was tough for Vietnam veterans to come home to an ungrateful and even hostile public. But he says that national embarrassment has been corrected and American troops are now lavished with the honor and adulation they deserve.
One of the general’s main criticisms of how the war was prosecuted in Vietnam was the failure of the government to call up reserve units. He says keeping the numbers up in the military is key to our national security and the current budget sequestration dangers would be terrible for our readiness.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are encouraged that the Michigan legislature is pursuing Right to Work legislation. They’re not pleased to see the public overwhelmingly blames Republicans for the “fiscal cliff” stalemate. And Jim offers a classic rant on why killings like the ones in Kansas City should be blamed on the killers and not guilt society into thinking we’re all somehow responsible.
With almost three months elapsed since the September terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Special Operations Speaks is tired of the delay in answers from the Obama administration and is demanding action.
“We view the events in Libya as sort of a jigsaw puzzle that’s been dumped out of the box on to the table, and there’s a heck of a lot of pieces that need to be put together to reveal the big picture,” said retired U.S. Air Force Col. Dick Brauer, co-founder of Special Operations Speaks. “Unfortunately, this puzzle box had no picture on it so we’re trying to actually figure out what is the truth behind what really happened.”
Special Operations Speaks is insisting that Attorney General Eric Holder choose a special prosecutor to get to the heart of the story in Benghazi – and not just any special prosecutor. The veterans want a Republican appointed in order to provide the best chance for a full and honest investigation.
“The only way we can do this is to put pressure on Congress, we feel, to get Eric Holder and the Justice Department to appoint an independent counsel – a Republican independent counsel – because I’m afraid Eric Holder might put the fox in the hen house so to speak and we would never get the truth,” said Col. Brauer. “But the truth has got to come out as to why we let these people die.”
So what are some of the “puzzle pieces” for which Brauer demands answers? Brauer says there’s still no explanation for why the repeated requests for more security in the weeks before the attack were denied. He wants to know why no air support came while the attacks in Benghazi were unfolding. Most of all, he wants to know who gave the order to “stand down” to U.S. forces and even two of the men who lost their lives.
“All forces were readily available to go to the aid of the ambassador and his staff – Special Forces strike teams, battalion of the 173rd Airborne Brigade, Special Forces teams in Africa, even the Navy and the Air Force fighters and AC-130 gunships,” said Brauer. “The questions arise as to why those forces weren’t launched.”
Brauer is especially incensed at the lack of support for Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
“Specifically, the wild card in all this were the two Navy SEALs, Woods and Doherty, who came to rescue, who did what SEALs do and what warriors are trained to do and that’s run to the sound of the guns. They were told specifically to stand down,” said Brauer. “That term was used several times, ‘Stand down. Don’t do anything.’ Why? Why were they told that? One of the SEALs was designating with a laser designator, painting a target and calling for a gunship. I expect the gunship was nearby if not overhead and they were probably told not to fire. That’s my opinion, but somebody was close by. Otherwise that SEAL would have never lased the target and spotted on a mortar. That was the mortar that killed him as soon as he did that, so he was expecting support that he never got.”
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are slightly encouraged by a Senate Democrat saying she’s not sure whether President Obama should nominate Susan Rice as the next Secretary of State. They also groan as the truth-averse Debbie Wasserman Schultz is expected to stay on as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee. And they have a few choice words for NBC’s Bob Costas over his anti-gun commentary during the Sunday night game.
