Archives for February 2013

President Obama and most Democrats want to replace looming sequestration cuts with a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts, while most Republicans don’t like the parameters of the cuts but think they should proceed anyway.

South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson is a member of the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees and doesn’t like either approach.  He says the cuts set to take effect on Friday will be too damaging to national security and need to be assigned elsewhere.

“This is really an assault on the military and so I believe the cuts for the military should not go into effect because we’re in a time of war,” said Wilson.  “This will have a big impact because 50 percent of the cuts, which is around $60 billion, is being applied to defense, which is only 15.1 percent of the federal budget.”

Wilson says officials from each service branch told the House Armed Services that the cuts could have an impact on personnel and may even lead to service members being involuntarily removed from the military.

“It was (former Defense) Secretary Leon Panetta who said that sequestration could hollow out the military.  It would take away people who are very skilled and experienced fighting the asymmetric, illegal enemy combatants that we’re fighting and place these people out of military service who have skills that we need,” said Wilson.

The congressman says one sequestration-related decision by President Obama, as reported by The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, already demonstrates how the cuts damage our readiness.

“(Woodward) indicated thatthe president’s decision not to deploy an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf in the name of fiscal responsibility is really putting our allies, but particularly putting our troops who are overseas, at risk.  We need the air cover,” said Wilson.  “It’s really startling what’s being done, but it’s not in the interest of America’s national security.  It’s also putting our allies, particularly such as Israel, at risk.”

With just hours to go before the sequestration kicks in, Wilson holds out hope that cuts to the military can be spared.

“I truly hope that responsible action can be taken.  There are ways to address the reduction in spending by doing away with government waste.  Reduce the duplication.  We’ve got circumstances where we should be requiring food stamp eligibility instead of the lax requirements that we have today,” said Wilson.

One example Wilson cited to illustrate what he considers misplaced priorities is the “free” cell phone program.  He says the effort actually costs $2.2 billion and believes the money would be much better spent paying down the deficit or funding our troops.  He also scolded the Obama administration for potentially endangering U.S. citizens by releasing hundreds of detained illegal immigrants as part of an alleged cost-cutting plan.

Wilson also spoke out on the political drama surrounding the nomination of former Sen. Hagel to be the next defense secretary.  Hagel was confirmed this week after Senate Republicans briefly filibustered his nomination in order to demand more disclosure on his income and speeches and to insist on more administration transparency about what happened during the terrorist attacks in Benghazi.  Wilson applauded GOP senators for their persistent demands on Benghazi.  He was far less complimentary in his appraisal of Hagel as the new boss at the Pentagon.

“I’m very concerned.  I’m very concerned about his resolve in truly promoting peace through strength,” said Wilson.  “I do not see that the defense secretary has exhibited his resolve, truly supporting, by way of providing the equipment, the training, the attention to our military, military families and veterans,” said Wilson.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are pleased to see many journalists publicly admitting that they’ve received threats from the Obama administration over critical stories.  They’re also stunned by the obvious deception from the administration when it claims it had no knowledge of immigration officials deciding to release hundreds of illegals on the premise of sequestration.  And they react to Vice President Biden urging homeowners to fire a shotgun blast through their doors if they sense a threat.

Next month, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on two cases related to the definition of marriage, as the justices consider California’s state constitutional amendment that upholds traditional marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act.

In preparation for oral arguments, a letter signed by some 80 famous-to-obscure Republican figures is urging the court to embrace same-sex marriage in both cases.  Recent reports also suggest the Obama administration will throw its legal weight in the same direction.

Mathew Staver is founder and chairman at Liberty Counsel and has argued in favor of traditional marriage in state courts around the nation.  He is appalled by both developments but is especially disappointed in the actions of GOP establishment figures.

“The problem with the Republican Party you see happening right now with these people pontificating is all of a sudden their value system has changed and they want to sanction same-sex marriage.  That particular value system changing, waffling in the wind without a clear, clarion call that resonates with the American people is the reason we lose elections as Republicans,” said Staver.

“The people want someone who will stand for values, not because they simply are changing their opinion whenever the wind blows in a different way.  That’s what I think we have happening with some people in the Republican Party,” he said.  “We need people in office, Republicans, Democrats, Independents alike, whatever party, that are solid in their views that are solid in their views, that are consistent with the Constitution, whose morals and compass doesn’t change simply by a show of hands.”

At this point, the list of Republicans endorsing same-sex marriage is largely comprised of the more moderate and liberal factions of the party.  Names among the 80 on the brief being sent to the Supreme Court include former presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, former New Jersey Gov. Christie Whitman, former Massachusetts Governors William Weld and Jane Swift.  Current Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York signed the letter, as did former Bush National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and former Deputy Attorney General James Comey.

Most leading figures in the party are not publicly on board with same-sex marriage but those who have claim momentum is on their side.  Staver says the GOP faces extinction if it ever embraces this movement.

“If more Republicans go that route, the Republican Party will ultimately self-implode.  I can tell you many people would have nothing to with it.  A Republican Party or any party that doesn’t understand the very basic issues of life or marriage isn’t a party worth joining,” said Staver.

Staver is digusted by the likely Obama administration input in this case on multiple fronts.  First, he says the job of the executive branch is to defend existing law and Obama is doing exactly the opposite.

“The administration is charged with enforcing the laws, not being the king.  This is a system in which the administration is supposed to be defending the laws.  Now, if it doesn’t agree with the law, it doesn’t have to weigh in on it.  They should let the court system deal with this.  Putting the executive weight behind this, which is what President Obama is doing, saying marriage as understood as the union of one man and one woman is unconstitutional and is somehow discriminatory and that the Constitution doesn’t allow that kind of understanding is absolutely ludicrous,” said Staver.

“Rather than destabilizing family and marriage and trying to redefine it to something that it simply cannot be, the Obama administration should have all policy designed to strengthen the family.  But this administration is the most anti-marriage, anti-moral, anti-life administration in American history,” Staver said.

He’s also outraged that the Obama administration would actively advocate a policy that he says would be extremely destructive to families and children.

“I think it is an insult to the American people and it’s outrageous that the Obama administration would seek to undermine the natural understanding and definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman that will ultimately destroy the institution of marriage.  I think it’ll hurt children.  It’ll be bad for society,” said Staver.

“It’ll hurt children because, from a policy perspective, same-sex marriage says that moms and dads are irrelevant to the well-being of children.  It says that boys don’t need fathers.  It says that girls don’t need moms or dads.  We know from the fatherless syndrome that is well documented ,and also common sense, that children do best when raised in a home with a mom and a dad.  Boys certainly do best when they’re raised with their father.  The absence of a father does make a difference in the well-being of that young boy as he moves through his young life, through adolescence and into manhood,” he said.

Staver says he’s unsure of how the court will rule on the two cases, but he’s not encouraged by what he sees as a number of justices who rule based on ideology rather than the Constitution.

“This particular court is not filled a majority or a super-majority that believe in the Constitution.  They’re ideologues that will ultimately reach a decision on some of these moral issues.  In some cases, where it really doesn’t make any difference, they’ll follow the statute.  In other cases, where it’s involving abortion or homosexuality or same-sex marriage or some kind of ideological issue, they’re ideologues.  They are not necessarily going to confine themselves to the text and history of the statute.  When you have people like that and all you need is five people to reach a majority, obviously I would be concerned over a composition of a court like that,” said Staver.

“We’ve got justices up there right now that don’t really care for our Constitution.  They look at constitutions of other foreign countries.  They recommend to new fledgling governments, not our Constitution but constitutions from another foreign country.  We have people on the bench who just simply don’t respect our constitutional heritage and history,” he said.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review cheer House Speaker John Boehner for pointing out the Senate has done nothing to alter the coming sequestration.  They also wonder why Senate Republicans want to give President Obama the power to make the cuts wherever he wants but are even more stunned that Obama doesn’t want that power because he doesn’t think there are $85 billion in smart cuts to be made.  And they discuss the debate over leaders of the Conservative Political Action Conference not inviting New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or allowing the pro-gay GOProud to be a sponsor at the event.

Gun control advocates are pushing new legislation to limit the types of weapons that can be purchased and the amount of rounds in a magazine, but a top gun safety instructor says he can easily envision why someone would need those laws to remain as they are.

Rob Pincus is the owner of the I.C.E Training Company, where has trained countless people in the responsible use of firearms and even creates videos that explain how best to respond to crises like a school shooting.

Pincus also has strong opinions on issues like concealed carry and women carrying weapons, but he clearly disagrees with the repeated contentions of Vice President Joe Biden that no one needs semi-automatic weapons or large-capacity ammunition magazines.

“I can certainly imagine scenarios where I would need to have a lot of rounds.  I can certainly imagine scenarios where I would need to have the capability of controlling those rounds through a semi-automatic rifle where I can fire those rounds quickly and accurately.  Multiple person home invasions would be an easy example that could obviously happen to any home in any part of the country,” said Pincus.  “Those things are very rare and that’s what those on the anti-gun side play on is the idea that those scenarios are very, very rare and most would would love to think that it could never happen to them.  But because those situations are possible, the good news is that in America we have the right and the option to have those higher capacity magazines and to have the semi-automatic military-style rifles in our homes.”

So how does Pincus react to Biden’s suggestion that a couple of warning blasts from a shotgun are an equally effective deterrent?

“Not only is teaching someone to shoot a shotgun into the air a reckless act in and of itself, it’s also dependent upon the person psychologically being stopped and not actually being able to follow through based on just their will to fight,” said Pincus.  “Well, if every bad guy we were going to try to defend ourselves from was a coward, that works great.  If we have one of these spree killers.  If some have someone who is intent through a home invasion to hurt someone, they’re not likely to simply be scared away by the sound of a shotgun.”

The renewed political debate over guns is triggering another spike in the interest of Americans in owning a gun.  Pincus  says if this was a result of existing gun owners adding to their numbers then his business wouldn’t be any busier, but he says the bulk of the new interest is from first-time buyers.

“The reason we’re busier is because people who are new to firearms or people who are just now thinking about the fact that the firearm could be their best defensive option in the home or outside of the home are out looking for training.  They’re looking for an education and that’s why they come to I.C.E. training company,” said Pincus.  “And it’s not just the last few months.  It’s really been over the last several years that we’ve seen more and more new firearms owners, people in their twenties, thirties and forties who didn’t grow up with guns who are looking for valid information geared towards defensive shooting.”

Pincus is closely following the gun debate in Washington and in states across the country.  He was especially incensed by the contention of Democratic Colorado State Rep. Joe Salazar that women shouldn’t carry gun on campus because they might end up shooting someone who wasn’t actually a threat.

“The idea that a woman is going to carry a firearm and accidentally shoot someone because she perceives being threatened when she’s really not, honestly, I find that to be a very typically condescending argument.  Unfortunately, it comes from the political side that has fought for women’s rights,” said Pincus.  “To be demeaning towards a woman, as if the fact she’s now trained and responsibly carrying a firearm is going to make her judgment fail or is going to put her in a position where she is going to panic, honestly I find quite the opposite to be true.  The women who are realizing they have a right and responsibility for personal protection and are getting the training and who are more aware of their surroundings are much less likely to panic and make the proper decision.”

Pincus strongly endorses concealed carry laws and says there is no doubt criminals are less likely to approach someone if there’s a chance their intended victim is armed.  During the interview, he also outlined the type of training he provides and what steps people can take in mass shooting situations to minimize the killings.

He also offered some parting advice to lawmakers in Washington and at other levels of government as the gun debate proceeds.

“Being a responsible firearms owner means that you’re going to make sure that the firearms don’t get into the wrong hands.  You’re going to secure your firearms.  We’re going to go through the background checks.  We’re going to make sure that wrong people don’t have easy access to firearms,” said Pincus.  “We’re going to make sure that the right people, the people who want to be responsibly armed and who want to get the training and who want to be capable of protecting themselves, their family, their home, their community, under the Constitution maybe protecting our country with the training and the tools that they’ve gotten.”

“The best thing we can do is preach responsibility and not restrictions,” said Pincus.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are pleased to see that even Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski realize that $85 billion in spending cuts is not a big deal.  They also put Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell back on the hot seat for allowing establishment Republicans to publicly demean likely GOP gubernatorial nominee Ken Cuccinelli and doing nothing to stop his lieutenant governor from handing the race to Democrats by considering a third party bid.  And they react to the latest news surrounding scandal-tarred New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez and his decision to quote Martin Luther King in his own defense.

The new health care laws are already causing problems for millions of Americans but there are steps you can take to protect your health care quality from getting even worse, according to prominent Obamacare critic Betsy McCaughey.

She also scolded several Republican governors for agreeing to expand Medicaid in exchange for promises that the federal government will pick up the entire cost of expansion at first and 90 percent of it in perpetuity.

McCaughey served as lieutenant governor in New York during Gov. George Pataki’s first term in the mid-1990s and is author of “Beating Obamacare: Your Handbook for Surviving the New Health Care Law.”

In addition to the overall costs already far exceeding original projections, McCaughey says millions are or are about to feel the problems on a very personal level.

“Americans are already getting clobbered by some of the unexpected consequences of this law.  For example, most people get their coverage on a job, theirs or their spouse’s, and many of them are already being told that their employer is dropping coverage next January,” said McCaughey.  “Next year, about eight million people could lose their coverage, but, in fact, others like McKinsey & Company management consultants have estimated that as many as a third of employees could be dropped by their employers.”

For those who lose their employer-based coverage, McCaughey says the remaining insurance options are not very appealing.

“Either they go on Medicaid, or, if they earn too much for that, they’ll be shopping the exchange,” said McCaughey, who says the exchanges are billed as offering all kinds of choice but the plans are all the same and they all carry a big price tag.

“The only thing the exchanges are going to be selling is the government-mandates essential benefits package.  So no matter what brand name it has, Aetna, Cigna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, it’s going to be the same one-size-fits-all health plan,” said McCaughey.  “It will be very expensive.  According to the IRS, the cheapeast ‘bronze’ plan for a family of three kids will cost $20,000.  That’s $20,000 for the premium, but you’ll still have about 40 percent of your health bills to pay out-of-pocket.

“And don’t be bamboozled when you hear these words bronze, silver, gold or platinum.  Despite those fancy sounding names, those plans will all be the essential benefits package.  Only the co-pays and deductibles will be different.  If you pay up for platinum, you’ll have a smaller co-pay when you go to the doctor,” she said.

The Obama administration contends that new laws have resulted in smaller annual increases in premiums, a claim McCaughey finds “preposterous”.

“Health care spending was rising very slowly when the Obama health law was passed,” said McCaughey, noting that the 3.9 to four percent increases pre-Obamacare were the slowest in more than 50 years.

“Now you will see premiums rising very, very quickly and it’s a simple reason.  There is no tooth fairy.  When the law requires insurers to cover much more,” she said, pointing to mandates on allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ policies until age 26, a new list of mandatory covered screenings and comprehensive contraception coverage.

“Once insurance companies have to cover all of that in a policy, what they’re really doing is forcing the public to pay for all of that in a policy.  In other words, pay a lot more for your insurance,” said McCaughey.

The Obama administration claim McCaughey says there are concrete steps you can take now both to guarantee access to quality doctors when you get older and to protect your personal information from the eyes of Uncle Sam.

“If you’re accustomed to telling your doctor things you wouldn’t tell anyone else, now is the time to really talk to your doctor about keeping two sets of books.  Once the doctor is compelled under the law to enter your treatments in an electronic, interoperative database, you can bet that thousands of people will be seeing your information,” said McCaughey, who adds that federal authorities would likely review those records as part of a federal firearms background check if the president gets that part of his gun agenda approved.

She also urged Americans approaching the age of Medicare eligibility to find really good doctors now.

“If you’re a baby boomer, line up your doctors now, your internist, your cardiologist.  If you wait until you’re 65 and go on Medicare, you will not be able to find a doctor willing to take you on as a patient,” said McCaughey.

Even if seniors can find good doctors willing to see them, there are financial factors that McCaughey says could severely limit the quality of care.

“There are some provisions of this law that are really quite frightening.  For example, Section 3000 A, which awards bonus points to hospitals that spend the least per senior,” she said.  “Imagine that.  I wouldn’t take my dog to the vet that spent the least per animal.  Why would I take my mother to the hospital that spends the least per senior?”

McCaughey is also shaking her head at the recent parade of Republican governors in swing states who are agreeing to the expansion of Medicaid in exchange for assurances that the federal government will pick all of the bill through 2016 and the vast majority of the additional costs after that.

“They’re doing it because for most politicians Medicaid is a verb.  It means spend, spend, spend and then hope that the federal government will pick up the tab.  They have bought into the idea that the federal government will pay 100 percent of the costs of expansion for the first three years and then 90 percent afterwards,” said McCaughey.  “They are lining their states up to be bankrupt in the future because the federal government usually breaks promises.  Once the federal government bamboozles these states into expanding their enrollment and also loosening their eligibility standards and really enriching the benefits, then the federal government can break the promise of paying for it and the states will literally be facing bankruptcy.  They won’t have enough money to fund their schools, their highways, their law enforcement because so much money will be going to expand Medicaid.”

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are glad members of the mainstream media are so frustrated with lack of access to President Obama that they are now calling White House PR campaigns “state-run media”.  They also slam Virginia GOP Gov. Bob McDonnell for breaking his no-tax pledge to pay for his transportation plan.  And they’re stunned by the amount of insane minutiae in New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s impending crackdown on soda.

Earlier this month, North Korea conducted what appears to be its largest and most sophisticated nuclear test to date, but what may also be emerging from the story is the extent that Iran and North Korea are colluding in their efforts to grow their nuclear programs.

One of the most telling indicators of this collaboration may be the reported presence of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh Mahabadi at the North Korean test.  Mahabadi is the chief Iranian nuclear scientist and rarely travels outside of Iran.

That prospect is very troubling to foreign policy expert and accomplished fiction and non-fiction author Joel C. Rosenberg.  He is the author of “The Twelfth Imam” trilogy.  The final installment of the trilogy, “Damascus Countdown”, debut March 5.

“That is further, I would say confirmation, but certainly raises further concern that North Korea is actually doing the testing for Iran.  In other words, Iran would essentially be paying for North Korea to be its research and development system, both for ballistic missiles but also for warheads,” said Rosenberg.  “So Iran might be assembling a bomb right now.  We don’t know that for sure.  North Korea might be providing the data for how to test it and make sure that it works.  This convergence, this collaboration, between Iran and North Korea is exceedingly dangerous for the United States but also clearly for Israel and for the rest of the Middle East.”

Rosenberg says his analysis is far from speculation.  He says the cozy nuclear relationship between Iran and North Korea is well-documented.

“North Korea and Iran are working very, very closely.  They have been for years.  In fact, they even signed an agreement, a treaty back in 2011 to work on nuclear issues between North Korea and Iran,” said Rosenberg.

Outside of their shared desire to acquire nuclear weapons and a mutual loathing of the United States, there wouldn’t seem to be much in common between an atheistic Communist state and the theocratic Muslim regime in Iran.  Rosenberg says their alliance helps both sides address glaring problems.

“It seems odd but here’s the bottom line.  Like anything in Washington, follow the money,” said Rosenberg.

“North Korea is starving for cash but it has nuclear technology and has already tested nuclear weapons several times,” he said.  “Iran has plenty of cash, not the people but the government.  It’s starving for hard data of what a nuclear test looks like without inviting an American or Israeli airstrike before Iran can get its weapons built and ready to launch.  This is a match made in hell.”

The U.S. and other nations have attempted to convince and entice North Korea to abandon its nuclear program over the past two decades with little success to show for it.  Rosenberg says efforts to talk Iran out of developing its nukes is an even more fruitless endeavor.

“These aren’t just radical Shia Muslims.  They have an eschatology, an end times theology they’ve spoken openly about that the end of the world is almost here.  The so-called Islamic messiah, known as the twelfth imam, is going to come and reveal himself on earth at any moment,” said Rosenberg.  “The way to hasten or accelerate this appearance of this twelfth imam is to annihilate two countries – Israel, which they call the Little Satan, and the United States, which they call the Great Satan.

“From the perspective of the leaders in Tehran believe they are being driven by an end times theology and there’s no way that they’re going to back off  from that.  They want to bring about their so-called messiah and a global Islamic kingdom or caliphate that they’ve been talking about for centuries,” said Rosenberg.

He says this mindset is not shared by most of the people in Iran or even most of the people in government. As a result, he says a few options exist to diminish the Iranian nuclear threat since sanctions seem to give the Iranians even more resolve.

“The only way to dissuade them is to eliminate those leaders with a revolution or an assassination or a series of them or neutralize the Iranian program,” said Rosenberg, who believes Obama’s upcoming trip to Israel and other nations in the region is specifically designed to find a strategy to neutralize the Iranian threat.

As the politicians in Washington dread the onset of sequestration and blame each other for the spending cuts soon to take effect, the ones accepting of the cuts point out that we don’t want to become like Greece.  So how did Greece become the poster child for reckless spending and hopeless debt?  The Capitol Steps explain it all through the music of ‘Grease’.  Our guest is Steps Co-Founder Elaina Newport.