Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are encouraged that a huge majority of senators favor a repeal of the medical device tax in Obamacare. They also shake their heads as President Obama suggests Israelis are the stumbling block to Middle East peace. And they have fun with the news that a prosecutor in Ohio jokingly called for the execution of famed groundhog Punxsutawney Phil over his erroneous prediction of an early Spring.
Retired U.S. Army Maj. General Paul Vallely says he has confirmation that Syrian forces have used chemical weapons against rebel forces and civilians and those weapons are likely stockpiles received from Iraq prior to the U.S.-led invasion ten years ago.
Vallely has met twice in the region with military commanders for the Free Syrian Army, which he describes as the largest and much more moderate faction among the rebels, which also include elements of Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. He also gets regular reports from a Canadian medical team. Vallely says that team is certain that a chlorine gas weapon was used in recent strikes.
“From what I received from the Canadian medical team who works out of Aleppo, is that is was chlorine and that what you saw were the reactions on those videos that were put out within the last week,” said Vallely. “The chlorine, the choking, the skin, depending on the density of the chlorine will cause skin irritation. If it’s mixed with other types of gases too then it could have an even more enhanced effect on the human body, not only breathing but on the skin.”
Vallely believes the chemical weapons are clearly the work of the Assad regime but that the regime will try to pin the blame on the rebels. He says this is not the first time that the beleaguered government has turned WMD on its own people and that he has evidence of a similar attack last summer.
“We had photos and pictures of that which I provided the Defense Department as well as other people in our intelligence organizations,” said Vallely.
But Gen. Vallely’s more stunning revelation is that he is virtually certain that Syria is in possession of Saddam Hussein’s old arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some of those may be on display in this civil war.
“If you go back to January through March of 2003, we had intelligence in the Defense Department that the Russians helped move, by convoy, a lot of the chemical and biological weapons into two locations in Syria and one in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon,” said Vallely. “We think Russia and Iran have enhanced their inventory. The vast majority of those chemical and biological weapons were from Iraq.”
The general says he is 95 percent sure Iraq’s stockpiles are in Syria and there is additional evidence of that which never came to light in the previous administration.
“After the takedown of Saddam in 2003, there was a big survey done by U.S. Forces all throughout Iraq. Basically, as far as I know, all of the bio and chemical weapons had been moved. They found semblance of a growing nuclear development program but it was not an aggressive program by any means,” said Vallely. “So the fact is that he had them, used them on his own people. He knew he had to get them out of there and there was a big cover-up and deception in how he moved them over there. We did know about them but the Bush administration never came forth and explained to the American people that situation.”
Vallely says the arsenal now in Syria’s possession most likely includes Serrin and VX nerve gas in addition to chlorine and the likely shelf life of the weapons means they would still be usable. He says the range of a chlorine gas strike depends largely upon how the weapon is delivered.
“It depends on the warhead or whether it’s dispersed in cannisters and sprayed on the ground, much like they do tear gas. So, it can range all the way from a tank hanging off an aircraft, which would be a fairly big load that could cover several miles. By artillery, you’re probably talking about the same thing (as) with rockets and missiles. The close-in stuff, you’re talking 100-200 yards,” said Vallely.
There are also reports of secret arms shipments flowing into the region to help topple the Assad regime. During the investigation of the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul questioned then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about weapons from the Ghaddafi regime in Libya being smuggled to the Syrian rebels through Turkey. Vallely was less certain about reports of weapons being moved in to help the rebels.
“We have a high degree of confidence that there was gun systems, particularly shoulder-fired missiles. Ghaddafi had a tremendous inventory of weapons – machine guns, rifles, pistols, ammunition,” said Vallely. “I believe, from I have received so far, that there was something there going on and supplying those weapons up to Syria. Where they ended up I don’t know.”
Despite the use of chemical weapons, Vallely still believes Bashar Assad will fall within months, based on continued defections from the Syrian Army and the dwindling amount of territory still in government control.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are receptive to Sen. John Cornyn’s idea of withholding pay for White House budget officials for every day the budget is past the deadline for submission. They also examine President Obama’s trip to Israel, his lack of progress in the Middle East and his headaches on this trip. And they slam a Massachusetts middle school principal who canceled Honors Night because the kids who didn’t get good enough grades might get their feelings hurt.
In the wake of President Obama’s re-election and other Democratic successes in 2012, more and more Republicans in elected office and party leadership are concluding that embracing comprehensive immigration reform is vital to winning elections and attracting a higher percentage of the nation’s fastest-growing demographic.
Conservative senators Marco Rubio and Jeff Flake joined the so-called Gang of Eight pushing the latest Senate version of reform. Rising GOP star Sen. Rand Paul has embraced ways to make illegal residents legal, while stopping short of endorsing a pathway to citizenship. Just days ago, an official Republican National Committee report on the party’s 2012 failures specifically urged support for comprehensive reform.
So with support from Democrats, the media and a growing number of Republicans, is it inevitable that this legislation will pass in the near term?
“No it’s not, because they left out one major group of people that has to part of the equation. It’s called the American people,” said California Rep. Dana Rohrabacher. “The American people fully understand when you’re talking about comprehensive immigration reform, all you’re really talking about is legalizing the status of probably 15-20 million illegals that are in this country.”
Rohrabacher is one of the leading opponents of placing illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship or any legal status because he says it will only encourage more illegal behavior.
“The American people know that will do nothing but bring in millions more and all the problems of crime, of consuming very scarce education and health care dollars, etc. that this will be a disaster for them. So although there are a few Republican – quote – leaders who are giving into this onslaught of propaganda trying to convince them that this is going to help the Republican Party, the average people out there are against it. Republicans will understand that when it starts coming to a vote because the people will rise up against it,” said Rohrabacher.
Many Republicans who have changed their positions on this issue have spent more time trumpeting the pathway to citizenship more than a commitment to border security. Senators like Rubio and Paul have stressed security first, but Rohrabacher says even that position is worthless if it’s accompanied by support of legalizing those who came here illegally.
“First of all, there is no securing the border if you legalize the status, if you give amnesty. You can’t secure the border once you have given people a huge incentive to cross the border and come here illegally,” said Rohrabacher. “You just can’t build a fence tall enough and a ditch deep enough to keep people out if you’re going to say, ‘You and your family are going to receive a treasure house of benefits, jobs and things like that if you just get across the border.”
“Even Rubio’s position is wrong. There is no securing the border if you legalize the status. It doesn’t make any difference when you try to say once you strengthen the border then you can do your legalizing of the status. That doesn’t go, because as soon as they legalize the status there’s more pressure on the border,” said Rohrabacher.
Rohrabacher acknowledges that defeating this latest push for what he calls amnesty will be very difficult., and he says victory will depend upon just how passionately the public rises up to stop it.
“It’s up to the American people. It really is. They will activate and they will speak loudly and aggressively on this issue to their elected official. If every time there’s a town hall meeting that people are screaming and yelling, being courteous and not cutting somebody off, but raising their voice and saying how important it is then we can turn the tide. But if the American people continue to shrug their shoulders or go along with stupid arguments like, ‘Well, first we’re going to control the border, then we’re going to give the amnesty to these people,’ that won’t work,” he said.
Rohrabacher stressed that politicians, especially Republicans, need to be told loudly and clearly how important this issue is to America and how important it could be to their political future.
“We have got to make sure that we don’t just talk softly and express our opinions with due courtesy and respect. People need to act with outrage. They certainly need to be courteous to people, but they certainly don’t need to keep their voices low. The elected officials, especially in the Republican Party, need to hear from their constituents that if they’re doing something this detrimental to the American family…unless people scream out at their elected official, the elected official may not get the word. So that’s what we all have to do,” said Rohrabacher.
Ultimately, Rohrabacher says it’s that American family that must decide what it wants America to be.
“It’s up to us. Are the patriots of every race, religion and ethnic group in this country going to step and say that we’re part of the same family, we’re going to fight for this family or are they going to go along with this effort to bring in a bunch of foreigners to take the jobs and the benefits that belong to Americans?” said Rohrabacher
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are pleased to see Harry Reid admit there’s nowhere close to enough votes to pass an assault weapons ban. They also unload on Reid for suggesting that the training deaths of seven Marines should be blamed on sequestration. And they discuss President Obama’s knack for always having time to do his NCAA bracket.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced he would not include an assault weapons ban in the gun legislation he plans to introduce on the Senate floor, but gun rights advocates say this is not a surrender but rather Reid’s way of making a ban easier to pass.
“It’s a trap. It’s a non-event. What’s going to happen is they’re going to take another bill, and that could be the veterans’ gun ban and then bring that to the floor,” said Mike Hammond, chief counsel at Gun Owners of America, a pro-Second Amendment group. Hammond says bringing a less controversial bill to the floor will make it easier to find the 60 votes needed to open debate.
“Diane Feinstein’s amendment will be offered as an amendment to that. Furthermore, they’ll probably break off a magazine ban and offer that as an amendment to that. Furthermore, they’ll probably take a universal gun registry and offer that as an amendment to that,” said Hammond. “When Harry Reid says he’s dropping Feinstein from the bill, what he means is it’s not going to be in the bill which is reported to the Senate but it will be offered on the Senate floor. So the question we’re asking is, ‘Why in heaven’s name should anyone vote for this underlying vehicle when we’re being told in advance it’s going to be nothing but a vehicle for a gun control buffet.”
Hammond says Reid has two options in bringing his legislation forward. He can require 60 votes to begin debate and control the amendment process or require 50 but be forced to allow Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell the first amendment to the bill.
“The exercise is to trick us to voting for that motion to proceed by starting out with what he views as a noncontroversial bill,” said Hammond, who says he is urging all members to resist the strategy to push forward a “gun control-o-rama” of amendments.
“Our message is to vote against the motion to proceed. We don’t want any gun control to come up at all,” said Hammond.
Amendments to the bill would require a simple majority, although closing the debate would also require 60 votes. Hammond is encouraged by that hurdle, because he thinks the Feinstein assault weapons ban has fewer than 40 supporters, but that’s not the end of the story. He says the political bargaining that piled up 60 votes for Obamacare will be on full display again.
“Do you remember Obamacare, in which Harry Reid just pushed and pushed and pushed and said who do I have to buy off with this bribe or that bribe? That’s what they envision for the floor consideration of this bill. And they will try to tweak and bribe and buy off as much gun control as they can manage,” said Hammond.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review applaud the House GOP for demanding that there will be no new taxes beyond the fiscal cliff deal. They also discuss President Obama’s radical choice to head the Department of Labor. And they rip the White House for holding the Easter Egg Roll hostage to sequestration.
FedEx and UPS are in the Justice Department cross hairs for not flagging shipments of illegally-prescribed drugs the companies say they had no way of knowing were in their possession.
Criminal charges could be coming against the carriers, even though the government has not alleged any deliberate wrongdoing by the companies.
FedEx spokesman Patrick Fitzgerald says his company has a 40-year history of actively assisting the government crack down on any criminal conduct, but he says this probe was very different from the start.
“What is unusual and really disturbing is it became clear to us along the way that FedEx was being targeted for some level criminal activity as it relates to these medicines that are being shipped from pharmacies, and we find it to be completely absurd because it’s really not our role,” said Fitzgerald. “We have no way of knowing what is legal and not within the packages that we’re picking up and delivering in this situation.”
“At the heart of the investigation are sealed packages that are being sent by, as far as we can tell, licensed pharmacies. These are medicines with legal prescriptions written by licensed physicians. So it’s difficult for us to understand where we would have some role in this. We are a transportation company that picks up and delivers close to 10 million packages every day. They are sealed packages, so we have no way of knowing specifically what’s inside and we have no interest in violating the privacy rights of our customers,” said Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald says one of the most important components of this dispute. In addition to the unrealistic expectation that the federal government seems to have for the company to know what’s in every package, Fitzgerald says protecting the rights of customers is paramount and the issues go hand-in-hand.
“They clearly are attempting to put some responsibility for the legality of the contents of these packages. That’s why for us it goes far beyond even just the online pharmacy situation. This really has a chilling effect. It has the potential to threaten the privacy of all customers that send or receive packages via FedEx because the government is assigning a role on us as law enforcement or taking on their role in a way that is not appropriate,” said Fitzgerald.
FedEx sought to diffuse the standoff by offering to stop doing business with any pharmacies that the government suspected to be involved in illegal activities. The Justice Department declined, citing the potential for the pharmacies to sue over a lack of due process.
“If the government were to come to us and give us the name of a customer that’s engaged in some level of illegal activity, we can immediately stop shipping for that customer. We will not tolerate any illegal activity within our networks,” said Fitzgerald. “What we want here is a solution that will apply for the entire industry and serve the public’s interest. That’s why we find it completely absurd and, to a large degree, stunning that the government is not working with us on that solution as they have with other problems in the past. As long as they’re not doing that, there’s really no solution even if they were to pursue an investigation or criminal charges against a specific company. There needs to be an industry-wide solution that will put a stop to this problem.”
That leaves FedEx and UPS with the task of stopping illegal shipments from sources the government will not divulge.
“The comparison that we’ve made is a no-fly list. It’s as if the government were to go to major commercial airlines and accuse them of some level of criminal activity if they were to allow somebody on the no-fly list onto one of their planes without providing them a no-fly list,” said Fitzgerald. “What we want here is the no-fly list for online pharmacies. If they are aware of some level of illegal activity by some number of pharmacies, simply provide us that list and we will stop providing service. It’s a very simple solution.”
Fitzpatrick says no other private carriers are being targeted by the Justice Department and he has no evidence to suggest this probe is designed to boost the financially-strapped U.S. Postal Service at the expense of private competitors.
For its part, UPS is currently negotiating a settlement with the government but FedEx is fighting this all the way.
“Settlement is not an option for us when there’s no illegal activity on our part,” said Fitzpatrick.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review discuss the Republican National Committee’s ideas to improve presidential debates and improve dialogue with groups that tend to support Democrats. They also discuss the run on banks in Cyprus and the warning it provides to the U.S. And they react to the buzz over how the character of Satan in “The Bible” miniseries resembles President Obama.
President Obama met with House and Senate Republicans this week to discuss the economy and other priorities, but the cordial meetings revealed the two sides don’t even agree on the definition of reform much less how to achieve it.
Illinois Rep. Peter Roskam is the chief deputy whip for the House GOP. He says Republicans and President Obama have very different ideas of what tax reform should look like and even why it should be done.
“The president has chosen to redefine tax reform. Traditionally, the common understanding of tax reform is that you close loopholes in an effort to drive rates down. By closing loopholes, you use that to pay for lower rates and a simpler tax code for everybody else,” said Roskam. “The president has chosen to define it as closing loopholes and using that as a vehicle to pay for more spending. And in light of that, the definitions of these things become very, very, very important.”
Roskam says the president was well-received but House Republicans made it crystal clear to Obama that “revenues” were not on the table since he got major tax hikes through the new health care laws and through the deal on New Year’s Day that addressed the so-called fiscal cliff. For his part, Obama reiterated his demand for a “balanced approach” consisting of tax increases and spending reductions.
Obama has mentioned at times that he would like to lower the corporate tax rate. Roskam says that would be fine but it needs to be part of reform across the board.
“It’s one thing to talk about reforming the corporate tax code and it’s another thing to make sure that we do it in totality with the individual tax rate,” said Roskam. “What you don’t want to do is move forward into an environment where the small businesses in and around the country that are paying at the individual tax rate are left holding the bag for a larger tax reform deal.”
Both the House Republicans and Senate Democrats released budget blueprints for Fiscal 2014. The GOP plan balances the budget by slowing the rate of spending growth, reforming entitlements and assuming comprehensive tax reform and the repeal of Obamacare.
On entitlements, Roskam says the Paul Ryan budget still keeps the system the same for Americans 55 years and older but will allow other options for health coverage starting in 2024. He also says the GOP favors means testing on both Medicare and Social Security, with poorer people getting more federal aid and wealthier seniors getting less.
Roskam admits the Obamacare repeal may be politically difficult but that doesn’t change the point of the budget blueprint.
“Remember that budgets are aspirational documents. They describe a vision and the vision for House Republicans says that because of the cost of Obamacare, we propose to repeal it,” he said.
Roskam expressed disappointment with Obama’s contention this week that there is no immediate debt crisis.
“He seems very cavalier about this debt question and the Senate Democrats sort of fulfill that in saying that they want to vote and have an additional trillion dollars in new taxes that would be foisted upon the U.S. economy,” said Roskam.
Given the very different budget priorities, finding much common ground to improve our economy and lower deficit spending seems like a tall order. Roskam his advice on where the two parties can come together.
“The common ground will be around areas that have to do with an export agenda, trying to remove trade barriers so that we can sell more exports abroad. But what it all comes down to it, we need the spending fever in Washington to break and we’ve got to break this fever so that the country can get some relief. If the only relief for the Democratic Party is to go back to the taxpayers about every eight weeks, then heaven help us,” said Roskam.
