Archives for May 2013

Revelations in Wednesday’s Congressional hearings on the Benghazi terrorist attacks prove it is a massive scandal that will carry significant consequences for those involved in the cover-up, according to retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney.

McInerney served at the highest levels in the Air Force, including time as assistant vice chief of staff and vice commander-in-chief of U.S. Air Forces Europe.  He believes the Obama administration deliberately misled the American people on the motivation for the attack and is now covering its tracks on decisions to prevent a military rescue in Benghazi.  He says that is more clear than ever following Wednesday’s testimony of former Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks and two others before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

“This is going to be the biggest scandal.  It is going to make Watergate look like kindergarten because Watergate was primarily limited to the Oval Office.  This cuts across the whole national security apparatus, where people were lying and covering up,” said McInerney.  “It is a dereliction of duty that this nation has never seen before.”

So type of consequences could that mean for the highest levels of the administration?

“Well, just see what the consequences were in Watergate.  If it’s far worse than Watergate, the consequences will go right into the Oval Office,” said McInerney.

McInerney says the tell-tale sign of Obama’s dereliction of duty can be determined in the admitted White House narrative of the president’s actions as the terrorist attack played out the night of September 11. 2012.

“When is the exact minute he knew?  We don’t have the timeline and it was well before the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff went over there.  He only talked to the secretary of defense one time, so it’s obvious he knew that he had given the stand-down order and did not need to talk to the secretary of defense or anybody else after that,” said McInerney.  “Then he goes the next day out on a fundraising campaign to Las Vegas.  That is a low for the Commander-in-Chief of this great nation.”

He also insists the stand-down order could only come from one source – the president.

“The only person who could have given it was the president and he had to give it through the secretary of defense, secretary of state.  The word came out so it came from the combatant commands and other unites below, but nobody could have given that except the President of the United States and that is very clear,” said McInerney, who notes the State Department’s own Accountability Review Board likely reached a similar conclusion in its report, which is why so few have seen it and the leaders of that study refuse to appear before Congress.  McInerney believes they should be subpoenaed.

While he believes Obama has a lot to answer for, McInerney makes it clear that many top-level subordinates deserve a lot of the blame too and that’s what makes the scandal so troubling.

“It’s going to have significant consequences because it impacts two CIA directors, two secretaries of state, two chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, two secretaries of defense that are all involved now with the cover-up,” he said.

The general also singled out former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her comment at congressional hearings in January in which she bristled severely at accusations the administration concocted a plan to blame the attack on a spontaneous demonstration over an anti-Islam YouTube video that got out of hand.  Clinton slammed Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, saying, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”  McInerney sees that as a low point in American history.

“That is one of the most despicable statements that any American has said about such a tragic incident when you lose people like that.  It makes a huge difference that our troops know that they will always be protected as much as they can and we’ll do anything to protect them,” said McInerney.  “She says what difference does it make?  That will live with her til the day she dies.  I can tell you, all the people I know, both active and retired, think that is one of the most despicable statements we have ever heard a civilian leader say in our country’s history,” said McInerney.

McInerney says the administration’s story is full of holes on a number of fronts, including the narrative about the supposed video protests.  But the general says his own experience serving in that theater convinces him there was plenty of time and opportunity to deploy U.S. forces to protect Americans in Benghazi.

“We have never done that, that I know, in our military history, where we just abandoned and did not try to send in rescue forces.  They could have gotten there from Aviano (Air Base in Italy) the F-16s.  I used to fly F-16s out of Aviano when I was vice commander-in-chief of U.S. Air Forces in Europe.  I know that scene very well.  They could have made it.  They said they didn’t have tankers.  They could have dropped their tanks.  They could have recovered at a nearby Italian air base on an island,” said McInerney.

“So it is unacceptable to me that we didn’t send those forces from Tripoli that we had there.  We didn’t send F-16s and the FEST team to go in and to try to rescue those people.  That was unacceptable, but from the get-go they had a narrative that they wanted to stick with that was a political narrative that the war was over, they had defeated Al Qaeda,” he said.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are pleased to see Democrats failed in their expensive bid to win an open House seat in South Carolina.  Jim is also pleased that Mark Sanford won while Greg believes the GOP could have picked a much better nominee.  They also slam Democrats for going into today’s Benghazi hearings with the obvious goal of protecting President Obama and Hillary Clinton and not getting to the bottom of the story.  And they fire back at former South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Dick Harpootlian for separate comments about GOP Gov. Nikki Haley that many see as racist and sexist.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review applaud CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson for reporting that the Obama administration did in fact order forces to stand down during the Benghazi attack – directly contradicting the administration’s account.  They also slam the U.S. Senate for approving an internet sales tax.  And they rip Harry Reid for calling Ted Cruz a schoolyard bully for objecting to a House-Senate conference on the budget.

The cost to the U.S. taxpayers of legalizing at least 11 million illegal immigrants would be $6.3 trillion, according to a detailed new study from the Heritage Foundation.

Entitled “The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer”, the study examines current statistics on illegal immigrant families and determines their lack of education combined with the resources they are likely to consume over their lifetimes would total approximately $9.4 trillion.  Heritage estimates tax revenues from those same people would total about $3.1 trillion.

Dr. Jason Richwine studies empirical data for the Domestic Policy Studies Department at Heritage and is co-author of the study along with Robert Rector.  He says the math is pretty simple.

“We looked at all spending that’s federal, state and local and we looked at all the taxes that immigrants pay in.  After that it’s a matter of subtraction, the taxes that are paid and the benefits that are received,” said Richwine.  “The biggest categories that contribute to the fiscal deficit are public education and the federal means-tested programs that immigrants will receive after amnesty as well as what happens in the future with retirement, especially Social Security and Medicare.”

Richwine also fought back against the two biggest criticisms of the report.  Supporters say it fails to account for future generations being net contributors to the government because of improved educational opportunities.  Richwine says that isn’t true.  He admits that subsequent generations will be less of a burden but points out $6.3 trillion is a huge hole to climb out of and the next generation will only add to the problem when we can least afford it.

Critics also allege the Heritage study fails to account for the economic growth that legalizing these millions of people will bring to the U.S. and counter the outflow of money through public assistance programs.

“It’s very frustrating to hear that point made because it’s essentially citing magic as an excuse to ignore the study, which annoys me,” said Richwine.  “There’s no doubt that more immigration will lead to a larger economy in general.  We will certainly have a higher GDP the more people we bring in.  That’s not the relevant issue though.  The relevant issue for natives is to what extent does immigration benefit natives specifically.  What economists have found when they look at this question is that immigrants do increase the size of the pie, but they eat almost the entire increase.”

“The idea that some kind of tiny efficiency gain accruing to natives on the order of something like 0.1 percent of GDP is going to somehow come anywhere close to the major fiscal cost that we have identify is really rather absurd, and that’s why it frustrated me so much that people will cite this.  It’s a way of just kind of avoiding the question,” said Richwine.  “I would much rather them try to take this on more directly.  Tell us what these amazing magical benefits are because I certainly don’t see them anywhere in the economics literature.”

The Heritage report projects a great deal of red ink, but Richwine says the $6.3 trillion in deficits is probably a best-case scenario.  He says the report was done under the assumption that there are 11 million illegal immigrants who would be granted legal status, but he admits the government really has no idea how many people we’re talking about and the 11 million number could well be low.

He also points out that the numbers assume that only people already here would be receiving benefits over time and that the flood of illegals along the southern border would be dealt with effectively.

“What we’re looking at is the number of illegal immigrants who were here in 2011, these are the ones who are eligible for the amnesty.  That’s the group we’re looking at.  We are not looking at any additional immigrants.  That leads to my thinking that we are being rather conservative about this.  Not only could this encourage further illegal immigration down the road, which will cost money, but the the bill being proposed right now actually allows for more people to come here to get what’s called registered provisional status  who are not even here currently,” said Richwine.

“If you have been deported from the United States.  In other words, you came here illegally and because you were here illegally you were deported.  We spent all the money and time on judicial proceedings and so on to deport you, you may now come back to the country and get amnesty as long as you have a close relative here who’s here legally,” said Richwine.

The report is available at heritage.org.

The U.S. Senate is moving towards greater electronic privacy protection in an effort to update a decades-old law and draw clearer boundaries for the federal government in the ongoing tension between national security and personal freedom.

Utah Sen. Mike Lee is teaming up with Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy to sponsor amendments to the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA).  Lee says the need for updated laws is obvious given the technological explosion in recent years and adds that without the changes, Americans may be surprised and upset with what the government can do with their private messages.

“The law at the time was written so that emails would basically lose their Fourth Amendment protections once they got to be older than 180 days.  Once they got to be about six months old, the government could gain access to their contents without a court warrant,” said Lee.  “This legislation, in essence, moves to get rid of the 180-day distinction and would require a warrant if the government wants to gain access to the content of emails older than 180 days.”

The 9/11 attacks thrust the liberty vs. security debate front and center in the U.S. and the recent Boston Marathon terrorist attack has re-ignited the controversy to some extent.  Lee says there doesn’t need to be a lot of hand wringing about this because the Constitution protects our rights and the government has ways to obtain otherwise private materials if national security is at stake.

“Most lawmakers approach this with an understanding that people expect their emails to remain private.  They understand their are circumstances when government law enforcement agents might need to gain access to our private communications but they also understand, as in other areas, this ought to require a court order,” said Lee.  “Sure, it makes the government’s task a little more difficult but we have procedures in place to expedite that or even allow it to be bypassed altogether through existing case law whenever life and limb is at great risk and there’s no other way to deal with it.  If those conditions can’t be met, then government agents just need to go and get a court order.

“The Constitution was not designed to make things more efficient for the government.  It was put in place to protect the rights of individual citizens and that’s what this bill does.  That’s why I expect it to pass overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, through the Senate,” said Lee.

The Senate legislation follows contentious debate over a House bill known as the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA).  Supporters say it constitutes a critical upgrade in providing the federal government tools to ward off cyber attacks and protect computer networks.  Critics allege that is is a huge erosion of electronic privacy.  CISPA passed the House easily but is now stalled and likely dead in the Senate.

Lee says a final bill never made it to the floor so he never took a formal position on the issue.

“CISPA has been a moving target and I’ve had some privacy-related concerns with it,” said Lee.  “It really would depend on the form in which it ultimately got to us.  It’s premature to say what that might look like if and when it ever comes to us.”

House Republicans were the driving force behind CISPA.  Lee, as a sponsor of legislation expanding privacy rights, says he’s not surprised at how the votes lined up.

“These things are difficult to predict in all circumstances and these are very difficult areas to navigate because you have unusual cross-currents that develop within the two parties.  Sometimes you have unlikely allies on the right and on the left,” said Lee.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are relieved that the truth about what happened in Benghazi and how the Obama administration responded will finally come to light this week.  They also grimace as many more new jobs are pat-time positions since employers fear impact of Obamacare.  And Bill Richardson decides Sen. Ted Cruz is not a real Hispanic because he’s conservative, from Texas and opposes the Senate immigration bill.

Pentagon officials recently met with an activist committed to removing Christianity from the U.S. military, a move that some fear could lead to court martials for service members who share their Christian faith.

The firestorm erupted last month, when Pentagon officials held a meeting on religion in the military and invited Michael “Mikey” Weinstein to the discussion.  Weinstein is the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.  He has called the practice of Christians in the service sharing their faith “spiritual rape”.  He has also led efforts to remove Bibles from lodging affiliated with the U.S. Air Force Academy and successfully pursued a policy that forbids guests from bringing Bibles to patients at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Now Weinstein is asking the Pentagon to vigorously enforce an existing policy against proselytizing in the military.  What’s not clear is what that policy actually means.  Activists like Weinstein argue that any Christian witnessing should be off limits while others say it should only mean that service members cannot pressure or coerce others to convert.  Weinstein claims he was promised by Pentagon officials that service members sharing their faith would face a court martial.

On Thursday, the Pentagon issued a statement in an effort to quiet the protests over this story.

“Service members can share their faith (evangelize), but must not force unwanted, intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or no faith to one’s beliefs (proselytization),” Pentagon spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen said in a written statement.

The statement is quite a change from the one issued in connection with the April meeting involving Weinstein.

“Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense,” that statement read in part. “Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis”

Is the new explanation sufficient for those worried that Christians in the military are losing their religious freedom?

“No, it’s not, not for us,” said retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, who is now executive vice president at the Family Research Council.  He says the FRC strongly agrees that there should be no coercion of anyone to convert to any faith, but Boykin says there are some critical questions that remain unanswered.

“Given that they brought Mikey Weinstein in and that he has made some very public statements saying that he was given assurances and that he made references to court martials, that he was given assurances there would be court martials, we would like to see the Department of Defense refute those statements.  We’d like to get a statement saying exactly what assurances Mikey Weinstein did get from the Air Force,” said Boykin.  “So we’ll be satisfied as soon as they tell us either that Mikey Weinstein is lying or give us an account of what those assurances were so that we understand the depth of the issue and the depth of the problem.”

Boykin is requesting a meeting of his own with Pentagon officials.  He wants personal assurances from someone in authority that the constitutional freedoms of service members will be protected.

“If they will tell us that and give us the assurance that living their faith and sharing their faith is a protected right then we’ll be satisfied,” said Boykin.

The general says the concern over an erosion on religious freedom in the military is legitimate because discrimination against Christians is well documented and getting worse in the Armed Forces.

“This is a bigger problem than just this particular issue.  Given the open hostility toward religion in the military and a number of things that have occurred that demonstrate religious hostility, particularly toward Christians where they’re identified in war games as being threats.  They’re identified in documents out of the counter-terrorist center as threats.  There are efforts to remove Bibles from Walter Reed.  That’s religious hostility,” said Boykin.

“We want some positive statement and some positive action to stop this religious hostility and give us an assurance that the rights of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines will be protected,” he said.

Boykin is not prepared to assign responsibility for the “religious hostility” to anyone in particular, but he says the top of our government is creating a culture for it to flourish.

“I think it is part of the climate that has been established by the administration.  I don’t think that (Defense Secretary Chuck) Hagel was probably even aware that they had met Mikey Weinstein and I don’t think the secretary was part of the design here ,” said Boykin.  “I think these are medium level leaders in the military that are making these decisions and have to be held accountable on this.  But I think it’s consistent with probably exactly where the administration would be very happy if the military would go to where the vestiges of Christianity were essentially removed from our military.

“I would like to think that’s not the case and that somebody over there just fouled up, but I see too much of a pattern of assaults, outright hostility on Christianity to believe it isn’t rooted pretty high somewhere in the Pentagon.  But I don’t think it’s the secretary,” he said.

One of Boykin’s greatest disappointments is the absence of high-ranking military officers willing to stand up for their forces and their rights.

“There has not been enough courage demonstrated by the senior leaders.  I’d like to see the senior leaders in our military show some leadership, show some courage on this kind of issue.  This is so fundamental to the health, morale and welfare of our military and I’d like to see some of the leadership step forward on this issue.  Thus far, they have not done so,” said Boykin.

If the pattern of religious hostility persists, Boykin says young people and their families will simply decide military service is not worth the assault on their values.

“There are those in the military that will not stay in the military given the suppression of their faith.  And there are many, many across America, many families who will not want their son and daughter in the military.  They will see this as an anti-Christian environment and they will see it as a suppression of the faith of their sons and daughters.  It will hurt recruiting and it will hurt retention,” said Boykin.

So far, the only American to meet young North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un is eccentric ex-NBA star Dennis Rodman.  However, with North Korea threatening to attack its neighbors and the United States, the Capitol Steps take a closer look inside the world’s most repressive nation.  Our guest is Capitol Steps impressionist Mark Eaton.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review discuss the tighter than expected U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts.  They also groan as Harry Reid says the biggest problem with Obamacare is that the government isn’t spending enough money to implement it.  And they react to news that political lobbyists are advertising on ESPN in hopes of influencing President Obama.

Utah Sen. Mike Lee says the bipartisan Gang of Eight is in danger of making the same mistakes of past immigration reform efforts by trying to do everything at once and putting illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship before we ever know if border security efforts are successful.

Lee is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and has waded through much of the 844-page bill.  He says the biggest problem with the bill is that is doesn’t approach the key issues one at a time, which he believes is essential if Congress is going to do reform correctly.

“Immigration reform that I tend to envision would include real border security, visa modernization, employment verification, robust guest worker programs for high low-skilled workers and a compassionate approach to dealing with those people who are currently in the country illegally,” said Lee.  “But history has taught us that each one of those vital components needs to be addressed incrementally and in sequence to ensure we get meaningful results, the kind of results that we want.  And that’s why I’m concerned about this bill.  That’s why, in it’s current form, I can’t support it.”

Lee was not overly critical of how the Gang of Eight addressed each of the issues he would take on separately, but he says doing everything at once is a prescription for disaster.

“I’m pleased that the bill does address as many of these issue as it does.  The biggest concern I have is that it attempts to do so all in one fell swoop.  In other words, it puts the legislative framework in place for a pathway to citizenship to the 11 million before we even know whether the border has been secured.  Once we enact that legislation, then that’s in motion.  That’s going to happen unless we legislate again, regardless of whether we in Congress are convinced that the border is in fact secure and that our visa system is working properly,” said Lee, who is worried that green-lighting the legal status of millions of illegals before confirming the border is secure would make our problems even worse.

“That is a very significant concern.  That’s a concern that is based on historical experience, based on what we saw in 1986, when we ended up granting legal status to those illegally in the country at the time and putting them on a pathway to citizenship.  The promise was made then, ‘OK, we’re going to secure the border once and for all.  We’re going to solve the illegal immigration problem once and for all and, all at the same time, we’re going to legalize those currently here illegally.’  Of course, those who were here illegally were legalized but we didn’t fix the underlying problem,” said Lee.

Lee says he can’t gauge the level of support for the Gang of Eight plan yet because the bill still needs to go through the committee process.  He suspects most Senate Democrats will back the plan but does not believe it can pass the Republican-led House of Representatives.

As a result, Lee says the smart thing would be for lawmakers to build a bipartisan consensus around smaller bills in a proper order to address the problems in our immigration system.