Archives for March 2014

Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot Shak Hill is bracing for two uphill fights in his quest to win a U.S. Senate seat in Virginia, but says the Constitution needs more defenders and he is ready to fight for it.

Hill served nine years in the Air Force and rose to the rank of captain.  He served as flight commander for the Presidential Wing at Andrews Air Force Base.  He now runs a business, is father to six biological children and has also provided a home for dozens of foster children.

He was an early entry into the 2014 race to challenge incumbent Democrat Mark Warner.  As if that weren’t enough of a political challenge, Hill was recently joined in the GOP field by former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, a candidate with huge advantages in networking, name recognition and fundraising potential.

Hill says his reasons for staying in the race are the same ones for entering in the first place.

“When I was an officer in the military, just like many other military members I raised my right hand and I promised to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies.  I’m 49-years-old right now and I see that our Constitution needs more defenders now than at any time in my life.  Whether it’s the NSA or the IRS or other scandals (like) Benghazi, we’re having a constitutional crisis right now,” said Hill.

“I want the American dream for my family.  I want it for the foster children I’ve been a parent to.  I want it for your children and just our prosperity.  We’re losing it and I knew I needed to do something about it.  Running for the United States Senate and unseating Mark Warner and firing Harry Reid is exactly why I’m joining in the fight and why I’m going to win in Virginia,” said Hill.

So what issues would he pursue most passionately if elected?

“We’ve got to get back our Fourth Amendment rights.  That’s a personal rights issue.  We are having too much authority ceded to the federal government, as far as going to the NSA and as far as the IRS having the opportunity to look into our medical records.  I mean can you imagine someday if an IRS agent knocks on your door and says, ‘Ma’am, Sir, show me proof of your medical insurance.  That’s where we’re heading and this is an abomination,” said Hill.

Hill is one of four Republicans vying for the nomination, which will be decided in a state party convention in June.  Hill is endorsed by retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin and by the pro-Second Amendment Gun Owners of America.  Gillespie, however, is endorsed by a long list of prominent Republicans, including former U.S. Senator and Gov. George Allen and State Sen. Mark Obenshain, who very narrowly lost last year’s statewide race for Virginia attorney general.

Hill says he is not daunted because he knows he is the better candidate for the party and the commonwealth and he believes voters will ultimately respond to his message rather than one from the GOP establishment.

“They do not want a quintessential, twenty year-plus, inside-the-beltway lobbyist.  They want somebody who’s got real world experience, somebody who’s defended our Constitution, worn the uniform that keeps and makes our country free,”said Hill.

“What I’m finding as I go around the state, they are rejecting the notion that he is the nominee to be coronated.  If you want a very good lobbyist, I would probably hire Ed Gillespie or his firm, but he’s mortally flawed as a candidate,” he said.

According to Hill, state and national Democrats are already assembling an ad campaign that will highlight Gillespie’s lobbying record, including his work years ago for disgraced energy giant Enron and also for collecting some two million dollars in fees while representing the families of those killed in the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988.

“So instead of talking about Mark Warner’s votes to use taxpayer dollars for sex selection abortions, instead of talking about Mark Warner’s vote to give us Obamacare and pushing cap and trade, we’re going to be talking about Ed Gillespie,” said Hill.  “We need to have somebody that can make Mark Warner run on Mark Warner’s record.  That’s me.  If we do that, we win.”

Most voters are aware of Warner’s votes on health care and cap and trade, but why is Hill focusing on sex selection abortions?  He says Democrats are sure to play the “War on Women” card again in 2014 and he believes the best counter is to aggressively point out what he sees as extreme positions that Sen. Warner holds on abortion.

“Let’s push Mark Warner where he’s most vulnerable.  Mark Warner has a war on girls and it’s killing them.  He’s doing that because of his extreme position on abortion.  Not only is he in favor of allowing gender selection abortions but he’s in favor of allowing the gruesome late-term abortion up to and including the day of natural delivery.  That is extreme,” said Hill.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are encouraged that statistics guru Nate Silver sees Republicans taking the Senate majority in this year’s midterm elections.  They also recoil at news that aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated at many different hospitals in Britain, some of them to provide energy.  And they shudder at numerous reports suggesting NSA leaker Edward Snowden is actively helping Russia avoid U.S. intelligence efforts.

One of President Obama’s key advisers in drafting the healthcare legislation that is now law says Obamacare will eventually spell the end of employer-based health plans.

Experts from both sides of the aisle aren’t upset by the idea of removing employers from the health care equation, however both sides are also skeptical that Obamacare will have the effect Emanuel predicts.

Emanuel is quoted in The New York Times saying that a few blue chip companies will be the tip of the movement but that many other firms will quickly follow suit.  In an early March piece for The New Republic, Emanuel explained how the change will happen.

“For the next few years insurance companies will both continue to provide services to employers and, increasingly, compete against each other in the health insurance exchanges. In that role they will put together networks of physicians and hospitals and other services and set a premium. But because of health care reform, new actors will force insurance companies to evolve or become extinct,” wrote Emanuel.

“The accountable care organizations (ACOs) and hospital systems will begin competing directly in the exchanges and for exclusive contracts with employers. These new organizations are delivery systems with networks of physicians and hospitals that provide comprehensive care.” he wrote.

Before experts even consider whether this would be a good idea, they’re largely in agreement that Emanuel is wildly optimistic about how this will play out.

“What’s he sprinkling on his breakfast cereal and where can I get some?” asked David Hogberg, health care policy analyst at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

“It basically hinges on two things.  Number one, the Obamacare exchanges becoming very popular and very effective.  At this point, I don’t see any of that in the future.  The second is the Cadillac tax on high-end employer-based health plans coming into effect in 2018.  That itself is a pretty thin reed to hang this on.  That’s going to effect big employers and a lot of union plans,” said Hogberg.

“I suppose there’s no such thing as an unstoppable political coalition but big employers and unions together, that would come about as close as you can get,” he said.

Emanuel also argues that employers are looking to get out of their health care role anyway, and this would be the perfect avenue.  That also has Hogberg scratching his head.

“Why didn’t they do that before Obamacare.  Before Obamacare they didn’t have to pay a $2,000 fine.  What keeps companies in employer-based plans is that employees demand it.  It’s part of the compensation package and the reason employees demand it is that there’s this huge tax break for it.  As long as it’s tax-free and employees demand it, it doesn’t matter so much what companies want to do,” said Hogberg.

“I really don’t see much in Dr. Emanuel’s argument that is at all convincing,” said Hogberg.

As the depth of the NSA’s surveillance on the American people is revealed and now Congress and the CIA are fighting over surveillance on the work of lawmakers, the Capitol Steps roll out their parody of an already creepy 1980s classic in “I’ll Be Watching You”.  Our guest is Steps impressionist Mark Eaton.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are pleasantly surprised to see a Jimmy Fallon skit slamming Obamacare and Obama’s handling of Ukraine.  They also shake their heads as Nancy Pelosi insists reporters refer to Obamacare as the Affordable Care Act.  And they slap their foreheads at how cable news is covering the missing Malaysian plane and one channel even brought in a psychic.

The powerful combination of free markets, honest government and biblical ethics are the critical components to growing economies and climbing out of poverty, according to a new book that also declares government-centered solutions a guaranteed ticket to failure.

The United States spends many billions of dollars in foreign aid every year in an effort to help third world nations escape the grips of rampant poverty.  Our country has waged a domestic “War on Poverty” for more than 50 years.  Supporters say the results are far better than had we done nothing and many critics suggest these efforts are extremely expensive failures.  Hardly anyone claims they are effectively reversing poverty at home or abroad.

In their new book, “The Poverty of Nations,” theologian Dr. Wayne Grudem and economist Barry Asmus explain why they believe government programs have largely failed.

“The solution to poverty has never come through foreign aid or domestic aid.  The solutions to poverty come when people and nations are enabled to produce their own prosperity.  The question is not equality.  The question is, ‘Is there opportunity?  Is there freedom in the workplace?  Is there economic freedom?  Is there governmental freedom from excessive regulations so that people who are at the lower end of the income bracket can progress and hope to progress toward higher income?'” said Grudem, a research professor of theology and biblical studies at Phoenix Seminary.

“There are no examples in history where a country has risen out of poverty, without a free market economic system.  We go through the history of the world and all the economic systems that have been tried, from hunting and gathering and subsistence farming into slavery and feudalism and mercantilism, and of course more recently socialism, communism (and) high government control,” said Grudem.

“Those have all failed to produce prosperity.  The only way that nations have come from poverty to prosperity throughout all history is through a free market economic system,” he said.

According to Grudem and Asmus, their book is designed a prescription for nations rather than individuals to emerge from poverty.  They contend there are three critical components.  The first is an embrace of the free markets.

“The essence of it is you have the freedom to own property.  You have freedom to buy and sell.  You have freedom to produce and enter the marketplace.  That is what leads to economic freedom.,” said Grudem, who notes the Heritage Foundation’s “Index of Economic Freedom consistently shows the nation’s with the most freedom in the marketplace are the most prosperous.

The second critical component on their list is a strong, ethical government, where there is strong respect for the rule of law and government officials serve for the good of the people rather than themselves, their families and their political allies.

The final key factor is biblical ethics, whereby individuals engaging in these free markets conduct themselves with integrity.

“Values and beliefs in a culture are what determine the direction it goes in terms of government and economics,” said Grudem.

“We found that moral teachings, things like not stealing and telling the truth, viewing your work as a calling from God, to whom you are accountable.  Those things lead to economic prosperity,” he said.  “Those biblically-based moral values have really influence economies on positive ways throughout economic history as well.”

So while nations need to set the stage for individuals to prosper, individuals need to conduct themselves above reproach.  Grudem also says intact families are a huge step towards escaping poverty.

“The greatest single determinant of poverty is a single-parent family.  We should do what we can to help single-parent families, but when government encourages rather than discourages single-parent families it’s harmful to families and harmful to the economy,” said Grudem.

Grudem says the sub-Saharan African nation of Botswana is a shining example of how these factors come together to generate prosperity.

“They had the benefit of having a leader.  They had a hereditary king but then became elected as president of Botswana.  He has wise policies that were instituted and we think that was affected by the Christian training that he had in the schools that he went through,” said Grudem, who says the nation is not only well ahead of most other African nations but is on the brink of being classified among the wealthier nations of the world.

Overall, Grudem says the world is a mixed bag in terms of embracing these principles or moving away from them, although he thinks the trend is moving in the right direction.  While much of Latin America is embracing government-controlled economies, he notes Great Britain, Germany, the Scandinavian nations, Chile and South Korea are sterling examples of nations where greater freedom means greater prosperity, and in some cases leaving socialist policies.

And what about the U.S.?

“People immediately begin to say, ‘What about the things we’re doing in the United States?  Aren’t we having more government regulation, higher taxation, disincentives to productivity, disincentives to work?  Aren’t we having moral breakdown in the way that people think of honesty and truthfulness, not breaking contracts and obedience to the rule of law?’ said Grudem.

“There are many things our country is doing that are actually hindering our economic growth and of course that results in a stagnant economy essentially,” he said.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review applaud Rand Paul for going to Berkeley to rail against the NSA, when few conservatives dare to tread that ground.  They also react to the hotly debated story suggesting White House reporters submit specific questions to Jay Carney and get written responses even before the briefings.  And they discuss the latest insulting marketing tactics designed to get young people to sign up for Obamacare.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are pleased to see the Illinois primary indicating far more enthusiasm for Republicans than Democrats and that voters appear fed up up with solid Democratic control.  They also sigh as insurers reveal Obamacare will likely result in the doubling of premiums in 2015.  And they react to the White House pastry chef resigning in part because he didn’t get on board enough with the anti-obesity campaign.

The lack of any significant deterrent to Russia’s annexation of Crimea makes more territorial grabs far more likely and is made possible by repeated demonstrations of U.S. weakness throughout the Obama administration.

On Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin welcomed Crimea as part of Russia despite most western nations declaring Sunday’s referendum illegitimate.  In announcing the annexation of Crimea, Putin also declared Russia has no more territorial ambitions, a statement that experts say should send a chill down our spine.

“When you hear someone who has just gobbled up a piece of real estate say they’re not going to do it again, the first thing you better look at is where they’re likely to go next,” said Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney, who served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy in the Reagan administration.

“As with Adolf Hitler, who promised after he gobbled up the Sudetenland that he would not take all of Czechoslovakia and did and then proceeded to move rapaciously through the rest of Europe, my feeling is we’re likely to see a similar kind of agenda playing out with Vladimir Putin,” said Gaffney.

Gaffney says eastern Ukraine, Moldova, Latvia and Lithuania are all extremely vulnerable to Russian annexation.

“Nobody knows for sure but what I think is likely is that we’re going to see more of this if there isn’t any appreciable cost to Putin.  At the moment, such cost as the United States and its European allies have been willing even to discuss, let alone to impose, are clearly inadequate to the task,” said Gaffney.

On Monday, President Obama announced he was tightening sanctions on a handful of key Russian individuals and that the U.S. would be in close consultation with our European allies.  Gaffney says Obama’s response is “cosmetic” and barely got the attention of Putin and other key officials.  However, he believes there is a successful blueprint from the Reagan years.

“If we were serious about this, what we should be doing, recognizing that what we’re up against now is a guy with the ambition of constituting maybe the Soviet Union 2.0 minus the communist ideology.  Maybe it’s just the Russian empire.  Whatever it is, it’s something very much akin to what we’ve seen in the past.  When we dealt effectively with it in the past under Ronald Reagan, we not only contained this kind of behavior, we rolled it back.  I think that’s the plan that needs to be adopted now,” said Gaffney.

So how much different is our standing with Russia than just five years ago at the close of the George W. Bush presidency?  How has Obama’s “reset button” and gestures like scrapping plans for a missile shield in eastern Europe hurt our ability to deter aberrant behavior by Russia?  And how would Putin calculate differently if this was early 2009?  Gaffney sees one major difference that emboldens Putin.

“For one thing, we would not have essentially eviscerated the United States military.  We would not have seen the sequence of steps that have been perceived by our enemies.  I call it the Obama doctrine, emboldening our foes,undermining our friends and diminishing our country.  The combination of hollowing out our armed forces and demonstrating this kind of behavior has created what (former Defense Secretary) Don Rumsfeld I think quite accurately has described as a phenomenon of weakness that is provocative,” said Gaffney.

“I think if you were to go back to 2009 and you had not seen these sort of steps, we might have been in a position to check this kind of aggression or deter it in the first place, which we are sadly not able to do today,” said Gaffney.

But now that we’re in our current position, what does Gaffney expect from Obama if Putin seeks to acquire more territory?

“My guess is from what we have witnessed to date, both in this immediate crisis and over the previous five years of this presidency is that he will basically say never mind about those red lines.  He will find a way to accommodate himself to the new reality, only in this case that reality is going to continue to become uglier by the day,” said Gaffney.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are pleasantly surprised to see Senate Democrats holding up a number of Obama nominations.  They also separate fact from fiction as the government touts five million Obamacare enrollments.  And they shake their heads as President Obama focuses on fundraisers and celebrity interviews while major crises unfold.