Archives for July 2014

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton says the failure of President Obama to lead on the world stage leaves us more vulnerable and some of the most volatile areas on earth even more unstable.

Commenting on crises ranging from the Israel-Hamas conflict to the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) to Russia’s defiance in Ukraine, Bolton says if he were grading the Obama administration on these major global tests, the report card would be rather depressing.

“It would be fail, no question about it.  We are becoming more endangered.  Our friends are becoming more endangered by the weak and ineffective policies we’re pursuing,” said Bolton.

When asked which of the hot spots should be of greatest concern, Bolton instead chose the nation he believes to be pulling the strings in multiple crises.

“If you look at the Middle East, that’s the most critical because it’s the most dangerous.  The center of all of this trouble is Iran [because of its] support for international terrorism, like Hamas and Hezbollah, and Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.  Iran is the most dangerous country in the region, the most threatening to friends of ours, Israel and Arab countries alike, and ultimately the biggest threat of the region to the United States if it were to give nuclear weapons to terrorists,” said Bolton, who says Iran is emboldened because U.S. leadership is lacking.

“The Obama administration has not dealt seriously with the ayatollahs in Tehran.  It doesn’t appreciate their threat.  It’s trying to negotiate with them in a way that will give Iran the advantage to our disadvantage.  We need somebody to stand up in the Democratic Party and say, ‘Mr. President, your policies on Iran are endangering America, Israel and our Arab allies and they need to be reversed,'” said Bolton.

He says the clearest example of Iran’s influence is in the actions of Hamas, as it continues to lob rockets and Iranian-made missiles into Israel while Hezbollah has the same weaponry in Lebanon.

“Between Hamas and Hezbollah, they can cover the entire civilian population of Israel.  In a way, the battle that Israel is now fighting and is about to fight with Hamas is a surrogate battle with Iran and really Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” said Bolton.

Bolton says that reason alone should be enough for the Obama administration to be far less condemning of Israel’s actions and start backing away from incessant cease-fire demands.

“I think Israel’s legitimate exercise of its right of self-defense here is something the United States should be supporting, not trying to get a cease-fire that prevents Israel from doing what it really needs to do to protect itself.  (They’re saying) all the time they’ve got Israel’s back.  That’s not the actual policy they’re pursuing,” said Bolton.

The Israel-Hamas fighting is also revealing some curious loyalties in the region.  Just a year after shedding Muslim Brotherhood rule, Egypt is cracking down on Hamas as well, from securing its border with Gaza to demolishing tunnel networks created by Hamas.  Meanwhile, longtime U.S. allies Qatar and Turkey are openly hostile to Israel.

According to Bolton, many Arab states want Israel to crush Hamas because it represents a blow to the power Iran holds in the Middle East and uses as leverage against its neighbors.  Nonetheless, he believes weak leadership from the U.S. is also playing a role in some of the brazen opposition to Israel.

“It shows who’s isolated here is the Obama White House and how much more support we’d have if we demonstrated a little bit of leadership.  Friends like Turkey that go the other way do so because they think they can oppose the United States with impunity.  They see a weak, inattentive leader in the White House and they’re performing accordingly,” said Bolton.

Iran is also a key player in the major developments to the north in Syria and Iraq, where radical Sunni militants claim to have erased a border and created the Islamic State.  That movement has led to mass executions of Iraqi and Syrian forces and the persecution of Christians to either convert, flee or die in parts of Iraq.

Bolton says it does little good to dwell upon the squandered opportunity in Iraq, although he does say it serves as a lesson into why the U.S. cannot withdraw from the world and leave outcomes to outside forces.  Once again, he sees failed policies from the Obama administration.

“We have plenty of Sunnis in Iraq and Syria who oppose ISIS, but they don’t want to be put under Iran’s influence.  Yet, by negotiating with Iran over its nuclear weapons program, we’re giving the ayatollahs legitimacy.  It just shows, from top to bottom, the Obama administration doesn’t understand what’s at stake in the Middle East or what we need to do about it,” said Bolton.

Another foreign policy headache continues to unfold with Russia and Ukraine.  Two weeks ago, Russian-backed rebels shot down a commercial airliner, killing nearly 300 people.  This week, President Obama sternly announced new economic sanctions against Russia .  However, Bolton says sanctions like these do more damage to our position than doing nothing at all.

“When you put in sanctions that are ineffective, it says to the Russians, ‘That’s all there is.’  So their calculus is they’re getting away with their aggressive, belligerent policies,” said Bolton.

Bolton says it’s not only the case with U.S. sanctions but European Union actions as well, as evidenced by new EU sanctions cracking down on Russian banks but none of their subsidiaries in the European Union.

“There are comparable loopholes in the sanctions the president announced this week that say to the Russians, ‘They’re simply not serious.  We can take minor hits and yet continue aiding the separatists in Ukraine and pursuing aggression on the continent of Europe,” he said.

Standard Podcast [ 11:11 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review get a kick out of the Clinton releasing a statement saying authors of books critical of them shouldn’t be allowed to do that.  They chide conservative media for treating an alleged transcript of a conversation between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu as fact.  And they laugh as Hillary gets on board the effort to get the Washington Redskins to change their name.

Standard Podcast [ 12:37 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review have fun with Kentucky Democratic Senate hopeful Alison Grimes thinking the Iron Dome protects Israel from Hamas tunnels.  They’re also furious as Democrats try to orchestrate an unnecessary budget crisis over transportation funding.  They slam Jesse Ventura for pursuing a defamation case against an American hero’s widow.  And Jim offers an epic rant in response to a reader’s demand that he remove a picture of Alison Grimes from his blog.

Standard Podcast [ 13:13 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Traditional marriage advocates are slamming a three-judge panel from the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for striking down Virginia’s constitutional amendment affirming traditional marriage, saying the decision violates the separation of powers and potentially opens the doors to any arrangement of adults being considered marriage.

On Monday, Circuit Judges Henry F. Floyd and Roger L. Gregory voted to strike down the constitutional amendment defining marriage in the commonwealth as the union of one man and one woman.  The amendment was approved by 57 percent of Virginia voters in 2006.

“Over the decades, the Supreme Court has demonstrated that the right to marry is an expansive liberty interest that may stretch to accommodate changing societal norms,” wrote Floyd in his opinion.

For traditional marriage supporters, that rationale showcases judges who have no problem thinking of themselves as lawmakers.

“With this decision, I think you see another example of the courts exercising legislative powers.  They actually believe they have the right to make new law and now they’re not even afraid of proclaiming that in their decision,” said Liberty Counsel Special Counsel Rena Lindevaldsen, who is also a dean and professor at the Liberty University School of Law.

However, it is the summary argument from Judges Floyd and Gregory that is raising many eyebrows about how widely same-sex marriage activists may want to broaden the definition.

“Civil marriage is one of the cornerstones of our way of life. It allows individuals to celebrate and publicly declare their intentions to form lifelong partnerships, which provide unparalleled intimacy, companionship, emotional support, and security. The choice of whether and whom to marry is an intensely personal decision that alters the course of an individual’s life. Denying same-sex couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance,” they wrote.

Lindevaldsen contends that approach leaves a stunning amount of room to define marriage in an infinite number of ways.

“I do see that as a risk.  First you have the court proclaiming that the right is ever-expanding and then you have this language that adults should be free to choose to love who they want to love.  We already have challenges to the polygamy bans.  We have a movement out there suggesting that two, three, four, five people should be able to come together in the marital union.  So this opens that door entirely.  Once you’ve opened the door past one man and one woman, which has historical and foundational roots, what’s to say the line can’t be drawn to allow two, three, four and five people to marry,” said Lindevaldsen.

While the judges may have opened that door, same-sex marriage activists insist they are not interested in growing the number of people in a marriage but instead in allowing two people of the same gender to wed.  Lindevaldsen says once you start meddling with the definition of marriage it will be hard to justify forbidding marriage to people in other unconventional relationships.

“I like to think we could limit it, but from a legal perspective and realistically speaking, once you open the door the door is open.  There simply is no reason to now say  that three consenting adults, who love each other and want to raise children together, shouldn’t be allowed to marry once we retreat from the definition of marriage as one man and one woman,” said Lindevaldsen.

The two judges also became the first to invoke “segregation” into a marriage ruling.  It’s especially significant in Virginia, which was the state at the center of the interracial marriage debate in the late 1960s.  In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court affirmed the right of interracial couples to wed.

Lindevaldsen says there are no genuine similarities between the two issues.

“The movement for same-sex marriage is entirely distinct from the case that took place to allow people of different races to marry.  Marriage is about the coming together of one man and one woman.  A ban that prohibits people because of their skin color from marrying has nothing to do with advancing that purpose.  In fact, it’s racial discrimination.  The idea that that’s the same as two people of the same sex, who don’t promote the state’s interests in raising children and coming together to build that firm foundation is entirely distinct from that,” said LIndevaldsen, noting that black pastors are among the most vocal in denouncing comparisons of the same-sex marriage movement to the civil rights era.

In addition to alleging the two judges legislated from the bench, Lindevaldsen also claims they unintentionally undermined one of the key arguments behind the same-sex marriage movement.

“You have the majority opinion stating that it’s wrong for us to have argued that same-sex couples only have sexual relations with same-sex [partners].  So they’re actually saying that same-sex couples can come together in opposite-sex relationships  as well, which plays into this pro-creation argument.  But it also undermines their argument that ‘we’re born gay, can’t change and we need the right to marry.’  Now the majority is proclaiming that they have this free right to engage in sexual relations with people of the same sex or of the opposite sex.  So where’s that going to take us?” said Lindevaldsen.

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring made headlines earlier this year by announcing the state would no longer defend the constitutional amendment.  In the wake of Monday’s decision, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper said he would also stop defending the law in his state.

“I’ve actually been working on a project right now with regard to the duties of state attorneys general to defend the law.  They simply do not have the authority to refuse to defend the law.  They are charged with enforcing the civil laws.  The mechanism to repeal laws is through the legislature or have it declared unconstitutional through the courts.  But the people deserve a defense of the laws that were duly enacted,” she said.

The marriage debate is often seen in political terms, but all three judges on the panel were either nominated or promoted by Republican presidents.  Floyd was nominated to the district court and promoted to the appeals level by President Obama.  Gregory was nominated for the district level by President Clinton and chosen for the appeals court by Bush.  The lone dissenting judge, Paul V. Niemeyer, was a George H.W. Bush appointee.

Lindevaldsen is not surprised.

“Obviously, the vetting process wasn’t what it should have been.  More importantly, we’re talking about a legal education and judicial system that has been raised on the idea that as judges they set public policy and make law.  That transcends political parties, Republican or Democrat.  That’s a problem that needs to be addressed.  Justice Scalia talks about it often of how lawyers have been trained.  So it’s not surprising you see Republican appointees getting it wrong on what their role is,” she said.

The relative silence of Republicans and even conservatives on the marriage issue in this year’s midterm elections is also troubling to Lindevaldsen.

“I think it’s wrong for conservatives to shy away from this issue by avoiding these issues that are at the forefront of the cultural debate right now.  Societal division is taking place.  We don’t distinguish ourselves, if you’re a conservative, from the other parties.  I think we’re trying too hard to meld into a mushy middle,” said Lindevaldsen.

“By doing that, you don’t distinguish yourself and set yourself apart for what you truly stand for.  We really can’t shy away from this.  This is the issue of the day that we have to stand for and fight for.  If we’re going to be afraid of it, the consequences for our society…I don’t even want to think about where we’re going to go,” she said.

Standard Podcast [ 9:54 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review cheer National Review’s Eliana Johnson for breaking the story of Michelle Nunn’s internal memos in the Georgia U.S. Senate race and how much the contents could damage Nunn’s campaign.  They also groan as Libyan lawlessness forces the U.S. to evacuate our embassy there.  They skewer Hillary Clinton for suggesting Hamas stores rockets in civilian areas because they just don’t have a lot of space.  And they honor the passing of a key actor in one of their favorite movies.

Standard Podcast [ 11:08 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

A leading veterans group is hailing two key provisions of the proposed Veterans Affairs reform bill as critical to improving care for our nation’s heroes but warns that spending needs to be controlled and oversight must be even more intense to make sure positive changes are really happening.

Over the weekend, Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Bernard Sanders (I-Vermont) and House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Jeff Miller (R-Florida) announced they agreed on a framework for reforms to accelerate care for veterans and address the bureaucratic mess that led to veterans waiting months or even years to see a doctor.

The plan would cost a minimum of $17 billion.  The majority of that money would be set aside for veterans to seek medical care outside of the VA system if they cannot get an appointment within the promised window of 14 days.  In addition, the bill contains the major GOP priority of granting the secretary of Veterans’ Affairs the power to fire bureaucrats who are simply not doing their jobs.

“The two principles, particularly the expanded firing authority and the expanded access to private care are the two most important reforms in this bill.  We feel they will lay the groundwork for future VA reform in fundamentally transforming how the VA delivers care and benefits to our veterans,” said Dan Caldwell, issues and legislative campaign manager at Concerned Veterans for America.

While he believes both of those components are essential to any meaningful reform, Caldwell says the greater choice in health care options for veterans is the most important reform.

“We think  that allowing veterans more health care choices will improve their overall well-being, will get veterans out of this failing single-payer health care system at the VA and ultimately reduce wait time,” said Caldwell, who believes transferring more and more of veterans’ medical needs to the private sector is a worthy goal.

“We think that a lot of these health care services, particularly on the primary care front, could probably be better served within the private sector at a family doctor or primary care physician.  We don’t think this is really a mission change from what VA’s original intent was.  We think this was a mission intent change from where the VA’s mission has expanded in recent decades,” said Caldwell.

Concerned Veterans for America is also cheering the plan to give more latitude to the secretary of Veterans’ Affairs to remove personnel at the upper levels for incompetence or non-performance.  It’s a power he hopes the incoming secretary will use widely.

“You’ll probably have fire thousands of managers throughout the VA.  The rot at that institution is just so widespread.  It is just so ingrained, culturally, within that institution that you’re going to need to remove a lot of people from the VA and then fundamentally transform the culture,” said Caldwell.

Sen. Sanders insisted on including a 21-day window for any dismissed employees to challenge their firing.  Caldwell says this will make it harder to clean house and we’re already seeing that problem take shape.

“What you’re seeing often with these employees is that it takes two years to fire someone.  We’re not talking about low-level employees.  We’re talking about senior managers.  It should be very easy to remove those people from their positions,” he said, noting the problem removing  one of the most infamous people associated with this scandal.

“Out in Phoenix, Arizona, where the scandal broke, Sharon Helman is the hospital director that was responsible directly or indirectly for the deaths of up to 40 veterans as the result of manipulated wait lists.  The process to fire her began the day (former Veterans’ Affairs Secretary Gen. Eric) Shinseki resigned.  she’s still on the payroll,” said Caldwell.

“Two other people that started to be fired are still on the payroll.  They’ve been receiving pay now for close to two months as employees of the VA.  They’re going to drag it out as long as they can because they have the incentive to.  I think that this new accountability reform will remove that attempt to drag it out, said Caldwell, noting that government unions will likely challenge the new policy but ultimately lose in court.

Caldwell says Concerned Veterans for America is very worried about the spending associated with the legislation, not only the amounts designated for the key reforms but also for what he considers unnecessary add-ons.  Ultimately, he says there will need to be very close oversight from Congress, the media and many others because the VA still hasn’t learned its lessons.

“They’re still not being forthcoming with Congress.  They’re not being forthcoming with the media.  They’re not providing requested information.  The VA conference committee needed detailed accounting information from the VA to give to the Congressional Budget Office.  The VA gave them complete information.  It’s going to require a lot of continued focus…to make sure this organization is transformed,” said Caldwell.

Standard Podcast [ 9:22 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Andrew Johnson of National Review are cautiously optimistic about the VA reform bill.  They also rip John Kerry for failing miserably in the Middle East and not for not even trying to be an honest broker.  And they laugh as liberal media fall for a parody story suggesting Rep. Michele Bachmann wants to put immigrant kids in work camps.

Standard Podcast [ 9:48 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-California) is slamming the Obama administration for refusing to enforce federal immigration laws, saying our nation is already at the tipping point of disaster from failing to secure our borders and warning that any special refugee status for illegal entrants will result in a fierce response from Congress.

On Thursday, McClintock took to the House floor and delivered a blistering attack on the Obama administration for what he said was its deliberate neglect of its duty to protect our nation’s borders.

“If we are not willing to enforce our current laws, there is no reason to believe that any future laws will be enforced.  And until we enforce them, we really can’t accurately assess what changes may be needed,” said McClintock in his floor speech.

In a follow-up interview, McClintock says Obama is abdicating what should be his top priority.

“Border security is the single most important responsibility of the federal government.  If it cannot discharge that responsibility, all of its others become meaningless,” he said.  “They have completely abandoned the responsibility the federal government has to defend our borders.  As the chief executive, the president  is responsible for that.  He is required to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.  He’s done exactly the opposite.”

In his House speech, McClintock also warned that history is littered with nations that failed to protect themselves.

“History is shouting its warning at us: nations that either cannot or will not defend their borders aren’t around very long,” he said Thursday.

McClintock elaborated on that statement later, saying the U.S. is perilously close to becoming one of those nations.

“I think we’re at the tipping point right now.  A majority of Americans have awakened to the fact that we face an unprecedented crisis on our southern border.  For the first time in American history, that border, as a practical matter, is completely undefended and wide open and is being crossed by thousands and thousands of illegal immigrants,” said McClintock.

The congressman says this entire border cris would have been avoided if the Obama administration simply enforced existing laws or even just some of them.

“What we really need to do is enforce is enforce the existing immigration law, which provides for serious sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants and completion of the border fence.  Also, we’ve got to deport illegal immigrants who come into contact with law enforcement or who apply illegally for government assistance.  Current law provides for their deportation.  If we are not willing to deport such illegal immigrants, then our immigration laws become meaningless,” said McClintock.

On Friday, the White House announced it was considering granting special refugee status to minors in Honduras because of the country’s high crime rate.  No decision has been made, but McClintock is outraged at the mere mention of such a policy.

“Think about what they’re actually saying.  They’re saying, ‘This wave of illegal immigration is not arriving here fast enough so we want to fly them to America,’.  That’s what they’re saying” said McClintock, noting that such an approach to refugees would quickly lead to a very slippery slope.

“If they’re conferred refugee status for simply fearing violence, that makes eligible every person in every part of the world, including the south side of Chicago and most parts of Detroit.  Refugee status, by the way, entitles them to welfare benefits and legal residency,” he said.

“Hopefully, (Congress) won’t have to address that.  If we do, I believe that Congress would have no choice but to exercise the full power of the purse and seriously consider other options,” said McClintock.

As for the current border emergency, McClintock believes House Republicans are largely in lockstep on what needs to happen next.

“We need to detain all new arrivals rather than releasing them into the general population, expedite deportation hearings, provide unrestricted access for law enforcement to all federal lands at the border.  Right now, they’re severely restricted over which lands they can even access,” said McClintock, who also wants to see the National Guard activated in whatever capacity it is needed to secure the border.

With Democrats controlling the Senate and Obama in the White House, Republicans have their work cut out for them.  However, McClintock says conservatives have a crucial ally that just needs to get engaged.

“I think the American people are going to need to weigh in on this,” he said.  “I think these are all measures the American people recognize are desperately needed and which they would overwhelmingly support.  I think if the Senate were to stand in the way of such emergency action, there would be hell to pay.”

McClintock says the devastating impact of unchecked illegal immigration is not hypothetical.  He says California is living through it right now.

“The impact goes to every part of our social service structure.  If we’re going to provide free food and clothing and housing and medical care and transportation and legal representation and relocation, the implications are overwhelming.  We’re already seeing our schools, our hospitals, our courts, our law enforcement, our prisons all being overwhelmed by this flood of illegal immigration.  Local and state budgets are being stretched to the max,” said McClintock.

Perhaps of even greater concern, he says, is that the current episode on our border could permanently damage the rule of law in this country when it comes to immigration.

“We’re also going to watch our legal immigration laws simply become irrelevant.  Why would anyone go to all the trouble of obeying our immigration laws when they can reap the same benefits by ignoring them?” said McClintock.

Standard Podcast [ 7:04 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download