Archives for October 2015

Congressional Republicans will soon move forward on repealing major portions of Obamacare, and this time Senate Democrats can’t stop the effort.

Three different committees in the House of Representatives are advancing legislation that leaders hope to roll into one package to pass and send along to the president.

The Ways and Means Committee is most ambitious.  It is pushing full repeals of the individual and employer mandates, along with repeals of the so-called “Cadillac Tax” and the medical device tax.  The Energy and Commerce panel is looking to kill the Prevention and Public Health Fund while the Education and Workforce Committee wants to scrap employer auto-enrollment for health insurance.  If the whole package were to become law, it would trim about $80 billion from federal spending.

House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, R-Georgia, says this effort will force a veto from the president and he believes it will help the American people better understand which party is on their side.

“It’s important that the American people know who is standing up for positive, patient-oriented solutions in health care.  Those are the Republicans in the House and Senate and who’s getting in the way of the kinds of things the American people want when it comes to health care,” said Price.

The GOP-led House already approved repeals of the “Cadillac Tax” and the medical device tax but they failed to find 60 votes to advance in the U.S. Senate.  That will not be a problem this time, as Republicans use a budget tool known as reconciliation that requires only a simple majority for passage in the Senate.

Price says this option is a result of lawmakers doing their jobs earlier this year in the budget process.

“So many of the American people are frustrated because we haven’t been able to get things to the president’s desk because of the 60-vote threshold in the United States Senate.  Reconciliation is a process through the budget resolution that we passed earlier this year,” said Price.

“Part of that is the ability to do this reconciliation bill, which we passed out of our committee in the House and hopefully we’ll pass through the House itself and send it to the Senate in a week or two that will repeal huge portions of Obamacare,” he added.

The marquee items are the proposed repeals of the individual and employer mandates, requiring adults 26 years old and older and businesses of a certain size to purchase coverage.  Price and his allies also want to ditch the “Cadillac Tax.”

“The ‘Cadillac Tax’ is a tax on those individuals who have insurance coverage, mostly from their employer but at a level that the government deems to be ‘too much.’  This again gets to the core of what Obamacare’s all about and that is that Washington is making decisions for you and your family that may or may not be what you would want or desire,” said Price.

He says this is a classic example of government stifling consumer choice.

“When the government says you’ve got too much, what does it do?  It will tax it and that’s what the Cadillac Tax is.  It flies in the face of choices.  One of the principles that is so important in health care is that the patients ought to be deciding when they’re treated and where they’re treated, not the government forcing individuals to purchase what they think they ought to buy,” said Price.

Obamacare opponents also want to slash more than $12 billion by throwing out the Prevention and Public Health Fund.

“There’s a classic Washington example of a wonderful-sounding thing, when in fact it is essentially a slush fund to move billions of dollars  to the kinds of activities that it wants,” said Price, saying that money is essentially at the beck and call of the secretary of Health and Human Services.

Lastly, the Republicans want to do away with employer auto-enrolling in Obamacare.

“This is an adjunct to the employer mandate.  What we think is most important is that patients and families and their doctors be making medical decisions.  It ought to be patients and families that are selecting the kind of coverage they want for themselves,” said Price.

Price concedes Obama will veto the legislation and Congress will not be able to override it.  However, he says the message this episode will send is crucial.

“The president, no doubt, will veto this piece of legislation.  We think it’s important that the American people understand and appreciate who’s standing in the way of real solutions,” said Price.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review enjoy watching Democratic party leaders publicly feud.  They also groan as China breaks its word and keeps up its hacking efforts against U.S. firms.  And we react to Hillary Clinton’s bizarre laughing fit in reaction to CNN’s Jake Tapper mentioning her emails.

The man who once spearheaded congressional efforts to strengthen American intelligence is hammering former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her description of the U.S. mission in Libya at the recent Democratic debate and blames both Clinton and President Obama for unnecessarily turning a reluctant ally into a hotbed for jihadism.

Former Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chaired the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during his time in Congress.  He is now a senior fellow at the Investigative Project on Terrorism and the author of “Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya.”

During the first Democratic presidential debate on Oct. 13, Clinton vigorously defended the Obama administration’s decision to intervene in Libya and ultimately force the overthrow and killing of longtime dictator Moammar Gaddafi.

“Our response, which I think was smart power at its best, is that the United States will not lead this.  We will provide essential, unique capabilities that we have, but the Europeans and the Arabs had to be first over the line.  We did not put one single American soldier on the ground in Libya,” said Clinton at the debate.

Hoekstra was stunned.

“If this is smart power, I’d hate to see what dumb power would be,” he said, slamming Clinton for touting America as a follower instead of a leader.

“She’s passing the buck and saying, ‘We didn’t lead.’  If we’re going to use our resources, whether they are men and women in the military or whether it is the Air Force where we don’t put a boot on the ground but were fully involved, I’m sorry.  I want us to lead.  I’m not willing to turn over our military over to what the Europeans want, what the Arab countries want or what the UN wants,” said Hoekstra.

Even more stunning to Hoekstra than America’s subordinate role in the Libya campaign is that America picked the wrong side.  He says despite Gaddafi’s horrific past of sponsoring terrorist attacks that killed scores of Americans, by 2011 the dictator was providing far more help than harm to the U.S.

“For eight years, Moammar Gaddafi and Libya did everything the United States asked them to do in terms of their nuclear weapons program, in terms of paying reparations to the victims of their past terrorist activities.  They were partners in fighting jihadists and Al Qaeda, not only in northern Africa but in other parts of the world,” said Hoekstra, who says he met with Libyan leaders, including Gaddafi, three times between 2003-2009.

“He was still a bad and evil man, but he was working with us to secure our national interests,” said Hoekstra.

Instead of relishing that cooperation, Hoekstra says Clinton and Obama threw it away.

“In this case, the president and the secretary of state snatched defeat from the jaws of victory,” said Hoekstra.

The Obama administration’s case for intervention morphed from the immediate need to prevent a genocide in Benghazi to eventually demanding Gaddafi’s ouster.  Hoekstra not only says the mission creep was unacceptable but asserts the dire predictions of Gaddafi being on the brink of slaughtering rebels was a major exaggeration.

“In hindsight, there’s all kinds of evidence that was not even anywhere close to what was going to be happening in Libya.  Throughout the process, Gaddafi and his sons wanted to negotiate a settlement and a peace agreement and Hillary and the Europeans said no.  They just wanted to get rid of Gaddafi,” said Hoekstra.

In the debate, Clinton said Libya was on the path to democracy until outside factors intervened.

“They voted for moderates.  They voted with the hope of democracy.  Because of the Arab Spring, because of a lot of other things, there was turmoil to follow,” she said.

Again, Hoekstra is baffled by Clinton’s interpretation of events.

“Chaos followed?  No, disaster followed,” he said.  “Sure they had an election but the jihadists were well enough organized that this new government never effectively took control of the country.  Europe, America, we walked away.  Read the papers every day.  It is a state of chaos.  It is an ungoverned region.”

But worst of all, Hoekstra says Libya is a mess because the U.S. teamed up with some of the most radical Islamist elements on earth.

“In Libya, we allied ourselves with jihadists who had American blood on their hands.  They recruited and they fought in Afghanistan and Iraq and we allied with them,” said Hoekstra.

Hoekstra fears we may soon learn that the weapons used by jihadis in Libya and elsewhere came from NATO and then took them to the Middle East under the pretense of ousting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.  He says these radical elements the Obama administration trusted in Libya are now perpetrating the worst horrors seen in generations.

“They never got rid of Assad.  What they did is they morphed into what today we call ISIS, which is operating a genocide against Christians in Syria and Iraq and now holds large geographic parts of both of those countries,” said Hoekstra.

More than a year after Gaddafi was killed, terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on September 11. 2012.  Ambassador Chris Stevens was murdered along with Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

In the Democratic debate, Clinton suggested the death of Stevens came with the job of serving in a volatile part of the world.

“Unless you believe the United States should not send diplomats to any place that is dangerous, which I do not, then when we send them forth, there is always the potential for danger and risk,” said Clinton.

Hoekstra says any educated assessment of the unrest in Benghazi should have prevented our ambassador from being there without a major security upgrade.

“That’s not a place for an American ambassador to go unless he’s got an enhanced security detail traveling with him.  He was sent anyway.  He was sent to a facility where they’d been cutting back on security.  The real question we’re going to have to find out is why was he there and why were we allowing jihadists to actually provide security for the facility where he was staying,” said Hoekstra.

While Hoekstra says Clinton still owes Americans a lot of critical information, he says one fact about the entire Libya operation remains the most chilling.

“President Obama and Hillary Clinton, for the first time in American history, made the decision that you could work with, you could manage and you could trust radical jihadist groups.  That is a a huge mistake.  These people want to attack, they want to destroy and they want to eliminate the American way of life.  This president and this secretary of state thought that these were groups that we could work with,” said Hoekstra.

‘Top down’ leadership from both parties has failed the American people and House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, R-Georgia, says Republicans need to rally around a consensus candidate who can heal GOP divisions and foster a ‘bottom up’ approach that gives Americans the strongest voice in their government.

House Republicans are in waiting mode as they work towards electing a new Speaker of the House.  John Boehner, R-Ohio, is planning to resign Oct. 30 but has indicated he would stay until a successor is chosen.  House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-California, was expected to replace Boehner but abruptly withdrew his name from consideration Oct.8.  Price was a candidate for House Majority Leader until McCarthy ended his bid for speaker and decided to stay in his current position.

While the conservative House Freedom Caucus is endorsing Rep. Dan Webster, R-Fla., many GOP critics of Boehner say the election of speaker ought to be less about who takes the job and more about respecting the conservative members of the conference and fighting harder to enact the policy changes that earned the party sizable majorities in the House and Senate last year.

Price strongly agrees.

“I think the concerns are real and valid.  Everyone who goes to Washington, by and large, has given up something significant to go to Washington to try to solve big problems.  The House, through Republican and Democratic leadership, has been a top down model of leadership.  That’s not the way you get things done in a manner that allows each and every American citizen to know that their representative is having a direct effect on the outcome of legislation in Washington,” said Price.

He says Republican leaders need to demonstrate that they recognize who truly holds the power.

“All of us understand and appreciate that we’re not going to get everything that we individually want, but we want to make certain that every member of Congress, every member of the House has an opportunity to effect the outcome.  As long as that works from a bottom up process standpoint, I think you get much more buy-in, much more unity and a greater opportunity to represent the American people,” said Price.

Price admits significant tensions persist within the House Republican Conference but he says a bitter fight for the speaker’s chair is a prescription for disaster.

“Having talked to over two-thirds of our conference over the last three weeks or so, I know that the divisions are deep and the fissures are significant.  I believe that having a contested election right now will in fact deepen those divisions and widen those fissures,” said Price.

To Price, the task ahead is for a frayed conference to rally around one leader.

“I’m desirous of having the Republican Conference rally around, in a consensus way, one individual that can pull us together and unify us so that we can work together in way that allows us to move these pieces of legislation to solve the challenges that we have over to the Senate  and then demand and challenge them to do their work,” said Price.

Since McCarthy’s exit from the speaker’s race, many members are urging House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan to step up to the job but he has repeatedly distanced himself from that notion.  Price says he would be happy to see his predecessor on the budget committee take the job, but he insists the key is to find someone everyone can agree upon – even if that person is him.

“I think Paul Ryan would be a great one.  I really do.  Paul is an individual who can pull us together and move us forward in a positive way.  If that’s not to be, there are a number of folks I think that could fill that bill.  If the conference thinks that I’m capable of being that unifying candidate, then we certainly would be willing to do so,” said Price.

However events play out in the coming days, Price says what may look like dysfunction inside the House Republican Conference is really the GOP trying to respond appropriately to an unprecedented event and setting the stage to better serve the voters that sent them to Washington.

“This is an historic time.  We’ve never had, in the history of the country, a sitting speaker resign mid-term without a scandal.  This is a remarkably challenging time but it’s a time where there’s great opportunity to select an individual as speaker who can unify our conference, address the challenges we have and move forward in a very, very positive way,” said Price.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are glad to see the FBI being diligent about it’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s server despite political pressure to conclude there’s nothing there.  They also shudder as former Defense Secretary Robert Gates says Pres. Obama is paranoid about military leaders trying to force his hand.  And they react the media abruptly ending its fawning over a Joe Biden candidacy after Hillary survives first debate.

President Obama says thousands of U.S. troops will stay in Afghanistan beyond his initial 2017 withdrawal date but will not be resuming combat operations.  A decorated U.S. general says the troop decision is a good one  but Obama is being disingenuous about the mission.

On Thursday, Obama announced that troop levels will remain at about 9,800 through most or all of 2016.  Instead of drawing down at that time to a force needed to secure our embassy, Obama says about 5,500 troops will stay in Afghanistan since the government forces there are not ready to secure their nation alone.

While the decision reflects ongoing challenges in Afghanistan, frequent critics of Obama are glad to see him adjust his withdrawal plan to meet specific threats.

“I’m glad to hear it.  He has obviously has listened to the commanders on the ground there and has made this decision,” said retired U.S. Army Lt. General William “Jerry”Boykin, who served as commander of all Green Berets and later as deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence.

Boykin says he’s heartened that Obama apparently learned a lesson after failing to secure a Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq and conducting a complete withdrawal that Boykin and others believe triggered tremendous instability and allowed for the rise and success of ISIS.

“His legacy is already shot and is not recoverable with regard to Iraq.  I think he’s trying not to make the same mistake in Afghanistan,” said Boykin.

Despite being pleasantly surprised by Obama’s decision, Boykin does have several lingering concerns about U.S. policy in Afghanistan, starting with the residual troop numbers being approved.

“I don’t personally think that the 5,500 number or even the 9,800 number is necessarily the right number for what he is trying to achieve,” said Boykin.

Another irritation for Boykin is that U.S. forces will be engaged in dangerous missions but the president insists our combat days in Afghanistan are over.

“It’s inconsistent to say the combat mission has ended and then say we’re going to keep forces there to do counter-terrorism.  What that means is we’re going to stay there and try to kill the Taliban.  We’re going to search out terrorist leaders.  We’re going to probably target ISIS.  Tell the guys on the ground that’s not a combat mission,” said Boykin.

But the general is encouraged that Obama appreciates that the job is far from done in Afghanistan.

“It’s very clear from the fact they’ve taken Kunduz that the Taliban is resurgent .  As we have pulled back into, essentially, our bases, the Taliban has gone back into the countryside and recruited more, gained a lot of strength and that’s why they were able to take the city,” said Boykin.

However, if the U.S. forces are going to be tasked with hunting and killing terrorists, Boykin says military rules of engagement should be adjusted to allow troops to do their jobs.

“Our rules of engagement have to reflect the tactical considerations and not the political considerations.  We know what the rules of warfare are.  We know the the international laws require.  We know what our military is supposed to do but we have got to let them have the rules of engagement that will not only protect them but will give them the margin for success,” said Boykin.

Many military figures both active duty and retired have complained about restrictive rules of engagement that prevent effective operations in an effort to eliminate any possibility of civilian casualties or collateral damage.  A recent case in point was the missile strike that recently hit an Afghan hospital.  Boykin says that is deeply regrettable but can’t be an excuse to hamstring our mission.

“They have to be able to engage.  There are bad things that happen in wartime.  That hospital the other day was a terrible situation but it was not deliberate.  These kind of things happen and unfortunately rules of engagement have been so restrictive that our troops on the ground there.  All you have to do is talk to them.  The troops on the ground there are frustrated by the fact they can’t engage the enemy because of the rules of engagement,” said Boykin.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review give credit to President Obama for postponing troop removal from Afghanistan as stability erodes there.  They also slam Secretary of State John Kerry for suggesting a week of imam-inspired stabbings of Jews in Israel is a result of Israel building settlements on the West Bank.  And they scratch their heads over Ben Carson’s decision to put his campaign on hold for two weeks to promote his new book.

A rising conservative voice says Americans have largely grown ignorant of the principles and motivations surrounding the American founding and that we are are in the process of fulfilling 200-year-old predictions about what could doom our republic, but he also says it’s not too late to return to the ideals that forged the greatest political experiment in human history.

Joshua Charles is head of the Discovery Project at the Public Policy Institute at William Jessup University.  He and Glen Beck co-authored the New York Times best-seller “The Original Argument.” Charles is author most recently of “Liberty’s Secrets: The Lost Wisdom of America’s Founders.”

Charles sees multiple reasons for Americans’ lack of knowledge about the nation’s founding and the beliefs that inspired it, from weak public education to a growing dependence upon government to an erosion of community in the U.S.  As a result, he says we lose an appreciation for what makes this nation great.

“It’s true that our roots have largely been forgotten and I would say by people of all political persuasions,” said Charles.

Charles pored over letter, diaries and books written by the founders.  He says our instant gratification culture is dumbing down our population and our political discourse

“You find out how much we don;t know them very well.  There’s a ton of material there.  Unfortunately on left and right, it’s just become  ‘Google it and get some quote whether it’s verified or not.’  Unfortunately, there are a lot of quotes taken utterly out of context or they are spurious, they don’t even exist,” said Charles.

In addition to believing Americans need a much better understanding of our national origins, Charles says we can apply a lot of what the founders said to our present-day challenges.

“They talk about morality and religion and education and finance and money and that sort of stuff.  They talk about a lot of things I think are directly applicable to our political life as a nation,” said Charles.  “They so convincingly talk about fundamental truths, fundamental realities that are true in every time and every place and which are good for wise people to be acquainted with.”

Charles also writes about the conflicting notions of liberty, specifically the common modern belief that liberty means doing what we please versus the colonial understanding that liberties are certain rights ordained by God that government has a solemn duty to protect.

He says one reason for the confusion is Thomas Jefferson’s reference to the “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence.  Charles contends Jefferson’s understanding of happiness was far different than the definition that has emerged in the past few decades.

“Essentially, we view happiness today as self-fulfillment, the fulfillment of our desires.  We often times equate it with a good feeling.  For the founders, however, the notion of happiness was the notion of the good life,” said Charles.

“When Jefferson wrote, ‘the pursuit of happiness’ he was talking about an innately ordered idea of liberty, that liberty is the moral pursuit of moral ends.  For the founders, the idea that you could have an immoral population or an unvirtuous population be free was a contradiction in terms, which is why they so often repeated in so many times throughout their entire lives that morality, particularly inspired by some sort of religious conviction was absolutely necessary if a society was going to be free,” said Charles.

Armed with that worldview, Charles says the founders set up a system of government that limited government and placed deliberate checks and balances on power because they understood better than virtually every nation in history both the potential and dangers inherent in human nature.  He says they hit the “sweet spot” in understanding how people operate.

“The American Revolution combined the truth that both propositions have, namely that human nature is very flawed.  Human history provides many examples of this.  It’s why they set up the three branches to control the accumulation of power and make sure it didn’t end up in one person or one group.  At the same time they knew that human nature was quite capable of doing great things,” said Charles.

In addition to studying the American founders, Charles is well-versed in the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville, the French scholar who famously lavished praise upon our new republic in “Democracy in America.”  But for all his marveling at America, Tocqueville also envisioned a series of problems that could derail us.

Charles says several of those fears are lining up to come true.

“Essentially it was all about the development of a narcissistic culture that was bent toward the pursuit of pleasure.  There’s other facets to it but that’s essentially it, where the individual becomes solely about themselves,” said Charles.

Published in 1840, the full list of Tocqueville’s feared devolution may strike many Americans as chillingly prophetic.  He says poor education and a loss of morality would eventually lead material pleasures.  He further predicted the Constitution would be intentionally misinterpreted to make it easier to change and that would lead to bigger and bigger government.

If that were to happen, Tocqueville foresaw political parties fostering divisions in society to maintain and grow power, followed by an increasing coziness between government and financial institutions.  He cautioned the result of all this would be mounting debts and greater demands from the people of government money.

To turn this all around, Charles is has to start with intentional discussions within families about what America is meant to be and why is was created that way it was.  He also encourages people to read voraciously beef up their education.

He also advocates a more civil political discourse without compromising principle.  He says the political left needs to change for sure but he focused his encouragement to his fellow conservatives.

“Conservatives are my people and I’m very worried there seems to be this infatuation with the latest conspiracy theories.  We live in a big society and we’ve got to govern ourselves with people who have very different opinions than us.  We have to be able to talk with each other.  It doesn’t mean we have to agree and we don’t have to give up our principles,” said Charles.

He says the best example of a civil, principled communicator today is GOP presidential hopeful Dr. Ben Carson.

“I don’t agree with Carson on absolutely everything but I like the fact he can get people who weren’t previously at the table at the table.  When you saw him on ‘The View’ the other day, these ladies really had nothing to say to him because their ignorance was exposed for what it is.  He didn’t do it by smashing them in the face with some rhetorical bombastic bomb.  He just gently, kindly did it and lived out how a Christian should engage in dialogue,” said Charles.

Charles strongly believes America can return to it’s original moorings, but he says it’s won’t be quick or easy.

“I really do think we can get back on track.  I think it will take a generation.  This isn’t ‘Win 2016, win 2017 and everything will be okay.’  I think this is literally a project that if embarked upon would take until the end of my life if not longer to get us back on track,” said Charles.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review give Jim Webb credit for being the only Democratic presidential candidate not completely living in a fantasy.  They also call out Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley for not really wanting to win when they refused to confront Hillary Clinton over her email scandal.  And they discuss the Democratic Party effectively choosing to embrace socialism.

Retired U.S. Army Maj. General Paul Vallely says there is no doubt Russia is running the show in Syria and he says the only successful path forward is convincing Vladimir Putin to abandon the Assad regime for the good of Russia and the region.

Vallely recently spent several days in Europe, evaluating the refugee crisis and meeting with key officials, most notably Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov, who serves as Putin’s chief envoy to Syria and the Middle East.

The general says Bogdanov didn’t say much but listened intently and certainly conveyed the belief that Putin is calling the shots in Syria.

“They know we have very weak leadership in the United States.  We have no strategy that works or will work in the Middle East.  He knew that Russians were basically controlling the chessboard and nothing will happen in Syria unless something is done with the Russians.  That’s just the way it is,” said Vallely.

During their talks in Paris, Vallely laid out his multi-point plan for solving the Syrian crisis to Bogdanov.

“Nothing will happen in Syria, as I’ve said on TV, radio and to the ambassador until Assad retires and is removed,” said Vallely, who urged the Russians to take several immediate steps.

“First thing, cease fire.  Quit bombing the Free Syrian Army and civilians that the Russians have been doing.  They been hitting almost no ISIS targets at all.  We got this from inside Syria through our intel operatives there.  Assad’s got to step down, be replaced by a new government and then they can proceed with the reunification and restoration and get Syria pulled back together as a unified country and people,” said Vallely, who still firmly believes that supporting the Free Syrian Army is the smartest way to achieve a secular, stable Syria.

The Vallely plan calls for Assad to be deposed and a resettlement zone to be established in western Syria to allow for the return of refugees while a coalition consisting of the U.S., Russia and several other regional nations to destroy ISIS.  Once successful, Syrians would be returned to their towns and villages and a redevelopment and reconstruction plan would be implemented to get the nation back on it’s feet.

Of course, there’s one major problem facing the plan before it even starts: Russia is a staunch ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and says its entire purpose for the current military operations to keep Assad in power and remove the threat to his rule.

Vallely admits changing Putin’s mind about Assad will not be easy, but he says the key is to use more carrot than stick.

“How do you make Putin a hero in all this?  Well, number one, he can be the one that helps unify Syria.  He can be the one that helps destroy ISIS.  Third, they can be part of the economic development program for a new Syria,” said Vallely.

“It’s like ‘Let’s Make a Deal.’  Like Donald Trump says, you can make a deal with these guys but there has to be something in it for them.  What’s in it for them in the long term is an oil pipeline across Syria, the benefits of reconstruction and development of high tech cities and manufacturing in Syria.  So a lot of things could be done that Russia would benefit from,” said Vallely.

Vallely also traveled to Vienna to observe the human tide of refugees entering Europe.  He says the simplest answer is to end the fighting in Syria under a new government and return the refugees.  He says that’s vital because there’s no way of knowing how many radicals are mixed in with the migrants.

“The problem is they’re not vetting any of them.  Unless you vet them and profile them in some way, you’re never going to find out.  Obviously, ISIS is using the refugee program to infiltrate into Europe,” said Vallely.

He says a major headache for European nations is that many of these people have enough money to buy train tickets to other European nations and once there they can declare refugee status, which must be honored under existing agreements.

Vallely believes most of them want to return to their homelands, but in the meantime, they are quickly changing the complexion of Europe.

“Paris is overrun by Muslims right now.  It is incredible.  Even the beggars on the street were elderly women or young, pregnant girls.  But Paris has been overrun.  It’s an incredible situation to see,” said Vallely.