Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review applaud Jorge Ramos of Univision for asking tough questions and follow-ups that Hillary Clinton answered badly. They also slam Bernie Sanders for glossing over the record of the Castro regime and spending as much time discussing what he sees as its good points. And they unload on the Trump campaign after campaign manager Corey Lewandowski roughs up a female reporter and says he thought she was a less friendly reporter.
Vice President Joe Biden told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the United States “will act” if Iran’s test firing of ballistic missiles is proven to violate the terms of the nuclear agreement the U.S. and five other nations struck with Iran last year, but a congressional leader on the issue says we shouldn’t hold out breath.
On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard test-fired multiple missiles. Later reports indicated the missiles contained a message written in Hebrew. “Israel should be wiped off the Earth” was the purported message.
Vice President Joe Biden was in Israel at the time. At a joint press conference Biden stressed America’s commitment to Israel’s security and said the U.S. will act if Iran’s activities did in fact breach the nuclear agreement.
“All their conventional activity outside the deal, which is still beyond the deal, we will and are attempting to act wherever we can find it,” said Biden.
Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, is chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade. He suspects Biden’s vow is just empty rhetoric.
“We’re not going to do anything,” said Poe, in reference to the Obama administration.
Biden’s wording about the nuclear agreement could be telling, because Poe says Iran’s missile tests didn’t violate that deal.
“The nuclear agreement with Iran does not include the testing or not testing of missiles. There’s a UN resolution prohibiting Iran from testing intercontinental ballistic missiles, but it is not part of the Iranian deal,” said Poe.
So while Iran is violating a United Nations Security Council resolution, Poe suspects the most we’ll see is ineffective bluster.
“What is the UN going to do? They’re not going to do anything,” said Poe. “We should have the capability, and we do, to interpose our own unilateral sanctions against the ballistic missile testing. But we’ve backed away from the sanctions. I don’t see anything happening on this at all,” said Poe.
He says the Obama administration was tacitly admitting in the nuclear agreement, that Iran would ultimately end up with the very weapons we don’t want them to have.
“We as a country have made it our policy to allow them to get nuclear weapons within ten years from the deal. Exactly where they are right now I cannot say,” said Poe.
However, the congressman stresses that Americans need to see these missile tests as an overt step towards developing and deploying nuclear weapons.
“The ayatollah has made it clear that he wants to develop nuclear weapons and he needs a delivery system. That system is intercontinental ballistic missiles,” said Poe.
What remains unclear about the recent tests is exactly what type of missiles these were.
“The question is are they capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. We don’t know that they are or are not,” said Poe.
It is already known that Iran has missiles with a 1,400-mile range. Poe says that’s enough to imperil many of our friends.
“I do believe that their development is of course to make those missiles not only go to Israel but to go to western Europe,” said Poe, who reminds Americans that we are Tehran’s ultimate target.
“It’s always been the foreign policy of the ayatollah and of Iran to eliminate Israel and also to eliminate the United States. That policy has never changed. It hasn’t changed during the nuclear agreement. I think people in Washington, the administration especially, need to understand that the goal of the ayatollah is to destroy us and Israel,” said Poe.
Poe also outlined what he thinks the U.S. response ought to be.
“We have the authority and the ability to impose greater sanctions through the Treasury Department on the money and the companies that are actually working to develop these intercontinental ballistic missiles,” said Poe.
“Immediately, the (UN) security council should impose greater sanctions to prevent them from developing the intercontinental ballistic missiles,” he added. “Rather than just talking about it and telling them we don’t like what they’re doing, we should actually do something. They’re not going to stop unless they’re forced to stop.”
Poe says Congress may act on its own accord but members realize the odds are stacked against them in actually getting the sanctions implemented.
“Congress should weigh in on the sanctions. We would have to pass legislation and get the president to sign it. There lies the rub,” said Poe.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review react to another strong night by Donald Trump and no indication that Republicans are about to unify around an alternative. They also bang their heads against the desk as some pundits argue the establishment should rally around John Kasich after his third place finish in Michigan. And they relish Hillary Clinton’s stunning loss to Bernie Sanders in Michigan.
Iran has recently test-fired ballistic missiles and is treating last year’s nuclear deal as a joke, and retired U.S. Navy Captain Chuck Nash says the Obama administration simply doesn’t care anymore.
Within the past two days, new revelations about Iran’s actions and the contents of the nuclear agreement have national security experts howling mad. On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that Iran had test-fired multiple ballistic missiles. While such missiles have little use except to carry warheads, the testing is permitted under the deal hammered out between western nations and Iran last summer.
That news follows on the heels of Monday’s revelations that the deal prohibits the United Nations’ nuclear inspectors from publicly announcing any violations Iran has committed. That admission from the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, followed protests that it’s February reports on Iran’s activities offered little transparency.
Captain Nash is an Iran expert. While not surprised at the apparent gaping loopholes in the enforcement mechanism of the nuclear deal, Nash says it is further proof that the agreement doesn’t make anyone safer.
“The nuclear deal was only a deal for Iran. It was not a deal for any of the other participants,” said Nash, in reference to the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany, which all signed on to the agreement. The group is often referred to as the P5 Plus One.
“Our verbiage and everything from that deal going forward is just a big joke. If it weren’t so dangerous, it would be funny. We were just absolutely skunked. We went into it with the intention of getting a deal just to get a deal. Now we’re living with the fruits of that,” said Nash.
Nash says the actions of Iran since the deal are also concrete evidence that it knows it fleeced the world at the negotiating table because everything we’ve seen from Iran shows that it’s agenda is moving ahead at full speed.
“They have clearly not been humbled. They have won. They held out and they got the P5 Plus One to give them exactly what they wanted to placate the politicians in the West so they could go back to their constituents and say peace is at hand,” said Nash.
“It;s Chamberlain all over again,” said Nash, alluding to then-British Prime Minister assuring his people Europe would be at peace after surrendering the Sudetenland to Adolf Hitler at talks in Munich in 1938. Hitler invaded Poland the next year.
Not only has Iran been brazen in its missile testing, it also played an aggressive role in the detention of U.S. Navy personnel in January, forcing Americans to their knees at gunpoint and forcing one of the sailors to make a statement admitting blame for the incident.
That incensed Nash.
“The way you do that is you hail or contact the other vessel and you let them know they are entering waters. Then you make sure that they stay out. What they did to our sailors was they treated them as if they were bringing in a boatload of cocaine into Key West,” said Nash.
Nash is borderline speechless that the U.S. agreed to prevent the IAEA from publicly revealing any Iranian nuclear violations, especially after the Obama administration insisted that would not be the case.
“You can’t make this stuff up. nobody would believe it. Yet, that’s what these great negotiators have signed. Of course we’re the only ones, in the West, who are going to abide by the agreement. The Iranians are not and they have not since this thing was signed,” said Nash.
He says the bottom line is that the Obama administration is fine with the provision because it means it won’t have to answer for the ineffectiveness of the deal.
“Even if we did find something wrong, we’re not going to divulge it, not only the IAEA but the United States because it would prove that the critics of this stupid deal were right all along and they will not do it. They would rather hide that from the American people,” said Nash.
He says Iran has carte blanche in the Persian Gulf for now.
“They are not stopping doing what they are doing. They are setting out to be the regional hegemon in the gulf and that’s it. Period. End of statement. And no piece of paper is going to stop them,” said Nash.
He says Obama got his deal and has no further plans to check Iranian ambitions.
“They got an Iran deal. That’s in the wake. That’s going to be listed as one of the great achievements of this administration. They’re looking for a legacy,” said Nash. “[Iran is] developing these missiles. They don’t care what the UN says. They don’t care what the U.S. says. Unfortunately, the U.S. doesn’t care either,” said Nash.
He says the development of the Iranian missile program is already an imminent threat to Israel.
“Just wait until the Iranians continue down the path and demonstrate the capability to not only develop a nuclear weapon, but to have the delivery system in place that can reach Israel,” said Nash.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are hopeful that Hillary Clinton’s new far left positions on fracking and guns will cost her in some critical states come November. They also shudder as Iran brazenly test-fires ballistic missiles. And they dissect the flap over a CNN story suggesting some Rubio advisers think he should quit before the Florida primary.
Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III is remembering the late former First Lady Nancy Reagan as “gracious,” and “supportive” and a woman whose twin goals were to help her husband and reflect the very best of the United States.
Mrs. Reagan died Sunday from congestive heart failure at age 94. She lived nearly 12 years after former President Reagan died in 2004 and lived longer than all but one of her predecessors.
Meese, who served as counselor to the president and later as attorney general, was also chief of staff to Reagan for much of Reagan’s time as governor in California. He first joined the Reagan team in 1967, just as Reagan’s term in Sacramento was beginning.
“It wasn’t long after that that I met Nancy and did a lot of traveling in which she was part of the group. I’ve been at the house in California many times and of course were very close in the White House as well,” said Meese.
He says Nancy was very much the same in private as she was in public.
“She was a very gracious person. She was a great hostess. She was always looking out for the people that were around the president and for the president himself,” said Meese.
He says their legendary affection for one another was always obvious.
“They were very much in love with each other and she was certainly a great source of strength and support throughout his entire political career, and I’m sure before that,” said Meese.
Even amidst the daily rigors of the presidency, President Reagan’s mind was never far from the woman he loved.
“They did everything possible together. They were together every minute of the time that they could be. Ronald Reagan’s idea of a good evening was to come home to Nancy, to have dinner together. Then he would work a little bit in the evening. It was just the idea of being with her that was so important to him,” said Meese.
When it came to politics, Meese says Nancy Reagan believed fervently in her husband but also in his ideas.
“She was staunch in her belief in him and I think, in a sense, reflected his own views. She was interested in supporting him and similar views to him on most topics,” said Meese, while noting they sometimes disagreed on the right path to achieving various goals. “I would say they were very much on the same wavelength on virtually everything.”
During the White House years, Mrs. Reagan drew some headlines for friction with various staff members, most famously Donald Regan, who served as chief of staff for much of Reagan’s second term.
Meese says in all his years with Reagan in California and Washington, he never had a problem with the first lady.
“I always had a great relationship with her, both in the governor’s office and the White House and in the presidency when I was at [the Justice Department,” said Meese.
However, he says she did take interest in day-to-day activities with her husband’s best interests in mind.
“Nancy Reagan did not interfere with policy. I’ve never had a situation where that was true. What she was interested in was making sure that the governor, and then later on the president, got enough rest, that the travel arrangements were able to afford him the chance to be at his best,” said Meese, who says Mrs. Reagan did take greater interest in presidential security following the 1981 assassination attempt that nearly claimed Reagan’s life.
As for her own work, Nancy Reagan’s years in Washington were most closely tied to her efforts to convince Americans, and especially children, to stay away from drugs through the “Just Say No” campaign.
“That’s an illustration of how much she cared, not only about the president but also about the people of the country and about the direction in which our nation was going. That’s why when Ronald Reagan took on the effort against drugs in the 1980’s, which was one of our most serious domestic problems, she wholeheartedly assisted in that with her ‘Just Say No’ program,” said Meese.
Mocked by some as overly simplistic, Meese says the effort clearly worked.
“It really made an impact. The President and Nancy and those of us who were involved really had tremendous success in reducing drug abuse in the United States by over 50 percent in a ten year period from 1982-1992,” said Meese.
Meese says Nancy Reagan also shined on the international stage, by connecting with world leaders and their spouses as well as the people of those nations.
“Her desire was to be the best possible helpmate, but also the best possible example of the United States in whatever she did,” said Meese.
Mrs. Reagan perhaps attracted the most admiration for her faithful care of President Reagan, following his 1994 diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease. For ten years she cared for him privately and publicly championed greater research into the disease.
“What it showed us was a continuation of what a tremendous person, how much she loved her husband and the fact that she totally devoted every minute of her life to taking care of the president during that period of time. Also, she was very instrumental in making sure the president’s legacy was followed,” said Meese, referring to her active work at the Reagan Library and in ensuring their beloved ranch was sold to a conservative group.
Nearly 40 years after first signing on with then-Gov. Reagan, Meese refelected on what Ronald and Nancy Reagan meant in his life.
“Obviously we miss them both, but I think the nice thing about it is to have recollections of how much they both did for our country and also great memories of the opportunity to have been with them,” said Meese.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are pleased to see the GOP delegate race get tighter over the weekend. They also point out that the non-Trump candidates are stuck in a Catch 22 in the coming days and that a brokered convention would end in disaster. They rip the federal government for planning so poorly that Navy SEALS are forced to share their guns. And they pay tribute to the late First Lady Nancy Reagan.
North Korean Dictator Kim Jong-Un is ordering his military to have the rogue nation’s nuclear weapons ready to launch, and while a former Pentagon official believes the communist nation may start a war down the road, he does not see this latest action as more than an empty threat.
Jed Babbin served as a deputy undersecretary of defense for President George H.W. Bush and believes Kim’s actions are merely in response to the United Nations Security Council unanimously approving new sanctions against his regime. He says an attempt to nuke South Korea, Japan or any other nation would be met with a devastating, immediate response.
“Their country would be vaporized immediately and, quite frankly, there ain’t much to vaporize. That place is in the stone age. The only place that’s even lit at night is the capital city of Pyongyang. one decent nuke over there and the country is just gone,” said Babbin.
There’s another reason Babbin thinks this is a bluff. He believes that, despite aggressive testing, North Korea is not yet ready to launch a nuclear missile.
“It’s a big deal to develop a nuclear weapon. It’s a big deal to develop an ICBM. However, to get an ICBM mated with a small enough nuclear weapon that will survive the G-forces in the takeoff of a missile and actually be able to re-enter the atmosphere and successfully detonate a nuclear weapon. That’s probably several years beyond what these guys can do,” said Babbin.
Babbin says this is clearly Kim’s way of protesting the new UN sanctions, which are aimed restricting North Korea’s ability to import weapons or build them.
“They’ve got some bigger restrictions now. Ships going into and out of North Korea are going to be stopped and inspected. At least that’s the theory. They’ve lost the opposition of the Chinese to those sorts of sanctions. The Chinese went along with it and the UN Security Council was unanimous in putting these sanctions in,” said Babbin.
Babbin says China has a vested interest in making sure Kim’s erratic behavior does not lead to a humanitarian crisis.
“A great, great fear in the Chinese regime is for North Korea to fall for some reason and for millions of North Koreans to go fleeing across the border with China,” he said.
He says North Korea has a long history of bad behavior when it wants to attract attention.
“I think they want more money. They want to get bribed to keep quiet for awhile again. They’re going to be doing the things that they always do, which is run around and scream and shout,” said Babbin.
While firmly convinced this episode is no real threat, Babbin says North Korea does have plans to take hostile action.
“The real issue is when do they actually get hot enough to try to do something? That’s the unknowable. Someday, sometime, whether it’s tomorrow or 25 years from now, those are going to start another war. We’re just going to have to be prepared for it,” said Babbin.
In Thursday’s Republican debate, Sen. Ted Cruz reacted to the story by outlining his plan to protect against a North Korean attack and also blaming the Clinton administration for weak negotiating that allowed the North Koreans to pursue nuclear weapons.
Babbin says that’s exactly what happened.
“Cruz was right,” said Babbin. “(Former Defense Secretary) Bill Perry went over there and negotiated a big agreement with North Korea that provided them with oil and more as a bribe to not develop nuclear weapons. Of course, they used the oil to power their society for a little while and built the nukes anyway,” said Babbin.
So what is the right policy now?
“Right now, I think the sanctions are the right approach. I think there’s not much else you can do there,” said Babbin.
He says ground action should not be considered.
“I don’t see that us invading North Korea is in any way a good idea, and I don’t think anybody else is going to. The only thing we could do, which of course President Obama will never do, is to pressure the Chinese more to bring these guys to heel,” said Babbin.
Babbin applauds the recent UN action, but has doubts about the implementation of the new sanctions.
“I do think it’s going to be helpful if the sanctions are going to be enforced and that’s the big if,” said Babbin. “Who is going to stop all of those ships coming in and out of North Korea? Are people really going to follow the ban on selling them even small arms? I don’t know that that’s going to happen. There’s a lot of other rogue regimes in the world,” said Babbin.
He fears bankrupt Venezuela, which is a prolific producer of AK-47 assault rifles, is more than desperate and willing to violate sanctions to make money.
“That’s just one example. There’s probably at least a dozen other countries that’ll do that sort of thing,” said Babbin.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Ian Tuttle of National Review react to more specific allegations of Trump hiring foreign workers over Americans and that he is shifting his position on H1-B visas. They also discuss Trump dismissing warnings that the military would refuse to carry out illegal orders such as killing the family members of terrorists. And they slam Hillary Clinton for using footage from the Benghazi hearings to reflect her boredom in watching the debate.
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump is putting forward a more detailed health care reform plan, that one leading policy expert says has many strong free market features but needs amending in two critical areas.
Trump has long mentioned his desire for a full repeal of Obamacare and remove barriers so patients can shop for health plans across state lines. Those are the first two parts of Trump’s new seven-point plan. It also includes allowing individuals to fully deduct their health care premiums from their annual tax returns and championing Health Savings Accounts that would be tax-free for the individual and estate tax-free for their heirs.
The Trump plan would also call for price transparency from doctors and hospitals, block grant Medicaid to the states and “remove barriers to entry” for drug companies who can offer quality medications at lower prices.
Galen Institute President Grace-Marie Turner, an ardent opponent of Obamacare and the Clinton administration’s attempts to increase the government’s role in health care, is largely impressed.
“Many pillars of his plan are very familiar to free market advocates. The giving people help in purchasing their premiums through tax breaks is important. Price transparency, block granting Medicaid to the states so the states can have more control over Medicaid dollars without jumping through so many of Washington’s hoops and following so much of its red tape,” said Turner.
The additional detail came hours before Thursday’s GOP debate in Detroit and nearly a week after Sen. Marco Rubio pressed Trump to offer specific details on his plan besides a full repeal of Obamacare.
“It was obviously precipitated by the debate, when he really got backed into a corner when he didn’t have other ideas. Most of these ideas are pretty solid ideas but they need to be developed some more,” said Turner.
But while Turner applauds tax breaks to help defray the cost of health insurance, Turner says Trump is going about it the wrong way.
“The problem with a deduction, which is what he is advocating, is that it’s worth very little to people at the bottom end of the income scale. If you are in the 10 percent tax bracket, and you basically get a 10 percent cut in your premium, that’s very regressive,” said Turner.
“Somebody who’s in the 40-50 percent tax bracket, counting federal income taxes and state and payroll taxes, they may get a tax cut of 50 percent of the cost of their premium,” she added. “A tax credit really can help those at the lower end of the income scale, who most need help in purchasing health insurance.”
The other area that concerns her is the removal of barriers in the pharmaceutical industry.
“Basically, he’s calling for price controls on prescription drugs. he’s been very much of a populist. ‘Drug prices are too high. If we let people import drugs from abroad or let the government negotiate prices for prescription drugs, we could save $300 billion a year. That’s absolutely not true. What he’s advocating with those two policies is importing price controls on prescription drugs,” said Turner.
Not only does Turner believe Trump’s math is off, she says it would stifle development of new drugs.
“There is a reason that the United States is the leader in the development and introduction of new drugs into the market. We don’t have price controls. If we do and dry up the research budget, like so many European and other developed countries have done, then we will not have the new drugs of tomorrow,” said Turner.
Trump defenders say their candidate is referring to negotiating prices and not mandating them. Turner says that’s not how it works.
“Government doesn’t negotiate. It dictates prices,” she said.
Overall, however, Turner is pleased with the plan. But she hopes this represents a serious shift toward a free market approach to health care from a candidate who has had good things to say about single payer health care in Canada and Scotland as recently as the first GOP debate.
“What worries me is that in the past, he really has been all over the map, from supporting an individual mandate to now saying he does not support the individual mandate, and everything from talking about single payer to talking about free markets and Health Savings Accounts. The question is does he really have ownership of this health care plan or is this something his campaign put out,” said Turner.
“What really matters is whether there’s going to be some consistency in allowing this to become the basis for what could be a credible health reform plan,” said Turner.
