Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America cheer the news that the Clinton Global Initiative is shutting down. They also sigh as more and more Democrats publicly state that Donald Trump is an illegitimate president. And they unload on a reviewer who pans “Patriots Day” because a white male is the hero, the resilience of the Boston is presented as a good thing and police are the good guys.
A former Clinton administration official is blasting President Obama for his treatment of Israel over the past eight years and strongly encourages President-Elect Trump to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
Lawrence J. Haas served as communications director for Vice President Al Gore and is now a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council . His book “Harry and Arthur” was named one of the top ten non-fiction books of 2016 by the Wall Street Journal.
In a recent column for U.S. News & World Report, Haas makes the case for moving the embassy. In a subsequent interview, Haas told us the move comes down to one simple and clear message.
“Israel is here to stay,” said Haas, who says that message would drive a stake through the Arab and Palestinian fantasy that Israel can be wiped off the map.
“You hear [the] expression all the time, ‘Palestine: From the River to the Sea.’ Well, Palestine from the (Jordan) river to the (Mediterranean) sea means no Israel. I think it’s time for the United States to send a very clear message to the world that Israel is here to stay, that Jerusalem is the historic homeland and capital of the Jewish people. That’s a reality,” said Haas.
“We are not doing anyone any good by ignoring the reality that Jerusalem is always going to be the capital of Israel. We might as well come to that recognition,” said Haas.
Haas believes the move would also be an important signal to Israel and the world that the Trump administration will approach the Middle East much differently than Obama has, particularly after the December United Nations vote in which the U.S. refused to veto a resolution condemning Israel for its settlements and other disputed lands.
Haas says the non-veto was bad enough, but the Obama administration’s actions behind the scenes was especially galling.
“They not only allowed it to go through but frankly they worked behind the scenes to ensure that there was enough support for it, so that while they were abstaining from it, everybody else was voting yes. It was beyond the benign action of a simple abstention,” said Haas.
Those actions left Haas livid.
“I reacted very furiously to it. It seemed to be the final nail in a sense that the administration had nailed into Israel’s coffin over the last eight years. The theory being that if they were tough on Israel, Israel would make very painful concessions and we would get peace,” said Haas.
He says the Obama strategy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a flop.
“In the process, they were very tough on our closest ally in the region. They didn’t really demand anything from the Palestinian side. As a result, the Palestinians dug in even harder. We didn’t see negotiations. The Israelis felt that they couldn’t compromise because they were being pressured so much and the Palestinians didn’t think they needed to compromise,” said Haas.
“It was a formula for disaster and that’s what we’ve had over the past eight years,” Haas added.
Haas rejects the notion that moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem would serve as a spark for even greater tension and instability in the region. He says that argument is based on two faulty assumptions.
“The Palestinians have never needed a reason to be violent against Israel, whether it is stabbing Jews in Jerusalem or it is shooting them in the West Bank or is ramming soldiers at checkpoints, the Palestinians always find an excuse to try to kill Jews,” said Haas.
He says Israel’s Arab neighbors will only be bothered by an embassy move from a public relations standpoint.
“The so-called Arab Street frankly I don’t think cares very much about the Palestinians. The Arab governments clearly don’t care about the Palestinians because they don’t do a thing to help them. They don’t provide any money to the Palestinians . They use this issue to divert attention from problems within their own countries,” said Haas.
“The reality is that to the extent countries will recognize Israel and work with Israel behind the scenes has to do with their own self-interests. Do they feel that they get more out of working with Israel or not working with Israel? This fear of being provocative I just don’t buy. I think there are larger forces at work that will determine Israeli relations with different Arab countries,” said Haas.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are pleased to see the Democrats’ strategy against Jeff Sessions accomplish nothing – and they point out why the strategy was so stupid. They also groan as the Obama administration’s self-congratulations tour continues with Obama giving Joe Biden the Presidential Medal of Freedom. And they react to Sen. Kamala Harris grilling CIA director nominee Mike Pompeo about climate change, while Jim explains the “sure, whatever” strategy he would employ at a confirmation hearing.
With Donald Trump expected to name his Supreme Court nominee in the coming weeks, conservative voices are already starting to fight over one of the figures believed to be at or near the top of Trump’s list.
According to multiple reports, Federal Appeals Court Judge William Pryor is in the final group of names from Trump’s campaign list of potential Supreme Court that the president-elect is considering.
The news excites many on the right. John Malcolm of the Heritage Foundation says Pryor “calls it like he sees it” and “has a titanium spine.”
But others on the right see Pryor as a political opportunist who preaches values while stiff-arming them from the bench.
Public Advocate President Eugene Delgaudio is leading the fight against Pryor. He says Pryor’s actions connected to the unseating of Alabama Chief Judge Roy Moore in 2003 make him unfit for the highest court in the land.
“I believe William Pryor is not a man we can trust on the Supreme Court. My belief is he is an opportunist, an anti-God type of guy who doesn’t mind showing his disdain for godly values,” said Delgaudio.
At issue is Pryor’s role in removing Moore from office in 2003 after Moore defied federal courts and refused to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the courthouse. Pryor stated that he believed the monument should have been allowed to stay but said the federal court ruling against Moore needed to be enforced. Pryor later personally led the effort to prosecute Moore for violating the canons of judicial ethics in Alabama. That effort led to Moore being removed from the bench.
“Instead of protecting the Constitution, whether it be the state constitution or the U.S. Constitution, he simply took his political opportunity and stabbed Mr. Moore (in the back). And the basis for that backstabbing is now the wrongful basis for the current litigation that removes him again,” said Delgaudio.
He’s referring to the latest legal battle over Moore, who was elected back to his old position by the people of Alabama. In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision on same-sex marriage, Moore instructed probate judges around the state that they did not have to enforce the ruling and feel compelled to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
“All he did was issue a legal brief advising his colleagues in the Alabama court that they should wait for an actual ruling from a lower court or a legislative branch before they acted as if they were instructed to do something,” said Delgaudio.
“This is called a simple legal advisory, which is a cornerstone of all judicial temperament,” said Delgaudio. “So for following his constitutional oath in advising people how to follow the constitution and the Alabama constitution, he was removed. Again, this goes back to the temperament of Judge Pryor.”
Public Advocate is actively involved in defending Moore in the latest case, filing a friend of the court brief in defense of the judge.
“Our amicus brief pointed out that the justification by Mr. Pryor was based on faulty reasoning and the ethics tribunal this time referred to [the 2003] judicial proceeding,” said Delgaudio.
Delgaudio says he’s not alone. He notes that libertarians at Reason magazine are also wary of Pryor for his proclivity towards judicial deference, meaning states especially are given the benefit of the doubt when their laws are challenged in court.
He says conservatives will relive the John Roberts experience if Pryor is named to the court.
“I did oppose Judge Roberts and predicted that he was a weasel. Alone in the conservative movement I could say I told you so. In that context, if you want a weasel, Judge Pryor is a weasel and he’ll betray us,” said Delgaudio.
Delgaudio says he would be fine with any other judge on Trump’s list.
http://dateline.radioamerica.org/podcast/1-12-delgaudio-blog.mp3 [ 10:00 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | DownloadAfter having some fun with reports that science proves conservatives are better looking, Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America welcome mainstream media condemnation of BuzzFeed. They’re also underwhelmed by Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson, while noting he does have several strong points. And they lament the San Diego Chargers leaving for Los Angeles after voters rejected paying for a new stadium.
Islamic and authoritarian nations once again dominate the 2017 World Watch List of nations most hostile to Christians, and the group behind the list says persecution of believers around the world is getting worse all the time.
Compiled by the Christian organization Open Doors USA, the list of 50 nations is divided into three categories. The ten worst nations are described as inflicting extreme persecution, the next 20 nations are accused of severe persecution, while the remaining 20 are named for moderate persecution.
Open Doors USA President and CEO Dr. David Curry says a lot of factors go into the evaluation of each nation.
“What’s it like for a person in their private life? What happens if they become a Christian in the family setting or the community setting? Do they lose their job? Are the police forces after them? And of course violence is a factor,” said Curry.
“At the top of the list, you’re talking about places where all of the factors are in the high level of persecution, where you have national persecution, family persecution, or at the personal level. That’s part of the factors. But there should be no mistake. If you’re on the World Watch List, even in the top 50, there are significant issues there,” said Curry.
North Korea remains the worst of the worst.
“Things aren’t getting better in North Korea. Things are very difficult for Christians there. It’s the sixteenth year in a row North Korea has been at the top. In the 25 years we’ve done it, there are only a couple of countries that have been number one,” said Curry.
“In North Korea, the cultish government enforces worship of their leaders, uses the power of the government. (Christians would) be arrested and put in labor camps,” said Curry.
Shooting up the list from seventh to a very close second place is Somalia.
“In Somalia, if you’re even rumored to have become a Christian, you can be executed on the spot by mob violence, by extremists,” said Curry.
He says Islamic nations makes up 70 percent of the of the world’s worst persecutors of Christians.
“Thirty-five of the top 50 countries have Islamic extremism as a factor. It’s something we’ve continued to see. What’s different this year is the spread into sub-Saharan Africa, the growth of the extremist movement’s infrastructure, the spreading of technical expertise into some of these countries. It does not portend well into the future,” said Curry.
Curry says even Islamic nations that have dropped on the list like Eritrea and Saudi Arabia are only looking better because other countries are getting worse.
“You have countries like Eritrea, which is the government using Sharia law. They’re number ten on the list. Very difficult for Christians. Saudi Arabia is on the list at 14. They have total control, through the kingdom, of religious faith. People aren’t allowed to decide for themselves what they want to do. They can’t go to church. They can’t have a Bible. There’s not a lot of violence in Saudi Arabia against Christians, largely because there aren’t many,” said Curry.
Turkey jumps eight spots in the World Watch List to number 37 after a year of political and terrorist turmoil.
“Extremism seems to be growing there. The government is going to use it’s force against Christian churches. That would add another layer of complexity,” said Curry.
A smaller number of nations are trying to tie the practice of religion with fidelity to the state. India, the world’s largest democracy, is now up to fifteenth on the list.
“People are saying, ‘You’re not Indian if you’re not an extremist Hindu.’ Lots of people in India are Christian, millions and millions, and there is a rising tide of violence against them. There are groups that publicize they want to rid India of Christians by 2021. The Modi government has thus far done nothing to stop it,” said Curry.
China, which was much higher on the list in past years, is now ranked at number 39. Curry says there had been some marginal improvements there but things are looking more ominous as a result of nationalist impulses.
“Just last week, the president of China spoke out against the pope and basically said, ‘We would give you freedom if you’d just be more Chinese.’ They want the church to be an arm and organ of the state and to rubber stamp the cultural impact of communism. And of course the church isn’t going to do that,” said Curry.
Only two nations in the Western Hemisphere make the list, Mexico (#41) and Colombia (#50). Curry says believers there face a different problem than autocratic governments and radical Islamic groups.
“When people are living their faith, they’ll speak out against organized crime. That’s happened in Mexico. It’s happening in Colombia. As such, the cartels strike out,” said Curry.
“In one part of Mexico, a dozen pastors – maybe more – were executed for their faith when they spoke out against drug cartels,” said Curry. “Yes, you’re free to choose your faith in Mexico. But when you stand up for what Jesus is talking about, the cartels and organized crime will sometimes strike out against you.”
While the trends are bleak, there are some encouraging signs. Azerbaijan dropped off the list after ranking thirty-fourth in 2016. And even though war-ravaged Syria (#6) is still a desperate place in many ways, Curry reasons for encouragement there.
“There are some hopeful signs. One of them is the vibrancy of the church in Syria that remains and the growth of the church in the Middle East, the new branches of Christianity from people who are coming to know faith personally through the tragedy of what’s happened through the Islamic State,” said Curry.
As part of the roll-out for the World Watch List, Curry says Open Doors USA met with the incoming Trump administration to implore them to make religious liberty a priority around the world.
“What we’ve encouraged them to do is take action in the first 90 days to appoint the right people at the State Department and other parts of government, to make sure that the U.S. government is using it’s policies to support the basic human right of religious freedom,” said Curry.
But he says churches and individual believers also have a role to play.
“Every church in America should be praying through this list on Sunday morning and being heard. If millions of Christians wrote letters and let people know they cared about this, the policymakers would certainly move,” said Curry, who notes that Open Doors USA has resources available to help guide your correspondence with our elected leaders.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America slam BuzzFeed, and to some extent CNN, for irresponsible reporting on alleged dirt that the Russians have on Donald Trump. They also rip Pres. Obama for his delusional farewell speech, including his patented move of urging Americans to understand one another while demonizing anyone who disagrees with him. And they wonder why Trump would meet with someone as loony as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on the issue of vaccines possibly causing autism.
The Obama administration is using the intelligence reports of Russian hacking influencing the 2016 campaign as the premise for asserting more power over the states in running elections, but a top election fraud expert says federal involvement would make elections more vulnerable to mischief and is really just a way to insert the federal government where it doesn’t belong.
Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution is clear about the roles of the federal and state government in overseeing elections.
“The times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations,” it reads.
However, on Jan.6, the Obama administration – not Congress – decided to give the government more power in running elections. President Obama has been very busy cramming in many new regulations before he leaves office, but elections expert and columnist John Fund says this one is particularly alarming.
“One of the most troublesome (orders) came last Friday and gave the federal government the power to begin centralizing our election systems. The Constitution explicitly gives states the power to set the ‘times, manner and places of holding elections,'” wrote Fund in National Review Online on Sunday.
“But Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson used the excuse of Friday’s release of a report on Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee to declare that state and local voting systems will be designated as ‘pieces of critical infrastructure’ so that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can protect them from hackers,” Fund continued.
Fund closely chronicles election fraud and is the author of books such as “Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens our Democracy” and “Who’s Counting?” How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Are Putting Your Vote at Risk.” He says this is another clear-cut case of Obama violating the Constitution to further an agenda.
“It’s once again the Obama administration reaching beyond it’s constitutional limits. The states have the authority in elections in the Constitution. If the federal government wants to intrude, wants to take over part of it, it has to negotiate with the states who are sovereign entities in their own right and come to some sort of compromise,” said Fund.
“Instead, it’s an ‘Our way or the highway’ approach and the states are naturally resentful of the fact that the federal government is now holding over them the sword that anytime there’s a problem in any election system, the federal government is aggregating to itself the power to step in and who knows what they’re going to do,” said Fund.
In addition to what he sees as a blatant violation of the Constitution, Fund says the Obama administration is taking action to address a problem that does not exist.
“The actual voting isn’t tied to the internet. It can’t be hacked, except in a very few exceptions. The voter registration rolls might be a problem because they often are connected to the internet. But that’s not the votes. So people are confusing what the hackers have been able to do with voter registration systems with the actual voting machines,” said Fund.
“If you wanted to hack them, you’d have to hack them individually one by one. You can’t do it through the internet. You can’t do it nationally,” said Fund.
So what’s really at work here? Fund says the federal government instinctively bristles at the states have sovereignty in certain areas and have recently lost power on elections.
“The feds have always been angry that the states sometimes don’t listen to them. For example, the feds lost the power just a couple of years ago in the Voting Rights Act to force 14 states to run all of their election changes through Washington. The Supreme Court said, ‘It’s been 50 years since the civil rights revolution. It’s time to let that go. If Congress wants to pass a new law, they have to do that,” said Fund.
“The feds have chafed on that because it means they can’t send monitors to certain states. They can’t intrude. They can’t physically interfere in elections unless the states invite them in,” said Fund.
He says this new rules gives them a foot in the door again.
“This means the federal government has a new excuse, now that they’ve lost the voting rights excuse. They have a new excuse to step in any time they want and dictate or second-guess what the states and counties are doing,” said Fund.
Fund is convinced that the the premise of the federal government coming in to make sure elections are not hacked is simply one step in a long-term endeavor to choke the sovereignty out of the states.
“This is a lot like the frog in the pot of boiling water. The feds are turning up the heat on the states. They hope that if they do it slowly enough and carefully enough, the states won’t be able to squawk enough. Finally, the feds will be in charge and the states will be a secondary player in elections, not the primary player as the Constitution envisioned,” said Fund.
Even before the new rule granting DHS new power to get involved with state and local elections, some states accuse the department of trying to hack their systems unannounced in 2016. Georgia is making the most noise about it. Kentucky and West Virginia have reportedly expressed similar concerns.
Fund says the details on those stories are murky.
“We know very little because the feds aren’t talking,” said Fund. “Apparently they didn’t tell the states even after they’d made the attempt. It’s one thing to make a surprise attempt to hack into a state system. It’s another thing after the attempt has been made not to tell the state about it,” said Fund.
“So once again, the feds are playing sneaky, not telling the states what they would normally be expected to tell them, and all because the feds think they know best,” said Fund.
The silver lining to the Obama administration’s action is that it can be easily reversed.
“With the stroke of a pen, it could go away tomorrow if tomorrow was Jan. 20, which is the day Donald Trump is inaugurated,” said Fund.
However, he warns not to assume Trump will scrap the new federal power right away.
“I suspect at the very least he should have his appointees ask some very searching questions about, ‘Was this really justified? Couldn’t they have worked with the states toward some sort of compromise solution? Does the government always have to bigfoot in if there’s a perceived issue involved?’ The answer to those questions is no it doesn’t. The feds should get in the habit of cooperating with the states, not commanding the states,” said Fund.
Critics contend that compromised voter registration information online ought to be a major concern. Fund says there’s an easy solution.
“The smartest way to stop hackers from getting into voter registration systems, which are online, is to stop online registration. Go back to the old system where you have to fill out a postcard and send it in. The records are kept. It’s a little cumbersome, but you can’t hack a piece of paper,” said Fund.
“I’m not saying hackers aren’t a problem,” said Fund. “I’m saying that if we keep our systems simple, don’t go to internet voting which would be a potential disaster, and if we maintain vigilance, we don’t have to surrender our traditional control of state and local elections and federal elections to Washington,” said Fund.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America get a kick out of Trump protesters arguing about who is more oppressed. They also rip New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker for testifying against the nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions to be attorney general. And they sigh as the insane people from Code Pink repeatedly disrupt the Sessions confirmation hearings.
Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey says Donald Trump is quickly getting up to speed on understanding American intelligence efforts, but he wants to see the incoming president get more aggressive on cyber security and respond to Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign in a way that will make sure the Russians never try to do it again.
Woolsey calls the report on Russian hacking efforts “quite professional” and says there are two obvious takeaways.
“One is that the Russians do this all the time, not so much against us but in a lot of other countries. It’s not in the report, but they call it disinformation, known to you and me as lying. They have thousands of people working on photoshopping pictures, rewriting prefaces to books, etc.,” said Woolsey.
He says that also have a habit of going after political parties and institutions that espouse an ideology contrary to the Kremlin’s – including the Catholic Church.
“That side of things is not new. What’s new is using cyber, which is hard often to figure out the source of as a tool in this disinformation campaign,” said Woolsey.
He says this episode has also once again exposed the flawed cyber warfare mindset of the United States.
“We are like a very good and highly talented hockey team that has decided to use all of its players as goalies. So everybody is clustered around the goal, trying to keep any shot from getting through. We’ve kind of given up on offense,” said Woolsey.
He says there needs to be a greater emphasis on offense. And he says an appropriate response to the Russians is a good place to start.
“You do have to do that in cyber. You have to keep people from scoring against you at all. But you can’t just hunker down. We need to make the sort of things that the Russians did this last time around…very, very unpleasant for them,” said Woolsey.
Woolsey’s most preferred response to the Russians is less cyber-related and more of an economic blow, urging Trump to unleash the free market against Russia and their allies in OPEC. Specifically, he wants the auto industry to embrace methanol, a fuel derived from wood waste and other sources.
“You will make our Chinese and Israeli friends, who are working hard on this technology, very happy and you will make our Russian Iranian acquaintances very sad. Russians do not like competition and they don’t produce anything except oil and gas and weapons,” said Woolsey.
As for the future of the intelligence community, Trump has hinted that he may try to restructure it. Woolsey, who was a part of Trump’s transition until stepping down in recent days, says that may be a good idea, because the current format is too bloated.
“I’m skeptical we’ve got the right solution,” said Woolsey, noting the explosion of bureaucracy since he led the CIA from 1993-1994. Woolsey says then he was not only the head of the CIA but was “chairman of the board” of all government intelligence agencies.
“I did that with an added 19 people. Today, there are about 2,000 people that are used in that oversight and coordination,” said Woolsey.
Another thing he would like to see intelligence officials do is keep their mouths shut.
“I think the agency leadership in the last few years inclined more and more to public statements and I don’t think that’s a good idea. The key thing in intelligence is preserving your sources and methods. You can’t do that if you’re talking all the time about different aspects. Even though they might not be directly disclosing a source can contribute to that,” said Woolsey.
Woolsey is very encouraged by Trump’s picks to lead the intelligence community, namely Mike Pompeo for CIA and Dan Coats to head the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
He also says Americans shouldn’t read too much into the public spat between Trump and the intelligence professionals. He’s confident it will all get ironed out soon.
“I don’t think any of this is a really serious fight between him and the intelligence community. It’s an opening round of sparring a little bit , but I think they’ll get it sorted out. The stakes are just too high,” said Woolsey.
“What the American president sees as a result of intelligence collection and what judgments he makes after consulting with his senior officials in the government are the heart of our foreign policy,” said Woolsey.
Woolsey stepped down from the Trump transition after feeling uncomfortable going on television as a member of the transition but without being included in many discussions involving the incoming administration. Nonetheless, he’s happy to help Trump whenever called upon.
“I would still respond to Donald Trump if he got in touch and wanted me to write something up or wanted me to confer on something. I’d be delighted to do so,” said Woolsey.