Listen to “Schumer’s Silly SCOTUS Strategy, Bernie’s $3.2 Trillion Single-Payer Scheme, TSA Monitors Sweaty People” on Spreaker.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Rich McFadden of Radio America break down Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s request that red-state Democrats remain neutral on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. They also cannot believe that some Democrats are seriously considering the idea of almost doubling the federal budget to pay for Sen. Bernie Sander’s Medicare-for-all program. And they cannot find any examples of malfeasance in the Boston Globe’s story about the TSA’s passenger-monitoring program that tracks people who sweat too much and urinate too often.
‘The History of Jihad:’ Fourteen Centuries of Conflict
From the response to the 9/11 attacks to the confronting of ISIS, Americans and other western leaders regularly refer to Islam as a “religion of peace,” but a new book contends the 1,400 years of Islam is a timeline awash in bloodshed and conflict.
Jihad Watch Director Robert Spencer is author of the new book “The History of Jihad: From Muhammad to ISIS.” He says there is a consistent attern of carnage since the earliest days.
“What I found is that through fourteen centuries, without any break, without any let-up, without any reformation or reconsideration, without any period of tolerance – although there are a lot of historical myths about that – Islam has been responsible for conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims for fourteen uninterrupted centuries,” said Spencer, who is quick to point out that most Muslims are not Jihadists.
“Obviously, not all Muslims are involved in this and not all of them approved of it. Nonetheless, in every century and in in every place in the world where there have been Muslims, there have been jihadis who thought that it was one of their responsibilities before Allah to wage war against and subjugate unbelievers,” said Spencer.
History books tell us that Islam was founded in 622 A.D. Mohammed died in 632. By 732, at the Battle of Tours in modern-day France, Charles Martel led a decisive Frankish victory against Muslim invaders who had already swept through North Africa and Spain.
But how did those invaders get from the Arabian Peninsula to the Atlantic coast within 100 years? Spencer says it was accomplished through violent conquest, and he contends most people who deny the violence perpetrated in the early years of Islam are arguing from a position of ignorance.
“People aren’t really aware of this history. This is one of the reasons why I wrote this book. The Islamic advance was incredibly swift. And not only did they get all the way to the Atlantic and to Spain within 100 years of the death of Mohammed, but they also went in the other direction, conquered one of the great powers of the day in Persia and went into India,” said Spencer.
Spencer says his book is the first work in the English language to detail the jihad against India, which he calls “an extraordinary and bloody story.”
In addition to those who don’t know the history, Spencer says others believe a false version of history.
“I think a lot of people take for granted the idea that there was some kind of mass conversion to Islam, that people were converting to it because they were convinced that it was true and that this is what was responsible for the Islamization of the Middle East and North Africa. That’s actually not the case. It was all done by conquest,” he said.
Spencer further asserts that ISIS is not the exception or some radical departure from Islam over the centuries. He claims ISIS looks much like jihadists throughout the past fourteen centuries.
“I show in the book there are movements like that all through Islamic history. Many of them were responsible for the conquest of Spain and its 700-year occupation by Islamic forces. Many of them have also been responsible for jihad warfare elsewhere. There was nothing new that ISIS did, nothing different. It was exactly the same in its beliefs as jihadis throughout history,” said Spencer.
Jihadists also played a key role in the first major military engagement of the United States when President Thomas Jefferson was forced to confront the Barbary Pirates off the coast of North Africa.
“They were jihadis, as I show in the book. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams wrote a report to Congress about how the Moroccan ambassador had explained that they were fighting them because it was explained in the Quran and they felt they had a divine responsibility to do so,” said Spencer.
That conflict is also how U.S. Marines became known as “leathernecks.”
“They’re leathernecks because they wore leather collars that would prevent them from being beheaded. The (Marine Corps) song with the ‘shores of Tripoli’ was all about them facing the jihadis,” said Spencer.
In multiple speeches, President Obama stated Muslims have been a vital fabric of the United States from our very beginning. Spencer says other than being our first opponent in war, Obama’s assertions do not hold up.
“In terms that Obama’s claim that Muslims were in the United States and were involved in it since the founding; that’s complete historical fiction and has no basis in fact whatsoever,” said Spencer.
Today, Spencer believes the U.S. and other western nations make a habit of whitewashing the ugly history of jihadism.
“The West in general has had a drastically wrongheaded response to this threat and that’s primarily been characterized by simple denial. They just proclaim that Islam is a religion of peace and leave it at that. The most notorious example of that is George W. Bush right after 9/11,” said Spencer.
But if jihad is historical Islam, why do most Muslims not engage in it?
“Jihad is risky. You can get killed. You can get maimed. You can have all sorts of disasters happen to you. That takes a certain amount of courage. Not everybody is going to do it. Also, there are people simply not religious enough to care,” said Spencer, who suggests others do their work more surreptitiously these days.
“There are also people waiting and biding their time, working in other ways. The Muslim Brotherhood and other groups of its kind are working to achieve the same ends as jihad terrorists, which is Islamic (Sharia) law ruling the world but through different means: through elections, through civilizational change and so on,” said Spencer.
And while a majority of Muslims do not engage in jihad and many do not even condone it, Spencer says they could do much more to condemn it. He says those who do speak out against jihadists like ISIS get a tepid following at best.
“A few years back when ISIS was in it’s heyday, every now and again we’d see Muslims against ISIS rallies. Invariably, they only attracted about 25-50 Muslims. Whereas, rallies against cartoons of Mohammed drew 800,000 people in Chechnya, hundreds of thousands in Pakistan and Iran,” said Spencer.
Spencer says the first step in the solution is to call out jihadists for what they are.
“The first thing we need to do is to speak honestly about this problem, call upon Muslim groups in the West to renounce the aspects of Islam, including jihad warfare, that are at variance with the constitutional principles of the United States and, in general, the principles of western free nations,” said Spencer.
He says the U.S. and our western allies must take a stand because the past fourteen centuries show that the problem won’t go away on its own.
“Everywhere there have been large numbers of Muslims, there has been conflict. Here again, it’s not all Muslims or every Muslim but there are always some among the Muslims who believe they need to wage jihad against unbelievers. Why do we think we’re going to be exempt from this and that it’s not going to happen to us?” said Spencer. “It is.”
GDP Grows at 4.1%, Jail Time for Election Lies? Michael Avenatti 2020?
Listen to “GDP Grows at 4.1%, Jail Time for Election Lies? Michael Avenatti 2020?” on Spreaker.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America celebrate the booming economy that hit second quarter growth of 4.1 percent. They also notice the Democrats want to institute five years of jail time for spreading false information about elections dates and locations. And they see that Michael Avenatti was invited to speak to Iowa Democrats and they hope the party won’t take him seriously simply because he hates President Donald Trump.
Progress for Imprisoned Pastor, GOP’s Popular Governors, Silly Straws
Listen to “Progress for Imprisoned Pastor, GOP’s Popular Governors, Silly Straws” on Spreaker.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America welcome the news that American pastor Andrew Brunson was moved from a Turkish prison to house arrest, and they condemn the bogus allegations that Brunson provided aid for the failed coup. They also welcome the news that the ten most popular governors in America are Republican— great news in a year when most governorships are on the ballot. And they condemn the insanity of Santa Barbara, California, threatening fines and jail time for restaurant servers handing out plastic drinking straws without being asked, but Jim also sees a fantastic business opportunity there.
What We Really Learned from the FISA Warrant Application
All sides of the Trump-Russia debate see the recently released application for a FISA warrant against a former Trump campaign figure as confirming their previously held opinions on the matter, but a former federal prosecutor says that’s because some are conflating two very different matters and reaching a faulty conclusion.
Over the weekend, the FBI released a redacted version of the FISA warrant request it sought against former Trump aide Carter Page. The paperwork shows the FBI did rely heavily on the Steele dossier, assembled by a former British intelligence official hostile to Trump, and a footnote in the application admits the dossier was funded for months by the Hillary Clinton campaign an the Democratic National Committee.
So what does former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy see as the headline in this new information?
“That it’s a confirmation of my previously held position,” joked McCarthy, before turning serious.
“My previously held position is basically what we learned in congressional hearings over the past year-plus, which is that the FBI used the Steele dossier, which is a partisan opposition research screed, which was basically commissioned by the Clinton campaign,” said McCarthy.
McCarthy says there’s still information we don’t know, but that we also know there’s no further corroboration of the dossier in the FISA application.
“We know that that’s not there because there have been hearings. There have been reports. Senators (Charles) Grassley and (Lindsey) Graham, for example, put out a report on a classified memo that was declassified earlier this year which laid out not only the passages of the actual FISA warrants that were relevant but also explained what the FBI had done was rely on the credibility of Christopher Steele,” said McCarthy.
So how are all sides claiming victory after the release of the FISA warrant application? McCarthy says it’s because many people are confusing two very different matters: whether Carter Page was someone worthy of further federal scrutiny and whether the government had built a legal case for obtaining a surveillance warrant.
Page aroused suspicion years before the 2016 campaign for trying to become a Russian agent but was dismissed by the Kremlin as an “idiot.”
“To get a FISA warrant under federal law, you have to have probable cause that an American citizen in this case is willfully acting as a clandestine agent of a foreign power.
“That is, he is quite intentionally acting to advance the interests of Russia in the United States in a clandestine way, which means under federal law is a probable violation of federal criminal law,” said McCarthy.
He believes the feds fell short of that burden.
“They didn’t have that that we can see, other than through the Steele dossier, which is why I think (former FBI Deputy Director Andrew) McCabe said that they couldn’t have gotten the warrant without the Steele dossier,” said McCarthy.
“It’s fine to say we should have been concerned about Carter Page and even that we should have investigated Carter Page. Getting a FISA warrant on someone is a drastic step up from that,” he added.
McCarthy also believes President Trump could easily clear up all speculation about what’s still behind those redacted sections of the FISA warrant application.
“President Trump has the power…to declassify and publicize anything in the way of classified information that the government has. Until we get this information, there’ll be a lot of this speculation that goes on,” said McCarthy.
9th Circuit Backs 2nd Amendment, Booker Unhinged, Tariffs Trigger Welfare
Listen to “9th Circuit Backs 2nd Amendment, Booker Unhinged, Tariffs Trigger Welfare” on Spreaker.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are pleasantly stunned to see the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals uphold the right to carry a firearm in public. They also roll their eyes as New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker suggests supporting Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh makes one “complicit in evil.” And they slam President Trump for extending $12 billion in agricultural welfare to farmers who are getting hammered in Trump’s trade war.
Anger Gives Dems Edge in Midterms
For the first time in the 2018 political season, one of the nation’s leading political forecasters is predicting Democrats will take control of the House of Representatives following the midterm elections.
On Tuesday, Sabato’s Crystal Ball, led by University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato, moved 17 House races more favorable to Democrats. The report also shows 33 of 36 seats labeled as toss-ups are currently held by Republicans. Seven other GOP-held seats are considered even more imperiled.
In contrast, only two seats held by Democrats are considered toss-ups, as is one member vs. member race in Pennsylvania. One seat held by Democrats is likely to flip to the GOP. Democrats need a net gain of 23 House seats to reclaim the majority.
Sabato’s Crystal Ball Managing Editor Kyle Kondik says the enthusiasm in midterm election years is almost always against the party of the president. And with President Trump serving as a lightning rod for the left, the passion among Democrats is even higher.
“The Republicans had this advantage in 2010 and 2014 and now the Democrats generally do in terms of asking people how enthusiastic they are to vote,” said Kondik. “For voters, anger can be a great motivator and the angrier party, I think right now, is the Democrats.”
Even though Trump is not on the ballot, Democrats are looking for any chance to express their disapproval. Kondik says last year’s Virginia governor’s race proved Democrats cared much more about hurting Trump than supporting Democrats on the ballot.
“Reporters were asking voters about Ralph Northam, the eventual Democratic winner and of course now the governor. They didn’t seem to know a whole lot about him, but they did seem to know they were casting a vote against President Trump. I think that’s what you might see in November,” said Kondik.
Republicans are also running against history. Kondik says American history shows midterm elections are almost always good for the party out of power.
“Going back to the Civil War, there have been 39 midterms. The president’s party has lost ground in the House in 36 of those, and the average seat loss is 33 seats. The Democrats need to net 23 seats. So it would not be historically odd for Democrats to win the House,” said Kondik.
But despite those built-in advantages for Democrats, Kondik says no one should count the Republicans out.
“I don’t think it’s a slam dunk for the Democrats by any means. It’s also quite possible the race for the House could come down to a few seats here or there,” said Kondik, indicating Democrats could make major gains but still wind up in the minority.
Kondik expects Republicans to try matching the intensity of Democrats by firing up their own base. Part of that may be based on issues like immigration, on which some Democrats have advocated abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
However, just like Democrats plan to demonize Trump, he suspects Republicans will rally their voters over fears of who would be running the House of Representatives if Democrats take control.
“They’re also raising the specter of Nancy Pelosi being the House Speaker again. Many Democratic candidates have actually disavowed Pelosi but Republicans still see her as a very useful foil,” said Kondik.
Gauging 435 House races is a bit tricky since polling can be scarce in a lot of contests. Many seats are considered safe for one party and the battle lines are drawn over a few dozen swing districts.
“The national party committees are doing polling here and there but even they don’t have perfect knowledge about these districts. A lot of [predicting races] is based on the history of the district, our sort of subjective view of the quality of the candidates, past performance, and demographics. You just try to do the best you can,” said Kondik.
“As we’ve seen in the past, even polls on the statewide level are not always correct and so there’s a significant amount of projection and guesswork that goes into it,” he added.
Sabato’s Crystal Ball will revise its projections on House, Senate, and governor’s races before locking in predictions just before Election Day, Nov. 6.
Holding House Looks Tough, Blankenship Returns, Dems Line up for 2020
Listen to “Holding House Looks Tough, Blankenship Returns, Dems Line up for 2020” on Spreaker.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America recoil as political prognosticator Larry Sabato predicts Democrats will win the House in the midterm elections and shows that 33 of 36 toss-up seats are held by Republicans. They also shudder as Don Blankenship files papers to run as a third party candidate in the West Virginia Senate race. And they get ready for a very crowded 2020 Democratic presidential primary as former Attorney General Eric Holder and Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan seriously explore White House bids.
GOP Cranks Up Pork-Barrel Spending
Congressional Republicans are once again embracing pork-barrel spending, more than doubling the amount spent on earmarks since the last fiscal year.
Citizens Against Government Waste, or CAGW, publishes “The Congressional Pig Book,” which chronicles spending on earmarks each year. According to the book, 232 earmarks are part of the appropriations process for Fiscal Year 2018, a 42 percent increase from 2017. Those earmarks total $14.7 billion, a 116 percent jump from just a year ago.
For budget hawks, the news is especially depressing because House Republicans appear to be trying to restore earmarks after abolishing them in 2011.
“Yes, it more than doubled between 2017 and 2018, and there have been earmarks, according to CAGW’s definition, since the moratorium was adopted in 2011. Congress’ definition is not the same, so they keep claiming there are no earmarks. We disagree,” said CAGW President Tom Schatz.
The $14.7 billion price tag barely reaches half the amount of the GOP’s worst example of pork-barrel spending, but Schatz says Republicans ought to remember that fallout from those earmarks.
“This is more than half of the record $29 billion in 2006, which not coincidentally was the year that Republicans lost the majority in the House. Then after they got it back (following the 2010 midterms), they got the moratorium,” said Schatz.
The book also lists the earmarks, including $65 million to protect salmon on the west coast. Schatz cited a wasteful project earmarked for the Pentagon.
“(There’s) $25 million in the defense bill for alternative energy research, up two-thirds from the $15 million in 2017. There’s now $315 million of earmarks for this purpose, even though the Energy and Water Development Act supplies billions for alternative energy research,” said Schatz.
He says between 2007-2014, the Pentagon purchased about two million gallons of alternative fuel at a cost of $58 million. In contrast, the Defense Department bought 32 billion gallons of petroleum at a price of $107 billion.
But should we really be making a big deal out of $14.7 billion in spending when the government spends several trillion dollars per year? Schatz says the whole process just invites corruption.
“The point of earmarks is that they’re corruptive, they’re inequitable, and they are costly. In the 111th Congress (2009-2011), names of members were included in the appropriations bills. The 81 Senate and House appropriators, that’s 15 percent of the whole Congress, had 51 percent of the earmarks and 61 percent of the money,” he said.
He also cited Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, for condemning earmarks through their work on the Article I Project.
“They said, ‘Earmarking is not an innocuous exercise of Congress’ constitutional power. It was the tool lobbyists and leadership used to compel members to vote for bills that their constituents and sometimes their conscience opposed. Bringing back earmarks would make Congress weaker, make federal power more centralized, less accountable and more corrupt,'” said Schatz, quoting Lee and Hensarling.
Schatz isn’t ready to say Republicans don’t mean it when they vow to be fiscally responsible. He says the allure of spending intoxicates both parties.
“It’s what we call Potomac Fever. It effects both parties. When they come here, they just see this as an opportunity to spend money. There are no adverse consequences for facing the taxpayers’ money, except perhaps for getting voted out of office. When 90-plus percent of incumbents get re-elected, that’s not so risky,” said Schatz.
So who is to blame for the GOP reverting back to form on earmarks? Schatz says much more responsibility lies with Congress than with President Trump. He says this year’s Bipartisan Budget Act was a big culprit.
“As happens in Washington, Republicans want more money for defense. Democrats wanted more money for everything else. So they said, ”OK, let’s just spend more on everything,’ and that’s what happened,” said Schatz.
He says that approach is how Congress piled up so much debt over the years.
“The answer here in Washington, D.C., is to address every problem with a program or more spending, not, ‘Let’s solve the problem and figure out how much it will cost,’ which is how the rest of the world operates,” said Schatz.
Butina Conned Dems Too, Tariffs Wipe Out Tax Cuts, Trump’s Iran Tweet
Listen to “Butina Conned Dems Too, Tariffs Wipe Out Tax Cuts, Trump’s Iran Tweet” on Spreaker.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are not thrilled to see that alleged Russian spy Maria Butina conned Obama administration officials, but they do welcome the evidence that Russia was infiltrating everywhere and not just getting cozy with the GOP. They also sigh as the Tax Foundation concludes that President Trump’s tariffs and the tariffs aimed back at the U.S. will gobble up all of the tax cuts for working families. In addition, they fume as Citizens Against Government Waste shows Republicans in Congress are cranking up the spending through pork barrel earmarks again. And while they love Mike Pompeo’s speech casting Iranian leaders as the mafia for stealing from their own people to fund terrorism, they’re not sure Trump’s all-caps tweet Sunday night was the best move.