Radio America Online News Bureau

Trump Embraces Dem Gun Plans, Hicks Hits the Bricks, Economy Booming

by


Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America unload on President Trump for even saying he wants to see most aspects of the Democrats’ gun control agenda in a comprehensive bill and for apparently having little regard for due process rights.  They also discuss the resignation of White House Communications Director Hope Hicks and how the West Wing seems to be in a constant state of turnover.  And they close with good economic news, as new reports show wages rising – especially for low-income workers – and that the number of jobless claims filed last week were the fewest since 1969.

Share

Gun Lobby Fires Back

by

Gun control activists and members of both parties are rolling out legislation to tighten gun laws, but gun rights groups say those proposals would do nothing but open the door to more gun control efforts.

House Democrats are pushing the most aggressive proposal, calling for a ban on most semi-automatic weapons, specifically if they have detachable magazines or can hold more than ten rounds.

Florida’s Republican Gov. Rick Scott is asking state lawmakers to raise the minimum age for buying a rifle to 21 years old.  There is a bipartisan bill in the U.S. Senate that would do the same.  Senate Republicans are also advocating for expanded background checks.

President Trump has, at times, embraced both increasing the minimum age to buy rifles and universal background checks.

But Gun Owners of America Legislative Director Mike Hammond says all of these ideas would fail to address the reasons for mass shootings and only serve to restrict the freedoms of law abiding Americans.

While Democrats and the media often portray semi-automatic weapons as the reason for the high casualty counts at many shootings, Hammond says they are also the weapon of choice for many millions of gun owners.

He says semi-automatics make up a bigger percentage of the 300 million guns in this country than most people realize.

“Of those, there are probably 10 million AR-15’s.  They’re the most popular gun in the country.  I would guess that if you added other semi-automatic rifles like AK-47’s, you’d probably have 20 million of the households.  And if you start adding semi-automatic handguns, who knows where you are?  Fifty million or a hundred million,” said Hammond.

“Basically you’re taking off the market a substantial portion of the guns which are in private hands in the United States,” said Hammond.

Hammond says gun control advocates target semi-automatic weapons because of how they look.

“They are demonized because of cosmetic features that make them look like something else.  Also, they’re demonized by this false narrative that they’re somehow a military rifle.

“I was in the military.  I was issued a fully automatic M-16.  I wouldn’t go into battle with a semi-automatic firearm.  So the exercise is to use fraud in order to ban the most popular gun in America,” said Hammond.

Hammond and his allies are frequently confronted with the question of why anyone would need a semi-automatic firearm.  He says history provides examples, including Korean grocers who protected their stores and their homes above those stores during the 1992 Los Angeles riots.

“They stood on the roofs of their grocery stores, showing their nasty semi-automatic firearms so anyone who wanted to burn down their store and their home could see it.  As a result of that, they saved their lives, they saved the lives of their families, they saved their homes, they saved their stores,” said Hammond.

As for the bipartisan push for raise the minimum age for buying any firearm to the age of 21, Hammond says it’s just a slick move to advance more gun control legislation.  He says the law, 18 USC 922 (b) (1), only refers to buying guns from a dealer.

“It wouldn’t solve a single thing.  The next day the gun controllers would be back to us, saying, ‘Well, sure they can’t buy semi-autos from dealers, but now we need to ban their purchase from gun shows.  Now we need to ban their purchase on the internet.  Now we need to enact the sort of universal background checks which Congress considered and rejected  in 2013 after Newtown,'” said Hammond.

“What it would do is just open up a whole bunch of trap doors for the gun controllers to come and make a series of successive demands, claiming that what we did accomplished nothing,” said Hammond.

As for universal background checks, Hammond says those are just a way for the government to barge into every gun owner’s life.

“They mean that you can’t buy a gun anywhere in America unless the government approves the sale,” said Hammond.

He says this can take various forms, using the example of rural neighbors.  Under universal background checks, he says those neighbors might have to drive hours to find a gun dealer who can do the background check and charge whatever he wants for performing the service.

In the bigger picture, Hammond fears the government would use that information to build a national gun registry.

“Currently, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms is going around in connection with its annual inspections and photographing gun records.  We suspect its making those photographs into the beginnings of a national gun registry.

“If everyone has to sell their guns through a dealer, that means every transaction has one of those gun records.  And that means that everyone is going to be in that universal gun registry,” said Hammond.

Share

Public Sours on Anti-Gun Businesses, GOP Dodges Scandal, No Tax = No Obamacare?

by


Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America discuss new polling showing public perception dropping for businesses that are publicly breaking ties with the NRA, due entirely to a massive plunge in favorability among Republicans.  They also breathe a sigh of relief as Republicans in Arizona’s eighth congressional district reject the frontrunner in the primary after the married minister was caught exchanging inappropriate texts with a female staffer.  And they wish the best of luck to 20 state attorneys general who argue that all of Obamacare should be declared unconstitutional now that the tax provision that saved it at the Supreme Court in 2012 has been scrapped in the new tax law.

Share

20 States Take Aim at Obamacare

by

The recent tax cut legislation also puts an end to penalties for failing to buy health insurance, a development 20 states now argue should render the rest of Obamacare unconstitutional.

Led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the states filed suit in federal district court in Fort Worth on Monday, asking for an injunction against continued enforcement of the Affordable Care Act and, ultimately, for the law to be struck down.

President Trump and Republicans often assert that the tax bill repealed the individual mandate, but that’s not exactly correct.

“It made the individual mandate a zero.  It zeroed it out, which is what they could do because the Supreme Court had declared the individual mandate a tax but it didn’t strike the language from the statute,” said Rob Henneke, a former colleague of Paxton’s who is now general counsel at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

“So part of the argument that the states have here is that because the individual mandate is set at zero, it is not performing the functions of a tax and therefore cannot still be construed constitutional by the Supreme Court under the taxing powers of Congress,” said Henneke.

And why is that?  In 2012, despite ruling that the law violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution by forcing Americans to purchase a product, Chief Justice John Roberts saved the Affordable Care Act by declaring the the individual mandate a tax, which is within the powers of Congress.

Henneke says without that rationale, Obamacare collapses.

“The whole crux of that regulatory scheme rests on the essential component of being able to compel Americans to purchase health insurance or pay this tax penalty.  Now that that one card has been pulled out of that house of cards, the states argue that the entire regulatory scheme collapses,” said Henneke.

Henneke admits that the justices seem very reluctant to confront Obamacare again, but he says the states are hoping Roberts will reverse course once he’s confronted with his own words.

“In this situation, it is the Supreme Court’s own words in the NFIB v. Sebelius case, where they point to the individual mandate as the key component in what made the Affordable Care Act constitutional,” said Henneke.

Another big question, says Henneke, is whether the defendants will put up much of a fight this time around.

“It remains to be seen what position this administration and the Department of Justice is going to take and if and how they are going to defend the law.

“The president has been very critical of the Affordable Care Act.  It’s been a cornerstone of what he campaigned on.  Are they really going to disagree with the 20 states that have challenged the constitutionality of this law or do they agree with the argument presented by the states? ” said Henneke.

He says it’s also possible that this case could make it through the system pretty quickly.

“[The states] are asking for a court to enjoin the Affordable Care Act, to have a court order that would stop that law from continuing.  That is the ultimate relief that is sought in the lawsuit. but stay tuned.  We may see those states come to court earlier and ask for a preliminary injunction to stop the Affordable Care Act while the lawsuit goes on,” said Henneke.

“If that happens, then that could be a decision that moves up through the court system much, much faster than the three or four years it takes a lawsuit to normally get through the trial court,” he added.

Standard Podcast [ 8:08 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

Corker Stays Out, Dems Push Gun Ban, Celebs Run for Congress, Honoring Buckley

by


Jim Geraghty of Radio America and Greg Corombos of Radio America welcome the news that Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker will not become “the Brett Favre of politics” as the senator confirms he will honor his initial decision not to run for re-election this year.  They also discuss efforts by House Democrats to ban every semi-automatic firearm that has a detachable magazine and every one that can hold more than ten rounds, with Jim detailing the random, uninformed approach Democrats appear to be taking on this issue.  They have some fun with the news actress Stacey Dash and former MSNBC hothead Dylan Ratigan are running for Congress.  And they pay tribute to National Review Founder William F. Buckley, Jr. ten years after his death.

Share

Union Dues Battle Reaches Supremes Again

by

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments over whether labor unions can force non-members to pay dues when they hold public sector jobs, and the upcoming verdict may have a major impact on organized labor going forward.

And one leading expert says if unions cannot count on compulsory dues, their next plan may be to get it from the taxpayers.

On Monday, justices heard the case of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME.  Mark Janus is an employee with the Illinois Department of Public Health.  He is not a member of AFSCME, but $50 is still taken out of his paycheck each month in union dues.

AFSCME contends that the collective bargaining it does on behalf of public sector employees ends up benefiting all workers, thus collecting $50 per month from people like Janus is reasonable.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix says organized labor’s argument is full of holes.

“The fact that the unions have positioned themselves as the exclusive bargaining agent and the monopoly voice of all workers in the public sector is really the issue.  This is the fundamental problem and the injustice of this particular situation.  The unions say that everything they do benefits everybody they come in contact with.  That’s just not true.

“So the idea is that Mark Janus, our client who we represented at the Supreme Court, is basically saying that what they’re doing in some cases hurts him.  In some cases it’s arguable that it doesn’t help him.  In some cases it probably does.  But the bottom line is that he would lose his job if he did not pay these fees to the union,” said Mix.

It’s the compulsory policy aimed at non-members that Mix believes is unconstitutional.

“In order to work for his government and have a voice, he’s got to pay a private organization for that privilege.  We believe that it all should be voluntary.  If the union’s doing great work and they’re providing all these great benefits, then workers will join them voluntarily and that’s the way it should work,” said Mix.

Mix says organized labor often positions itself as looking out for the working class and middle class employees, but he alleges the reality is just the opposite.

“If Mark Janus wins this case, there’s nothing that stops any individual from joining a union.  It won’t prohibit anything.  It just simply gives individual workers the choice, and really, when you boil this out that’s what this is.  It’s a battle, literally, between union officials and the rank-and-file workers they claim to represent

“What they’re saying is, ‘If you give these workers a choice…they may decide to do something different, and that’s really the fundamental issue at the bottom of this case.  Union official are worried that if workers are given the choice, they may not choose to support them financially,” said Mix.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Staff Attorney William Messenger argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of Janus.  Mix says Messenger was pleased with the way oral arguments went Monday, and he also highlighted how the various justices approached the discussion.

“In the last five years they have asked and talked about this issue, so they were well-informed,” said Mix, noting that the high court heard very similar cases in 2012, 2014, and 2016.  The 2016 case deadlocked at 4-4 due to the death of Justice Scalia.

“Justice Kennedy was pretty animated and interested in this case.  The first amendment is really the ultimate question here.  Justice Thomas did not ask a question.  Justice Gorsuch did not ask a question.  Roberts had a few, Alito had a couple, and Sotomayor and Kagan led the charge for the other side,” said Mix.

Gorsuch not asking a question leaves some mystery as to the final verdict, since the other eight justices are on the record with their views.  While not hazarding a guess as to how the court will rule, Mix says he “hopes the fundamental argument of free speech will hold the day.”

If his side wins, Mix says unions will quickly start looking for other sources of revenue and in left-leaning states that money might come from the taxpayers.

“They’re trying to convince legislatures to give them the authority to collect money from taxpayers if they lose the Janus case.  We’re seeing things pop in New York, in California, in Washington state, and Hawaii.  They’re actually going to ask the taxpayers to pay the fees they can no longer collect from non-members if we win this case, said Mix.

He suspects that road will also wind up a dead end.

“I think that gets them deeper into the hole as opposed to providing solutions for them.  They may win on the short term by getting taxpayers to fund it, but I think once taxpayers find out they’re paying a private organization taxpayer money to do the work they’re doing, I think that will be another problem for organized labor down the road,” said Mix.

Mix says a far better reaction would be for unions to shape up and show non-members there is great value in paying fees for ongoing representation in collective bargaining and other areas.

A ruling on Janus v. AFSCME is expected before the end of June.

Standard Podcast [ 8:44 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

Mona Gets it Right, Broward Sheriff Flailing, NBC vs. Ivanka

by


Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America applaud conservative columnist Mona Charen for speaking the hard truth that too many on the right are willing to look the other way on President Trump’s personal behavior – and even the Roy Moore story – in an effort to achieve political goals.  They also rip Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel for looking at the litany of mistakes and missed opportunities for authorities to stop the Stoneman Douglas shooting and flippantly concluding, “If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, then O.J. Simpson would still be in the record books.”  And they shake their heads as NBC interviews Ivanka Trump at the Olympics and asks her whether she believes her father’s accusers.

Share

‘I Think the Republican Party Needs to be the Party of Individual Liberty’

by

Virginia Del. Nick Freitas says his U.S. Senate bid is not only about defeating Democratic incumbent Tim Kaine but about returning the Republicans back to a party that champions the ideals that make America strong.

Freitas, 38, is in his second term in the Virginia House of Delegates.  He is also a U.S. Army veteran who served two tours in Iraq in a special forces unit.  He is married with three children.

And while he wants to replace Kaine in the U.S. Senate, Freitas says steering the Republican Party back on course is just as big of a goal.

“There’s an impulse by some that they want big-government Republicanism, where they concede some of the arguments of the progressive left that we need to have this nanny state and it would just be better if Republicans ran it.

“I completely reject that.  I think the Republican Party needs to be the party of individual liberty.  It needs to be the party of free markets and opportunity, and it needs to be the party of equal justice before the law,” said Freitas.

He says Republicans need to do a much better job of explaining not only what they believe but why they believe it.

“It’s not just about why we want tax reform or regulatory reform or greater opportunity within education.  It’s about explaining that the reason we believe all those things goes back to this core fundamental belief and love for the individual person,” said Freitas, who says that view stands in complete contrast with how liberals look at people.

“I really despise how the modern left has manages to categorize people based many times on superficial distinctions.  The left right now has four questions they want to ask you.  What’s your skin color?  What’s your gender?  What’s your sexual orientation?  How much money do you make?

“If you answer those four questions, they put you into a victim group and there you stay.  I don’t see people that way.  I see people as unique individuals with something to offer themselves, their families and society.  The key for them to be able to do that is a government that stays within it’s constitutional boundaries and protects their librety and freedom to do so,” said Freitas.

He says once that approach to government is explained, then you can get down to policy.

“Then we explain why tax reform, why regulatory reform, why a greater educational opportunity, why a free market for health care helps the individual achieve all those things they want to and allows them to pursue happiness, that’s a winning message for the Republican Party.

“I want to see more people advocating for it so I decided to step up and make the argument,” said Freitas.

And Freitas believes making a strong case for those principles and supporting the pro-liberty aspects of the Trump agenda does not require a confrontational tone.

“The solution to that is not to yell and scream at everybody in Virginia and treat them like idiots if they don’t agree with us.  The solution is to explain the benefits of those policies in such a way that they can relate to and feel an urge to support,” said Freitas.

Five Republicans are in the field for the GOP nomination, including Prince William County Board of Supervisors Chairman Corey Stewart, who narrowly lost last year’s gubernatorial nomination, and Bishop E.W. Jackson, the Republican nominee for lieutenant governor in 2013.

While vowing to focus on his message, Freitas believes he is the strongest candidate to return power to the individual.

“That’s not an attempt to disparage any of the other candidates that are running.  I think they’re going to take a different approach to the Republican message.  In a lot of ways, I think it’s going to look like the approach that’s been used before and quite frankly hasn’t worked very well in Virginia,” said Freitas.

“Corey Stewart is obviously going to take a very different approach than I will with respect to addressing these issues and to building the sort of coalition we need in Virginia to win elections,” said Freitas.

Republicans control the U.S. Senate by a narrow 51-49 majority and had some hits and misses in the first year of the Trump administration.  The Senate managed to pass tax reform but failed to repeal Obamacare or deal with huge deficits.

Freitas says tax reform was “definitely a step in the right direction” and roundly applauds Trump for rolling back burdensome regulations, but he is frustrated by the GOP approach to spending.

“Everybody loves to cut taxes.  Nobody loves to cut spending except for very few people, and that’s because we’re not going out there and actually making the argument for why this sort of government spending is not appropriate and what it’s going to mean for our children and future generations,” said Freitas.

If elected, Freitas says he’d be looking for a new GOP leader in the Senate.

“I’m not going to commit to vote for Mitch McConnell,” said Freitas.  “I want to see someone that is going to push a bold and unapologetic argument for conservative principles.  If we’re running on it, we shouldn’t be afraid to legislate it.”

Sen. Kaine, who was also the 2016 vice presidential nominee for the Democrats, is considered a big favorite to win a second term.  But Freitas says he is ready to take the fight to Kaine over where the power in the United States should reside.

“It’s not that Tim is a horrible guy or a mean guy.  Tim believes that the solution to our problems is more government control.  Tim fundamentally believes that if he has more control over our lives, he’ll make things better,” said Freitas.

He says the contrast is clear.

“I believe that the way to achieve not only greater economic opportunity but greater equality before the law is by dispersing power, by taking it out of the hands of politicians and putting more control of decisions back in the hands of individuals,” said Freitas.

“It’s the parent whose child has been consigned to a failing school, giving that parent more options over where that child can go to school in order to craft a unique education for their child.  It’s that person that wants to engage in the marketplace but can’t because federal regulations are holding them back.  It’s the additional tax burden that prevents families from doing the things they need to do in order to be successful,” said Freitas.

While Freitas and Kaine disagree on a vast array of policy areas, Freitas says a few in particular come to mind first, including Kaine backing the FISA court without any concern over the fourth amendment rights of Americans, supporting tax increases and additional regulations on businesses, and consistently voting to protect late-term abortions.

“From individual policy perspectives all the way down to the core, the fundamental difference between Tim Kaine and I is Tim believes in controlling people.  I believe in freeing people to be able to live their own lives.  That’s going to influence every decision and that’s going to be the starkest contrast between Tim Kaine and myself,” said Freitas.

In addition to Kaine’s widespread name recognition and full bank account of over $9.2 million as of the end of 2017, Freitas and the other Republicans are running statewide just a year after Democrats convincingly swept all statewide offices.  In fact, the GOP has not won a statewide race since 2009.

Freitas is not concerned.  He says Virginia almost always goes the opposite way the year after a presidential election and that his approach to liberals in his district has won quite a few converts.

“I have people that are definitely left of center in my district support me and not just come out and vote but actively go out and support my candidacy against a liberal progressive Democrat.

“The reason for that was not because I was a Squish on the issues.  It wasn’t because I walked away from tough votes.  It wasn’t any of that.  It was bcause I found the issues where there was overlap.  For instance, I think we need criminal justice reform and so I’m carrying the bill on civil asset forfeiture reform to make sure the government can’t take your property and sell it off without a criminal conviction.

“I’ve carried the legislation that removes onerous regulations on growing industrial hemp in Virginia because, quite frankly, our farmers need this and people want access to the products,” said Freitas.

“One does not have to compromise any of their conservative principles to get a wide base of support, but they do have to spend time learning how to talk to people in a way that’s relevant to them, identifying the issues that are important when there’s room for cooperation, and then spending the time and energy to actually get the legislation passed,” said Freitas.

The U.S. Senate primary in Virginia is scheduled for June 12.

 

Standard Podcast [ 13:27 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

Florida Failures Abound, French Defends Assault Weapons, Greitens Indicted

by


David French of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America react to the horrific news that the armed sheriff’s deputy assigned to Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School was aware of the shooter and never went in to confront him.  They also recoil at reports the sheriff’s office was specifically warned in November that the shooter would do this and that his own family asked the sheriff’s office to take his guns away.  David details his latest column, explaining how law-abiding Americans should have access to so-called “assault weapons” in order to match the firepower of criminals and because our founders actually did intend it to be this way.  And they discuss the political freefall of now-indicted Republican Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, who is facing charges of invasion of privacy in connection with an extramarital affair with his hairdresser before running for governor.

Share

Virginia Republicans Help Pass Medicaid Expansion

by

After four years of resisting Medicaid expansion in Virginia, 20 Republican lawmakers in the House of Delegates relented and helped to push a limited, bipartisan expansion across the finish line, a vote one conservative member believes the GOP will live to regret.

“I think this is going to prove to have been a very, very bad decision,” said Republican Del. Nick Freitas, who is also a candidate for U.S. Senate this year.

Former Democratic Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe pressed for full Medicaid expansion for four years.  He failed each year, given the GOP’s roughly 2-1 majority in the House of Delegates.  However, in November, Democrats picked up 15 seats, leaving the Republicans with a slim 51-49 majority.

Earlier this week, Virginia House Speaker William Howell announced a bipartisan agreement to expand Medicaid in Virginia, but with certain conditions, including work requirements and the ability to reverse the expansion if the federal government fails to deliver the funding it has promised.

On Thursday, the plan cleared the House of Delegates, 69-31, with all Democrats and 20 Republicans voting for it.  There is still an uncertain future, however, since the Virginia Senate did not include Medicaid expansion in it’s budget, meaning the issue will be resolved in a House-Senate conference.

Freitas says Howell and other Republicans have reasons for what they did but he says it was still a big mistake.

“It’s frustrating.  I certainly understand where the speaker and other members are coming from with respect to being concerned that a full expansion is in the works.  So their attitude is that we’ve got to do something first in order to make sure that we get certain provisions in there that Republicans have asked for in other states,” said Freitas.

“We just voted on it on the House floor today and unfortunately it did pass with 31 Republicans voting against it.  So it was actually a minority of Republicans in the House of Delegates that voted for the Medicaid expansion within the budget,” said Freitas.

Freitas says this is a terrible idea both fiscally and in terms of health policy.

“This is bad not only from a fiscal standpoint, which we tend to focus on a great deal but I think it’s bad also when you look at the underlying problems with respect to Medicaid.

“This is a program that is failing people not only from a fiscal standpoint, but it’s actually failing people with respect to the quality of health care that it’s supposed to be able to provide.  I don’t think any of us should be shocked by that.  That’s what happens when a government tries to micromanage a program,” said Freitas.

But were Republicans wise to head off a much worse program that could have passed instead of this one or should the GOP have avoided this path altogether?

“You can make a reasoned argument that something worse could come.  The question is how complicit do you want to be in the end product.  I don’t think there’s a good way to expand Medicaid, period,” said Freitas.

He also says the provision to reverse the expansion in certain circumstances may sound reassuring but believes that would never happen.

“If we don’t have the will to prevent a bad program from expanding, I don’t see how we’re suddenly going to have the will to kick off hundreds of thousands of people that we’ve made dependent upon that program once it’s gone into play,” said Freitas.

The argument that the bipartisan bill had to be pursued to avoid a more liberal version begs the question, since Republicans still control both parts of the legislature.  Were some Republicans prepared to vote for full expansion without the GOP conditions?

“I think that’s a fair assessment.  I do believe that there were some Republicans that were willing to vote for a full expansion,” he said.

Standard Podcast [ 4:52 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share