Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review cheer the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for ruling it is illegal for the NSA to collect our cell phone data. They’re also astonished that the Obama administration in demanding immense amounts of secrecy and absolutely no public discussion of the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership. And we have fun at Tom Brady’s expense as the NFL concludes Brady probably knew about the under-inflated footballs in January’s AFC title game.
Follow the Money!
“Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer says there is an unmistakable pattern of Clinton Foundation donations greasing the skids for political favors throughout Hillary Clinton’s congressional and diplomatic career and no one has been able to discredit the facts in the book.
The thrust of the book is that the Clinton Foundation raked in millions and even billions of dollars from foreign donors who subsequently saw their most important issues addressed favorably by the State Department.
The book has rocked the Clinton campaign for weeks, as the Clinton Foundation was forced to admit that it took foreign donations while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, refiled years worth of tax returns to set the record straight and revealed some 1,100 donors that it hadn’t previously disclosed.
Schweizer says there are a lot of different threads to follow in the various episodes, but he says the basic plot is as old as politics itself.
“This is the oldest story in politics. Follow the money. If you follow the money in this case, you’re talking about a scale of money that is unprecedented,” said Schweizer. “It’s a classic case of money in politics. When you give money, you want access and you want a favorable opportunity to get things done for your benefit.”
This week, Bill Clinton has spoken out in defense of the foundation’s activities and stated it did nothing that was “knowingly inappropriate.” At another event, when asked what the money went for, Clinton joked, ‘I just work here. I don’t know.’
Schweizer is a bit stunned by the response.
“I really think it’s been odd, frankly. On the one hand, they’ve said that there’s nothing here, but on the other hand they can’t stop talking about the book,” he said
From Paul Begala hammering the book on Twitter to a new website and email alerts focused on the book, Schweizer says the Clintons are in major damage control mode.
“If they think there’s nothing there or the book is a dud as they’ve called it, they seem to be taking a lot of actions that show them to be scrambling,” said Schweizer.
He believes the real reason for the concern among Clinton allies is an crystal clear pattern of Hillary Clinton’s State Department rewarding Clinton Foundation donors.
“This is not a book with anonymous sources. There’s not hyperbole here. It’s just laying out the facts. It’s laying out the template of the flow of funds to the Clintons over the template of her official actions as secretary of state. When you do that, you find this very troubling pattern between the two,” said Schweizer.
Schweizer says the actions of the Clintons are especially galling given the laws firmly in place to prohibit foreign donations to political campaigns and political action committees and clear limits on foreign lobbying of the U.S. government.
“Yet the Clintons have set up this apparatus through the Clinton Foundation and through these so-called speaking fees that I think are more influence payments to Bill Clinton. These mechanisms are a way around foreign entities being able to influence our politics. You see the money pouring in and you see the decisions and the actions being taken for the benefit of those who are paying the Clintons,” said Schweizer.
All of this allegedly took place during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state despite explicit demands from President Obama and the Senate Foreign Relations for the foundation to accept no foreign donations and for its records to be available for review.
“If I was Barack Obama, I would be absolutely furious. This was a condition upon Hillary taking the job as secretary of state. We now know that almost immediately overnight, they violated that agreement,” said Schweizer, who says Obama now needs to decide whether Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambitions will trump the search for the truth in this case.
“Are they going to let that supersede the fact that the Clintons flat-out lied to them. In this memorandum of understanding, it was very explicit that they were going to reveal all donors. We now know that they didn’t do that, that there were millions of dollars from some very, very sensitive deals involving very, very sensitive people that was flowing to the Clinton Foundation,” he said.
“Clinton Cash” also asserts that some of the money coming into the foundation was given by some very questionable characters, including African warlords and other disreputable figures. Schweizer believes the company the Clintons were keeping is worth noting.
“I think it’s another red flag flag. You’ve got a guy, for example, like Gilbert Chagoury in Nigeria, who has been convicted in Geneva, Switzerland, for money laundering and aid and abetting a criminal enterprise. What he was basically doing was helping the Nigerian dictator (Sani) Abacha take billions of dollars out of the country and put them into Swiss bank accounts,” said Schweizer.
He says people like Chagoury don’t give huge amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation or anyone else just out of generosity.
“That’s the kind of person they are spending a lot of time with and taking money from. A guy like Gilbert Chagoury operates in a political culture like Nigeria that is rife with paying bribes. The idea that he’s going to give a large sum of money for the Clintons and not expect something in return is just patently ridiculous,” said Schweizer.
The book further contends that the quid pro quo for Clinton Foundation donors are not unique to the years Mrs. Clinton was running the State Department. Schweizer says it was evident during her years in the U.S. Senate as well. One chapter in the book focuses on a nuclear issue involving India.
“The Indian government wanted access to U.S. civilian nuclear technology. In 2006, legislation was introduced to that effect. Hillary Clinton was not particularly supportive of that. She in fact supported three killer amendments that were designed to undermine that bill,” said Schweizer.
“Well, millions of dollars flowed to the Clinton Foundation. Bill Clinton got eight speeches from Indian interests. By 2008, she had completely reversed course and come out in favor of unrestricted access to U.S. nuclear technology by the Indian government,” he said.
Schweizer believes any doubts about whether donations to the Clinton Foundation played a role in the policy shift were answered by one of India’s key players on the issue. Sant Chatwal was a friend and financier for Sen. Clinton who won a prestigious award from the Indian government for convincing her to change his mind.
“When he described in interviews what he did, he talked about the fact that getting this bill through cost him millions upon millions of dollars,” said Schweizer.
The policy flip-flops did not stop there, especially after Sen. Clinton became Secretary Clinton.
“There are a number of examples in the book where she publicly espoused one position or supported a piece of legislation. But then when she became secretary of state, she reversed course. The question becomes are these just all coincidences or in these dozens of instances is something more afoot,” said Schweizer.
The key to finding iron-clad proof may be gone since Clinton had her personal email server wiped clean of more than 30,000 “personal” emails from her time at the State Department. Schweizer is convinced that controversy is directly related to the Clinton Foundation scrutiny.
“I believe the deletions occurred in large part precisely because of these kinds of transactions and communications we’re talking about. But they’re certainly not necessary to convene a grand ury and investigate these subjects,” said Schweizer.
And that is where Schweizer hopes all of his evidence eventually leads: to a serious legal investigation of the Clintons’ actions.
“My hope is that somebody with subpoena power either on Capitol Hill or a prosecutor is going to convene a grand jury or investigate these matters further,” he said.
Three Martini Lunch 5/6/15
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are glad to see evidence that Elizabeth Warren may still be thinking about a 2016 White House bid that could set up a bruising Democratic primary. They also wonder why Hillary Clinton’s numbers are on the rise after three months of relentless bad news. And they react to Bill Clinton’s shameless defense of the Clinton Foundation.
‘A Trial Is Not A Fact-Finding Opportunity’
A prominent black conservative is slamming Maryland State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby for charging six police officers with the death of Freddie Gray without bothering to collect all the evidence and he says that haste could trigger more riots if the officers are acquitted and leave law-abiding citizens in some neighborhoods at the mercy of troublemakers.
Last Friday, Mosby announced charges ranging from second-degree murder depraved heart to manslaughter to office misconduct. However, attorney and Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper says the prosecutor is putting the cart before the horse.
“We’re all concerned about whether or not Freddie Gray died under legal or illegal circumstances,” said Cooper. Our legal system is not supposed to be that a trial is a fact-finding opportunity. A trial is supposed to occur only after a level has been reached to believe that a crime has been committed by the individuals who have been charged.”
“In America, you’re not supposed to have any person have charges brought unless the burden of proof has been met,” he said.
Cooper says Mosby is also going to have to get much more specific than simply accusing all six officers of playing a role on Gray’s death.
“If you are going to charge someone with depraved heart murder and someone else with negligence that’s criminal, you are going to have to say who it was that actually took the actions, when did they take those actions and how did Mr. Freddie Gray die?” said Cooper, who believes Mosby charged the officers under the wrong motivation.
“In this case, there was a very clear decision, it appears, by the state’s attorney to bring what she perceives to be the most serious charges that could be sustained, without necessarily seeing where there’s evidence. If this can happen to those officers, this could happen to any American,” said Cooper.
He also rips Mosby for failing to convene a grand jury before filing formal charges.
“She has bypassed, at least temporarily, the grand jury process, which is a protection to make sure that you actually can support the charges that are brought against any individual,” said Cooper.
One area where Cooper seems to agree with Mosby and other Baltimore leaders is that it is possible for the officers to receive a fair trial in such a charged atmosphere. Opponents of a venue change assert that special arrangements were not needed for Boston Marathon bomber Dzokhar Tsarnaev or Colorado theater shooting suspect James Holmes. Cooper says that is a fair point, but he says any arguments to move the trial will be bolstered by Mosby’s conduct.
“In neither (the Boston nor the Colorado) circumstance did the prosecuting attorneys make statements about the accused that were provocative, that were inflammatory and that it appeared to be that the charges were brought to appease,” said Cooper.
By filing such hefty charges so soon, Cooper says Mosby could be setting the stage for another disaster in Baltimore if the evidence is not there to convict the officers.
“What happens if there is an acquittal? The very crowd that demanded the charges in exchange for no longer burning down buildings, what are they going to do when an acquittal may occur?” asked Cooper.
Beyond the Freddie Gray crisis lies the work of trying to put a divided city back together. Cooper says there are a number of things that must be agreed upon for healing to begin. First, he says there must be a separation of fact from fiction when it comes to how police interact with black neighborhoods.
“There has been a false narrative presented that in America black men are somehow at some elevated risk at crisis levels in encounters. The individual charged with the highest, most serious charge in this death happens to be a black officer,” said Cooper.
Cooper contends that the prosecutor’s approach to this case will make police less likely to engage in minority neighborhoods and that will leave law-abiding people in those communities at great risk.
“We’re going to see, just by necessity, law enforcement remove itself from many of these communities. We saw the rioting and the mayhem. It was because the police were operating under a stand down order. Those individuals are going to feel freer to engage in the rioting and the mayhem but there won’t be cameras watching. It will people in those communities who will suffer as a result,” said Cooper.
As for the long-term approach, Cooper says it’s time for everyone to admit that big government policies have badly failed Baltimore and many other big cities.
“You have elevated levels of spending, the number three highest level of spending per capita on education, billions of dollars being spent over the decade on job training, social welfare transfers of all kinds and they do not work,” said Cooper.
According to Cooper, the hopelessness of many parts of Baltimore is magnified by the rapid decrease in population there. In 1968, Baltimore was one of the ten most populous cities in the U.S. Now, it’s not even in the top twenty.
He says it’s high time to make failed leaders take responsibility.
“[We need to] start addressing how we can encourage family formation, how we can encourage a new commitment to education, encourage job opportunities in these communities. That’s things that are not about government programs but about cultural attitude changes and holding those elected leaders responsible,” said Cooper.
Recent polls suggest that blacks and whites view the events in Baltimore much differently, with whites roundly condemning the riots but a majority of blacks saying the actions were understandable in the pursuit of justice for Freddie Gray. But Cooper says there is a sizable minority of blacks who were disgusted by the violence and are fed up with the status quo in Baltimore and other big cities.
“Twenty-seven percent is a significant bloc of black Americans. That’s the group of people that we ought to start having conversations with, both politically and in the community. If 27 percent of black America switched their political affiliation and their voting practices, it would revolutionize America,” said Cooper.
Three Martini Lunch 5/5/15
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review welcome Mike Huckabee to the 2016 presidential race. They also groan as President Obama pontificates on the problems in Baltimore. And they cringe as Fox News reports a police shooting in Baltimore only to admit it got the story wrong.
Inside the GOP Budget: Major Reforms, Obamacare Repeal, No New Taxes
Congressional Republicans are on the verge of passing a budget that would balance within ten years, repeal Obama and reform major entitlements all without raising taxes, but a confrontation soon looms between the GOP and a president who wants nothing to do with that agenda.
The Senate is expected to approve the House-Senate compromise on the budget this week. It passed the House largely along party lines last week.
“It was a remarkable challenge. The challenges get greater each year because the administration refuses to deal with the reforms that need to be put in place,” said House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, R-Ga. “This is a big moment. It’s been 14 years since the House and the Senate agreed to a budget that balanced within a period of ten years and this budget does just that.”
Price says the American people gave explicit marching orders at the ballot box and Republicans are finally in position to press the issue now that they control both the House and Senate. He says lawmakers and the public both know that doing more of the same is simply not an option.
“You can’t continue to be in debt at eighteen-plus trillion dollars and not do anything about it. Every dollar that’s spent on interest and every dollar that’s borrowed is a dollar that can’t be used for paying the rent, for buying a house, for buying a car, for sending a kid to college, for starting or expanding a business. All the things the American people say they want to do are harmed by our current fiscal and economic path,” said Price.
He says the GOP plan is ambitious but clear.
“Our budget would get to balance within a ten-year period of time without raising taxes. It would make certain that we lay out a path to save, strengthen and secure Medicare and Medicaid. We protect Social Security. These are the programs that are going broke under their current path. We would repeal Obamacare in its entirety, all of it’s rules and regulations and taxes and make certain also we’re providing for a strong national defense,” said Price.
Repealing Obamacare is not just a major political and policy goal for Price. He says it would save taxpayers a lot of money too.
“That literally saves us nearly two trillion dollars over the next ten years. We would put in place patient-centered programs, patient-centered health care where patients, families and doctors are making medical decisions and not Washington, D.C.,” he said.
Price sees entitlement reform, particularly with respect to Medicaid, as another key ingredient in bringing government spending in line. He says that’s another trillion that could be trimmed.
“All you have to do is simply provide the states the opportunity and the flexibility to fashion a program that takes better care of their Medicaid population and is much more responsive to them and is much more flexible for the states and for the patients in those programs,” said Price.
Another major priority in the GOP budget is attaching conditions to government benefits for able-bodied adults.
“In all the welfare programs that exist out there, the vast majority of them have no requirement whatsoever that the individual receiving the benefit.” said Price. “What we’ve put in place is simply an opportunity for the states to require either work or searching for work or some type of education path for the individuals receiving those welfare benefits. When you do that, you save nearly a trillion dollars a year.”
The budget is divided between mandatory and discretionary spending. Price says entitlements are the biggest drivers in mandatory spending and must be addressed.
“Unless we reform our mandatory spending programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security), we will continue to squeeze the discretionary side of our budget, including defense and everything else…in a way that is not sustainable if we’re to accomplish the mission that we have to keep the nation safe,” said Price.
But some political critics see things much differently. Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., was a member of the conference committee hammering out a budget compromise between the House and Senate.
“This conference report sends a strong message to students, seniors, and the underprivileged that their dignity and dreams are simply not of concern for the Republican Party,” Moore told Politico.
Price says the facts speak for themselves.
“Students are more in debt and much less likely to be able to pay for their education than they would under our program. Senior are suffering right now under a Medicaid program and a Social Security program that are going broke. They’re going insolvent and the Democrats do nothing whatsoever to save those programs,” said Price.
“For those who are indigent and down on their luck, this is an economy that is the worst economic recovery in the history of our nation,” he said.
The toughest intraparty fight came over Pentagon spending. Many in the party believe the military has taken far too big of a hit in sequestration while others say it’s vital to honor the few spending restraints that still exist in the budget.
Price believes Republicans found a way to make both sides happy.
“What we utilized was the global war on terror funding stream to be able to provide the resources to get above the president’s level of spending on the Pentagon budget and hopefully put in place a process that will allow us to address this in the future where we don’t have to use that outside funding,” said Price.
However, the road to a balanced budget in the next decade is obstructed by some simple facts. The biggest hurdle is President Obama, who has no interest in advancing the core goals of the budget, especially when it comes to Obamacare.
“I’m not living under any illusion or delusion that he would actually sign that, but it’s important for the American people to know who’s standing in the way of progress and who’s standing up for progress and positive solutions,” said Price.
The House should have no problem voting to repeal Obamacare. Price strongly encourages the Senate to pass it through reconciliation, the same tactic used to pass Obamacare in the first place which requires just a simple majority for approval.
He says Congress could still end up enacting major changes to the health care laws this year. That would happen if the Supreme Court issues a ruling on King v. Burwell that determines the law only allows health care subsidies to be obtained through state exchanges. Nearly three-quarters of the states refused to create their own exchanges. Their residents would then be responsible for massive health care costs and Congress would be compelled to save the federal exchange or blow up the system.
Now that the budget committees have largely wrapped up their work, the next challenge is to convince lawmakers to abide by it. Price says there are two priorities in that effort. The first is to go through appropriations bills one at a time and see what can be cut.
“The Appropriations Committee deals with the discretionary side of the funding which is about at a trillion dollars for Fiscal Year 2016, which begins October 1. There are 12 subcommittees on the Appropriations Committee. We’ve already done two pieces of legislation through the committee and they’ll work through the remaining ten to send to the Senate,” said Price.
He says the House Education and Workforce, Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce Committees are all poring over federal spending in an effort to find savings and give the Senate stronger footing to pursue reconciliation.
Three Martini Lunch 5/4/15
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review cheer the entry of Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina into the 2016 presidential race. We also shake out heads as Bill Clinton offers a tortured defense of Clinton Foundation donations. And we discuss the lessons from the terrorist attack at a Mohammad cartoon contest and the media’s predictable response.
Are Consumers Gaining in the Cable Choice Battle?
Consumers are starting to see progress in their fight to stop paying for cable television channels they don’t want and a leading advocate of family-friendly programming says the pressure will only grow from here and help drive trashy programming off the air.
On April 17, Verizon FiOS announced it was introducing stripped down options for customers. The base package is now just 35 channels and customers then have the option of adding ten-channel bundles based on genres such as news, sports, pop culture, kids’ programming and more.
Parents Television Council President Tim Winter says this alone is not a huge change but it could be the first step in that direction. He says it reminds him of Neil Armstrong’s first words on the moon.
“He said it was a was a small step for man but a giant leap for mankind. I think there’s something very analogous here. It is a baby step, but it’s a step in the right direction. It is a step toward a video distributor trying to allow their consumers to have more choice and that’s a good thing,” said Winter, who is optimistic this move by Verizon could be the tip of the iceberg.
“Does this lead to even more choice for families? Does this give them even more options. We believe ultimately it will, even though this step itself is rather small,” he said.
There’s already a major roadblock in the way of Verizon’s plans. Sports giant ESPN filed suit, accusing the provider of breaching their contract.
“ESPN is at the forefront of embracing innovative ways to deliver high-quality content and value to consumers on multiple platforms, but that must be done in compliance with our agreements,” said ESPN in a written statement. “We simply ask that Verizon abide by the terms of our contracts.”
Winter finds the statement laughable.
“It’s interesting that they say they’re very innovative. They’re innovative as long as they can still force people to pay them for something folks might not want. I guess that is fairly innovative if you can get away with it,” he said.
The outcome of the lawsuit, which Verizon vows to fight, could determine whether the cable choice movement thrives or craters. Winter disagrees. He sees the legal fight as entirely positive, no matter the outcome.
“I think just the presence of this issue in the public eye is a win for the public. Regardless of how it comes down, I think it’s exposing the programmers for what they’re allowed to do by not allowing consumers to opt out. It’s exposing the whole cartel-like business practice of the cable industry,” said Winter.
Winter says ESPN has a lot of nerve to wage a legal battle over a “baby step” by Verizon.
“They make literally many billions of dollars every year by forcing subscribers to pay for networks they don’t want. Our estimates are that ESPN charges something like seven dollars per month per subscriber to every single subscriber, whether it’s cable or satellite or Verizon or AT&T. There is no way for the consumers to opt out and not have the requirement of paying in their monthly bill,” said Winter.
He says the principle applies for far more objectionable programming than what ESPN brings to your television.
“Families don’t want to be forced to pay for pornographic content, but they are. People who don’t have children are forced to pay for children’s programming. People who are conservative are forced to pay for liberal programming and vice versa,” said Winter.
True a la carte cable choice would force each channel to rise or fall on it’s own. Winter says that’s how the system should work.
“No other product in the stream of commerce forces you to pay for so many products you don’t want in order to have the ones you do want. The products that aren’t able to face a market demand will go away just as they should,” said Winter.
One concern raised on both sides of the debate is the unbundling cable television could mean much higher cable bills. Consumers technically get many unpopular channels for free by paying for the popular ones. If cable choice arrives, the fear is paying for each individual channel could be a hit on the pocketbook.
Winter says that’s not necessarily the case.
“The average cable family only watches 17 networks. That’s whether they have 50 to choose from, or a hundred or five hundred,” he said. “I don’t know how you can make an economic argument if you’re the cable industry to say, ‘By adding another hundred networks you’re not going to watch, somehow you’re getting a better deal.’ You’re paying for all of them. The math just doesn’t add up.”
One of the main reasons the Parents Television Council is staunchly supportive of cable choice is because a lot of inappropriate content emanates from channels cable customers must accept. In recent months, the group helped to force “Sex Box” off the air. That was a program on WE tv that featured couples having sex in an obscured room on a set and them reviewing their experience with therapists. It was cancelled after only a few episodes.
Winter says the raunchy content is still coming, most recently through to A&E’s “Seven Year Itch,” which will reportedly feature couples married roughly seven years swapping spouses and sharing everything with their new mates, including their beds.
“This is A&E’s latest attempt to glamorize or celebrate the swapping of sexual partners as a lifestyle. Is there really a demand for this type of show? The answer is no because they tried it before and they failed,” said Winter.
“They’re able to do this only because you cannot pick up the phone and unsubscribe to A&E if you still want to have History Channel or ESPN or Fox News or whatever else you watch,” said Winter.
The Parents Television Council will keep pushing for cable choice. In the meantime, they plan to make sponsors of shows like “Seven Year Itch” feel the heat.
“What we will do is keep up our pressure on the sponsors of that program to make sure that they know where their media dollars are going and what content they’re underwriting. Ultimately, if the advertising dollars go away, these programs cannot survive. We hope that responsible corporations are not going to align with that type of messaging,” said Winter.
Why the Court Might Side with Traditional Marriage
A leading champion of traditional marriage is not only encouraged by Tuesday’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court over the definition of marriage but is now confident the majority of justices will allow states to determine their own definitions of the institution.
In his latest syndicated column, Marriage Savers President Michael McManus says he was particularly encouraged by the apparent hesitation of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has historically sided with gay activists. But on Tuesday, Kennedy expressed hesitation to redefine an institution that’s been in place for thousands of years.
“The word that keeps coming back to me is ‘millennia,’” said Kennedy early in the arguments. “This definition has been with us for millennia. It’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘Oh well, we know better.’”
“That’s an encouraging comment, I believe. It shows you that there’s really a possibility that he might vote with the conservatives on this,” said McManus.
McManus says that point was later reinforced when Justice Antonin Scalia asked the attorney for the plaintiffs if she could name one place that gay marriage was legal before 2001. She could not.
“This is an issue that’s brand new, relatively speaking. It’s only been in place for ten years, and of the thirty-seven states where gay marriage is possible now, twenty-six of them did so only because of court orders, said McManus.
He says a court ruling in favor of traditional marriage would mean many of those states would revert back to their original laws and the vast majority of states would once again define marriage only as the union of one man and one woman.
The only other member of the Supreme Court who might surprise some with his decision is Chief Justice John Roberts. On Wednesday, the New York Times suggested that Roberts may vote to legalize same sex marriage nationwide because of a possible gender discrimination issue.
“I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve this case,” Roberts said. “I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”
McManus says he’s not worried about Roberts. He believes the chief justice made his true opinion known when he pointed out that Maine rejected gay marriage in 2009 but turned around and approved it in 2012. He says Roberts’ own words tell the story that he prefers leaving the issue up to the states.
“If you prevail here there, will be no more debate. Closing of debate can close minds and it will have a consequence on how this new institution is accepted. People feel very differently about something if they have the chance to vote on it than if it’s been imposed on them by the courts,” said McManus, quoting Roberts.
“So I thought that was a pretty clear indication he’s going to be on our side,” said McManus.
Earlier this week, Ethics and Public Policy Center President Ed Whelan told us why he was pessimistic about the upcoming court ruling and that little to nothing should be read into the questions during oral arguments.
McManus is confident in the June ruling going his way because of the oral arguments that he sees as a very important in the final verdict. But, curiously, he reached that conclusion while being less than impressed with John Bursch, the lead counsel for traditional marriage supporters.
“I think they matter a lot. One of my concerns is that the people giving the conservative side of this issue weren’t very effective I didn’t think. One of the most important points is that a child needs both a mother and a father. Obviously, that’s not possible with gay marriages. That point wasn’t made very well by our side,” said McManus.
There’s also a pile of research McManus cites about the well-being of kids raised in the home of their married, biological parents versus those raised by gay couples. He cited a 2012 study by Mark Regnerus entitled “Social Science Research.” According to Regnerus, children raised by gay couples are four times more likely to live on welfare and more than ten times more likely to touched inappropriately by a parent.
Another issue McManus wishes Bursch would have raised is the apparent lack of interest among many gays and lesbians to actually formalize their relationships.
“Gays are really not interested in marriage. That’s not what you would think from all the press coverage of this issue,” he said.
His evidence is based on New York, which legalized gay nuptials in 2011.
“There have only been 12,000 same sex marriages. In that state of nearly 20 million people, if 1.7 percent of the population is lesbian or gay, that would be over 330,000 people who could have married. So less than 10 percent are really interested in marriage, a point that hasn’t been made by anyone as far as I know,” said McManus.
While McManus is expecting a favorable verdict in June, he is wholeheartedly endorsing the civil disobedience called for by faith leaders and some political figures to defy a ruling in the opposite direction.
“I agree. I think we have to defy the court on this,” he said. “It seems reasonable to me that the state should be able to decide for itself what marriage is. I would urge defiance on the part of those in those thirty-odd states that have endorses traditional marriage.”
Three Martini Lunch 4/30/15
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review applaud the media for staying on the Clinton Foundation scandal and digging up even more damaging information. They also rip the Obama administration for refusing even to condemn the Iranian seizure of a cargo ship from the Marshall Islands, which we are sworn to defend. And they slam MSNBC’s Alex Wagner for saying President Obama is half white while discussing his use of the word “thug” and for trying to restrict free speech.