Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review welcome the news that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is likely to run for president in 2016. They also rip Indiana GOP Gov. Mike Pence for launching a government-run news service funded by tax dollars. And they have fun with the news that a drunk government intelligence employee piloted the drone that crashed at the White House.
Freedom Caucus Vows to Keep GOP Campaign Promises
Approximately 30 conservative House Republicans are launching a new caucus designed to advance the needs of the people over the special interests and do everything possible to help Republicans keep their campaign promises on immigration, Obamacare and more.
The House Freedom Caucus officially launched Monday night. Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) is one of the founding members. He says there are multiple reasons why the Freedom Caucus is needed, starting with the need to keep priorities straight in Washington.
“We want a freedom agenda, an agenda that represents the people back home. I think that’s the main concern that a lot of us have in the House. Both parties seem to do pretty well representing special interests, but we have very few people representing what the folks back home are really interested in, and that’s what we’re interested in doing,” said Labrador.
He says that mission starts with making good on what GOP candidates vowed to do if given the majority in Congress.
“The most important thing is keeping the promises that we made to our constituents. You have a lot of members of Congress who say really nice things to get elected. Then they get back here and they forget those promises because they think their constituents won’t remember every two years. I think the American people are getting fed up with that and we’re hoping to represent those people who feel that they don’t have a voice here in Washington,” said Labrador.
So what promise comes first on the checklist? Fighting back against President Obama’s unilateral immigration action that grants legal status to at least five million people in the U.S. illegally.
“Every one of those new senators told their constituents that they were going to fight Obama’s unconstitutional action. They get elected, they come here to Washington, D.C., and now we’re being told that it’s too difficult to pass anything in the Senate because they only have 54 votes. Last year, the excuse was that they didn’t have the Senate. Now that they have the Senate, their excuse is that they only have 54 votes,” said Labrador.
Labrador says recent history proves that a determined Republican Senate majority can get things done, even if it’s dealing with the the president of the opposite party.
“When Bill Clinton was president, you had a small majority in the Senate that passed welfare reform. We can pass things here in the Senate. We just need to push the agenda, drive it through the media (and) go to the states of vulnerable Democrats and let them know that their senators are not working to stop the president’s agenda,” he said.
Pushing the Senate to strip funding out of the Homeland Security appropriations bill is the first mission of the House Freedom Caucus.
“We can’t do anything about the president vetoing legislation, but we can do something about passing something in the House and passing something in the Senate that stops the president’s agenda, and moving forward and fighting the president and letting the American people know that this president is willing to shut down the government just so he can take care of five million people that are here illegally in the United States,” said Labrador.
However, Labrador says the caucus has not arrived at a plan of action if the Senate does strip out funding for the Obama immigration action and Obama vetoes the larger bill.
“We haven’t gotten there yet. We’re going to take every fight one step at a time,” said Labrador.
Beyond immigration, Labrador wants to see the House Freedom Caucus push GOP leaders to pass a full repeal of Obamacare. He says another critical issue to address is tax reform.
“The fact that you have a bunch of different corporations and special interests that are getting special breaks here in Washington. You have Republicans that try to defend those special breaks and then you have Democrats that want to get rid of them just so they can raise taxes on the American people. I think we can use those exemptions to lower taxes on every American,” said Labrador.
For over 40 years, the conservative message on policy and priorities has been articulated through the Republican Study Committee (RSC), the largest caucus on Capitol Hill. Many media reports suggest the creation of the House Freedom Caucus resulted from conservative frustration that the RSC was getting too cozy with GOP leadership. Labrador says was not the catalyst for the new caucus.
“I’m not sure that anybody thought it wasn’t conservative enough. We just thought it was too big to be effective. When you have two-thirds of the conference in a room trying to make a decision on how to move forward on conservative policy, it makes it very difficult to come to a consensus. It became more of a debating society,” said Labrador.
In what may surprise some on the right, Labrador says leaders of the party and the RSC are welcoming the new group.
“It’s been very positive because one of our main goals is not to surprise leadership. I think sometimes as conservatives and as members of Congress, we’re not well organized. I think now by being organized, we’ve let our leadership know which way we want to go. We’re going to send them signals. We’re not just going to try to surprise them on the House floor,” said Labrador, who says the ultimate goal is to have a positive relationship with leadership in advancing a conservative agenda.
In addition to Labrador, the founding members of the House Freedom Caucus include Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Ron DeSantis (Fla.), John Fleming (La.), Scott Garrett (N.J.), Jim Jordan (Ohio),Mark Meadows (N.C.), Mick Mulvaney (S.C.) and Matt Salmon (Ariz.). Labrador says there are about 30 total members so far. He says the size of the caucus is a balancing act and much will be expected of the members.
“It has to be big enough where it makes a difference with the vote. The group also has to be willing to stick together. People need to understand when they belong to a group like this (that) we’re going to be making decisions and it’s not about the one individual having his agenda alone being the one heard,” said Labrador.
Three Martini Lunch 1/27/15
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Andrew Johnson of National Review are pleased to see House GOP leaders pull a border security bill from consideration that conservative critics thought was far from adequate. They also react to the reports (later denied by the Pentagon) that Bowe Bergdahl is being charged with desertion. And they have fun with the idea that former Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich may run for president in 2016.
Obama’s Dangerous Game
Chaos in Yemen is leading to even greater Middle East instability, shines the spotlight of failure on a nation President Obama hailed as a foreign policy success just four months ago and forces an even tougher negotiating position with the Iranians, according to retired U.S. Navy Captain Chuck Nash.
As he laid out his approach to confronting the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in September, Obama cited numerous operations targeting terrorists in Yemen as a major success of his effort to take the fight to the terrorists.
“We took out Osama bin Laden and much of al Qaeda’s leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We’ve targeted al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen, and recently eliminated the top commander of its affiliate in Somalia,” said Obama.
Nash says that’s looking pretty bad in hindsight.
“It just adds to the overall instability and the mess that the Middle East has become ever since the Arab Spring. This was the knife in the heart of Yemen, which the president has been holding out as a way of modeling our success post-Arab Spring,” said Nash.
Yemen has a complicated history in the fight against radical Islamic terrorism. Even before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole as it refueled in Yemen, killing 17 Navy personnel. Since 9/11, the Yemeni government sporadically assisted in the fight against Al Qaeda even as the terror group’s Yemeni chapter, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), grew in size and effectiveness. The U.S. has conducted numerous drone strikes in Yemen, including the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American citizen who inspired the Ft. Hood massacre, the attempted Christmas Day underwear bombing of an international flight. Even years after his death, AQAP credit al-Awlaki with planning the deadly Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris earlier this month.
Ali Abdullah Saleh was effectively forced from power during the Arab Spring after losing support from the U.S. and other western nations. His vice president, Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, was forced to resign last week as Iranian-backed Houthi rebels stormed much of the capital and forced most of the government to step down. Nash says while the Houthis are kindred spirits with the Iranians, they are their own group with their own ambitions.
“They’re co-religionists with the Iranians, because they will help just about any Shi’ite group in the region, has backed them, helped them get weapons and we can expect that the Iranians will fully leverage any opening they get with these guys,” said Nash.
Nash believes the greatest potential mischief of the Houthis can be seen on the map.
“It’s a 900-mile coastline It starts up in the Red Sea and then swings around into the Indian Ocean. It sits astride that Red Sea opening that leads to the Suez Canal. A tremendous amount of the world’s shipping goes right past Yemen. As you’ll remember, that’s where the USS Cole was bombed some years ago. It’s a very choke point country,” said Nash.
Yemen also lies next to Saudi Arabia, which is engaged in economic warfare by tanking the price of oil to fiscally cripple the Iranians. The Saudis are also transitioning to a new king after Thursday’s death of King Abdullah.
“Now you have the new king in there and he is unwilling to tighten down the oil spigot. So keeping that oil spigot open is a direct financial threat to the Iranians, to the point that the prime minister of Iran has made threats to the countries [that] he believes are waging economic warfare against Iran,” said Nash.
So how should the instability in Yemen impact the Obama administration’s posture toward Iran and its nuclear program? Nash says Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry need to take a much tougher line.
“We have enabled our enemies to so accurately judge our position because they know all they have to do is stand firm and we will try to meet them halfway to an unreasonable position, which means our position will become less and less reasonable and closer towards theirs,” said Nash.
Nash says the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had some advice the Obama administration would be wise to accept.
“The Iron Lady was once asked, ‘What do you think is the lesson of the 20th century?’ and Margaret Thatcher said, ‘I would think that the greatest lesson of the 20th century is one cannot appease dictators if one values the lives of the innocent,'” said Nash.
He says the Obama administration is going in the opposite direction.
“We are a country that’s all about freedom. We’ve been trying to export freedom. We’re not going to turn countries into Jeffersonian democracies, but we would like to stand for some basic human rights and do things where we can all sleep well and be comfortable in our own skins at night,” said Nash.
“That’s not what the Iranians are about, that’s not what Al Qaeda is about and that’s not what the Islamic State is about. They are direct threats to all of humanity. They have to be dealt with and dealt with sternly. Weakness just breeds greater problems,” said Nash.
Three Martini Lunch 1/26/15
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review take note of avowed socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders throwing cold water on Obama’s rosy economic report. They also sigh as the media froth at the mouth over possible 2016 campaigns by Donald Trump and Sarah Palin – that will never happen. And they discuss the security concerns after a small drone crashes at the White House.
‘They Deserve No One’s Vote’
A leader in the fight to preserve the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is warning Republicans not to abandon the cause after reports suggest the GOP hopes the Supreme Court will help them out of an awkward position later this year.
The renewed concerns from social conservatives comes after a New York Times report suggesting Republican Party officials are thrilled the Supreme Court is taking up the issue this year, suggesting it will be a settled issue by the time 2016 rolls around. Republicans championed traditional marriage in 2004 and many observers believe George W. Bush owes his victory that year to millions of extra voters showing up to support traditional marriage amendments in key states such as Ohio.
Since then, the GOP has been increasingly less vocal, especially with millennial generation voters overwhelmingly supporting same-sex marriage.
According to the Times report, even governors who were once staunch defenders of traditional marriage, are waving the white flag.
After losing on the issue in a lower court, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie refused to fight for the existing traditional marriage law, calling it “a settled issue.”
After federal appeals courts sided with same-sex marriage litigants in Wisconsin and Indiana and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear appeals, the GOP governors of those states also said the fight was essentially over.
“For us, it’s over in Wisconsin,” said Walker.
“People are free to disagree with court decisions, but we are not free to disobey them,” said Pence.
Most recently, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a likely 2016 contender, indicated his position has also changed over the past several years.
“We live in a democracy, and regardless of our disagreements, we have to respect the rule of law,” the Times quoted Bush as saying.
Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver has defended traditional marriage in many states around the country. He has little regard for politicians who wilted on this issue once the poll numbers started to change.
“I think they’re wrong. They’re wrong historically, and they deserve no one’s vote for being that kind of person who comes out and makes such a statement as a politician. Governor Scott Walker, Governor Pence, Governor Chris Christie, former Governor Jeb Bush, they’re wrong,” he said.
Republican Party operatives counter by saying many courts have already spoken, the Supreme Court will rule in June and GOP officials have little choice but to enforce those rulings and move on to other issues. Staver says great leaders in history have proved that approach to be wrong.
“Abraham Lincoln didn’t say, ‘Well, the Supreme Court spoke on Dred Scott. I’m personally opposed to slavery, but the courts have spoken so we’re going to continue to impose slavery.’ No, he opposed it. He advocated that this was wrong. Thomas Jefferson didn’t say, ‘I don’t like the Libel and Sedition Act. It violates free speech. You can’t protest the government under that. I think that’s wrong, but we’ve got to uphold it.’ No, what did he do? He completely advocated disobedience,” said Staver.
He says the way prominent Republicans have shifted on the issue show them to be precisely the type of leaders Americans do not want in an even higher office.
“They need to have some guts. This is an issue that is not some side, tangential issue. This is a fundamental reshaping of our society. It is a clash with religious freedom of unprecedented proportion. And if they don’t get it, they don’t get my vote,” said Staver.
GOP officials dispute that last point, saying the economy and national security are far more pressing issues than the fight over marriage and they believe primary and general election voters do not want to make this a key issue in the 2016 campaign. Staver thinks Americans are much more upset about the courts taking the power away from states to decide marriage laws than the national party or even polls might suggest.
“I think many primary voters are of that mindset. They want somebody who will speak truth, who will speak boldly. The people of this country don’t want these mealy, weak-backed, weak-kneed politicians. I think they’re frankly sick and tired of the courts deciding these major social issues for them when they know that the courts have no authority to do so,” said Staver.
Staver says social conservatives would strongly prefer to advance their causes through the Republican Party, but he says the party may leave them no choice but to leave and support someone else.
“I think if the Republican Party or any party ultimately goes off the farm on same-sex marriage that that party is no longer worthy of support. I think it’s time for another party. That hasn’t happened with the Republican Party, but certainly it’s happened with some of the Republican candidates. I think people just need to simply write in different candidates and vote for different candidates that have the backbone,” said Staver.
He believes Republicans still have a chance to get this right. Social conservatives have been a critical part of the Republican coalition since the rise of Ronald Reagan in 1980. However, Staver says there are clear limits to that support.
“You can’t compromise on life . If a candidate doesn’t get that, they don’t get your vote. And you can’t compromise on the natural created order of marriage as a man and a woman. If they don’t get those very basic, simple facts, how are you going to get them to figure out where they ought to balance the budget or what they’re going to do if Iran gets a nuclear weapon,” said Staver.
“If they can’t get the basic kindergarten kind of fundamental, foundation values, then how can they get anything else? They’re not deserving of our time and certainly not of our votes,” he said.
‘All About that Base’
As Democrats try to figure out what went wrong in the 2014 midterm elections, the Capitol Steps eavesdrop on President Obama, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi brainstorming for 2016. Our guest is Capitol Steps Co-Founder Elaina Newport.
Three Martini Lunch 1/23/15
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review welcome Marco Rubio’s likely 2016 White House run and discuss his strengths and weaknesses. They groan as Iran-backed rebels topple the government in Yemen. And they laugh as the Obama administration accuses John Boehner of an affront to the dignity of the White House by inviting Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress.
Battling “the Abortion President”
One of the strongest pro-life voices in the House of Representatives says Republicans will soon pass a bill banning most abortions before 20 weeks of pregnancy and he says the legislation passed Thursday to ban taxpayer funding of abortion is also a major step forward for those committed to protecting the unborn.
Thursday marks 42 years since the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that declared abortion a constitutional right. House Republicans were initially planning to pass the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which bans almost all abortions before the unborn child reaches the 20-week stage.
Those plans were scrapped by Republican leaders after Reps. Renee Ellmers (R-North Carolina) and Jackie Walorski (R-Indiana) withdrew as co-sponsors of the bill. Their main concern was that an exception for rape victims required law enforcement documentation of a rape complaint around the time of conception. Ellmers also worried the vote could tuen off young women from the GOP in the opening weeks of the new Congress. Enough GOP members were getting wobbly on the issue that leaders decided to pull the resolution from the floor after debate had started.
However, pro-life stalwart Rep. Chris Smith (R-New Jersey) believes the bill will come back for consideration.
“There was some pushback, but pushback that I think will lead to another day where we get another bill that will bring unity. I am certain that the bill will be up very soon,” said Smith.
Smith says he was stunned at how Democrats found ways to defend dismembering unborn children more than halfway through their development in the womb.
“It was such a revelation to see how the abortion rights side can’t some to grips with the fact that dismemberment abortions cause hideous pain. A child hurts as her or her arms and legs, and ultimately they are decapitated by the abortionist. They just paper over that. They just say it’s not true, even though the evidence is overwhelming that the child feels pain at least at the 20-week point and probably even before,” said Smith.
“There’s a culture of denial in the abortion movement that we’re trying to expose because these little children deserve better than being so mistreated,” said Smith, who is appalled that pro-choice advocates believe discovering disabilities in an unborn child makes ending that life acceptable.
“How dare we suggest that you kill a baby painfully, or any other way, because he or she has Down Syndrome or some other anomaly that they’re coping with. That is cruelty of the highest order,” said Smith.
On Thursday, the House did overwhelmingly approve legislation to ban taxpayer funding of abortion.
“That is huge. We’re talking about Obamacare, where U.S. taxpayers are now subsidizing over a thousand insurance plans to pay for abortion on demand. This would end that. It would also make permanent the different restrictions we have like the Hyde Amendment, that have to be renewed every single year. It also provides more transparency because the Obama White House has no transparency whatsoever,” said Smith.
Smith says despite endless assurances to the contrary during the Obamacare debate, taxpayers are now funding more abortions now than at any other time in U.S. history. And he says there is a simple explanation for that. Obama “lied” during his health care speech to a Joint Session of Congress in September 2009.
“I was six feet away from the podium when he gave that speech. It is absolutely untrue,” said Smith. “Obamacare has a lot of lies to it, a lot of things that were said that turned out to be unbelievably untrue. When it comes to abortion funding, this is the biggest and most massive funding of abortion in America’s history.”
Smith says he is amazed that Democrats won’t acknowledge those facts either.
“It’s almost like being in an Orwellian theater sometimes when you hear some of the members speak.. There were people standing on the floor today saying that there’s no federal funding for abortion in Obamacare. Yet the Government Accountability Office (GAO)… said 1,036 Obamacare insurance plans pay for abortion on demand.,” said Smith.
But the taxpayer subsidizing of abortion does not stop there. Upon taking office in 2009, President Obama reversed Bush administration policy by allocating funds to organizations providing abortions like Planned Parenthood in developing nations. Obama is also pumping money into the United Nations Population Fund, which partners with groups enforcing China’s one-child policy through forced abortions and sterilization.
“This government, not under Reagan, not under Bush, not under the second Bush, but under Clinton and now President Obama lavishly funds this organization that has extolled the one child per couple policy, defends it, whitewashes it and on the ground is actually a part of it,” said Smith.
The congressman says the simple truth both at home and abroad, taxpayers are funding countless abortions through Obama administration policies.
“We’re enabling abortion and Obama is the abortion president,” he said.
‘Next Roe v. Wade’ Coming in June?
Forty-two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Americans have the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, a decision that launched one of the most intense political and social debates in our nation’s history. As activists on both sides observe the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the high court may be poised to intervene again on an issue of immense social significance and intense debate: the definition of marriage.
Following a 2013 Supreme Court decision stating that the federal government could not withhold spousal benefits from same-sex partners in states where gay marriage was legal, a myriad of challenges were filed against state laws limiting the definition of marriage to the union of one man and one woman. The vast majority of federal judges at the district and appellate levels sided with the plaintiffs and struck down traditional marriage laws and state constitutional amendments.
Last fall, the Supreme Court refused to hear appeals from those seeking to defend traditional marriage laws. However, in November, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed lower court rulings and upheld traditional marriage standards in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. On Jan. 16, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of that ruling.
Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver says the court has a very important choice to make.
“Will the court ultimately say, ‘Yes, these states that affirm the definition of marriage, that’s fine. Those can continue on?” We don’t know. On the other hand, if they ultimately somehow invented a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it could be the Roe v. Wade for same-sex marriage and that would have a devastating impact,” said Staver, who says the Sixth Circuit had good reasons for upholding traditional marriage laws.
“Number one, it said the Supreme Court back in the ’70s issued the Baker v. Nelson decision, in which the Supreme Court then dismissed the case for lack of a federal question because there’s no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. They also said that even the Supreme Court’s decision in 2013 regarding the Federal Defense of Marriage Act said that states have the right to be able to define marriage so the federal government should not interfere,” said Staver.
Staver says the court had little choice but to take up the issue now that conflicting appellate court rulings are on the record. Nonetheless, he’s apprehensive about how this case will turn out because of what he considers the court’s lousy approach to the marriage debate in the past.
“The Supreme Court has made a mess out of something very simple. It’s very simple because there’s no constitutional right, never has been and can never construed to be, a right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution. They should have said that a long time ago and we would have been done with this issue,” said Staver.
Even in decisions Staver considers wrongheaded, he says the court has set precedent on the side of traditional advocates. He says the Windsor case from 2013 is a prime example.
“In that case they said multiple times that it is the prerogative of the state to define marriage. I believe marriage predates the states and it’s only an affirmation of what is. But they said it was a states’ rights issue and the federal government should not interfere,” he said.
Staver expects the defense of traditional marriage laws to center on that states’ rights argument. He also anticipates lawyers pointing to the court’s earlier rejection of marriage as a federal issue in Baker v. Nelson and the harm done by concluding children are not disadvantaged by not having both a mom and a dad.
If the Supreme Court does uphold traditional marriage laws, Staver says we can expect a flurry of legal and political activity in states where same-sex marriage has been instituted through the courts.
“I think what would happen is a firestorm in these other states that have overread the 2013 decision as saying there is a constitutional right to a same-sex marriage. If the Supreme Court later this year says no there’s not and states have a right to affirm marriage as one man and one woman, that means these other decisions went too far and went beyond what the Supreme Court had said,” noted Staver.
“Therefore, there will be efforts to set aside those decisions, and/or there will be efforts to re-pass marriage amendments in those states. So the battle will continue and heat up big time,” he said.
Conventional wisdom suggests traditional marriage advocates have an uphill fight at the Supreme Court. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are likely to back same-sex marriage and Justice Anthony Kennedy has consistently sided with the liberals on the issue.
Staver admits it will be a tough fight, but he believes it should be made easier by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan removing themselves from this case.
“They should be recused. Why? Because while they had the cases of same-sex marriage pending before the court last fall…Ginsburg and Kagan presided over same-sex marriages. They should be recused. They have actually injected themselves into the very issue that was then before the court and now before the court,” said Staver, who is not holding his breath waiting for the two justices to recuse themselves.
“It’s very clear that they should. The statute says that they should, but if they don’t who’s going to force them? There’s no one above the Supreme Court to force a recusal. They are the final word in that respect,” said Staver.
If Ginsburg and Kagan stay on this case and end up being the difference in legalizing same-sex marriage coast to coast, Staver says our justice system will be severely compromised.
“They could choose not to recuse, but if they do , they will certainly undermine the confidence of the people in the court. What may be on trial is not marriage but the validity and the legitimacy and the trustworthiness, or lack thereof, of this Supreme Court,” said Staver.