Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review applaud Democratic New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez for blasting Obama administration opposition to new Iran sanctions as talking points straight out of Tehran. They unload on House GOP leaders for pulling a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks and on Rep. Renee Ellmers for leading the Republican fight against it. And they react to Jim’s story on Jeb Bush’s connections to a fraudulent Florida business.
Obama’s ‘Blind Eye’ on Terrorism
Rep. Robert Pittenger (R-North Carolina) says President Obama continued to project weakness in his State of the Union address Tuesday night and he asserts Obama’s characterization of our fight against terrorism and a nuclear Iran is not backed up by the facts.
In his speech Obama claimed the shadow of crisis has passed when it comes to the threat posed by radical Islam. In one of the most striking statements, Obama said the U.S. has halted progress in Iran’s nuclear program.
Pittenger says Iran is doing just fine because the nuclear program has not stopped, more money is pouring in after the easing of sanctions and Iran is only too happy to string the west along by suggesting the prospect of some breakthrough agreement that will probably never come.
“Now we’re on our second extension (of nuclear talks with Iran) for another seven months. We’ve unfrozen billions of dollars of more assets for them. We already provided eight billion dollars of economic aid. This is a terrorist state that has funded terrorism for the past thirty-plus years,” said Pittenger.
Obama also stated his administration is leading a successful coalition to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Pittenger says that appraisal clearly fails the smell test.
“Syria is the staging ground for Al Qaeda and ISIS throughout the world. There are over 90 countries represented in Syria today, over 3,000 western passports. It would be the most naive statement to say that we are winning the war in Syria,” said Pittenger.
He says ISIS is still freely exporting oil to finance it’s bloody assault on the region and has recruited anywhere from 60,000-80,000 foreign fighters while the United States is planning to train about 5,000 Syrian rebels.
“We are very much challenged by the commitment, the assertiveness, the aggression, and frankly the technical capabilities of ISIS and what has taken place in Syria,” said Pittenger.
On Tuesday, Obama also hailed the end of combat operations in Afghanistan and said after once having 180,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are now 15,000 remaining in Afghanistan and that number is expected to decline even further.
Pittenger says Obama should think long and hard about forecasting stability in Afghanistan by pursuing the same strategy he employed in leaving Iraq.
“He did the same thing in Iraq, didn’t he? We didn’t have a force to retain there. As a result, we did not have the intelligence capabilities. We didn’t have the support to get to the Iraqi army. It dismantled. We didn’t have support to give to the Kurds to strengthen them. All of that dissolved. It created anarchy and chaos and the destruction that happened as a result of it. If he fully intends to withdraw out of Afghanistan, we’re going to see the same type of collapse there,” he said.
For the congressman, who also blasted Obama for seeking to normalize relations with Cuba, Obama is sending exactly the wrong message to our enemies. Pittenger says it’s a pattern that began in 2009, when Obama decided to abandon our missile defense commitments in Poland and the Czech Republic and he believes it has only gotten worse.
“We’ve taken our armed forces down to the lowest level since before World War II. He’s sent every signal out to our adversaries that we are not going to stand strong. That has made them more assertive and more provocative,” said Pittenger.
When it comes to the fight against radical Islamic terrorists, Pittenger believes Obama shows a particular weakness.
“He more or less gives a blind eye to the assertiveness and the focus of the Islamic terrorists. I reminds me of what occurred with (former British Prime Minister) Neville Chamberlain prior to World War II. He never understood what Hitler was all about,” said Pittenger.
Beyond Obama’s refusal to identify our enemy is the uncertainty he leaves with allies in the Middle East. Pittenger has taken multiple trips to the region to meet with leaders there. He our friends in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and elsewhere have no idea what Obama believes or what to expect from him.
“They don’t know where this president stands. They don’t know, when he makes a commitment, if he’s going to be there tomorrow. I heard that time and again, so that’s why you have someone like the emir in Qatar playing both sides,” said Pittenger.
Pittenger says the lessons America learned from the end of the Cold War and from the Obama years ought to be crystal clear.
“The world is safe when America is strong. When Ronald Reagan was president, he never fired a shot and the (Berlin) Wall came down because we stood strong. We haven;’t stood strong,” he said.
The congressman says national security priorities for the Republican-controlled Congress include stronger border security and collaborative efforts with our allies to improve intelligence on our enemies and cut off their sources of funding.
Three Martini Lunch 1/21/15
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review correct the president’s delusional description of the economy. They discuss the difference between ending wars and winning them. We highlight how Obama’s ego proves his bipartisan outreach is all an act. And we update deflate-gate involving the New England Patriots.
‘Do We have Any Privacy in Our Homes Now?’
Police around the country are using more and more technologies to monitor us in our homes, often without probable cause, and privacy advocates warn Americans are on the verge of losing all privacy from their local governments.
The latest flash point in this debate came in Tuesday’s edition of USA Today. That story detailed a fairly new type of radar that allows police to closely monitor activity in any home they wish to investigate.
“They’re called doppler radar devices. What they do is they can see in the home. If you’re a breathing, living human being, they can actually get the outline of your body and know where you’re at,” said Rutherford Institute President John Whitehead, who is also author of “A Government of Wolves” The Emerging American Police State.”
This type of radar has been used by law enforcement since 2012. According to USA Today, the existence of this technology came to light after a federal appeals court in Denver blasted law enforcement for using the technology without a warrant.
Whitehead says obtaining a warrant before using the radar on a private residence gives it constitutional clearance, but any police using it without going through the appropriate legal channels are guilty of infringing on the privacy rights of citizens.
“Before the government does surveillance, they have to have probable cause, which means some evidence of illegality. With these types of devices, they can drive by your home now and just see if you’re at home. If they want to come in under various laws now that allow them to do this, they can come into your home while you’re gone, knowing you’re not there and download all the information off your computer or other electronic devices,” said Whitehead.
According to Whitehead, this radar is just the tip of the iceberg. He says some police departments have laser guns that can detect the presence of alcohol in cars, allowing officers to call ahead and have a colleague pull over someone who may never have been drinking. Another tool becoming more common is a stingray device dispensed to local police through the Department of Homeland Security.
“They drive by your home. [The device] is inside the car, but it acts as a fake cell phone tower. It actually can download whatever you’re doing on your laptop or your cell phone,” said Whitehead.
He says another concern are mobile body scanners invading our privacy.
“It fits inside a van. They drive by your house and they can see the outline of you. It’s like when you fly at airports and you have to go through those scanning machines. They can see the outline of your body in your home. you don’t even know it,” said Whitehead, who alleges the scanners are being used unconstitutionally in many cases.
“They’re not getting warrants. They’ve been using them secretly. They’re handed out by the federal government, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security,” he said. “As long as there’s a warrant issued, you fit within the Constitution. The problem we’re seeing now is they’re using them secretly.”
In addition to emerging methods of conducting surveillance from the ground, Whitehead says governments can keep tabs on you from the air.
“A number of these devices are attached to drones. Drones now legally fly over the United States. They can fly over your home and actually scan you inside your home. You don’t even know it,” said Whitehead.
“Do we have any privacy in our homes now?” he asked. “I would say probably not.”
In addition to the daunting task of pushing back against government infringement of our privacy rights at all levels of government, Whitehead admits the first problem is the sheer number of Americans unconcerned about invasive surveillance.
“Most people aren’t concerned, but as I’ve seen in former countries that have turned the wrong way in history, when the government does a lot of things people are comfortable [until] hey start focusing on someone who speaks out,” said Whitehead. ”
For example, if you go to a local city council meeting and you oppose the government, you can get in a lot of trouble. They’ll have all kinds of information, including your electronic banking. They know how much money you spend, where you spend , where you spend it, what books you read. Eventually this stuff does come home. History teaches us that,” he said.
When it comes to fighting back on the policy front, Whitehead is pushing lawmakers at all levels to pass an electronic privacy bill of rights. He says one of the core tenets of that should be for citizens to see exactly what their government knows about them.
“Number one, it should be available to the public. If they’re shooting images of me, I should be able to go see it somewhere or tap into it on the internet. Number two, it shouldn’t be used against you in a court of law because it does violate the Constitution,” said Whitehead.
So where can citizens begin to fight back? Whitehead urges people to start as close to home as possible.
“Local citizens can get together and create oversight boards and force their local city councils to rein in all this equipment. The police should tell you if they have it and how they’re using it. They should do quarterly reports,” said Whitehead.
“That’s going to take average American citizen getting down to their local city council meeting. You can do it, but you’re going to have to get organized. If you want a free future for your children and your grandchildren, then you better get involved in your local governments and rein this stuff in,” he said.
Whitehead says much more material on emerging law enforcement surveillance tactics can be found at rutherford.org.
Three Martini Lunch 1/20/15
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review applaud Republicans for pursuing ways to roll back Obama regulations. They also shudder at the prospect of watching through a long and largely pointless State of the Union address. And they discuss Hollywood lefties like Michael Moore and Seth Rogen disparaging Chris Kyle and “American Sniper.”
‘Huffing the Fumes of a Bygone Era’
The former executive director for the Greater Los Angeles chapter of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference believes Dr. King would be greatly distressed at the ongoing racial division in the United States and says those presenting themselves as today’s black leaders cannot hold a candle to King and are merely ‘huffing the fumes of a bygone era.’
“I think he’d be greatly disappointed in what he saw taking place over the last several months, possibly going back as far as the Trayvon Martin shooting,” said Joe Hicks, a former liberal who no aligns with the conservative Project 21 black leadership network. He is also vice president of Community Advocates, Inc., a think tank based in Los Angeles.
The months leading up to Monday’s observance of Martin Luther King Jr. Day witnessed some of the most intense racial division in a generation as a result of the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and the death of Eric Garner in Staten Island. Grand juries in both places decided not to indict the officers connected to those cases. Protests, some of them destructive, broke out in Ferguson. New York City was rocked in December by the murders of two NYPD officers by a man who claimed the killings were retaliation for the deaths of black men in confrontation with white officers.
Hicks says Dr. King would not have been impressed with the protests in either place.
“I’ve had people ask me, ‘Is this the rebirth of the new civil rights movement?’ I hope not because when you have people marching through the streets of New York chanting things like, ‘What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want them? Now,’ Dr. King would have been appalled by that,” said Hicks.
He places some of the blame for escalating tensions at the feet of today’s black leaders. Hicks says King associates like Jesse Jackson, Rev. Joseph Lowery and Rep. John Lewis are taking on less public roles. That leaves the stage to figures like Rev. Al Sharpton. While he cannot be certain what King would say about today’s black leaders, Hicks is confident the Nobel Peace Prize winner would not be impressed.
“Knowing how he viewed things and the honor with which he approached the things he was doing, I think he’d be a bit appalled by some the antics of somebody like Al Sharpton for instance, as well as some other folks that now claim the mantle. These people like Sharpton and others today are standing in the shadows of giants like King and huffing the fumes of a bygone era. I think he’d be a bit saddened by what he sees today,” said Hicks.
According to Hicks, one major difference between King’s goals and those pursued by Sharpton and others is that King championed a concrete, meaningful agenda.
“Dr. King was about some very real kinds of things: getting the ability of black Americans to vote, allowing people to access public accommodations, getting rid of discrimination in employment and on and on, a list of actual real things that were getting in the way of black Americans participating fully in this society,” said Hicks.
What beliefs and values of King would serve the nation well in the midst of our current division? Hicks says King’s most famous words would be a good starting point in which the civil rights leader implored Americans to judge one another by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. He says today’s politics has it exactly backwards.
“That’s something else I think he’s be disappointed in is that we have this sort of racial identity politics that we see being played out in many of these current protests. That wasn’t what Dr. King was all about. He wanted us to move past racialism and look at each other based on who we were as individuals, not so much judging people by what their skin color might indicate to others,” said Hicks.
In the 47 years since King’s assassination, Democrats and Republicans have both liberally quoted King to bolster their position on various political issues. Democrats claim they are carrying on the King legacy and reference the liberal path charted by other civil rights figures. Republicans point out that King was a Republican and frequently cite his comments on abortion, homosexuality and the inherent worth of the individual as evidence to the contrary. Hicks says King was probably drifting left in his later days, including his opposition to the Vietnam War, but he believes all sides need to stop co-opting King for today’s political battles.
“People like Jackson, and to some extent John Lewis, are extremely liberal in their politics. Would King have followed that road? I don’t know. It’s possible he might have, but again that’s speculation. A lot has changed and shifted in the culture, particularly black culture and black activism. It’s taken some interesting kinds of roads. I’m not sure King would have been on board for all of that, but we don’t know where he ultimately would have gone politically or ideologically,” said Hicks.
Each year, the federal holiday in King’s honor gives Americans the chance to reflect upon King’s ideals and his impact on the United States. But Hicks says our culture makes it tough to drive home the values of Dr. King year-round, since his legacy is so frequently commercialized.
“Everybody tries to get a piece of this man and King is not unique in that. American culture has a way of rendering people as innocuous in some kinds of ways. How do you prevent that from happening? It’s hard to do because that’s what pop culture does,” said Hicks.
“We see the movie Selma that just came out that distorts history. I think King would have been a little unhappy with how events were treated by a movie put out by Hollywood, attempting to characterize him and the movement,” he said.
Three Martini Lunch 1/19/15
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review cheer Hawaii Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard for blasting President Obama for failing to identify radical Islam as the ideology behind the terrorism we see and having no plan to confront it. We discuss Obama’s latest tax hike proposal and why his poll numbers are improving. And we have fun with the New England Patriots being mired in another controversy after winning the AFC Championship Sunday night.
Obama Robbing Legal Immigrants to Pay for Amnesty
Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) says President Obama’s loyalty to liberal special interests could doom Republican efforts to fund the Department of Homeland Security while blocking funding for Obama’s unilateral action to confer legal status on at least five million people in the nation illegally.
However, Flores says Obama is already taking additional actions to undermine the rule of law and American families before Congress even finishes it defunding efforts.
“I don’t hold out much hope for the president. He puts the interests of others ahead of the interests of families,” said Flores.
Congress did agree to fund the process to confer legal status on those millions of illegal aliens through the end of February as part of the “cromnibus” vote in December that postponed the long-term debate over Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations while funding the rest of government through September. On Wednesday, the House of Representatives approved legislation funding DHS through September but stripping out money to enforce Obama’s November memorandum.
However, the House legislation will need 60 votes to clear the U.S. Senate and that appears very unlikely. Even if the votes do materialize, an Obama veto would make an override impossible. Republican leaders vow to push hard to pass the House bill but admit they’re not sure what to do if it fails.
But even if Republicans were to defy the odds and stop the funding, Flores says Obama is already tapping into other money to accomplish his goals.
“He’s taking the fees from people who are trying to go through the legal immigration process properly. He’s using those fees to pay for the cost of trying to allow the folks that are here illegally to jump to the head of the line,” said Flores.
Obama is not only treating legal immigrants worse than illegal ones, but Flores reminds American workers that the soon-to-be legalized immigrants will also have a major advantage when competing for jobs.
“He’s created this perverse incentive for American employers to hire illegals under this new program, over hiring Americans. The employers don’t have to provide Obamacare. There’s certain other benefits they don’t have to provide. So you have a $3,000 advantage if you’re an employer to hire somebody here illegally than to hire legal American workers,” said Flores.
Flores says this is just the latest punch in the gut to hard working Americans.
“He’s put American workers at the back of the line, and this is after they’re already hurting under the Obama economic policies,” he said.
While the odds of victory seem slim in stopping Obama’s agenda, Flores says Republicans will continue to fight.
“Those of us in the House of Representatives who believe in the rule of law are going to side with the strong majority of Americans that thinks that the president’s action was improper and unlawful. So we are going to fight to stop this presidential action,” said Flores, pointing to constitutional clarity on how laws get changed in the United States.
“Article I of the Constitution says that Congress has the right to make all laws. It doesn’t say anything about the president having any right to break the laws. It also doesn’t say the president has the right to make the law if Congress fails to act,” said Flores. “If Congress addresses immigration reform, then that’s solely for us to do. If we elect not to address immigration reform, the president really doesn’t have any options. He has to live with that.”
Flores is also focused on a debate brewing among House Republicans. He chairs the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a coalition of House conservatives that is the largest caucus on Capitol Hill. More than a dozen Republicans contend the RSC is becoming insufficiently conservative and are planning to form a new group designed to push GOP leaders to the right.
The congressman dismisses allegations that the RSC is too moderate or too timid in lobbying leadership.
“It is the largest, most conservative, most effective caucus in Congress. There are at least 150 members of Congress, which make up about two-thirds of the House Republicans, that want to be part of that because it has the greatest ability to influence legislation and to push our leadership toward conservative principles,” he said.
As for the possible defections by some conservatives, Flores says he has no problem with the formation of other conservative groups that will advocate for conservative ideas.
“There’s room for other groups as well. So to the extent that other members of the RSC would like to form another group to be part of so that they can talk about their ideas, I’m fine with that. I think it’s complementary and most of those folks that are doing that are remaining as members of the RSC. So there’s not really a split in the RSC. There are just a smaller number of people that want to go form a group so that they can share their ideas among themselves. We applaud that move and think that it’s perfectly appropriate,” said Flores.
Three Martini Lunch 1/16/15
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are encouraged that European nations finally seem to be serious about rooting out terrorism within their borders. They also shake their heads as Republicans seem to indicate they’re going to fail to stop President Obama’s unilateral amnesty. And they unload on the Obama administration for trying to make up for the Paris no-shows by bringing James Taylor in to sing a song for the French.
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) says building the Keystone XL Pipeline will create thousands of good jobs, greater energy independence and lower energy prices, but it will require President Obama to prioritize working families over liberal special interests.
Flores is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and is chairman of the Republican Study Committee. Prior to his election to Congress in 2010, he was president and CEO of Phoenix Exploration Company in the oil and gas industry.
The congressman says projects like this are vital in numerous ways to American families that need relief. Flores and most other GOP lawmakers are at the party retreat in Pennsylvania. American Enterprise Institute President Arthur Brooks addressed the group Thursday morning and stated that the wealthiest Americans have seen seven percent growth since Obama took office while the bottom 50 percent have seen any growth at all.
Flores says that frustration is compounded by the fact that many costs for families are on the rise.
“During that same period of time, their cost of health care is higher. Their cost of education is higher. Their cost of energy is higher. The Obama economy has really put a squeeze on these folks and bills like the Keystone Pipeline are the exact solution we need to be able to give those families an opportunity to improve their economic position. I’m hoping the president will one day see that and he’ll start to stand with them, instead of standing in their way,” said Flores.
In recent weeks, President Obama has downplayed the potential benefits of the pipeline, saying it’s Canadian oil that will be largely shipped to other countries after being refined along the U.S. gulf coast. He further states that the pipeline will only create about 35 long-term jobs once construction is over.
Flores strongly disputes that characterization of the pipeline’s impact, especially when it comes to jobs.
“There would be thousands of jobs during the construction of the pipeline. There would be lots of jobs to continue to operate the pipeline after it’s constructed,” said Flores. “That oil is going to be refined in U.S. refineries, and that creates thousands of jobs for hard-working American families,” he said.
And Flores says the benefits wouldn’t end there.
“The first thing it would mean is for every barrel of oil that came out of Canada, from our friendly North American neighbor, it would displace a barrel of oil from an unfriendly country like Venezuela or those that are having turmoil in the Middle East,” said Flores.
In addition to new jobs, he says it would also mean lower bills.
“Probably the most important from an American economy aspect is that it will lower the cost of energy, particularly for gasoline and for heating our homes and for our air fares and things like that,” he said. “Whenever you’re spending less money on energy , that’s more money in the pockets of families and that means they can start to re-enjoy the American dream,” said Flores.
On January 9, the House of Representatives passed Keystone 266-153. The Senate is likely to pass the bill next week, with at least 63 and possibly as many as 65 votes. Flores says GOP Senate leaders are working hard to get to 67 votes, which would be enough to override a veto.
“I’ve had some good conversations with the senators that are here at the GOP retreat this week. They are trying to find enough votes to get to 67 on the procedural votes so they know they’ve got a veto-proof group of people supporting the bill,” said Flores.
The congressman says the simplest way forward is for President Obama to acknowledge the will of the vast majority of Americans and sign the bill.
“What I hope will happen is that the president will put the American people ahead of special interests and that he will sign the bill and we can create thousands of great-paying American jobs by doing this,” said Flores.
Earlier this week, House Energy and Commerce Committee Vice Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) predicted that Republicans and enough Democrats would come together to override an Obama veto if necessary. Flores isn’t so sure, but he believes Republicans can make progress either way.
“The worst case is we can show the American people how he’s against it, how he puts special interests ahead of them. In the best case, we might be able to get enough votes to stand with those American families and approve this thing,” he said.
Flores says his four years in Washington have shown him Democrats are all to willing to do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.
“One of the thing I’ve learned is that all too often there are too many people, particularly those on the left that put their special interests ahead of American families that are struggling. That’s what causes me to be sanguine about this,” said Flores.