The Capitol Steps take us inside Secretary of State John Kerry’s approach to the recent nuclear agreement with Iran. Our guest is Steps co-founder and star Elaina Newport.
Chasing the Phantom
The end of November also closed the 2013 Atlantic Hurricane Season, which is easily one of the quietest on record, a fact climate change skeptics admit is not proof they are correct but is part of a mountain of evidence showing climate change to be cyclical, natural and unaffected by human activity.
“One hurricane season doesn’t mean anything but an alleged increase in hurricanes was at one time asserted as the best indicator of the clear and present danger of global warming. Yet, all of that was built not just around one year but really around one hurricane, Hurricane Katrina,” said journalist and attorney Michael Fumento, who formerly wrote for Reason magazine, The Washington Times and the Hudson Institute.
“If they can build this huge case around this single hurricane, then they should be the first to admit that one of the quietest hurricane seasons on record must go against their position,” he said.
Fumento says the Hurricane Katrina argument often fails to remind people that the storm had dissipated strongly before reaching shore and only became a humanitarian disaster because of where it struck.
“It’s just incredible. It’s like the case for global warming was built around problems with the New Orleans levee system. It’s that absurd,” said Fumento.
“The logical thing was to look at the entire hurricane record, going as far back as there were data. And depending on what you mean as data, it goes back 150 years to see if in fact there was any kind of a year-to-year or decade-to-decade increase. The answer quite flatly was no, no increase whatsoever. It was a dead issue from the very beginning,” said Fumento.
According to Fumento, there’s much more evidence that our climate is not in crisis and not even warming as so many scientists had predicted. In a Dec. 5 New York Post column, Fumento says, “Arctic ice increased by almost a third this past year, while that at the South Pole was thicker and wider than it’s been in 35 years.”
Even more significant, he says, is the quiet admission from the climate change activists that there has been no increase in the planet’s temperature for over a decade, a fact he says is very significant.
“Even warmists admit in the last 15 years there has been no warming whatsoever. Fifteen years of warming and yet greenhouse gas emissions are pouring out at the highest rate ever and they’re at the highest level ever. How can that be? The only explanation, which they admit, is there’s something natural preventing this connection right now. But if that’s true, couldn’t warming have entirely been natural the whole time? And the answer of course is yes,” said Fumento.
Most climate change activists contend the 15 year cooling trend is merely a “pause” in the warming of the earth that will result in major ecological problems if industrialized nations do not take significant steps to reduce emissions.
Fumento says scientists simply looked at concurrent acts over a limited period of time.
“There has in fact been global warming. It’s been tracked very carefully since 1951. There has in fact been a tremendous increase in emissions and ambient levels of so-called greenhouse gases, the most important of which is carbon dioxide. So the global warming people put two and two together and they came up with seventeen,” he said, noting the climate has always gone through major warming and cooling cycles.
“Nobody would have ever heard of the Vikings but for a 400-year warming period that allowed them to escape their fjords and go almost literally all over the world. That was a 400-year warming period just a little before carbon dioxide and things like that became a big issue,” said Fumento, who noted in his column that the warming period ended around the year 1300.
Nonetheless, President Obama is forging ahead with administrative action to advance his climate change agenda. In his New York Post column, Fumento reports Obama “signed an executive order establishing a Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience that could dramatically expand government bureaucrats’ ability to restrict Americans’ use of their property, water and energy to reduce so-called ‘greenhouse gas emissions.'”
“There’s always people out there who say that doing the right thing environmentally can be free or even pay for itself. It’s never, ever true. These things all cost money. It’s just a matter of how much because you’re telling a business or individual to do something that they wouldn’t otherwise be doing. Why? Because it costs money. We don’t know how much money these things might cost, but they definitely will cost money,” said Fumento. “The last thing the American public needs is more money spent on chasing what appears entirely to be phantom.”
So will a lack of ongoing evidence of global warming trigger a major reverse in public opinion in this debate or will the entrenched conventional wisdom win the day? Fumento is not optimistic.
“It’s definitely got momentum because so many people have reputations involved, whether it’s politicians, whether it’s scientists, whether it’s ex-politicians,” said Fumento. “So many people may have a stake so that the science may not matter at all.”
He says his work in the 1980s and 1990s debunking the threat of AIDS to heterosexuals was proven true, but that hasn’t really changed government policy.
“I’m famous for debunking this ‘Everybody’s Going to Die of AIDS’ thing. I began in 1987. In 2013, the federal government spends more on AIDS than all other diseases combined. The science did not matter. The science may not matter here either,” said Fumento.
Three Martini Lunch 12/6/13
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are thrilled to see Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu say she would back Obamacare again and thinks the only problems are the technical issues. They also react to the GOP offering briefings on how candidates should address women. And they discuss the Colorado Obamacare CEO asking for a raise to her already hefty salary.
‘We’d Probably Be Locked Up’
Gross incompetence led to the problems with the federal health care exchange, the government deserves more blame than the contractors and no one should feel safe entering personal information on the site, according to a well-respected information technology expert.
The Obama administration is touting healthcare.gov as working fine for the “vast majority” of Americans, although there are still accounts of the site malfunctioning and many more stories emerging about information being transmitted inaccurately to insurance companies and the mechanism for customers to pay for their coverage still does not exist.
Reports are also emerging that data security is even worse than before on the site and some experts believe there’s no coherent security in place at all.
“Yeah, that’s pretty scary,” said Chris Witt, CEO of the respected IT firm Wake Technology Services, Inc.
“Since we are talking about patient health data, there’s already laws on the books, specifically HIPAA and HITECH, that regulate security and privacy of projected health information. So it’s a little surprising that they would even have these types of problems. If it was you or me that were doing this on a private basis, we’d probably be locked up because we’d be breaking all kinds of different laws,” said Witt.
“It seems like the folks who have done a little more of the security auditing did not find too much difficulty in breaking into the system and accessing users’ data,” he said.
But with the individual mandate looming and just days left for many to enroll if they want their coverage to start on January 1, should Americans roll the dice and go on healthcare.gov?
“Oh, I wouldn’t. No, not from what the experts have been saying. These people do not have an ax to grind. They have come in very apolitical and raised some very serious red flags. What’s even more problematic is more than one have stated that this is not a fixable problem in its current state, which would concern me greatly,” said Witt.
As for the problems at the “back end” of healthcare.gov such as patient information transfers and payment challenges, Witt says things are only getting worse.
“What we’ve only seen is the very superficial layer and that’s the people trying to access and put their data in and go through the process,” said Witt. “So we’ve got some front end superficial problems. We’ve got security issues, which you never want to understate, and you’ve got some back end interfacing or connectivity problems. So as they fix layers, it’s going to shine a light on layers further down or deeper into the application that are flawed.”
So how did this get so badly bungled? Witt says it appears there was very poor communication among the various project managers, but is skeptical that no one knew about all the problems before the site launched October 1.
“Throughout the process, it was surprising that certain things came to light after the website was rolled out. I find it hard to believe that was really the case,” he said.
He also believes the government did not delegate enough to the contractors. Witt cites congressional testimony from government contractors that strongly suggests they were not responsible for the testing.
“They probably did some levels of unit testing, some integrated testing but not complete end-to-end testing, which would also include load testing,” said Witt, referring to tests to see what kind of web traffic the site could handle before it crashed.
“It seemed like the government was supposed to be doing the load testing, so the contractor did all of their testing up to a certain point,” he said, noting that he would not normally expect to handle load testing and we would have already heard the administration cry foul if that work should have been done by the contractors.
So what is the lesson learned through the technical side of the exchange?
“There’s always a question of what’s the place of the government in large initiatives like this. The government’s not always in the best position to oversee and implement this type of technology solution. I think they would have been better off putting the complete implementation of it out to contract to a large, U.S.-based developer who could have done it in a much quicker timeline and that would meet all the requirements,” said Witt.
Three Martini Lunch 12/5/13
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are skeptical of Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor’s ad in which he admits mistakes while discussing his faith in God but never explains what mistakes he made as senator. They also groan as House Republican leaders keep talking about passing immigration reform. And they react to Martin Bashir’s departure from MSNBC in the wake of horrible comments about Sarah Palin.
Three Martini Lunch 12/4/13
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review cheer a new poll showing millenials souring big time on President Obama. They also wince as Obama’s political arm tries to turn the anniversary of the Sandy Hook school killings into events to push gun control legislation. And they react to reports that insurance companies will have to estimate how much the government owes them in Obamacare subsidies because that part of healthcare.gov hasn’t even been built yet.
We Have Not Even Begun to Fight
Liberty University is shocked the U.S. Supreme Court rejected it’s multifaceted challenge to the new health care laws but vows to keep resisting components that its leaders claim violate their conscience.
Without comment, the justices announced they would not be hearing the school’s appeal of a lower court rejection of its suit, Liberty University v. Lew. The case challenged the constitutionality of the employer and individual mandates as well as the government’s ability to force employers to pay for insurance policies that fund abortions and abortion-causing drugs.
“We were very surprised and disappointed to hear of the court’s decision because our case would have provided the most comprehensive challenge to Obamacare and it would have been the perfect vehicle for the Supreme Court to once again examine the entire law,” said Harry Mihet, senior litigation counsel at Liberty Counsel, which is affiliated with Liberty University and representing the school in court.
He is particularly surprised that the Supreme Court rejected the university’s appeal of an appellate court ruling since the justices agreed just days ago to hear more limited appeals of the contraception mandate from business leaders at Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties.
So did those cases contribute to Liberty’s appeal being rejected?
Mihet says that is possible but contends that if the court only took one case, it should have been Liberty’s because as troubling as the contraception mandate is to his client, there is much more to be worried about.
“That is certainly a huge problem constitutionally speaking with this law, but that is by no means the only problem with this law. When the Supreme Court indicated last week that it would look again at Obamacare we thought that it would be inclined to look at the whole law, but alas, we now find out that they want to do it piece by piece,” said Mihet.
The high court has yet to speak on the employer mandate, but Mihet says there’s little doubt it’s unconstitutional.
“Whether it’s under the Commerce Clause or the Tax and Spend Clause, we argue that the Constitution simply does not permit that kind of a power grab by the federal government because that is a power reserved for the states,” said Mihet.
The Supreme Court ruled in June 2012 that the individual mandate was constitutional only because the penalty for not purchasing health insurance could be considered a tax and that power is granted to Congress. However, Mihet says that makes the mandate unconstitutional for other reasons, namely that all tax and spending legislation must originate in the House but the final health care bill originated in the Senate. Leaders completely gutted the original House bill, replaced it with the Senate version and the House then approved that measure in March 2010 to pass the law.
The rejection of the Liberty University case is seen by some as a death blow to the lawsuit, but Mihet says the fight still goes on.
“It is by no means the end. We have not even begun to fight. We do not ever, ever give up, particularly when such precious constitutional rights are at stake,” said Mihet. “Whether in this litigation or some other new litigation, these issues are not going to go away. We’re going to continue to bring them to the forefront until someone looks at them and decides them on the merits.”
In the meantime, Mihet says we can expect civil disobedience from Liberty University.
“Liberty University, like Hobby Lobby and the Conestoga family, has made it clear that it will not participate in the abortion industry and it will not fund the abortion industry with its dollars. We have drawn a line in the sand and have said that the government is powerless to compel Liberty University to ignore its conscience and to ignore God’s law in favor of man’s law,” said Mihet.
Three Martini Lunch 12/3/13
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are encouraged by reports that Hillary Clinton supporters are already distancing her from Obama and Democrats on the ballot in 2014 are unlikely to want Obama campaigning for them. They also groan as the Obama administration engages in more pointless spin as Obamacare’s roll out continues to sputter. And Jim unleashes an epic rant over the controversy of wishing someone a Merry Christmas.
Your Daughters Will be Cannon Fodder
Earlier this year, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey announced they were lifting the ban on women serving in ground combat operations, a move one vocal critic says is the result of an aggressive feminist agenda and military brass unwilling to stand up to politicians and champion military readiness over political correctness.
“If you look at the chiefs of the services, none of them have direct ground combat, so they really don’t know what we’re talking about here. There’s a radical feminist agenda here and they never would have been selected by the Obama administration…unless they agreed that they would move forward on these particular agendas,” said retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis, author of “Deadly Consequences: How Cowards Are Pushing Women Into Combat.”
“They know what the facts are but they’re cowering with a silence, much like the people on the Hill are cowering because they have a constitutional obligation to stop this, but they’re going ahead with it,” said Maginnis, who quickly points out that bowing to politically correct forces was commonplace in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations and is not unique to the Obama presidency.
The most common argument for allowing women to serve in ground combat is one of equality, that women should have the opportunity to serve anywhere men can serve. Maginnis says that may sound like a nice argument, but the facts tell a very different story.
“The overwhelming evidence out there on physical, psychological, historical and medical reasons, say no. when we’re talking about direct ground combat, I’m talking about smashing heads, shooting at short range, wrestling people in a death struggle to the ground,” said Maginnis. “The question that ought to be asked is whether we want to be that kind of society that really puts women into ground combat. Are we that society and what are the consequences for men, women and children?”
He also says this decision will ultimately lead to American women being drafted for military service on the front lines.
“When, not if but when, because of all the economic and world turbulence issues, we return to a draft and a conscription military, women will be drafted for the infantry and every other position that must be filled,” said Maginnis. “We used to call them cannon fodder. Well, your daughters of America will be cannon fodder just like your sons because of spineless people today making decisions that are not in the best interests of our families, much less our country.”
Ultimately, Maginnis believes the obvious differences between men and women will hurt readiness if these policies proceed.
“Most people need to understand what every mom and dad in America understands and that is that. by and large, women are not little men. They are, according to the Army, about five inches shorter on average, 32 pounds lighter, 37 pounds less muscle mass . They have about half the upper body strength of the average man and three-quarters of his cardiovascular fitness,” said Maginnis, who believes the military’s solution to those discrepancies is very troubling.
“Standards are being jeopardized and we see that even today with the experiments that the Army and Marine Corps are conducting where you see in the media that women are going through the infantry officer course down at Quantico. Of course, none have graduated yet because it’s so tough and rightly should be,” said Maginnis. “You had a couple that graduated from the enlisted infantry course recently. What you don’t hear is that they had to abide by two different tests that had gender norm standards. In other words, the standards are different.”
While the push for gender equality is behind many of these policy changes, why are feminist organizations so eager to place women in the most dangerous positions possible?
“They want women to be forced into all positions, whether it be direct ground combat, special forces or infantry. They say there should be no prohibition even if it means it’s detrimental to readiness,” said Maginnis. “The radical feminists believe in an androgynous world.”
With military leaders saluting and accepting these cultural changes in the Armed Forces, members of Congress hardly making any protest and three-quarter of the American public on board with women in combat, reversing this policy seems very remote. Maginnis says only one factor can make the government change course.
“Only if our American people recognize the insaneness of a decision that will push their own daughters into direct ground combat against their own wills. Once you’ve opened Pandora’s box, and that’s what we’ve done with this decision, we’ve gone against history and against psychology and all the physical differences. We’re pushing in a direction that will jeopardize the very safety of our nation,” said Maginnis, who used a football illustration to explain the deliberate disadvantage the U.S. would be facing on the battlefield.
“If we go down to the University of Arkansas and tell them, ‘You have a winning schedule but this coming game you’re going to have to put three women on the front line.’ If they put three women on the front line on every play, guess what’s going to happen? They’re going to lose and they’re going to be the laughing stock of the NCAA,” said Maginnis.
“That’s what we’re being told here. For political reasons we’re being told we have to have a certain percentage of women in direct ground combat and the consequences they could care less. Unfortunately, you don’t have the experience on the Hill and the generals are too cowardly to say what is obvious. The American people may end up paying a very high price when we do go to war and we will go to war in a serious way in our not so distant future,” he said.
Draining the ‘DC Cesspool’
A high-ranking U.S. Secret Service agent gave up his lucrative career after watching political cronyism up close and he says Americans need to do much more than vote if they want to see positive changes restored to the American system of government.
Dan Bongino served as an officer for the New York Police Department before joining the Secret Service in 1999. He later became part of the protective detail for Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Distressed at the way the nation was headed, Bongino left his job in 2011 and won a crowded Republican U.S. Senate primary in Maryland in 2012 before losing to incumbent Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin. He is now a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Maryland’s sixth congressional district.
He is also the author of “Life Inside the Bubble: Why a Top-Ranked Secret Service Agent Walked Away from It All.”
While Bongino says he didn’t witness much of Obama’s actions on policy, working at the White House as the health care debate intensified forced him to enter the public arena.
“A particularly acute incident was being behind the scenes as a Secret Service agent and just seeing the carousel of insider interests coming in and out of the White House as Obamacare was being passed and just the horror of the American people actually believing that this was meant to give them better access to health care,” said Bongino. “It was an insider-rigged system from the start. There’s no question about it. If there was one moment that was a tip of the spear more than others, that really frustrated me. I knew I had to do something and leave it all behind and take on a bigger cause.”
Bongino says another incident that crystallized the “bubble” mentality in Washington came while he and other agents provided security for a trip President Obama made to Afghanistan. As Obama prepared to meet with various military leaders, a Delta Force officer waited patiently in full gear to have his turn with the commander-in-chief only to have an administration staffer request that the officer disarm before entering the meeting.
“I laughed at him asking me to tell this guy to leave his weapon at the door. The utter absurdity of it really sums up in one story what the book tried to get at, this insulated insider atmosphere that has really destroyed what was the best system of government we’ve ever had, which really represented the interests of the people,” said Bongino.
When asked to explain why he believes the system is already destroyed rather than endangered, Bongino unflinchingly says it’s destroyed because both parties are now contributing to the destruction.
“At least we used to have one side fighting against this insiderism, this cronyism. Now, I feel the real battle is not Democrats or Republicans anymore. I think there are weak Republicans and Democrats all in cahoots together to prolong this insider system. I think the real battle now is government elitist fois gras for lunch crowd versus American populists, just regular middle class Americans trying to get the government to leave them alone. I think they’ve really ruptured that relationship,” said Bongino.
“My diagnosis is that (we have a) polluted DC cesspool of insiders that are really corrupting. It’s not the people that get up and go to work in the morning that are causing the problem. It’s these bow tie-wearing bureaucrats that are really corrupting the system and making what was a representative government only representative of the special interests and that interest isn’t yours,” said Bongino.
The solution, according to Bongino, is a very engaged citizenry that will dedicate their time and resources to restoring America’s greatness.
“Voting is not enough. It’s not. You haven’t done your duty by voting. If you’re not calling your congressman, if you’re not sending letter to the office, if you’re not volunteering for campaigns or volunteering for a cause, if you’re not donating money to a cause or a campaign, even a dollar, then folks you’re not part of the (solution), you’re the problem,” said Bongino.
“We need you. We need your voice. The left has been experts at this for years at whittling away our freedom, Voting is not enough. I cannot say that enough. You have to do. Talk is cheap. Action matters. Action is what changes the world. Talk is only good if it changes action,” said Bongino.
Bongino is challenging freshman Democratic Rep. John Delaney in Maryland’s most competitive district. It was held by the GOP for years until redistricting made it more favorable for the Democrats in 2012. Bongino says the district officially leans left by just a couple of points but he expects to have much larger volunteer forces and be very competitive in the money fight.