Podcast
Radio America News
Hosted by Greg Corombos · EN
Daily News Features with Greg Corombos
12episodes
Episodes
Newest firstAll episodes
D'Souza Talks Antifa, Trump & Midterms
Aug 14, 201800:12:39Tap to summarizePosted on August 14, 2018
Transcribe →Omarosa Taping 'A Serious Breach'
Aug 13, 201800:11:56Tap to summarizeFormer Trump administration staffer and former reality television star Omarosa Manigault Newman is releasing clips of secret recordings she allegedly made in the most sensitive areas of the White House, and a former White House information official says that could mean big trouble. Manigault Newman is publicizing the conversations she had with President Trump and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly from around the time she was fired from the administration. She says the discussion with Kelly took place in the White House Situation Room, which is designated as a "Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility," or SCIF, pronounced "skiff." "If this turns out to be true that a recording device was in the White House Situation Room, of all places, that would be an incredibly serious breach of not only trust but a breach of a classified facility on a level that is very, very serious," said Theresa Payton, who served as White House Chief Information Officer in the George W. Bush administration.� She is now CEO at Fortalice Solutions, a cybersecurity consulting firm. Payton says there are severe consequences for flouting protocol in these facilities. "This is considered a grave security breach so there's a lot of different actions that could choose to take.� Some of those actions that they could entertain are revoking a security clearance, recommending an individual to not clear again.�� "They could take legal action.� That's typically rare unless secrets were sold to the adversary or a real grave breach happened," said Payton. She says it is understood by anyone with security clearance that electronic devices have no place in a SCIF. "Classified conversations, classified phone calls, classified documents are handled within that facility.� Often times, that facility has no windows.� There's a series of doors that you have to punch in codes and slide cards into.� There's a whole sense of protocol.� You can't accidentally trip into a conference room that's a SCIF," said Payton. Outside the SCIF are usually a series of lockers or storage boxes for people entering the SCIF to leave all electronic devices. "You never know if those devices are compromised and could be turned into listening and recording devices that could be used by the adversary and/or if they would potentially be connecting to other devices that could be in the room that have been cleared to be in the room for phone calls or video conferences," said Payton. The list of banned items includes smartphones, laptops, and tablets but also items like fitness trackers. There are signs posted prominently outside the SCIF for people to unload their devices but for staff there is frisking or wanding involved.� They are given multiple classes on the proper handling of classified informationand are expected to honor their promises to follow protocols. "You're somewhat on the honor sy...
Transcribe →Liberal Policies Makes Wildfires Much Worse
Aug 10, 201800:09:41Tap to summarizeFirefighters spent much of the past week battling the largest wildfire in California history, but an environmental policy expert says things are not getting worse because of climate change but because California is dry and liberal forest policies are making fires bigger, making the air quality worse, and putting lives and homes in danger. Earlier this week, California officials declared the Mendocino Complex fire the largest in state history, responsible for charring tens of thousands of acres.� Other fires threaten lives and property elsewhere in the state. Environmental activists claim that human activity is leading to a more volatile climate that makes hurricanes more intense, heatwaves and droughts more intense and snowfalls deeper. But what do the facts show? "Climate does play a role in all of this, but not in a way that environmentalists would have you believe," said Dr. Bonner Cohen, a senior fellow at the�National Center for Public Policy Research. Cohen says the California climate is always conducive for wildfires. "The climate in California is arid.� It always has been and always will be.� At times it is subject to drought and sometimes even extreme droughts.� California has recently recovered from an extreme drought," said Cohen, noting the drought was rates the eighth worst in the past century. But Cohen says the arid nature of the state is only one major factor in the huge fires. "This dry climate is exacerbated by strong winds.� There are strong winds in southern California - the infamous Santa Anna winds - and strong winds in northern California.� It is not uncommon for these winds to gust up to 60 or 70 miles per hour," said Cohen. He also points out the fires find plenty of additional fuel thanks to counterproductive environmental policies. "California has a lot of public land, federal land and state land, and there are strict restrictions on a lot of that regarding logging and even removal of dead and diseased trees. "You have tinderboxes brought to you courtesy of either the federal government, or the state government, or - tragically in some cases - both," said Cohen. Cohen adds that by bending over backwards on behalf of the environment, liberals are actually harming it. "Fires are actually a normal and perfectly healthy way of dealing with overgrown forests, but when those forests are mismanaged as U.S. Forest Service land has been mismanaged, not for years but for decades with overgrown forests, these forests are an open invitation to the tragic wildfires that we're seeing here now," said Cohen. The impact is not limited to the forests.� California's already fragile air quality also suffers. "You can tighten up the Clean Air act as much as you wish, but once you have these forest fires taking off the way they are out West, the quality of air suffers.� It is absolutely filthy.� You would think environmentalists would be deeply disturbed...
Transcribe →Hamas Attacks Proves Iran in Turmoil
Aug 9, 201800:09:24Tap to summarizeMiddle East tensions are heating up again as Israel mounts a military response to nearly 200 Hamas rockets fired into Israel, but a Reagan-era Pentagon official says the real headline here is that the benefactors of Hamas are rattled. "I think it's because its patron, Iran, is in trouble.� The Iranians are making a concerted effort, I think, to attack Israel while they can," said Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney, who served as an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration. "The regime, the mullah-ocracy if you will, is increasingly facing pressure from its own people, among others things, to stop supporting Hamas and for that matter Bashar Assad in Syria and Hezbollah," added Gaffney. Instability has arisen in Iran before, most notably in the 2009 Green Revolution against the mullahs and then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after clearly rigged elections.�� But Gaffney says the current protests are unlike anything we've seen before. "What seems to be different about what's happening now is that it's not just certain strata of society that are opposing the government in a visible, public way, as was true in the Green Revolution.� "You have masses of people from across the demographic, political, economic spectrum, many of whom are facing the fact that there's no longer any water for them to drink.� There's no employment opportunities.� They're fleeing their cities and towns and going elsewhere in search of basic necessities," said Gaffney. The Israeli military has already carried out airstrikes against Hamas targets in Gaza after 180 rockets were fired into Israel.� Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is ordering "strong action" in retaliation as well. Gaffney says it's a complicated issue for Israel.� On the one hand, Netanyahu cannot allow his country to be attacked without a fierce response.� At the same time, Hamas consistently embeds its military elements in civilian locations like hospitals and daycare centers.� When Israel attacks the military assets, Hamas and much of the world inevitably accuse it of carry out human rights atrocities. But Gaffney says both sides need to walk a diplomatic tightrope. "I think both sides are trying to walk that fine line.� The folks in Hamas understand that Israel can do very considerable harm to their infrastructure and operations.� On the other hand Israelis understand almost anything they do is going to be met with intense criticism by countries elsewhere," said Gaffney. The U.S. will be one of the few nations to defend Israel at the United Nations and elsewhere.� But Gaffney says President Trump can achieve greater stability in the Middle East by choking the economic life out of Iran and all of its proxies in the region. Specifically, he implores Trump to keep up pressure through economic sanctions.� Earlier this week, the U.S. reimposed sanctions on items ...
Transcribe →VA Squalor 'Not A Money Problem'
Aug 8, 201800:11:32Tap to summarizeA retired U.S. Marine Corps gunnery sergeant prominent veterans advocate is fuming after new revelations that the�Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Washington is failing to meet even the most basic medical standards. Employees at the center are imploring new Veterans Affairs Sec. Robert Willkie to take immediate action to change practices there.� They cite rusty medical instruments and bacteria-infected water being used to sterilize equipment.� The employees also report, "Infection rates went up instead of down�in veterans 19 bloodstreams and�in their urinary tracts. Patient satisfaction went down instead of up. Employee satisfaction tanked." Jessie Jane Duff served 20 years in the Marine Corps, rising to gunnery sergeant.� She is now a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research. "This sounds like a third world hospital and yet it's right at the back door of the VA headquarters itself right here in Washington, D.C.� � It's tragic.� This is one of the flagship hospitals for the VA," said Duff, noting the facility is one of fifteen nationwide with the lowest rating. "If it was a restaurant, it would have been shut down," she added.� "Here is an example of basic healthcare that is being handled in such an incompetent manner.� I mean rusty instruments?� Water that you can't even drink from?� What is going on?� Are we actually in combat?� Are we in a MASH unit?� Even then, their standards are higher."� As a result of the VA scandal earlier this decade, funding for the department was effectively doubled.� Duff says these conditions are not due to a lack of resources. "The VA gets the second largest bucket of money next to [the Defense Department].� So this is not a money problem.� This is a management problem.� It's an accountability problem.� Until you're able to bring in positive leadership with positive change. with the capability of removing those bad apples that have allowed these problems to fester, then you essentially have a status quo of business as usual," said Duff. Duff says legislation signed by President Trump last year does make it easier to fire the "bad apples" and also gives veterans more flexibility to find care outside of the VA system.� However, there are still problems, including veterans only getting access to private sector care if they live a certain distance from a VA facility.� Private providers are also have trouble getting reimbursed from the VA. With the bureaucracy grinding the system to a halt and sometimes not even putting clean medical instruments into use, Duff says the American people should take a good look at the VA. "My question to the American people is, 'Do you see why government-run health care has never helped those that are using it?'� It sounds like an easy fix.� It sounds like a possible solution to problems, but what often happens is when you remove private enterprise...
Transcribe →Placation vs. Change in Iran
Aug 6, 201800:10:27Tap to summarizeThe Trump administration began reapplying economic sanctions against Iran Monday, the latest consequence of President Trump withdrawing the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal. Trump withdrew the U.S. as a signatory of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in May, and the new round of sanctions is the first of two rounds of crippling sanctions designed to deter Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons and grant more liberties to its people. "There's the difference between the Obama administration and the Trump administration.� The Obama administration was trying to placate.� The Trump administration is trying to actually change Iranian behavior," said retired U.S. Navy Captain Chuck Nash, who is also a Fox News military analyst. This first tranche of sanctions forbids the importing of Iranian carpets, pistachios, and also voids licenses that allows Iran to buy American and European-made aircraft.� Another round of sanctions targeting oil and banks is set to take effect Nov. 4. European leaders are furious with Trump for bringing the sanctions back, but Nash says they have little choice but to go along. "They were looking to sell a tremendous amount of goods to Iran.� Those deals, now that the United States has pulled out, the administration has basically said, 'Would you like to do business with the United States or would you like to do business with Tehran?� Pick one,'" said Nash. And Nash says the Europeans could not circumvent the sanctions even if they wanted to. "Look at aircraft for example.� There is so much United States technology in aircraft that there isn't an aircraft manufacturer in the western world who can export to Tehran if the United States pulls the licenses for its technology.� It's embedded in those platforms," said Nash. Nash says the sanctions are also meant to make life uncomfortable for another group inside Iran. "That impacts the bazaaris, which is the mercantile class inside of Iran," said Nash.� "They are the big supporters of the theocratic regime." Nash says the bazaaris were key allies of Ayatollah Khomeini during the Islamic Revolution of 1978-1979.� But he says if the bazaaris feel the heat, the mullahs will also be sweating. "When they start shifting because they're under pressure, if things really start to happen, you'll get the mullahs' attention," said Nash, who notes the Iranian economy is already hurting badly. "In the last year alone, their currency, the rial, has lost 80 percent of its value.� Things have been going south in Iran for years," said Nash. He says the mullahs are sure to blame the renewed sanctions for the economic misery in Iran, but Nash doesn't think the people will believe them. "The mullahs are trying to tell the people, 'No, no, no.� It's not our gross mismanagement.� It's not our spending money on militarization instead of working on infrastruct...
Transcribe →'The History of Jihad'
Jul 27, 201800:11:12Tap to summarizeFrom the response to the 9/11 attacks to the confronting of ISIS, Americans and other western leaders regularly refer to Islam as a "religion of peace," but a new book contends the 1,400 years of Islam is a timeline awash in bloodshed and conflict. Jihad Watch Director Robert Spencer is author of the new book "The History of Jihad: From Muhammad to ISIS."� He says there is a consistent attern of carnage since the earliest days. "What I found is that through fourteen centuries, without any break, without any let-up, without any reformation or reconsideration, without any period of tolerance - although there are a lot of historical myths about that - Islam has been responsible for conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims for fourteen uninterrupted centuries," said Spencer, who is quick to point out that most Muslims are not Jihadists. "Obviously, not all Muslims are involved in this and not all of them approved of it.� Nonetheless, in every century and in in every place in the world where there have been Muslims, there have been jihadis who thought that it was one of their responsibilities before Allah to wage war against and subjugate unbelievers," said Spencer. History books tell us that Islam was founded in 622 A.D.� Mohammed died in 632.� By 732, at the Battle of Tours in modern-day France, Charles Martel led a decisive Frankish victory against Muslim invaders who had already swept through North Africa and Spain. But how did those invaders get from the Arabian Peninsula to the Atlantic coast within 100 years?� Spencer says it was accomplished through violent conquest, and he contends most people who deny the violence perpetrated in the early years of Islam are arguing from a position of ignorance. "People aren't really aware of this history.� This is one of the reasons why I wrote this book.� The Islamic advance was incredibly swift.� And not only did they get all the way to the Atlantic and to Spain within 100 years of the death of Mohammed, but they also went in the other direction, conquered one of the great powers of the day in Persia and went into India," said Spencer. Spencer says his book is the first work in the English language to detail the jihad against India, which he calls "an extraordinary and bloody story." In addition to those who don't know the history, Spencer says others believe a false version of history. "I think a lot of people take for granted the idea that there was some kind of mass conversion to Islam, that people were converting to it because they were convinced that it was true and that this is what was responsible for the Islamization of the Middle East and North Africa.� That's actually not the case.� It was all done by conquest," he said. Spencer further asserts that ISIS is not the exception or some radical departure from Islam over the centuries.� He claims ISIS looks much like jihadists throughout the past fourtee...
Transcribe →What We Really Learned from the FISA Warrant Application
Jul 25, 201800:08:02Tap to summarizeAll sides of the Trump-Russia debate see the recently released application for a FISA warrant against a former Trump campaign figure as confirming their previously held opinions on the matter, but a former federal prosecutor says that's because some are conflating two very different matters and reaching a faulty conclusion. Over the weekend, the FBI released a redacted version of the FISA warrant request it sought against former Trump aide Carter Page.� The paperwork shows the FBI did rely heavily on the Steele dossier, assembled by a former British intelligence official hostile to Trump, and a footnote in the application admits the dossier was funded for months by the Hillary Clinton campaign an the Democratic National Committee. So what does former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy see as the headline in this new information? "That it's a confirmation of my previously held position," joked McCarthy, before turning serious. "My previously held position is basically what we learned in congressional hearings over the past year-plus, which is that the FBI used the Steele dossier, which is a partisan opposition research screed, which was basically commissioned by the Clinton campaign," said McCarthy. McCarthy says there's still information we don't know, but that we also know there's no further corroboration of the dossier in the FISA application. "We know that that's not there because there have been hearings.� There have been reports.� Senators (Charles) Grassley and (Lindsey) Graham, for example, put out a report on a classified memo that was declassified earlier this year which laid out not only the passages of the actual FISA warrants that were relevant but also explained what the FBI had done was rely on the credibility of Christopher Steele," said McCarthy. So how are all sides claiming victory after the release of the FISA warrant application?� McCarthy says it's because many people are confusing two very different matters: whether Carter Page was someone worthy of further federal scrutiny and whether the government had built a legal case for obtaining a surveillance warrant. Page aroused suspicion years before the 2016 campaign for trying to become a Russian agent but was dismissed by the Kremlin as an "idiot." "To get a FISA warrant under federal law, you have to have probable cause that an American citizen in this case is willfully acting as a clandestine agent of a foreign power. "That is, he is quite intentionally acting to advance the interests of Russia in the United States in a clandestine way, which means under federal law is a probable violation of federal criminal law," said McCarthy. He believes the feds fell short of that burden. "They didn't have that that we can see, other than through the Steele dossier, which is why I think (former FBI Deputy Director Andrew) McCabe said that they couldn't have gotten ...
Transcribe →Anger Gives Dems Edge in Midterms
Jul 24, 201800:06:42Tap to summarizeFor the first time in the 2018 political season, one of the nation's leading political forecasters is predicting Democrats will take control of the House of Representatives following the midterm elections.� On Tuesday, Sabato's Crystal Ball, led by University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato, moved 17 House races more favorable to Democrats.� The report also shows 33 of 36 seats labeled as toss-ups are currently held by Republicans.� Seven other GOP-held seats are considered even more imperiled. In contrast, only two seats held by Democrats are considered toss-ups, as is one member vs. member race in Pennsylvania.� One seat held by Democrats is likely to flip to the GOP.� Democrats need a net gain of 23 House seats to reclaim the majority. Sabato's Crystal Ball Managing Editor Kyle Kondik says the enthusiasm in midterm election years is almost always against the party of the president.� And with President Trump serving as a lightning rod for the left, the passion among Democrats is even higher. "The Republicans had this advantage in 2010 and 2014 and now the Democrats generally do in terms of asking people how enthusiastic they are to vote," said Kondik.� "For voters, anger can be a great motivator and the angrier party, I think right now, is the Democrats." Even though Trump is not on the ballot, Democrats are looking for any chance to express their disapproval.� Kondik says last year's Virginia governor's race proved Democrats cared much more about hurting Trump than supporting Democrats on the ballot. "Reporters were asking voters about Ralph Northam, the eventual Democratic winner and of course now the governor.� They didn't seem to know a whole lot about him, but they did seem to know they were casting a vote against President Trump.� I think that's what you might see in November," said Kondik. Republicans are also running against history.� Kondik says American history shows midterm elections are almost always good for the party out of power. "Going back to the Civil War, there have been 39 midterms.� The president's party has lost ground in the House in 36 of those, and the average seat loss is 33 seats.� The Democrats need to net 23 seats.� So it would not be historically odd for Democrats to win the House," said Kondik. But despite those built-in advantages for Democrats, Kondik says no one should count the Republicans out. "I don't think it's a slam dunk for the Democrats by any means.� It's also quite possible the race for the House could come down to a few seats here or there," said Kondik, indicating Democrats could make major gains but still wind up in the minority. Kondik expects Republicans to try matching the intensity of Democrats by firing up their own base.� Part of that may be based on issues like immigration, on which some Democrats have advocated abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ...
Transcribe →GOP Cranks Up Pork-Barrel Spending
Jul 23, 201800:09:04Tap to summarizeCongressional Republicans are once again embracing pork-barrel spending, more than doubling the amount spent on earmarks since the last fiscal year. Citizens Against Government Waste, or CAGW,� publishes "The Congressional Pig Book," which chronicles spending on earmarks each year.� According to the book, 232 earmarks are part of the appropriations process for Fiscal Year 2018, a 42 percent increase from 2017.� Those earmarks total $14.7 billion, a 116 percent jump from just a year ago. For budget hawks, the news is especially depressing because House Republicans appear to be trying to restore earmarks after abolishing them in 2011. "Yes, it more than doubled between 2017 and 2018, and there have been earmarks, according to CAGW's definition, since the moratorium was adopted in 2011.� Congress' definition is not the same, so they keep claiming there are no earmarks.� We disagree," said CAGW President Tom Schatz. The $14.7 billion price tag barely reaches half the amount of the GOP's worst example of pork-barrel spending, but Schatz says Republicans ought to remember that fallout from those earmarks. "This is more than half of the record $29 billion in 2006, which not coincidentally was the year that Republicans lost the majority in the House.� Then after they got it back (following the 2010 midterms), they got the moratorium," said Schatz. The book also lists the earmarks, including $65 million to protect salmon on the west coast.� Schatz cited a wasteful project earmarked for the Pentagon. "(There's) $25 million in the defense bill for alternative energy research, up two-thirds from the $15 million in 2017.� There's now $315 million of earmarks for this purpose, even though the Energy and Water Development Act supplies billions for alternative energy research," said Schatz. He says between 2007-2014, the Pentagon purchased about two million gallons of alternative fuel at a cost of $58 million.� In contrast, the Defense Department bought 32 billion gallons of petroleum at a price of $107 billion.�� But should we really be making a big deal out of $14.7 billion in spending when the government spends several trillion dollars per year?� Schatz says the whole process just invites corruption. "The point of earmarks is that they're corruptive, they're inequitable, and they are costly.� In the 111th Congress (2009-2011), names of members were included in the appropriations bills.� The 81 Senate and House appropriators, that's 15 percent of the whole Congress, had 51 percent of the earmarks and 61 percent of the money," he said. He also cited Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, for condemning earmarks through their work on the Article I Project. "They said, 'Earmarking is not an innocuous exercise of Congress' constitutional power.� It was the tool lobbyists and leadership used to compel members to vote for bills t...
Transcribe →