Crom Carmichael on the Continued Persecution of Christians in Africa and the Democrats Push to Eliminate the Filibuster

Crom Carmichael on the Continued Persecution of Christians in Africa and the Democrats Push to Eliminate the Filibuster

 

Live from Music Row Friday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed the original all-star panelist Crom Carmichael to the studio to question whether or the continued killing of Christian Africans was considered racist or a hate crime by the Biden administration and the lingering issues surrounding the Senate filibuster.

Leahy: Crom we were talking a little bit in the earlier segment about viewpoints of the world that are held by Biden administration members now that are just not reconcilable with views that most of us in America hold today.

Carmichael: That part is accurate. But more importantly, the way that they view it, it’s unfixable. You can’t address it. All you can do is complain about it and then see anyone who disagrees with you as an opposition that needs to be crushed.

Leahy: Well, if they want it to be unfixable because that means they can crush the opposition.

Carmichael: Yes. Correct.

Leahy: Thank you. (Laughter) 

Carmichael: It’s an echo in here.

Leahy: Do I get an Amen? Amen, brother. Amen. (Chuckles)

Carmichael: But here is something that’s an interesting story. This is in The Wall Street Journal headline, Islamic State (this is ISIS) Seeks Revival in Christian Countries. Now, this is in Africa. So a question that should be asked of our new ambassador to Africa Linda Thomas-Greenfield is if a black Muslim kills a Black Christian, is that racist?

Leahy: Or a hate crime?

Carmichael: Or a hate crime? In fact, is it even wrong? That would be a question asked because so far the genocide that is now going on in Africa has been unaddressed by the Biden administration. And ISIS is resurrecting itself in countries in Africa that are dominated by Christians. In the Congo, it’s 95 percent, Christian.

The Congo is almost exclusively Black, but it’s also almost exclusively Christian. And the jihadists are going in killing men, women, and children just because of their religion. Now does the Biden administration think that’s wrong? Does either of the Muslim members of Congress think that Black Muslims killing black Christians is wrong? We don’t know. They don’t say anything about it.

Leahy: Certainly the mainstream media has not reported much at all.

Carmichael: It doesn’t even talk about it. So that’s an interesting thing. So let’s switch over, though, Michael, because as I was getting out of my car, you were talking about court-packing and you made a comment that I want to push back on just a little bit.

Leahy: What Crom? Pushing back on a comment from me?

Carmichael: You said that Mitch McConnell is not good at playing offense, but he’s very good at playing defense.

Leahy: That’s what I said.

Carmichael: Yes. And the difficulty is this, Mitch McConnell is a traditionalist and I’m not saying that’s necessarily wrong. I’m just saying that that’s a fact. So Mitch McConnell believes that to filibuster is a tool that the minority should be able to use in the Senate to thwart legislation that they don’t agree with.

Leahy: It’s been a rule of the Senate since 1806 and that major legislation can’t come to the floor unless basically, 60 senators agree.

Carmichael: Right. So if Schumer, if there are 48 Democrats, I’m just picking a number that is less than 50, it can be 45. It doesn’t matter if Schumer can keep his minority already grouped together, but have it be greater than the number of 40, then they can filibuster. And now they’ve changed the rules of the filibuster so that you don’t actually have to filibuster.

You just have to say we don’t agree with that, and we’re going to filibuster and so, therefore, if you just say it, then the filibuster is in place. McConnell believes that that tradition is good for the Senate. I’m not saying otherwise. When Harry Reid broke that tradition for judges, Mitch McConnell said, if you do that, you’ll rule the day that you did it, because when we get in charge, we will use that rule, which is a simple majority.

And Mitch McConnell, as a traditionalist, says, if you’re changing the rule, I’ll play by the new rule. But what Mitch McConnell has not done, and I’m not trying to find fault with this I’m just making a statement of fact, but like all majority leaders before him for over 200 years have honored the filibuster. And so things can’t get through the Senate unless there are 60 senators. So he can’t play offense because he abides by the Senate rules.

Schumer wants to break the Senate rules which would allow him to play offense and defense. But if he breaks the rule on the filibuster, here’s what Schumer’s great risk is. If they break the filibuster, which I think they have the ability to do with a 50/50 vote and Kamala Harris breaks the tie, Mitch McConnell has said, if you do that, we will not show up. You will not have a quorum.

Leahy: Has he said that?

Carmichael: Yes. He has said that.

Leahy: He must have listened to this program when you said that previously.

Carmichael: Well, I’m not going to try to take credit for that.

Leahy: I’ll let you take it.

Carmichael: Thank you.

Leahy: I will give you credit for it.

Carmichael: I will humbly not take credit for it. (Leahy laughs) But anyway, he said I might have just actually been quoting him, to be honest with you.

Leahy: No, he was listening. (Laughter)

Carmichael: So anyway, he said he said, if you do that, you have to have a quorum. You will not have a quorum. Business in the Senate will grind to an absolute halt. Nothing will happen. If McConnell was to do that after the filibuster is broken and McConnell actually does that and nothing happens, now if Republicans were to retake the House, the Senate, and the presidency, McConnell would play by the new rules. And if they had a majority in the Senate, then things would happen. So the Democrats take a huge risk at 50/50. Now, if they had a 51/49 majority right now they could get away with anything that they wanted to because 51 would be a quorum.

Leahy: Let me give you my view, an insight into how they think. They want power. And they look at the world today. What they have today. And they try to accomplish everything they possibly can today. They’re not looking long-term. They are looking for let’s get it done now. That’s a difference. And it’s a very ruthless approach.

Carmichael: It is.

Leahy: A very destructive approach.

Carmichael: Yes, it’s all those things. But if they do away with the filibuster, and then McConnell plays defense by eliminating the quorum, and nothing happens in the Senate, then the voters will probably react in the midterm.

Leahy: I think you’re right about that.

Listen to the full second hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Tennessee Star Report: Crom Carmichael Talks Strategy and the Abomination of Section 230

The Tennessee Star Report: Crom Carmichael Talks Strategy and the Abomination of Section 230

 

Live from Music Row Monday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. –  host Leahy welcomed the original all-star panelist Crom Carmichael to the studio to weigh in on the abomination of Section 230 and the strategy to right it.

Leahy: In studio, the original all-star panelist, Crom Carmichael. Crom, you say it’s time for the Republicans and Conservatives to get smart on tactics?

Carmichael: Yes. Why is it that big tech is able to do what they do and get away with it legally?

Leahy: They have protection from Congress.

Carmichael: And that is called Section 230. If Republicans regain the power of the House, the Senate, and the presidency, first of all, the filibuster is a very important Senate institution. And one thing that is often misrepresented is that when Republicans did control the House twice, they didn’t have 60 votes in the Senate. And so the House passed an immense amount of legislation that never saw the last day in the Senate because the Democrats could use the filibuster, even when the Republicans had a majority. But you can’t use the filibuster in reconciliation.

Leahy: Now just for our listing audience, explain what reconciliation means.

Carmichael: I’m going to take a stab at it. But I think it has to do with budget bills.

Leahy: It does.

Carmichael: And spending. Because this big COVID bill that just passed wasn’t a budget, but it was spending. And it passed with a 50 to 49 majority, which Republicans could filibuster that. Here’s what I would do if I were the Republicans, and I get control of all three because I think that Section 230 is an abomination.

The protection that it affords allows these platform companies to have a political agenda. I would increase taxes to 80 percent for all companies that are protected by Section 230. I could do that through reconciliation. And I might even impose a huge tax on the net worth of executives that have money because of Section 230 because they’re getting all of the benefits because of that law.

Leahy: Yes. The significance of reconciliation in the Senate, it’s the budget process where they’re trying to finalize the budget. There are limitations only on the reconciliation process in the use of the filibuster. That’s why it’s important in the Senate.

Carmichael: Yes. And so the point that I’m trying to make is that if you put that in legislation, the executives who are protected by 230 would go nuts and the Republicans could go to them and say this is going to pass unless you go to your Democrat buddies and get them to do away with Section 230. So we’ll break the filibuster, you’ll help us break the filibuster, or we’re going to tax your butts and ruin your value.

Leahy: Well, that’s awful. (Chuckles) 

Carmichael: And they’ll do it, Michael is what I’m saying is they will give up Section 230. They’ll give up Section 230. So what is the goal here? The goal here is not to tax them. The goal here is to get Democrats to agree to get rid of Section 230. So the way to get rid of Section 230 is to get the people who are protected by Section 230 to have more pain from the protection than they do by giving it up.

Leahy: Now, that’s a good tactical strategy.

Carmichael: Yes.

Leahy: However, how do you get Mitch McConnell to adopt such a strategy?

Carmichael: If you want to get rid of Section 230, that’s the strategy.

Leahy: I know.

Carmichael: If Mitch McConnell wants to get rid of Section 230, if he does, then Mitch, here’s how to do it. You put so much pressure on the people who are protected by Section 230. You put so much pain as long as they keep that protection that they run the Congress and say we’re willing to give up the protection.

Leahy: But Crom, here’s my problem with this and Mitch McConnell.

Carmichael: Don’t talk about Mitch McConnell.

Leahy: Somebody has to implement this strategy in the Senate.

Carmichael: Well, of course, you and I are just talking here. Well, I understand, but the Democrats do a great job putting pressure on people that they want to behave differently. Does big business support Democrats now?

Leahy: Totally.

Carmichael: Why?

Leahy: It’s in their self-interest.

Carmichael: It’s not just in their self-interest to send their self-interest because they don’t want to be punished. They fear the Democrats. They fear them. So they do what the Democrats want them to do. That’s just the way it is. I don’t like it. But if those are the rules and if that’s the playing field that I’m on, then I have a choice. I can either be highly principled and accomplish nothing. In fact, my side will always go backward.

Because the other side gets to use the fear of things like what we were talking about earlier. critical race theory. and all of these things to use power over others. Republicans, Unfortunately, it’s the world we live in today. Unfortunately, Republicans need to learn how to put pressure on other people that they want to change their behavior.

Leahy: I cannot disagree with you at all. The question is, how do you do that?

Carmichael: I just told you how you do it. I just told you.

Leahy: You’ve got to get a Mitch McConnel to change the behavior.

Carmichael: I understand that. But first of all, if you don’t understand if you don’t even understand the tactic and the reason for the tactic. In other words, you don’t know what you don’t know. What you and I are talking about here is that if there is a tactic that would work, what would it be? Because you also want to maintain the filibuster.

Leahy: I’m with you. Terry in Knoxville.

Carmichael: We have Terry in Knoxville…

Leahy: Who wants to join us. Terry, you want to weigh in on our lively discussion here this morning? Terry, Welcome

Caller Terry: Morning.

Leahy: Good morning.

Terry: Morning. As usual, I agree wholeheartedly with Crom. (Laughter)

Leahy: Terry, you’re such a smart guy.

Terry: I agree with everything he says. But, well, first of all, how can you tell who’s smarter? You can tell who’s smarter by who’s winning. And who’s winning? Well, it isn’t us.

Carmichael: That’s right.

Leahy: That’s a good point.

Terry: But you have to get back to the point where he said you control the House, the Senate, and the presidency. Well, we need the tactics to do that first before you can get to the point he’s talking about. And they had the opportunity to get rid of Section 230…

Carmichael: No, they didn’t. That’s the point. They couldn’t get rid of it because Democrats would not go along with it. You have to get 60 votes to get rid of Section 230.

Leahy: Terry, thanks for your call.

Carmichael: And thank you for your wonderful comment and call in anytime, Terry.

Leahy: You have plenty of fans and Terry’s one of them. We’ll be back with Naomi Wolf. That will be fun.

Listen to the full second hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio

 

 

 

 

All Star Panelist Clint Brewer Talks About the John Kerry No Mask Flight and Elizabeth Warren’s Filibuster Foibles

All Star Panelist Clint Brewer Talks About the John Kerry No Mask Flight and Elizabeth Warren’s Filibuster Foibles

 

Live from Music Row Thursday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. –  host Leahy welcomed all-star panelist Clint Brewer to the studio to weigh in on John Kerry’s no mask flight and Senator Elizabeth Warren’s irresponsible and historically inaccurate rhetoric to remove the filibuster.

Leahy: We are talking with all-star panelist and recovering journalists Clint Brewer about our big story at The Tennessee Star with a picture of John Kerry on a commercial flight yesterday not wearing a mask. That story has gone all over the place. It was a lead story at Fox News.com  all yesterday. It was on Brett Beers and Fox News, followed by Tucker Carlson, followed by Sean Hannity, followed by Shannon Bream. All these stories last night. Breitbart has covered it. The Dail Mail has covered. The Daily Caller has covered it. TheBlaze has covered it.

Brewer: They’re crediting you guys appropriately?

Leahy: All of them. Crediting The Tennessee Star.

Brewer: Good.

Leahy: A couple of questions from Breitbart that boil my friends on the editor at Breitbart. John Kerry said to Tweet about the photographic evidence about this clear violation of the Federal Order and American Airlines policy that it was ‘momentary.’ He was not eating or drinking. He does not claim that he was.

If that is okay for John Kerry to do, can anyone else have “momentary slip of the mask?” This was a question to American Airlines. Second, what is an acceptable amount of time for someone to have their mask slip off their nose and mouth for a momentary period? Has John Kerry been disciplined in any way for violation of this health order? Will American Airlines allow John Kerry to continue to fly or ban him from future flights for this violation?

Brewer: Does President Biden have a press briefing today? I kind of think he does.

Leahy: He has like a March 25 press conference. Somebody will ask him about that.

Brewer: As an avowed, dedicated mask-wearing American (Leahy laughs) during this pandemic and as a Republican I wish Czar Kerry would set a better example for the American

Leahy: A pretty bad example. Let me tell you what the consequences of this is. I suppose at the Tennessee Star we will be responsible for more global warming because clearly what John Kerry is going to do now is he’s going to go to the President and say, Mr. President obviously, I cannot fly commercial flights anymore because they’re going to take pictures of me not wearing my mask. I need to use my private plane now.

Brewer: Mike, you’re in talk radio, all the hot air alone is hurting the climate. (Leahy laughs)

Leahy: That’s good. Speaking of hot air in Washington, DC, Senator Elizabeth Warren is generating a lot of hot air with her desire to get rid of the filibuster. You just saw this the story come out. Tell us about it, Clint.

Brewer: There’s a story on Axios about her saying that the filibuster is racist because it is used based on what I read, she seems to believe it’s used primarily by Southern politicians to hold back advances and civil rights legislation. Now, I hate to sound like a musty old historian here, but let’s get our facts straight. The filibuster is not something created in the Constitution, but it has existed as a rule of the Senate since 1806.

Leahy: That was before civil rights legislation, I would think, right?

Brewer: Yes.

Leahy: It’s 150 years before.

Brewer: And it was not used until 18 37 but it has been used ever since then. And I’m pretty sure that Democrats have had the majority in the U.S Senate several times since 1837. now, Yes, it is correct that the longest and most famous filibuster was sent by the late Senator Strom Thurmond fighting the federal Civil Rights Act. That is accurate.

But to put it in a modern-day context and say that it only exists for Southern politicians to hold back civil rights, first of all, it’s irresponsible rhetoric. Second of all, it paints a large group of very dedicated public servants from one part of the country with a broad brush that is unfair and inaccurate. And it’s just more of the same from Elizabeth Warren. It just feels like her usual level of attention-seeking and grandstanding.

She couldn’t get nominated president, and she’s not in the cabinet, and it’s just gross and it’s irresponsible. And it’s the kind of partisan hackery we don’t need in this country right now. We’ve got bigger problems to deal with. But this is like the whole talk about packing the court. And this flies all over me as a taxpayer and as a voter with both parties. Just because you’re either out of power or in power, you don’t change the institutional rules of something like the U.S. Senate just to suit your immediate purposes.

Go win some elections. Quit trying to move the goalposts to suit your agenda. Work within the system that has brought this country along successfully for 200 plus years. You don’t just flip the paradigm in an institution like the Senate because right now it suits your purposes. That’s very short-sided. It’s not good for the Republic, and it’s not good for the American people.

Leahy: Isn’t that what the Democratic Party is about right now, though? Will for power? Having power and exercising it with no regard for the institutions of the American country?

Brewer: What you’ve got in the senators is a very thinly, divided Senate with a couple of very moderate Democratic senators who are siding as much with Republicans as they are with Democrats. That’s uncomfortable for progressives like Elizabeth Warren. Now in the House, it’s less struggle because they got more of a majority.

Progressives like Warren in the Senate are feeling the heat because they can’t move the ball for their particular agenda. And so what’s the answer? Well, we’ll just change the rules that have existed since 1806. It’s cheap, I guess, is the best way to say it. It’s a cheap attempt at moving the goalposts. And other than that, it’s also just inaccurate.

Leahy: Yes. But you’re talking Senator Elizabeth Warren, who’s been known for being inaccurate about her own personal heritage and other things. I look at Democrats, and I think they are generally a bunch of insane liars who hate the country. But that’s just my view.

Brewer: Look, I know plenty of good people who are Democrats. I just don’t think Elizabeth Warrens one of them.

Leahy: I’m with you on that.

Listen to the full third hour here:


– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio