The Hugh Hewitt Show

Let s start here.  It is an exposé on just how bad of a failure Gavin Newsom s Solar on Multifamily Affordable Housing program actually is.  It is a toxic stew of incapability, bureaucratic entanglement and corruption.  Like most bright ideas in California, it is impractical to begin with and only grows worse in the execution.  When I moved to California in the 1980 s it was because of the opportunities available to anyone.  Now the only opportunity lies at sucking on the government teat in a corrupt and decidedly Democrat manner.  But Governor Hair-gel s latest bright idea, well, that is truly a recipe for disaster. Here it is: California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) pledged to seek a 100% tax on any money Californians receive from President Donald Trump’s “anti-weaponization” fund. The anti-weaponization fund is a sketchy enough idea to begin with.  It is described this way: The unprecedented $1.776 billion fund will make payouts to those who demonstrate to a DOJ commission that they were victims of weaponization. What qualifies as weaponization and what does not?  I personally think this will end up like those class-action lawsuit funds where the only people that see real money out of them are the lawyers that brought the litigation and administer the payouts.  Most people won t be willing to do the paperwork to get the pay out and those that do weather that storm will be disappointed in the paltry sums distributed.  But that said, Trump has made his point and streamlined what is certain to be an unending river of litigation. But Newsom, being truly and wholly Californian, wants to take what is already a bureaucratic tangle and create a Gordian knot never to be untied.  Assuming the sums to be paid out of the fund are sufficiently large enough to make it worth the effort, I can easily come up with a dozen perfectly legal laundering schemes that will leave the money unscathed by Newsom s political stunt.  The fungibility of money is sometimes a wonderful thing.  This then will result in litigation galore from both sides aimed at the other until eventually the entire $1.776B is consumed in legal fees. But that is not what truly upsets me about this whole mess.  California has never found a rule it cannot distort completely out of shape and reason.  Once California starts 100% taxing any income of any sort, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will find a way to expand the types until no one in the state is making any money in any way all income will be 100% taxed.  That s just the way of things in California. I have watched it happen dozens of times in the realm of environmental regulation.  A rule, initially meant to address a limited situation, but one that absolutely necessitated regulation, is read, reinterpreted, redefined and expanded until everyone in the state is covered by the rule to some extent.  Said rule expansion does not really result in any significant increase in public safety or notable improvement in the environment, but the agencies get to levy more administrative fees and fines, hire more people and generally burgeon like the Blob of movie fame. You also have to love the irony of weaponizing tax policy to fight an action taken to compensate for the weaponization of tax policy.  We ve been talking all week about how liberals can no longer learn from their mistakes.  Res ipsa liquitor the thing speaks for itself. The post Guaranteed To Go Wrong appeared first on The Hugh Hewitt Show.

Prince Reva Pahlavi was named Crown Prince of Iran in 1967. He has long been the most visible face of the Iranian opposition to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Audio: 02-09hhs-pahlavi Transcript: HH: We are on the cusp of big events. Whether it’s this week or this month or next month, it’s a very important time, and I’m honored to have with me Prince Reza Pahlavi. He’s the Crown Prince of Iran. He is also the voice and face of the Iranian opposition in exile. Prince Pahlavi, welcome. Thank you for joining me. I want to start with a very direct question. To your understanding, how many of your fellow countrymen were murdered by the regime on January 8-9? I’ve heard a lot of different numbers. RP: First of all, thank you for having me on your program. The number vary between 36,500 to about 40,000. That’s the last estimate that we’ve had. It could be higher than that, because there’s still ongoing arrests happening. They are killing people in hospitals. They are finishing them off on their wounded beds. They are arresting doctors or anybody rendering assistance to the victims. Who knows how much the total numbers will be, but the most conservative figure so far has been over 36,000 people, unfortunately. HH: I’m going to start using that number, Prince. Thank you. What do you hope to see President Trump order our military and America to do right now? RP: Look, when you are fighting an occupying force that has taken a whole country hostage, and people are on the streets unarmed as civilians demanding liberation from this tyranny and hoping for freedom, and at the time they are being shots on the streets by military machine guns, and basically war instruments, this is no longer a fair fight. This is a genocide in the making. And the only thing that will equalize the playing field for these brave Iranians who are fighting for their own liberation is to have an assistance that is needed help at this time to neutralize elements that the regime has used against its own citizenry to brutalize them the way they have. And this means targeting the regime’s top apparatus of repression, which is, of course, the IRGC and many other elements that are associated with that repression. And only a military intervention at this point could level the playing field. This is the reason why the Iranian people have been anxiously awaiting the action that the President has promised he will do in support of the Iranian people, that help will arrive, just hang in there. And they have. And they hope that this president will stay true to his word as he has always demonstrated, and that he’s no Barack Obama. And he believes in what he says, and he’s a man of peace, and ultimately will help the Iranian people get rebuilt. This regime has been devastating not only to Iran and Iranians, but has been a source of chaos and instability

As President Trump weighs his decision on what to do regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran, Israeli national security expert Daniel Schueftan joined Hugh to discuss what POTUS should do and why: Audio: 02-09hhs-schueftan Transcript: HH: Professor Dan Schueftan is the preeminent Israeli national security expert. That’s what Haviv Rettig Gur called him in an interview done with Professor Schueftan on February the 2nd, which I heard and said we’ve got to go get this guy. He sounds like Israel’s Kissinger. Professor, welcome to the Hugh Hewitt Show. That was a fabulous episode with Haviv. Thank you for joining me today. I want to begin by saying to the audience they should go listen to that entire hour and ten minutes with Haviv. It was taped on February 2nd. But I don’t have that time, so I want to condense one thing you said. You said American presidents can be smart or dumb on the Middle East. Eisenhower and Obama were dumb. Johnson and Nixon were smart. How do you rate Trump? DS: Trump has the right instincts. And mostly what he did in the Middle East was very helpful for the whole region. Think of the Abraham Accords. Think of the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And the support he had for Israel when Israel needed not only to assert its power not only to destroy the terrorists, but also to deter them from the immediate next step. And now the question is, of course, how it will work with Iran and with Lebanon. But so far, his instincts about the Middle East were correct, and he was certainly not the kind of naïve president that we had in Jimmy Carter and in Barack Obama. Eisenhower made a terrible mistake in his first term in office, in 1956. But by 1958, he already corrected it by understanding that it was a mistake to build up Nasser. But you have presidents like Nixon and Kissinger as national security advisor and Secretary of State who were excellent in the Middle East. HH: Now Professor, that leads us to my seconed question. What do you hope President Trump decides to do about Iran and when? DS: First of all, I don’t think you can arrive at something that the Iranians will agree to, because whatever Iran accepts will be terrible for the whole region and beyond this region. This regime is as dangerous a combination as we had Nazi Germany in the sense that they’re very able people and very barbaric leadership is a combination that presents a danger to the entire region and beyond. And unless this regime is undermined, weakened, and hopefully one day replaced, you cannot rest in the Middle East with the regular problems. We have problems even without Iran, but Iran makes these problems unacceptable by the way, not only to the region. Very soon, if they have nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, they can reach Europe. They can dominate the Middle East. They can use all th

Hugh spoke earlier with Senate Majority Leader John Thune about Iran escalation, the Appropriations bills, and what’s to come with negotiations on the last appropriations bill, The Department of Homeland Security. The audio: 02-04hhs-thune The transcript: HH: I’m going to talk now with Majority Leader John Thune about that. Leader Thune, welcome. I want to begin by asking if you and Senator Cotton, who are two members of the Gang of Eight who get briefed on intelligence matters have been briefed on anything, yet, about Iran. JT: I think at some of the Gang of Eight meetings, it’s been high-level stuff, Hugh, but you know, I obviously don’t talk a lot about what’s said in those meetings. But I don’t think a lot of specificity, I would say. HH: Okay, what would you conclude from the cancellation of today’s meetings, and the dispatch of the George H.W. Bush carrier to join the Lincoln? JT: I think that you know, obviously there, the administration perceives the Iranians to be escalating, and you know, clearly cutting off the talks was a huge signal that they were sending. But I think it’s, I mean, we’ve got a lot of interest to defend in that region of the world, and it has implications not just for that region of the world, but for the entire world. And so I think the President and his team are right to take it seriously and to ensure that America’s national security interests are protected there. HH: Last question on Iran, Mr. Leader. If we go to a battle with them, what is an acceptable conclusion of that battle, from your perspective? JT: Well, obviously for me, Hugh, it would be regime change. I mean, I think you’ve got to get new leadership in there. And there’s no guarantee that new leadership might be the answer, either. I mean, we’ve seen that before in other places around the world. But I do think that the Iranian people are clamoring for a voice in their government, and for the same rights that people in freedom-loving countries have around the world. And I think that’s what we ought to be supportive of there. And so if that were an end game, I think that would be at least a great starting place. HH: We will pick it up from there next time we talk. I want to thank you, by the way, and congratulate you for getting the Defense Appropriation bill done, as well as 11 of 12 appropriations bills done. I don’t remember the last time that that happened, so hat tip to you, the leadership, Chairwoman Collins, Senator Collins, of course, the leader of the Appropriations Committee. When was the last time that happened? JT: You know, it’s been a while, Hugh. I actually ran into one of my former colleagues in the House of Representatives. We had come in together, you know, almost, now, 30 years ago, and he said I think the last time we did all