November 11, 2025 • 35 mins
Former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney and National Review Contributing Editor Andy McCarthy is in for Jim on Tuesday’s 3 Martini Lunch. Join Andy and Greg as they discuss the fate of Obamacare subsidies, how to stop Chinese nationals from buying land near U.S. military bases, and the leftist revolt (again) vs. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
First, as Democrats demand the extension of Obamacare premium subsidies, Andy and Greg explain how they were supposedly a "temporary" provision during the pandemic and should be scrapped. But Andy points out that the subsidies were another step in the Dems' tireless push for government-run health care, so rooting them out will be very difficult.
Next, they react to reports that a convicted Chinese fraudster owns land adjacent to the Missouri Air Force base that's home to the B-2 Stealth Bombers that that targeted Iranian nuclear sites in June. Andy explains how there is some tension in law when it comes to stopping our top foreign adversary from getting so close to our most sensitive sites, but there's something far more important than the courts or Congress when it comes to stopping the Chinese from doing this.
Finally, they shed zero tears for Sen. Chuck Schumer as the increasingly left-wing base revolts over how Senate Democrats handled the latest shutdown fight and Schumer's feeble attempts to appease the base through this pointless shutdown left him even more of a pariah in his own party. And as awful as Schumer has been, it's almost certain the next Senate Democratic leader will be even worse.
Please visit our great sponsors:
OneSkin uses the patented OS-01 Peptide™ designed to keep skin healthier, stronger, and more resilient over time. Get 15% off OneSkin with the code 3ML at https://www.OneSkin.co/3ML
Try the Oracle Cloud Infrastructure for free with zero commitment by visiting https://Oracle.com/Martini today!
Open a new qualified IRA or cash account with Noble Gold and get a free 10-ounce Silver Flag Bar plus a Silver American Eagle Proof Coin—visit https://NobleGoldInvestments.com/3ML
First, as Democrats demand the extension of Obamacare premium subsidies, Andy and Greg explain how they were supposedly a "temporary" provision during the pandemic and should be scrapped. But Andy points out that the subsidies were another step in the Dems' tireless push for government-run health care, so rooting them out will be very difficult.
Next, they react to reports that a convicted Chinese fraudster owns land adjacent to the Missouri Air Force base that's home to the B-2 Stealth Bombers that that targeted Iranian nuclear sites in June. Andy explains how there is some tension in law when it comes to stopping our top foreign adversary from getting so close to our most sensitive sites, but there's something far more important than the courts or Congress when it comes to stopping the Chinese from doing this.
Finally, they shed zero tears for Sen. Chuck Schumer as the increasingly left-wing base revolts over how Senate Democrats handled the latest shutdown fight and Schumer's feeble attempts to appease the base through this pointless shutdown left him even more of a pariah in his own party. And as awful as Schumer has been, it's almost certain the next Senate Democratic leader will be even worse.
Please visit our great sponsors:
OneSkin uses the patented OS-01 Peptide™ designed to keep skin healthier, stronger, and more resilient over time. Get 15% off OneSkin with the code 3ML at https://www.OneSkin.co/3ML
Try the Oracle Cloud Infrastructure for free with zero commitment by visiting https://Oracle.com/Martini today!
Open a new qualified IRA or cash account with Noble Gold and get a free 10-ounce Silver Flag Bar plus a Silver American Eagle Proof Coin—visit https://NobleGoldInvestments.com/3ML
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Welcome to the Three Martini Lunch. Grab a stool next
to Greg Corumbus of Radio America and Jim Garrity of
National Review. Free martinis coming up.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
So glad you're with us for the Tuesday edition of
the Three mare ten Lunch. Jim Garrity is away today,
he should be back tomorrow. Here in his place is
Andy McCarthy. He's a former Chief Assistant US Attorney for
the Southern District of New York. He's a Fox News
contributor contributing editor at National Review, where he writes frequently
on all sorts of legal issues. And Andy, first of all,
(00:34):
welcome back. Great to have you. I joked yesterday that
Jim was celebrating the jets second consecutive win. I'm guessing
that you're all worn out from celebrating that and ready
for a push to a ten and seven season.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Well, I'm not as rapid as Jim is because I've
I'm older than he is, so the Jets have worn
me down more than they've warned Jim down.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
But I was going to ask you, like, if the
Jets beat.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
New England on Thursday, which I really don't see happening,
but how many days this trip get to take off, then.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
That is a fair question.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
That is a fair question, yes, but we're not talking
about that in Urmain, Martiniz. Today we'll be talking a
little bit about the ongoing concern about Chinese nationals, most
of them, if not all of them with connections to
the CCP, gobbling up land in this country, and some
of it is dangerously and nervously close to sensitive US
military installations. We'll be talking about that. We'll be talking
(01:30):
about what to do now, assuming the House comes through
here and gets the government back open officially, what to
do about those Obamacare subsidies, those emergency subsidies during COVID,
on top of the previous subsidies, should those actually continue,
what should happen to those things?
Speaker 1 (01:45):
And then we'll.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
Also talk about the fate of Chuck Schumer, who was
pretty much roundly hated by the left for not having
a shutdown several months ago. Now he's roundly hated for
allowing the shutdown to and the way it is this time,
SOS will be flowing mightily for Chuck Schumer. Later in
this podcast, Andy.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
Yeah, I don't know why bad things happen to good people.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Put well, anyway, we will find out, but first let's
talk about some legitimately good news. Because when it comes
to trying to set up for a stable retirement, you
want to diversify that portfolio. And when you're looking to
create a stable financial future, check out Noble Gold Investments,
and in particular, gold iras let you hold real assets and
(02:28):
a tax deferred or tax free retirement account. Nobl Gold
the number one ranked gold IRA company four years in
a row with more than two and a half billion
dollars in precious mental transactions. But here's what I really
like about Noble Gold. I've talked with prospective sponsors for
the three Martini Lunch before, and they've got like their
thirty second elevator pitch, and they're rattling all their facts
(02:49):
at you, whether it's in this market or anything else.
Wasn't that why talking to the guys at Noble Gold,
they're very calm, they're very knowledgeable about what they do.
They're not trying to rush you into anything, and they
just want to help people get where they need to
go financially. And so they've got a US based team
available twelve hours a day, Monday through Friday and Saturdays
(03:10):
offering personalized and consistent service. They're easy to reach, and
their pricing is clear and up front, no hidden fees,
no tricky fine print. They know the markets, they know
the metals, they know the strategies and explain them in
a way that's easy to understand. You're not going to
get hype in gimmicks with these folks, just honest, fact
based insights and clear options. And so take advantage of
this limited offer. Open a new qualified IRA or cash
(03:33):
account with Noble Gold and get a free ten ounce
silver flag bar plus a silver American Egle proof coin.
Visit noblegold Investments dot com slash three mL. That's Noble
Gold Investments dot com Slash.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
Three m L.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
All right, Eddie, as we just said, the next big
debate to come at least in the Senate. We don't
know if it'll even happen in the House, but it's
been missed in the Senate by John Thune to get
these eight Democrats on board and the government shutdown. They're
going to talk about potential extension of these Obamacare subsidies
which the Democrats passed unilaterally during the Biden era. I
(04:14):
think they did it a couple different times. Once in
the stimulus bills, supposedly right in the beginning, which led
to the inflation crisis, and then in the Inflation Reduction Act,
which had nothing to do with in reducing inflation. A
lot of environmental stuff in that one. But in both
of those cases they temporarily extended these emergency COVID subsidies
(04:34):
for those on the Obamacare exchange plans, and so now
that they're set to expire again, they want to blame
Republicans for the fact that they're expiring. Also out there
is the fact that these were implemented during COVID and
were meant to be temporary because they're already gargantuan government
subsidies helping to pay for these plans, and the actual
(04:55):
patient doesn't have to pay that much right now. But
of course if they go away, they would go up
by several hundred dollars in most cases. And so yesterday
this was being discussed on the Fox News channel, where
Andy is a contributor. Britt Hume, longtime anchor of Special
Report in Washington institutions, certainly saying, you know what, I
understand that that costs are going to go up here,
but do we lose the meaning of the word temporary
(05:16):
in this tent.
Speaker 4 (05:17):
If we cannot as a nation decide not to continue
a subsidy that was imposed or was enacted during a
national health emergency and was designed to be temporary, and
then all the Democrats voted to have be temporary. If
we can't let that expire, what hope do we ever
have of getting government spending under control?
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Well, we don't because neither party is serious about it
in the first place. But Andy, the other thing is
here is that a lot of temporary things have become
pretty darn permanent in this town. And so I'm sure
the fight will get ugly. Maybe there'll be a phasing
out over a couple of years if Republicans actually get
their way here, or it'll just go in perpetuity. What
do you expect and what do you think on this one?
Speaker 3 (06:00):
I can't remember, Greg, if it was Milton Friedman or
Ronald Reagan who first made the quip about the closest
thing to eternal life that we have on earth is
a temporary government program. And I just think that if
you're talking about a temporary program, which is in the
nature of an entitlement, there's a couple of things that
(06:21):
we have to remember when that happens. One is that
Washington knows that once you give a benefit and you
have any length of time going on where people get
used to having the benefit as a practical matter, that
becomes politically, if not impossible, nearly impossible to push back on.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
And you know, the second.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
Thing is whether they want to brand something as temporary
or emergency or crisis, which rom Emmanuel told us that
is a terrible thing to waste and should never be wasted.
I feel like with healthcare subsidies the same thing I
feel like with the comprehensive immigration reform, which is to say,
(07:07):
when you're dealing with one side that idiologically believes something
that is basic to them is not popular in the
country but is something that they want to work toward
and impose, you have to factor that into every single
battle over that area. And when you're dealing with Democrats
(07:28):
on healthcare, they want single payer healthcare. They want a
government run system with all the rationing that that would entail,
where health insurance and health coverage is quote unquote free.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
But you can't you know what'll happen.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
Obviously if it ever got imposed, it would be like
the British system prohibitively expensive, terribly inefficient, with like enormous
way times very little ingenuity in terms of like the
development of new treatments and new drugs, which because we
(08:08):
still have a partially free medical kr system, we still
do have that kind of that kind of benefit. We're
kind of we lead the world in that sense, and
yet we continue to implement policies that cut back on
those incentives. So I think, you know the problem with
(08:29):
whether you call this temporary or not, you're dealing with
people who want to take opportunities to build the building
blocks of the unilateral government system. And you mentioned the
two pieces of legislation where there was the was it
(08:49):
the National Recovery Act that was in connection with COVID
That was twenty twenty one that invented these and also
pushed them through through twenty twenty two. And of course
you're right, the Inflation Reduction Act took it to the end.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
Of this year.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
That was a you know, legislation, I think at the
end of twenty twenty two, but it extended them from
twenty twenty three through through.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
Now.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
They sold this politically as a temporary measure, whether it
was for the recovery of the country or somehow related
to reducing inflation. But idiologically, what they want is unilateral
government run healthcare, and these were building blocks toward that.
So I don't think you could take them seriously when
(09:35):
they say temporary, in part because it's an ideological project,
and also in part because everybody knows that if you
enact an entitlement, it's not temporary, even if you sell
it that way to get it passed.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Now, that's exactly right, And of course what the Democrats
won't say. All they'll say is we got to get
this done. We got to get this done, we got
to spend this money. The hidden message here that's not
so hidden when you're looking at it from our perspective,
is well, why is it so expensive? Why is Obamacare
so unaffordable when it was the Affordable Care Act? And
part of it is because they wouldn't let young people
stay on these fairly simple plans that were less than
(10:07):
one hundred bucks a month, or it's just you know,
if you get in a bad accident or you get
a cancer diagnosis, but for the most part, you know
you're gambling that when you're in your twenties, you're going
to be okay for the next few years, and you
can change that healthcare plan when you want. And you
had options on just how many bells and whistles your
plan had. Well, Obamacare changed all that, so then every
plan has got to have everything, and so they get
(10:28):
super expensive. And then they got fewer people in the
exchanges than they expected, and well, guess what happens then,
And so they're stuck in this pickle that we said
what happened fifteen years ago, and now they want us
to bail them out. And if it's going to happen,
it's not going to happen for very long. I think
this needs to be phased out, but I'm not sure
Republicans have the stomach for it.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
But look what happens when they lacked the stomach for it.
So the two pieces of legislation we're talking about, I
believe when the ball got rolling on this latest round,
before the temporary measure, there were about eleven million people
in the exchanges. Is now twenty four million. There's a
(11:06):
Kaiser Foundation study that says if you factor in the
Obamacare Medicaid extensions the states that have bought onto that,
the number goes.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
The number of at least.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
Partially subsidized plans goes to forty four million. And the
problem I think we have greg is we're going to
have this argument again and everybody knows who looks at
this in.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Any careful way.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
I mean, the Democrats are just going to say, this
is a human right, we have to pay for it,
so math goes out the window.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
But for those of us who like you, live in.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
The real world where you have to pay for stuff,
the problem with this, as Brita You points out, is
that it's not sustainable over time, which is why the
people who are now seeing what their projected premiums are
going to be without these substses are in a state
of sticker shock, you know, because some of these programs,
(12:05):
some of these policies are going up, you know, fifty
seventy five percent.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
It's just ridiculous.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
And we're talking about twenty four million Americans as out
of three hundred and thirty million, and yet what we're
talking about are costs that are not sustainable even for
the subset of what we're talking about. So obviously this
can't work. The math of this can't work. But it
kind of reminds you of the debt doesn't it. I mean,
(12:31):
the national debt math doesn't work either, but somebody has
to do something about it. And the problem with healthcare
for Republicans has been from the start, something always beats nothing,
and the Democrats have a terrible plan, but it's a plan,
and I think from the Republican side, many of the
(12:51):
people who thought seriously about this issue are no longer
in Congress, and since Trump to go of the party,
the Republicans have the same disease the Democrats have in
terms of amnesia about mathematics. So, you know, we don't
have to think about entitlements, we don't have to think
about what anything costs. You know, we impose tariffs and
(13:15):
what they really do is it. You know, China pays
US trillions of dollars and was supposed to believe all
this nonsense. But in the meantime there is real math.
And in terms of real math, none of this is sustainable,
which is a nice thing to know. But you have
to have a plan to do something about it.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
All right, Well, let's talk about oracle Because in business
they say you can have better, cheaper or faster, but
you only get to pick two.
Speaker 1 (13:42):
But what if you could have all three.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
At the same time. Well, that's exactly what business is like.
Cohere and Thomson Reuters and specialized bikes have since they
upgraded to the next generation of the cloud, which is
called Oracle Cloud Infrastructure. How is it faster? OCI's block
storage gives you more operations per second? How is it cheaper?
OCI costs up to fifty percent less for compute, seventy
(14:04):
percent less for storage, and eighty percent less for networking.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
How is it better?
Speaker 2 (14:08):
Test after test, OCI customers report lower latency and higher
bandwidth versus other clouds. This is the cloud build for
AI and all your biggest workloads. So right now, with
zero commitment, try OCI for free. Head to Oracle dot
com slash Martini. That's Oracle dot com slash Martini. To
try OCI for free, Oracle dot com slash Martini. Okay, Andy,
(14:34):
onto our bad Martini now. And we've seen state efforts
to curtail the ability of Chinese nationals to buy property
in the United States, particularly close to military installations. I
know Florida has done and I'm pretty sure some other
reddor states have done that. But there's also been some
national concern about this. The latest story in this area
(14:54):
comes from The Daily Caller, which yesterday reports that the
top secret June twenty twenty five Beat Too bomber strike
on Iran's nuclear facilities was launched from Whiteman Air Force Base,
which shares a fence with a foreign owned trailer park
link to a convicted fraudster with Chinese Communist Party intelligence ties.
The knob Noster Trailer Park in rural Missouri is located
(15:15):
less than a mile from the runway of the world's
only nuclear capable stealth bomber. Business filings and social media
posts reveal the RV park is one of several properties
near the US military interests acquired by a web of
shell companies which are ultimately owned by a couple who
live in Canada and belong to organizations controlled by disgraced
Chinese tycoon and self described former CCP intelligence affiliate Miles Glow,
(15:40):
according to a profile in twenty twenty two from The
New Yorker, and so kind of web of shell companies
makes this complicated andy because somebody could look like they're legitimate,
not connected to Chinese Communist Party entities as they're buying
this property. So you got to untangle the not while
you do this. But whether it's state level FED, what
(16:01):
options are there legally to make sure that are probably
greatest foreign adversary isn't in a position to be right
there next to some of our most sensitive military sites.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
Well, we have important legal principles that collide with each
other a bit here. Two things that come to mind instantly,
greg are when you're dealing with aliens who are not
Let's put lawful permanent resident aliens aside, because for some
purposes in law, they're considered to be American persons even
(16:33):
though they're not citizens. But by and large, when you're
dealing with foreign elements, foreign people, and especially foreign regimes,
they don't have constitutional rights under American law, and therefore
the government has a lot more latitude in dealing with them.
(16:54):
And because it's within the realm of national security and
foreign policy where the institutional competence of the political branches
is much is much deeper than the courts, which are
the non political branch. I mean generally speaking with respect
to national security. The way our government is designed, you
(17:18):
want the decisions that are made about national security to
be made by the people. The representatives who are politically
answerable to the people whose lives are at stake, So
when you're dealing with the courts, they don't have that
kind of institutional connection to the voters because they're intentionally
made the apolitical branch. And they also don't have institutional competence.
(17:42):
When I say that, I'm not saying the courts are incompetent.
What I'm saying is that every branch of government has
its own set of things over which we design the
government so that they have the most influenced So the
courts have the most influence in terms of saying what
the law is, but they have almost no responsibility with
respect to national security or foreign relations. And for that reason,
(18:04):
the courts are pretty stand offish when it comes to
the regulation of foreign powers, including foreign powers who hold
assets in the United States. So the political branches the
government get a lot of latitude.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
So there's that.
Speaker 3 (18:19):
Then there's what we call vertical separation of powers. We
often talk about horizontal separation of powers, the division of
authority between the three branches of the federal government, but
we also have vertical separation of powers between the national
government and the states. And the interesting thing here is
in a lot of states Florida, which you mentioned, comes
(18:44):
to mind instantly. They are very willing to move on
this idea that China is a threat and we need
to be active in combating it. The problem they have
is foreign relations is essentially a power of the national government,
not the states. And in fact, one of the reasons
(19:04):
that we have a national government is because we don't
want every state making different arrangements with foreign powers. We
want that to be sovereign to sovereign in terms of
the national government. So we have a lot of states
that are willing to do things that I think are
probably good for national security and necessary, but if they
(19:27):
get challenged, they're going to run into the problem of
whether it's appropriate for them to be making these arrangements
or not. And then the final thing I think you
have and we've seen this for example with the TikTok legislation.
You know, the fact that an agent of a foreign
regime owns an asset that operates in the United States
(19:47):
or that is president in the United States doesn't mean
the political branches can't take action and force them to divest.
We could take that property away. Now, obviously, the president
has to have the will and the constitutional commitment to
faithfully execute the law, which we haven't seen with this
president with in connection with TikTok, but the ability of
(20:09):
the government to do it is not to be doubted.
And then we have another process which is known as
Scythius for the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
So if you have assets, including real estate in the
United States that is of national security concern, for example,
(20:29):
because it's adjacent to important military assets and military installations,
the national government has a process where this committee which
is staffed by the Attorney General, the head of the
Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, the Treasury Department,
(20:50):
all the different departments that would have a stake in
the national security arena, and they get to vote on
that stuff.
Speaker 1 (21:00):
And they can either.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
You know, when there's a proposed acquisition, they can step
in and impose conditions without the meeting of which the
foreign entity is not able to obtain the asset. And
they can also encourage the president to just avoid you know,
with the president has a lot of statutory authority. He
may not be able to impose tariffs, we'll see, but
(21:24):
he's got a lot of authority to prohibit transactions involving
foreign actors and foreign regimes, So there's a lot of ability.
I think it would be we'd have to say it's
undoubted legal authority that the federal government has to take
assets away from foreign actors if we're troubled by it,
(21:44):
and to prevent them from acquiring assets in the first place,
and even all of the menagerie of these LLCs and
ways they try to conceal their control of the assets.
You can pierce all that and strip all that away.
But a lot of it has to do with political will,
and I think TikTok is a pretty good example of
(22:05):
a situation where Congress obviously understood the problem and the
threat of China in terms of our national security and
their capacity to collect intelligence. TikTok is an unbelievable intelligence
operation for China.
Speaker 1 (22:24):
That's the reason they fought so hard not to give
it up. I mean, it would have been.
Speaker 3 (22:28):
Very easy to settle that whole thing, except it's very
valuable to China. It's obvious Congress knew what it was.
It's even obvious the Supreme Court knew what it was
by virtue of the fact that they I think emphatically
upheld Congress's ability. There's a unanimous decision up upholding Congress's
ability to enact that statute. But if the President won't
(22:50):
enforce it, your problem is political will it's not the law.
Speaker 2 (22:54):
Well, we'll get onto some lighter fair in a second.
Here we talk about the political fate of Chuck Schumer.
But in the meantime, let's talk about One Skin, great
sponsor here for the three Martini lunch and One Skin
has just launched its limited addition holiday sets, which include
the Nightly Rewind Gift Set, which is one of those
rare gifts that's both impressive and actually useful, providing an
(23:15):
upgrade to anyone's nightly routine, perfect for your wife, your mother,
your sister, featuring their best selling face moisturizer, their new
peptide lip mask, and a cooling guashaw tool. Each component
of the set is designed to work together as your
body enters its natural nightly repair mode, helping renew skin
at the cellular level for a stronger, smoother, and more
(23:37):
resilient skin. I personally like the sunscreen from One Skin
does a good job of not only preventing you from
getting sunburned having those UV rays burn right three, but
it's also does a good job of just taking care
of your skin overall. So at the core is their
patented os one peptide, the first ingredient proven to target
sinessen cells, the root cause of wrinkles, creepiness, and loss
(23:57):
of elasticity, which are all signs of skin A and
these results have now been validated in five different clinical studies.
So for a limited time, try one skin for fifteen
percent off using the code three mL at one skin
dot co slash THREEML. After you purchase, they will ask
you where you heard about him, So please support our
show and tell them the three Martini lunch sent you.
That's code THREEML at one skin dot co slash threeml
(24:21):
for fifteen percent off. All right, Andy, let's talk about
Chuck Schumer here. Chuck Schumer is OZ for two and
trying to handle funding the government this year. Back in March,
Schumer decided that he was going to do the more
responsible thing and not fight the cr and so he
(24:43):
got enough people on board to get to sixty to
cut off debate. The bill passed, and he's been a
pariah in his own party ever since. So this time,
even though it was another clean resolution for spending still
at Biden era levels. Mind, you haven't done anything appropriations
wise that have gotten across the finish line in Congress.
Yet he's gonna be a tough guy. He's learned his lesson.
He's down with the struggle for these young, far more
(25:03):
radical lefties in his own party. Kind of like that
meme on social media with Steve Buscemi with the skateboard
where he's like, how do you do, fellow kids? And
it still didn't work well. He let the crazies run
rough shot here for over a month. And now when
you know, people aren't getting their snap benefits and people
aren't you getting their flights and all this other stuff,
(25:24):
people are feeling the pain. And it's obvious even though
he didn't personally vote for it, that he allowed others
to do that. And so they got to sixty passed
the Senate. Assuming it gets through the House, we'll be
back in business for at least a couple of months.
But Chuck Schumer is now even more of a Parhina's
own party because they claim that he didn't get anything
for it, other than a promise from John Thune that
(25:45):
there would be a vote on those extending of the
Obamacare subsidies. But Seth Maulton, congressman from Massachusetts who now
running for Senate to the left of Ed Marky somehow
says this is proof that we need new leadership. Rashida
Talib says that Schumer has failed to meet this moment,
is out of touch with the American people. Rokana has
said the same, and odd and on it goes. Plenty
(26:07):
of people on social media political pundits say he got rolled,
which he kind of did. They had to fold because
they had a terribly weak hand that they never should
have played in the first place. But Andy, Chuck Schumer's
been around forever. He's been in Congress since I think
the nineteen eighty election. He was in state and local
politics before that. He's always gotten his paycheck from the taxpayers,
and he's kind of been a frustrating and sometimes revolting
(26:29):
figure for us on the right. So to watch him
twist in the wind like this is fun in some ways,
but it also shows just how far left the momentum
is in the Democratic Party these days.
Speaker 3 (26:39):
Yeah, that's exactly right. I mean two things. Intention can
be absolutely correct. Schumer can be a loathsome hack and
at the same time, you could have sympathy for him
because there were no good options here. I'm kind of
reminded this comes up a lot, and I was on
the wrong What history remembers, I don't necessarily remember it
(27:02):
this way, but what history remembers as the wrong side
of the big Republicans shut down debate during the Obama
years where Ted Kruz basically shut the government down over Obamacare,
which is interesting to me because we just shut the
government down, the longest one in history over Obamacare, right,
But now it's the other side doing it. But why
(27:23):
is the other side doing it? Well, it happens that
I believe, and I still believe. I believed at the
time was not popular even at my own magazine to
take this position, But I believe that Cruise was right.
And I'm not saying that shutting down the government is
ever a win proposition for the Historically we could see
(27:44):
it's not. But you know, there's some hills that I
think are worth dying on. And what Cruse's position was
back at the time was, if we don't stop this now,
this is the point at which the tentacles of Obamacare
start to spread through the system. And if it's not
stop now, we'll never be able to roll it back,
(28:04):
and sure enough, we're never able to roll it back.
Speaker 1 (28:06):
He was right.
Speaker 3 (28:08):
Doesn't mean that the shutdown strategy had a prayer of working,
because you have to be committed to it, and they
weren't enough people who were committed to it. But the
position they took at the time was, or the people
who pushed the shutdown at the time, was that the
only way we have to stop this policy, which is
not a popular policy in the country, is to say
(28:31):
we're willing to shut down the government over it until
you'll come back and compromise, which the Democrats were not
ever going to do, even though at the time Obama
Care was very unpopular, and they managed to eke out
the legislation through all kinds of shenanigans that they pulled
to get it over the finish line, and then the
(28:51):
Supreme Court pulled the rugout from under. I guess Chief
Justice Roberts did by switching sides kind of right before
the decision was made. But the thing is, you could
say that somebody is right about a policy preference, but
that the shutdown is always a loser strategy. And I
think for Schumer here his problem is the shutdown was
(29:15):
a bad strategy when he was against it a few
months ago because there was no upside for the Democrats
to do it. And here we are, like flash forward
to this shutdown. The fact that the base has this
fervor for fighting Trump and at least appearing to fight
Trump and showing the kind of opposition that they expected
(29:37):
Schumer to show, does it logically make it any better
a strategy. Putting logic to the side, The problem for
Schumer is that I think his strategy the first time
around was better because even though the Left went after him,
it was over quick, you know, because there was no
long shutdown, whereas if you're going to shut the government
(29:58):
down for forty days, every day that you do it
is more an investment in what you ultimately hope to.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
Achieve by the shutdown.
Speaker 3 (30:09):
So the longer this went on, the more what was
at stake became more visible and spotlighted for people, so
that at the end of the day, when you you know,
at the end of the shutdown, where we now appear
to be, if he hasn't achieved it, or after you know,
however many weeks it is of having the shutdown. It
(30:32):
looks like more of a failure, when in fact it's
really not.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
More of a failure.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
It's just like you're spotlighting more your own ineffectiveness. He's
the head of the party in the Senate, that is,
in the minority. They don't control the House, they don't
control the Senate, they don't control the White House. There's
nothing they can do in a meaningful way to advance
the left's agenda right now. And the base nevertheless wants results,
(31:04):
and he's not in a position to deliver them, and
all the tough talk and all the chest beating doesn't
change that bottom line reality. So he tried it both ways.
And I think you know his problem aside from the
fact that he's he is Chuck Schumer, so he doesn't
have the charisma of you know, Trump seems to manage,
(31:26):
at least with his base, to be very popular with
the bass no matter what he does and how the
rest of the country feels about it. Schumer's problem is
he's got no charisma and he's not that kind of
a popular figure. So he can ride the tide when
things are going good, but when things are going bad,
(31:47):
he doesn't have that sort of reserve of charm and
charisma that keeps the base attached to you in the
bad times. So I think he may be one of
these figures that history has just passed him by because
the Democratic Party moved and he wasn't. He's not in
a position really to move along with it, because it's
(32:11):
always been the case in New York that to be
viable statewide you had to be not an insane Democrat,
And now all of a sudden, maybe the progressive moment
has come. I'll end my soliloquy with this. I was
in Palm Beach last week for the William F. Buckley festivities,
(32:33):
where I saw Jim and we got a We gave
the Buckley Award to Governor DeSantis, who made a speech
and can never stop.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
Uh, he can't resist. And I don't blame him for this.
Speaker 3 (32:46):
Noting that we have like really good candidates in New York,
in New Jersey like Jack Chitarelli and Lee Zelden the
last time, and maybe they'll be at least stephonic this time.
But they're candidates to a good can and they should win,
except for the Republican votes they need to win or
down in Florida voting for DeSantis, you know, and that's
(33:08):
that's a problem for Schumer. Well, it's obviously a problem
for Republicans. But now we're going to find out if
the progressives have you know, it's obviously they've taken over
New York City, and they've taken over the big cities.
Have they taken over the whole state? Do you have
to be a progressive.
Speaker 1 (33:25):
Now to win statewide? In New York?
Speaker 3 (33:28):
Letitia James campaigned in was it twenty eighteen that elect me?
And I will use the power of my office against Trump.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
She won two to one. She won in a landslide.
Speaker 2 (33:40):
Yeah, it's amazing Selden got as close as he did, honestly,
even against a very poor candidate who I think is
probably the worst politician in the country, regardless of ideology,
in Kathy Hokele. And so, you know, it's interesting. I
assume Schumer, even if he lasts the rest of this Congress,
which is not necessarily guaranteed, he probably won't be the
majority leader after that. And I won't be priced if
(34:00):
he doesn't run in twenty twenty eight when his seat
is up. But I've said this to Jim before. It's
kind of like the Arab spring of the Democratic Party.
You don't mind seeing Nancy Pelosi go, you don't mind
seeing Chuck Schumer go. He's like, oh, thank you. After
all these decades, I'm so glad they're gone. And then
you see what replaces that, and you're.
Speaker 1 (34:16):
Just like, no, this is worse. It's right. In the end.
Speaker 3 (34:20):
You in the end, you end up with Shariah, you know,
happy democracy to you.
Speaker 2 (34:27):
Unbelievable. Well on that festive note, Andy, Uh, great to
be with you. As always, We'll talk to you, so
thank you.
Speaker 1 (34:33):
Greg. Great to be here.
Speaker 2 (34:35):
Andy McCarthy former Chief Assistant US Attorney for the Southern
District of New York.
Speaker 1 (34:39):
He is also a Fox News contributor.
Speaker 2 (34:41):
Contributed editor at National Review. Check out he's spenny books,
including Ball of Collusion. I'm Greg Corumbus of Radio America
and as we exit today, a huge thank you to
all of our veterans, all who have worn the uniform
of the United States military and their families who have
supported that service, and that the support is sometimes not
very easy given all the time spent away from home.
(35:02):
We thank those who have served our country, defended our country,
put their lives on the line for our country. As
I've mentioned many times on this podcast, I have the
honor of doing veteran oral histories, and the service and
the sacrifice that so many of our American brothers and
sisters have performed over the many decades is absolutely awe
(35:22):
inspiring and humbling. We thank you, thank you, thank you
for your service. As we exit, we also, of course
want to encourage you to subscribe to the Three Martini
Lunch Podcast. Tell your friends about us as well. Thank
you also for your five star ratings and your kind reviews.
Please keep those coming. Get us on your home devices.
All you have to say is play Three Martini Lunch Podcast.
Follow all of us on X Andy is at Andrew C. McCarthy,
(35:46):
Jim is at, Jim Garritty, I'm at Greg Corumbas. Have
a terrific Tuesday. Join us again Wednesday for the next
Three Martini Lunch
Welcome to the Three Martini Lunch. Grab a stool next
to Greg Corumbus of Radio America and Jim Garrity of
National Review. Free martinis coming up.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
So glad you're with us for the Tuesday edition of
the Three mare ten Lunch. Jim Garrity is away today,
he should be back tomorrow. Here in his place is
Andy McCarthy. He's a former Chief Assistant US Attorney for
the Southern District of New York. He's a Fox News
contributor contributing editor at National Review, where he writes frequently
on all sorts of legal issues. And Andy, first of all,
(00:34):
welcome back. Great to have you. I joked yesterday that
Jim was celebrating the jets second consecutive win. I'm guessing
that you're all worn out from celebrating that and ready
for a push to a ten and seven season.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Well, I'm not as rapid as Jim is because I've
I'm older than he is, so the Jets have worn
me down more than they've warned Jim down.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
But I was going to ask you, like, if the
Jets beat.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
New England on Thursday, which I really don't see happening,
but how many days this trip get to take off, then.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
That is a fair question.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
That is a fair question, yes, but we're not talking
about that in Urmain, Martiniz. Today we'll be talking a
little bit about the ongoing concern about Chinese nationals, most
of them, if not all of them with connections to
the CCP, gobbling up land in this country, and some
of it is dangerously and nervously close to sensitive US
military installations. We'll be talking about that. We'll be talking
(01:30):
about what to do now, assuming the House comes through
here and gets the government back open officially, what to
do about those Obamacare subsidies, those emergency subsidies during COVID,
on top of the previous subsidies, should those actually continue,
what should happen to those things?
Speaker 1 (01:45):
And then we'll.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
Also talk about the fate of Chuck Schumer, who was
pretty much roundly hated by the left for not having
a shutdown several months ago. Now he's roundly hated for
allowing the shutdown to and the way it is this time,
SOS will be flowing mightily for Chuck Schumer. Later in
this podcast, Andy.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
Yeah, I don't know why bad things happen to good people.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Put well, anyway, we will find out, but first let's
talk about some legitimately good news. Because when it comes
to trying to set up for a stable retirement, you
want to diversify that portfolio. And when you're looking to
create a stable financial future, check out Noble Gold Investments,
and in particular, gold iras let you hold real assets and
(02:28):
a tax deferred or tax free retirement account. Nobl Gold
the number one ranked gold IRA company four years in
a row with more than two and a half billion
dollars in precious mental transactions. But here's what I really
like about Noble Gold. I've talked with prospective sponsors for
the three Martini Lunch before, and they've got like their
thirty second elevator pitch, and they're rattling all their facts
(02:49):
at you, whether it's in this market or anything else.
Wasn't that why talking to the guys at Noble Gold,
they're very calm, they're very knowledgeable about what they do.
They're not trying to rush you into anything, and they
just want to help people get where they need to
go financially. And so they've got a US based team
available twelve hours a day, Monday through Friday and Saturdays
(03:10):
offering personalized and consistent service. They're easy to reach, and
their pricing is clear and up front, no hidden fees,
no tricky fine print. They know the markets, they know
the metals, they know the strategies and explain them in
a way that's easy to understand. You're not going to
get hype in gimmicks with these folks, just honest, fact
based insights and clear options. And so take advantage of
this limited offer. Open a new qualified IRA or cash
(03:33):
account with Noble Gold and get a free ten ounce
silver flag bar plus a silver American Egle proof coin.
Visit noblegold Investments dot com slash three mL. That's Noble
Gold Investments dot com Slash.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
Three m L.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
All right, Eddie, as we just said, the next big
debate to come at least in the Senate. We don't
know if it'll even happen in the House, but it's
been missed in the Senate by John Thune to get
these eight Democrats on board and the government shutdown. They're
going to talk about potential extension of these Obamacare subsidies
which the Democrats passed unilaterally during the Biden era. I
(04:14):
think they did it a couple different times. Once in
the stimulus bills, supposedly right in the beginning, which led
to the inflation crisis, and then in the Inflation Reduction Act,
which had nothing to do with in reducing inflation. A
lot of environmental stuff in that one. But in both
of those cases they temporarily extended these emergency COVID subsidies
(04:34):
for those on the Obamacare exchange plans, and so now
that they're set to expire again, they want to blame
Republicans for the fact that they're expiring. Also out there
is the fact that these were implemented during COVID and
were meant to be temporary because they're already gargantuan government
subsidies helping to pay for these plans, and the actual
(04:55):
patient doesn't have to pay that much right now. But
of course if they go away, they would go up
by several hundred dollars in most cases. And so yesterday
this was being discussed on the Fox News channel, where
Andy is a contributor. Britt Hume, longtime anchor of Special
Report in Washington institutions, certainly saying, you know what, I
understand that that costs are going to go up here,
but do we lose the meaning of the word temporary
(05:16):
in this tent.
Speaker 4 (05:17):
If we cannot as a nation decide not to continue
a subsidy that was imposed or was enacted during a
national health emergency and was designed to be temporary, and
then all the Democrats voted to have be temporary. If
we can't let that expire, what hope do we ever
have of getting government spending under control?
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Well, we don't because neither party is serious about it
in the first place. But Andy, the other thing is
here is that a lot of temporary things have become
pretty darn permanent in this town. And so I'm sure
the fight will get ugly. Maybe there'll be a phasing
out over a couple of years if Republicans actually get
their way here, or it'll just go in perpetuity. What
do you expect and what do you think on this one?
Speaker 3 (06:00):
I can't remember, Greg, if it was Milton Friedman or
Ronald Reagan who first made the quip about the closest
thing to eternal life that we have on earth is
a temporary government program. And I just think that if
you're talking about a temporary program, which is in the
nature of an entitlement, there's a couple of things that
(06:21):
we have to remember when that happens. One is that
Washington knows that once you give a benefit and you
have any length of time going on where people get
used to having the benefit as a practical matter, that
becomes politically, if not impossible, nearly impossible to push back on.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
And you know, the second.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
Thing is whether they want to brand something as temporary
or emergency or crisis, which rom Emmanuel told us that
is a terrible thing to waste and should never be wasted.
I feel like with healthcare subsidies the same thing I
feel like with the comprehensive immigration reform, which is to say,
(07:07):
when you're dealing with one side that idiologically believes something
that is basic to them is not popular in the
country but is something that they want to work toward
and impose, you have to factor that into every single
battle over that area. And when you're dealing with Democrats
(07:28):
on healthcare, they want single payer healthcare. They want a
government run system with all the rationing that that would entail,
where health insurance and health coverage is quote unquote free.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
But you can't you know what'll happen.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
Obviously if it ever got imposed, it would be like
the British system prohibitively expensive, terribly inefficient, with like enormous
way times very little ingenuity in terms of like the
development of new treatments and new drugs, which because we
(08:08):
still have a partially free medical kr system, we still
do have that kind of that kind of benefit. We're
kind of we lead the world in that sense, and
yet we continue to implement policies that cut back on
those incentives. So I think, you know the problem with
(08:29):
whether you call this temporary or not, you're dealing with
people who want to take opportunities to build the building
blocks of the unilateral government system. And you mentioned the
two pieces of legislation where there was the was it
(08:49):
the National Recovery Act that was in connection with COVID
That was twenty twenty one that invented these and also
pushed them through through twenty twenty two. And of course
you're right, the Inflation Reduction Act took it to the end.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
Of this year.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
That was a you know, legislation, I think at the
end of twenty twenty two, but it extended them from
twenty twenty three through through.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
Now.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
They sold this politically as a temporary measure, whether it
was for the recovery of the country or somehow related
to reducing inflation. But idiologically, what they want is unilateral
government run healthcare, and these were building blocks toward that.
So I don't think you could take them seriously when
(09:35):
they say temporary, in part because it's an ideological project,
and also in part because everybody knows that if you
enact an entitlement, it's not temporary, even if you sell
it that way to get it passed.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Now, that's exactly right, And of course what the Democrats
won't say. All they'll say is we got to get
this done. We got to get this done, we got
to spend this money. The hidden message here that's not
so hidden when you're looking at it from our perspective,
is well, why is it so expensive? Why is Obamacare
so unaffordable when it was the Affordable Care Act? And
part of it is because they wouldn't let young people
stay on these fairly simple plans that were less than
(10:07):
one hundred bucks a month, or it's just you know,
if you get in a bad accident or you get
a cancer diagnosis, but for the most part, you know
you're gambling that when you're in your twenties, you're going
to be okay for the next few years, and you
can change that healthcare plan when you want. And you
had options on just how many bells and whistles your
plan had. Well, Obamacare changed all that, so then every
plan has got to have everything, and so they get
(10:28):
super expensive. And then they got fewer people in the
exchanges than they expected, and well, guess what happens then,
And so they're stuck in this pickle that we said
what happened fifteen years ago, and now they want us
to bail them out. And if it's going to happen,
it's not going to happen for very long. I think
this needs to be phased out, but I'm not sure
Republicans have the stomach for it.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
But look what happens when they lacked the stomach for it.
So the two pieces of legislation we're talking about, I
believe when the ball got rolling on this latest round,
before the temporary measure, there were about eleven million people
in the exchanges. Is now twenty four million. There's a
(11:06):
Kaiser Foundation study that says if you factor in the
Obamacare Medicaid extensions the states that have bought onto that,
the number goes.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
The number of at least.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
Partially subsidized plans goes to forty four million. And the
problem I think we have greg is we're going to
have this argument again and everybody knows who looks at
this in.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Any careful way.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
I mean, the Democrats are just going to say, this
is a human right, we have to pay for it,
so math goes out the window.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
But for those of us who like you, live in.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
The real world where you have to pay for stuff,
the problem with this, as Brita You points out, is
that it's not sustainable over time, which is why the
people who are now seeing what their projected premiums are
going to be without these substses are in a state
of sticker shock, you know, because some of these programs,
(12:05):
some of these policies are going up, you know, fifty
seventy five percent.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
It's just ridiculous.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
And we're talking about twenty four million Americans as out
of three hundred and thirty million, and yet what we're
talking about are costs that are not sustainable even for
the subset of what we're talking about. So obviously this
can't work. The math of this can't work. But it
kind of reminds you of the debt doesn't it. I mean,
(12:31):
the national debt math doesn't work either, but somebody has
to do something about it. And the problem with healthcare
for Republicans has been from the start, something always beats nothing,
and the Democrats have a terrible plan, but it's a plan,
and I think from the Republican side, many of the
(12:51):
people who thought seriously about this issue are no longer
in Congress, and since Trump to go of the party,
the Republicans have the same disease the Democrats have in
terms of amnesia about mathematics. So, you know, we don't
have to think about entitlements, we don't have to think
about what anything costs. You know, we impose tariffs and
(13:15):
what they really do is it. You know, China pays
US trillions of dollars and was supposed to believe all
this nonsense. But in the meantime there is real math.
And in terms of real math, none of this is sustainable,
which is a nice thing to know. But you have
to have a plan to do something about it.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
All right, Well, let's talk about oracle Because in business
they say you can have better, cheaper or faster, but
you only get to pick two.
Speaker 1 (13:42):
But what if you could have all three.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
At the same time. Well, that's exactly what business is like.
Cohere and Thomson Reuters and specialized bikes have since they
upgraded to the next generation of the cloud, which is
called Oracle Cloud Infrastructure. How is it faster? OCI's block
storage gives you more operations per second? How is it cheaper?
OCI costs up to fifty percent less for compute, seventy
(14:04):
percent less for storage, and eighty percent less for networking.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
How is it better?
Speaker 2 (14:08):
Test after test, OCI customers report lower latency and higher
bandwidth versus other clouds. This is the cloud build for
AI and all your biggest workloads. So right now, with
zero commitment, try OCI for free. Head to Oracle dot
com slash Martini. That's Oracle dot com slash Martini. To
try OCI for free, Oracle dot com slash Martini. Okay, Andy,
(14:34):
onto our bad Martini now. And we've seen state efforts
to curtail the ability of Chinese nationals to buy property
in the United States, particularly close to military installations. I
know Florida has done and I'm pretty sure some other
reddor states have done that. But there's also been some
national concern about this. The latest story in this area
(14:54):
comes from The Daily Caller, which yesterday reports that the
top secret June twenty twenty five Beat Too bomber strike
on Iran's nuclear facilities was launched from Whiteman Air Force Base,
which shares a fence with a foreign owned trailer park
link to a convicted fraudster with Chinese Communist Party intelligence ties.
The knob Noster Trailer Park in rural Missouri is located
(15:15):
less than a mile from the runway of the world's
only nuclear capable stealth bomber. Business filings and social media
posts reveal the RV park is one of several properties
near the US military interests acquired by a web of
shell companies which are ultimately owned by a couple who
live in Canada and belong to organizations controlled by disgraced
Chinese tycoon and self described former CCP intelligence affiliate Miles Glow,
(15:40):
according to a profile in twenty twenty two from The
New Yorker, and so kind of web of shell companies
makes this complicated andy because somebody could look like they're legitimate,
not connected to Chinese Communist Party entities as they're buying
this property. So you got to untangle the not while
you do this. But whether it's state level FED, what
(16:01):
options are there legally to make sure that are probably
greatest foreign adversary isn't in a position to be right
there next to some of our most sensitive military sites.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
Well, we have important legal principles that collide with each
other a bit here. Two things that come to mind instantly,
greg are when you're dealing with aliens who are not
Let's put lawful permanent resident aliens aside, because for some
purposes in law, they're considered to be American persons even
(16:33):
though they're not citizens. But by and large, when you're
dealing with foreign elements, foreign people, and especially foreign regimes,
they don't have constitutional rights under American law, and therefore
the government has a lot more latitude in dealing with them.
(16:54):
And because it's within the realm of national security and
foreign policy where the institutional competence of the political branches
is much is much deeper than the courts, which are
the non political branch. I mean generally speaking with respect
to national security. The way our government is designed, you
(17:18):
want the decisions that are made about national security to
be made by the people. The representatives who are politically
answerable to the people whose lives are at stake, So
when you're dealing with the courts, they don't have that
kind of institutional connection to the voters because they're intentionally
made the apolitical branch. And they also don't have institutional competence.
(17:42):
When I say that, I'm not saying the courts are incompetent.
What I'm saying is that every branch of government has
its own set of things over which we design the
government so that they have the most influenced So the
courts have the most influence in terms of saying what
the law is, but they have almost no responsibility with
respect to national security or foreign relations. And for that reason,
(18:04):
the courts are pretty stand offish when it comes to
the regulation of foreign powers, including foreign powers who hold
assets in the United States. So the political branches the
government get a lot of latitude.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
So there's that.
Speaker 3 (18:19):
Then there's what we call vertical separation of powers. We
often talk about horizontal separation of powers, the division of
authority between the three branches of the federal government, but
we also have vertical separation of powers between the national
government and the states. And the interesting thing here is
in a lot of states Florida, which you mentioned, comes
(18:44):
to mind instantly. They are very willing to move on
this idea that China is a threat and we need
to be active in combating it. The problem they have
is foreign relations is essentially a power of the national government,
not the states. And in fact, one of the reasons
(19:04):
that we have a national government is because we don't
want every state making different arrangements with foreign powers. We
want that to be sovereign to sovereign in terms of
the national government. So we have a lot of states
that are willing to do things that I think are
probably good for national security and necessary, but if they
(19:27):
get challenged, they're going to run into the problem of
whether it's appropriate for them to be making these arrangements
or not. And then the final thing I think you
have and we've seen this for example with the TikTok legislation.
You know, the fact that an agent of a foreign
regime owns an asset that operates in the United States
(19:47):
or that is president in the United States doesn't mean
the political branches can't take action and force them to divest.
We could take that property away. Now, obviously, the president
has to have the will and the constitutional commitment to
faithfully execute the law, which we haven't seen with this
president with in connection with TikTok, but the ability of
(20:09):
the government to do it is not to be doubted.
And then we have another process which is known as
Scythius for the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
So if you have assets, including real estate in the
United States that is of national security concern, for example,
(20:29):
because it's adjacent to important military assets and military installations,
the national government has a process where this committee which
is staffed by the Attorney General, the head of the
Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, the Treasury Department,
(20:50):
all the different departments that would have a stake in
the national security arena, and they get to vote on
that stuff.
Speaker 1 (21:00):
And they can either.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
You know, when there's a proposed acquisition, they can step
in and impose conditions without the meeting of which the
foreign entity is not able to obtain the asset. And
they can also encourage the president to just avoid you know,
with the president has a lot of statutory authority. He
may not be able to impose tariffs, we'll see, but
(21:24):
he's got a lot of authority to prohibit transactions involving
foreign actors and foreign regimes, So there's a lot of ability.
I think it would be we'd have to say it's
undoubted legal authority that the federal government has to take
assets away from foreign actors if we're troubled by it,
(21:44):
and to prevent them from acquiring assets in the first place,
and even all of the menagerie of these LLCs and
ways they try to conceal their control of the assets.
You can pierce all that and strip all that away.
But a lot of it has to do with political will,
and I think TikTok is a pretty good example of
(22:05):
a situation where Congress obviously understood the problem and the
threat of China in terms of our national security and
their capacity to collect intelligence. TikTok is an unbelievable intelligence
operation for China.
Speaker 1 (22:24):
That's the reason they fought so hard not to give
it up. I mean, it would have been.
Speaker 3 (22:28):
Very easy to settle that whole thing, except it's very
valuable to China. It's obvious Congress knew what it was.
It's even obvious the Supreme Court knew what it was
by virtue of the fact that they I think emphatically
upheld Congress's ability. There's a unanimous decision up upholding Congress's
ability to enact that statute. But if the President won't
(22:50):
enforce it, your problem is political will it's not the law.
Speaker 2 (22:54):
Well, we'll get onto some lighter fair in a second.
Here we talk about the political fate of Chuck Schumer.
But in the meantime, let's talk about One Skin, great
sponsor here for the three Martini lunch and One Skin
has just launched its limited addition holiday sets, which include
the Nightly Rewind Gift Set, which is one of those
rare gifts that's both impressive and actually useful, providing an
(23:15):
upgrade to anyone's nightly routine, perfect for your wife, your mother,
your sister, featuring their best selling face moisturizer, their new
peptide lip mask, and a cooling guashaw tool. Each component
of the set is designed to work together as your
body enters its natural nightly repair mode, helping renew skin
at the cellular level for a stronger, smoother, and more
(23:37):
resilient skin. I personally like the sunscreen from One Skin
does a good job of not only preventing you from
getting sunburned having those UV rays burn right three, but
it's also does a good job of just taking care
of your skin overall. So at the core is their
patented os one peptide, the first ingredient proven to target
sinessen cells, the root cause of wrinkles, creepiness, and loss
(23:57):
of elasticity, which are all signs of skin A and
these results have now been validated in five different clinical studies.
So for a limited time, try one skin for fifteen
percent off using the code three mL at one skin
dot co slash THREEML. After you purchase, they will ask
you where you heard about him, So please support our
show and tell them the three Martini lunch sent you.
That's code THREEML at one skin dot co slash threeml
(24:21):
for fifteen percent off. All right, Andy, let's talk about
Chuck Schumer here. Chuck Schumer is OZ for two and
trying to handle funding the government this year. Back in March,
Schumer decided that he was going to do the more
responsible thing and not fight the cr and so he
(24:43):
got enough people on board to get to sixty to
cut off debate. The bill passed, and he's been a
pariah in his own party ever since. So this time,
even though it was another clean resolution for spending still
at Biden era levels. Mind, you haven't done anything appropriations
wise that have gotten across the finish line in Congress.
Yet he's gonna be a tough guy. He's learned his lesson.
He's down with the struggle for these young, far more
(25:03):
radical lefties in his own party. Kind of like that
meme on social media with Steve Buscemi with the skateboard
where he's like, how do you do, fellow kids? And
it still didn't work well. He let the crazies run
rough shot here for over a month. And now when
you know, people aren't getting their snap benefits and people
aren't you getting their flights and all this other stuff,
(25:24):
people are feeling the pain. And it's obvious even though
he didn't personally vote for it, that he allowed others
to do that. And so they got to sixty passed
the Senate. Assuming it gets through the House, we'll be
back in business for at least a couple of months.
But Chuck Schumer is now even more of a Parhina's
own party because they claim that he didn't get anything
for it, other than a promise from John Thune that
(25:45):
there would be a vote on those extending of the
Obamacare subsidies. But Seth Maulton, congressman from Massachusetts who now
running for Senate to the left of Ed Marky somehow
says this is proof that we need new leadership. Rashida
Talib says that Schumer has failed to meet this moment,
is out of touch with the American people. Rokana has
said the same, and odd and on it goes. Plenty
(26:07):
of people on social media political pundits say he got rolled,
which he kind of did. They had to fold because
they had a terribly weak hand that they never should
have played in the first place. But Andy, Chuck Schumer's
been around forever. He's been in Congress since I think
the nineteen eighty election. He was in state and local
politics before that. He's always gotten his paycheck from the taxpayers,
and he's kind of been a frustrating and sometimes revolting
(26:29):
figure for us on the right. So to watch him
twist in the wind like this is fun in some ways,
but it also shows just how far left the momentum
is in the Democratic Party these days.
Speaker 3 (26:39):
Yeah, that's exactly right. I mean two things. Intention can
be absolutely correct. Schumer can be a loathsome hack and
at the same time, you could have sympathy for him
because there were no good options here. I'm kind of
reminded this comes up a lot, and I was on
the wrong What history remembers, I don't necessarily remember it
(27:02):
this way, but what history remembers as the wrong side
of the big Republicans shut down debate during the Obama
years where Ted Kruz basically shut the government down over Obamacare,
which is interesting to me because we just shut the
government down, the longest one in history over Obamacare, right,
But now it's the other side doing it. But why
(27:23):
is the other side doing it? Well, it happens that
I believe, and I still believe. I believed at the
time was not popular even at my own magazine to
take this position, But I believe that Cruise was right.
And I'm not saying that shutting down the government is
ever a win proposition for the Historically we could see
(27:44):
it's not. But you know, there's some hills that I
think are worth dying on. And what Cruse's position was
back at the time was, if we don't stop this now,
this is the point at which the tentacles of Obamacare
start to spread through the system. And if it's not
stop now, we'll never be able to roll it back,
(28:04):
and sure enough, we're never able to roll it back.
Speaker 1 (28:06):
He was right.
Speaker 3 (28:08):
Doesn't mean that the shutdown strategy had a prayer of working,
because you have to be committed to it, and they
weren't enough people who were committed to it. But the
position they took at the time was, or the people
who pushed the shutdown at the time, was that the
only way we have to stop this policy, which is
not a popular policy in the country, is to say
(28:31):
we're willing to shut down the government over it until
you'll come back and compromise, which the Democrats were not
ever going to do, even though at the time Obama
Care was very unpopular, and they managed to eke out
the legislation through all kinds of shenanigans that they pulled
to get it over the finish line, and then the
(28:51):
Supreme Court pulled the rugout from under. I guess Chief
Justice Roberts did by switching sides kind of right before
the decision was made. But the thing is, you could
say that somebody is right about a policy preference, but
that the shutdown is always a loser strategy. And I
think for Schumer here his problem is the shutdown was
(29:15):
a bad strategy when he was against it a few
months ago because there was no upside for the Democrats
to do it. And here we are, like flash forward
to this shutdown. The fact that the base has this
fervor for fighting Trump and at least appearing to fight
Trump and showing the kind of opposition that they expected
(29:37):
Schumer to show, does it logically make it any better
a strategy. Putting logic to the side, The problem for
Schumer is that I think his strategy the first time
around was better because even though the Left went after him,
it was over quick, you know, because there was no
long shutdown, whereas if you're going to shut the government
(29:58):
down for forty days, every day that you do it
is more an investment in what you ultimately hope to.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
Achieve by the shutdown.
Speaker 3 (30:09):
So the longer this went on, the more what was
at stake became more visible and spotlighted for people, so
that at the end of the day, when you you know,
at the end of the shutdown, where we now appear
to be, if he hasn't achieved it, or after you know,
however many weeks it is of having the shutdown. It
(30:32):
looks like more of a failure, when in fact it's
really not.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
More of a failure.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
It's just like you're spotlighting more your own ineffectiveness. He's
the head of the party in the Senate, that is,
in the minority. They don't control the House, they don't
control the Senate, they don't control the White House. There's
nothing they can do in a meaningful way to advance
the left's agenda right now. And the base nevertheless wants results,
(31:04):
and he's not in a position to deliver them, and
all the tough talk and all the chest beating doesn't
change that bottom line reality. So he tried it both ways.
And I think you know his problem aside from the
fact that he's he is Chuck Schumer, so he doesn't
have the charisma of you know, Trump seems to manage,
(31:26):
at least with his base, to be very popular with
the bass no matter what he does and how the
rest of the country feels about it. Schumer's problem is
he's got no charisma and he's not that kind of
a popular figure. So he can ride the tide when
things are going good, but when things are going bad,
(31:47):
he doesn't have that sort of reserve of charm and
charisma that keeps the base attached to you in the
bad times. So I think he may be one of
these figures that history has just passed him by because
the Democratic Party moved and he wasn't. He's not in
a position really to move along with it, because it's
(32:11):
always been the case in New York that to be
viable statewide you had to be not an insane Democrat,
And now all of a sudden, maybe the progressive moment
has come. I'll end my soliloquy with this. I was
in Palm Beach last week for the William F. Buckley festivities,
(32:33):
where I saw Jim and we got a We gave
the Buckley Award to Governor DeSantis, who made a speech
and can never stop.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
Uh, he can't resist. And I don't blame him for this.
Speaker 3 (32:46):
Noting that we have like really good candidates in New York,
in New Jersey like Jack Chitarelli and Lee Zelden the
last time, and maybe they'll be at least stephonic this time.
But they're candidates to a good can and they should win,
except for the Republican votes they need to win or
down in Florida voting for DeSantis, you know, and that's
(33:08):
that's a problem for Schumer. Well, it's obviously a problem
for Republicans. But now we're going to find out if
the progressives have you know, it's obviously they've taken over
New York City, and they've taken over the big cities.
Have they taken over the whole state? Do you have
to be a progressive.
Speaker 1 (33:25):
Now to win statewide? In New York?
Speaker 3 (33:28):
Letitia James campaigned in was it twenty eighteen that elect me?
And I will use the power of my office against Trump.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
She won two to one. She won in a landslide.
Speaker 2 (33:40):
Yeah, it's amazing Selden got as close as he did, honestly,
even against a very poor candidate who I think is
probably the worst politician in the country, regardless of ideology,
in Kathy Hokele. And so, you know, it's interesting. I
assume Schumer, even if he lasts the rest of this Congress,
which is not necessarily guaranteed, he probably won't be the
majority leader after that. And I won't be priced if
(34:00):
he doesn't run in twenty twenty eight when his seat
is up. But I've said this to Jim before. It's
kind of like the Arab spring of the Democratic Party.
You don't mind seeing Nancy Pelosi go, you don't mind
seeing Chuck Schumer go. He's like, oh, thank you. After
all these decades, I'm so glad they're gone. And then
you see what replaces that, and you're.
Speaker 1 (34:16):
Just like, no, this is worse. It's right. In the end.
Speaker 3 (34:20):
You in the end, you end up with Shariah, you know,
happy democracy to you.
Speaker 2 (34:27):
Unbelievable. Well on that festive note, Andy, Uh, great to
be with you. As always, We'll talk to you, so
thank you.
Speaker 1 (34:33):
Greg. Great to be here.
Speaker 2 (34:35):
Andy McCarthy former Chief Assistant US Attorney for the Southern
District of New York.
Speaker 1 (34:39):
He is also a Fox News contributor.
Speaker 2 (34:41):
Contributed editor at National Review. Check out he's spenny books,
including Ball of Collusion. I'm Greg Corumbus of Radio America
and as we exit today, a huge thank you to
all of our veterans, all who have worn the uniform
of the United States military and their families who have
supported that service, and that the support is sometimes not
very easy given all the time spent away from home.
(35:02):
We thank those who have served our country, defended our country,
put their lives on the line for our country. As
I've mentioned many times on this podcast, I have the
honor of doing veteran oral histories, and the service and
the sacrifice that so many of our American brothers and
sisters have performed over the many decades is absolutely awe
(35:22):
inspiring and humbling. We thank you, thank you, thank you
for your service. As we exit, we also, of course
want to encourage you to subscribe to the Three Martini
Lunch Podcast. Tell your friends about us as well. Thank
you also for your five star ratings and your kind reviews.
Please keep those coming. Get us on your home devices.
All you have to say is play Three Martini Lunch Podcast.
Follow all of us on X Andy is at Andrew C. McCarthy,
(35:46):
Jim is at, Jim Garritty, I'm at Greg Corumbas. Have
a terrific Tuesday. Join us again Wednesday for the next
Three Martini Lunch
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.