CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN FORUM

Is Santorum A Threat To Romney In Florida?

2012-01-15T18:43:00.000-05:00

This ad started running in South Florida today.

If Rick Santorum is no threat then why is Restore Our Future PAC, a pro-Romney PAC, running this attack ad against him? It costs a pretty penny to run television ads (especially during NFL playoff games) in Florida. They must feel Santorum poses some threat in terms of dissatisfied conservative-Republican voters if they're going to this expense.

Early voting for the Florida GOP Primary opens on Saturday, January 21st.

GOP “McCained” (Redux)

2012-01-07T12:45:00.002-05:00

John McCain gave the '08
election away to Barack Obama.
Now he wants to tell us who to
nominate to defeat Obama?

In the 2008 primaries Republican voters allowed the liberal, “mainstream media” and establishment, moderate, inside The Beltway “Republicans” to choose our nominee.

The result was a fatally flawed GOP presidential candidate, who generated only the merest modicum of enthusiasm for his candidacy with the grassroots when he selected a little-known, plainspoken Alaska governor by the name of Sarah Palin to be his running mate.

The base of the Republican Party was "McCained".

McCain was the media’s GOP darling during the primaries of the 2008 cycle. They helped to resurrect his struggling campaign several times, which should have been a red flag to Republicans.

After he won the nomination John McCain infuriated conservatives and GOP activists when he didn't challenge then Senator Obama on his associations (Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers anyone?), his voting record (is “present” really a vote?) and his public policy statements (“energy prices will necessarily skyrocket”).

If that wasn’t bad enough, McCain then proceeded to temporarily “suspend” his campaign so he could return to Washington, DC to participate in creating what would become known as TARP along with President Bush and Senator Barack Obama.

Candidate McCain even botched the handling of his vice presidential selection. He failed to unleash Governor Palin and he also failed to defend her with passion from media attacks or to reign in or fire his staff when they spoke ill of Palin.

After the devastating losses of 2008 – led by the inept McCain campaign -- GOP and conservative activists resolved to learn from the experience and never again allow the media and Washington insiders to choose our nominees. The early signs were good that the grassroots were taking back the nomination process.

For instance, when then Republican Governor Charlie Crist (FL) announced that he was running for the US Senate seat vacated by Mel Martinez and temporarily filled by George LeMieux, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) immediately endorsed him. This was extremely problematic since there were other more conservative GOP candidates vying for the nomination who had all entered the race earlier than Crist.

The Republican Party of Florida’s then-Chairman Jim Greer (a Crist appointee and confidante) even tried to invoke RNC “Rule 11” which would have allowed the Party to support Governor Crist in the primary. This move was blocked by State Committeewoman and RNC Treasurer Sharon Day (who is now the RNC Vice-Chair).

In particular, the former-Speaker of the Florida House, Marco Rubio, was very popular with many grassroots Florida Republicans and they wanted to choose their nominee via the primary process.

The result of all these establishment shenanigans was a grassroots revolt. The polls began to turn against Crist. The NRSC was forced to withdraw its support of Charlie Crist, after he broke a pledge and decided to run as an independent, when it became clear that Rubio would win the nomination.

There are other examples of grassroots candidates beating out establishment, “moderates” in primaries. Candidates like Sharon Angle, Christine O’Donnell and Rand Paul all defeated “RINOs” with grassroots/Tea Party support, though only Paul was successful in his general election campaign.

Fast forward to today’s GOP presidential primary field and we find Mitt Romney as the “presumed front-runner” with around 25% of GOP support nationally. Romney only enjoys the support of a quarter of the Republican base after running for president for more than 5 years. So why is he the presumed front-runner? And why are “conservatives” defending the record of a man that is in his own words “a progressive-Republican”?

"Romney is a taller, less heroric, younger John McCain,
with better hair and business experience".

Worse still for the conservative base of the Republican Party is the fact that arguably the best candidates to uphold conservative principles and defeat Barack Obama in the general election are now out of the race. Both Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann would arguably have been the best standard bearers as truly conservative-Republican candidates.

Unfortunately both Cain and Bachmann put themselves out of the running. Though they certainly had help from the liberal media, the demise of both of their campaigns was largely due to self-inflicted wounds and unforced errors on the part of both the candidates and their national campaign staff.

So we come back to our “presumed nominee” in the person of Mitt Romney. He is the former governor of one of the bluest states in the union, “Taxachussetts”. He is a northeast “moderate” Republican (who called himself a “progressive-Republican”) who created the template for Obamacare with his healthcare reform in Massachusetts.

He has changed positions on major issues -- like abortion and gay marriage -- that are important to social conservatives. In addition Romney supported TARP and says he believes in man-made climate change.

Romney has been endorsed by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (who doesn’t believe Sharia Law is a danger to the US and has scolded conservatives who disagree), he's also got the thumbs up from Meghan McCain (the useful idiot that thinks she represents young Republicans on MSNBC) and of course now by Senator John McCain himself – who tells crowd on the campaign trail what a great candidate Romney would be (as if he’d know a good candidate). To put it simply, Romney is a taller, less heroic, younger John McCain, with better hair and business experience.

Thank you to The Right Scoop for catching this gem.

The GOP may take back the White House with Mitt Romney as its nominee (depending on his VP choice). But a Romney candidacy is unlikely to generate enough enthusiasm from the base to make it a resounding victory.

If Governor Romney were going to generate broad and enthusiastic support within the Republican Party for himself and his candidacy -- he would have done it by now -- after more than 5 years of running for president. But as it stands Romney is stuck at around 25% support. Or to put it in starker terms: 75% of the Republican Party would prefer someone other than Mitt Romney as their nominee.

Apparently all the lessons of the 2008 elections have been forgotten (or ignored). The remaining crop of Republican candidates leaves conservatives with a few unpleasant choices:

“Settle” for the most “electable” candidate – who just happens to be the next in line – the “progressive-Republican”, Mitt Romney.
Select a candidate like Rick Santorum who is a former-senator that lost his reelection bid in 2008, endorsed Arlen Spector and is as willing to legislate his far-right social agenda as Pelosi is to legislate her far-left social agenda.
Opt for Newt Gingrich who sat on a couch, bought and paid for by Al Gore, with Nancy Pelosi to support “Climate Change” legislation and is a Washington insider with ties to Freddie Mac.
Choose Ron Paul who is a libertarian, not a Republican (much less a conservative), is anti-Israel and who is to the left of Obama on foreign policy.

Without a strong candidate and running mate at the top of the ticket -- and a decisive popular vote victory -- there will be no coat tails down-ticket to ensure that the GOP increases its numbers in the House of Representatives and retakes the Senate with the filibuster-proof majority that will be required to repeal Obamacare and reverse all the damage done by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Looking at the surviving Republican candidates does not inspire confidence or enthusiasm that any of them can defeat Barack Obama (at least not resoundingly). The GOP will more than likely go into the general election led by a “moderate” and the conservative base of the Republican Party will have been “McCained” again. In fact, we already have been.

2012-01-06T20:10:00.002-05:00

Tomorrow evening Conservative Republican Forum kicks off its 2012 season with a returning guest and friend of the show.

Former CIA operative and president of Diligence LLC, Mike Baker joins host Steven Rosenblum and cohost Daria DiGiovanni to talk about a variety of intelligence and national defense topics, including but not limited to: The so-called "peace negotiations" between the US and the Taliban, the succession of power in North Korea, Iranian nukes, missiles & blockade threats and the "Arab Winter" in Egypt.

Listeners are welcome to call 347-637-1121 with comments and questions.

Conservative Republican Forum airs Saturday evenings on BlogTalkRadio from 6:00-7:30pm ET.

The show is also rebroadcast on the Red State Talk Radio and USA Talk Radio networks.

2012 Could Be a Train Wreck

2011-12-06T13:36:00.001-05:00

Is the Cain Train just the first derailment of 2012?

The meteoric rise and catastrophic derailment of Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain should be a cautionary tale for all grassroots conservative/Republican activists and for the leadership at the NRCC, NRSC and RNC.

Herman Cain’s ascent in the polls and popularity with “tea party” activists came about due to the candidate’s approachability, his straight-talking style and his common sense approach to solving the problems that confront our nation.

His embrace of his outsider status and his quick-witted answer when his political inexperience was brought up as an issue also won Cain scores of supporters.

When asked about his lack of elected experience he would simply remind people that we’ve been sending people to Washington, DC who have political experience and then simply ask, “How’s that working for you? How about sending a problem solver to the White House?”

Unfortunately some of the very things that made Herman Cain such an attractive candidate to many, also led to his ultimate demise.

Cain talked a lot about “making sure we are working on the right problem” and“surrounding yourself with the right people”. On both counts his campaign, and therefore he, failed miserably.

Herman Cain’s biggest problem, other than his inexcusable lack of understanding of foreign policy and national defense issues, as well as, his apparent inability to learn – despite allegedly discussing the topics with distinguished experts like KT McFarland and John Bolton – was his senior national campaign staff.

Cain’s national campaign chairman, Mark Block, has his own FEC scandal smoldering in the background. He is a man that was barred from involvement in elected politics for 3 years and he obviously lacked the knowledge and experience to deal with the firestorm of controversy and allegations that inundated their operation after the first Politico article was published.

JD Gordon, Cain’s communications director/foreign policy advisor, was completely incompetent in dealing with the Politico story despite having 10 days advanced notice that it was coming. He infamously called Geraldo Rivera’s cell phone while Rivera was on the air and gave an amateurish interview that was heard through Geraldo’s lapel microphone.

Additionally, each time candidate Cain made yet another unforced error – whether it was not knowing the Taliban isn’t in Libya, his tortured answer about negotiating with Al-Qaeda to get a captured soldier back:

Or not being able to clearly articulate his own position on abortion:

– Gordon inevitably came out with a statement that tried to explain each gaffe away by blaming a lack of sleep, the media and/or the public for being unable to understand Cain’s answers.

You can read JD Gordon’s biography here. I’ve read it several times and based on the bio, his performance and my personal interaction with him, I’ve come to two conclusions: 1) Based on his resume Gordon should have done a much better job at both damage control and interacting with the media. 2) He lacks the expertise to call himself a “foreign policy advisor”.

For a couple of weeks I implored Herman Cain on Twitter, on my radio show and anywhere else I could to fire Mark Block and JD Gordon and get his campaign back on track and back on message. Unfortunately he did not heed my advice and the emergence of a woman accusing the candidate of engaging in a 13-year extra-marital affair became the preverbal last straw.

The “Cain Train” was the best vehicle for the GOP to reach the White House in 2012. With the train derailed some activists find themselves taking another look at Newt Gingrich or one of the other remaining candidates. But unfortunately none of them have the combination of qualities that attracted voters to Cain.

Gingrich is the biggest Washington insider of the group, with the possible exception of Ron Paul. Yet he seems, at least for the moment, to be convincing some voters that he is the consistent conservative they’re looking for.

Despite having a firm grasps on the economic, monetary and other domestic policies, Paul’s foreign policy stances make him a non-starter for most GOP primary voters.

Jon Huntsman is a Republican In Name Only and would actually get more traction as a Democratic challenger to Barack Obama.

Rick Santorum’s best arguments for his candidacy are his accomplishments as a US Senator. Not the best position to be in when the electorate is looking for outsiders.

Rick Perry’s accumulated gaffes and flubs have pretty much eliminated him from consideration by many grassroots activists.

It seems only fair to have an obligatory mention of Gary Johnson and Buddy Roemer. Done.

Michele Bachmann surged early, especially in Iowa, then lost some of her luster – and a lot of her traction -- due to unforced errors on the part of both her national campaign staff and herself. She was widely seen as behaving like a “diva” on the campaign trail. One of the chief complaints from people on the ground was that when booked at an event (Lincoln Day dinner, etc.) she would arrive late and leave early – sometimes not even eating at the dinner – annoying event planners.

Bachmann also had a bout of campaign-threatening foot-in-mouth decease where she said things that were factually untrue, and/or absurd, or she would make a great point in a debate only to blow her momentum by taking her argument just a little too far (see Gardasil).

Perhaps her most grievous error though may have been co-opting the Tea Party label and movement for her personal political gain, which makes her look like a “typical politician”.

Founding and chairing the House Tea Party Caucus might have been a great idea, if Bachmann were staying in Congress and continuing to fight for lower taxes, less spending and smaller, more constitutionally centered government. Not so much when she appears to have done it only for political benefit.

So now Republican primary voters have a choice to make and less time to make it than many average voters may realize. The first in the nation caucuses will take place in just over 3 weeks – less considering Christmas and New Years – and the current crop of GOP presidential hopefuls is not generating excitement within the base. It’s down to Romney or “Not Romney” and that’s not going to generate enthusiasm (think John McCain in 2008).

Short term there seems no doubt it’s Newt Gingrich that benefits from derailment of Herman Cain’s campaign and his departure. With or without Cain’s endorsement, and there is some doubt as to whether it’s forthcoming or even desirable, Newt is already seeing a bump in his poll numbers. But Newt has a long and colorful record for the media, his opponents and his former congressional colleagues to revisit and expose. Can the former-Speaker weather the storm that is inevitably coming his way?

What has happened thus far in the current primary season leads to questions about the “inevitability” of a Barack Obama defeat in 2012. But beyond that it also raises questions about the GOP retaking the Senate and increasing its majority in the House.

The coattails of a successful presidential candidate cannot be overstated. Down ticket candidates can be helped or hurt by the enthusiasm and voter turn out generated by a strong top of the ticket candidate.

Looking around at some of the declared candidates for senate and house seats around the nation, there are some excellent candidates and some not so exceptional candidates. Some of the excellent candidates are in tough races. Some of the not so exceptional candidates are in impossible races.

Perhaps more troubling is that in some of the house and senate races there are 11 or more candidates vying for the GOP nomination. These fields are as wide as the Grand Canyon and about as deep as a rain gutter. Quality would be more desirable than quantity in defeating entrenched incumbent Democrats. Even in an anti-incumbent atmosphere incumbency is a powerful tool.

Unless a Republican presidential ticket is chosen that offers a clear alternative to the policies of Barack Obama and generates the passion among the grassroots activists that actually win elections by knocking on doors, making phone calls and getting out the vote, 2012 could be a train wreck.

Israel Will Face Multi-Front War In 6-12 Months

2011-10-30T20:28:00.000-04:00

The Middle East

Fox News Channel’s Senior Military Analyst, retired US Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney, believes that within the next 6-12 months Israel will face a major war on multiple fronts. The war will be instigated by the Iranian regime and carried out by its proxies in Syria, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.

That was a major take away from my comprehensive, 30-minute, interview Friday afternoon CRF Weekdays.

The interview was largely centered around the fallout from the so-called “Arab Spring”, the rise of 3 Shariah compliant Islamist governments in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, as well as the increased belligerence of Iran, the destabilization of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria and the precipitous withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by the end of this year.

All these factors can be tied directly to the naïve and weak handling of foreign policy in the region and the lukewarm “support” the Obama administration has shown for our only democratic ally in the Middle East; Israel.

President Obama in defiance of the warnings of foreign policy experts, has supported questionable groups that have deposed admittedly bad leaders like Hosni Mubarak and Muammar Qaddafi -- without any concern for who or what would replace them. In this respect Obama has repeated the mistakes of President George W. Bush, who had no plan for post combat in Iraq and did not foresee Hamas' rise to power in Gaza when he demanded democratic elections for the Palestinian Authority.

Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, USAF (retired)

General McInerney pointed out to me during our interview that he “didn’t like Qaddafi, but one thing was sure, he wasn’t a radical Islamist”. He went on to observe, “ I think we’re in a very precarious position and it should be very worrisome to all of us, in addition to the green light we’re giving to Iran by pulling out all US military [from Iraq] by 31 December”.

When I asked him whether the outcome of the US withdrawal from Iraq will lead to a military incursion by Iran or a more esoteric and insidious action, the General replied, “I think it will be more subtle than that, but it’s going to be giving them a green light. Already today in Basrah the Kuds Force, which is the Iranian special operations force, that force today has an enclave in Basrah they’re flying the Kuds Force flag. They’re speaking Farsi and anybody that comes in and takes pictures; they hold them up, take their cameras and destroy the film”.

So clearly the Iranians are already flexing their muscle in Iraq and are positioned to do even more once US troops are out of Iraq at the end of the year.

General McInerney sees this as another example of the United States winning a military victory, only to have a diplomatic loss. He even compared it to what happened in Vietnam.

Looking at the implications for Israel, I asked General McInerney about the possibility of the US ally facing a war, supported by Iran, coming from multiple fronts.

The General replied, “Well this is going to be very difficult for them [Israel]. First of all what I think the trigger will be, when Bashir Assad in Syria looks like he’s going to fail, the Iranians will tell Hezbollah in Lebanon and in Syria to launch a major attack with their 50,000 missiles and rockets to attack Israel. They’ll simultaneously have the Syrian ground forces; Hezbollah ground forces in Lebanon and Egypt attack - simultaneously the Israelis”.

He continued, “The question is now; can the Israeli forces survive this attack with their conventional forces? I think they might be able to, but again we come back to Iraq. The Iranians will be able to reinforce that attack coming through Iraq on the ground as Quds Force as covert force members. And so I’m not sure with the forces that the Iranians can put into the region there, that the Israelis will be able to survive”.

“Now the danger is, if they can’t they’re gonna have to use their nuclear weapons, they’ll have to go nuclear. And that’s something we do not want to happen. It’s in the American interest for stability in the country, just as we did in the ’73 war, to reinforce boldly the Israeli Defense Forces so they can survive with conventional weapons. We do not want to force them, for their own survival, to have to pull the nuclear trigger. And that’s very [a] worrisome issue that’s coming up on this”.

But will the Obama Administration, which has not been helpful in the peace process, and which has – either through incompetence or by design – set the stage for this war against Israel, take decisive action to prevent a nuclear conflagration in the Middle East?

McInerney’s response? “Well I don’t know. That’s the great mystery. If he doesn’t defend them, I believe they’ll be forced to use nuclear weapons”.

It’s important to note -- as confirmed by General McInerney -- that before the fall of the Mubarak government the Israelis repositioned at least two of their Dolphin Class submarines to the Persian Gulf via the Suez Canal, putting them within striking distance of Iran. This eliminates the need for them to utilize aircraft to strike at Iranian military installations -- or Tehran -- should they find the need to do so.

On the question of what happens with Jordan and Saudi Arabia in the event of an Iranian instigated war against Israel, General McInerney noted: “Here’s what is starting to bother me – Jordan -- Prince Abdullah is having to pay more attention to the Muslim Brotherhood, which he does not want because clearly radical Islam is a threat to the king. Saudi Arabia, clearly the Saudis are not interested in the Shiah crescent from Iran that is sweeping across the Arabian Peninsula. They have given the Israelis airbases if they attack using air power that they can land and recover on their way back. One of the advantages of us not being in Iraq is that the Iraqis don’t have an air defense system, so the Israelis could over fly Iraq to get into Iran. But the Saudis clearly do not want this Iranian influence the way it is being projected… They are against that. So we could hopefully count on them – in covert ways – to assist the Israelis”.

General McInerney puts the odds of this Iranian instigated war against Israel occurring in the next 6 months to a year at about 75%. He says there is a high probability of this happening and it all hinges on the failure of Bashir al-Assad in Syria. The Iranians cannot afford to let lose the Shiah controlled government of Syria. The collapse of that government will trigger events and instigate hostilities against Israel as a way to rally the support of the Arab street against a common enemy.

Congressman Allen West (R) FL-22

Congressman Allen West (R) FL-22, a retired US Army Lt. Colonel who served in Iraq, agreed with General McInerney's assessment in an interview on Saturday afternoon on Conservative Republican Forum.

Asked if he agreed that what General McInerney was a plausible scenario West replied, "Well of course it's a plausible scenario. If I were Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel right now I'd be very concerned. Because you see what is happening since we deposed Hosni Mubarak, I mean this country asked him to step down, nothing good has happened there. The strongest political force in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood. We know that Hamas controls Gaza.

Now that the United States has said that their going to completely pull out of Iraq -- that was one of the concerns that the Prime Minister [of Israel] had when we met with him at the end of August -- was that there would not be a credible United States military force left there in Iraq to somewhat keep Iran at bay. So now Iran has the opportunity to extend their regional hegemonic dominance. Which means across Iraq, where you already have Muqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army -- very strong -- retrained, rearmed, resourced, refitted thanks to Iran".

He went on to point out though that, "Turkey is allowing the opposition to Bashir al-Assad to be residing there in Turkey and launch their attacks against him back into Syria".

Perhaps the most disturbing comment from Congressman West was when he said, "My biggest concern is I think that the killing fields of Pol Pot -- post the withdrawal from Vietnam -- are going to look like Romper Room compared to what's going to happen in that region of the world".

The Congressman joined General McInerney and I in questioning whether the Obama Administration would stand with Israel in this troubling scenario.

The Obama Administration has displayed incompetence, naivety and weakness in its handling of the so-called “Arab Spring”, increased Iranian belligerence and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. They have emboldened the Mullahs in Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the region, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. In doing so they have left Israel in a precarious position it has not been in since 1973.

The tragedy is it didn’t have to come to this and now it’s too late to undo all the harm that has been done. President Obama has opened a powder keg and any spark could ignite a war that will consume the region -- and possibly have far-reaching implications for the United States and our allies.

Occupy Wall Street: “The Left’s Tea Party”? Not Even Close

2011-10-16T16:52:00.000-04:00

As the Occupy Wall Street protest/slumber party enters its fourth week and spreads to additional cities across the USA, it seems like a good time to examine the OWS phenomenon -- its origin, where it is now and where it’s going.

Occupiers: Anarchists and Marxists

Just as importantly, an examination of the reaction of the media and politicians to these protests is definitely in order, especially as a contrast to their reactions to the Tea Party, the genuine grassroots movement they so desperately want to compare to OWS.

The Occupy Wall Street protest that has been taking place for four weeks in Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan likely began as a truly grassroots, or bottom-up movement. Those who set out to protest the government bailouts of Wall Street corporations and big banks -- something they viewed as unfair when everyday Americans were left to fend for themselves -- had sincere and legitimate grievances.

But as the movement reached its peak and looked likely to be reaching its end, it was usurped by the usual left-wing suspects: major labor unions, Organizing for America, the Democratic National Committee, the Communist Party of America and other far-left, progressive groups. It was only then that the media, especially the left-leaning, so-called "mainstream" media began to not just report on the movement (albeit inaccurately) but cheerlead and romanticize it. This of course in stark contrast to the way they either ignored or maligned the Tea Party.

Interviews with typical OWS protesters reveal that most of them have no idea exactly what they’re protesting against, or asking for. They seem to have more a list of demands -- namely things that the government and taxpayers owe them, than any coherent and unifying list of issues they seek to resolve.

Even when the occupiers can articulate their grievances, they’re a muddled hodgepodge of complaints and accusations. Their proposed solutions range from the anarchists call for an end to all government, to the Marxists demands for an ever-larger and more oppressive one.

And it is this lack of a cohesive message and unifying issue that has led to the demonstrators and their movement being co-opted by the very sort of people they actually should be protesting against. They have become pawns, useful idiots and worst of all… expendable to those that want to collapse capitalism and democracy for their own ends.

As evidence of this fact you can look to AFL-CIO union organizers telling OWS protesters that they need to be prepared to be arrested to get their point across. You can also look to featured speakers denouncing peaceful and lawful protests (and even Gandhi) and calling for French Revolution style violence and a return to the guillotine. Or you could look to liberal media personalities like Rachel Maddow and Bill Maher encouraging OWS protesters, marching uptown to the homes of people like NewsCorp chairman Rupert Murdoch to threaten violence.

Most recently you can check out a video from the progressive propaganda machine that is MSNBC, where Donny Deutch told Morning Joe hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski that what the Occupy Wall Street movement needs is a “Kent State moment”. That sort of irresponsible talk from an analyst on a cable news outlet is akin to putting a match to gasoline.

But it’s also important to listen, not just to the rhetoric, but the way that it’s delivered and received by the organizers and participants in these rallies. The cult-like way that the organizers deliver their messages, known at the “human megaphone”, is disturbing and somewhat absurd. But the hand signals that the participants use to interject in the conversations their collective assemblies engage in is quite revealing and really ridiculous.

In terms of comparisons between the occupiers in the various cities around the country and Tea Party movement, there really are none.

TEA Party Rally

The Tea Party movement was largely ignored or maligned by the bulk of the media. Occupy Wall Street has been embraced by the media who agree with the anti-capitalist sentiments of the squatters in Zuccatti Park and around the nation.

Tea Party groups got permits for their rallies, self-policed their ranks, obeyed police orders to move or disband, paid for their utilities and extra security and left the areas where they rallied cleaner than they found them.

By contrast, the Occupy Wall Street folks have illegally setup tents, defecated in public, refused to follow police instructions, attacked and provoked police, stolen power, used drugs and left the areas they’ve occupied in much worse condition than they found them in. Ironic considering the left is supposed to care so much about being “green” and protecting the environment.

The Tea Party has a clear and concise reason for existing, namely a desire for constitutionally limited government, lower taxes and a return to founding principles. They love their country and proudly fly the American Flag.

Tea Party supporters have a grasp of basic economics and history that leads them to the conclusion that socialism is a failed model that always collapses, but not until after it leads to tyranny and suffering for the people that chose it.

They also realized that in order to achieve their goals they needed to organize beyond protesting and elect constitutional-conservatives to Congress and the White House.

The occupiers want two different remedies to their perceived injustices; depending on which camp they’re from. The Anarchists want there to be no government and to be able to take what they want from those that have more. The Marxists want larger more oppressive government that will take from the wealthy and redistribute it all to them. They don’t want to pay taxes, but they want the “evil” corporations and the rich to pay even more taxes.

In both cases left wing professors who have never held a job outside of academia have indoctrinated them. The protesters don’t understand that if they were to be successful in collapsing our democratic-republic and our capitalist system, they would be no better off economically and be far less free to express their discontent.

Many of them say they hate capitalism and that the United States is as bad as Al-Qaeda. If they have an American Flag it’s either been desecrated, flown upside down or is being worn like a bandana around their face to conceal their identity. They proudly display signs that say “Socialism in NOT a dirty word” and copies of the Communist Manifesto.

In the past two-and-a-half years politicians and the media alike, all without a shred of evidence, have accused the Tea Party of being racists, spitting on black members of Congress and using racial epithets.

The OWS crowd has been caught on video being anti-Semitic, in multiple cities and on multiple occasions. They’ve been caught using hate speech they would excoriate a conservative for using and all these occurrences have been caught on video in only 4 weeks.

Now the Occupiers are taking things to a new level. The Occupy DC marchers were heard chanting “No justice? No peace” and repeated that call in interviews. Isn’t that the chant that Al “Resist We Much” Sharpton – MSNBC’s “elder statesman” – led protesters with immediately before the deadly Crown Heights riots?

On the same day, occupiers in Rome rioted, torching cars and smashing bank windows. Youths wearing hoods clashed with police all over the historic city.

The only real commonality between the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street is that both groups oppose taxpayer funded, government bailouts of banks and big business. But even in this similarity there is a fundamental difference. The Tea Party wants that bailout money to go back to the Treasury to pay down the national debt. The OWS crowd wants that money to be redistributed to them in the form of government entitlements and handouts.

Occupy Wall Street “the left’s Tea Party”? Not even close.

Venom and Intelligence on CRF w/Steve and Daria

2011-10-14T02:46:00.002-04:00

This Saturday, October 15th, on Conservative Republican Forum (CRF) Steve Rosenblum & Daria DiGiovanni are joined by 2 returning guests.

Kurt Schlichter
Half Hour of Venom

First up is civil attorney, US Army veteran & contributor to Andrew Breitbart's "Big" websites and the NY Post, Kurt Schlichter for another installment of the Half Hour of Venom.

Mike Baker
Former CIA Operative

In the back half of the show former CIA operative, FoxNews contributor and President of Diligence LLC, Mike Baker returns to discuss the foiled Iranian attacks on the Saudi & Israeli embassies to the US and the Saudi Ambassador to the US.

Listeners are encouraged to call-in with comments and questions to 347-637-1121.

Adam Hasner Wins CPAC Florida Straw Poll And Addresses The Issues

2011-09-26T23:24:00.000-04:00

On Friday Republican US Senate candidate Adam Hasner won the CPAC straw poll, narrowly defeating Mike McCalister by 4%. Hasner got 34%, McCalister 30%, former-Senator George LeMieux (who was appointed by Governor Charlie Crist) got 24% and the newcomer of the group, Craig Miller received 12% of the votes.

The straw poll followed a day and half of speeches, a debate, lots of one-on-one conversations and handshaking with GOP primary voters and activists at the American Conservative Union's Conservative Political Action Conference and the Republican Party of Florida's Presidency 5 events which took place in Orlando.

On Saturday morning I had the opportunity to ask Hasner, the former-Florida House Majority Leader, a few questions about his candidacy, his record and issues that some grassroots conservatives have expressed reservations about.

The interview covered his straw poll victory, the differences between running for state house versus statewide office, Cap and Trade, climate change, his strong support of Israel, President Obama's handling of the current Israel/Palestinian situation, the United Nations and more.

David Bossie of Citizens United Speaks

2011-09-26T23:18:00.002-04:00

Citizens United- Fire From The Heartland

On Friday, September 23rd I had the opportunity to get an exclusive interview with David Bossie, President and Chairman of the Board of Citizens United who was speaking at the American Conservative Union's first ever "regional" Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Orlando, Florida.

Bossie was also at CPACFL to screen two of Citizens United's movies: Fire From The Heartland: The Awakening Of The Conservative Woman-Starring Rep. Michele Bachmann and Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous With Destiny- Hosted by Newt & Callista Gingrinch.

The Years of Courage

2011-09-19T21:50:00.000-04:00

On Sunday, September 11th – the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks – far left New York Times columnist and blogger Paul Krugman posted a blog on The Opinion Pages titled “The Years of Shame”.

He posted the entry on his blog, ironically called The Conscience of a Liberal, at 8:41 AM as the remembrance and dedication of the 9/11 Memorial were getting started in downtown Manhattan. On a day when even President Obama and President Bush put politics aside, Krugman could not.

He started his entry by asking, “Is it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?” He then, strangely enough, answered his own questions: “Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd.”

I’m not really sure why Krugman asks and answers these questions. Who would expect the commemoration and remembrance of the most deadly terrorist attack on American soil, one that resulted in more than 3,000 deaths, to be anything but “subdued” and solemn?

This is where a strange but innocuous posting takes a turn into the insulting, derisive and shameful. The liberal turd continues his poorly written entry thusly:

“What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?

The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.”

To begin with, what happened after 9/11 was that the American people – for the most part – realized that terrorism by Al Qaeda and other Jihadist groups was not a criminal or law enforcement issue, but an act of war. President George W. Bush to his credit addressed the attacks as such. The fact is that Osama Bin Laden had declared war on the United States in 1993 when he ordered the first attack on the World Trade Center.

It was not “shameful” and at least initially was a unifying event. Did it eventually become a wedge issue? Yes, it did. But why did 9/11 become a wedge issue? For the most part because Democrats wanted to use the creation of the Department of Homeland Security as an excuse to build up the ranks of their union base.

Many Republicans, myself included, questioned whether creating another huge government bureaucracy full of union employees with collective bargaining rights would make us safer.

Democrats in turn accused Republicans of not being strong on terrorism and national security. In the end a compromise was reached and the Department of Homeland Security was created and has unfortunately lived up to GOP expectations.

Now let’s address the “fake heroes” remark. Bernie Kerik and Rudy Giuliani acted with courage and distinction on 9/11, putting themselves in danger, leading New York City’s response to the attacks and keeping both the first responders and the civilian population calm by maintaining their composure throughout the crisis.

George W. Bush likewise both calmed and rallied the American people. At the same time he was among the first to tell all Americans not to lash out at Muslim Americans. Bush, who was in Florida when the attacks began, wanted to return to Washington, DC immediately but heeded the advice of the Secret Service and his senior advisors to stay away since the Pentagon had been attacked and there was no way to know if more attacks were on the way.

As far as using the 9/11 attacks to “justify an unrelated war” goes, perhaps Krugman should check his history. Unlike President Obama who committed US forces to attacking Libya without congressional authorization. President Bush got the authorization of Congress and multiple United Nations resolutions before attacking Saddam Hussein and his forces. The Iraq War authorization was bipartisan, with support from then Senator Clinton and Senator Schumer, just to name a few.

There was no “hijacking of the atrocity” Paul. And the memory of 9/11 has only been “poisoned”, though I hope not “irrevocably” by people like yourself who dishonor the courage of the first responders and ordinary citizens that acted to save lives that day and the members of our military who have and continue to fight to defend us with your false accusations and distortion of history.

Normally I would have ignored the rantings of one far-left New York Times columnist, blogging in his pajamas on a Sunday morning. Unfortunately Krugman chose to publish his post as the 9/11 Memorial was in the process of being dedicated. Krugman also inspired an even more despicable defense of his blog by none other than Keith Olbermann on his low-rated Current TV show.

Ignoring his own pledge to adopt a new tone, which he delivered after the shooting in Tucson, Olbermann took to his “Worst Persons of the Day” segment to defend Krugman and attack former-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Cheney and President Bush for starting a “phony war in Iraq” and using “torture” to get “false information”.

He also accused them of “spying on Americans”, “fostering Islamophobia”, “spreading panic” and “manipulating counter-terror efforts to advance their own political power”. He then went on to say, “Between 2002 and 2009 the leading terrorist groups in the US were the Republican Party and the presidential administration of George W. Bush”.

I don’t really give a damn about the “new tone” since it’s something that liberals invented to try to stifle conservatives. Since the left can’t use facts to win arguments they want to silence their opposition. Good luck with that.

The war in Iraq isn’t phony. As I stated earlier it was authorized, in a bipartisan way, by Congress. The brave men and women of our armed forces, many of whom have been wounded or killed, deserve better than to have their service dishonored by calling the war they’re fighting “phony”.

The waterboarding that the CIA used on 3 high value detainees is not torture. It is in fact used as a training technique on our own special forces to prepare them for possible interrogation. Do we torture our own soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines?

The information we garnered using enhanced interrogation techniques wasn’t “false”. Kalid Sheik Mohamed gave his interrogators information that prevented terror attacks on the US and eventually helped our intelligence forces to find Osama Bin Laden.

There is no evidence that Americans have been spied on, none. "Islamophobia" is word that was made up by CAIR, an unindicted coconspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, to intimidate anyone that might accuse a Muslim of being involved in terrorism and Jihad.

Rather than “spreading panic” President Bush and his administration endeavored to keep the public calm and going about their business, while keeping us safe from terrorism since 9/11.

The accusation that, “Between 2002 and 2009 the leading terrorist groups in the US were the Republican Party and the presidential administration of George W. Bush” is not based in fact and only exposes Olbermann’s blame America first attitude that is so prevalent among the far-left. It also diminishes the danger of actual terrorist groups and ignores the attacks on London, Madrid and Bali, as well as the attack on Fort Hood and the attempts by the "Shoe Bomber", the "Underwear Bomber" and the "Times Square Bomber".

Let me tell Keith Olbermann to take the advice that he so disrespectfully gave to then President Bush: Keith “SHUT THE HELL UP!”

The previous two liberal screeds were followed up by the disgusting, America-hating Michael Moore telling Elisabeth Hasselbeck that we are no longer at war with Al Qaeda and radical Islam and that the United States made a mistake by not giving Osama Bin Laden a trial.

Anyone that doubts the United States remains at war is delusional. Unfortunately when the delusional person gets network airtime to spread his insane lies, he has to be addressed.

The United States is and will remain at war with Al Qaeda and other associated Shariah compliant Islamic groups. They declared war on us. They follow a 7^th Century religious and political ideology that says anyone that is not a follower of Islam is an infidel. Infidels must be converted, subjugated or killed… Period.

Taken individually, none of these America-hating, far-left idiots are significant. But when they all come out with essentially the same message the week of the 10^th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, they must be challenged.

Krugman, Olbermann, Moore and their ilk may think that the years since 9/11 have been “years of shame”. I believe that the 10 years since September 11, 2001 have been years of courage. And unlike Paul Krugman, I won’t block comments on my article.

From Ground Zero to 9/11 Memorial

2011-09-19T20:02:00.000-04:00

This weekend I returned with my family to lower Manhattan, New York City, to the location that Americans have come to know as “Ground Zero”. We went to honor the memory of my brother-in-law Eric M. Sand, who was working for Cantor-Fitzgerald in the North Tower of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and to see his name on the new memorial at the site.

The last time I visited that hallowed ground, it was a 7 story deep hole in the ground, a subterranean graveyard on a scale that no picture or description can adequately convey. In the last 10 years the location has been transformed into something quite different.

While it will always be the place where 2,753 people lost their lives (2,606 in the WTC, 87 on American 11 and 60 on United 175 – excluding the Jihadist hijackers), the 9/11 Memorial and Memorial Museum have changed the location into a place that honors all the victims (including those at the Pentagon, American Airlines Flight 77, United Airlines Flight 93 and even those that lost their lives in the first WTC bombing in 1993) of the September 11th terrorist attacks and gives their families, friends and coworkers a place to mourn, reflect and remember them.

Where there was once desolation there now sits a beautiful and inspiring site full of meaning. The focal points of the 9/11 Memorial are the North and South reflecting pools, which are fed by waterfalls that are meant to resemble falling tears. The pools (which feature the largest manmade waterfalls in North America) sit in the footprints of where the World Trade Center Towers once stood.

The bronze panels edging the two memorial pools have the names of every victim of the September 11, 2001 attacks, as well as, the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

The North Pool includes the names of those that perished in Tower One, Flight 11 and the 1993 bombing. The South Pool includes the names of those that perished in Tower Two, the first responders, Flight 175, the Pentagon, Flight 77 and Flight 93.

The names of the victims are arranged “by affiliation, so that the employees of a company or the crew of flight are together.” The organizers of the 9/11 Memorial took the time and care to accommodate requests from family members to have names of people that knew each other or were affiliated in some other way to have their names adjacent to each other on the memorial.

In addition to the pools there are the swamp white oak trees that have been painstakingly chosen from locations within a 500-mile radius of the World Trade Center, with additional trees being selected from Pennsylvania and Maryland.

The final element of the Memorial site is the Memorial Museum, whose mission “is to bear solemn witness to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and February 26, 1993.”

The Memorial Museum is not yet complete, though its entry pavilion’s glass atrium is now standing. Once complete (probably by September 11, 2012) visitors will pass by the “Two Tridents” – remnants of the World Trade Center’s exterior steel skeleton that remained standing after the collapse – and down a ramp to bedrock.

I look forward to the completion of the museum, which promises to have exhibits that tell the true story of that horrific day without any “politically correct” sugarcoating.

While it is not a part of the 9/11 Memorial itself it is impossible to visit the memorial site without seeing the Freedom Tower, aka Tower One, rising to replace the Twin Towers.

The Freedom Tower is still under construction, but has now risen over 1000 feet to begin dominating the lower Manhattan skyline. Once complete the new tower will soar above the city at a patriotic 1,776 feet to reclaim the title of America’s tallest building.

Since the last time I was there, the transformation from “Ground Zero” -- a site of death, destruction and desolation -- to the 9/11 Memorial is an amazing tribute to the victims of the worst terrorist attack in American history and to American resiliency. It is also a credit to the planners, architects, managers and construction workers that have worked tirelessly to meet tight deadlines and achieve outstanding quality standards.

The location now respects the tragedy of the past while looking with optimism to the future. I for one will no longer refer to the site as Ground Zero. It is now truly the 9/11 Memorial.

Al Sharpton Uses The ‘Sauce’

2011-09-03T16:58:00.001-04:00

On Friday’s edition of Al Sharpton’s Politics Nation on MSNBC, the man MSNBC President Phil Griffin has called an “elder statesman”, addressed the kerfuffle between House Speaker John Boehner and the White House over the scheduling of President Obama’s “much anticipated” jobs speech.

Predictably Sharpton towed the White House line and mangled the English language in the process. Al said that, “The White House is furious with John Boehner and someone on the inside is speaking out,” he continued “according to Politico a White House ‘sauce’ (source?), Boehner crossed the line when he forced President Obama to change the date of his jobs speech.”

That’s an interesting interpretation of the facts. Al failed to acknowledge that since the speech had not yet been scheduled, Boehner hadn’t “forced” the President to “change” anything. He also ignored the fact that a joint session of Congress is something that every President – even Barack Obama -- has to request from the Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House. That’s because the Executive and Legislative branches are equal. There’s no obligation for Congress to grant a joint session, much less accommodate a specific day and time requested.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In addition, even the Politico article Sharpton was cherry picking quotes from acknowledged that:

“The White House was well aware the president’s speech would conflict with a planned Republican debate sponsored by POLITICO and NBC to be held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif. The debate would be broadcast live by MSNBC and live-streamed by POLITICO. CNBC and Telemundo will re-air the broadcast.”

Sharpton went on to characterize John Boehner telling Obama that he could have a joint session on Thursday rather than Wednesday as “a big change in tone.” He began to layout the idea that where once the White House thought the Tea Party Caucus was the “real problem” in Washington, that now “it’s a whole new ball game” and “maybe it is him.”

Yeah, because the tone coming from the President and House Democrats has been completely apolitical, non-partisan and friendly for the past 2½ years. No false accusations of Republican obstruction while the Democrats controlled the White House, Senate and House of Representatives at all. No Democrats falsely condemning Tea Party activists as “racists”, “terrorists”, “hostage takers”, or a host of other derogatory pejoratives.

Once again Al quoted Politico’s White House ‘sauce’ as saying, “what happened this week is a big deal. It shows the House Republicans will do no outreach, nothing.” All this because Boehner asked the President to make a political speech one day later.

Next, Sharpton was joined by the Washington Bureau chief of the Huffington Post, Ryan Grimm, to whom he posed the probing, and completely non-leading question, “Has John Boehner been the problem all along?”

Grimm agreed that Boehner was certainly one of many problems Obama has. But his real gripe seemed to be that the president wasn’t being tough enough with the Speaker. He suggested that if all the White House was going to do is have anonymous quotes given to the press, that Boehner “will keep rolling and rolling and rolling right over him [Obama].

I would argue that rather than “rolling over” the President, John Boehner actually did Obama a huge favor by rejecting his request to speak Wednesday, immediately before the long scheduled Republican Presidential Debate.

Had Boehner allowed Obama to give what is likely to be a highly political speech, containing few details and little of substance in terms of an actual plan to create jobs, that would have allowed the GOP candidates to instantaneously rip the President’s speech apart and attack him for using a joint session of Congress for a political stump speech.

Rather than Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney and the rest of the GOP field directing their barbs at the new frontrunner Rick Perry -- which would be to the benefit of Obama -- the address preceding the debate the would have invited, no demanded, that the candidates dissect his speech.

Grimm – with the banner “Double Speaker: Details on White House Reax to Boehner’s Obstruction” on screen as he spoke – then suggested that, “maybe the best way for Obama to start dealing with Boehner is to ask for the opposite of what he wants.”

So MSNBC says it’s “obstruction” to ask the president, again, to wait one day to give his speech and at the same time they have a liberal columnist telling Al Sharpton and his audience that President Obama should use reverse psychology on the Speaker of the House to circumvent that alleged obstruction.

At this point Sharpton the master linguist (sarcasm mine) laid out what he would have done if he were President (shudder the thought), in a nonsensical diatribe:

“On Thursday night, even though I would have called Boehner’s bluff Wednesday night, let’s play out your scenario. Maybe he goes Thursday night. Lays out a plan. Let Boehner rebuff him and goes to the American public who has shown in every poll that they are more with the President and than what Boehner is saying, and take them to a mat in a way that a lot of people want to see him take him to the mat.”

Okay, where to start. What bluff is that? Boehner said no, he meant no, and there was absolutely nothing Obama could do about it. Does anyone, even Sharpton, believe that Obama is actually going to layout a plan in this speech, as opposed to the previous 9 speeches? Has the American public really shown in “every poll” that they have confidence in the President’s handling of jobs and the economy? And just how is the President going to take Boehner “to the mat”?

Remarkably Grimm seemed to follow Sharpton’s reasoning and agreed, saying that if Obama would have stood up to Boehner it would have been a “debacle” for Boehner, because making the President speak Thursday instead of Wednesday would some how make it appear that House Republicans “don’t want to hear him.”

Sharpton and Grimm continued their incoherent and illogical back and forth, with Sharpton listing some of John Boehner’s supposed slights and failures, some of which he naturally blamed on the Tea Party, and Grimm suggesting that several months ago the House Republican coalition in the House looked like it was fracturing but that Boehner brought it back together by amassing what “is probably one of the most extreme records that a House Speaker has put up in decades.”

Of course Al concurred with Grimm’s assessment, accusing Boehner of “being probably the most extreme speaker we’ve seen in a decade.” Really? John Boehner is more extreme than Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker who infamously said of the Obamacare bill, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”? He’s more extreme than a woman who accused American citizens peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights of being “extremists” and “Astroturf” among other things?

For good measure these two intellectual giants falsely accused Republicans of not wanting to extend the payroll tax cut and of being “irrational”. Of course Republicans are fine with continuing the payroll tax cut. But they also realize that a limited payroll tax “holiday” has no long-term benefits for the economy and does nothing to encourage employers to hire more people.

I’d like to humbly suggest that Al Sharpton and Ryan Grimm lay off the ‘sauce’ and try a sober analysis of Barack Obama’s failed economic policies. They might also want to consider that while the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate, they failed to pass a budget (the Harry Reid led Senate still hasn’t) and the only budget Obama submitted was rejected 97-0 by the Democrat controlled Senate.

Allen West Speaks Out Against Incendiary Rhetoric of CBC Members

2011-09-01T23:42:00.001-04:00

Congressman Allen West (R) FL-22 spoke out forcefully this evening, on The O'Reilly Factor, about the hateful, race baiting rhetoric being used by members of the Congressional Black Caucus. He also repudiated many of the policies that have been inflicted upon black-Americans historically.

In particular Congressman West rejected the incendiary comments of Maxine Waters (D-CA) who said, "The Tea Party can go straight to hell. And I'm going to help them get there." And Andre Carson (D-IN) who said, "Some of these folks in Congress right now would love to see us as second-class citizens. Some of them in Congress right now with this Tea Party movement would love to see you and me ... hanging on a tree."

In addition, West also spoke out against specific policies that he says have destroyed the black family. Failed policies that have led to 17% unemployment and high incarceration rates in the black community.

Gary Johnson Makes Media Mistake That Matters

2011-08-31T15:34:00.000-04:00

As if former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson needed anything else to make him look less viable as a Republican presidential candidate, there’s this.

In an official campaign email press release the Gary Johnson 2012 campaign sourced their candidate’s interview with Neil Cavuto on Fox Business Network from the Media Matters for America website.

He also has the video posted on his official campaign website’s The Truth for a Change Blog.

I guess Johnson and his team aren’t aware that MMfA’s only purpose for existing is the elimination of Fox News and Fox Business. This ought to really raise his standing with Republican primary voters.

Politico Isn’t Asking If Rick Perry Is Dumb

2011-08-31T15:25:00.000-04:00

In his August 29, 2011 Politico article titled ‘Is Rick Perry Dumb’ Jonathan Martin says, “Rick Perry is confronting an unavoidable question: Is he dumb – or just “misunderestimated”?” But after reading the article you can only come to the conclusion that the longest serving Governor in the history of Texas is a street smart and skilled politician whose opponents underestimate him at his or her own peril.

No, Martin isn’t asking “ Is Rick Perry Dumb?” What he’s really asking is, are the voters of Texas dumb. And by extension he is also asking are conservatives and Republicans dumb. After all, Texas is a red state that gave us 2-term President George W. Bush, who most of the liberal elite considers to be less than bright – despite the fact he graduated from Yale.

Governor Perry, now in his 3rd term, is not an Ivy League graduate he attended Texas A&M. He’s exactly the sort of no nonsense, retail politician that can grasp the issues that he needs to understand to win elections and govern effectively.

Perry is also not the kind of Republican that elitist liberals like. He’s not a “deep thinker” and he’s not an academic or an “intellectual”. Like the old saying goes, “Those who can. do. those who can’t, teach.” Perry is a doer.

Martin's Politico article is a swipe at red states like Texas and their conservative voters. And columnists like Martin feel free to take these types of swipes at conservatives, because they feel they’re intellectually superior.

This begs the question, what does it say about liberals that repeatedly vote for a Senator like Edward Kennedy – an intellectual who left an innocent woman to drown to death?

Or for a Senator like John Kerry – another intellectual — who came home from serving in Vietnam then proceeded to slander his fellow servicemen in congressional testimony, only to then attempt to use that service again years later to inflate his standing as a presidential candidate?

We could also ask, what it says about voters that would reelect a governor like Duval Patrick, who refuses to allow his state to participate in the Department of Homeland Security’s Secure Communities program and stands by that decision even after an illegal immigrant who was arrested for assaulting a police officer, kills an innocent young man in a drunk driving incident?

It may say that the voters of Massachusetts are intellectuals, but aren’t particularly street smart. Or it might say that they lack the ability to elect leaders that have a moral compass.

Implications Of The Norwegian Massacres

2011-07-25T12:03:00.000-04:00

The slaughter and emotional trauma inflicted on the Norwegian people at their government center and the island youth retreat by 32-year-old suspect Anders Behring Breivik (who apparently has confessed) could have far reaching implications for a nation that has what most Americans would consider a naive perspective on violence, immigration and law enforcement.

The attacker, after setting off his car bomb which killed seven, made his way to the island where the Labour Party was having a retreat for its youth. He then set about a 90-minute shooting spree that left an additional 86 innocent people dead. Reports indicate that the only security for the retreat was an off-duty police officer who was not armed. In fact most police in Norway don’t carry firearms.

The Norwegians are not used to this sort of violence in their society and were ill prepared to confront this sort of evil when it reared its head in a most diabolical way. In fact the Norwegian judicial system is not setup to deal with this sort of atrocity. Even if convicted on all counts of premeditated murder Breivik can only face 21-years in prison, not for each count, but in total.

One must wonder how the Norwegian people will react once the shock and horror of this despicable crime turn to the shock and horror of how ill-prepared their police and judicial systems are to confront it. Will the populous demand that the laws be changed? Will they demand that their police be armed to properly protect the public? Will the Labour Party that was the target of this murderous madman be unseated by a disillusioned electorate, in favor of a more hard line government? Will this be Norway’s “9/11 moment”?

There is no excuse for mass murder – especially of helpless, innocent children – and the only person responsible for these twin attacks is Anders Behring Breivik. Terrorism analyst Walid Phares who has examined the terrorist’s manifesto has indicated that it borrows from both the liberal-left and the conservative-right, making it a unique and twisted ideology. This makes the attempts here in the United States to blame the “violent” Tea Party or conservative bloggers foolish.

But the policies that inspired his violence and which allowed him to hunt down his victims for 90-minutes without opposition of any kind are likely to be closely scrutinized by the Norwegian people and the their policy makers.

The multiculturalism that so infuriated the gunman has been renounced by other European leaders like English Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. They have realized that no nation can absorb large numbers of immigrants that refuse to assimilate into the culture or learn the language of their adopted nations. It’s likely that the government of Norway will now have to examine that policy as well.

More importantly the Norwegian people and government will have to reconsider their security and legal systems which have proven completely inadequate in the wake of these unprecedented attacks. This is a fact as a Norwegian judge has ruled that Breivik, who has warned there a two more cells in his terror group, is to be held in complete isolation for the next four weeks.

An Eye Opening Lesson In Our Criminal Justice System

2011-07-22T06:15:00.002-04:00

Just one week after the controversial verdict in the Casey Anthony murder trial had angered the nation and instigated many a debate about our system of jurist prudence, I found myself serving on jury duty. From the voir dire (jury selection) process, to the trial and finally deliberating the verdict, it was truly an eye opening and, at times, troubling experience.

I arrived at the Palm Beach County courthouse early Monday morning, neither looking forward to, nor dreading doing my civic duty. This was not the first time I had been summoned to serve on jury duty, although I had never actually been chosen to sit on a jury and hear a case.

I was in the second group of 30 prospective jurors to be taken from the first floor jury assembly room to a courtroom on the 11th floor of the courthouse to be interviewed by the attorneys for the prosecution and the defense for the purpose of selecting six people to hear the case they were preparing to try.

First the judge introduced himself, the state’s attorneys (a.k.a. the prosecutors) and the defense attorneys, as well as their client (the defendant). The judge then thanked us for sacrificing our time and for our service. He then instructed the state’s attorney to begin interviewing the potential jurors.

The state’s attorney began by talking to us about the burden of proof. She explained that the defendant was presumed innocent until the state proved him guilty beyond and to the exclusion of any reasonable doubt. She went on to tell us that they had to prove the elements of the crime -- basically that the crime had been committed and that the defendant was the person who had committed it.

Then the prosecutor asked each of us a few questions about our backgrounds and past encounters with police, and if we had close friends or family in law enforcement and whether we had ever served on a jury previously.

After the prosecutor finished her portion of the interview process there was a brief recess. By that time I had identified a few people I felt confident would not be selected to sit on this jury, including four for whom English was their second language. These people were having difficulty understanding what the prosecutor and the judge were saying, so it only stood to reason they would not be selected. Additionally, there were several potential jurors who'd related negative personal experiences with police and the criminal justice system so I was certain the prosecutors would decline to invite them on the panel.

Then one of the defense attorneys began his portion of the voir dire. This young man, whom I nicknamed “Skippy”, started by asking the first panelist three questions that he would go on to repeat to almost all of the panelists. I’m paraphrasing, but they were something like: 1) Do you think it’s reasonable that a police officer might plant evidence to make someone look guilty? 2) Do you think that a witness can be certain of their testimony but still be inaccurate? And lastly: 3) Do you think a person can be innocent and still be on trial?

You’re probably wondering why I nicknamed the defense attorney “Skippy”. First it was because of his age; he looked like he could still be in college. But it was also because he annoyed me. I deduced very quickly that his repeated questions were less about drawing out information from the panelists and more about planting three ideas in the minds of the six of us that would eventually be hearing the case.

Skippy wanted us to be considering the possibility that the police planted the evidence in the case, that the witness testimony would be unreliable and of course that his client was innocent.

I should mention that Skippy’s questions did reveal the unworthiness of some panelists to serve be on the jury. There were folks who boldly declared that if the defendant didn’t give up his Fifth Amendment rights and testify in his own defense, they would hold that against him.

There were also panelists that said they didn’t think the presumption of innocence or the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt were good ideas. They apparently believed that an accused person should have to prove their innocence and that it should be easier for the state to prove guilt.

Jury selection took the better part of a day and a half. By Tuesday afternoon six jurors (including me) were selected and sworn in. We then immediately began to hear the case.

First the prosecution and then the defense made their opening statements. Essentially they laid out the facts of the case as they saw them and what we would see and hear as the case was presented.

The state’s attorney started to present the prosecution’s case by calling her first witness, the elderly female victim, to testify (the other victim had passed away since the incident). She testified to what had happened on the evening in question and related to us that a black man wearing a dark shirt, red pants – or shorts – and a black cap had accosted her and her companion, in her car, after they had enjoyed dinner at a local restaurant. The assailant had put a gun to her neck and demanded her purse, which she relinquished, and then ordered her friend to hand over his wallet. He then fled on foot.

The prosecutor then began to ask the victim about what happened after the robbery. She testified that the restaurant’s bartender had dialed 911; the sheriff’s deputies were called and arrived shortly thereafter.

Not too long after the first deputies arrived at the restaurant, a call came across the radio that other deputies had someone in custody that fit the victim’s description. Both victims were taken in a patrol car to where a suspect was in custody for what the police call a “show-up” identification. The “show-up” I.D. consisted of the suspect – dirty, sweating, bleeding and in handcuffs -- being shown to the victims. Not surprisingly the victims said he was the man that had robbed them.

On cross examination, the defense showed that several things that the victim was testifying to on the stand, differed from what she had said on the night of the crime and in subsequent depositions. Her recollection of things like the color of the gun, whether the suspect was wearing pants or shorts and whether or not he had facial hair had evolved over time. In addition, despite the fact that her attacker’s face had been mere inches from hers, the victim was unable to give any other description of him other than that he was black and he had “steely, cold, unblinking eyes”.

As the prosecution case proceeded, four Palm Beach County Sheriff’s deputies were called to testify. As each of the deputies testified, we were confronted with law enforcement officers that admitted they had made many mistakes, in both judgment and procedure, on the night of this incident.

The lead deputy in the case testified that she had told the victims they had a suspect in custody that met their description and that she needed to see if they could identify him. Instead of using a photo lineup or a physical lineup, the deputy chose to use the show-up I.D (which is very suggestive). She also failed to separate the witnesses, which is standard procedure, to avoid one witness influencing the other.

One of the other deputies that testified admitted that he had failed to search the suspect before transporting him to the hospital to be treated for bites he received from the K-9 deputy when he was arrested.

Two other deputies testified that they had patted down the suspect, but failed to find a knife and card case and key that belonged to one of the victims in the back pocket of the suspect. They also failed to locate $457.00 in cash in the suspect’s shoe, even though one of the deputies said he was pretty sure they had removed his shoes during one of the searches at the scene of the arrest.

However, miraculously the lead deputy did discover the knife, the card case and the cash when she searched the suspect before transporting him from the hospital to jail.

You may have deduced by now that I had some doubts about the defendant’s guilt even at this point in the case. That doubt only increased when we were told that the gun the deputies had discovered in an abandoned house, and allegedly had been used by the defendant, had been swabbed for the suspect’s DNA, but not his fingerprints or the victim’s DNA (even though the gun had been pressed against both victim’s skin). In addition the cash was checked for fingerprints, but despite the fact it was supposedly drenched in the suspect’s perspiration, it was not checked for his DNA. The card case was not swabbed for DNA or fingerprints and disappeared - never having made it into evidence - and the victim’s purse –which was discovered outside the abandoned house - was likewise not checked for either DNA or fingerprints.

Also a hat that was discovered near where the suspect was taken into custody was not checked for DNA to prove it was his.

I usually give law enforcement the benefit of the doubt, but in listening to them testify as to how they handled the multiple searches of the suspect and the way that evidence was handled, I found myself doubting their credibility and the reliability of the evidence that they had collected.

The only other witnesses were a crime scene technician and a crime lab scientist, who both testified to not finding fingerprints or DNA. I wasn’t sure why they were even called by the prosecution, as they added nothing to the case.

After the prosecution rested their case, I was not surprised when the defense also rested without presenting any witnesses or evidence of their own.

We then heard brief closing arguments from the prosecution and defense, as well as a rebuttal by the prosecution.

The judge then charged us. He explained the pertinent law and the rules that applied to the case and we retired to the jury deliberation room.

Once in the deliberation room I was selected as the jury foreman and we set about trying to decide the case. I decided to take a preliminary vote to see where the six of us were starting. I had expected that all six of us having heard the same evidence and heard the same testimony would have the same doubts. I was mistaken. Three of us (myself included) felt the defendant was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The other three felt he was guilty.

This is where things get disturbing for me. Two of the female panelists felt the defendant was guilty for reasons outside the law. One thought he must be guilty of something because he ran from the deputies. The other thought he was guilty because he failed to testify on his own behalf. Both of the women and the male juror that also voted “guilty” were willing to overlook the inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony, the suggestive show-up I.D. and the fact that although the defendant had been searched 3 times prior, it was only on the fourth search that the cash, knife and card case were discovered on his person.

I tried to explain that running from the cops didn’t make him guilty and that we could not hold his failure to testify in his defense against him. But in the end we were deadlocked 3 to 3 and the case ended in a hung jury.

After being dismissed, I went online to research the case a bit further and discovered that what we heard was actually a retrial of the case after an appeals court had ordered a new trial for mistakes made by the judge the first time around.

I am not sure whether the state’s attorney will choose to retry the case a third time.

After the verdict in the Casey Anthony trial many people said they believed the jurors in that case were “stupid”. I wrote at that time that the public, having watched the trial on television, did not understand that the jury did not hear and see everything that viewers had, because they were asked to leave the courtroom at times and because they were sequestered and prevented from reading or watching reports about the case.

Having served on a criminal case, I can tell you we were asked to leave the courtroom numerous times so that the attorneys and the judge could discuss whether testimony would be admitted in the case, etc. We were also specifically told not to talk to anyone about the case (or blog, tweet, text, etc.) and not to read or watch anything about the case.

From the conduct of the sheriff’s deputies, to the behavior of my fellow jurors, my jury service was an eye-opening lesson in our criminal justice system.

Casey Anthony is Irrelevant

2011-07-16T01:08:00.001-04:00

As disturbed as I was by the verdict in the Casey Anthony capital murder trial, I have been even more disturbed by the reactions of the public to it. I am especially concerned with some of the things that people who call themselves constitutional-conservatives have been saying in the wake of this very emotional trial.

I have heard and read statements from people ranging fromthe defense attorney’s are to blame, to we should have professional jurors, to our justice system is broken. But nothing could be further from the truth.

The system worked just the way it’s supposed to, it gave the accused the presumption of innocence and it put the burden of proving the guilt of the accused on the State, i.e. the prosecution.

The prosecutors had the choice of what to charge Casey Anthony with and they chose to charge her with First Degree- Capital Murder. They chose to seek the death penalty for a case that was largely circumstantial, with limited forensic evidence and unreliable witnesses. They made this decision even though the State of Florida has only executed 2 women previously and never a mother for killing her own child.

I am not going to retry the case here, but I am going to try to make some critical points:

Not everything that the public heard, saw and read was known to the jury. They were sequestered and were often asked to leave the courtroom for discussions that the public saw on television.
The jury was instructed to disregard certain things that the judge determined were inadmissible.
The jury had the responsibility to decide which witnesses and which witness testimony was credible.
The jury was doing their civic duty by serving on this case and taking on the huge burden of deciding not just guilt or innocence, but also life and death.
The prosecution had a theory about how Caylee died, but the medical examiner never said what caused her death.
Much of the forensic evidence that the prosecution used relied on new science and techniques, that had never been admitted in a Florida court before and which had not been peer reviewed.
Casey Anthony was not found innocent, she was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The two standards are not the same.

Our system is not perfect, but it is the best one around. Just ask Amanda Knox about being on trial in another country, even a “civilized” country like Italy. The presumption of innocence is what protects all of us from the power of the State (which so many people distrust these days) and separates the United States from every other nation on the planet.

There is a saying in criminal law, “It is better that ten guilty persons go free than one innocent person be imprisoned”. We can all agree that we think Casey Anthony killed Caylee Anthony and we can all disagree with the jury’s verdict. But we should not disparage the jury or the jury system; lest any of us are unfortunate enough to find ourselves accused of a crime and require the presumption of innocence.

We can dislike the tactics that Jose Baez used to get his client acquitted, but his responsibility was to provide his client with the most vigorous defense possible. He did that and he overcame the State of Florida with all its vast resources.

For those that think we should have “professional” jurors, I would say that is a terrible idea. It would give the State 12 paid arbiters of fact, in addition to the judge (the arbiter of law) and the prosecution with all the means at its disposal. What innocent person could possibly be acquitted with the deck stacked against them like that?

I understand and empathize with the anger that everyone feels towards Casey Anthony and the fact that Caylee has not gotten justice. But killing or incarcerating Casey will not bring Caylee back and the jury did not find that the prosecutors proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you want to lay some blame, I suggest you blame the police officer that in July of 2009 did not want to trudge into the swamp to examine the body he was called to investigate and berated the man who had called 911. The officer was fired for his actions.

You can also blame the prosecutors for choosing to overcharge Casey Anthony and then not presenting a strong enough case to convict her. They could have filed lesser charges and probably have sent her to prison for 30 years. But they made a political decision to go for the gold and it cost the victim justice.

You might also want to look at the media. They tried this case in the court of public opinion and splashed it on the television 24/7. Ask yourself, “Why”? Would they have covered this case with the entire spectacle if the accused weren’t some pretty white girl (with pictures of her partying in skimpy outfits), with an adorable 2-year old white daughter? I think not.

And of course you can blame Casey herself for lying to her parents, brother and friends, as well as to investigators.

Casey Anthony is irrelevant. If she is guilty, she will eventually face her ultimate judgment. What is important is the rule of law, the presumption of innocence and the Constitution. If we ignore those then we become nothing more than a mob doling out revenge, not justice. Like it or not, the system worked. Sometimes the results just are not what we would like them to be.

It is also worth noting that these constitutional rights should not be afforded to illegal enemy combatants and terrorists caught operating abroad.

The actions of Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama in circumventing Congress by holding and interrogating a Somali terrorist, Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame, aboard a Navy ship- without Miranda warnings- then bringing him to New York for a civilian trial is a mockery of our system of justice. He should have been transported to Guantanamo Bay detention facility for interrogation and a military commission trial.

Can Thaddeus McCotter Be The 2012 GOP Presidential Nominee?

2011-06-26T00:20:00.000-04:00

We’ve interviewed Congressman- and potential presidential candidate- Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan’s 11^th Congressional District several times on ‘Conservative Republican Forum’. He has always been one of our favorite guests because he usually provides direct answers to direct questions and has an easy going demeanor and sense of humor that make him a pleasure talk to.

So imagine my surprise when I listened to the June 9^th edition of ‘The Tony Katz Radio Spectacular’ and heard what could be characterized as a “contentious” interview with the aforementioned Congressman McCotter.

Tony Katz – who indicated he opposed all bailouts- asked McCotter, who voted against TARP, about the bailouts of GM and Chrysler. The Congressman’s reply caught me (and I think Tony) quite by surprise.

McCotter started by saying, “It’s nice to have ideology and fantasy, but here’s the reality of the vote. You can walk around and say you’re opposed to all bailouts, that’s fine, but here’s how your vote would have come down. As you know the Wall Street bailout was passed first before the auto companies ever came to Washington. That meant that $700 billion of Main Street’s money was parked on Wall Street with the same people that crashed the economy”.

To begin with, McCotter’s statement that, “It’s nice to have ideology and fantasy” implies that he believes a person cannot be opposed to bailouts in general, or the auto company bailouts in particular, for principled reasons. If this is truly how he feels it is disturbing.

But what is more troubling is that I believe his statement misrepresents what TARP was and is. It’s true that Congress authorized $700 billion in TARP funds. But according to the CBO only about $433 billion was actually distributed and it was certainly not “parked” in a lump sum “on Wall Street”. Whatever portion of the funds had not yet been distributed were, and still are, in the Treasury and did not have to be distributed.

Using that set of “facts” the congressman then asked Katz what he would have done as a legislator. Specifically McCotter asked, “The $700 billion TARP stays on Wall Street or some of it is peeled away from [it] to give Main Street a chance to survive and the auto industry and save the taxpayers $300 billion in social safety net costs, according to Moodys. Which do you do?”

Again I was surprised by Congressman McCotter’s response (or lack thereof). He did not answer the question that was posed to him, but rather turned it around on Katz- who is not a legislator, but a journalist and talk show host – and posed a question to his interviewer.

It is also important to note that the auto bailouts still led to the restructuring of the car companies and it is unclear whether the bailouts will save them in the long run. But unlike in a standard Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Chrysler bankruptcy a chunk of the equity went to the government and a majority to the UAW. In a normal Chapter 11 filing the secured bondholders claims would have been paramount. But because of the intervention of the federal government they were sent to the back of the line and that set a potentially dangerous precedent.

In addition private emails obtained by The Daily Caller detail the Obama administration’s involvement in cutting non-union worker pensions after the GM bailout, that could not have occurred otherwise.

It should be noted that the district that Congressman McCotter represents, Michigan’s 11^th, is a suburb of Detroit. Many of his constituents are union autoworkers, their children, spouses and retirees who rely on union benefits and pensions. In addition many of those that are not directly employed by or tied to the automakers are dependent on the continued success of those companies for their livelihoods.

With the June 9th Katz interview in mind, and with the knowledge that Congressman McCotter is mulling a potential presidential bid, I asked him about another issue that a listener had brought to my attention. Specifically, that this year Congressman McCotter had voted against 2 Republican amendments that would have reversed President Obama’s executive order directing PLAs (project labor agreements) be used for federal construction projects. PLAs require non-union construction companies to have an agreement with the local unions if they want to bid on a government contract. Many feel that PLAs drive up the cost of government contracts, waste taxpayer dollars and limit competition.

Asked why he voted that way McCotter replied, “How many votes in the Senate would it have? How would the President sign it into law? I would also point out that we don’t need anymore, especially in a place like Michigan, any more confusion or chaos within the economy as we struggle to survive. So at this point it would not be wise to do that. So what you see hear is what the argument is it’s a bill that’s going nowhere and it’s also a case, that in my case, in the district that I represent it would have harmful effects and so I’m not going to support it at this time”.

The argument that the bill would have gone nowhere in the Senate and that President Obama would not have signed it is beside the point. The line of reasoning that it would have had harmful effects, especially on his constituents, is not. But it does raise some questions about a member of the House of Representatives running for President.

You can listen to the complete interview with Congressman McCotter by clicking here.

Many have made the argument that legislators should not run for President of the United States. Certainly there is a huge difference between the job of a member of Congress- writing and amending laws, oversight, etc. – and the job of President, which is to act as the nation’s chief executive.

In addition the priorities of a congressman are different than those of the President. A congressman’s first responsibility – after adhering to their oath to Constitution – is to serve the needs of their constituents – the 650,000 or so people that live in their district – who elect them every 2 years. The President must answer to the vastly broader constituency of the entire United States.

Congressman McCotter’s “contentiousness” in both the interviews with Tony Katz and on our program maybe related to the recognition that if he runs for President he will face many questions about his voting record like the ones posed to him on both shows. The questions will come not only from the relatively friendly and conservative “New Media”, but also from his primary opponents and the liberal “mainstream media”, who will likely dig deeper and be much more relentless in their inquiries.

When it comes to national security, foreign policy, illegal immigration, border enforcement and a host of other issues that are important to the Republican base and the “Tea Party” Congressman McCotter’s positions are very much in line with the grassroots supporters and primary voters he will need to persuade to vote for him. But on some fiscal issues, due to the district he represents, some of his votes may give certain fiscal conservatives pause.

Ronald Reagan said, “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor”. I do not believe that Congressman McCotter taking some votes that I- and perhaps other fiscal conservatives- disagree with, disqualifies him as a potential, and very formidable, presidential contender. However, he needs to recognize that these questions about his positions and voting record will continue to be asked and perhaps return to his usual demeanor in answering them. It is after all that easy going disposition- in addition to his intelligence, directness and principles- that makes him such an attractive potential presidential candidate to so many Americans.

Congressman/Politician vs. Representative/Public Servant

2011-06-07T13:15:00.004-04:00

Representative Allen West (R) FL-22

As some people who have read my articles and/or listened to‘Conservative Republican Forum’ are probably aware, my brother-in-law was killed in the North Tower of the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001. Naturally the subject is very personal to me and my family. It is also natural that I was very pleased when the news came that Osama Bin Laden had been killed.

Last month after SEAL Team 6 eliminated Osama Bin Laden and President Obama declared that the photos of the mass-murderer would not be made public I wrote to several members of Congress to ask that they speak out on behalf of the families of 9/11 victims and ask the President to reconsider his decision.

I expressed to each member of the US House and Senate that I contacted that, “It is unacceptable to me that President Obama, after making the bold decision to send in a team to kill Bin Laden rather than simply using a Predator drone to fire a missile into the compound and leaving doubt as to whether the objective was achieved, now has classified the photos that would prove to world that Osama Bin Laden is truly dead.”

Only one member of Congress took the time to send me a hand-written note, expressing condolences for my family’s loss and his belief “that anyone who lost a family member on 9-11 should have the right to view the photos” of Bin Laden’s corpse.

Unfortunately that person was not my congressman Ted Deutch (D) of Florida’s 19th Congressional District, who did not even take the time to send me a form letter in reply.

No, the public servant that took the time to write me a personal note was none other thanRepresentative Allen West (R) of Florida’s 22nd Congressional District.

If you want to know the difference between a politician and a representative of the people, this simple but very personal action illustrates the difference perfectly.

Andrew Klavan Comes to ‘Conservative Republican Forum’

2011-06-07T13:13:00.002-04:00

Andrew Klavan

This week on Conservative Republican Fourm a well known author and PJTV host joins Steve Rosenblum & Daria DiGiovanni. He’s also a frequent guest on Fox News Channel’sRed Eye w/Greg Gutfeld.

Andrew Klavan is the host of PJTV’s Klavan on the Culture. There he examines many aspects of human behavior, culture and politics. He does this with a wit and intelligence that are both informative and entertaining.

Andrew Klavan is the author of the novels:
Corruption, The Animal Hour, The Uncanny, Man and Wife, Hunting Down Amanda, Don’t Say A Word, True Crime, Dynamite Road and The Last Thing I Remember.

His latest adult novel is The Identity Man and the 4th and final book in his young adult Homelanders series called The Final Hour will be released this summer.

Steve and Daria will talk to Mr. Klavan about his writing, his work on PJTV and get his take on some of the news of the day.

As always your calls with comments and questions are welcome at 347-637-1121.

Lessons In History, Geography and Humility

2011-05-21T16:12:00.004-04:00

On Thursday President Obama gave a rambling speech on his policy for North Africa and the Middle East. Most of the speech was nothing but more of the same old platitudes about Muslim outreach and applause for what has become known as the “Arab Spring”.

The President touted the removal of 100,000 US troops from Iraq and the conclusion of their combat mission there. What he failed to mention was that the withdrawal was part of an agreement signed by the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government and that it would not have been possible had George W. Bush not gone forward with the so-called troop “surge” that then Senator Obama vehemently opposed.

Then Obama claimed that “in Afghanistan, we’ve broken the Taliban’s momentum” (which could be debated) and reiterated his intention to begin bringing our troops home from that nation in July, with no mention of that troop departure being contingent on conditions on the ground.

Continuing with his reality-free oration, the President asserted that killing Osama Bin Laden had “dealt Al-Qaeda a huge blow”. This despite the fact that intelligence gleaned from Bin Laden’s compound indicates that the various branches of the network are self sufficient and that there is a well defined succession of leadership which means that with or without their now deceased leader, Al-Qaeda is still a very real and potent threat to the United States and our allies.

Obama also declared that “Bin Laden was no martyr” even in the face of pro-Bin Laden protests in Pakistan- and elsewhere- and threats of retaliation from Al-Qaeda. Our President seems to believe that he gets to decide whether or not Bin Laden is a martyr, when in fact the terrorist’s followers are the one that determine this reality.

This is the point in the speech where the President truly left reality behind, as he compared the actions of Mohammed Bouazizi- a Tunisian vendor who set himself ablaze after dousing himself in gasoline, because his cart was confiscated by police- to the peaceful defiance of the colonists that took part in the Boston Tea Party and the silent bravery of Rosa Parks.

The President went on to talk about the revolutions sweeping across North Africa and the Middle East in terms of the “Arab Spring” and democracy. Like many naïve liberals Obama fails to recognize that in many parts of the world, especially in the Middle East where the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Sharia compliant Islamists are the only organized political factions, democracy can often lead to anything but individual freedom.

The people of Tunisia, Egypt and other nations that have been ruled by brutal dictators are likely to overthrow these autocrats only to end up being ruled by theocracies that are every bit as repressive and cruel.

Unlike Iraq or Afghanistan where the US, the United Nations and NATO were present to help provide security, and stable interim governments, that allowed time for political parties to be formed and the mechanisms of democracy to take shape, in the nations being swept up by the “Arab Spring” there are no organized political parties except the Muslim Brotherhood.

Ironically the President pointed out that many of the region’s leaders have- and still do- blame the West “as the source of all ills, a half-century after the end of colonialism”. Even as he himself continues to apologize to the world for every mistake that the US and the West has ever made, without pointing out all of the good that the US has done for the Muslim world and the world in general.

Obama spoke of the “peaceful protesters” in Tahrir Square that overthrew Hosni Mubarak and of the voice of the young mother in Cairo who he quoted as saying, “It’s like I can finally breathe fresh air for the first time,” while he disregarded the screams of CBS reporter Lara Logan who was brutally raped as the same crowd shouted “Jew! Jew! Jew!”

Yes, our hypocritical President lectured us about “the shouts of human dignity” and the “moral force of nonviolence” achieving more in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades. But he ignored the fact that the end results: Sharia law, intolerance towards non-Muslims, women and homosexuals may very well be the same.

The President pointed to Libya as the most “extreme example” of a country in the region where calls for change have been answered by violence. He apparently was trying to justify embroiling the United States in a civil war and taking the side of so-called “rebels” whose true alliances remain undetermined- but may very well rest with Iran or Al-Qaeda. Again he ignored Iran where since 2009 the youth have been peacefully attempting to change their government, only to be met by batons and bullets.

Obama also ignored the slaughters occurring in Darfur and the Ivory Coast, where the US and the West have chosen not to act. Apparently in his inconsistent and incoherent foreign policy not all massacres are created equal.

And while the President spoke of “when Qaddafi inevitably leaves or is forced from power” in Libya, in Syria; Obama said that “President Assad now has a choice: He can lead that transition, or get out of the way”. However the President did not explain why he had determined one brutal dictator that is waging war on his own people had to go and the other had the option to remain.

It was somewhat comical to hear the President say of foreign journalists; “We will support… the right of journalists to be heard -- whether it's a big news organization or a lone blogger”. Since this is the same administration that has attempted to intimidate and restrict the access of American journalists that have posted videos or printed stories that they felt portrayed the President or First Lady in an unflattering manner, or they consider to be biased.

Then the President got to the section of his ramblings that angered many Americans that are suffering due to our struggling economy. The President promised to “relieve a democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt” - without tying forgiving that debt to guarantees that the new government would live up to its obligations under the Camp David Peace Treaty with Israel, which many Egyptians- including the Muslim Brotherhood- have expressed a desire to scrap. And if that wasn’t sufficient to frustrate the public, the President also promised to guarantee $1 billion in Egyptian borrowing without explaining where the money would come from.

To conclude his naïve, adolescent and incoherent address the President went on to begin a moral equivocation, in support of the Palestinians, at the expense of our strongest Middle Eastern ally and the only democracy in the region: Israel.

He began this section by saying, “For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could be blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own.”

It is a prevarication and a rewriting of history to claim that the Israelis are occupiers. The Palestinians are displaced Jordanians, which Jordan refused to reabsorb, not Israeli refugees or an occupied people. More than once Obama spoke of Israel as maintaining an occupation.

But the most contentious portion of the speech, the part that angered Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu- who was preparing to travel to Washington from Tel Aviv as Obama delivered it- and most supporters of our Israeli allies was this: “The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state”.

The suggestion that the Israelis who have consistently and repeatedly given up very tangible land for completely empty promises of peace would now accept the borders that they had before the 1967 Six Day War- an unprovoked war of aggression launched against it by Egypt, Jordan and Syria- is preposterous. Those 44-year old borders are, as Prime Minister Netanyahu and others have said, “indefensible”. Returning to the 1967 lines would also mean that Israel would have to give up the strategically important Golan Heights to Syria, which is still an aggressor and closely allied with Iran.

In addition Palestine as a “contiguous state” adhering to the 1967 borders would by definition mean a divided Israel and a divided Jerusalem. This would be unacceptable to Israel and would affectively cut off Christians and Jews from the holiest sites in the Old City of Jerusalem.

The result of President Obama’s arrogant and foolish speech on Thursday was something he’s been in desperate need of since he first took office and began what has become known as his “apology tour” and which Prime Minister Netanyahu was only too happy to deliver to our Community Organizer-in-Chief on Friday: A very public and embarrassing lesson in history, geography and humility.

President Obama sat, looking angry and uncomfortable, as Netanyahu lectured him on the geography of Israel and the history of the conflict. Whether Obama actually learned humility is questionable. What is not debatable is that Netanyahu made it clear that there would be no negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, while Hamas and Fatah are allied and Hamas continues to profess its intention to destroy the Jewish State. He also made it clear that the 1967 borders would not be the starting point for any further dialogue.

Taking A Victory Lap Without Spiking The Ball

2011-05-06T00:43:00.007-04:00

Obama at Ground Zero Thursday
(Charles Dharapak-AP)

After the virtually flawless raid by the US Navy SEALS and CIA paramilitary forces on Sunday, which resulted in the termination of Osama Bin Laden, President Obama and his administration seem to have fallen back on bad habits.

First there was the changing narrative of just how the raid went down. Did Bin Laden resist, or not? Was he armed, or not? Did he use his wife as human shield, or not?

Then came the question of whether the administration would release the photographs of Bin Laden’s corpse or not. Initially it seemed like a no-brainer; of course the pictures would be released. CIA Director Leon Panetta said he expected the pictures would be released. The next day President Obama declared, via Press Secretary Jay Carney, that the photos would not be released. We were told “that’s not who we are”, “we don’t need to be taking a victory lap” and “we don’t need to spike the ball”.

But the reason that the Bin Laden photos are being withheld seems to be more about sensitivity to Muslim sensibilities than about avoiding “spiking the ball”. In his speech Sunday night President Obama said that Osama Bin Laden “was not a Muslim leader, he was a murderer of Muslims”. We are constantly being told that most Muslims are peaceful and not radicals. If these two statements are accurate then why would the release of the photographs of a mass-murderer who was not a Muslim leader, but killed many Muslims, offend the sensitivities of peaceful Muslims?

The President’s visit to Ground Zero Thursday seemed to be a victory lap and a photo-op, more for political gain than to comfort 9/11 families. To illustrate this, look at the visit itself. While President Obama made no remarks while at Ground Zero, there was a gaggle of politicians- mostly from his party- in attendance. By contrast only a handful of the thousands of 9/11 families were invited to be present at the wreath laying. In addition, when the President met briefly with the sister of American Airlines Flight 77 pilot Charles Burlingame, Debra Burlingame, he treated her poorly because she spoke up in defense of the CIA agents whose use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques led to the discovery of Bin Laden’s hiding place and eventual termination.

To be clear, the photographs of Bin Laden’s corpse should be released not to prove that he was killed by the SEALS- we know he was. They should be released because the sensitivities of the American people should be more important than the sensitivities of Islamic extremists that will want to kill us whether they see the photos or not. It should also be noted that our enemies respect strength and power, not weakness and dhimmitude. In war you don't worry about your enemy's feelings, you try to make them fear you and make them think twice before attacking you. Showing our Jihadist enemies the pictures of their vanquished ex-leader will show them that the United States will pursue them, no matter where they hide or how long it takes.

My brother-in-law Eric was killed on 9/11 in the North Tower of the World Trade Center. so this issue is very personal to me. I and the families of the 3,000 people murdered by Osama Bin Laden that day have waited almost 10 years for justice to be served. We and the American people have paid for those pictures with our blood and treasure and we have a right to see them.

President Obama needs to reconsider his decision and release the photographs of Osama Bin Laden. Taking a “victory lap” on the hallowed earth of Ground Zero, but not “spiking the ball” by letting the American people see the pictures of our deceased enemy is despicable.

Herman Cain Blogger's Call, April 29th

2011-04-30T00:46:00.000-04:00

: Potential Presidential Candidate Herman Cain

Thursday evening I had the opportunity to sit in on the blogger’s conference call for potential presidential candidate Herman Cain, who was in New Hampshire engaging in what he termed “retail politics”.

The call began with his Communications Director Ellen Carmichael informing us that, including the Tax Day Tea Party rallies he had attended, Mr. Cain had made 12 speeches, in 10 states, in 8 days.

In addition she let us know that Cain had won the Presidential Straw Poll held during Congressman Steve King’s Conservative Principles Conference in Des Moines, Iowa back on March 26th.
Ms. Carmichael concluded her introduction by telling us that Mr. Cain had been featured on ‘Special Report w/Brett Baer’ earlier in the evening on Fox News Channel and that his “mainstream media star was rising”.

Then the potential candidate himself made his opening remarks, telling those on the line that in his travels around the nation he was getting a very positive response to his message and that he was not simply making speeches and talking to people, but also listening to the people.

What he said he’s hearing is that the American people are frustrated with the lack of leadership they’re seeing from the current occupant of the White House. In particular the frustration with the lack of leadership from the administration on a subject that affects every American, everyday, the price of gas.

He was asked many questions about how bloggers could help get his message out. One blogger asked if he could be sure to get at least one Tweet out per day, which he said he would do. Apparently since the profile on ‘Special Report’ his Twitter following has increased significantly. As of 11:50 PM, April 29th his followers on @THEHermanCain numbered 22,445.

Asked what his message to the youth of America was he said, “Don’t stay on the sidelines because when you become a productive adult, there may not be any sidelines.”

When my turn came I asked Mr. Cain about specific federal departments he would eliminate to cut the budget. He didn’t want to get too specific, saying that he’d like to do a detailed assessment of all the cabinet departments to identify which ones needed improvement or elimination.

Not completely satisfied with that answer I asked him more specifically about two cabinet level departments created under the Carter Administration, the Department of Energy and the Department of Education and I asked him whether either of them had achieved the purposes they were intended to.

To his credit Mr. Cain chose to address the two departments individually, saying of the Department of Education that he’d like to “unbundle it”. He went on to say that any program he identified that had unfunded mandates would be “unraveled” or he would “disband it”. He also said he would ask the States what was working and what wasn’t. I would characterize him as wanting to use a scalpel rather than a chainsaw on the department.

In terms of the Department of Energy, he addressed the EPA. He called the EPA “the most abusive agency in Washington, DC, hindering our economic growth, second only to the IRS”.

He also said that, “We have gone regulatory crazy”. And that he would appoint a regulatory reduction commission to address the EPA, IRS, the Department of Labor and the Department of Commerce.

He closed out the call by thanking the bloggers “for being patriots” and ended the call by saying “It’s not about us, it’s about the grandchildren”.

US Energy Policy Simplified For Politicians To Understand (Updated 4/28/11)

2011-04-25T11:06:00.003-04:00

With the price of food and other commodities on the rise and the national average for a gallon of gasoline at about $3.85 and climbing, Americans are feeling the pinch and getting angry. Yet the President says there’s no “silver bullet” that will quickly bring down gas prices. In addition the government tells us that inflation is low, because it excludes food and energy from the calculation.

Well the President and the administration are lying to the American people and many of us are fully aware of it. They tell us with a straight face that the US only possesses about 2% of the world’s energy reserves. They also tell us that more domestic drilling would have little affect on the price of gasoline and that any new drilling wouldn’t affect supply for at least 10 years. All lies!

The truth is the US has more untapped energy reserves than any other nation, especially if you include ANWAR, the outer-continental shelf, the Gulf of Mexico, untapped reserves in the mountain states and reserves of coal, natural gas and oil shale. The US has 8 times more oil in the form of shale alone, than exists in all of Saudia Arabia.

If we had started additional domestic drilling 5 years ago, the last time the national average for gasoline was approaching $4 a gallon, that crude would be flowing by now. And anytime a US President says that we are going to drill for more US energy, the price of crude immediately drops. Much of the speculation on oil futures is emotionally driven. If traders believe that supplies will increase in the future, the price falls.

So here is the very simple plan for US energy policy going forward for any politician, or dare I say leader, bold enough to follow it:

1. Stop printing money. Oil is traded in US dollars. When the dollar is weakened and devalued by printing too much currency, the price of oil rises.

2. End altogether subsidies for all “green energy” (i.e. wind turbines, solar panels, ethanol, bio-diesel, etc.).

Wind turbines only work when there is wind, they kill birds & bats so environmentalists hate them.

Solar is only good when the sun is shining and it takes vast farms of solar panels to generate a profitable amount of energy, so again environmentalists hate them and complain about them marring the landscape.

Making ethanol puts 37% of our corn crop into our gas tanks, raising the price of feed for livestock and in turn for food. It also takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than you can extract from it. This means the more ethanol the government mandates the oil companies to blend into our gasoline, the less miles per gallon you get for increasingly expensive gas. (SEE UPDATE BELOW).

Ironically in many areas of the world deforestation is occurring to make more farmland to grow more corn to produce ethanol. This has the affect of increasing carbon dioxide levels that environmentalists would have us believe are contributing to “manmade climate change".

If these “clean” energy technologies can be made efficient and profitable, so be it. But the government should not be subsidizing them to artificially prop them up.

3. Phase out all tax credits for oil, natural gas and coal companies while simultaneously phasing out oppressive regulatory structures. These are all well established industries. Without subsidies propping up the “green” energies these industries should be able to be profitable, without tax credits from the government, if unnecessary and cumbersome regulations are removed.

4. Build more refineries in the United States and make it easier to modernize the existing ones. The US has not built a new refinery in more than 30 years and modernizing the existing ones is a regulatory nightmare. We don’t have enough refining capacity to meet our growing needs.

5. Open up more of ANWAR for drilling. The Trans-Alaskan Pipeline as been proven safe and the caribou love it, they snuggle against it for warmth. The area in question is relatively small but has much energy to yield.

6. Issue more leases for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in both shallow and deep water, including 7-10 miles off the coast of Florida. If we enforce our safety regulations and put in place the equipment to mitigate any spill it is safe to drill for oil, much safer than shipping oil from half way around the world on tankers, where most accidents actually happen.

7. Disband the US Department of Energy. The Department was created during the Carter Administration allegedly for the purposes of creating a coherent US energy policy and making the US more energy independent. It has done neither, but has cost the American taxpayers billions of dollars over the course of the past 3 decades, while creating no solutions and a vast wasteful bureaucracy.

8. Reign in the EPA and end the lie that carbon dioxide is a pollutant or “greenhouse gas”. Al Gore’s convenient lie is that carbon dioxide levels have historically risen AFTER a corresponding increase in global temperatures, not before. The very idea that humans and animals exhaling pollutes the atmosphere defies all logic and common sense and is not supported by science. It is quite simply green-propaganda.

9. Inform Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait and other OPEC nations that, since we are now producing our own domestic sources of energy, we will no longer be held hostage by their cartel. Those countries that we have freed or shielded from aggression with our military can sell us oil at a fair market price or lose our protection and the right to buy our military hardware. We should not and will not be buying oil from countries like Venezuela and Iran that are hostile to US interests and support terrorism against our allies and/or us.

10. Build more nuclear power plants in the United States, taking care to build them in areas that are geologically stable and relatively seismically inactive. If the French cansafely get 80% of their electricity from nuclear energy, the United States should be able to achieve similar results.

11. Free American innovators and entrepreneurs to explore other alternative energy sources that we haven’t even thought of yet. When left to it’s own devices the American entrepreneurial spirit can achieve more than any government program ever could.

None of this is complicated; it’s just common sense and good economic policy, foreign policy, national security policy and environmental policy as well.

It requires genuine leadership and the willingness to put the interests of the American people and our nation before the interests of foreign dictators and so-called “environmentalists”.

Steven Rosenblum is the host of 'Conservative Republican Forum' & 'CRF Weekdays' on BlogTalkRadio and the USA Talk Radio Network. He was also the 2010 GOP nominee for Florida State House-District 89.

UPDATE (4/28/11): We interviewed Congressman Steve King (R-IA) this afternoon on 'CRF Weekdays' and asked him about the amount of corn being used to produce ethanol and ending subsidies for it. Congressman King gave an excellent and in-depth answer on the subject of producing ethanol, with more up-to-date information than I had when I originally wrote this article.

He explained that the corn being used to produce ethanol is not corn grown for human consumption, but for livestock feed. He also explained that the starch is used to make ethanol, while the protein is used to make high quality feed. Therefore the amount of loss is negligible and does not affect food prices.

In addition, he explained that while it was true in the early days of ethanol production that the process was inefficient and it required more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than you could extract from it, that is no longer the case. In fact, it now requires less BTUs to produce a gallon of ethanol than it does a gallon of gasoline.

Furthermore, since the ethanol industry can now compete with the oil industry, both he and the ethanol producers now favor a "soft landing" for ethanol subsidies. In other words they want to phase them out.

You can hear the complete interview with Congressman King by clicking HERE.