Sunday, October 7, 2012

'The Hope And The Change' A Game Changer

The new Citizens United documentary ‘The Hope and the Change’ employed former Carter pollster Pat Caddell to make sure that filmmaker Stephen K. Bannon was talking to Democrats and Independents who had voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and could ask them questions in terms that would reach them. Producer Dave Bossie also wanted Caddell to ensure that the questions posed to these Democrats and Independents that voted for Barack Obama in 2008 were asked in a way that didn’t speak to conservatives, didn’t speak to Republicans, but instead, that was trying to get to the heart of why they voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and what the turning points were that made them lose the hope that Barack Obama would deliver on the change he had promised.

The goal of the film was to give those Democratic and Independent voters that may now have “buyers remorse” permission to not vote for Obama again. To let them know it’s okay, you’re not alone, you’re not the only one that feels this way. You’re not a racist if you don’t vote for Barack Obama for a second term. You don’t even have to vote for Mitt Romney, it’s okay to just stay home.

While the 40 people highlighted in this movie are initially “euphoric” about electing the first black president and describe Obama with words like: “savior”, “charismatic”, “wondrous”, “a glow about him” and “idealic”, soon after he is elected and things like the auto bailout and the $787 billion “stimulus” are unveiled and the new president is presented with the Nobel Peace Prize, for achieving nothing, they immediately start to question their decision to vote for him, while still giving him the benefit of the doubt.

One of the most powerful sections in the movie is when these average, hardworking Americans express their profound anger at President Obama for taking so many lavish vacations to places like Aspen, Martha’s Vineyard and Hawaii – all on the taxpayer’s dime – when they haven’t had a vacation themselves in 6 years and are trying to figure out how they’re going to put gas in their car so they can get to work, if they’re fortunate enough to have a job, so they can pay their rent and put food on the table for their families. This is all crystallized when one woman says she doesn’t ever want to hear “that godforsaken slogan Hope and Change” ever again.

These folks are not conservatives, they’re not Republicans, they’re not Tea Party people. But what they are is fiscal conservatives, whether they know it or not, because they do understand that while they have to live within their means and can’t print money, the government is not living within it’s means and that out of control deficit spending is hurting them now and will cripple their children’s futures.

For conservatives viewing ‘The Hope and the Change’ it will be an eye-opening look into why so many people fell for what Barack Obama was selling in 2008. For “Reagan” Democrats and Independents suffering from buyers remorse, it will be the permission slip they’ve been seeking to make it okay to vote against Obama, or just stay home on November 6th. Either way, it’s a must see.

To hear my exclusive interview with Stephen K. Bannon click here.

Sunday, September 2, 2012

US Troops in Afghanistan Suffering Atrocious Casualties Due to Politics

Saturday on 'Fox and Friends Weekend' Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) revealed that 70% of US forces killed and 84% of US forces wounded in Afghanistan have been under President Obama's watch as Commander-in-Chief.

During President Bush's time in office 625 American troops were killed, compared with 1474 under President Obama. 2638 American troops were wounded during President Bush's tenure, while under President Obama a staggering 141,817 have been wounded.

What makes these statistics all the more alarming is the fact that Obama's dead and wounded have occurred in less than 4 years, while those under President Bush occurred in 7 years.

The reason for these horrifying statistics? Put simply, under President Obama the rules of engagement for US forces have been designed to protect Afghan civilians - and the president's political ass - rather than American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.

When US troops come under fire they are not permitted to shoot back if civilians are in the line of fire. The rules for calling in air support are even more restrictive, requiring approval from up the chain of command.

In addition, the President's decision to announce a date certain for withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan have emboldened the Taliban and made our Afghan "allies" skittish. As a former military officer recently said, "We have the watch, but the Taliban has the time". The Afghans know that once the US leaves their country, the weak and corrupt government in Kabul will fall and those that are seen as collaborating with US and NATO troops will be slaughtered. This has led to increasing "Blue on Green" attacks by Afghans being trained to become police.

The so-called "mainstream" media and anti-war protesters who were so ready to point out every error of the Bush Administration in both Iraq and Afghanistan, are completely silent on these fact under the Obama administration.

Under current circumstances it seems clear that US casualties will only increase. Either the rules of engagement need be changed and our withdrawal date scrapped, or our forces need to be withdrawn immediately to prevent more needless bloodshed.

If our goal is to build a stable, democratic Afghanistan then we've already failed. If our goal is to prevent Al-Qaeda from utilizing Afghanistan as a training and staging area we can accomplish that with our Special Forces, intelligence assets and air power. There is no reason to have large numbers of US boots on the ground to be targets for Al-Qaeda terrorists, Taliban insurgents and Afghan infiltrators.

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Contraception, Abortion and the "War on Women"

Those of you who know me, have read my blog or listened to me speak on CRF Radio, know that I'm a fiscal and constitutional conservative, but that I'm more of a moderate on the social issues. So it should come as no surprise that I've never written about prophylactic-contraception or abortion.

Frankly, until President Obama made it an issue by putting a mandate in the "Affordable Care Act" (aka Obamacare) that requires hospitals and schools run by religious institutions - as well as private companies run by people of faith - to provide coverage for contraception and the "morning after" pill in their healthcare coverage, it wasn't something I felt a need to address in any great detail.

I believe that Roe v. Wade was decided incorrectly because it's a Tenth Amendment, State's rights issue. The Supreme Court should have ruled to let each state make their own laws and then Congress should have passed a law protecting a woman that goes to a state that permits abortion from being prosecuted when/if she returned to her home state. If you don't like the laws in your state, you're free to move to another state. As the census showed us, in the last 10 years millions of Americans have left states like New York and California and moved to states like Texas and Florida. So evidently, whatever their reasons, people do and have voted with their feet.

I want to try to examine both contraception and abortion  in terms of the so-called "moral high ground", which somehow Democrats seem to have seized (at least in the media).

I should note that I have no objection to people using contraception. That is a personal choice. And frankly it's also the personal responsibility of both the man and the woman if they choose to have sex and don't want to have a child. What I do have a problem with is people expecting taxpayers and people of faith that disagree to pay for what happens in their bedrooms.

I also should make it clear where I personally stand on abortion. I neither want to outlaw all abortions, nor do I think it should be legal to terminate a pregnancy once the fetus is viable outside the womb. Both positions are extreme to me.

Once the baby can survive outside the mother it is, in my opinion, no longer simply a matter of the woman's choice. There is clearly another person who has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness involved at that point. And six months is more than enough time to decide to have an abortion if you truly don't want to have a baby.

Hopefully having clarified my own positions, I want to address the way that progressives like Barack Obama, Sandra Fluke and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz talk about these issues and the "moral high ground" they claim to stand on.

Whether it's contraception or abortion, progressives claim that the issue is a "woman's access to healthcare". This is an intentionally false and deceptive argument.

After all, what disease does contraception cure? Being fertile is the natural condition for most women. In fact, according to the CDC, approximately 200,000 women a year utilize fertility drugs because they can't get pregnant, even though they would like to conceive.

Again in the case of abortion, becoming pregnant is natural -- it is the means by which we procreate and perpetuate our species. So to claim it's simply a women's health issue is disingenuous at best.

So why do progressives frame the debate this way? Simple. If they said they wanted to give women the right to kill their unborn child they'd sound like monsters. It's much easier to demonize people of faith and good conscience than to try to debate civilly about an issue that so divides people.

More recently progressives have doubled-down on their arguments claiming that Republicans are waging a "war on women" due to their moral objection to abortion.

When Barack Obama said he didn't want his daughters to "be punished with a baby" I believe the left lost any claim to the moral high ground on the issue of abortion.

I will say that if the circumstance is either rape or incest I can completely understand why a woman might not want carry a baby to term. I don't want the government telling a woman that's been the victim of either of these violent assaults what they have to do about a pregnancy that results from it. It's a personal decision that the woman must make.

At the same time it's also disturbing to see a "pro-choice" ad featuring a mother essentially saying that she wants her daughter to have the "right" to terminate her unborn grandchild. Again, unless it's the result  of rape or incest, shouldn't the woman have insisted on the use of contraception if she's going to have sex?

It is also despicable when women that do choose life for their child, i.e. Sarah Palin or Tim Tebow's mother, Pamela, are attacked and ridiculed for that decision. I would think that the maternal instinct would be to choose life, not abortion. I know, what a concept!

Another disturbing thing is that most who describe themselves as pro-choice and support Planned Parenthood are completely ignorant of the origins of this organization and it's founder Margaret Sanger. Sanger was a eugenicist and a racist. She felt that people of color were "unfit" and that the "procreation of this group should be stopped".

No wonder so many Planned Parenthood clinics are located in African-American neighborhoods. It's really pretty shocking that some of the biggest defenders of Planned Parenthood are black politicians. Of course this is one of the reasons that the left has so dominated our public education system and curtailed the history that our children are taught. An ignorant population can be led to the slaughter much more easily than an informed one. But I digress.

One other thing that rarely gets talked about when discussing abortion is the man. What about the rights of the man in all of this? As things currently stand the woman gets to decide whether or not to keep the baby. The man has absolutely no say in most cases. However, if the woman decides to have the child the man is usually expected and often required to foot all or some of the costs of raising that child. So much for the "war on women".

The issues of prophylactic-contraception and abortion are not going to be solved here, or likely anytime soon in our political debates. But it would be nice if the debate were on the actual issues involved, rather than on disingenuous attacks on people of faith and good conscience.

Saturday, July 7, 2012

A Sad Day For Conservatives

Congressman Thaddeus McCotter (R-Livonia, MI) retired this week from his post in the United States House of Representatives. It is a sad day for the conservative movement and conservatives, whether they know it or not.

Many of us first became aware of Thad McCotter from his appearances on Fox News' Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld. This obscure congressman's dry sense of humor and keen intellect were on full display at 3am ET and we loved it and him.

But beyond his humor - which I've described as "The Bob Newhart of the House" - Rep. McCotter is also a talented musician and a great conservative statesman.

I've had the pleasure of interviewing the congressman several times on CRFRadio, and even had the occasion to wake him up as he dozed in a chair between sessions at the David Horowitz Restoration Weekend, in a hallway at the Breakers resort on Palm Beach Island. He always answered our questions directly and fully. And even when our questions sometimes challenged his positions, he remained a gentleman.

A great song by The Army You Have they wrote for McCotter's presidential campaign.

I believe his foray into the GOP Presidential Primaries was his undoing (as it may end up being for Michele Bachmann). He spent time and money in an ill-conceived bid for President of the United States and took his eye off his newly redrawn congressional district and his campaign. Ultimately he was undone by allegedly fraudulent signatures on his petitions. The Michigan Attorney General is investigating.

In any case, the United States House of Representatives and the conservative movement are diminished by the resignation of Congressman Thaddeus McCotter. He will be missed.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Is Mitt Romney Conservative? Who Cares?

During the height of the GOP Presidential Primaries a popular argument among grassroots, conservative, activists was: "Is Mitt Romney actually a conservative?"

Regardless of who you were supporting at that moment in the primary season, if you weren't already in the Romney camp, the answer to that question was probably "no".

There is no shortage of evidence to support the claim that Mitt Romney is not a conservative. Governor Romney has actually described himself as "a PROGRESSIVE-Republican", back before he described himself as "SEVERELY-conservative" at this year's CPAC gathering.

From his changes in position on issues important to social conservatives like same-sex marriage and abortion, to his embrace of "man-caused" climate change, to Romneycare, Mitt Romney has not been modestly, much less "severely", conservative.

During the primaries his conservative credentials, or lack thereof, was a valid and pertinent question to ask and debate. But now that Governor Mitt Romney is the presumptive - and yes inevitable - Republican nominee there seems to be little point in worrying about how conservative, moderate, or heaven help us, progressive he is.

Conservatives need not try to convince themselves, or anyone else, that Mitt Romney is the conservative candidate we had hoped for. For the purposes of the general election what is important is that Barack Obama is the worst U.S. President of modern times (arguably second to Jimmy Carter) and must not get a second term. If he does, he will be completely free to enact his radical agenda without any concerns about reelection.

President Obama has already diminished the stature of the United States in the world, by going on his apology tours, leading from behind and missing opportunities to support true freedom movements like the Green Movement in Iran, while quickly supporting Islamist "freedom" movements during the so-called "Arab Spring".

He has emboldened our adversaries and enemies - i.e. China, Russia, North Korea and Venezuela - while leaving our traditional allies - i.e. England and Israel - wondering if they can count on the United States to support them.

President Obama has increased the polarization of the American public, not just along party lines, but among economic and  racial lines as well. The post-racial President has turned out to be anything but, inserting himself in every racially charged controversy without all the facts. He has inspired the "Occupiers" by stoking class-envy and demonized private citizens for the "crime" of being successful.

And of course those are just a couple of his greatest hits. Let's not forget the trillion dollar "Stimulus", Obamacare, allowing his Justice Department to sue Arizona over SB1070 and the scandals of Solyndra and Fast and Furious.

The question is no longer, "Is Mitt Romney actually a conservative?" Now the question is, "What will America look like after 4 more years of Barack Obama if we allow Mitt Romney to lose?" '

Let's not find out!

It's Been A While...

It's been a while since my last posting, almost 3 months. My personal life has been in turmoil and it's been tough to get motivated to write about politics. However, things are starting to look up - at least slightly, so hopefully I'll be getting back to regular postings.

Thanks for your patience and support! Keep checking back for new articles and listen to CRF Radio w/Steven Rosenblum & Daria DiGiovanni every Saturday evening from 6:00-7:30pm ET.

Sunday, January 15, 2012

Is Santorum A Threat To Romney In Florida?

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.

Saturday, January 7, 2012

GOP “McCained” (Redux)

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:
  1. “Settle” for the most “electable” candidate – who just happens to be the next in line – the “progressive-Republican”, Mitt Romney.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

Friday, January 6, 2012

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.