Casey Anthony is Irrelevant

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:

1. 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.
2. The jury was instructed to disregard certain things that the judge determined were inadmissible.
3. The jury had the responsibility to decide which witnesses and which witness testimony was credible.
4. 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.
5. The prosecution had a theory about how Caylee died, but the medical examiner never said what caused her death.
6. 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used relied on new science and techniques, that had never been admitted in a Florida court before and which had not been peer reviewed.
7. 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?

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

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’

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

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

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.