Libya: No-Fly Zone or No-Sense Zone?

Photo: AP Images

This week the UN Security Council approved a resolution to use force against the military of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, for "humanitarian reasons" in response to his attacks on civilians and rebel forces opposed to his regime. The vote was 10-5, with abstentions from permanent members Russia and China.

There has been mixed reaction from the American people and Congress, with Libertarian/Republican Ron Paul and several Democrats questioning not only the wisdom, but also the constitutionality, of US participation in military action against a sovereign nation without congressional approval.

This action has also raised the question as to when and where will the US and international forces intervene. Will Bahrain or Saudi Arabia, where the governments have also used force to quell civilian protests, be next? Diplomats and politicians have claimed they are trying to avoid a genocide by Qaddafi. But the President of Bahrain has killed more civilians in his nation that the Libyan dictator has. So what are the criteria for intervention?

Yesterday French military aircraft began attacking Libyan tanks and artillery positions. Canadian, Italian, Dutch and British forces are gearing up to participate in the next day or so. The Arab League has also pledged their support, after petitioning the UN for the resolution.

The Obama administration says it intends to limit US involvement, at least initially, to air support and missile attacks to take out Libyan air defenses. While it is probably a good idea to limit our participation in this way, it is unwise to tell our opponent our intentions Gen Cash . It would have been better to keep that information close to the vest and let Qaddafi worry about whether he would have to face the full force of the United States military and not just our air power.

11 US warships, including 3 submarines and the aircraft carrier Enterprise are already on station in the region. In fact American naval vessels have already launched cruise missile attacks along the Libyan coast.

This author will admit to mixed feelings about our participation in this military action. There is no doubt that Qaddafi is a maniacal dictator and a terrorist, who has murdered Americans, as well as his own people. It is likely that we should have assassinated him long ago for ordering the terrorist attack on Pan-Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. But we didn't and to commit military forces to his ouster now seems like overkill in a Fourth World nation that poses no national security threat to us here in America.

Those doubts were reinforced by an interview Saturday evening on 'Conservative Republican Forum' with Clare Lopez- a Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy and a former-CIA operations officer- and retired USAF Brigadier General Jimmy Cash. Both experts confirmed that we don't really know who the Libyan rebels are. Unlike in Iran, where those that rose up were clearly opposed to the Shariah Law that has been imposed upon them, in Libya the long-term intentions of those we're supporting are less clear.

You can listen to the full interviews here.

For the United States to be supporting the Libyan rebels, who we know very little about and who may very well have been the people celebrating in the streets when Megrahi- the Lockerbie bomber- returned to Libya as a national hero, could be a huge mistake.

Then there is the fact that President Obama waited 4 weeks, until after the opportunity to virtually crush the rebels, to act. This action may simply be too little, too late. To risk American blood and treasure at this late date seems very questionable to me, especially when we are already involved in wars in Iraq and the Afghan/Pakistan theatre.

Perhaps using CIA and special ops assets to supply and support the rebels might make sense... Maybe. But to commit military forces even if it is only air assets, without congressional approval, to supporting a rebel force that may be no better than Qaddafi in the final analysis may be folly.


Steven Rosenblum is the host of ‘Conservative Republican Forum’ on BlogTalkRadio and was the 2010 GOP nominee for Florida House- District 89.

Herman Cain- Exploring A Presidential Candidacy

Herman Cain talks to grassroots leaders and activists.

Saturday morning prospective presidential candidate Herman Cain, radio show host and former-CEO of God Father's Pizza, visited with a group of grassroots activists in West Palm Beach to let them know why he is exploring the possibility of running for President of the United States. 

Mr. Cain was warmly received and addressed several issues, including: Obamacare, illegal immigration, energy policy, the economy and how he would fix Social Security.

The possible candidate also answered several questions from the group on topics like how he would address rank-and-file union members. 

I asked him if he favored repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment, which would return the selection of U.S. Senators to the State Legislatures. His answer was refreshing, especially coming from someone considering a run for President. He admitted he hadn't really considered or researched the topic.

The United West Comes To Palm Beach

Sunday, March 6th 2011- Palm Beach, FL

This afternoon at the Mar-A-Lago Club on Palm Beach Island a little over 100 people gathered to learn about a new project, spearheaded by the director of the Florida Security Council Tom Trento.

The United West is an educational/activist organization aimed at informing the public about the dangers of “creeping” Shariah and Jihadism, not just to the United States, but also to Israel and the whole of Europe.

Popular local vocalist Lou Galterio -- who belted out his usual stirring rendition of the National Anthem -- opened the gathering.

Then the presentation got underway with terrorism and national security expert, Former-Assistant Secretary of Defense, Frank Gaffney who gave a brief introduction.

Subsequently Tom Trento and North Atlantic League Director Guido Lombardi made a few remarks welcoming their guests, before introducing the first of four featured speakers.

Nidra Poller is an American who has lived in Paris, France since 1972. She has watched the changes in that nation as the number of unemployed and increasingly radicalized Muslim-youth has increased. Ms. Poller, who has written extensively on the impact of Shariah on France, spoke of her experiences in a changing nation and warned that those same changes were already on our shores.

Next Elisabeth Sabaditsch Wolffe of Austria, was introduced. Miss Wolffe was found guilty of “hate speech”, under European Union Law, for talking about the fact Muhammad was married to a 9-year old. She had characterized him as a “pedophile” and since under EU Law anything that might be offensive to a Muslim - no matter how factual - is considered hate speech, she was found guilty.

Again the audience was warned that the First Amendment was already not sufficient protection from the creeping effects of Shariah in the United States. She pointed to the example of Seattle Weekly cartoonist Molly Norris, the impetus for the “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” cartoon, prompting Muslim jihadists to issue a fatwa against her. On the advice of the FBI, Norris has gone into hiding because the agency says they cannot protect her.

Another prominent example was Derek Fenton, who was fired from his New Jersey Transit job after burning a Quran on September 11, 2010 in protest over the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque”. The ACLU (of all people) is representing Fenton in court. The First Amendment did not prevent his employer from firing him for violating “it’s code of ethics”.

As the presentation progressed, Clare Lopez, a former CIA operations officer and a Senior Fellow at the Center For Security Policy, spoke about the failure of the U.S. intelligence community to recognize and address what she called “the Stealth Jihad”. She pointed out that the lexicon of the intelligence community has been “scrubbed” of words like “jihad”, “Islam”. “caliphate” and “Muslim”- just to name a few.

As with many of the speakers preceding her, Miss Lopez pointed out that we can not fight an enemy that we are unwilling to even identify. She said our intelligence services have done a pretty good job dealing with the more obvious violent Jihadists, but that is only part of the battle.

North Atlantic League Director Guido Lombardi then talked a bit about the political strides they have made in Italy to stem the tide of the Islamification of that European nation.

One of the highlights of the afternoon was a speech by former Florida House of Representatives Majority Leader Adam Hasner. Hasner has been a staunch supporter of Israel and opponent of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) - a front group of the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2009 CAIR called for Hasner to be removed from his post after he left the House chamber before Imam Qasim Ahmed led the opening prayer, then returned afterwards.

Leader Hasner is a probable candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2012 to challenge incumbent Bill Nelson. He invoked Ronald Reagan’s “peace through strength” message and warned about “Shariah-Compliant Islam”.

The surprise of the day was when Mar-A-Lago’s owner Donald Trump made a cameo appearance at The United West. Trump was attending the Make-A-Wish Foundation’s fundraiser on the lawn of the club and stopped in briefly. He was greeted by enthusiastic applause and made a brief statement from the podium, which mirrored his recent pubic comments about the Obama Administration and our relationship with China.

There was also a 15-minute video compilation of the work that the Florida Security Council has done exposing mosques being used to raise funds for terrorist groups like Hamas and revealing some of the imams and islamists that have been working here in Florida to support terrorist groups and gradually implement Shariah Law in our backyard.

The video also included an endorsement by outspoken Congressman Allen West (FL CD-22), who has had his own run-ins with CAIR over the past few years.

In Politics, As In Life, Sometimes “No” Means “No”

If a woman says “no” to the unwanted advances of a man, we hear that “no means no”. If that same man continues to badger the woman, after she says “no”, he is understood to be guilty of harassment.

When people badger a person to become a presidential candidate, to put their life on hold, travel the nation campaigning, open their life to the media and virtually unlimited scrutiny and of course expose themselves and their family to vicious attacks- even after that proposed candidate has eloquently articulated why they don’t feel they should run- what is that? Is it harassment?

Is it reasonable for well-meaning grassroots activists that would like a particular person to run for office to not accept “no” for an answer? Is there some obligation for a person to answer the call to run for office?

Allen West is a decorated, retired Army Lt. Colonel who served his nation in combat, with honor and distinction for more than twenty years- earning a Bronze Star, 3 Meritorious Service Medals, 3 Army Commendation Medals and a Valorous Unit Award. He then served as an advisor to the Afghan Army for three years.

After serving his nation, in the military and honoring his oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution from enemies, foreign and domestic, he returned home and ran for Congress (unsuccessfully) in the 2008 election cycle. Having garnered a very respectable percentage of the vote and building a solid and loyal following, Lt. Colonel West made the decision to run for Florida’s 22^nd Congressional Seat again in the 2010 election cycle. He unselfishly put his life on hold and his reputation on the line- suffering brutal personal attacks on a daily basis- because he felt that his nation needed him again.

Lt. Colonel Allen West was victorious on November 2^nd, 2010 and was sworn in as Congressman Allen West on January 5^th, 2011. He has now been in office for less than 2 months.

Running for Congress is itself a full-time job. A candidate eats, drinks and breathes his/her campaign. They are on the road for many long hours. And yet, compared to running for President of the United States, running for the U.S. House of Representatives is a cakewalk.

In order to run for President, a candidate must travel to all 50-states (57 if they’re Barack Obama) as well as some of the U.S. territories. They must do countless media and public appearances, endure relentless scrutiny and be away from their home and family- for weeks and months at a time. It is a 24 hour-a-day, 7 day-a-week, 365 day-a-year commitment, that one should only embark upon if they are totally, 100% resolute to it.

Frankly, considering what a thankless job it is and the scrutiny that modern presidential candidates face, it is a wonder that any qualified person would even contemplate attempting to run for President of the United States.

Congressman West has said that he is “humbled” by those that think he would make a good president. But when asked directly if he was thinking at all of running for President or Vice-President in 2012, he answered just as directly, “Well of course not”. He went on to articulate why he would not run in 2012, without ruling out a run at some future date, by saying “It’s so important that we as conservatives avoid the cult of personality style of leadership. But we really do elevate people based upon merit and talent. And, you know, I have to prove myself as an American statesman, as a political leader, and not just someone that is able to, you know give some good speeches. I have to be able to get up there and create legislation and get legislation pushed through and make myself a game changer on the House floor.”

Rather than accepting the straight-talking West at his word, many have chosen to say that if enough people call upon him to serve his nation again- on their schedule- he will answer that call.

Allen West is undoubtedly an American patriot. With enough pressure applied and enough repeated requests for him to run, it is remotely possible that he may choose to run. But the question is do we want him to run, not because he thinks he’s ready, or because he believes himself to be the most qualified candidate, but because he feels he has some obligation to give in and to answer the call of the people? To put it another way, is it right to draft a man who has already served his nation voluntarily?

This writer knows Allen West and has only the greatest respect and highest regard for both him and his service to our nation. And because of that admiration and esteem must question whether it is selfish for the people that continue to push for Congressman West to run for President at a time that is not of his choosing.

There is no question that conservative-Republicans are eager, even desperate, for a proven leader to step up and assume the role of the 2012 GOP nominee for President of the United States. But we shouldn’t let that desperation lead us to harass a reluctant patriot to run for an office he has said repeatedly he does not wish to seek at this time.

In politics, as in life, sometimes “no” means “no”.

Steven Rosenblum is the host of ‘Conservative Republican Forum’- on BlogTalkRadio and a 2010 GOP Florida State House Candidate.

Michele Bachmann: “This Game Doesn’t Last Very Long and the Music Stops”

In an exclusive one-on-one interview, recorded earlier this week, I spoke with Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota’s 6th Congressional District, for ‘Conservative Republican Forum’- on BlogTalkRadio.

The interview with the Congresswoman who sits on the House Financial Services and Intelligence Committees, covered topics ranging from what qualities she would like to see in the GOP’s 2012 presidential nominee, to the efforts to defund, repeal and replace Obamacare, to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s handling of border security and immigration enforcement.

I began by asking her, “As a business owner, a mother and a constitutional-conservative what qualities would you like to see in the 2012 Republican Presidential nominee?” Bachmann- who has not announced whether or not she will run for President in 2012- answered, “What I think we need to have in the 2012 nominee is a strong, courageous, constitutional-conservative who will be willing to come in and make the decisions that will be very difficult ones that will have to be made, but they will be bold enough to do that and by example I would mean the full repeal of Obamacare.”

She went on to say, “…if we are able to replace President Obama in 2012, they [the nominee] will face down probably the largest spectrum of special interest groups that we have ever seen arrayed before and there will be screaming and wailing and gnashing of teeth from everyone, from the media… as well as industry groups who seek to gain by having contracts with the federal government on implementation of Obamacare. So I think we will need a very strong individual, we will need a person who understands our times, who knows what to do and has the requisite political courage to make those important and very strong decisions.

Congresswoman Bachmann, who is the founder and chair of the House Tea Party Caucus, was asked about the House Republican leadership’s commitment to their promise to repeal, defund and replace Obamacare and what rank-and-file Republicans should make of the decision of the House Rules Committee to reject an amendment, by Iowa Congressman Steve King (R)-to the Continuing Budget Resolution-that would have fully defunded Obamacare.

Bachmann seemed sincerely unhappy with the answer she had to give. She began by saying, “I think what rank-and-file Republicans need to understand is that there is a commitment.” However she continued by explaining, “the insidious nature of what President Obama and Speaker Pelosi put into place in order to actually implement Obamacare.”

“We were under the thinking that we would have it within our authority in the House of Representatives to defund Obamacare. What we came to understand- You have to remember because Speaker Pelosi infamously said “we have to pass the bill to know what’s in it”- what we came to understand is that Speaker Pelosi put the funding for Obamacare into mandatory spending (which is two-thirds of the Federal Budget, including Social Security and Medicare), which means we are prohibited by law from touching that spending. They knew what they were doing, because they knew that they wanted socialized medicine to continue even if they lost the majority.”

The Congresswoman urged conservatives not to lose hope. She said instead, “what this does need to do is give us motivation to make sure that we win the Triple Crown in 2012. In other words we have to win the White House, win the Senate with 60 votes and the House of Representatives. This will be an uphill battle, but we can do it. The Tea Party demonstrated that we can have victories and we need to band together and explain to people that the only way that we will get rid of this government takeover of private industry and all of the sea of red ink that the liberals are producing is if we replace the White House, the Senate and the House.”

In light of the disappointing information about the prospects of defunding Obamacare, I asked Bachmann whether eliminating the funding for the new IRS agents that would be needed to enforce some of the provisions of Obamacare was still a possibility.

Her answer to that was query much more promising: “That is something that we’re looking at; as well we want to be able to do that. And I’m so happy that you brought that up, Steve. It’s important that your listeners know that the enforcement mechanism for Obamacare is now through the IRS. So the IRS now will take on a dual role. Their original charge was to collect revenues for the government. But now the IRS will effectively become the benefits manager for healthcare. So now think of how bizarre this will be, when we have problems with our healthcare, we’ll be contacting the IRS because they will be the benefits manager. So this is just one more huge hassle and huge bureaucracy that’s being created. Because remember with Obamacare we’re not getting more healthcare. We’re not getting more doctors or nurses or more healthcare. We’ve bought a bureaucracy. So we will be spending over a trillion dollars on this new welfare system in healthcare, but all we’ll be getting is a bureaucracy and of course the bureaucracy’s job will be to say NO. So what a deal, pay more, get less, that’s the future of socialized medicine. And no other nation has had any other experience with socialized medicine other than pay more get less. So we have a motivation and a reason to get rid of this program. And trust me, between Steve King and myself and others we are going to continue to look at this to figure out anything that we can do to stop implementation of Obamacare.”

Next I asked Congresswoman Bachmann if she “thinks that anyone in the Obama administration really has a grasp of just how harmful continually increasing our debt and massive deficits are to our economy.” Her answer was direct and typical of this straight-talking Tea Party favorite, “No. Other than the Debt Commission, that the President supported, there is a column that came out today by both former-Senator Simpson and Erskine Bowles, the two co-chairs of the President’s Debt Commission- one a Republican, one a Democrat- they both agreed that not enough money has been cut, either by the administration or by the Republicans. They’re recommending that more be cut and that we deal with the obvious cost driver in this budget, which is the mandatory spending under all of the healthcare/welfare programs.”

In terms of the federal government’s unsustainable borrowing to pay for Social Security, Bachmann said, “This game doesn’t last very long and the music stops. And so we have to reform Social Security, we have to reform Medicare. Quite simply it must be done and we can do it, that’s the good news. So people who are currently on Social Security and Medicare they would be able to continue their same benefits- it would be very difficult for them to change their current circumstances- the government can keep our promise with them, but for future retirees we will need to make adjustments and I think we can actually make positive adjustments that would mean even a better ending point for future Americans.”

Moving on to the issues of border security and immigration enforcement, I asked her, “What is your opinion of the job Secretary Napolitano is doing on border and immigration enforcement?” Once again Bachmann didn’t mince words, “I think it’s been a failure. If you look at the statistics, we do not have an airtight border. We do not have a border that is impenetrable and everyone realizes that there can be mistakes and lapses. But unfortunately we would prefer that that would be the exception rather than the rule. The rule today is that there is fairly lax border protection… the first duty of government is to secure the safety and security of the American people and a large part of that as we have seen in recent years has been with a failure to secure our borders and our ports.”

Following up on the performance of Secretary Napolitano, I inquired whether it was appropriate for Secretary Napolitano to travel to the Afghan/Pakistani border and to actually deploy our very limited border patrol agents to help them secure a border that probably can’t be secured. The Congresswoman said, “That doesn’t really bode well for a good story line here in the United States when we are dispatching Americans to secure other nation’s borders. I understand that there can be an American interest in doing so, because that may mean that we would be saving the lives of our American soldiers, and I certainly am in favor of that. But I think that both of those ends do not need to be mutually exclusive. Because again she is the director of homeland security, and as such, her position demands I think a greater attention to securing the American borders and unfortunately that has not been done.”

My final question for Congresswoman Bachmann was about her reaction to the congressional testimony of the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, who infamously referred to the Muslim Brotherhood as a “secular organization” that has “eschewed violence”. She was limited in what she could say due to her position on the House Intelligence Committee, but I think what she did say was telling. “I think there is information available publicly, to anyone who would like to discern that information, as to what the Muslim Brotherhood writes about themselves and what their positions and views are. And I think that is readily available for people to read. Now because of the position I hold on the Intelligence Committee, our committee is tasked with dealing with the nation’s classified secrets and because of that I am not in a position to comment.”

You can listen to this interview in its entirety (as well as our interview with a survivor of the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon & author of ‘Pentagon Prayer’: Dan Holdridge) here.

Steven Rosenblum is the host of ‘Conservative Republican Forum’- on BlogTalkRadio and a 2010 GOP nominee for Florida State House.

Wisconsin- Political Backbone vs. Spineless Hypocrisy

The current battle over public employee benefits in Wisconsin is a contrast between those with political backbone and those who are politically spineless.

Republican Governor Scott Walker, facing a budget shortfall of $3.6 billion, has come to the correct conclusion that rather than raising taxes he must ask public workers – whose wages are paid by the taxpayers of Wisconsin - to contribute half the cost of their fixed-benefit pensions and 12.6% of their health coverage. In other words, to do the exact same thing private sector employees (those who have pensions anyway) have been doing for years -- pay their fair share.

In response to these modest demands, President Obama, Organizing for America, the Democratic National Committee, the labor unions and the Democrat members of the Wisconsin State Legislature have accused Governor Walker of launching “an assault” on unions.

In a gutless political stunt, the Democrat members of the State Senate fled Wisconsin in order to avoid having to take a vote. Although infantile and dramatic, this off-putting action will ultimately have no impact.

Speaking to Fox News’ Greta Van Sustren by phone, Governor walker said of the AWOL state senators, “They’re hiding out in another state. You know, unlike the vast majority of state and local government employees, most of those employees – 300,000 – showed up for work today,”

President Obama, who'd supposedly moved to the center, waded instinctively into the fray, predictably taking the side of the unions, noting "And I think it's very important for us to understand that public employees, they're our neighbors, they're our friends." He conveniently forgot that Wisconsin’s teachers make about $50,000 a year (for 9 months work), which increases to about $70,000 when benefits are factored into the equation. Moreover, the President also named police and fireman as “victims” of this allegedly unjust legislation, even though they are specifically excluded from its provisions.

As an example to their students, many of the State’s teachers called in sick and headed to Madison to protest the Governor and legislature. With apparent disregard for President Obama’s recent call for civility in public and political discourse they carried signs that compared Governor Walker to Hitler and Mubarak, some saying things like “One dictator down, one to go”. Another sign featured an image of the Governor with a crosshair over his face and the words “Don’t retreat, reload”. Ironically another sign urged, “Stop the hypocrisy”.

As more and more Americans realize that unions are not representing the best interests of their members -- the people they’re supposed to serve – let alone the nation, public opinion turns further against them. Governor Walker obviously recognizing this fact said of the protestors, “I’ve said all along: The thousands of people who are storming the Capitol have a right to be heard. But I’m not going to let them overshadow the voices of the millions of taxpayers in the state of Wisconsin who deserve to be heard, as well.”

At a time when states are trying to close huge budget shortfalls and unemployment is over 9% nationally, and in double-digits in many states, union members and leadership must recognize that if they don’t agree to concessions, they will join the ranks of the unemployed.

The actions of Governor Walker and the Wisconsin Legislature are necessary to save their state from financial ruin. Their move to curtail the collective bargaining powers of the big labor unions is a real threat to the dwindling power of unions and that’s why they and their Democrat allies are so scared. If the unions don’t get back to work and get with the program, the Governor should fire them all and hire non-union replacements to take their place.

As we’ve seen with Chris Christie in New Jersey and even Andrew Cuomo in New York, state governors across the USA realize that they have to show backbone and cut costs if they want to balance their budgets. The era of the spineless politician that caves in to unreasonable union demands and raises taxes is thankfully over.