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.

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.

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.

2012 Could Be a Train Wreck

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

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. 

Al Sharpton Uses The ‘Sauce’

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.