2008? No, It's 1938

Neville Chamberlain returning from Munich 1938


It's been 70 years since British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain flew back to London from his meeting with Adolf Hitler in Munich and waved a piece of paper in his hand proclaiming, "Peace in our time." Of course, the following year, the world was plunged into World War II. Today, instead of Nazism, the world is faced with a new scourge, Islamo-Terrorism, Islamo-Fascism or whatever you want to call it. One would think that we had learned the lessons of history when it comes to appeasing the forces of evil. Yet, it seems that when it comes to Islamic terror, we have forgotten the lessons of the past. There are some notable parallels, in my view, between today and the 1930s.

After his failed 1923 Putsch, Hitler found himself incarcerated in Landsberg Prison near Munich in 1924, where he wrote Mein Kampf. In this book, he spelled out his hatred of Jews and plans to re-establish Germany's greatness through re-militarization and territorial expansion to the east. The world did not take him seriously. They thought he would never be able to attain that kind of power, even within Germany. They were wrong.

Islamic terrorists take their inspiration from passages in the Koran that they feel give them guidance in killing those who don't share their religion. Virtually every sura (chapter) reinforces the belief that non-believers will burn in Hell.

Once Hitler took power in Germany, after years of agitation and street brawls, he acted quickly to establish a dictatorship. On April 1, 1933, Nazis launched the boycott of Jewish businesses. In 1935, the so-called Nuremberg Laws were promulgated, codifying the second-class status of German Jews.

In 1936, German troops reoccupied the Rhineland-in violation of the Versailles Treaty. Great Britain and France took no action-further emboldening Hitler.

In 1938, Hitler marched into Austria, annexing that country into a greater German Reich. Great Britain and France stood by and watched.

Then, the same year, Hitler demanded the Sudentenland region of Czechoslovakia, based on the fact that it was primarily inhabited by ethnic Germans who were being mistreated. This brought Europe close to war. Within the space of a fortnight, Neville Chamberlain flew to Germany three times to meet and negotiate with Hitler. Chamberlain was determined to avert war over "a people of whom we know so little" to use his words. When the meeting was over, the Czechs were advised that the Sudetenland would have to handed over to Germany-or they would be on their own-previous commitments notwithstanding. Chamberlain flew home to announce "Peace in our time."

In November of 1938, the world watched in shock as the Nazis carried out Reichskristallnacht (Night of Broken Glass), by which Jewish shops, homes and synagogues were smashed, Jews were dragged to jail, and-in some cases murdered. Once again, the world stood by and did nothing.

It wasn't until Germany invaded Poland in 1939 that the scales dropped from the eyes of the British and French and war began. It was only then that the Brits and French realized that they could not negotiate with Hitler.

Meanwhile in the US, President Roosevelt, who understood the threat, was thwarted by public opinion that wanted no part of another European war. Famed aviator, Charles Lindbergh, was an ardent admirer of Hitler. He led the fight to keep America neutral. Another prominent voice for neutrality was Joseph Kennedy (father of JFK), even though he was the American ambassador to London. Then there was the Nazi-supporting German-American Bund, a 5th column German-American organization on our soil. It was only after Pearl Harbor, when the US declared war on Imperial Japan, and Hitler declared war on our country, that we entered the European war.

Today, we see similarities vis-a-vis Islamic terrorism. In spite of everything that has happened and continues to happen every day, there are many in the West who will not face reality. We have experienced 9-11. The British experienced the subway and bus bombings. Madrid experienced its train bombings. How did the Spaniards react? They voted out their government in favor of a new soft-line prime minister who pulled his troops out of Iraq.

The situation in Britain is most disturbing. Muslim clerics in mosques preach hate and violence against British society. Muslims demonstrate on London streets demanding that anyone who "insults" Islam be "butchered" or "beheaded". How does Britain react? They bend over backwards to toe the politically correct line. Just in the past few days, "The Three Little Pigs" has been suppressed because pigs are offensive to Muslims. Now acts of terror are officially being called "anti-Islamic acts" since they do damage to Islam's image. British jails have re-installed toilet seats to ensure that Muslim prisoners don't have to face their backsides toward Mecca.

Meanwhile in the Netherlands, they have witnessed the bloody murder of film producer Theo van Gogh on a Dutch street for the "crime" of making a film critical of Islam's treatment of women. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali immigrant and Muslim apostate, who collaborated in the film, has been living under intense security ever since. Currently, a Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, is trying to produce a 10-minute film critical of the Koran. Not surprisingly, he lives under threat of murder while Iran makes veiled threats against the Netherlands, trying to force them to prohibit the showing of the film.

In other major European cities like Paris, Rotterdam and Malmo, Sweden, police are afraid to enter Muslim enclaves, where practices like "honor-killings" and female circumcision are carried out though in contravention of national law.

Here at home in the US, where have we been so far spared the Muslim violence seen in Europe, we are witnessing a growing disaffection from American society on the part of many Muslims. On many universities (like mine-UC-Irvine), Muslim Student Unions regularly bring in radical Muslim speakers who advocate hate and violence toward Israel and "Zionist Jews". Many of these speakers also direct their vile hatred toward America as well. In some places, like Minneapolis, some Muslim cab drivers refuse to carry passengers who have alcohol. Some Muslim check-out clerks in grocery stores will not service customers purchasing pork. Not long ago, a group of radical Imams deliberately provoked airline passengers while boarding a flight, managing to get themselves removed from a flight so that they could start a lawsuit, aided by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). So how do we react to all this effrontery? The University of Michigan at Dearborn has installed foot baths in their restrooms-courtesy of the Michigan tax-payers. Secondary schools all over the nation have initiated courses for children to provide them with a positive image of Islam-while any recognition of Christianity or Judaism is considered unacceptable.

The problem is that both here and in Europe, we are being governed by political correctness. We must all proclaim that we respect Islam, and we consider Islam to be a religion of peace. It doesn't matter how much violence and expressions of hate are carried out by certain Muslims. When was the last time you heard a Democratic politician use the term, "Islamic Terror"? The reality is that most Americans, while trying to be fair and not punish decent, innocent Muslims, really are wondering about the true nature of this religion. Religion of peace? Well, we have doubts. We want to believe the best about other faiths, but how can we not have doubts given what is going on in the world, not just in the Middle East, but in Western countries where large numbers of Muslim immigrants have settled? This is not to paint all Muslims with the same brush, but some have not conducted themselves like ideal guests.

How great it would have been if the millions of decent Germans had risen up to overthrow Hitler and the Nazis. Tragically, they did not-or could not since the police state was too powerful. Similarly, how great it would be if the decent, peace-loving Muslims would rise up and defeat the murderers and hate-mongers among them. Whether they will remains to be seen.

My point is this: While we want to live peacefully with our Muslim neighbors, we must make it clear that we will defend ourselves against Islamic terror. We will not throw away our own religions, traditions, customs and laws because they are "offensive" to Muslims. There will be no Shariah law in our countries. We will not submit to them. Unfortunately, Western Civilization has been infected with a "peace in our time" mentality that says that, if we just make a few more concessions here and there, we can peacefully co-exist.

Neville Chamberlain would be proud.

The Fousesquawk Conundrum

"Fousesquawk says that Obama is the fairest of them all-at least among you Democrats"


With the results of the Republican Florida Primary in, it is looking increasingly obvious that the race is now between John McCain and Mitt Romney. With the California Primary fast approaching, I am at the horns of a dilemma. My preference is now Mitt Romney, but there is just one problem. As a registered non-partison, I can't vote for him-or any other Republican. You see, in California, the Republicans will not allow non-Republicans to vote on their slate of candidates. The Democrats will take votes from non-Democrats, be they Republicans, independents or whatever. (In fact, they welcome votes from dead people, illegal aliens and prisoners as well.)

So here is my dilemma. I cannot obtain a Republican ballot. I can, however, get a Democrat ballot, Independent ballot, or any other party ballot. What should I do?

I don't want to stay home on Primary day; there are various ballot issues that I need to vote no on. I won't bore you with the details, but suffice to say, they have been put on the ballot by our lunatic government in Sacramento and involve spending vast sums of money, keeping corrupt politicians in office beyond term limits and some questionable deals between the State Government and Indian gaming casinos.

My dilemma is this: Should I do the only meaningful thing and cast my vote for Barack Obama as the Democratic candidate? It's not that I am swept away by Mr Excitement himself-I am not. But the idea of casting a vote against Hillary Clinton is exciting in itself. This is not an easy decision. Though I am an independent, I have never in my life voted for a Democrat. I am proud of that distinction, not only because I detest the Democrats, but also because I am the only member of my family that isn't a card-carrying Democrat.

On the one hand, a principled position would be not to vote for any candidate and let Democratic voters decide upon their own candidate. Yet, on the other hand, if Democrats can go after the votes of dead folks, illegal aliens and convicted felons, why deny them my vote in this "special circumstance"? I think I've made up my mind. Hee, hee, hee.

The "Drug Wars" (3), Las Vegas-1971

"He put me in my own jail"


From 1970-73, prior to joining DEA, I was working as a US Customs agent at Terminal Island, California (near Long Beach). I worked in a group that investigated drug smuggling by private or rented aircraft (which mostly consisted of marijuana being smuggled out of Mexico in quantities of hundreds of pounds per load.)

In our group, we had an older agent named Don (when I say older, I guess he was in his late 30s at the time.) Don was heavy set, with a butch haircut, dressed like a cowboy-usually in black and was known for his blunt talk. Though a nice guy, he was not known for his tact. He also had the dubious knack for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. In the early 1970s, as plane highjackings had become a problem, the Treasury Department instituted its Skymarshall program principally on flights between Europe and the US. Don served as a skymarshal on several occasions. One evening in Geneva, Switzerland, Don walked into his hotel bar to relax after a long transcontinental flight from New York. There were only a few people in the bar, so as Don placed his order, he told the waiter to serve drinks to everyone in the house on him. Well, seated at the bar was a Russian military attache and his ladyfriend. When the drinks arrived, and the waiter explained that the drinks were courtesy of the American, the Russian reacted angrily.

"No American is going to buy me a drink", said the Russian as he threw the glass at Don breaking a wall mirror in the process. After the big fight that ensued, Don wound up paying for much more than the drinks.

Then there was the time when Don walked into a Jewish deli in New York City, an elderly lady took one look at him and screamed, "It's Martin Bormann!!" Faster than you can say mistaken identity, the police were on the scene to ID Don and calm the old lady down. (Martin Bormann was Hitler's Chancellary adjutant who disappeared during the fall of Berlin in 1945. It was not confirmed until decades later-after this event-that he had, in fact, died in Berlin.)

But my greatest memory of Don was the one I was personally involved in. One night in 1971, our group was conducting surveillance on the home of a known smuggler based on information that he was going to pick up a load of marijuana being brought in from Mexico via private plane. It was a rainy night, and at about 9pm, the suspect and another person came out of the house and drove off in a van for who knew where.

As we followed them , they drove east from the Los Angeles area, past San Bernadino on I 15 in the direction of Las Vegas. Along the way, we had our radio operator call Don at home because he lived in that area in Apple Valley. Within minutes, he joined in the moving surveillance.

Keep in mind, we had no idea where the suspects were headed for their pick-up point to meet the plane carrying the marijuana. Due to the terrain of the Southwest, it was either a small uncontrolled airport or possibly a dry-lake bed in the vast desert area, where planes could land undetected.

Around 2 am, we found ourselves entering Las Vegas, where the van stopped and the suspects entered a Denny's restaurant to eat. At this time, we contacted the head of the US Customs office in Las Vegas, who joined in the surveillance.

While we were sitting in our cars conducting surveillance in the parking lot, we attracted the attention of a local police officer ( I will call him Officer X)who approached one of our cars, at which time one of our agents identified himself as a Customs agent conducting surveillance. The officer was puzzled by the presence of Customs agents so far from the border, but backed off. Yet, somewhat suspicious, he didn't leave the area, but parked nearby watching the scene.

After a while, the suspects got back in their van and continued their trip, with us following. Also following was Officer X, who fell in behind our cars. A short distance away, he decided to stop the last car in our surveillance-which was driven by Don. What happened next was not pretty.

As the officer approached Don's car, Don said something to the effect that the officer should go back to writing parking tickets and let the "big boys" worry about real crime. Not only was this undiplomatic, but it was the last thing you want to say to a brother law enforcement officer. The reaction was immediate:

Officer X: "Get out of the car and let me see some ID."

At this point, Don told the officer that he was on surveillance,and if he didn't let him go immediately, he (Don) was going to put him (the Las Vegas officer) in his own jail. Don also got on the radio and asked our Las Vegas agent to return to the scene or he would put this officer "in his own jail". (I should add at this juncture that unfortunately, these incidents do occasionally happen between officers of different law enforcement jurisdictions-unfortunate as they are.)

To make a long story short, it took our Las Vegas agent and a local police supervisor to iron out the dispute-as we continued our moving surveillance.

As time dragged on in the wee hours of the morning, we continued following the suspect van through the desert, mostly with our lights out, now joined by a helicopter. At one point, about 4 am, in the middle of nowhere, I saw a couple of buildings off the road lit up as if it were Christmas. I asked over the radio, "What are those lights off to the side of the road?"

"That's a whorehouse, you idiot!"

"Oh."

Again, to make a long story short, the next day, the van met a plane that landed on a dry lake bed loaded with hundreds of pounds of marijuana. As they drove back in the direction of California, they were stopped, arrested, and taken to the Clark County Jail in Las Vegas for processing.

A few hours later, we started making our way back home to LA. Don stopped at the Las Vegas Airport to make a call to the jail trying to contact the agent in charge of the case who was booking the prisoners. The call was answered by none other than Officer X- who had just been disciplinarily transferred to the jail for interfering with another law enforcement officer.

" Clark County Jail, Officer X speaking."

Don: "Officer X! You SOB! I told you I'd put you in your own jail!"

The Kennedy Endorsement and NOW

"By the way, Osama, do you drink?"


In the wake of the Ted Kennedy endorsement of Barack Obama for president, at least some feminists are howling betrayal. The most notable is Ms. Marcia Pappas, the head of the New York State chapter of NOW (National Organization of Women). Prior to the endorsement, Ms Pappas had written (on January 11) that Hillary Clinton was the victim of a "psychological gang-bang", in effect, being ganged up on by Obama and John Edwards. This, according to Ms Pappas, was "proof that we need a woman in the White House". Ms Pappas' unfortunate choice of language was meant to buttress the image of Hillary as victim-in this case of sexism. Whether that image will benefit Clinton in the long run is dubious since it is doubtful that the majority of Americans want a victim as their president.

But Ms Pappas' reaction to the endorsement of Obama by Kennedy highlights the fixation that liberals have on issues of race and gender. In her letter, Pappas calls Kennedy's endorsement a betrayal and abandonment (of women). Ms Pappas said that Kennedy has joined the list of "white progressives" who can't handle the thought of a woman president-who is Hillary Clinton.

Ms Pappas, I have a question for you:

What does Kennedy's being white have to do with anything? Are you ignoring the fact that Obama is getting the votes of black men- black "progressive" men, if you will?

Ms Pappas also mentioned that "women" have repeatedly forgiven Senator Kennedy for being "late in support of" Title IX, ERA and the Family Leave and Medical Act.

Ms Pappas, another question:

Where were you when Kennedy left a young woman to drown in his car at Chappaquidick? Where were you as Kennedy was gradually destroying the life of his wife, Joan through his numerous affairs? Did you forgive him for those things also? Where were you when the senator was periferally involved in the rape accusation against his nephew, William Smith? Did you ever speak out against the senator on those occasions? Did you demand that he resign? Did you demand that he be investigated and removed from office? Did you? Did NOW?

Further, since you feel so strongly that we need Hillary (and Bill) back in the White House, where were you when Bill was using the White House as a private bordello, while Hillary led the effort to discredit and destroy all the women who claimed to have had affairs with or been sexually assaulted by Bill? Where was your organization during the Clinton White House years? (Yes, I know the NOW website stated that you "condemned" the Lewinsky affair-but that it did not "rise to the level of impeachment". The old "Move On" argument.)

It should be added here that the New York City and national chapters of NOW have issued statements praising Ted Kennedy's work on behalf of women, and that they respect the senator's endorsement. Maybe they should address the above questions as well.

But it is Ms Pappas' above two statements that give the lie to the NOW organization. In reality, their concern is not about "womens' issues", rather liberal politics. Ms Pappas wants to see a woman president, which is her right. Of course, she doesn't want a conservative woman president like, say Condi Rice. It must be a liberal like Hillary Clinton. Some years back, Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) was running in the Republican primaries for the presidential nomination. Do you think Dole got any support from NOW or Marcia Pappas? Of course not.

This issue is just more proof that NOW is about liberal politics. It also reminds us of liberals' fixation on race and gender-two issues that are dividing Democratic voters as we speak. Contrary to what Ms Pappas thinks, I anticipate seeing a woman and/or black president in the near future. I think America is ready for either-but who they are matters. I am prepared to vote for either-as long as they are conservative.

How Bill Clinton Compromised the Secret Service

The guy on the far left is a Secret Service Agent.



One of the most overlooked aspects of the whole Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky scandal was the role of the US Secret Service while Clinton was president. Just like the Arkansas State troopers who had been assigned to guard then-Arkansas Governor Clinton, the Secret Service was severely compromised by having to protect a president who was a serial philanderer.

Let me state at the outset that I have great respect for the Secret Service as an agency. During my DEA career, I had occasions to work with some of them. (Aside from their protection duties, they also have jurisdiction for enforcing counterfeit crimes.) When I was stationed in Milan at the US Consulate in the 1980s, the USSS also had an office in the consulate because there was a lot of traffic in US counterfeit currency in Italy. When I left Milan to return to the US in 1987, the head of the office presented me with a certificate of appreciation signed by their director. To this day, it hangs proudly on my wall, as does a (facsimile) signed portrait of Ronald Reagan, which was a gift from the agency.

Yet, regrettably, I think it is obvious that the agency was greatly compromised during the Clinton Administration by a president who could not control his womanizing impulses. I don't have any inside Clinton stories provided by USSS contacts, but common sense tells me that it is impossible for any woman to gain access to the President of the United States without getting past the Secret Service Protection Detail. Such was the case in the Kennedy Administration, and it was obviously no different in the Clinton Administration. Any fling that Clinton had while in office-or after, for that matter, has to be known to his guards.

During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, we learned that on one occasion after she had been reassigned to the Pentagon, Lewinsky came to the front gate of the White House attempting to gain entry to see Clinton. While at the guard booth, she became unruly and began shouting that she knew Clinton was being visited by some other woman-all this in public view.

We also know that the then-director of the USSS, Lewis Merletti, whom Clinton had appointed to the position, made a strong legal effort to preclude any of his agents and officers from having to testify before the Grand Jury as to what they knew about Clinton and Lewinsky, citing presidential-security privilege. That,of course, was a dubious claim as there is no legal precedent for this kind of legal privilege (such as doctor-patient, husband-wife or minister-penitent). If a Secret Service agent saw or heard something that was a crime or evidence of a crime by the president, he/she would be obligated to reveal that knowledge. In the case of Lewinsky, it is obvious that there were Secret Service personnel who had personal and direct knowledge of the relationship. Once Clinton was accused of perjury and obstruction of justice in trying to conceal that relationship, the knowledge of the agents would have been pertinent to the investigation. To take this to its extreme, what if the Secret Service had walked into a room and found a president committing a rape-or murder? Would their testimony have been precluded? Clearly not.

The Secret Service does have an agency code of conduct to the effect that agents will not publicly speak about their intimate knowledge or observations of the president and his family. That is laudable, but it has no basis in law. (Within the USSS and federal law enforcement circles, such stories do get around. The Secret Service stories about Lyndon Johnson were legendary.) In my view, Merletti's attempt to create a firewall between the Special Counsel, Kenneth Starr and his agents was reprehensible and a disservice to his agency.

This is a problem that will arise any time we have a president who is engaged in this kind of activity. It cannot possibly be carried off without the knowledge, indeed, the acquiescence of the Secret Service. Thus, the agency is automatically placed in a compromising position that it does not deserve to be placed in.

For those who continue to argue that Clinton (and Kennedy's) presidential philandering was of no consequence to the public, they might want to ponder if they really want the Secret Service placed in a position of being nothing more than a palace guard. It is the duty of the USSS to protect the president, not help cover up his indiscretions-or crimes. There is no doubt in my mind that the members of this agency feel the same way.

Should the Secret Service agents publicly reveal affairs and other indiscretions by a president? No. That is against their professional code of conduct. Once it crosses the line into illegal behavior, that is entirely different.

Great Orators

Adolf Hitler at the 1934 Nuremberg Party Rally


The emergence of Barack Obama has highlighted the talent of certain politicians to engage in stirring oratory when speaking before the public. There is no doubt that Obama possesses the gift of oratory. His victory speech in South Carolina yesterday was spectacular. Though overshadowed by Obama, John Edwards is also a gifted public speaker, honed by years of work in North Carolina courtrooms convincing gullible jurors that birth defects are caused by negligent doctors and hospitals. Edwards' talent for oratory has paid off for him, making him one of his state's wealthiest citizens, even as he goes around describing an America that comes straight out of a Charles Dickens novel.

In our more recent history, we have seen other gifted speakers in America, most notably Franklin Roosevelt, John F Kennedy, and of course, arguably the greatest, Martin Luther King. It is undeniable that masses of people can be swept away by a great speaker. Depending on the nature of the speaker and what he or she really stands for, that can be a good-or bad thing. Most would argue that the above three were also mostly good (perhaps great) men with a positive message. But there are exceptions.

After I completed my tour of military service in Germany in the late 1960s, I became fascinated by the history of the Third Reich, particularly because I was stationed just outside Nuremberg, the so-called "shrine" of Nazism. Over the years, I became sort of an amateur scholar on the Nazi era. As part of my historical research and study of the German language, I collected many recordings of speeches and radio broadcasts from the times, including speeches by Hitler and Josef Goebbels. There is no question that Hitler was a gifted public speaker, who rallied the masses behind a message of hate. In my opinion, Goebbels was even more talented because he had a much better voice than Hitler and, with his superior education (PHD), a greater command of the German language. His Totalen Krieg (Total War) speech in the Berlin Sports Palace in 1943 was a masterpiece of German bombastic oratory, and the response from his audience was wild. Of course, in those days, bombast was the order of the day, and the German language lends itself well to that style of speaking. Since World War II, of course, that style has gone out of fashion lest people be reminded of the Nazi era. If you listen to German news programs now, what you hear is a very low key, "talking head" style of speaking.

This brings me to my point about politicians who are great speakers. It has nothing to do with their intentions, policies, fitness for office or character. Now let me state clearly at this point that I am not trying to draw a moral comparison between Hitler/Goebbels and Obama/Edwards. I am merely suggesting that when we listen to someone speak, we can enjoy the oratory, but we should not lose track of what the real message is-if there is one at all. Hitler and Goebbels had a message, but it was one of hate. Edwards has a message too-not of hate, but one of victimhood and class resentment, even though he is of the class that he wants his listeners to resent. Jesse Jackson is another wonderful speaker, though, like President Bush, he is in trouble without a prepared text-and he has been discredited in the eyes of millions of Americans, including a growing number of blacks. As for Obama, I am still not sure what his message is because he doesn't really get into specifics-just about "change" and a "better America", etc. Once you get past the sterling oratory, you are not left with much of substance. We should not overlook this.

On the opposite side, we have seen plenty of politicians who are bad public speakers, including several presidents. Nixon, Bush (the elder)and LBJ come to mind. George W Bush, of course, is noted for being inarticulate once removed from a prepared speech-though he has had outstanding speech writers. Though Jimmy Carter was often wooden in his speeches as president, I saw him speak last year at the University of California at Irvine. His style was conversational and rather effective-though there is little or nothing that I agree with him on. The point is that these persons' lack of speaking skills is unrelated to how good or bad they were, either in character or competence.

It is fine to enjoy the speeches of talented orators, but the audience should not lose sight of the actual message, nor the person behind the words. After all, if you show me a great speaker, I will show you-a great speaker.

The "Drug Wars" (2)- Australia 1982

"Another beer for my American mate, Fousesquawk"


In 1982, I had occasion to go to Bangkok on a case from my home base in Los Angeles. (I had been stationed in Bangkok from 1975-1978.) Prior to leaving LA, I paid about $100 dollars extra for a triangle fare in order to visit Australia for three days on my return. While in Bangkok, I called an old Australian Customs colleague (Frank)with whom I had worked in Bangkok. having finished his stint in Thailand, he was back in Canberra. It was arranged that when I was finished with the case in Bangkok, I would let him know of my arrival in Sydney, and he would come to Sydney to spend a couple of days.

Upon my arrival in Sydney, I was met at the airport by a couple of Frank's Customs colleagues who took my to my hotel. I learned that Frank was unable to get away from Canberra, but that his colleagues would take care of me in Sydney, and, in a day or two, put me on a flight to Canberra.

During my stay in Sydney, the Customs guys treated me with incredible hospitality, showing me the town, taking me out to lunch and dinner (at their expense). But it was then that I learned first-hand about the drinking habits of Australian men-particularly cops. Let's just say that few nationalities can match the Australian men for their love of drinking. Every lunch turned into a three houyr affair-lunch followed by endless rounds of beer; then dinner followed by endless rounds of beer or other spirits. One night at dinner, the meal was followed by about 15 rounds of port-to the point that when the cops went to the bathroom, I was pouring the wine into a potted plant near the table.

After that, it was off to the King's Cross section of Sydney for more pubs. Finally around midnight, desperately searching for a way to end the evening, I spotted a lady at the other end of the bar paying her bill and getting ready to leave. Somehow, in my clouded head, I came up with a brilliant idea. Getting up from the barstool, I said, "Hey mates, watch this." I then walked over to the lady, who promptly told me she was leaving and not interested in starting up a conversation.

"No, no. You don't understand", I explained. "You see those maniacs at the end of the bar? I need to get away from them and go back to my hotel. Just walk out the door with me, then I'll go my own way." Hearing my American accent, she sized up the situation immediately. Another American guy being drunk under the table by the Aussie guys.

"Sure", she said smiling.

As we walked out the door, the Customs guys were all giving me the thumbs up sign, big smiles on their faces. The lady and I got outside the door, I thanked her and went on my way alone back to my hotel.

The next day, the boys took me to the airport and put me on a plane to Canberra, courtesy of the Australian taxpayers. Upon arrival in Canberra, Frank met me at the airport and took me to lunch, followed by hours of beers until it was time for dinner-followed by more hours of beers until we got back to his place about 3am.

The next morning, after breakfast with his obviously unhappy wife, Frank took me back to the airport for my return flight to Sydney and a connection to Honolulu and Los Angeles. By this time, I was pretty much pickled from three days of non-stop drinking with the Aussies. I had a 6 hour layover in Sydney and I planned to put it to good use-sleeping.

Frank told me, "Listen, the guys in Sydney are busy on a case today, but when you get in, call them and when they're free, they'll come to the airport and meet you."

"Sure", I told him.

At 1pm, I was at Sydney Airport and had a 6 hour wait for a 7pm flight. I proceeded to find a corner in the farthest corner of the airport from my gate and closed my eyes. After about 30 minutes, a guy came up to me and asked, "Are you Gary?"

"Uh,....yeah"

"Well, I'm so and so from Customs, the boys sent me here to meet you. They'll be along shortly. C'mon. Let's go have a beer."

So off we went to the airport bar. The boys arrived and we proceeded to have another 24 beers. When my flight was called, my colleagues literally dragged me to the plane, a Qantas flight to Honolulu. At the gateway, they flashed their badges and told the hostess, "Put this guy in first class." Dropping me in a window seat next to a distinguished middle-aged gentleman in a business suit-who had paid good money for a first-class seat, they bid me good-bye and bon voyage. The hostess walked up with two bottles of champagne, starting to ask me if I wanted white or pink - or whatever the hell it was, then stopped and said, "I don't think you are really interested in this. Why don't I just turn out the lights for you, sir?"

"Thank you", I mumbled-and slept the whole way to Honolulu.

The moral of the story is this: If you ever go to Australia, don't tell anyone you're coming.

Obama Wins in South Carolina

South Carolina to Hillary: "It's Obama! And by the way, Queenie, you're ugly!"


As the returns are still coming in, Barack Obama has been declared the landslide winner in the South Carolina Democratic Primary. With 95% of the precincts counted, Obama has 55%, Hillary Clinton 27% and John Edwards 18%. While the Clinton campaign had all but conceded the state, the landslide numbers must be considered cause for real concern for Hillary. Blacks, as predicted, voted overwhelmingly for Obama in spite of Hillary's courtship of black leaders that a few months ago, seemed to foretell a victory in the Palmetto State. Obama also did rather well with white voters, which may be a refutation of the apparent Clinton strategy of turning this into a racial divide within the Democratic Party.

This can only reinforce the growing perception that Democrats are becoming turned off by the ugly Clinton tactics. Conventional wisdom has up to now been that Hillary is in line to win big in places like California, New York and New Jersey-and eventually win the nomination. However, if it is true that Democrats are (finally after all these years) becoming revulsed by the tactics of the Clintons, then South Carolina may be a harbinger of things to come.

The "Drug Wars" (1) Riga, Latvia 1995

"Don't worry! Fousesquawk is looking out for security"


*I thought I would add a new wrinkle to this blog based on my 25 years career with the US Drug Enforcement Administration (actually 2.5 years of that were with US Customs). In my career (1970-1995), I had the chance to travel all over the world and live 3 years in Thailand and 5 years in Italy. The experiences I will recount are not so much "war stories" as they are humorous in nature. Anyone who has spent a career in law enforcement has a boatload of genuinely funny stories to tell besides the obvious ones that are shocking, scary or sad. I hope you enjoy them.

From 1990 to my retirement in 1995, I was assigned to DEA's Office of Training, located at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Va. The final two years were spent in our International Training section. Working in teams of about five members, we literally traveled the world putting on drug law enforcement training seminars for foreign narcotic officers. The entire program was funded by the State Department.

The last trip I took in the summer of 1995 before I retired was to Riga, Latvia, where we held a training seminar for officers from Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. The seminar was held in the SAS Hotel, which was just opening. In fact, construction was still on-going. The front facade of the hotel was still being painted, and there was a giant construction crane (cherry-picker)being used during the day by the workers. We also stayed at the hotel, as did the cops from Lithuania and Estonia, who received per diem to cover their living expenses while in Riga.

The cops from Lithuania (5-6 of them as I recall)were, to put it bluntly, wild men. Most of the money we paid them for per diem was used to carrouse at night-with all that term entails.

Late one evening, the Lithuanians returned to the hotel accompanied by a few "ladies of the evening". Upon entering the lobby, hotel security immediately stopped them and informed them that they could not bring the girls into the hotel. Little did the security people know that these Lithuanians were very resourceful guys. Seems one of them had been a construction worker and knew how to operate a cherry-picker. Well, you can guess how this story ended; seeing the crane, the cops put the girls into the cabin- up to the top floor, over the balcony and into the room.

Needless to say, the hotel manager was not too happy when he found out. (He had no sense of humor.)

Democratic Racial Politics-and "That Slum Lord, Rezko"

L-R Hillary, that slum lord, Rezko, Bill
(It's a Small World!)


For years, the Democratic Party has prided itself as the "Party of Inclusion", in other words, the party that represented women and minorities. In recent decades, they have dominated the black vote as well as the Hispanic vote (with the notable exception of Cuban-Americans). In addition, the Democrats and their liberal supporters have demonized the Republican Party as the party of "the white boys", to borrow a phrase from Donna Brazile. True, Republicans have been slow to attract black voters with their conservative message as opposed to the liberal give-away programs of the Democrats. Their most recent president, Bill Clinton, has often been referred to as "America's first black president." However, with Barack Obama making a strong challenge to Hillary Clinton's expected coronation, the Democratic Party, led by the Clinton machine, is finding itself increasingly divided by race and gender-more reminiscent of the old "Dixiecrats".

As things stand now, Obama is getting the black votes, as evidenced in Michigan and Nevada. Hillary is getting the white vote, especially white women. With South Carolina coming up (with half of the Democratic voters being black), the lines are apparently being drawn even more clearly. Mr Clinton has acknowledged that Obama will win the black vote in South Carolina (and thus probably win the state). Some of the Clintons biggest detractors, like Rush Limbaugh and Dick Morris, are pushing the theory that the Clintons are planning to use the loss of South Carolina to create a "white backlash" in Florida and the other major states.

Hillary has also raised some hackles with her comparison of the civil rights contributions of Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson. (That seems to me to be a case of hyper-sensitivity-ditto for Bill's "fairy tale" remark, which was taken out of context.) Bill, for his part, has made the usual fool out of himself with his angry attacks at reporters who ask inconvenient questions. In spite of the pleas of many in his party, Bill can't stop being on center stage.

One factor that I think has been largely overlooked is the Hispanic vote-particularly Mexican-Americans. Largely Democratic, like black voters, it seems the (Mexican-American) Hispanic vote is going to Hillary as evidenced by the 64% who voted for her in Nevada and the endorsement of the United Farm Workers. Why is that? Unfortunately, notwithstanding public statements made by black and Hispanic public figures, there is a degree of antipathy between the Mexican and black communities in places like Los Angeles and other large cities, where black and Hispanic gangbangers are killing each other on city streets. The same situation exists in California prisons. (I don't mean to suggest that gangbangers and prison inmates are representative of those communities, but this conflict can't be ignored.)

This is what happens when you put ethnic groups into categories or tribes, if you will. Now the Democrats are learning that race-based politics can boomerang. Now the Democrats are tearing themselves to pieces over race and gender. But who will call them racists?

In addition, two significant events have occurred regarding Hillary in the last 48 hours. First, she won the endorsement of the New York Times, not surprising, but notable in the gushing tone of the editorial. (Of course, the New York Times is now only a shell of its former great self-now one of the most partisan newspapers in the country.)

Then there's this: Remember the South Carolina debate a few days ago when Hillary threw out the charge that Obama was doing business with "that slum lord contributor, Rezko"? (Tony Rezko, friend of Obama, Chicago developer and accused racketeer, who is under federal indictment on corruption charges). On today's Today Show, Hillary Clinton appeared with Matt Lauer who threw up an old photograph from the Clinton White House years showing Bill, Hillary and guess who? Tony Rezko! Explanation? "We have had our picture taken with thousands of people- Can't be expected to know them all". (I'll say!)

I sure hope that the mainstream news media does their job and reports on Mr Rezko. The Chicago press has reported for some time on the relationship between Obama and Rezko. This week, the LA Times has followed suit. Many of the details are out there just waiting for nation-wide dissemination. Now, it is the job of the news media to investigate the relationship between the Clintons and Rezko. How did Rezko get his picture taken with the Clintons? What did he contribute to the Clintons and what did he receive from them?

Maybe the New York Times will get to the bottom of it. (Don't hold your breath.)

Adios McCain

Just as John McCain was resurrecting his presidential bid and moving towards the top of the pact, comes this blockbuster news courtesy of Michelle Malkin and Hot Air: It seems that McCain now has a senior advisor on his staff for outreach to the Hispanic community. His name is Juan Hernandez. If you don't know who Juan Hernandez is, you need to do some research.

Juan Hernandez appears periodically on the Fox News shows, specifically Bill O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes. Mr Hernandez is a dual citizen (American-Mexican)who previously worked in ex-President Vicente Fox's cabinet in Mexico. Mr Hernandez, to put it mildly, is an open borders advocate and activist. He is also a fellow in McCain's Reform Institute. When appearing on Fox News debates, Mr Hernandez comes across and congenial, always smiling, ever polite. But make no mistake. His cause is not just "immigration reform", but open borders.

That McCain would have this man in his inner circle puts the lie to his recent claims that "he has gotten the message" about border security. I have heard McCain tell voters on CSPAN that he will "build the fence". Others have overheard McCain talk angrily about "building the Goddamn fence if that's what they want." Hernandez' presence on McCain's staff tells me that the Arizona senator has no intention of building any fence if elected president.

Like many conservatives, I was willing to give McCain a second look as he was making his surge. No longer. This man strikes me as arrogant and dismissive of anyone who disagrees with him. His experience as a military hero and POW is worthy of respect from all of us, and I have heard none of his political opponents belittle his military record. In that regard, he is a true American hero. Unfortunately, his record as a politician does not live up to his military record. There are several issues about which he is right on- the War Against Terror, winning in Iraq and cutting pork. But for me, the issue of illegal immigration is too important to overlook in a candidate.

I can only hope that this revelation regarding Mr Hernandez will be disseminated quickly enough and widely enough to bring an end to McCain's rise in the primary polls.

Is LA's Spanish-language Media Protecting Illegal Alien Lawbreakers?

"Todas las noticias apropiadas para imprimir"
("All the news fit to print")


On New Year's Day, John Kerns, 49, was struck and killed by a vehicle while he was walking along the sidewalk on Sunset Blvd in Los Angeles. The vehicle is believed to have swerved across the width of the street before striking Kerns. The driver of the car, who has been identified as Cristobal Arellano, fled the scene on foot. To this date, he has not been captured and is believed to be hiding in Mexico. It is also believed that Arellano, a Mexican male 22-25 years of age, is an illegal alien. It is also believed that he was intoxicated while operating the vehicle.

On January 18, 2008, the LAPD held a news conference to ask for the public's help in locating Arellano. As is customary, all the local news outlets were notified of the press conference in advance, including the Spanish language outlets- Telemundo and Univision. All of the local news outlets attended the conference with the exception of Telemundo and Univision. Naturally, the LAPD asked the public through the news organizations to call in with any information as to Arellano's whereabouts.

While the other English-language news organizations reported the incident, the Spanish outlets did not. To date, the LAPD officers investigating the case have received no calls.

Today, the sister of Kerns, Lynn Stanton, was interviewed on the KFI John and Ken show, expressing her frustration at the lack of cooperation and lack of interest from the Spanish media.

It goes without saying that if the police are trying to gain help from the public in locating a suspect, the help of the news media is crucial in publicizing the incident. If the suspect is from the Spanish-speaking community, the help of the Spanish-language media is crucial. Yet for some reason, Telemundo and Univision seem unwilling to publicize incidents of this nature. Why? Why cannot these two organizations do their civic duty as a Los Angeles-based news outlet? Is it because they don't want to publicize crimes by illegal aliens? Is it because they are unwilling to aid in the capture of an illegal alien?

John and Ken have put the telephone numbers of Univision and Telemundo on their website for anyone who would like to call and inquire as to why they are not reporting this story.

Univision News- 310-3483495
Telemundo News- 818-260-5712

The South Carolina Foodfight

"While I was saving the world, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Walmart"

"While I was saving the world, you were representing that slum lord contributor Rezko"


It looks like my recent posting (Hillary's Dilemma) was timely. In last night's Democratic debate in Myrtle Beach, SC, Hillary and Obama, while supposedly talking about economic matters, took off the gloves and went at each other while John Edwards stood by masquerading as a potted plant, and the hapless "moderator", Wolf Blitzer,looked like a referee at the World Wrestling Federation.

My observations:

Obama verbally dominated the debate-not with his brilliant debating skills-but by engaging in a repetitious monologue. It was like listening to a 2-hour speech. He complained about statements made about him by Bill Clinton, statements he said were not accurate.

Hillary fell off that tightrope I was referring to in (Hillary's Dilemma). She angered the largely black audience telling Obama that it was hard to make him take responsibility for his votes. At that, she was greeted with boos. She also lost her temper when Obama made reference to her work as a lawyer for Walmart, throwing Obama's relationship with accused Chicago racketeer, Tony Rezko, in his face.

Obama dodged challenges about his relationship with Tony Rezko and his voting "present" in Illinois senate votes, both times changing the subject.

How nice it would have been if the debate had gone deeper into Tony Rezko. How nice it would have been if this had led to a real food fight where Hillary's own "Rezkos" came out- You know, people like Norman Hsu, Charlie Trie and those characters.

Edwards, for his part, struggled to break into the verbal fray, once reminding everyone that it was a three-way debate, not two-way. He effectively joined Hillary in asking Obama why he would vote "present" instead of "yea" or "nay". Obama did not handle it well.

A large part of the debate was centered around economic issues. Here the three candidates competed with each other over whose programs would hand out the most government cheese.

"Can't pay your bills?- We can help."

"Can't keep up with that mortgage?" We'll crack down on those unscrupulous lending companies."

All in all, this debate just showed that among the three, there is very little or no difference between them. If you are a Democrat, you might as well vote for the one whose personality you like the most. I think Obama and Clinton did nothing to help their cause. They both came across as petulant and petty.

The winner in the debate?.....The Potted Plant.

Why We Fought the American Revolution

Yes, our Founding Fathers were true visionaries

Hillary's Dilemma

"Why of course all of my subjects love me, you fool, Fousesquawk"


As the battle for the Democratic nomination goes on between Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama, hard feelings continue to grow between the two. Unfortunately, in spite of their joint efforts to smooth over the racial tension in the last debate in Las Vegas, it is still there. If I had to make a prediction right now, I would guess that Clinton will have a big day on super Tuesday and go on to the nomination. (I hope I am wrong.) Until then, Hillary has to walk a fine line in trying to beat back Obama. We all know how the Clinton machine will play hardball to destroy their opponents. Hillary, however has to defeat Obama while not destroying black support in the general election. That is her dilemma.

There is no denying that some ugly elements crept into the Nevada caucus, especially when the Culinary Workers Union announced their support for Obama. (Witness the attempt by Clinton supporters to challenge additional precincts in casinos.) Bill, as is his custom, has acted like a jerk in his public comments. Now he has most recently claimed that he and Chelsea overheard (in their presence) an Obama union supporter proclaiming that if anyone voted for Obama, their job would be in jeopardy. Obama, for his part, is becoming increasingly vocal in his criticism of the ex-president's comments.

Specifically, Hillary's dilemma is that if the primary race continues to be nasty, and if racial overtones are present, then she risks not having Obama's active support as the nominee once she wins. She also runs the risks of many black voters choosing to stay home in November if they feel Obama was treated badly.

The obvious way to avert all this would be to offer Obama the VP slot as her running mate, especially if she feels the black vote has been damaged significantly. (Of course, the Democrats always assume that they own the black vote no matter what.) The question is-would Obama accept? If he does and Hillary wins, then as VP, he would be considered the heir apparent in 8 years. Of course, if he declines and continues as a senator, he would still probably be the obvious front-runner in 8 years. Same calculation in 4 years if Hillary is defeated.

It is also quite likely that this primary contest will continue to be a hard-fought battle that goes down to the wire, with the Clintons being forced to pull out all the stops in order to win-and that is what they have always done. At that point, Obama might just play the good Democrat, congratulate Mrs Clinton, give her the requisite endorsement-and then sit on his haunches. Many black voters, in spite of Bill's popularity in the African-American community, might decide that Mrs Clinton is just an ambitious phony (Gads!)and stay home on election day. That would be catastrophic for her chances.

Of course, Mrs Clinton is fighting hard for the black vote in the primary. Recent developments should give her concern. In Michigan (whose delegates have been taken away by the party anyway for moving their primary up), Mrs Clinton, virtually the only contender on the ballot, couldn't even carry 60% (55%). Obama was supported by black voters voting "uncommitted"- a large bloc (40%). The remaining 5% was "split" between Kucinich and Gravel. In addition, Hillary figures to lose South Carolina to Obama where about 50% of the Democrat vote is African-American.

So Hillary now has to walk that tightrope, always calculating how to beat Obama without alienating an important voting bloc in the general election. She especially has to be concerned over charges of "playing the race card". For example, is there a point when the Clinton campaign feels so in danger of losing that they would bring up the subject of Obama's radical, Afro-centric pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago-and his close ties to Louis Farrakhan? (I refer to Wright's close ties to Farrakhan-not Obama). If that issue comes up in the primary race, then Clinton will be perceived as having played "the race card".

It is unfortunate that there is a racial aspect to this election. I really believe that America is ready for a black, Hispanic, Asian or female president. I also think Obama can win with significant white vote. But I'll let Hillary worry about that for now.

Legalize Drugs-Then What?

Since I retired from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in 1995 and went into teaching and writing, I have been pretty much removed from the drug enforcement scene. Once in a while, I see some of my old DEA colleagues in California at retirements and funerals, but a lot of my old friends are spread out across the country. The so-called War on Drugs (a misnomer in my view) has been largely overshadowed by the War on Terror-which is very real. However, the drug scene is still out there. I remember when I began my career in 1970, I hoped that by the time I retired, our efforts would cause drug use to decline to a manageable level. I, of course, was wrong. Not only are drugs still prevalent, but the drug legalization advocates are still out there. They say that in a free society, people should be allowed to put whatever they want in their bodies. They also say that enforcement has neither reduced the supply nor the demand. They say by keeping it illegal, the price remains higher and more lucrative for the traffickers. Many feel that DEA should be abolished. In their view, drug use would actually decline if made legal. Occasionally, I get asked about my views on legalization. My basic response is that legalization advocates should answer a few questions.

First of all, which drugs would they legalize? Would they legalize only "soft" drugs like marijuana, hash and LSD while keeping heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine illegal? Or would they legalize all drugs? Unless they are willing to legalize all drugs, there would still be a need for enforcement.

Second, would the advocates of legalization put age limits on who could use drugs? Would it be 21, 18, 12? Unless there are virtually no limits as to age, there would still be need for enforcement. That means that virtual infants and toddlers could be given drugs by an adult.

Third, if drugs were legalized, who would be authorized to provide them? Pharmacists, doctors, pharmaceutical companies? Who would supervise their commerce? The government? Perhaps we would have government sites that would dispense drugs.

Once that issue was settled, how would the traffickers and dealers react? Would they just be grateful for being decriminalized and go away to pursue honorable and legal jobs? Or would they try to compete underground by lowering their prices, offering a better product-or would they resort to violence and intimidation against the newly-established drug providers. Remember, we are talking about criminals here. Contrary to the claims of many that people in prison for drug crimes are non-violent, that is a disengenuous argument. Most drug organizations do use violence as a part of their business. Think of traffickers world-wide and the carnage they have brought to places like Colombia, Mexico and Sicily. These people will continue to be criminals one way or another.

You may think the above scenarios I listed are ridiculous, but this is the situation we would face if we decided to eliminate drug laws. When I was stationed in Italy in the 1980s, I had an occasion to go to Paris on a case. Also there on the same case was a British Customs Agent. One evening, while we were checking out the various libraries in Paris, I asked him about the British experiment in dispensing legal heroin to registered addicts (since discontinued). He explained to me that the practice had been an abject failure and was stopped because it only managed to triple the addict population.

I mention the UK because many people here like to point to Europe as the example to emulate. "Why don't we do like the Dutch do?", they ask. I had a few occasions to go to Holland and work with the Dutch drug cops. If you have not been to Amsterdam, I highly recommend a visit. Then you will see the effect that a liberalized policy has had on that society. Amsterdam is a magnet for druggies from all over the world. But then again, we are talking about a society that thinks that child porn is a minor issue.

I also worked with the Swiss cops in Zurich on numerous occasions and had a chance to see the infamous "Needle Park" where addicts could freely shoot heroin, putting a blight on an otherwise beautiful city. Not surprisingly, the town also became a magnet for drug users from elsewhere. If you don't like the immigration picture in the US now,see what it's like if we legalize drugs. We will be inundated with drug-users who will flock here-and not to find jobs.

I personally don't demand that people be put in jail for simple possession or use. DEA has never been involved in enforcing and prosecuting that level of drug offense. Most jurisdictions recognize that we have too few resources to devote to this level of the drug world. However, there should be no apologizing for incarcerating traffickers and dealers. Their actions are a scourge on our society.

Yet, many say that all the enforcement of the past 4 decades has not shown results. Well, I answer yes and no. Had it not been for enforcement, we might have sunk under the weight of our drug problems years ago. Yes, the level of drug abuse has not really declined. However, if that is a reason to eliminate drug laws, then why not get rid of laws against murder, robbery, rape and so on? Our murder rates continue at a disgraceful number every year. We continue to enforce these laws because it is the right and moral thing for a civilized nation to do. In reality, what is needed is a three-pronged approach; enforcement, education and rehabilitation. While enforcement has not been entirely a success, either have education and rehabilitation either.

Much of the public is not aware that to legalize drugs would abrogate international treaties that we and virtually every civilized nation have signed to prohibit cultivation, production and traffic of illicit drugs. Indeed, the US, through the State Department, DEA, Customs and other agencies have led the way in encouraging other nations to crack down on the traffic. If we give up, who will bother to carry on?

I am as much a proponent of limited government control over our lives as anyone. Keep in mind that we have not employed truly draconian measures against drug traffickers since we are a democratic society. Yet, at a certain point, a society has the right and the responsibility to avoid becoming a cesspool that will adversely affect the lives of everyone. Legalization advocates who had a chance to see a crack house or (heroin) shooting gallery might not be so convinced that we should tolerate their existence. In the final analysis, if we were to legalize drugs, government would have to,in one way or another, involve itself in the providing of drugs to its people. If my government were involved in any way in providing drugs to my children, I would cease allegiance to that government.

Oprah's Greatest Mistake-Dr Phil

"This guy Fousesquawk has some serious issues, Dr Phil"


In case you haven't noticed, Dr Phil (McGraw) is back in the news again (When isn't he?) The self-agrandizing TV psychiatrist recently had a sit-down with troubled singer, Britney Spears-and promptly shared his diagnosis with the world. Even though Ms Spears seems determined to share her breakdown with the public, the question still remains about the ethics of Dr Phil's public comments.

This is not the first time that McGraw has counseled a celebrity and then gone public. A couple of years back, TV celebrity show host Pat O'Brian got caught making inappropriate,late-night drunken phone calls to women. Before O'Brian could even hang up the phone, Dr Phil was on the scene counseling O'Brian and going public with his findings.

Whatever happened to doctor-patient privacy?

Dr Phil burst on the scene in the 1990s as a result of his assistance to Oprah Winfrey in Texas when she was being sued by a bunch of cattle farmers for bad-mouthing beef. Oprah had to go to Texas personally for extended periods. She was so impressed by the long, tall Texan that she gave him a weekly spot on her TV show in Chicago. Once a week, Dr Phil would appear on the show and share his wisdom with troubled members of the audience who were having family problems. Next thing we knew, Phil was in Hollywood with his own show, "getting Real with Dr Phil", or something like that. As if that isn't enough, his wife appears on the show giving advice to women while son, Jay is running around giving advice to teenagers. It seems everybody but the family dog has their own gig now.

Not content with having his own TV show, McGraw works hard to promote himself as a celebrity. Like Jesse Jackson, he seems to have a nose for public trainwrecks, even inserting himself into the Natalie Holloway disappearance in Aruba by meeting with the Kalpoe brothers.

I have caught segments of McGraw's TV show since my wife used to watch it regularly. While his advice seems to make good sense, it strikes me that this guy has the perfect answer for everything. In other words, he is a know-it-all. Like Dr Laura, he can listen to a problem for 30 seconds and immediately hand out the solution. Folks, one thing I have learned in life: No one knows it all.

To sum it all up, there is something unseemly about a mental health professional using his profession and practice to promote himself while violating the confidence of public figures, all for the sake of his own publicity.

Hopefully, this guy's star will burn out quickly.

Obama- The Email and the Church

There is an e-mail going around the Internet which claims that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim. It refers to his early years spent in Indonesia (a Muslim country), and claims that Obama attended a medrassa (Islamic school) as well as a mosque. Further, the e-mail states that the Illinois senator took his senatorial oath on a Koran rather than a Bible. The subject of this e-mail came up in this week's Democratic debate in Las Vegas. In response to a question, Obama stated unequivocally that he is a Christian and took the oath on a Bible. (Obama was born to a non-practicing Kenyan father and non-practicing-nominally Christian-American mother.

First of all, I take Senator Obama on his word that he is a Christian. The part about taking the oath on a Koran is in error since it was Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), a Muslim, who used a Koran for his oath in the House of Representatives. As for Obama, it appears that he may have had brief contact with an Islamic school or mosque while a child in Indonesia, but it has not been established by anyone that he underwent any prolonged Muslim training. Thus, I am concluding that this e-mail, wherever it came from is uncorroborated if not downright misleading.

Some observers have raised the question of how a President Obama would be received by Muslim peoples around the world; more specifically, if they might view him as an apostate-and thus, appropriate for assassination. I think that is a valid question.

Barack and Michelle Obama attend the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. It is that church which causes me concern. Specificaly, the minister of that church, Dr Jeremiah Wright, is a controversial figure who has brought considerable embarrassment to Obama. There is no denying that this is an Afro-Centric church, one which, in its own literature, espouses a "Black Value System". Minister Wright is a fiery speaker who talks of liberation theology. He has appeared on several talk shows, including Hannity and Colmes, where he has engaged in hot debate with Sean Hannity reciting a litany of grievances against American and Western Civilization.To call Dr Wright confrontational is an understatement.

In 2007, Wright added to his controversial reputation by giving an award to Louis Farrakhan on behalf of Trumpet Magazine, which he (Wright) publishes. (It should be noted that Obama has criticized his minister for giving the award to Farrakhan.)

Just last Sunday, Wright told his congregation that "Some argue that blacks should vote for Clinton because her husband was good to us. That's not true. He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky."

While I think that the Muslim issue will fade away, I look for the issue of Obama's church and minister to grow-at least if he wins the Democratic nomination. Does Obama, in fact, belong to a church that believes in racial exclusion? I think at this point it would be appropriate for the mainstream media to begin asking Obama to explain his thoughts about Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ. (Of course, up to now, they are downplaying that angle lest the public at large become aware.) Does Obama subscribe to the philosophy of this Church and all of the words of Jeremiah Wright? Obama portrays himself as one who reaches across racial lines. The words of his own pastor contradict that image. If more Americans knew about Jeremiah Wright, they might hesitate before voting for Barack Obama.

Chris Matthews in the Woodshed

Back to school, eh Chris?


Last night, Chris Matthews opened his "Hardball" show with an apology for his recent comments about Hillary Clinton to the effect that the only reason she was a senator and candidate for president was the fact that her husband "messed around". The remark raised eyebrows both on the left and on the right (and the center for that matter). Of course, there are probably those who agreed with Matthews' assessment; nevertheless, in my view, the remark was totally inappropriate.

Had Matthews said merely that the only reason that Mrs Clinton was a senator and presidential candidate was because she was married to an ex-president, the observation would have been appropriate and fair game. The part about her husband "messing around" was the bad part. True, Mrs Clinton's "vast, right-wing conspiracy" explanation was absurd and deserving of criticism and ridicule. However, I really don't see how the philandering of Bill Clinton has contributed to her political success-unless you think the sympathy vote is significant.

During his career, Matthews, a fast-talking easterner, has made many comments that have drawn listeners' ire. To be fair, he has often criticized Democrats even though he himself is a liberal Democrat. We also should remember that commentators have more leeway in expressing opinions than traditional reporters. (You wouldn't expect a TV news anchor to make that statement on the 6 o'clock news.) Matthews, a commentator, has pretty much implied that Hillary Clinton is not his preferred candidate.

Should he have apologized? In my opinion, yes, even though it would be fair to argue that Bill and Hillary Clinton are public figures who aspire to run the country, plus the fact that Bill brought all of this on with his behavior. Nevertheless, an apology was the gentlemanly thing to do. Of course, it is nice to know how much pressure was brought upon him to make his apology. We know that well-known feminists, such as Gloria Steinem and Kim Gandy went berzerk over the comment and complained to Matthews' bosses. Was Matthews' job in jeopardy? Who knows? If Matthews had been fired for his comments due to pressure from the feminists, I would take his side as a victim of political correctness.

So,in my opinion, it was correct for Matthews to be a gentleman and apologize. It would also be appropriate for Bill Clinton to apologize for the fact that his long-standing behavior has led to comments of this nature and will continue to do so.

Oh, one more thing: I will not apologize to Hillary for portraying her as the Evil Queen from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Besides, she doesn't even know about it.

Watch out Nevada-The Clintons are in Town

Bonnie and Clyde Clinton in Nevada


Notwithstanding the recent debate in Las Vegas, in which Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton tried to smooth over the perceived racial overtones of their campaign for the Democratic nomination, the contest in Nevada has again turned ugly. Subsequent to the endorsement of Obama by the Culinary Wokers Union, the state teacher's union and a handful of Clinton supporters have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Democratic party establishment of 9 Las Vegas resorts as at-large voting precincts for the upcoming caucus. The obvious intent of the lawsuit is to limit the impact of the resort culinary union's votes for Obama, claiming that it gives them unfair advantage over other voters. (A judge threw out the lawsuit today.)

The second story behind all this was Bill Clinton's standard reaction to a San Francisco TV reporter asking him about the lawsuit brought by Clinton supporters. Once again, Bill lost his increasingly-famous temper. "You have asked the question in an accusatory way. If you want to take that position, get on the television and take it. Don't be accusatory with me. I had nothing to do with this lawsuit", Clinton fumed as he got in the reporter's face. (If you haven't noticed by now, Bill Clinton does not like unfriendly questions.)

Well, there you have it straight from the horse's mouth. If Bill Clinton says he had nothing to do with it-then by golly, it must be true. Or is this another example of Clinton's parsing of words? "It wasn't me, but it could have been Hillary or her campaign." Let me put it this way. If you think the Clinton campaign had nothing to do with this lawsuit, I have a nice bridge that would look great in your back yard. This is just another example of how the Clintons react to an upstart (Obama) standing in the way of what is Hillary's rightful entitlement. They get mean; they get tough; they crush anyone who stands in their way.

As I said before, it's fun sitting back and watching the Democrats tear each other to pieces over race and gender and now unions, showing the nation just how important those issues are to them. I would like to see Obama really take off the gloves and go after the corruption and shallowness of the Clintons.

Which leads me to my final point, which I think would be a great campaign strategy for Obama: Keep pushing Bill's buttons.

Martin Luther King 1929-1968

March on Washington


This coming week, we will observe Martin Luther King Day. Since I am old enough to remember Dr King, I would like to add my own thoughts on his life and legacy.

I was in the US Army in Germany in 1968 when the news came that King had been assassinated in Memphis. While many American cities witnessed riots in the wake of King's death, many military posts overseas, including Germany, experienced violent outbreaks as well, albeit on a smaller scale. During that era, racial tensions in the Army were somewhat comparable to racial tensions at home in civilian life. Of course, attitudes were different in those days on many fronts. We were in the middle of the Civil Rights era. So many blacks were torn between following King's example of non-violence as opposed to other voices preaching a more militant and sometimes separatist approach. King's death caused many frustrated blacks to conclude that non-violence could accomplish nothing.

Today, four decades later, Martin Luther King is an icon of the Civil Rights Movement. In his life, he was one of the most gifted orators who ever spoke in the English language. Most remembered is his "I have a dream" speech delivered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC. Besides his speeches and marches, he was also somewhat controversial in some areas. Many suspected him of communist ties, pointing to certain leftist figures who were tied to his movement. Then, after his death, the stories came out about his womanizing-even though he was a married minister. For those (like me), who admired him and his courage, these aspects are a troubling part of his legacy.

I think however that his flaws do not detract from his accomplishments. His contributions-not only to African-Americans-but to the entire country cannot be understated. He was not the only courageous civil-rights figure. However, he was arguably the most inspirational to the country as a whole in convincing white America that injustices existed in our society-injustices that had to be rectified. Some may disagree with me, but I believe that unbelievable changes have been made in this country in the last 40 years-changes that no other society could have accomplished in so short a period of time.

Since King died in 1968, it is difficult to judge how his positions on the race issue would have evolved if he were alive today. Would he support affirmative action today? Would he be marching in tune with the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons? (Jackson was, in fact, an associate of King and was present at the assassination.) This is a tough question, and we can only speculate. However, I think we have to take him on his words up to the point he died. In the above-mentioned "I have a dream speech", one of the most famous lines was his dream that one day his children would be judged on the content of their character-not on the color of their skin. That brings us to a central question in black-white issues today. Have we reached the point that we can and should be color-blind? Or is race still so pervasive that it must be a factor in every decision we make? This seems to be a point of division between conservatives and liberals be they black or white.

I suppose that is a question each person has to ask himself/herself in his/her daily interactions across racial lines. As a (white) American who saw it all unfold in my lifetime, I think Dr King's words were not only true in his life, but are also applicable today.

New York Times Goes After Our Military-Again

"All the news that's fit not to print"


The NY Times article about disproportionate crime and violence among military veterans-based on interviews, police reports, newspaper articles, anecdotal and other non-empirical measures, is just another in the long line of hit pieces on our military. What is also remarkable is the fact that the Times, which has always opposed the War in Iraq, continues to criticize everything about the war-while ignoring the success of the "Surge" and the fact that our troops are now winning.

Up until the Surge, the Times (and most other mainstream news outlets) delighted in reporting all the bad news coming out of Iraq. Whether it was soldiers killed in action, Sunnis vs Shia killings, car-bombs, Abu-Ghraib, soldiers killing civilians, the Times made sure we all knew about what a bad thing this war was.

Now that the Surge is working, and our forces have gained the cooperation of Sunnis against Al-Qaida (a good thing, right?), the Times has chosen to find other things to write about. Echoing the Democratic line, the message of the day became the failure of the Iraqi government to form a stable regime. Now it's returning veterans as marauding psychopaths. Of course, we have been getting that line from Hollywood movies for years, ever since the Viet Nam War. Now it's the New York Times, our "most prestigious" newspaper, the one that carries the slogan "All the news fit to print" on its masthead.

We should not be surprised at the advocacy journalism being practiced by the Times. After all, what they report is only a reflection of what their owner, Arthur Sulzberger, wants them to report. He is a far-left type, and he would never tolerate one of his reporters going against the party line. But is that any way to run a newspaper? Isn't the job of a paper to report the news? Of course, every paper has an editorial page devoted to opinion. The problem with the Times (and the problem with most of the mainstream media) is that they manage to insert their opinion into the front page. More than ever, it is the responsibility of the reader to read critically and read between the lines.

Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona Finally Resigns

Effective today, Mike Carona, the indicted sheriff of Orange County (Ca) has resigned in order to concentrate full-time on his legal defense. His trial for corruption is scheduled for June. Previously, Carona (briefly known as "America's Sheriff")had granted himself a 60-day paid leave from office to work on his defense. Upon his return to work a few days ago, Carona attended a local conference on the issue of jail overcrowding (certainly a legitimite concern for one who may be going to jail himself).

Now that the sheriff has enjoyed his 60 day paid holiday from work, he has (in the words of his lawyers of whom more will be said later), realized that his legal defense requires too much time to continue as sheriff.

Actually, there may be a tactical maneuver in the sheriff's decision to quit. His legal defense is being provided by attoneys who are working "pro bono" (for free) on behalf of Carona. Up until this point, it was being questioned as to whether a sitting sheriff could legally accept the favor of pro bono representation. His resignation now removes that obstacle.

One of Carona's attoneys, H. Dean Steward, stated that Carona is resigning for "the good of the department". He went on to add that, "The good of the department and the good of the people of the county were far more important than any politician who wanted to take a grandstanding position", referring to local politicians who had urged Carona to resign when he was indicted, advice that Carona had, up until now, ignored.

Maybe Mike Carona should have taken "the good of the department and the good of the people of the county" into consideration when he entered into relationships with documented sleazebags that ultimately brought on his downfall.

Political Correctness in Teaching English as a Second Language (ESL)

"Write this down, class. Conservatives are bad people who want to starve little children and pollute the environment."


As a teacher of English as a Second Language at the University of California at Irvine, I had a chance today to check out the brochure for the annual conference of Catesol (California Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages). For ESL teachers, there is a national organization (Tesol) and various regional organizations. (I belong to none of them.) This year's conference will be in Sacramento in April of this year. The conferences give ESL teachers a chance to attend in-service training classes, make presentations, attend job fairs and network. Since I have never attended one of these conferences, I assumed that the in-service classes were centered around teaching techniques and ways to teach English more effectively to foreign students. Apparently, this is not always the case.

In looking over the schedule for the Sacramento conference, I discovered the following:

Opening plenary speaker will be State Senator Darrell Steinberg (D)

Here are some of the scheduled presentations:

Heterosexism and Homophobia 101

" Confused about heterosexism? Not sure what it is or how to fight it? This interactive workshop will introduce participants to basic concepts related to heterosexism-what is it, how does it affect us, and what we can do about it? Sample ESL lesson plans and numerous handouts will be provided."

Comment: We have a new word-heterosexism! But seriously, what does this have to do with teaching a foreign language?

Government Funding for Workplace Language Training

"A panel of government representatives, union training directors and workplace ESL teachers will present information about successful grant-funded, vocational English programs for immigrant workers. Participants will learn how ESL teachers, employers, and unions can collaborate to apply for government funding for workplace training programs."

Comment: Is this something that government should fund using tax-payer dollars? If you are wondering, "immigrant workers" does translate into illegal aliens. And yes, California tax dollars are indeed going to provide them with English lessons.

Is Freedom of Speech for All?

"Do all students have the freedom to be heard, to be seen and to have all of their identities recognized and validated? In this colloquium, we will explore issues of identity from multiple perspectives and discuss implications of the recent clashes between immigrant groups and sexual minorities in California."

Comment: What does this have to do with teaching English? Also, ESL teachers, by their very nature, have experience with and enjoy working with different nationalities. Do we need a lecture on this topic?

I chose these topics out of several others which are being presented and which are certainly relevant to teaching a foreign language. However, I question the relevance of the above topics, which have a political agenda.

Teaching a foreign language should not involve political indoctrination, which is irrelevant to the topic. My students have absolutely no idea what my personal views are. Nevertheless, many of our textbooks are riddled with liberal, politically-correct dogma. I have seen texts where virtually every chapter is devoted to The Environment. Currently, I am using an assigned text in my reading class that contains an article about the building of the railroads in the West in the 1800s. In one passage, the book describes the hardships endured by the workers, including bad weather, sickness and "attacks by violent groups of people". Now who were those "violent groups of people"- skinheads, drug addicts, conservatives, Young Republicans maybe? The book doesn't say. (Maybe I should write to the author and ask for more specific information......)

Sadly, California regulations on textbooks have standards for political correctness. That means if you are a text-book publishing company and want to sell your books to California, the books have to pass political muster.

Now I know why I never joined this outfit.

Letter to UC-Irvine Campus Newspaper

"See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"


Below is the letter I have sent tonight to the New University (University of California-Irvine campus newspaper) in response to this week's article reporting the findings of the Dept of Education Office of Civil Rights that there is no anti-Semitism at the campus.


UCI, its administrators and CAIR should not be so quick to congratulate themselves on the findings of the DOE Civil Rights Office that no anti-Semitism exists on this campus. As long as the MSU continues to bring in hate mongers like Amir Abdel Malik Ali and Alim Musa as speakers, there is a real problem with anti-Semitism.

Yes, the Israel-Palestinian issue is the basis for the controversy, and reasonable people can disagree on this issue. However, does that justify speakers like the above two in calling suicide bombers "heroes"? Does that justify those speakers advocating hate and violence in driving the Jews from the region?

I have listened to the words of both of these men. When Malik Ali rants about "Zionist Jews", he often literally spits the word "Jews" out in the same manner that German Nazis spat out the word "Jude". Putting the word "Zionist" in front of it doesn't necessarily remove the hateful message. To this day, the German word for Jew (Jude) is an emotionally charged word in that language. If spoken in a certain tone, no racist epithet is necessary. (The Nazis only used the word Jude in their lexicon.) It is also true (to a somewhat lesser extent) in English. I think Malik Ali knows that. Yet, he and his defenders will insist that it is only "Zionist Jews" with whom they have a problem. That is disingenuous.

It seems to me that UCI's concept of hate speech is centered around political correctness. In other words, certain groups can say what they want about certain other groups, and the university will stick its collective head in the sand and ignore it in the name of Free Speech.
But if certain other groups are the targets, that is a different story. Hate speech against any group of people is hate speech-period. There are plenty of soap boxes on the city street corners for the likes of Malik Ali and Musa. There is no constitutional requirement that any university provide them with a forum.

Unfortunately, the university and DOE have chosen to ignore the numerous complaints of its Jewish students about the above hate speech as well as numerous complaints of verbal and physical intimidation. With few exceptions, faculty has chosen to remain silent, either out of fear, apathy or sympathy with the radicals.

Notwithstanding the whitewash and the spin, UCI's nationwide reputation as a hotbed of anti-Semitic activity remains in full view. What is really sad is that a tiny minority of students and their supporters can cast a cloud over the 99.9% of UCI's students who are not involved in this disgrace.

Gary Fouse
Adjunct teacher
UCI Ext

Sid "Vicious" Blumenthal Arrested for Drunk Driving in New Hampshire

Blumenthal, Sidney V.
10016653B
Nashua PD
1-07-08

Fousesquawk Exclusive: Official Sid Blumenthal Booking Photos


News reports today indicate that Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal was arrested the day before the New Hampshire primary for drunk driving in Nashua, NH. The Clinton campaign declined comment other than to confirm that he was an advisor to the campaign.

Apparently, Sid was driving 70 mph in a 30 mph zone shortly after midnight and was trying to find his hotel-going in the opposite direction. He reportedly told the arresting officers he was lost. (No wonder Hillary welled up earlier when she told a group of women voters that the country was "going in the wrong direction".)

Blumenthal, a former reporter, left journalism to join the Clinton White House as a political advisor. Known by many as "Sid Vicious", Blumenthal enjoys a reputation as one of the Clinton camp's most obnoxious attack dogs. Undoubtedly, many political figures in Washington are drinking a toast tonight.

Book him Danno!

Beware the "Experts"

"He's alive! (Unless he loses South Carolina)"


After the "shock" of the New Hampshire Primaries, it is amazing to watch the political pundits and pollsters continue to tell us who is winning and losing in this or that state even while they try to explain how they screwed up in the Democratic race in New Hampshire. Well, what did I expect, that they would all resign and find another line of work? Not hardly. They will still tell us that candidate X has to win state X to keep his candidacy alive. Conversely, if candidate Y loses state Y, then he/she is dead, and so on and so forth.

One of the more interesting ideas floated around about Clinton's victory was that voters might have been reluctant to tell a pollster that they would not vote for an African-American candidate, in this case, Obama. Thus, the reasoning goes, many (white) voters answered "Obama" to the pollster's question, then proceeded to vote for Clinton.

Another theory is that Hillary's "crying" episode swung the vote her way. I sure hope not because that would say a lot of things about the mentality of the voters. Dennis Kucinich, never to be left out of the fun, is calling for a recount in New Hampshire-certain that he will eventually be declared the "Real Winner"-a la "The Real Killer" in the OJ case.

At any rate, it seems that the race between the female candidate and the African-American candidate is now seeing the introduction of the "cards", gender card and race card respectively. First, it is Hillary as victim of sexism, then Obama as victim of racism. Can't we just let them fight it out and see who wins on their merits-or lack thereof?

Now we have Bill Clinton calling Obama's candidacy a "fairy tale"-a stupid comment from a classless former president. Equally as stupid are the reactions from some who think it smacked of racism. Sure enough, Bill immediately runs to Al Sharpton (Mr Great Moral Arbiter of Race in America)to gain absolution for an offense he didn't commit.

Then there was Chris Matthews taking a shot at Hillary in declaring that the only reason she became a senator and presidential candidate was because she was married to a husband/president who "messed around". Isn't it great to see liberal Democrats tying themselves in knots over charges of "racism" and "sexism"?

On the Republican side, the South Carolina debates last night are viewed generally to have been a gain for all the candidates-with the exception of the hapless Ron Paul. The others all performed well, and Fred Thompson really got high marks for his quips, especially the one about the virgins for the Iranian speedboat sailors. Frank Luntz, the Fox News Republican pollster, was there again with his EKGs hooked up to focus-group voters and measuring their responses to every word uttered by every candidate. (Just a joke- I like Frank.)

I also think (like Sean Hannity) that we should measure very carefully what the mainstream news media says about the Republican candidates. According to Hannity and others, the MSM favors Huckabee and McCain, both becuase they are probably the most liberal and the former because, if nominated, they figure they can tear him down more easily. You know, Baptist minister/intolerant religious fanatic and all that. Makes sense to me since we know that the MSM is about 80-90% Democrat. At any rate, conservatives who plan to vote Republican shouldn't let these characters form our choices.

In conclusion, I have one question for the pundits and pollsters, who are so much smarter than the rest of us: If Kucinich, Gravel and Paul finish every state primary in last place, are they still alive?

Death of Sir Edmund Hillary (Hillary Clinton Namesake)

Mrs Pinnochio for President!


Today we have learned of the death of Sir Edmund Hillary, famed mountain climber who burst upon the world scene in 1953 when he and his Sherpa guide became the first persons to reach the summit of Mt Everest. His feat was so great that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has claimed that she was named after Sir Edmund.

Just for the record, Hillary Rodham Clinton was born in 1947, six years before Sir Edmund Hillary made history.

German Beer Fests? Consider Erlangen

I thought I would take a break from all the serious topics that I usually write about. This posting is about one of the most pleasant topics imaginable. A real German beer fest. When I was stationed in Germany in the late 1960s, I became introduced to the greatest beverage man ever invented-German beer. For those of you beer drinkers who have never been to Germany, you don't know what real beer is. And for those who have tried various kinds of imported German beers in the US-you don't know what real German beer is.

The most famous beer fest in Germany is, of course, Munich's Oktoberfest. Every year, the city attracts about one million visitors from all over the world to partake in the festivities. What a lot of people don't realize is that countless towns in Germany have their own annual beer fest-not just in October-but in other months when the weather is good. One such beer fest is held every spring in the northern Bavarian town of Erlangen. It is not only older than the Oktoberfest, but is considered one of Bavaria's (indeed Germany's) top beer fests.

Erlangen is a university town about 20 kilometers north of Nuremberg in the Middle Franconian region of Bavaria. It is also a co-hqs, along with Munich, of the Siemens Corporation. At present, the city has a population of about 100,000. It is a pleasant town, not in the touristic sense of Heidelberg or Munich, but a great place nonetheless.

I must admit at this point that I am highly biased about Erlangen. I spent over 2 years there in the late 1960s as a US Army soldier. Those two years were a formative time in my life; thus, I have returned many times over the years, and, in 2005, published a book on the history of the city.

Let me give you some background on the beerfest itself (called the Bergkirchweih in German). While the Munich Oktoberfest originated in 1810, Erlangen's beerfest dates back to 1755, making it the oldest in Germany. (Actually, until the 20th century, Erlangen was one of Germany's leading beer production cities.) Every year during the Whitsuntide period (late May-early June), the city holds its Bergkirchweih for a 12 day period. The site of the fest is on the northern edge of the town, an area called the Burgberg. The fest grounds are located at the foot of a hilly area bearing the above name. In the old days before refrigeration, Erlangen's breweries cooled their brew in caves dug into the sandstone sides of the hill.

During the fest, a special festbrew is prepared by the local breweries and served from the cave entrances. There are also several food stands with chicken, sausages-and, even an entire ox roasted daily each day. For entertainment, there is a tent with German traditional music and more modern music for the younger crowd, which is played near the benches where people also eat and drink.

Whereas Munich's Oktoberfest is noted for rowdy behavior and public drunkeness, the Erlangen fest is more subdued and suitable for the entire family-notwithstanding isolated incidents as would be expected. In addition, I recently learned from a German-American colleague, whose family is from Munich, that the Oktoberfest, due to the drunkeness problem, has resorted to serving watered-down beer, with special tents with real beer reserved for Munich's own denizens. Not so in Erlangen. The beer is a little stronger than normal and better tasting. Erlangen has two local brews, Kitzmann and Steinbach, but also serves Tuecher, which is Nuremberg's main brewery. In addition, the original recipes from a couple of now-defunct Erlangen breweries are brought back just for the fest. One other advantage is that you can get hotel reservations in or near Erlangen without much trouble-unlike Munich, which is impossible.

Although the fest ends at 11pm, the crowd only has to walk a short distance to the main street pubs where the fun continues into the wee hours. In short, if you are planning a trip to Germany, would like to attend a great beer fest-without all the hassles associated with the Munich Oktoberfest, you can't do any better than Erlangen. This year's fest runs May 8-19, 2008.

Hillary Wins in NH

"Let's see- a pound of BS, add a touch of salt and a few teardrops-Voila! I am still the fairest of them all, Fousesquawk!"


Polls-shmolls! So much for the "experts", the pundits and the pollsters who were all telling us that Obama was running away with the New Hampshire Primary. Double digits, indeed! Maybe that will teach us a lesson about the value of listening to the talking heads who are "so much more knowledgable" than the rest of us. When the polls opened in New Hampshire, everyone-including the Clinton camp was of the opinion that Obama would win in a cakewalk. What happened?

Whatever it was-and there are a lot of explanations- I hope that it wasn't simply because of Hillary's show of "emotion" the other day. If that is enough to swing an election-or primary-then heaven help us all. Ralph Reed even opined that if Clinton goes on to victory, then that episode will go down as the signature turning point of the campaign. If true, what does that say about the electorate-especially that super-sophisticated electorate in New Hampshire? Some others say that possibly the voters in the Granite State were rebelling against the conventional wisdom that they were going to go for Obama. Who knows? Rest assured that many of the same pundits who predicted a double-digit Obama win will now explain to us how Hillary pulled it out.

Was it just me, or was John Edwards angry in his speech last night? I thought his references to the other 99% of the electorate who have yet to vote was kind of a slap at the tiny states of New Hampshire and Iowa. Of course, he dragged out his old Oliver Twist speech again. With all due respect to the names of the unfortunate people he mentioned and their families,how many times can you repeat the same lines?

Obama, for his part, adopted more of the preacher style in his concession speech, trying to fire up his obviously disappointed followers.

Hillary was classic Hillary. No more tears. Now she has her confidence and her arrogance back. The question is-will she try to repeat the emotion act? How many times can you shed crocodile tears if you want to be president?

The best speech, in my view, was from the Republican victor, McCain, in spite of the fact that he had to read it and occasionally stumbled. The words (at least to me) were inspiring and focused on the real number one issue-the War against Islamic Terror-an issue all but ignored in the Democratic speeches. Huckabee focused on the kindness and hospitality of the New Hampshire people-very classy.

Thompson, of course, had already gotten out of Dodge (to South Carolina) and wasn't around to express his gratitude for the single digits that had voted for him.

Hey Rudy! How's the weather down there in Florida?

I guess we will all have to wait for "Super Tuesday" to get a real idea how this will end up. In the meantime, we should take the prognostications with a grain of salt. (As I write this, I am watching the Fox News polls for South Carolina.)

Random Shots in the Dark

In the absence of a complete, one-topic essay, I thought I would "shotgun" a few observations. Here they are.

To all you Ron Paul supporters:

Aren't you embarrassed by the 200+ crowd who demonstrated against the Fox exclusion of Paul in the New Hampshire debate-specifically hooting Sean Hannity, following him back to his hotel and throwing snowballs at him?

Aren't you embarrassed about the old Ron Paul newsletters (authored by him) that are just coming out? Will you still support him after you have read them?

To the Hillary camp:

If Democratic voters are finally waking up to your candidate now, how do you think she'll do in a general election?

Regarding the op-ed piece by Gloria Steinem in the NY Times- do you really think playing the victim (in this case of sexism) card will win Hillary an election? Do you really think pity will put a person in the White House? Do you really think the public wants a victim as president?

To Hillary:

How's the release of your White House records coming along?

Are you going to cry again for the cameras to show us your "human" side?

To liberals:

This is a great country. Why can't you view the glass as half-full instead of nearly empty?

To John Edwards:

Same message. This is not England in the times of Dickins.

To all the Democrats:

Why is it that none of you are willing to use the term "Islamo-terrorists"?

To Muslims world-wide. This is a beautiful world. Life can be great. Why not enjoy it with the rest of us?

To Fred Thompson:

You have a lot of good beliefs. You could win. Start acting like you want this and stop acting like you are just doing it to make your wife happy.

To Mitt Romney:

You just might get a few more votes if you let your hair get mussed once in a while. After all, you don't have to look like the Masters Golf Course for crying out loud.

To Rudy Giuilani:

The old "I did this in New York" line doesn't play well with the rest of the country. The rest of us don't really care about the Big Apple.

To John McCain:

You have the best experience resume of all. Stop treating those who disagree with you as if they are errant schoolchildren. Wake up on the illegal immigration issue and start paying attention to that outlaw polygamist community that exists in your own state. You know, the one I wrote you about and never got a response.

To Bill Clinton:

It's over, Bill. Just go back to your hotel room with some babe and have fun.

To Barack Obama:

OK, you have the charisma. All the touchy-feely liberals are attracted to you. What specifically do you want to do if elected president?

To Bill Richardson:

So what exactly happened when you "faced those North Koreans"?

To all the Democratic candidates(and Ron Paul):

What role will our military play in the War on Terror if you are president?

To Al Gore:

What are you gonna do in 20 years when the world realizes that nothing has changed and everyone starts laughing at you? Will you give all those awards back?

To the Baseball Hall of Fame:

How in blazes can you elect "Goose" Gossage and not Ron Santo? (OK, I'm a Cubs fan.)

To the Council on Islamic American Relations (CAIR):

If you think you are the new NAACP, you are sadly mistaken.

To the secular Europeans:

Wake up! In two generations, you are going to be majority Muslim-but you won't be secular.

To the UN:

What have you guys been up to lately?- Besides nothing.

What are you going to do about Darfur?

To Keith Olbermann:

Can anybody be your "Worst Person in the World" besides Bill O'Reilly and Republicans?

To Al Sharpton:

When are you coming back to California to demonstrate on behalf of the "Palmdale 4"?

What will you say about this "racist" country if Obama is elected president?

To Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson:

Why so quiet about the Obama campaign. Jealous, perhaps?

To all the candidates:

What's with this "CHANGE" business? When you speak of "CHANGE", let's be more specific.

Just some random thoughts. I reserve the right to add more later.

Is America's Evita Crying?

"Don't cry for me...(fill in the blank)"





Today's "big news" on the campaign trail is Hillary Clinton choking up at a public meeting when asked by a supporter how she manages to fight on-or something like that. In her long answer, Hillary, her voice breaking, rambled on about how she wants so much to fix the problems this country is facing and ......"boo-hoo-hoo".
So now all the pundits are debating whether this was real or contrived and whether this incident will help or hurt her.

First of all, I didn't see any tears, so it may just be one of those "break downs" we are used to seeing on Barbara Walters interviews.

If, in fact, she was on the verge of crying, the question is why? Is it because she is so sad to see the direction our country is going-as she said? Well, I doubt that. Hillary Clinton is made of tougher stuff than that. It has nothing to do with "the Children".

Is it because she is simply tired from the demands of the never-ending campaign? Sure, that is a distinct possibility when the campaign is not going well. If that is the case, should we just chalk it up to her being a woman (more subject to displays of emotion)and let it slide? Could be. (All you feminists, save your cards and letters.) Should this make us less inclined to elect a woman as Commander-in Chief? Not in my view, not after seeing Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi and Golda Meir. No-America is ready for a woman in the White House, just as the country is ready for a black president. But it depends on who.

In my view, if Hillary truly was getting emotional-and I'm not convinced that this wasn't contrived-then I would say she is upset over her own faltering dreams of being president. This has apparently been something she has been aiming for ever since her husband first ran for president. Up to now, everything has run like clockwork. From First Lady, she became Senator from New York-even though she wasn't from New York. When she announced for president, the conventional thinking was that the nomination was hers. She was "entitled". It would be a coronation (the nomination). Ever since Mrs Clinton burst upon the political scene, I have felt that she was an American version of Eva Peron (Evita), Argentina's vain-glorious first lady, who, had she not died prematurely, probably would have become its president.

Then came Obama-the ultimate "Johnny come lately". He is taking it all away from Mrs Clinton. As it stands now, Hillary is seeing the whole house crashing down on her head. It hurts. And I will wager that the stress and strain is being shown in other ways behind the scenes. Do you doubt for a minute that she is probably screaming and swearing at her staff members and Secret Service protection?

Anyway, let's not let two states convince us that Obama has it locked down. There is a long way to go. But if so many Democratic voters are turned off (finally) by Clinton, what does that tell you about her chances in a general election nationwide?

I don't plan to vote for Obama in the general election, but I sure am enjoying his success. And there is no need to cry for Mrs Clinton. She may be many things, but she is nobody's victim.

Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

Is this the true face of Islam-or simply an aberration?


* There is a great video on the Internet from Dubai TV. It is a debate between an Arab woman on one hand and an Islamic cleric on the other. The conversation is in Arabic with English sub-titles. In the debate, the woman (whose name I don't know) harshly condemns Islam (she apparently does not subscribe to any religion.)for its hatred and violence. She makes the point that neither Christianity nor Judaism engages in this kind of barbaric behavior. The man accuses her of being a heretic. This video can be found on;

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=nul

One of the first things I did in the wake of 9-11 was to check out an English-language Koran from the library. The question had been growing about the true nature of Islam even before 9-11 since Islamic terrorism had already been active in the world for several decades. I should concede here that the Koran, like the Bible, can be open to different interpretations in many areas. Since then, we have continued to witness the War on Terror and inumerable acts of terror committed in the name of Islam. So the question remains- what is the true nature of Islam? Is it a peaceful religion that is being hijacked by fanatics? Or is Islam really a religion that preaches violence against those who refuse to accept its teachings?

When I read the Koran, I noted that much of its prose resembles that of the Bible. It preaches the love of God (Allah) and love towards other Muslims. It is the writings directed toward non-Muslims that I found troubling. Some passages that critics point out to prove a message of violence are disputed by Muslims as being open to other interpretations. Yet what struck me was that in virtually every Sura (chapter), indeed on countless pages, there are references to non-believers burning in Hell. Now I must point out here that, according to Christian doctrine, non-Christians will go to Hell as well. The difference here is the constant reinforcement of this doctrine in the Koran. Is it any wonder that so many Muslims don't respect other religions?

I have also read about the life of the Prophet Mohammed. It is not meant to be an insult in pointing out that Mohammed was a warrior-a military leader who spread Islam at the point of a sword. He personally brought about the death of thousands. Muslims simply cannot dispute that as historical fact.

Before I get to the obvious issue of terror and killing, I should also point out that my own religion (Christianity) has engaged in this practice in history. First, we have the Crusades. (I don't know which side was right and which side was wrong-nor do I much care.)Second, we had the Inquisition. There is no escaping this fact, and there is no defending it. There was also considerable corruption in the Church (Vatican) that led to a Reformation. What is important, however, is that in the past several centuries, Christianity (and Judaism) have not been involved in organized violent campaigns. Scandals? Of course. The biggest example today is the pedophile priest scandal that has rocked the Catholic Church. We have also seen instances of Christian-based cults, such as the James Jones Church and the Branch Davidians, both of whom engaged in mind-control and violence.

But it is undeniably Islam that, in recent decades, has witnessed countless acts of violence, intimidation, murder and outright terror-worldwide. It is not necessary to recount 9-11 and all the others. They are out there for all to see. The question is- how much of the Muslim world subscribes to this?

Before dealing with that question, it is useful to ask-how did this all explode upon the world in the late 20th Century? Was Islam merely aleep for several centuries? I am no expert on Islamic history, but it seems to me that the Muslim world has basically never experienced freedom or democracy. When certain parts of the Middle East became fabulously wealthy due to oil, the ruling classes managed to expropriate most of it for themselves. Then came the creation of Israel and the Palestinian issue. That has enabled the Arab rulers to blame Israel and the West for all the problems affecting their peoples. Add to that the growing exposure of Muslim societies to the Western world-and all its vices and temptations. Indeed, the growing fundamentalism of Muslim mosques and madrassahs have found a fertile field of resentment against this Western culture that they see as a threat to their own traditional culture.

So here, in the 21st century, we find ourselves threatened with the rise in worldwide Islamic fanaticism and terror. We see it not only in the Middle East, but in immigrant Muslim communities in the West (principly Europe). Violence and hate are being preached, plotted and carried out by Muslim clerics and their followers, almost everywhere that Muslims have immigrated to. Here in the US, we have congratulated ourselves on having a more educated and assimilated Muslim community than European countries who imported manual laborors without trying to assimilate them. The violence in France and the UK far overshadow our problems here in the US. Yet, it is undeniable that US Muslims are feeling increasingly disaffected in US society since 9-11. They feel that Americans hold them in suspicion. They hear and read about the attacks against Islam among Americans and Europeans. Most seem to be critical of our Middle East policy. Most seem stridently against Israel. On our college campuses, Muslim Student Unions organize demonstrations against Israel, often bringing in radical Imams to speak. Many of them preach a message of hate-not only against Israel, but against Jews and America as well. (I cite my own campus, University of California at Irvine as a prime example.)And occasionally, our law enforcement agencies have broken up terrorist plots to be carried out on our soil.

More to the point; are most Muslims involved in terror? Of course not. Do most Muslims sympathize with the Jihadists. I don't think so, but we really don't know how most Muslims feel. We watch the news on TV and every day, we see images of Muslim mobs in the streets of Pakistan or some other Muslim country burning flags, torching cars, fighting the police and calling for someone to be killed. What are we supposed to think? We hear about the car bombs, the suicide Palestinian bombers in Israel and what are we supposed to think? We hear about Muslim clerics preaching hatred and the worldwide imposition of Islam. What are we supposed to think? It is pointed out that there are some 2 billion Muslims in the world and that most are simply trying to go about their normal lives and live in peace with others around them. But what if one-half of 1% are ready to join the Jihad? That would be a lot of people we need to worry about.

It is clear that Islam is facing the greatest crisis in its history, at least since the Crusades. As yet, we don't know who will win control of the religion-the so-called peaceful moderates or the Jihadists. After all, in the final analysis, a religion is only what its believers and leaders say it is. Certainly, we should do all we can to assist and encourage the peaceful elements. People like the woman on Dubai TV, Nonie Darwish, Irshad Manji and Ayaan Hirsi Ali must be supported, encouraged and protected. Yet, I feel strongly that the moderates, if they are to prevail, will have to resort to violent means to defeat those who preach hatred and terror. (And I really don't much care.)

We also need many more voices like the names I listed above. Sadly, they seem to be few and far between. It is not enough to simply argue that most Muslims are non-violent and should not be stigmatized or discriminated against. I have argued in the past that Muslims should indeed defend their religion-not against non-Muslims or critics-but against those Muslims who are engaged in hatred and terror, thus destroying Islam's name in the eyes of the world.

But why are so many Muslims-otherwise decent people-unwilling to stand up, speak out and take action against the Jihadists? There are some possible answers.

First, many obviously are afraid to stand up and subject themselves and their families to violent retribution.

Some, I am sure, while not engaged in Jihad, probably sympathize with their goals and methods.

Some, while not agreeing with violence, don't want to engage in actions against other Muslims-on behalf of non-Muslim societies.

There is one other possible reason- and I am merely speculating here-after having read the Koran and the life of the Prophet Mohammed. Is it possible that many Muslims, while personally rejecting violence, feel that based on the Koran and the life of Mohammed, they simply cannot win a theological debate against the Jihadists?

The New Hampshire Debates- Change, Change, Change

"It's time for a change"


Didn't I tell you it was all about Change? How many times did the Democratic candidates mention the word "change" in last night's debate in New Hampshire? On some occasions, they used the word several times in the same sentence. The moderators and pundits kept using the word. Charles Gibson even made it the second topic of the debate, after nuclear terrorism. Frank Luntz asked a Democratic voter focus group if they thought "change" was an important issue. (Almost unanimously, they said it was.)It is all about "Change" Don't just stand there! Change something!

One thing that is changing is the expectation that Hillary Clinton was going to waltz her way to the Democratic nomination. She came into New Hampshire with a lead in the polls that Obama is rapidly wiping out. Polls-shmolls-now that people are starting to VOTE, it is becoming apparent that she is not what the Democratic voters want. She seems to be trapped between convincing people that she is the most "experienced" on the one hand, and the one who will bring change on the other hand. Tough balancing act. Many in Luntz's focus group indicated that she once supported Clinton, but have switched to someone else-like Obama. Then there is the likability factor. After that, there is the credibility factor. Not good, Mrs Clinton.

In last night's debate, she seemed to cement her position as the 3rd most likeable candidate. Obama seemed poised and confident. Edwards showed angry passion (as he continued his theme of America as Calcutta). Hillary, in turn, was the same old tired Hillary, reiterating that she has been "an agent of change for 35 years". It is truly getting tiresome-even to Democratic voters. Now, the pundits are predicting that she will not win New Hampshire.

Richardson was really bad. He seemed to be struggling to find words to show voters why his experience should count (and he was the most experienced candidate on the stage). His answers to the questions about Iraq and the threat of nuclear terrorism were weak. He talked about diplomacy, convincing Musharraf to resign, and bringing the troops home from Iraq so we could spend the money on health care and other domestic needs.

The other candidates actually said some strong things about terrorism. Obama repeated his statement in answer to a question, that he would go into Pakistan if he had intelligence on bin Laden's whereabouts-even without Pakistan's permission if that government refused to take action. I liked Clinton's suggestion about a US/ international venture to help Pakistan safeguard their nukes. Edwards said he would use "every tool" to stop terrorists. (Does that include NSA wiretaps, Guantanemo Bay, military force, aggressive interrogation techniques and military tribunals, Mr Edwards?)

On the Republican side where Romney was supposed to be the leading candidate (in New Hampshire), he took most of the attacks from McCain and Huckabee. More than one pundit commented that Romney is obviously not well-liked by the other candidates. The one that really turned me off was-once again- Ron Paul. He repeated his belief that we are hated by the Islamic world because we are occupying their lands, then added that Islam was no more infected by hatred and violence than any other religion (I am paraphrasing). Is that right?

I still have not decided which Republican I will vote for in the California Primary. Several months ago in this blog, I wrote McCain off. I was premature, and I admit that I am taking a strong second look at him. I like what he says about the war on Islamic terror, and I like what he says about limiting government spending. It is his weak position on illegal immigration that turns me off. Nevertheless, he is back in strong contention-and looking more energetic.

By the way, is it just me or is anyone else wondering how these candidates (who have elected positions) can take a 2 year sabatical from their jobs to run for president?

I have a suggestion as regards to Change. Let's bring back Kucinich and Gravel for the next debate. They can replace Hillary and Richardson. And let's bring back Duncan Hunter as well.

One thing that won't change is the Islamoterrorists trying to kill us.

Meanwhile, I'll stop here. I gotta go change my oil.

The New Hampshire Primary-It's All About "Change"

L-R Edwards, Obama, Clinton, Richardson

"Gee Hillary, this doesn't look like New Hampshire"

"Don't worry- I can change that"

With Iowa now behind them, the Democratic and Republican candidates are now in New Hampshire. As expected, the winners in Iowa (Huckabee and Obama) are getting singled out for criticism from the also-rans. There is an interesting trend going on in both parties. The word of the day is "Change". Apparently, everyone has gotten the message that the country is hungry for "Change". So, most of the candidates are presenting themselves as the agent of "Change". I would like to point out (as a language purist)that "Change" is a very vague word when used as a noun. Therefore, my question to both the candidates and voters is this: What specific changes are we talking about? What changes do the candidates (specifically) plan to bring about that they will be open and honest about during the campaign?

Let's start with Obama. He presents himself as a candidate of "Change". Unfortunately, his speeches, while soaring, are very general. Does a "Change" mean that his election will bring about "A NEW DAY" in politics? Not good enough, Senator. You need to be more specific. You say you will bring the troops home. When? Day one of your presidency? Does it depend on the situation in Iraq when you take office? What will you change in regard to Afghanistan? How are you going to fight Islamic extremists? What will you change in regards to our out of control illegal immigration problem? What about taxes? Are you going to change them-higher or lower?

Now Hillary. According to her, she has been making "Changes" in the lives of people for 35 years. Could you please be specific? You didn't change health care although you tried to (behind closed doors, I might add). I would ask the same question to voters. How specifically has Hillary Clinton changed your lives? As for your plans, Mrs Clinton, I would present the same questions to you as I did to Obama. Is it possible, Mrs Clinton, that you are trying to keep your planned changes secret from the public until you become president? Are you planning to radically socialize America?

Edwards talks an awful lot about what is wrong with our "Two Americas". How about your solution? Are you goiong to bring about income re-distribution through massive tax increases-not just on "the rich fat cats" (however you define rich), but on the middle class as well? We hear a lot of Democratic rhetoric about the rich, the middle class, "working families" etc, but we don't hear much about what these people consider rich, middle class or who are "working families".

Also Mr Edwards, since you are against the war in Iraq, just when will you bring the troops home? What about Afghanistan? What about the War on Terror. You don't like Guantanemo? What are you going to do with those prisoners?

The problem is, the Democratic candidates know that their voters care more about domestic social issues than the War on Terror. They know that most Democratic voters want us out of Iraq NOW. The result is that they are basically running their campaigns on social issues and "get out of Iraq". It's like they won't have to face this terror issue when they become president. When asked, they just say that they will fight a "more effective War on Terror", get out of Iraq (no matter the situation), "improve intelligence" and work closely with "our allies". What allies?

On the Republican side, we also hear words of tribute to "Change". Mitt Romney tells people he is a Washington outsider. Thus, only he can bring "Change". John McCain reminds us that he is the one who brought "Change" to the effort in Iraq since he urged that more troops be sent there. Huckabee also would have us belive that he is the one to bring about "Change". I have gotten the impression that the Republican idea of "Change" is changing the way they do business in Washington. That would be a worthy goal, but, again, it cries out for specifics. For example, how are you going to change this rotten, corrupt system that infects both parties? McCain says he will veto excessive spending bills. That is a start, but there is an entrenced culture at work in our national government. Reform will not be easy.

My conclusion is simply this: Most of us want some form of change, but hearing candidates merely talk of change is not enough. When you hear a candidate start talking about "Change", listen for specifics. Also think whether the suggested change is actually good. I think all of the top three Democratic candidates do indeed have plans for big changes. I just don't think they want us to know specifically what they are until they become president and start making those changes. That tells me that some of those changes are scary.

posted by Gary Fouse @ 12:51 PM 0 Comments

Friday, January 4, 2008

technorati

Technorati Profile

The Iowa Caucus

"Hi ho, hi ho. It's off to vote we go"





"It's Obama-and Edwards too!"



I guess I had better write something fast about the Iowa Caucus since the New Hampshire primary is fast on its heels. I followed the events in Iowa with more interest on the Democratic side than Republican, mainly because I was itching to see Mrs Clinton come in third-as she did. Interesting how the candidate with the biggest organization in the field couldn't overcome even John Edwards, who is rapidly running out of resources to continue.

A comment about the caucus itself. While the Republicans did it the traditional way-going to a voting site, voting and going home, the Democrats have their own customized version. As I understand it, they proceed to someones home or other public venue, then separate into groups according to candidate preference. If one candidate doesn't have 15% of the crowd, then those voters choose a second choice candidate. I watched a clip of one such gathering at a public facility last night. It looked like a giant cattle auction (whatever that looks like.)

Anyway, as the whole world knows by now (at least according to the hysterical Chris Matthews, who painted the Obama victory as the most significant political event since the Reagan defeat of Carter), Obama was the clear winner with 38% of the vote (Edwards 30%)and Hillary at 29%. My question is; what went wrong with Hillary? In the last 24 hours prior to the voting, it was reported that her organization had hundreds of snow plows, snow shovels and drivers to get voters to the polls. I would hate to think that would have been the difference had she won. Apparently, all the queen's snowplows and all the queen's men were not enough to overcome her phoniness, obnoxiousness and lies about her "unique experience". Interestingly enough, the two most experienced Democratic candidates, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, immediately announced that they are dropping out. Does that now make Hillary the "most experienced" Democratic candidate? Well, there is still Dennis Kucinich, but he is also out of the running-he just doesn't know it yet.

I also watched the three top Democrats give their post-caucus speeches. Hillary, pretending that she hadn't lost anything, talked about what a great night it was for Democrats. While her erstwhile husband, Bill, and the hapless Madeline Albright stood behind her, Hillary never even bothered to congratulate Obama for his victory-never even mentioned him. Bill, for his part, looked like he had spent the last 24 hours doing what Bill does best, while Albright looked like she usually does-lost.

Edwards' speech was typical Edwards-the whole country is starving to death while Bush, the evil Republicans and their corporate cronies are gorging themselves on prime rib breakfasts. Edwards is a gifted public speaker, honed by years in the courtroom buffaloing jurors into bringing huge financial verdicts against doctors and hospitals. This is the same guy who, 4 years ago, was claiming that once he and John Kerry were elected, Christopher Reeve was going to get out of his wheelchair and walk again. (Of course, Kerry-Edwards were defeated, so Reeve died instead.) Folks, remember one thing: Edwards is a PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER.

Obama's speech was classical Obama. Also a gifted speaker, he gave one of his typical stemwinders-great oratory-nothing said. No specifics, no substance. Watching him walk onto the stage with his family, I realized he has one great thing going for him- you see those beautiful kids and you want to vote for Obama. But that is emotion-not reason. I must say that his wife, Michelle, is also attractive and a talented speaker in her own right. It is just that every time I have heard her speak, her tone is pretty negative about the state of things in America. It seems that's what Democrats like to hear, however. The glass is always empty.

One thing should be noted, however. That Obama would win in a state like Iowa, with a white population over 90% is encouraging in itself. There was virtually no black voting block that won it for him.

On the Republican side, since I have been largely turned off by Huckabee, I was somewhat disappointed he won. Yet, aside from the Evangelical support he garnered in Iowa, I must say that the man expresses himself pretty well, comes across as a regular guy-and is willing to subject himself to questions from all sides. That has to be counting for something.

According to the news analysts (who, of course, are smarter than me), Romney took a major blow in Iowa with his second place finish, while McCain kept his hopes alive as he finished below Romney and about even with Thompson. Speaking of Thompson, who will apparently live to fight another day, I am starting to agree with the pundits who say his wife, Jeri, wants this White House gig more than Fred. No question, she is young, attractive and intelligent, but in her interviews, she comes across as a professional spin doctor as she tells the interviewer that "Fred Thompson is the only one who....."

The reporters have also told us that the Democratic voters seemed much more energized than their Republican counterparts. That may be. Will it continue throughout the election process? Possibly, but if Hillary is the eventual nominee, that situation will change immediately.

UN Resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions

United Nations Commission on Human Rights- "Be it resolved....."


Just before New Year, and after several years of drafts and debate, the UN General Assembly passed what is called the Resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions. The name sounds noble enough, and many of the articles contained herein also sound noble if not inocuous. The problem is, however, that it is only aimed at the defamation of one religion-Islam. There is no mention of any other religion being subject to persecution or defamation. There is also no mention of the true perpetrators of religious intolerance in the world today-radical Islam. As it is, it is just another example of the moral corruption epitomized by the United Nations.

I won't bother to reprint the entire document-rather, I will leave that to the reader to look it up. I will, however, list some of the paragraphs-those that single out the one religion that, according to the UN, is being subjected to defamation and persecution.

"The General Assembly,...."

* "Noting with deep concern the increasing trend in recent years of statements attacking religions, Islam and Muslims in particular, especially in human rights forums."

* "Notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamtion of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001."

* "Expresses its deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."

* "Deplores the use of print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination against Islam or any other religion."

* "Alarmed at the continuing negative impact of the events of September 11, 2001 on Muslim minorities and communities in some non-Muslim countries and the negative projection of Islam in the media and the introduction and enforcement of laws that specifically discriminate against and target Muslims."

What is so striking about this resolution is that only one religion is singled out as being defamed/persecuted- Islam. There are only a couple of references to "the tragic events of September 11 2001-with no mention of who carried those events out and for what motive. There are only a couple of references to defamation of "any other religion".

Yet, nowhere is there a word about true acts of violence, murder and terror being carried out by Muslims in the name of Jihad virtually every day against non-Muslims.

Nor is there a word about the daily acts of violence, murder and terror being carried out by Muslims against other Muslims (e.g- Shia against Sunni and vice-versa).

Not a word about why 9-11 was carried out or by whom.

Not a word about the London bombings, who did it and why.

Not a word about the Madrid bombings-who did it or why.

Not a word about the bombing in Bali-who did it or why.

Not a word about Darfur.

Not a word about the beheadings of Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg as their killers shouted "Allahu Akbar".

Not a word about Saudi law that makes it illegal to openly practice any other religion in the Kingdom.

Not a word about the persecution of members of the Ba'hai faith in the Islamic Republic of Iran-persecution that includes murder.

Not a word about demonstrations by UK Muslims calling for the beheadings or slaughter those who defame Islam.

Not a word about the proclamations of Imams and their followers calling for the imposition of Islam and Shariah law in their adopted Western countries-and indeed, all over the world.

Not a word about Fatwas-orders for the killing of people in the west, like Salmon Rushdie, for defaming Islam.

Not a word about the riots and killings carried out by Muslims in reaction to a bunch of silly Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed in a negative light.

Not a word about the rise of anti-Semitism (Jewish)fomented by western Muslims.

Not a word about textbooks and main stream newspapers throughout the Middle East that portray Jews as sub-humans, monkeys and pigs.

Not a word about the desecration of Jewish synagogues and cemeteries by Muslim immigrants in France.

Not a word about the Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel.

Not a word about a culture that raises children to want to become martyrs and blow themselves up-killing scores of innocents in the process.

Not a word about so-called "honor killings"-sometimes practiced in Muslim families in the West in contravention of law.

Not a word about forced female circumcision, also often practiced in Muslim enclaves in the West, in contravention of law.

Not a word about the stoning or hanging of women in places like Iran or Saudi Arabia-who were unfortunate enough to have been raped-thus becoming in the eyes of those societies, "impure".

Not a word about the Taliban executions of women in soccer stadiums for the crime of adultery.

Not a word about the blowing up of ancient Buddhist sculptures in Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Not a word about the on-going campaign of terror against Buddhists in southern Thailand by Islamic separatists.

Not one word.

Below are listed the countries on the UN Commission on Human Rights that authored this resolution, and how they voted.

Voting in favor:

Argentina
Bahrain
Bhutan
Brazil
Burkina Faso
China
Congo
Costa Rica
Cuba
Egypt
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Honduras
Indonesia
Mauritania
Nigeria
Pakistan
Paraguay
Qatar
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Sierra Leone
South Africa
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Togo
Uganda
Zimbabwe

Voting against:

Australia
Austria
Croatia
Domincan Republic
France
Germany
Guatemala
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Netherlands
Sweden
Ukraine
United Kingdom
USA

There are two ways to interpret the identification of the countries involved in this resolution. Some would interpret it (with a few exceptions) as white vs non-white or East vs West. I would interpret it(with few exceptions) as free vs non-free.

My point is three-fold: First, this is just another example of the moral rot in the UN-a corrupt organization made up mostly of corrupt, non-democratic nations, hostile to the West and hostile to true democracy.

Second: This is just another example of the UN's desire to accommodate Islam-a form of Djimmitud, if you will, that will only lead to the creeping authority of the Muslim world and the loss of our own hard-earned freedoms.

Third: Notice how much of the resolution's language is focused not just on laws and discriminatory practices, but words and thought, for example the press and Internet. Does the United Nations want its member countries to crack down on any criticism of Islam and its terroristic elements? Is any criticism of Islam to be outlawed? Are we to have censureship?

I hope this resolution gets the widest publicity possible. Maybe someday, America will wake up to the fact that the United Nations is a failed experiment that no longer deserves the financial support or the membership of the US-or any other free and democratic nation.

What's up with Huckabee?

Mitt Romney


"I'm Mike Huckabee, and I app.....- cancelled this ad."


The more I see Mike Huckabee in action, the farther he falls in my list of possible Republican nominees. In a previous post, I listed some of the positions and past actions of the former Arkansas governor that I had a problem with. This week's news conference held by the governor regarding the attack ad against Mitt Romney really has me wondering about this guy.

Of course, the backdrop to all this is the Iowa primary that, if you trust in polls, seems to be between Huckabee and Romney. Thus, the two have been taking pot shots at each other in Iowa. Huckabee's camp, led by the ever-feisty Ed Rollins, had produced an ad attacking Romney that was all set to be aired in Iowa this week. Then (apparently), Huckabee decided in the last hours that he didn't want it to run. It seems to me that the natural thing to do would be to just can it and forget about it. Huckabee, however, decided to go through with a news conference scheduled to launch the ad, but announce its cancellation instead. As if that wasn't weird enough, Huckabee (with Rollins present)left standing posters with anti-Romney tidbits-then proceeded to show the assembled reporters the ad-all the while explaining that he (Huckabee) wanted to remain above the fray! So why show the ad to the reporters (insuring that it gets publicity)? Huckabee's explanation is that he felt he had to prove to the press that the ad had actually been made. And those posters in the background? Oh yeah! The decision to cancel the ad was made so late in the game that there wasn't time to take the posters down. If that isn't enough, we have Rollins telling reporters that he would like to punch Romney's teeth in.

What?

Note to Ed: Your services are not needed. Huckabee already has Chuck Norris on board. You know, the guy Huckabee says pushes the ground down when he does pushups?

This guy Huckabee is starting to remind me (a little) of Ross Perot, especially the news conference he called to tell the world about the guys in black ski masks who ran across his front lawn one night (while he was in the garage checking under the hood). Again, few can match Perot for weirdness, but Huckabee now stands, in my view, about one notch above Ron Paul.

To voters who would like to see some civility, at least in the party we plan to vote for, these attacks among Republicans are getting tiresome. Can't you just tell us who you are, what you have done in your lives, what you want to do as president and tell us what policy disagreements you have with the others without trying to paint them as Dudley Nightshade? I know. You say I am naive and know nothing about the real workings of our political system. You are probably correct, but this is a big reason why we get such mediocrity in our elected leaders.

Mrs Clinton- A Question Please?

"What knave dares to ask me questions?"


In the past few days, it seems Mrs Clinton has been showing an aversion to taking questions from her audiences in Iowa. Maybe it has something to do with the recent exposures of planted questions from members of the audience that she could knock out of the park. Maybe she is starting to recognize that Iowa voters tend to be educated and more sophisticated than in other locales (That's what the news media has been telling me all my life, anyway.) Maybe she is getting angry at them over polls that show her losing in the state. In her appearances in the past few days, Mrs Clinton gives her spiel then walks away as her theme songs blast out any questions. In another encounter, she turned and walked away when asked about her personal reaction to Benazir Bhutto's death. Could it be that Hillary is walking in the 2004 footsteps of Howard Dean?

If you remember Dean, he was the clear frontrunner until he went to Iowa for the primary. In the time leading up to the caucus, an old videotape surfaced in which Dean complained to a Canadian forum about having to go to Iowa and have some corn farmer tell him how to run the country. Then he told an elderly Iowa gentleman to sit down and shut up when the man asked why the candidates had to be so negative toward each other. What might have worked for the obnoxious Vermont Governor in the northeast corridor did not sit well in Iowa. Dean lost Iowa, then made a fool out of himself with his famous "Scream". Before you knew it, he was national toast.

Could the same thing happen to the hip city girl in Iowa? Is she starting to alienate these salt of the earth midwesterners with her aloofness? Maybe yes, maybe no, but it seems to me that Iowans and the whole country have had 20 years to see this woman's act. They should have been fully aware long before "her highness" ever deigned to set foot in their state.

Even Chelsea Clinton got in on the act. She spurned one effort to ask her some questions with the retort that she didn't do interviews with the press. Problem is the "press interviewer" was 9 years old! Of course, when the Clintons were in the White House, Chelsea was just a child, and the news media left her alone, which was proper. However, Chelsea is now an adult and traveling the campaign trail with Hillary, so guess what? The rules have changed, Chelsea. If you want to push your Mom for President and act like an ass, you're going to be called on it-which is proper.

I can only hope that Mrs Clinton is treated with a succession of "slaps in the face" by primary voters from one state to the next. The woman is in dire need of some humility.