Translate

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

It's May Day!!!









If you can't be in Cuba to celebrate May Day- Why not come to LA?

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Visit Washington DC- See Our Nation's Capital






From the outside- and inside

The Plight of Barack Obama



The Contortionist Barack Obama

"I can no more disown Rev Wright and my church than I can my own white grandmother who raised me."

"I was not present when these statements were made."

"Did I hear him make statements that could be considered controversial while I sat in the church? Yes.

"I was not present during those statements, Larry."

"I am outraged by the words that were spoken. I am saddened by the spectacle we saw yesterday."

(I am quoting these words by Barack Obama by memory, not from text. They may or may not be word for word, but I am confident that there is no distortion or taking out of context.)


Today, in the wake of Jeremiah Wright's appearances before the NAACP in Detroit and the National Press Club in Washington, Barack Obama has spoken out strongly against Wright. In reality, Obama had to do this in order to keep his viability as a candidate. No longer could he (or Wright) claim that the pastor's statements were taken out of context-or in sound bites. Both appearances have been shown in their entirety. Wright has confirmed the content of the sermons that we had previously witnessed in "sound bites". At this point, with Wright seemingly going on a speaking tour and a book coming out in October, Obama had to speak out.

Today, Obama stated that he is saddened, outraged, and that his relationship with Wright has now changed. Wright is not the person he met 20 years ago, according to Obama. He stated that he had only seen Wright on TV last night. (I assume that means I saw the Detroit performance before he did.)

I have to say in Obama's defense that he is obviously caught in the middle of two constituencies, just as he has lived his life between two worlds-white and black. Yet, Obama cannot have it both ways as he has tried to do. He has carefully measured his responses to Wright.

Having said that, Obama, in my view, is not credible. Say what you will about Jeremiah Wright, he is consistent. For Obama to maintain that, over the course of 20 years, he had no idea that Wright held these views is disingenuous, to say the least.

At this point, Obama is literally tying himself in knots trying to maneuver his way through this morass. He had to know that his pastor had gone to Libya in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan to meet Moamar Khadafi. He knew the tenets of his churches' "Black Value System". Originally, he claimed that he had never been present when the controversial statements were made. Then he admitted in his Philadelphia speech that we was, indeed, present during some of those comments. Within days, he was on Larry King's show again denying he had been present. Contradiction? Absolutely.

In his Philadelphia speech, he tried to walk the tightrope. He disavowed the comments, but stated that he could "no more disown Rev. Wright and the church than he could disown his white grandmother"-whom he then described to America as a prejudiced person (later referred to as a "typical white person"). Now he is disowning Wright, again trying to convince the public that he had no idea what this man was really like.

Of course he knew. Twenty years ago, when he was a "community organizer" in the south side of Chicago, he joined this church because it represented a base from which he could build his career. Fair enough. But when Obama went on to become a state senator, a US Senator and now, a presidential candidate, membership in this church and association with Wright became no longer appropriate.

If Obama has only recently come to see what Wright represents, why did he dis-invite him to speak at the event by which he declared for the presidency? Wright's views had recently been featured in a Rolling Stone article. Obama knew.

Obama has always known.

He has known of the damning statements made against America, the race-baiting, the links with Louis Farrakhan, the trip to Libya and on and on and on. When he was a "community organizer" (whatever that means), the church and Wright suited him just fine. But now, he needs to appeal to the entire country-not just blacks, but whites, Hispanics, Jews, and Asians. He should have seen this situation coming years ago. Yet, he didn't see it until it hit him in the face. That speaks volumes about his judgement.

As for Wright, he has added a couple of new adjectives to his personal description. Man of God? Perhaps, but he is also a self-centered, self-promoting demogogue who clearly cares little for what he is doing to his parishioner's presidential campaign. Obama can be excused for being angry. Privately, he must be boiling.

By the way, who were those menacing-looking guys flanking Rev. Wright at the National Press Club yesterday? Is it true, in fact, that Wright is being guarded by the Fruit of Islam? What does Mr Obama think about that?

And by the way, what say you, Mrs Obama-in light of your recent comments about the country? How come the mainstream news media is not asking her for comments on Wright?

And by the way, now that Obama has "disowned" Wright, I wonder if the good pastor will strike back at Obama and clarify whether Obama was, indeed present, during his fiery sermons.

From Jeremiah Wright to William Ayres to Tony Rezko, there are so many suspect associations that Obama needs to explain. He is not doing a very good job of doing that, but then again, the mainstream news media is not doing a very good job of digging into it. Why is that? They would rather not-that's why.

Monday, April 28, 2008

Let's Play "Celebrity Jailbird"


Which Hollywood celebrity has not spent time in jail?

a Tom Sizemore
b Paris Hilton
c Nicole Ritchie
d Robert Downey Jr.
e The Hollywood Sign

Answer: e

Jeremiah Wright Takes Over the Election


Kennedy: "Hey Osama, hea's my plan. We throw Wright in the trunk of my cah and then we drive him off the bridge. No questions isked"

Obama: Great! Do you know any bridges?"

Kennedy: "I got it covahed."


Make no mistake about it. Jeremiah Wright is back on stage and enjoying every minute of it. Not being satisfied with 15 minutes of fame, the radical pastor is taking over the Democratic Primary and making himself the number one issue. Subsequent to his interview with the sympathetic left winger, Bill Moyers, Wright appeared over the weekend before the Detroit Chapter of the NAACP and followed that up with an appearance before the National Press Club in Washington today. In the process, he is virtually destroying the Obama campaign.

Since Wright and his supporters have complained about people condemning him based on soundbites that were excerpted out of entire sermons, I tuned in to last night's CNN coverage of his entire talk before the NAACP. It seemed only fair. Now that I have heard an entire speech, I have come to this conclusion:

The man is a racist and a nut-as I had thought. While he was able to play warm and fuzzy to Moyers' softballs, he came across in Detroit and Washington as an arrogant buffoon and a total jerk. At the National Press Club, he treated the young lady who had to act as moderator in a condescending and humiliating manner.

Some of Wright's Detroit speech was actually interesting. He made a couple of valid points, namely, that different cultures should be considered not as deficient, but simply as different. He also made the point that different cultures have different learning styles. That is also true.

As someone who teaches English to students from all over the world, I have learned that different cultures from different parts of the world do indeed have different learning styles.

For example, our Arab students, who come from a strong oral tradition, typically arrive here in America with better speaking and listening skills than most Asian students, who come with a better grasp of grammar. Most of the large Asian societies like Japan, China and Korea emphasize rote memorization of grammar rules. By the same token, most Asian students come from learning environments where class interaction is rare. The professor lectures, the students listen and take notes. Questions and comments from students are generally not part of the program-in contrast to the American teaching/learning style. This is not to say that the American style is better; it is just different.

Where Dr Wright lost me is when he started explaining to his NAACP audience how whites and blacks are different in being dominant on different sides of the brain. Now this is beyond my expertise, but I am very skeptical that left-brain dominance vs right-brain dominance breaks down along racial lines. There are white people who are right-brain dominant and others who are left-brain dominant.

In defending blacks against charges that they speak deficient English, he mocked the accents of the Kennedy family, from JFK to Teddy Kennedy.

Wright also spoke in mocking terms of the differences by which white people and black people worship in church.

Another whopper was his opening statement that the NAACP was not a partisan organization, neither Republican nor Democratic. Well, officially not, but in reality, the NAACP, once a great organization that did great work before and during the Civil Rights Era, is now an unofficial arm of the Democratic Party. Roy Wilkins would be turning in his grave.

In front of the National Press Club, he claimed that attacks on him were really attacks on black churches. He then launched into a litany of political observations about race, America and Israel. He said he had told Obama that if he got elected president, he (Wright) was coming after him (Obama) because the American government "grinds people under". When questioned about his patriotism, he quoted his 6 years in the Marines, comparing himself to people like Dick Cheney and other critics who used their status to avoid military service. (Fair enough, but he wasn't talking about this critic because I also served in the military.)

Yet, this is the same man who told the unquestioning Bill Moyers that he never talked politics with Obama because Obama was a politician, and he was a pastor.

Jeremiah Wright, in spite of being a Man of God, is nothing more than an opportunist who is putting himself on center stage-and to hell with Obama's campaign. Wright is also one who hates-notwithstanding his protestations to the contrary. This is a man who says that the American Government deliberately introduced drugs and AIDS into the black community. That, in my view, makes him a nut. He is educated enough to know better. He described 9-11 as a case of the chickens coming home to roost. He rails about "Rich White People" in his sermons, but is building a 10,000 sq foot home (courtesy of his church, I wonder?)in a wealthy suburb of Chicago so he can live with "Rich White People". That makes him a hypocrite.

Wright can no longer complain that someone is taking his words out of context in "sound bites". He is what he is. His words are the same as his idol, Louis Farrakhan.

Unfortunately for Obama, Wright is not about to go away. For Rev. Wright, it is all about Jeremiah Wright, and he is going to go on trashing his country throughout the campaign. Do I feel sorry for Obama? Not really. He chose this pastor and this church 20 years ago, and now, in the words of Dr Wright, "the chickens are coming home to roost."

It is sad how this campaign, which started out as one that would "bring us together", is now only further dividing us. Much of the blame for that must go to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Another Debate? No Thanks


"Hey, how 'bout another round?"

"Don't you guys think you've had enough?"


This week, Hillary Clinton has challenged front-runner, Barack Obama to yet another debate, which would be the 22nd debate in which they have participated. Obama, wisely in my view, has declined.

From Hillary's point of view, another debate (or two) makes sense. She has nothing to lose. Another poor performance by Obama, such as the last debate in Philadelphia, in which he was hit with surprisingly hard questions, and Hillary might goin another primary victory. Certainly, it is her hope that Obama would have another poor performance, driving his numbers down and cementing her claim that Obama could never stand up to the "Republican Attack Machine".

Obama, for his part, is running out the clock. No news is good news for him. His lead in pledged delegates will not be overtaken. With another debate, he can only lose standing with the Superdelegates. The last thing he needs right now is to subject himself to hard questions about Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, and his statements about small-town voters, etc. True, Hillary will charge that he is afraid to debate her again, but who cares?

But for the public, what is to be gained by yet another debate? If the Democrats need another debate to figure out who they prefer, God help them. After 21 debates, what will number 22 do for the voters?

Let's face it. In terms of issues and philosophy, there isn't much difference between the two. The big difference lies in personality, style and other issues.

If I were a Democrat, I would say enough is enough. Let the final primaries be held so that everyone can cast their vote. Then let the Superdelegates make their choice. Everyone agrees that a prolonged fight that goes to the convention only hurts the Democrats more. But as an independent who will vote Republican in November, it is tempting to say let the show go on.

But in all honesty, who can justify another debate?

Saturday, April 26, 2008

The NFL Draft


"And with their first selection, the Oakland Raiders pick....."


Let's take a break from the issues of today that only depress us. Today is NFL Draft Day. Personally, I am watching to see who my Pittsburgh Steelers select-hopefully a stud lineman, but I would like to address the team that is arguably the worst-run organization in football-the Oakland Raiders (of the Lost Games). Please don't wake up Al Davis to tell him I said that.

Today on the Internet, there is an article whose theme is that the Raiders are the one team no one wants to be drafted by. Maybe it's because of Davis, maybe it's their 22 year old head coach (whose name escapes me). At any rate, the Raiders have become the laughing stock of the NFL. So what will they do today? Most "experts" think they will take some running back from Arkansas who, like most Raiders, has a whole host of off-the-field issues. (No, it's not Bill Clinton.)

Speaking of experts, I guess we have to endure two more days of testosterone-loaded Mel Kiper, ESPN's so-called prognosticator. It seems year after year, old Mel gets them all wrong and insults everyone who disagrees with him.

But I digress. Back to the Raiders. What will they do with their draft picks?

Commissioner Roger Goodell: "The Oakland Raiders are on the clock."

In the Raiders command post:

"Listen, forget that running back. Besides, he doesn't have enough tattoos. What we need is a stud offensive lineman.

"Yeah, how about that guy Ross O'Donnell from Kansas State? My bartender tells me he's the best one out there. Really nasty."

"Where the hell is Kansas State?"

"Some place called Manhattan, I think."

"Tattoos?"

"You bet'cha."

"OK, Write it down and send it up to the podium."

Commissioner Roger Goodell:

"With their first pick, the Oakland Raiders select Rosie O'Donnell, offensive talk show host from Manhattan."

And so it will go. Here are my predictions for the Oakland Raiders draft:

2nd round- Barry Bonds (must have at least one more good year left in him)
3rd round- Traded to Pittsburgh for a 7th round pick.
4th round- Keith Olbermann (need a lot of offensive players)
5th round- Janet Reno
6th round- Keith Olbermann (yeah, I know. Same guy. More offense.)

and finally:

Commissioner Roger Goodell:

"With their 7th round pick and final selection in the NFL draft, the Oakland Raiders select......Mel Kiper (Mr Irrelevant)."

Friday, April 25, 2008

The Jeremiah Wright Interview With Bill Moyers

After laying low for a while, Jeremiah Wright is back on stage, kicking off a series of public appearances that must have Barack Obama squirming. This weekend, PBS' Bill Moyers will air his interview with the controversial pastor. Snippets (sound bites, if you will) have already been released.

Moyers, who runs the Public Broadcasting TV Network (funded by US taxpayers), is a spokesman for the far left who is angered by the encroachment in recent years of alternative sources of information. He is a reporter with a political agenda, which we as tax-payers have to partially fund. One would assume that his interview with Wright would be fawning, sympathetic, and designed to retrieve public support for Obama in the wake of his pastor's publicized rhetoric. That assumption has proved to be correct.

In the interview, Wright discards his angry rhetoric in favor of a low key, low octave manner in responding to Moyers' softball questions. He comes across as soft-spoken, totally in contrast to the angry sermons shown on TV- even in contrast to the belligerence he showed last year when being questioned by Sean Hannity.

Wright describes the words he spoke in his sermons as nothing more than "sound bites", which the media has "looped". He claims when asked if Obama ever uttered similar opinions to him that he never discussed politics with the senator. On the contrary, Obama is a politician and I (Wright) am a pastor. Never mind the fact that Wrights fiery orations were totally political in content.

It should also be remembered that Wright's words came to surface as a result of DVDs of his sermons that his church sold publicly. Sound bites?

If Wright is claiming that his words are mere sound bites that should be disregarded, then what about the words of other public figures? For example, were the words of Don Imus merely a sound bite when he referred to Rutgers women basketball players as "nappy-headed hos"? What about the words of Trent Lott, when he made a reference to Strom Thurmond's past run for the presidency when he was an unabashed segregationist? Was that just an unfortunate sound bite? What about the words of Rush Limbaugh when he made racially-tinged comments about Donovan McNabb? I raise these examples not to condemn or defend the speakers, rather to remind the reader that each of these three persons paid a price for their comments. Imus was fired from his radio job, Lott was forced to step down from his leadership position in the Senate, and Limbaugh lost his short-lived football analyst position. Were they just "sound bites"?

What about the words of former Weather Underground fugitives, Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn-both associates of Obama and completely unrepentant about their pasts? Was it just a sound-bite when Ayers told the New York Times in September 2001 that he didn't regret setting bombs and wished he had done more? As late as 2007, we have him on tape telling an audience how bad his country is-racist, imperialist, homophobic, etc.) Similarly, Dohrn last year is on tape talking about America in terms such as "being in the belly of the beast" and the "heart of the monster". (Both are university professors.)

Free speech issues aside (which no one is debating), words do have consequences. If we stand up and make incendiary comments in public about our country or about other ethnic groups, then we should be prepared to defend them or accept negative consequences-at least deal with the disagreements and criticisms. People usually make a conscious choice to be controversial. This pastor has made his choice and is compounding it by not going away-to the detriment of Obama.

Wright has the misfortune of being the pastor of a presidential candidate-one who represents himself as one who would bridge the gap between white and black. Largely because of Wright's words, that has now been called into question and is a topic for legitimate debate. Similarly, the words, past and present, of Ayers and Dohrn, coupled with their associations with Obama, personal, professional and political, raise very appropriate questions about who this man Obama really is. Before he becomes our president, I think we have a right to know. Wright, Ayres and Dohrn are legitimate campaign issues that the mainstream media tried to ignore until they couldn't any longer.

Guilt by association? You bet.

Let's Play "Name That Victim"


Which president, current or former, recently accused the Obama campaign of "playing the race card" on him?

a George W Bush
b Bill Clinton
c George H W Bush
d Jimmy Carter
e John Quincy Adams

I'll give you a hint.

Thursday, April 24, 2008

The North Carolina Ad- Is It Racist?

This week, the North Carolina Republican Party has came out with a political TV ad that highlights Rev. Jeremiah Wright, specifically, his "God D___ America" rant. The ad, while making the case that Barack Obama was too extreme for America, was directly targeted at two Democrats running for governor of North Carolina since they had both endorsed Obama for president. As a result, liberals and Democrats are up in arms over the ad, even as the Hillary camp plays on the same points.

In the wake of the ad, John McCain and the RNC have asked the NC Republican Party to remove the ad as being divisive. Up to now, the state party has refused to comply. Notwithstanding his disapproval of the ad, McCain is taking heat from Democrats. Howard Dean is attacking McCain for his inability to force the NC Republican Party to take down the ad.

Then there is MSNBC's blatantly partisan Keith Olbermann, who, last night, called the ad racist and attacked McCain in his "Worst person in the world" segment for his "connection" to those putting the ad up.

What connection, Mr Olbermann? John McCain has disowned the ad and tried to have it taken down (something he does not have the authority to do).

John McCain should be praised for his attempt to conduct a non-divisive campaign (at least to this point). But was the ad racist, as Olbermann and others on the left are charging? I think not. Just because Obama has a pastor who cries "God d___ America" and rails about white people and the "US of KKK", does not make those who point out the truth racists. If anyone is racist, it is Reverend Wright. I would agree that the two Democratic gubernatorial candidates of North Carolina should not be saddled with Jeremiah Wright just because they endorsed Obama. That is another step removed. At any rate, I don't consider the ad racist just because it criticizes a black pastor who has said outrageous things.

Olbermann's charges of racism surrounding the ad are to be expected. While he rails against Bill O'Reilly and Fox News ("Fix News" as he calls it.) on a nightly basis, Olbermann is a hypocrite when he makes these statements. His own show is nothing more than a one-sided exercise in bashing of Bush, the Republican Party and all things conservative. Unlike Fox, which has debates between liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, Hannity and Colmes, as well as O'Reilly bringing on opposing voices, Olbermann debates no one. His guests every night are the same tired old faces, Eugene Robinson, Rachel Maddow, Chuck Todd, Jonathan Alter and others who agree with him on everything. So now, Olbermann is attaching the "racist" label on the North Carolina ad without any explanation or evidence.

In the wake of the ad "controversy", David Axelrod, campaign chief for Obama, has thrown in his two cents worth with a comment about "white working-class voters" who will vote for the white candidate (as opposed to Obama).

Then there is Joy Behar of "The View". This morning, she joined the fray in bringing up the "Republican Attack Machine", that "will do anything to hold on to power- anything." What Joy refuses to understand is that Obama is still engaged in fighting off Hillary Clinton for the nomination. It is the Clintons that are playing the race card against Obama, not John McCain and his campaign. It is the Clintons who will do anything to win-anything.

In short, the NC ad, while stretching to connect Jeremiah Wright to the two Democratic candidates for governor, are not racist. If they are, then any criticism of a black public figure is also racist. I would like to think we have progressed beyond that point.

Demolition Derby-The Democratic Primary in Action


Heading towards the final lap

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

The "Drug Wars" (16) Los Angeles ca 1981


"Great meal, but the show was rather boring."

"I'll get the check. Waiter? Waiter? Waiter?.............


One of the stereotypes you hear about LA is that it is so laid back, so blase. That reputation may be taking a hit in the light of the gang killings of recent years, but in certain pockets, I suppose it still holds true. One personal experience illustrates that blase attitude.

While stationed with DEA in LA back in the early 1980s, I had occasion to work undercover with a fellow agent. In this particular case, we were posing as heroin buyers and negotiating a purchase of about a kilo from some Thai nationals who ran a Thai restaurant in Hollywood.

On the day of the purchase, we arrived at the restaurant and concluded negotiations with the three suspects. In the late afternoon, they dispatched a woman to go and pick up the heroin to deliver to us at the restaurant. The plan was that upon delivery, we would call our associate to deliver the money.

A few hours passed as we waited in the restaurant. Dinnertime arrived, and soon the place was full of diners. Eventually, the heroin was delivered. We checked it out in a back room, after which I placed a call to the "money man" (actually surveilling agents) letting them know the heroin had been delivered. This was the signal for the bust.

A couple of minutes later, agents burst into the restaurant, guns drawn while a huge LA Sheriff's Deputy in uniform blocked the front door with a shotgun at port arms. At this point, one of the suspects tried to escape from the restaurant through the dining area. I grabbed him (with my gun to his head) and subdued him. As I was subduing him, I noticed that the diners were quietly going about their meal-no screaming, no ducking under tables-nothing. One man looked up at me while I was wrestling with the suspect-then went back to his plate.

Now that was BLASE.

Once we had secured the suspects and the dope, we all left en route to book them at our office and deliver them to the LA County Jail.

And the diners? They kept right on eating-for free.

Jamiel's Law Update- a Response From LA City Council Member

In the aftermath of the murder of Jamiel Shaw by an illegal alien in Los Angeles, I and others have sent letters to members of the LA City Council asking them to revoke or modify Special Rule 40, which puts restrictions on LAPD officers in determining a person's legal status-even with illegal alien gang members.

Below is a letter I got from City Council member Bernard Parks (formerly Chief of LAPD).

"Thank you for your letter regarding Jamiel's Law. Of course, I feel horrible about what happened to Jamiel Shaw, and I know first-hand the pain that his parents are suffering. However, I don't believe the solution we are all searching for in answer to this devastating incident should be to blindly embrace the politically-motivated misinformation generated by someone who is running for Mayor of the City of Los Angeles.

As stated by a recent edirorial in the Los Angeles Times, which I have enclosed with this letter, these are the facts: Jamiel Shaw's alleged killer was arrested by the Culver City Police Department, incarcerated by the Los Angeles Sheriff's Depoartment, and should have been held by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office pending review of his immigration status and eventual deportation. As stated in the editorial, 'The tragedy exposes deplorable failures in the jailhouse processing of illegal immigrant criminals, but it has nothing to do with the LAPD, much less Special Order 40'

Further, as proposed, Jamiel's Law is at best poorly written and at worst constitutes racial profiling. While I agree that criminal gang members present a clear and present danger to the communities they inhabit, there is no viable way to determine by cursory inspection during a field stop, the status of the individual stopped"

Bernard Parks
Councilmember 8th district

Though Parks raises some valid points, it says nothing about why LAPD and ICE could not work together on a daily basis. He believes it would be illegal and constitute racial profiling. I disagree. If illegal alien gang members are exclusively Hispanic, what are the cops supposed to do-look for illegal Swedish gang members to make it even? Why are there not ICE agents screening the inmates of the LA County Jail-approximately 25% of whose prisoners are illegal aliens? Yes, the jail is under the control of the LA Sheriff's Department, but they are also negligent.

Mr Parks says that there is no viable way to determine during a field stop the status of the individual stopped. No? C'mon. I worked Los Angeles as a DEA agent for several years. These gang members have their gang tattoos all over their bodies. How long do you have to talk to someone before you at least suspect they are from another country? If you had an ICE agent with you, they would clearly have the authority to ask additional questions. The two agencies should be working hand-in-hand on the streets, in the jails and in each others' file rooms and data bases.

The enclosed LA Times article (the Times supports illegal aliens)states that, under Special Order 40, "officers shall not initiate police action with the objective of discovering the alien status of a person." LAPD states that their officers "are allowed to inquire about the legal status of suspects as long as the immigration question is not what prompted the contact."

Understandably, officers are confused about what they can and cannot do. The usual result is that the officers take the safe path as opposed to being proactive.

If the city and the federal government are serious about cracking down on illegal alien gang members, then they need to work together. This is true in other large urban areas plagued by gangs. The local police and ICE working together can get results. This is something that should ultimately, if necessary, go to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, even a favorable ruling will not motivate a city like LA to take action.

Sadly, more innocent people in LA will have to die because of the negligence of the city and its police chief. The problem is that serious.

Jimmy Carter's Latest Mess


The dust is still settling from Jimmy Carter’s ill-advised trip to the Middle East, where he met with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal. Not only was the trip against the wishes of the Administration, the State Department and Israel, but now there are disputes over what Meshaal told Carter and what the State Department told Carter before he left. As might have been predicted, Carter ignored the advice of the responsible parties, went to Syria, has returned proclaiming an opening for “peace in our time”, and is implying that Condoleeza Rice is a liar.

Carter was reportedly told by Meshaal that Hamas would abide by a treaty negotiated by Mahmoud Abbas-as long as it was approved by the Palestinian people (apparently worldwide) and provided for the “Right of Return” of the some 4.5 million Palestinians living around the world. Hamas would not, however, recognize Israel. (Hamas’ charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews).

Not only would those conditions make the continued existence of Israel impossible, what rational person would accept the word of Hamas? It is very clear that the ultimate goal of Hamas, Hizbollah and other entities, such as Iran is the eventual destruction of Israel. Yet, Jimmy Carter continues in his folly of believing that he can negotiate peace with terrorists. Carter has returned from his trip insisting that Hamas should be a partner to negotiations - in contravention of US and Israeli policy. Thus, this trip is a worthy follow-up to his personal mission to North Korea, which only resulted in the Clinton Administration being hoodwinked by Kim Jong Il over nuclear reactors.

Not only did Carter meet with a terrorist leader, he also went to Ramallah, where he laid a wreath on the grave of the dead terrorist leader, Yassir Arafat, a man who died with much blood on his hands and much Palestinian money in the hands of his widow now living in style in Paris.

Let’s be clear: Jimmy Carter is no friend or supporter of Israel. He is squarely on the side of the Palestinians-no matter how many rocket attacks they launch into Israel, no matter how many suicide bombings they conduct. Many in Israel-and in the US regard him as an anti-Semite. I am not prepared to make that leap yet, but his sympathies are on the wrong side. Yet, he insists on conducting his own diplomacy notwithstanding the fact that the US and Israel are firm allies.

It should also be pointed out that Carter’s meddling has only created diplomatic confusion for the US in its own efforts in the Middle East. Whatever one might think of the Bush Administration’s handling of the region, Carter’s trip has raised doubts among our allies in the region over whether the US might be engaged in some sort of back-channel diplomacy-without their knowledge. Carter’s meeting with Hamas has also given prestige and credibility to a terrorist organization that deserves neither.

As if that wasn’t enough, Carter is now adding insult to injury by denying the claims of Rice and the State Department that the Department had advised Carter not to go and meet with Hamas. Carter claims that he called Rice’s office to give them details of his itinerary. Rice was out of town and an assistant secretary returned the call. Carter insists this person never advised him or asked him not to go. The State Department and Rice stand by their statement that they did in fact counsel against the meeting. Now Carter, through the Carter Center, has implied that Rice is lying over this point. (The State Department official who spoke to Carter has been identified as David Welch). What a spectacle for the rest of the world to watch a former president embarrass his own government.

So once again, Jimmy Carter, who even Democrats acknowledge was a failed president, has continued his legacy of meddling in foreign affairs, and, as is his specialty, making a mess of everything. History will record that instead of rehabilitating his sorry legacy after leaving the White House, he is only making it worse.

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Hillary Wins the Pennsylvania Primary


"Not so fast, Obama. I just won Pennsylvania, and the train is leaving the station."


As predicted, Hillary Clinton defeated Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania Primary tonight by 10 percentage points and over 200,000 votes. Thus, she succeeded in prolonging the primary and putting her party deeper into a quandry. While it is theoretically possible that she could catch Obama in the popular vote (with the help of Florida and Michigan), Obama still is almost certain to win the voter delegate count. Only the Superdelegates can put Hillary into the lead in that crucial category.

In the days leading up to today's primary vote, Mrs Clinton's husband again embarrassed himself and his wife. Yesterday, he told a radio audience in Pennsylvania that Obama had played the race card against him. Today, the former president angrily denied to a reporter that he had said any such thing.

Hillary, for her part, appeared this week on the Today Show and told Ann Curry in answer to a question about a level playing field for women that she was playing Ginger Rogers to Obama's Fred Astaire. (She must have read my blog about the Philadelphia debate, which featured a photo of Astaire and Rogers.) She then added that the most pervasive discrimination in the world was discrimination against women, once again playing the victim card.

So what does Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania mean? Is Clinton back in the race? In a certain sense, she can make the argument to the Superdelegates that Democratic voters are having buyer's remorse over Obama, expecially in the light of Jeremiah Wright, William Ayres and Obama's comments in San Francisco. No question Obama is sliding, if not among Democratic voters, then certainly among independents and would-be Republican crossovers in the general election. It may be true that Clinton has a better chance to win in the general election. She also can now argue that she has won all the big states except Illinois.

There is one huge problem, however, that will be very hard to overcome. If, indeed, Obama finishes the primary season with a delegate lead and probably a popular vote lead as well, would the Superdelegates override the will of the voters and give the nomination to Mrs Clinton? It may well be that they will conclude that only Hillary can defeat McCain, yet, if Obama leaves Denver without the nomination, what happens to the votes of the black voters who voted for Obama as well as the younger voters of all races who went with the Illinois senator? Without doubt, many of them will sit out the election or even vote for McCain. Why shouldn't they? They will certainly conclude that they have been screwed-and that their trust in the Democratic Party has been misplaced. After all, while many younger white voters have supported Obama, there has definitely been a racial split in this process. Superdelegates may soon conclude that Obama is unelectable, but if Hillary wins this nomination courtesy of the Superdelegates and/or the party bigwigs, Clinton would probably become unelectable as well.

In the end, I predict that barring a major scandal breaking, the party will conclude that it is better to lose with Obama and keep the black/young voting base than to lose with Hillary-and lose those voters in the process.

Monday, April 21, 2008

Let's Play "Name That Mourner"


Last week, which former American president laid a wreath at the grave of the murdering, corrupt terrorist Yassir Arafat?

a George Washington
b Abraham Lincoln
c Millard Fillmore
d Jimmy Carter

I'll give you a hint.

Sunday, April 20, 2008

The Mainstream News Media "Traitors" at ABC


Outrage on the left


I find the liberal reaction to the ABC debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to be truly amazing. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos are being excoriated by their colleagues for having the temerity to ask Barack Obama some hard questions about Jeremiah Wright, William Ayres, his comments about small-town folks and the flag pin flap. Obama didn't handle the questions well and had a generally bad night in the last debate. He is not happy about it and neither are his supporters in the Mainstream Media and on the left.

The day after last week's debate, Obama was in North Carolina complaining to a rally of his supporters about the questions. Gibson and Stephanopoulos, for their part, are being blasted by the left for being virtually the first representatives of the MSM to ask hard questions of Obama. How dare they? ABC is being swamped with emails complaining about their two reporters. The left-wing blogs are furious. Air America is furious. Working people everywhere are furious.

Today, while driving from Phoenix to California, I tuned in to a liberal radio talk show called Action Point with Cynthia Black, whom I had never heard of before. She and her callers were angry about what Gibson and Spephanopoulos had done. She was encouraging people to complain to ABC as she railed about the "Foxification" of ABC. Then, she spent the next hour "educating" us about the Weather Underground. According to Black, they were simply idealistic young people fighting back against an oppressive government, the Viet Nam War, racism and sexism. They never killed anybody (except other Weather Underground members). According to her, Obama was being "smeared" for his connection to Ayres.

Ms Black and all the other Obama supporters are missing a very important point, which Hillary Clinton has now only belatedly learned. Both of these people are running for the highest office in the land. Why should they, their statements, their beliefs and their associations not be examined? When Hillary complained about always being asked the first question in the debates, many (including me) reminded her that she could never be expected to stand up to Iran and Al-Qaida, if she couldn't stand up to questioning in a debate.

The same is true of Obama. Up until this week, he had gotten a free pass from the media, which had ignored or tried to ignore questions about his associations, from Tony Rezko to Jeremiah Wright to William Ayres. It was Sean Hannity, after interviewing Wright last year on the Hannity and Colmes Show, who had been sounding the alarm about Wright and his views. Similarly, up until this week, it was Hannity who was sounding the alarm about Obama's relationship with former Weather Underground fugitive William Ayres. Only now has someone from the MSM dared to bring it up and ask Obama about Ayres. Obama's answer was horrible. He described Ayres as "someone who lives in the neighborhood", with whom he does not consult with on "a regular basis". Then, he had the nerve to invoke the name of Sen Tom Coburn (R-OK), with whom he was also on friendly terms, but who had once said something about giving the death penalty to abortion doctors. This was to make some sort of comparison with his connection with Ayres and his relationship with another senator. It sort of reminded me of how Obama threw his grandmother under the bus during the Wright storm.

The result was that millions of Americans had to now ask themselves who this guy Ayres was because finally, someone in the mainstream news media had done their job. And for that, these two reporters are being crucified by the left and their own colleagues. They are being condemned for using the first 45 minutes of the debate asking Obama (and Hillary, for that matter), about character matters as opposed to "sticking to the issues that the American people really care about".

With all due respect; that argument only goes so far. A candidate's character is absolutely an issue. The "sticking to the issues" phrase is the last refuge of the corrupt politician. That would mean that as Hitler was rising to power in Germany, if he had been asked about his statements about Jews and the Nazi street brawls, that wouldn't be fair. No, let's stick to the issues that the German people really care about, like the economy, the price of beer, etc. (No, I am not for one minute comparing Obama to Hitler. I am just using an illustration to make a point, so save your cards and letters.)

The reaction of Obama's supporters, especially in the MSM, speaks volumes about their true nature. When the media goes after the Republicans, that is just fine and dandy. When someone other than Rush Limbaugh or Fox News raises legitimate questions about this man Obama, of whom we have known so little, it is considered treason.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Are We Frustrated and Bitter?

I would like to add my own comment in the wake of last night's debate regarding the topic of who is frustrated and bitter in this country. Aside from Obama's remarks in San Francisco, both Democratic candidates are constantly beating this drum about how much ordinary Americans are frustrated and bitter-more specifically, how frustrated and bitter we are about the government's inability or unwillingness to help them. That may be true in regards to folks who look to the government to get through their daily lives. However, for millions of others, the frustration and bitterness comes from different reasons.

What Obama and Hillary Clinton completely ignore is the frustration and anger millions of people feel because of the intrusiveness of our government-at the local, state and national level. Most ordinary Americans are not looking to the government to lead their lives for them. On the contrary, they just want the government to get out of their way.

Yet, the Democrats have a philosophy of ever-bigger government, fed by ever-increasing taxes and regulations. Clinton and Obama will not mention those people who are frustrated by more taxes. They will not talk about those who are frustrated by more and more regulations. Whenever liberals create a new program, it follows that taxes or fees will rise. It's called "pay as you go", which sounds nice except that what it really means is that instead of getting rid of wasteful spending in other areas, Democrats just want to raise new taxes to pay for the new programs. Sadly, in the past decade or so, even Republicans have forgotten their core principles and jumped on the spending gravy train. That is why they lost Congress.

The Democrats also talk about "special interests". To them, that means oil companies, corporations, pharmaceuticals and insurance companies. Yet, they have their own special interests in the form of lawyers, unions and liberal activist groups.

Many of us are frustrated and bitter about a government that is unwilling to protect the sovereignty of our country by stopping this invasion called illegal immigration. Both parties have been guilty in this area, including John McCain.

Many of us are frustrated and bitter about seeing liberal judges give slap-on-the wrist sentences to convicted felons including child rapists. It seems that in Vermont and Massachusetts, sexual abuse of children is routinely treated as some sort of a misdemeanor.

Many of us are also upset about the decline in our culture-largely promoted by Hollywood. Yet, when we speak out about it, we are called Neanderthals.

Many of us are tired of the politics of racial identity which is leading us to a nation of separate and competing tribes. When we speak out or dare to criticize, we are labeled as racists in an effort to intimidate us into silence. Unfortunately, so many have just thrown up their hands, given up and walked away instead of contributing to a thoughtful debate.

Many of us are up to here with the political correctness that now envelopes Islam in America. As many Muslims-especially on university campuses- engage in hate-filled diatribes against Israel, Jews and America, the rest of us are called Islamophobes if we respond or even discuss Islamic terror. At the same time, we see government funds used to install foot baths in some university campuses. Many of our schools are indoctrinating our children that Islam is a "religion of peace", while at the same time, removing any mention of Christianity from the public arena.

Yes, Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton, we are frustrated and bitter.

Many in Los Angeles are frustrated and bitter that their city has literally been taken over by gangs-many of them dominated by violent illegal aliens. In spite of the recent murder of a young black (non-gang-member) high school football player by an illegal alien gang member, LA defiantly refuses to revoke or even amend Special Rule 40 that prevents cops from grabbing a known illegal alien gang member and turning him over to ICE. LA, under Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, is a sanctuary city that embraces its illegal alien population. (Villaraigosa is your national campaign co-chair, Mrs Clinton.) Taxpayers are also bitter and frustrated because their tax dollars are going to provide services for illegal aliens-in many cases, services that they, the taxpayers, cannot qualify for.

What Obama and Clinton conveniently ignore is the millions of Americans who are frustrated and bitter because government is standing in their way. It is government that is keeping millions of Americans from pursuing the American dream and moving up the economic ladder through taxation and over-regulation. It is government that interferes with the values that parents try to instill in their children. Example? Public schools that are teaching kids how to put on condoms while parents are trying to convince them not to become sexually active at an early age. Another example? How about teachers who tell their pupils that religion, especially Christianity, is all a crock-in contravention of the parents' own faith.

In truth, the only people that Obama and Clinton are addressing when they talk about bitterness and frustration are those folks who expect the government to find them a new job, educate them, heal them when they are sick, pay off their debts, provide health insurance, and a host of other things that government should not be involved in. But they ignore the people who have to pay the bills.

To Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton, I say: I don't want your help. I just want you to leave me alone.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Tap Dancing in Philadelphia


Tonight, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton went at it for the 21st? time in Philadelphia. Can it really be possible that Democratic voters are still undecided between these two? A few observations.

Most of the really pointed questions were directed at Obama-and why not? He carried a lot of new baggage into Philly. First, he was asked pointedly by moderator Charles Gibson why it took him a year to disavow Jeremiah Wright's comments-especially in light of his dis-invitation to Wright to speak at his announcement to run for president. Obama did his by now rehearsed "explanation" about not having heard the most controversial comments. Not well-handled. Hillary responded by adding her own criticisms adding that she would have walked out of her church after such a sermon. (What church?)

Obama also tap-danced around the statements he made in San Francisco about Pennsylvania small-town folks. Again, Mrs Clinton threw in her two cents worth to rub it in.

Most significantly, however, moderator George Stephanopoulos asked Obama about his relationship with former Weather Underground fugitive William Ayers, possibly thrusting this relationship into the national spotlight. (Thank you, George!) Once again, Obama danced around the issue trying to shift attention onto other issues. Hillary again jumped in realizing that this has the potential to become another Jeremiah Wright-type issue. She pointed out that Ayres had made his statement to the New York Times about not regretting his past Weather Underground bombings in the wake of 9-11.

All in all, Obama did not acquit himself well in dealing with these recent issues.

While most of the hard questions were directed at Obama, Hillary also did her own tap-dance trying to find multiple ways of describing her "misstatement" about Bosnia other than conceding it was an outright lie. She actually apologized-then said she would "try to get more sleep".

When questioned about the 2nd Amendment, both tap-danced in trying to cut the baby in half in an effort to please everyone.

Hillary may have made a major error when she replied to the question of whether Obama was electable.

"Yes, yes, yes", she replied.

Stop.

Isn't this in contrast to what she is telling the Superdelegates? Isn't this in contrast to what she told Bill Richardson? If so, this may all come back to haunt Hillary when others report back on her "unelectable" arguments in private against Obama.

I also happened to catch the post-debate analysis on Countdown between Keith Olbermann, Air America host Rachel Maddow and Pat Buchanan. It was interesting that Buchanan was not very knowledgeable about William Ayres until it was brought out in the debate. He seemed rather shocked at the "revelation". (Maybe he should have been listening to Sean Hannity.) Olbermann and Maddow, as is their wont, poo-pooed the issue, with Maddow describing Ayres as "some guy in Chicago that he (Obama) hardly knows".

At any rate, I hope all you "undecided" Democrats in Pennsylvania got something out of this debate and have finally decided which of these two phonies you want to be president.

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Villaraigosa's "Solution" for LA Gang Violence

In his State of the City message this week, LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa outlined his "anti-gang" plan-even while making a preposterous declaration that "LA is the safest it has been since the 1950s"!!??!

Has the mayor been smoking his socks?

Even more incredible than that whopper is Villaraigosa's plan for combating gangs in the city. (The mayor was, himself, a gang member in his youth, when he was known by his birth name-Tony Villar.)

Now the city is devoting more money into their old tried and failed programs of "prevention and intervention". Yes, more police will be assigned to the high-risk areas and that designation will be expanded from 8 to 12 parts of the city. But the main thrust involves more feel good programs and grants to non-government agencies. People will be assigned to go into the gang-infested neighborhoods to try and convince young kids not to join gangs. To pay for it, the city is preparing to raise taxes and/or fees to its citizens.

But what about revoking Special Rule 40-or at least modify it to allow LAPD officers to grab known illegal aliens who are known gang members? Nothing about that. In fact, LAPD Chief William Bratton defiantly reiterated today in an interview with the LA Daily News that Rule 40 will remain long after he and everyone else is gone. To do anything else would amount to "Racial Profiling".

So it appears that the leadership of the city will fight to protect Rule 40 as is. Strangely silent remain LA's black activist community even in the wake of the murder of Jamiel Shaw by an illegal alien gang member. They apparently don't care if innocent black youths are being killed in the streets by illegal Hispanic gangs. Hate crimes? Apparently not in their view.

What needs to be done in Los Angeles is very simple. LAPD, LASO and ICE need to work together-on the streets, in the jails and in the file rooms. Their files need to be open to each other so that each agency can identify who is a gang member and who is illegal.

When I was working with DEA in the late 1970s in Los Angeles, I had just returned from a three year tour in Thailand. In LA, I was assigned to the Southeast Asian Heroin Task Force. In those days, there was a major problem with SE Asian heroin being trafficked into the LA area by Thai traffickers living in the LA area. Many of them were illegal aliens having come to the US on a visa and overstaying.

In our group, we had two LAPD officers and an Immigration Agent. We had access to each others' data banks. When we encountered a Thai illegal alien whom we suspected or knew was involved in criminal activity, INS got involved and started processing them for deportation. We also did this proactively-sometimes in an effort to recruit informants. In other words, we went out and knocked on doors. Did we intimidate people? Sure we did (in a professional manner of course). Was it racial profiling? Well, since it was specifically directed at Thais, I guess it was. Tough cookies.

It can be done, and it can be done legally. It is also much cheaper than the prevention and intervention programs the mayor is instituting or increasing. What is wrong with a cop and ICE agent grabbing an illegal gang member and at the very least deporting him? Chief Bratton doesn't want to do this since he wants to look out for the witnesses and victims of crime within the illegal alien community. Hey Chief! Let's remember that these victims and witnesses are the biggest victims of Hispanic gangs. Think how many lives could be saved within the illegal alien community by removing the gang members among them. No. The real reason Bratton is against revocation of Rule 40 is because the mayor is against it. Bratton serves under Villaraigosa. Therefore, he is the mayor's hack and will do his bidding.

The sad fact is that Los Angeles has no interest in eliminating this problem. It is more about race-based far-left politics. The result? Many more will die.

Let's Play Name That "Mistress"


Match the below political figures with their "mistresses".

1 Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick

2 Bill Clinton

3 Ex NY Governor Eliot Spitzer

4 Thomas Jefferson

5 Louisiana Senator David Vitter

6 Idaho Senator Larry Craig

7 Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa

8 California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez

9 Former Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona

10 Former NJ Governor Jim McGreevey


a Jennifer Flowers

b Minnesota undercover officer, Dave Karsnia

c Christine Beatty

d DC Madame

e Sally Hemings

f Ashley Alexandra Dupre

g Dolly Kyle Browning

h Monica Lewinsky

i Mirthala Salinas

j Debra Hoffman

k Golan Cipel


answers:

1 - c
2 - a, g, h
3 - f
4 - e
5 - d
6 - b
7 - i
8 - i
9 - j
10- k

Monday, April 14, 2008

Judgeships- An Important Election Issue


One of the issues that has been overlooked in this election is the issue of judicial appointments. It should become bigger in the general election when the voters will see the difference between what John McCain would appoint to the bench vs what Clinton or Obama would. Many conservatives are displeased and disappointed that McCain is the Republican nominee. I believe-but I am not convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt-that he would appoint conservative, constructionist judges. I know that Obama or Clinton would appoint liberal, activist judges.

As a yardstick, all we have to do is look at the last two Democratic presidents, Carter and Clinton. They routinely appointed liberal judges to the federal bench. Fortunately, Carter wasn't able to appoint any Supreme Court justices. However, as a DEA agent, I saw first-hand how Carter-appointed federal judges gave slap-on-the-wrist sentences to convicted drug traffickers. Clinton appointed similar judges to the federal bench and put the two arguably most liberal judges, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. (True, Republicans have also goofed on Supreme Court appointments; George HW Bush put David Souter on the Court. Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren as Chief Justice, an appointment he later called his greatest mistake.)

George W Bush, notwithstanding the Harriet Miers fiasco, has made two good choices in Sam Alito and John Roberts for the Supreme Court. He has also done well with other appointments to the federal bench though Democrats have fought him every step of the way. Both sides realize how important judgeships are. They outlast the president's term by decades.

In general terms, it can assumed that Democrats will appoint liberal, activist judges to the courts who will make their own law according to their personal philosophy. Republicans, generally, will appoint conservative judges, who will be tougher on crime. There are exceptions, to be sure, but that is a general assumption.

This is another huge reason why conservatives must reconsider their opposition to McCain. When it comes to judicial appointees, we can at least hope that he will not "reach across the aisle". With Obama or Clinton, there is no doubt of what they will do.

Abortion-Why I am Against


Margaret Sanger would be pleased

(I thought long and hard about uploading this picture. I decided it was necessary.)


During last night's so-called Compassion Forum, held at Messiah College in Pennsylvania, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton expounded on their religious beliefs. They were both asked about their views on abortion-specifically when they believed life began (Did life begin at conception?)

Clinton answered as follows,

"I believe the potential for life begins at conception. For me, it is also not only about a potential life. It is about the other lives involved."

..."I have concluded after, great, you know, concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years...that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government authority that it would be very difficult to sustain in our kind of open society". She added that abortion should remain safe,legal and rare.

Obama, in his answer, Obama stated that he did not know (if life began at conception). "This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think that it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs?...What I know, as I've said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates."

Translation? Both candidates support abortion. I found it interesting that both used the term "potential" for life. Is that the new pro-choice buzzword? If so, it sounds to me like, if I have the potential to live another 50 years (which would make me 113), does someone have the right to terminate that "potential"?

I have also wrestled with this issue for most of my adult life. I have in the past searched for a middle ground because I have believed that the whole abortion debate has been dominated by the extremes of both sides-for lack of a better description. But is there a middle ground? Isn't it life or death? I have asked myself whether it would be morally acceptable to terminate a pregnancy when we are dealing with "just a clump of cells". I should also state that I can agree with the right to an immediate abortion in the case of rape,incest or to save the life of the mother. Do I support violence against abortion clinics and doctors? No way. Yet, ultimately, I can only say that I am against abortion-especially when it is used as a method of birth control. As for partial-birth abortion, I consider that an atrocity. Interestingly, Ron Paul, a former OB-GYN, stated in a debate last November that he had never seen an abortion conducted due to medical emergency. Of course, that comment not only didn't draw a follow-up question from the moderator, but was quickly buried by the mainstream media.

It is clear that there are folks out there who have a firm pro-abortion agenda. It is a feminist issue since their main argument is that a woman should have the right to control her own body. A strong argument but not impregnable. Yes, only women can bear children, but rightfully or wrongfully, that is the way God created us-or Mother Nature if you prefer. I would argue that once a new life is created, that human being has a right to life.

Speaking of the feminist pro-abortion folks, it has been charged for years that Planned Parenthood actively counsels women who come to them to have an abortion. One thing a lot of people might not know is that the founder of Planned Parenthood's predecessor agency, Margaret Sanger, was motivated by racism. Sanger, who founded the American Birth Control League in 1921, was an enthusiast of eugenics, racial hygiene, and euthanasia as a way to limit the population of "undesirables" (like non-whites). Sanger, more specifically, was an advocate of "negative eugenics", which was a way to reduce the fertility of "dysgenic groups", such as Australian Aborigines, whom she described as the lowest form of human life.

I also see a connection between abortion and euthanasia, both of which can be terribly abused once a life is deemed "inconvenient". If a woman becomes pregnant and doesn't want the child-get an abortion. If a parent becomes aged and unable to care for him/herself-terminate the life. The Nazis practiced this on both ends even before they began the Holocaust. Mentally and physically impaired people were euthanized, which was a dress rehearsal for the Holocaust. During the war, Russian and Polish women who were brought to Germany to work as slave-laborers, were given forced abortion if they became pregnant.

Today, in Holland, euthanasia is being carried out on terminally ill patients if they request it. It has also been reported that many patients not in a position to give informed consent are also euthanized. It is a slippery slope.

Yes, it may be argued that there are many practical reasons to have abortion legal in the US. If made illegal, there will be back-alley abortions, civil unrest, unwanted children and children who will grow up with no chance. That is all true. It is also true that the demand for adoptive parents is greater than the number of willing couples. Many couples who adopt choose to go to poor countries to find a child.

Will Roe v Wade eventually be overturned? It is possible, which would restore the decision to the states, according to those who hope to see Roe overturned. Yet, I ask-if the Supreme Court can declare abortion to be a constitutional right-that cannot be taken away by the states-could it not declare abortion illegal nationally based on right to life?

As a practical matter, it would seem that the outlawing of abortion would have to be coupled with a change in public attitudes against the procedure. Obviously, most politicians think in those terms.

To sum it up, I think that our attitudes toward human life define us as a people. I don't think there is an inconsistency between opposing abortion and supporting capital punishment. The key difference is "innocent" life.

There are, admittedly, several practical reasons for supporting abortion. When it comes to moral reasons, that is a different story.

Shootout at the Democrat Corral


The Clintons and the Obamas at the Democrat Corral

"Somebody needs to win this here shootout before the Republican Attack Machine comes smokin' into town."

This week, Obama and Clinton are continuing their mutually-destructive attacks against each other-as Obama's "crazy uncle/pastor" continues his rants. Unbelievably, Jeremiah Wright used the occasion of giving a eulogy in Chicago to rage against Fox News, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. Some eulogy! Sure glad it wasn't my funeral! Every time, this guy steps back in the public spotlight, Hillary wins. This guy could single-handedly keep Obama from the White House-and that's not satire. It's a fact.

Meanwhile, Obama digs himself deeper trying to explain his comments about small-town Pennsylvanians before a group of supporters in a San Francisco mansion. Now he is back in Pa. referring to Clinton as "Annie Oakley" for trying to impress Pennsylvanians with her stories of shooting ducks or squirrels-or some varmints, an obvious appeal to those "gun-toters".

On the other side, "Scranton-native" Hillary, for her part, is calling Obama an "elitist". Likely true, but strange coming from Hillary-she of the 109 million dollars! She even showed up in a local Midwestern tavern throwin' down whiskey with Schlitz beer chasers in the company of the "local yokals" as Obama might call them. (Some say she was actually drinking Crown Royal with a Heineken chaser. Who knows?)

Of course, both candidates appeared at Messiah College for a "Compassion Forum", in which they articulated their faith. Hillary meandered around verbally about her "moments of grace", while Obama again tried to downplay the issue of Rev Wright. I fell asleep watching Hillary, then woke up while Obama was speaking. He put me back to sleep.

Is it just me, or is Obama losing his verbal touch? It seems that, without a prepared script, he is really stumbling answering questions-especially now that he is having to explain uncomfortable issues. Hey news media! How about some questions about Tony Rezko? Obama's name reportedly came up in Monday's trial proceedings. This concerned an April 3, 2004 reception held at Rezko's house in honor of shady Iraqi-born wheeler-dealer, Nadhmi Auchi. Apparently, Obama was there too. Obama has denied meeting Auchi though he remembers attending the reception and meeting many people. Keep that name in mind; Nadhmi Auchi. Hopefully, the news media will look into that relationship as well. And while we are on the subject, how about somebody besides Fox News asking about Obama's relationship with William Ayres?

At any rate, it seems (hopefully to this observer) that whoever prevails in the Democratic Primary will be so wounded as to be unelectable in the general election.

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Hillary Clinton Goes Knocking on Doors in Scranton


Election update- Hillary Clinton goes knocking on doors in Scranton looking for votes

(OK, I know it's childish, but I couldn't resist.)

The "Drug Wars" (15), Los Angeles ca. 1971


Back in my US Customs days, there was a case where a car was stopped by the Customs Office in the border town of Calexico, California, which was found to contain about a hundred pounds of marijuana. The arrested driver cooperated and identified the registered owner of the car in the greater LA area as the recipient of the load. He agreed to go through with the delivery to LA, so our Calexico agents escorted him, the car and the load north where we met up with them.

According to the driver, he was supposed to call the suspect when he got to the LA area to arrange the transfer. The only problem was that due to his arrest, he was running a couple of hours late, which was bound to arouse suspicion on the part of the main suspect. At this, one of our agents instructed the driver to explain that he had been involved in an accident along the way north.

"But," the driver protested, "there hasn't been any accident."

"No problem," answered my fellow agent.

He then proceeded to the trunk of his government vehicle, took out a sledge hammer, and bashed in the left rear side of the load car.

The rest of the delivery-and arrest of the recipient proceeded smoothly.

Those were the good old days. All you current-day agents, don't try this today.

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Washed Up Celebrities That Are Embarrassing Themselves



Barack Obama and William Ayers

Aside from Jeremiah Wright, there is another associate of Barack Obama that the candidate needs to explain if he hopes to become president. His name is William Ayers, and he is a Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. His wife is Bernadine Dohrn, who teaches at Northwestern University. Both have been rather closely associated with Obama in recent years. Why should this be of concern? Both Ayers and Dohrn were members of the infamous Weather Underground (America's first home-grown terrorist association) during the 1960s and 1980s.

The Weather Underground was more than just a dissident group during the Viet Nam era. They participated in a wave of violence and bombings during that era. In March of 1970, Ayres, a member of the group, went underground after a bomb accidentally exploded in Greenwich Village (3-6-70), killing three Weather Underground members, including Ayer's then-girlfriend. Ayers spent his years underground carrying out bombings of various locations including the Capitol Building, the Pentagon and the New York PD Hqs. As a fugitive, he had two children with Dohrn, who later became his wife. In 1981, they turned themselves in. Charges against Ayers were dropped due to prosecutorial misconduct during the years-long search for the fugitive.

What is illuminating-and needs to be remembered-is that in September 2001, Ayres told the New York Times, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough".

So Ayres and Dohrn went on to careers in academia. They also developed a relationship with Barack Obama as they continued their left-wing activism-albeit within the legal system. Obama reportedly first met Ayres and Dohrn in 1995, when he was taken to their home to seek their support for his first run for political office in the state senate.

Ayers has been since 1999 a board member of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a left-wing foundation that sponsors activist community organizing in Chicago. Barack Obama also served on that board from 1999-2002. It should be noted that in 2001, the Woods Fund gave a $40,000 grant to the Arab-American Action Network, followed by a $35,000 grant in 2002. This organization is headed by Mona Khalidi, the wife of Columbia University Professor, Rashid Khalidi. This man is an activist who supports terror against Israel and has worked for the PLO-including during the years when that organization was killing Americans. In 2005, Obama, Ayers and Dohrn gave testimonials at a farewell dinner for Khalidi.

In addition, Obama and Ayres have served on panels together over the years including an activist conference in Chicago April 19-20 of 2002.

This is not to suggest that Ayres and Dohrn are still involved in illegal activities, though it may be assumed that Ayres is unrepentent for his past. It might also be argued that one questionable association with someone who was involved in terroristic activity decades ago could be disregarded. The problem is that these questionable associations are starting to pile up. First Jeremiah Wright, then Ayers and Khalidi. Guilt by association? Yes, but it is cause for genuine concern.

As usual, the mainstream media is ignoring this story. But don't the American people have the right to at least be aware and consider this when they vote?

Obama Concedes Pennsylvania to Clinton


Obama's image of Pennsylvanians


"Hey Lem, did'ja hear what Obama said about us?"

"Yeh Clem, I did, and I'm votin' fer Hillary. Hey, it's 8 am. Time to knock off and go have a few beers. Hey, Slim, Jim-youins comin' with us?"

Hey, I'll have pint of bitter."

......."Who said that?"


Sometimes, I think the best thing John McCain could do for his candidacy would be to go on a long vacation, get a lot of rest and come back in November. By then, he might find that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have completely disappeared. The Democratic Primary looks like two punchdrunk fighters trying to hand the bout to the other.

For example, just when it looked like the Hillary-Bosnia flap was starting to blow over, here comes Bill appearing before the usual crowd of curious onlookers ("Hey Bob, didn't that guy used to be a president?") explaining how Hillary screwed up the Bosnia story. According to Bill, she made the claim at 11 at night when she was tired from lack of sleep. Big deal, said Bill. Problem was, Hillary said it multiple times-and not at some late hour as Bill claimed. Then Bill stuck it in even farther, asking his listeners to understand how it is to be sixty years old and tired. You know, plays tricks on your memory don't it? Well, I don't know about you, but I'm not interested in having someone as commander-in-chief who is starting to lose her memory due to old age. Not that I believe that; on the contrary, Hillary's selective memory is astounding. As for Bill, he is starting to remind me of Pete Rose at an autograph show.

Anyway, I have a question for those Clinton-admirers out there: Are you starting to realize that the Clintons-both of them-are nothing more than a couple of BS artists?

Meanwhile, just as our "bringer togetherer" presidential candidate, Barack Obama, was starting to put the Wright deal behind him-at least in the minds of the Democratic voters-he stepped in it himself. This time, it was not the words of his wife, Michelle, nor the words of his pastor, but his own words. In San Francisco, speaking before an audience of well, "San Franciscoers" (inside joke), Obama described the backwoods, gun-totin', bible-thumpin', minority hatin', immigrant-bashin' hicks that populate Pennsylvania. You know, people right out of the cast of "The Deer Hunter", people who are not too receptive to a "46-year-old- black guy" like him.

What is it about those people in Pennsylvania? First, their own Governor, Ed Rendell implies that they are racists and not willing to vote for a black candidate. Now Obama delights an elite San Francisco audience with his own description of a Dickensian Pennsylvania inhabited by steel workers and coal minors.

As a personal comment, I lived in Pittsburgh from 1987-1990, and I happen to have a high opinion of the folks there. (Pittsburgh, unlike Philadelphia, which is a classical Eastern city, would be classified more as a Midwestern city culturally.)

But I digress. Obama's remark was ridiculous. After first defending himself defiantly in Terre Haute from criticism by Hillary and the McCain campaign, Obama admitted that he chose the wrong words. Indeed.

I am having serious doubts about Obama-specifically on his honesty (in speaking about Wright) and his judgement. As for his experience, he is obviously lacking. I seriously suspect that there is a side to the Obamas that they are hiding. It would be great if the mainstream media started asking him more pointed questions-which they don't. The msm was forced to discuss the Wright issue. Hopefully, they will be forced to examine the relationship between Obama and former (unrepentent)Weather Underground bomber, William Ayers (now Professor William Ayers). That is yet another story out there that relates directly to Obama's fitness for president.

Meanwhile, the Great Sausage Race stumbles toward the finish line.

MSNBC's "A Conversation on Race"

Last night I tuned in to MSNBC's "A Conversation on Race", a forum held at Howard University and moderated by Brian Williams. Along with Williams was a rotating panel of guests, including Professor Michael Eric Dyson of Georgetown University, journalist Mike Barnacle, the wife of comedian Chris Rock, the chief of police of Washington and others. I had anticipated that this might be an true example of the "Dialogue on Race" that many people are calling for between whites and blacks, which would be a worthy idea.

The discussion was interesting and civil. The audience was polite. Yet something was missing. Basically, it was the same conversation we have been having for the last 40 years. It centered around slavery, discrimination and white racism. Most of the participants, particularly Dyson, felt that America has avoided discussing this part of our history.

I respectfully disagree. In my view, our country has, indeed, acknowledged the past. Yes, the residue of slavery is still present today. Yet, I would have liked to see more discussion on the present-day problems that plague black America that cannot be laid off so simply on white racism. It was touched on briefly by Barnacle, who brought up the subject of absentee fathers-something I feel is the single biggest problem today. Dyson responded, but seemed to me to talk around the problem.

My point in bringing this up is that black illigitimacy stood at around 25% 50 years ago in the dark days of Jim Crow. Today, it is around 70%. It is an inescapoable fact that many black fathers are skirting their responsibility. From that, so many other problems arise in the children - drugs, gangs, misogynistic feelings toward women, etc.

Any true dialogue on race has to include the concerns of both sides. Acknowledge the past of course, but concerns must also be expressed about black crime and the constant accusations of racism hurled at whites who dare to criticize. It should have been stated last night that whites are getting weary of the R word being applied constantly by racial hucksters who make a living off the whole Race Industry. Someone should have been on that panel who would have dared to speak out against folks like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright and others. Someone should have been there to name the names of true haters like the New Black Panther Party and its leader, Malik Zulu Shabazz. Perhaps, there should have been a mention of Rev Eric Lee, who recently handed out a humanitarian award to a Jewish lady for her work in the inner city, then drove her off the stage in tears with an anti-Semitic diatribe. Yet, many blacks (and whites) argue that only whites can be racists because they have historically occupied the position of power vis-a-vis minorities. I understand the reasoning, but I respectfully disagree.

At any rate, there were some worthy points brought out. One thing, for example, that was brought out was the historical feelings of inferiority that have plagued the thinking of black people themselves, even being conscious of degrees of darkness in their own skin color. The doll demonstration, where black toddlers chose white dolls over black dolls, was poignant and sad.

Nevertheless, I was disappointed. A true conversation on race is in all our interests in trying to bring about reconciliation and an equal society. Yet, if it is not frank-on both sides-then it will only contribute to more "burnout" on the part of whites, who will just give up and walk away. Maybe Mr Dyson has a point. Though the nation as a whole has acknowledged its past, individual whites are, indeed, reluctant to engage in this conversation with blacks. They know that if they speak openly about their true feelings on the subject of race and the state of black America, if they say the wrong word or leave the wrong impression, they will only cause anger and be called implicitly or explicitly a racist. Everone knows that label can ruin a person's career and/or life. If we are ever to have that true dialogue, then that label must be removed from the table.

Friday, April 11, 2008

Why Jimmy Carter Should Not Go to Syria





Two fools- Neville Chamberlain-Jimmy Carter


As we all now know, Jimmy Carter, America's freelance ambassador is now about to go to Syria to meet with the leader of the terrorist group Hamas. The Administration and State Department have asked him not to go. Israel is upset-with good reason. However, Mr Carter is a stubborn man who always knows best-never mind the mess he made of things when he was president. Since leaving office, Carter hasn't cared much if a sitting president wanted him to go somewhere and conduct diplomacy. Whether it was Haiti, North Korea or now Syria, Mr Carter knows best. He doesn't like George Bush's foreign policy, so he just decides he will conduct his own.

But here is something that Carter perhaps has not considered. Hamas is a terrorist organization that is actively engaged in terrorist acts against Israel. Not only that, the organization has no interest in a peaceful solution. They have no interest in negotiation with Israel. They are not interested in a two-state solution. What they want is the total destruction of Israel.

So what is there to discuss?

Mr Carter, like most Democrats, does not understand that you cannot negotiate with evil, nor can you negotiate with fanatics. That was proven conclusively in 1938, when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain tried to negotiate with Hitler-selling out Czechoslovakia in the process. The lesson still applies.

Did we negotiate with the former Soviet Union? Yes, we did, but there was a difference. The Soviet Union, whatever its faults, was not run by fanatics, at least after Stalin died. They knew that if they went to war with the US, everybody would be destroyed, so they remained rational. We can, in fact, meet and negotiate with adversaries, but not if they are fanatics like Hamas who have no interest in negotiation or compromise. Rationality is not a quality that applies to people like Hamas, Hezbollah and Al-Qaida. They don't care if they die.

For a known fool like Jimmy Carter to go to Syria and meet with Hamas only gives legitimacy to a terrorist organization. It goes against the wishes of the State Department, which is the agency responsible for our foreign relations. Carter of course, is no supporter of Israel. He is a foolish renegade who can only exacerbate an already bad situation. Beware of any "breakthrough" that he may announce. Of course, he has no authority to act in Bush's name, but he could come back and apply public pressure on the administration.

It would be nice if leading Democrats would intervene and tell Carter to stay at home. Barack Obama, when asked what he thought of Carter's trip, refused to criticize the former president-possibly since he was on the verge of getting Carter's endorsement. For Democrats to back the administration's prerogatives would be the responsible thing to do. That's why they won't rein Mr Carter in.

To sum up this fiasco in progress, the policy of not negotiating with terrorists is the proper one, and not just on moral grounds. In the end, it is a fool's errand.

Which is precisely why Carter is going.

Jamiel's Law- Resolution by LA City Council Member Dennis Zine

Today, LA City Council Member Dennis Zine has introduced a resolution to amend Special Rule 40 to allow LAPD officers to take action if they encounter a known illegal alien who is also a known gang member. The resolution is being seconded by Greig Smith, who sits with Zine on the Public Safety Committee. It will be submitted to committee chairman Jack Weiss, who is in charge of the paper-shuffling and can schedule it for debate or send it directly to the council. Weiss, who aspires to run for City Attorney, has been quoted in the past that issue should "be handled in the jails".

In response, committee member Tony Cardenas announced his opposition stating that "LAPD officers should not be Immigration agents". This character is definitely on the side of the gangs.

As I understand it, the Public Safety Committee has 5 members, Zine, Smith, Parks, Ed Reyes,and Weiss. Three yes votes are needed to forward the resolution on to the full council. Whether the 3 votes are there is not known. The 3 question marks are Weiss, Reyes and Parks. (Actually, Reyes is on the other side.)

Meanwhile, while this invading army of tens of thousands terrorizes the citizens of Los Angeles, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who gives immigration rally speeches supporting illegals, has taken a break from being Hillary Clinton's national campaign co-chair to write a letter to Michael Cherthoff of Homeland Security complaining about workplace raids. His position is, not surprisingly, seconded by the LA Times.

Another curious factor in this mess is the silence of the black activist community. LA, not surprisingly, has a whole stable of so-called Civil Rights leaders who will come out of the woodwork immediately if a cop or a white person victimizes a black person. Yet, in this matter, they are completely silent. People like Eddie Jones, Tony Mohammed, and Najee Ali are AWOL. Nationally, it is the same thing. Where is Al Sharpton? Where is Jesse Jackson? Where is the NAACP? Where is the Congressional Black Caucus? Where is Maxine Waters, representative from LA?

Where is the outrage?

Why were they not standing with Mr and Mrs Shaw this week when they stood before the City Council crying and pleading while the council members basically sat there impassively "clipping their fingernails" in the words of supporter and talk show host Doug McIntyre.

This shows these people for what they are. According to their agenda, they only take note and get involved when it is a white perpetrator and a black victim-or a white cop and black suspect. Illegal alien gang member kills an innocent black teenager? Not interested.

This is not just a LA problem. This situation is spreading all over the country while elected officials refuse to take action either out of sympathy for illegal aliens, Latino solidarity or fear of being sued by the ACLU.

LA talk jocks, John and Ken of KFI have given out the office phone numbers of Weiss, Reyes and Parks asking that they be called and urged to support Jamiel's Law. I have called the offices of Weiss and Parks. Reyes I consider a lost cause, but I did send him this email last night:

"Mr Reyes,

I am shocked and disgusted at your blase attitude toward the Shaw family and the murder of their son. It is incredible that you place the city's economy above the lives of innocent victims of illegal alien gang members.

You, the mayor, the police chief and the other City Council members have blood on your hands because of this insane sanctuary city policy.

You sir, are a disgrace."

Gary Fouse

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Jamiel's Law Update

In the on-going controversy over the murder of a Los Angeles teenager by an illegal alien-who had been released from jail the day before, LAPD Chief William Bratton was interviewed today by local news station KTLA. His responses and his overall attitude are a shocking disgrace.

When asked if Jamiel Shaw might be alive today if the suspect, Pedro Espinoza, had been turned over to federal authorities for deportation, the chief responded that Shaw might be alive today if he had arrived at the shooting location 10 seconds earlier-or the killer had arrived 10 seconds later. He also went on to explain that illegal alien gang members have to commit a crime before the LAPD will pick them up. That means that if one of his officers happens to see a person whom he knows is an illegal alien and a gang member, no action will be taken.

Chief Bratton also pointed out that the suspect, Espinoza, had been arrested in neighboring Culver City leading to his incarceration prior to the killing. The old "didn't happen on my watch excuse." (Espinosa was incarcerated in LA County Jail. The shooting occurred the day after Espinosa was released.)

That is what LA Special Rule 40 is all about folks. It is a part of the LAPD handbook. LA is a sanctuary city, and if people don't like it, they can, in the words of Chief Bratton, "leave the city".

Now here is what one LA City Council member, Ed Reyes, had to say yesterday as Mr and Mrs Shaw were addressing the City Council and pleading with them to at least adjust Rule 40 as it pertains to known illegal alien gang members.

According to Council member Reyes, revoking Rule 40 would;

cause division
hurt the economy
destroy the sense of community

That is Ed Reyes' answer to the grieving parents. To crack down on illegal alien gang members would cause division, hurt the economy and destroy their "sense of community".

Some community.

Apparently, the city's economy counts for more than the lives of innocent murder victims who are killed by people who should not even be in this country.

From Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to Chief Bratton to the LA City Council, the leadership of Los Angeles has blood on its hands because of their support for illegal aliens. (Villaraigosa, incidentally, is national co-chair of Hillary Clinton's campaign.) Bratton, who was previously NYPD Chief, shows the abrasive New York manner to anyone who disagrees with him. He actually told a radio caller who complained about the sanctuary policy that if the caller didn't like it, he could leave.

Chief Bratton should leave and go back to New York.