Grizzly Groundswell Blogtalk Radio This Coming Monday Night

Dana Hanley and Gary Fouse on this week's Grizzly Groundswell Blog Network Show- 060208, 7:30-9pm CST

This week we have a jam packed show with special guests Dana Hanley and Gary Fouse!

Dana Hanley, our Grizzly Groundswell Governor of Nebraska is one of the premier home school bloggers out there with her blog: Principled Discovery. Now she is expanding her blog into online radio on www.blogtalkradio.com as a member of the Grizzly Groundswell Radio Network, assuring home schoolers and her voice are heard! Dana and her family have committed themselves to getting the home school message out there and we here at the Grizzly Groundswell are so fortunate to have her voice here on the Grizzly Groundswell! Tune in to see what her plans are and get to know this great Grizzly Groundswell Author and Radio show host is up too today!

Gary Fouse, our Grizzly Groundswell Mayor of Lake Forest, California, is on the cutting edge with his blog Fousesquawk . Gary is also working with me to get extend his blog into a www.blogtalkradio.com radio show on the Grizzly Groundswell Radio network. Gary will fill us in on his exciting writing, standing up and stepping into action in the happenings in the University of Cal Irvine.

This is a Jam packed show and I will try to give an opportunity for callers as well. Feel free to join us in our chat room and of course here at the www.grizzlygroundswell.com and www.grizzlygroundswellradio.com

The show can be listened to on www.blogtalkradio.com and www.blogtalkradio.com/grizzlygroundswell

Join us 7:30 PM until 9 PM CST Monday Night.

~Teddy Bear

(Teddy Bear is Chad Everson, editor of Grizzly Groundswell Blog.)

What is Wrong With the Republican Party

"Why am I not retiring in Washington? Because I don't want to have to listen to a bunch of people telling me how they are saving the world. I've already saved the world."

-An associate of mine who was in the process of retiring from the Dept of Agriculture, told to me in the 1980s while I was working at the US Consulate in Milan, Italy.


Back around 1990-1, when George H W Bush was president, I had recently moved from Pittsburgh to the Washington DC area (Northern Virginia) when I was transferred to DEA's Office of Training in Quantico. (Fortunately for me, I didn't have to drive into DC to work, but had a leisurely drive to Quantico through back roads. I was also able to avoid our HQs office with all of its bureaucracy-which I will refer to later). At any rate, one day, I got a letter in the mail from some bunch identifying themselves as "The Republican Inner Circle". I wasn't sure why I got the letter since I have never been registered with any political party though I traditionally vote Republican. The said letter just another way of asking for money, albeit in an interesting way.

I don't remember the exact details, but it went something like this: If I contributed a certain minimum amount of money, I would get some certificate or patch or some memorabilia identifying me a member of the Republican Inner Circle. A larger contribution would enable me to "be briefed" on policy by some "important administration official" (probably a DEA Hqs type, I thought to myself). An even larger contribution would enable me to have lunch with a higher administration official, whereupon, I could exchange views with this unnamed person. As I recall, the maximum gift would mean I could attend a "high-level Republican strategy session", whatever that meant.

Mercifully, the contribution categories came to an end (in the multi-thousands of dollars). I figured sarcastically that if I gave, say, a million bucks, I would be able to push the red button and launch World War 3.

Suffice to say, this left a bitter taste in my mouth. I sent no money, and I sent no reply. The result was that I was even more convinced that Washington was inhabited by people had had lost all contact with normal society and that I had made the right decision by remaining independent-no matter whom I voted for.

This stretch of living in the DC area lasted 8 1/2 years. It wasn't my first period of living there, at least temporarily. I had spent 6 months in the DC area while attending the State Department Language School (Foreign Service Institute) in Rosslyn, Va in 1974. (Don't get me going on the State Department.)

This rather convoluted introduction about Washington DC is meant to explain one of the main things that has gone wrong with the Republican Party today-namely, that they have fallen victim to Potomac Fever, in effect, have become corrupted by the Washington mentality.

It is hard to explain the Washington mentality to anyone who has not spent a lot of time there. It not only affects politicians and their staffs; it also affects government workers who are eventually transferred to Washington by their agencies. In the case of DEA, it is policy that once an agent rises from street agent to supervisor, a HQS tour of duty of 2-3 years is a necessary career step. At that point, an agent literally changes worlds and outlook (sometimes referred to as a frontal lobotomy). He or she goes from being a cop to being just another suit working in the bureaucracy-carrying out the wishes and policies of the top levels of the agency, which in turn is under the supervision of the Attorney General.

In the case of politicians, many of whom have now spent decades in Washington, they are completely removed from the every-day world as they wield power in the process. But we should remember that the Republicans are supposed to be the party of smaller government, less government intrusion into people's lives and lower taxes, right?

Well, not exactly.

Something has gone wrong with the Republican Party in recent years. At the risk of making an oversimplification, they came to Washington and became part of the system. Many have arrived in Washington thinking they were going to change Washington. Not going to happen. Washington has changed them.

For Democrats, this is not a real problem since they stand for bigger government anyway. They are basically doing what their liberal constituents want them to do; make more laws, more regulations, create new programs and raise taxes.

But the Republicans-especially those who came to power in 1994- were supposed to stand for something different. They came up with the Contract with America, thanks to Newt Gingrich. They took control of Congress. George W Bush has been president for more than 7 years years, and what has happened? Did government become smaller? No. Did spending decrease? No. It is higher than ever. Have Republicans fought earmarks and pork barrel spending? No. Remember the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska? Introduced by a Republican. Many in California will recall the recent Transportation Bill that gave tons of money to Kern County so that a beltway could be built around Bakersfield. Kern County actually got more dollars-not per capita-more dollars than LA County, even though Kern has a tiny fraction of the population of LA County. How did this happen? Thanks to a Republican congressman from Kern County.

So, let's be frank: with some exceptions, Republicans in Congress have completely betrayed their constituents back home. They have fallen in love with the Washington culture, have joined the system, and the only thing that matters is getting re-elected and maintaining their power. As a result, they have paid the price. They lost Congress in 2006, and they will probably suffer more losses in 2008.

They deserve it.

We have also seen more than our share of Republican scandals in recent years. Mark Foley was forced to resign when it became known he was chasing under-age pages around the Capitol. Larry Craig was arrested for soliciting an undercover vice cop for sex in a Minneapolis bathroom. David Vitter got caught up in the DC prostitution ring. Ted Stevens recently had his Alaska home served with an FBI search warrant. The latter three names I mentioned are still in Congress, refusing to resign.

Meanwhile, with certain exceptions, Republicans in Congress have joined their Democratic counterparts in refusing to do anything meaningful to stop illegal immigration. Only an outraged populace, that bombarded them with calls, emails, letters and faxes last year, kept them from passing an amnesty bill.

And finally, what do we have for a Republican presidential candidate this year? Why, it's John McCain, who has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into supporting border enforcement, who organized the "Gang of 14" that made a deal with Democrats when they were blocking judicial nominees, and who gave us McCain-Feingold "campaign reform". To be sure, McCain has many admirable qualities, and he figures to do the right thing in the War on Terror, judges and spending. But he has antagonized many conservatives with other actions as well as his apparent disdain for those who point it out.

So what should Republicans do to right the ship?

1 They must stand for conservative principles-even if outnumbered by the Democrats-even if they must go down to defeat on votes. At least, we will know who stands for what.

2 They must weed out the bad apples who have discredited them (Vitters, Craig, Stevens et al.)

3 Republican candidates for office should bluntly tell their supporters not to expect pork from them once they get to Washington.

4 Newly-elected Republicans should refuse to suck up to the senior leaders who expect them to go along with a corrupt system. If they don't get plum committees or they wind up with an office next to the men's room, tough. If their party doesn't support them for re-election tough. At least the public will know.

Finally, cases of out and out political corruption involving bribery need to be vigorously investigated by the Justice Department and offenders punished in draconian fashion by the courts.

I know what you are saying: How naive. Well, yes, it is naive. I don't really expect these things to happen. But it has to start with the voters, who need to let Washington know that they are fed up with a corrupt system of government. Maybe then, the Republican Party can return to its core constituency.

In the meantime, I sure ain't joining.

Let's Play "Name That Copycat"

Match the speaker with the words.

a Father Michael Pfleger
b Pat Boone
c Michael Bolton

1 "Tutti Frutti-Oh Rutti"
2 "When a man loves a woman"
3 "She wasn't the only one crying. There was a lot of white people crying too."

Answers:

a- 3
b- 1
c- 2

Scott McClellan' s Book

So now comes the latest tell-all book from a Washington insider who seeks to cash in on his White House experience. Former White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan has now come out with his book, "What Happened", which trashes his former boss, President Bush, as well as Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Reactions to the book, as would be predicted, are varied according to what side of the fence you sit. Democrats and liberals are playing up the book for all it's worth. Just today, McClellan appeared with Meredith Vieira on the "Today Show" and took up an entire show with none other than that noted Bush admirer, Keith Olbermann (MSNBC). Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL)wants to bring McClellan before Congress to testify. On the other side of the fence, White House officials are expressing dismay at the "Scott we thought we knew". Bob Dole has released a letter he sent to McClellan calling him a miserable creature who is cashing in on his White House service. Others point out that McClellan refers to meetings he did not attend. Still others are saying that there is nothing knew in the book; Bush did not handle Katrina well? He tried to sell Iraq to the public? What else is new? Why didn't he speak out if he saw things that he thought were wrong? (He served as press secretary from 2003-2006).

For me, sitting here in Orange County, California, I don't know what is true or not true. I will not read the book (nor do I read political autobios that I would agree with-too self-serving).

Yet, I have the same questions and doubts that others have expressed. Here is another in a long line of political animals who have come to Washington, tasted power in the shadow of a president, and cashed in with a book deal after they have left government service. Is it unseemly? You bet it is. Does it speak ill of the caliber of men and women who are running Washington? Absolutely.

Of course, McClellan is already telling the world his true motivation for writing the book-he wants to "change the culture in Washington".

Of course he does. In the words of so many who have preceded him:

"THAT'S WHY I WROTE THIS BOOK, LARRY." (The Larry King on Life Support appearance should be any day now.)

Scott McClellan may be totally honest in his book for all I know. But for now, I tend to think that Bob Dole has it right.

Oh No! Another Obama Minister- Meet Father Michael Pfleger

Father Michael Pfleger (R) with Louis Farrakhan



Tapes are now surfacing on YouTube of a sermon given at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago (Barack Obama's Church) by activist Roman Catholic priest, Michael Pfleger. The sermon was given on May 25, 2008. Pfleger is a controversial priest who is associated with the St Sabina Catholic Church in Chicago, a largely black congregation. (Pfleger is white.) In his sermon, Pfleger copies the oratorical style of his friend, Jeremiah Wright, alternating between using a soft, low voice then rising to a screaming crescendo. (It has to be the most ridiculous performance since Pat Boone sang "Tutti Frutti".)

Pfleger is known as a renegade priest. He has been involved in various social movements in Chicago including work with drug users and prostitutes. However, he is not afraid to venture into political matters, making controversial statements and drawing the ire of his Bishop in the process.

In May of 2007, Pfleger appeared at a Rainbow Push protest outside Chuck's Gun Shop, which had been identified as the source of many guns used in Chicago gang shootings. During his talk, Pfleger said (referring to the shop owner), "We're going to find you and snuff you out like a rat. Like a rat, you can hide. But like a rat, we're going to catch you and pull you out."

These are the words of a Roman Catholic priest. A Roman Catholic priest who is an associate of Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan and Barack Obama. (Up until a couple of weeks ago, Pfleger was listed on Obama's web site as a "spiritual endorser". It is also being reported that Obama obtained a $100,000 dollar earmark for Pfleger's church.

In this week's sermon, Pfleger spoke on the on-going election. Shouting to the rafters, he scolded white people who don't hold themselves responsible for slavery.

"I must now address the one who says, 'don't hold me responsible for what my ancestors did. But you have enjoyed the benefits of what your ancestors did! Unless you are ready to give up the benefits -throw away your 401 fund. Throw away your trust fund! Throw away all the money that been put away in the company you walked into 'cause your daddy and your granddaddy and your great grandaddy... Unless you are willing to give up the benefits, then you must be responsible for what was done in your generation! 'Cause you are the beneficiary of this insurance policy!"

Then Father Pfleger continues his "sermon" about Hillary Clinton:

"When Hillary was crying and people said that was put on, I really don't believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always thought, 'this is mine. I'm Bill's wife. I'm white, and this is mine. I just gotta get up and step into the plate'

"Then out of nowhere, I'm Barack Obama!"

"Ah, damn! Where did you come from? I'm white! I'm entitled! There's a black man stealing my show!", as he pulls out a hanky and mocks Clinton's crying.

"She wasn't the only one crying. There was a whole lot of white people crying!"

All this as the congregation went wild.

Today, Obama expressed his disagreement and disappointment with Pfleger's remarks. (sound familiar?) In addition, Pfleger has now apologized for his comments about Hillary Clinton. Also, he took pains to point out that his comments were not in accordance with the views of Obama.

The problem is this is hardly the first time Pfleger has made outrageous comments unworthy of a religious figure. Of course, the Bishop in Chicago (Cardinal Francis George) is also deserving of criticism because he is obviously afraid to get rid of this guy.

So now add the name Michael Pfleger to the Obama "honor roll" of questionable associates (Wright, Ayers, Rezko et al).

Let's Play "Name That Uncle"

Red Army victory parade in Red Square 1945. Could Barack Obama's uncle be in that picture? (I don't think so.)


Yesterday, Barack Obama told a crowd of curious on-lookers that his uncle helped liberate Auschwitz.

Fact: Barack Obama never had an uncle. (His mother was an only child.)

Fact: The American Army did not liberate Auschwitz. The Red Army did.

Today, the Obama campaign has issued a clarification that Obama had a great uncle who helped liberate a work camp at Ohrdruf, which was a satellite camp of Buchenwald in the German state of Thuringia. (Auschwitz was in Poland.)

* Normally, I don't do two consecutive "Let's play...", but this was too good to resist.

Let's Play "Name That Pal"

Top: Tony Rezko, Accused Chicago racketeer
Bottom left: Professor Bill Ayers, former Weather Underground bomber
Bottom right: Pastor Jeremiah ("G..D.. America") Wright


The above three persons are all pals of whom?

a John Dillinger
b Al Capone
c Trent Lott
d Ann Coulter
e Barack Obama

Answer: (Is this really necessary?)- e

(This should be the $100 question on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?")

Another Example of Anti-Semitism From the Muslim Student Union at UC-Irvine

Above: Der Stuermer, 1944 issue
Below: MSU portrayal of Ariel Sharon at UCI, May, 2008
(courtesy of Red County blog)

The week before last, UC-Irvine's Muslim Student Union (MSU) hosted one of their quarterly anti-Israel weeks featuring a parade of speakers, some of whom are not only anti-Israel, but anti-America and anti-Jew as well. Of course, the MSU fervently denies they are anti-Jewish-only anti-Zionist. In fact, during their "festivities" at UCI, on at least one occasion, they marched around chanting, "Judaism yes! Zionism no!".

As part of their visual display, the MSU erected a mock wall representing the wall Israel has erected to keep out suicide bombers. The wall contained various photographs, drawings, quotations etc. The one that caught my attention was a caricature of Ariel Sharon drawn in the old style of Julius Streicher's Der Stuermer, an infamous newspaper of the Nazi era that was devoted to propagating hatred of Jews among the German people.

Julius Streicher was the Gauleiter (district leader) of Nuremberg during the Nazi era, as well as the editor of Der Stuermer. Streicher was such a repulsive character that even his fellow Nazis viewed him with disgust (Hitler excluded). To Streicher, the Jews were sexual predators, sacrificing Aryan children for their blood rituals and lusting after and defiling Aryan women.

For illustrations, Der Stuermer's artist was a fellow named Philip Ruprecht, who used the moniker "Fips" in his drawings. Ruprecht's semi-pornographic drawings portrayed Jewish men as fat, bald, and ugly with large hooked noses and thick lips.

After the war, Streicher was put on trial as one of the main Nazi war criminals for his incitement of hatred of Jews that contributed to the eventual Final Solution. Already in forced retirement by the time the war started, Crimes Against Humanity was the only charge he could be convicted of. For this, he was hanged.

Unfortunately, Der Stuermer's style of portraying Jews has survived, mostly in the Middle East, where such caricatures persist. It seems they have also survived among some segments of the American Muslim population-specifically, the Muslim Student organizations in various colleges around the country-at least the one at UCI.

Of course, Ariel Sharon is a hated figure among Muslims and Palestinians as a warrior on behalf of his country. That hardly justifies portraying him in a way that dredges up negative stereotypes of Jews in general, which is exactly what the MSU at UCI did.

Yet, there has been not a word of protest among the professors and leaders of UCI for this type of display (except for me-I included it in a letter to the campus newspaper, New University). To the university, however, this is apparently just another example of their sacred cow-Free Speech. Not only did they allow it to stand for a week, but to my knowledge, no one else who draws a paycheck from the university has said a word about it publicly.

I also called attention to this display in my letter to the director of the Orange County Human Relations Commission, a certain empty suit by the name of Rusty Kennedy. In his nasty reply to me, he attacked me for criticizing UCI's leaders for their negligence, but never said a word about the display.

So the hypocrisy and hatred of the MSU stands naked for all to see. I would invite the reader to compare the above pictures and draw his or her own conclusions. Also be aware that since the MSU receives funding from the university taken from student tuition fees, your tax dollars are being used to pay for this kind of display.

A New Feature- European Blogs

Recently, I have started adding selected European blogs that are speaking out against Islamic extremism and creeping Shariah in that continent. I am now organizing them into a new section entitled: "Our Real European Allies". I will be adding more in the days, weeks, and months ahead. I would encourage you to check out these blogs to see what is going on in Europe-it is really disturbing. I would also encourage you to interact with these blogs, as I do to let them know what is happening here in the US and that there are like-minded folks on this side of the pond.

* Note: I have been advised by the editor of Islam in Europe that they focus on European Muslim issues only, so I would advise you read this blog only. It is quite informative.

The Imposters

"Hi! We're a couple of future presidents. Anyone going to Denver?"

After Sleeping On It.....

Last night, I posted a Memorial Day tribute that was feisty and angry in referring to certain segments who engage in criticism of the military. Maybe it was a reflection of my mood-or that extra glass of wine for dinner I sneak in when my wife is not home, I dunno. I actually woke up in the middle of the night with enough second thoughts to go to the computer and put it back in the draft status. By then, I had already received a retort from my biggest co-respondant asking me if having problems with Abu Ghraib, Guantanemo and waterboarding means denigrating the whole military. Point well taken.

This morning, in looking at that fourth paragraph, I feel a clarification is in order. My friend is correct. Objecting to Abu Ghraib is not denigrating our whole military. In fact, it was the military who investigated the incident and punished those responsible. It was not something that was standard practice, and I don't approve of it either. I just feel it pales in comparison to the torture and beheadings that befall those who are captured by our enemy. As for Guantanemo, that was a political decision to establish that prison camp-one that I agree with. As for waterboarding, as I understand it, it was a practice-now suspended-that was carried out by our intelligence folks as opposed to the military. Reasonable people can disagree on whether it should be done.

As for my references to folks like those who run San Francisco and Berkeley, the most I can do in the way of a retraction is perhaps to say "to heck with you" instead of "to Hell with you".

At any rate, a memorial Day tribute should have focused on honoring our troops-and perhaps leaving it at that.

Memorial Day

This weekend, we celebrate Memorial Day-a tribute to those who have served in our military and especially to those who have given the ultimate sacrifice. Were it not for the American military forces, no one in the world would be living in freedom today.

No one.

Today, our armed forces are engaged in battle against Islamic terrorists-murderous fanatics who would enslave the world in their insane vision of religion. Our military personnel today are the very best of American society, and we should all be so grateful to them. Unfortunately, there are Americans who have never put on the uniform of the military who protest against them-including some of our political leaders. There are people in other countries who owe their very freedom to the American Armed Forces who protest against them.

To those, both in the US and around the world who denigrate our troops, I say to Hell with you. To those who complain about things like Abu Ghraib, Guantanemo and waterboarding- I say to Hell with you. You are not worthy of the sacrifices made by the American military and their families. You are not fit to shine their boots.

This weekend should be a time of gratitude, quiet reflection and celebration of our American heroes. Sadly, some will not be celebrating because they are against everything our military stands for. I am talking, for example, of the city leadership of places like San Francisco and Berkeley, cities that do not welcome Navy battleships or military recruiters. To them, I say to Hell with you.

There are those in Congress who have compared our soldiers to Nazis, Soviet Gulags, Genghis Khan, terrorists, and so on. To them, I say to Hell with you.

I am sorry that anger has entered into my own personal tribute to our military on their day. But the simple fact remains that there are too many in the US-and the world who are not worthy of the sacrifices made by our heroes.

Fabian Nunez Plays the Race Card

"How about some dessert, Monsieur Speakeur Nunez?
"Put it in a doggie bag. Pour les enfants, you know."



For those of you readers outside the state of California, you should give thanks that you don't have Fabian Nunez (D) in your state. Nunez is the current speaker of the state assembly in Sacramento. Fortunately, he will be termed out at the end of 2008, at which time, he will land in some cushy job as a lobbyist or commissioner of some government boondoggle. Few politicians have used their political position to live such a luxuriant lifestyle as Fabian Nunez. This week, Nunez, who has drawn fire for his personal lifestyle, threw out "ye olde race card" to defend his profligate spending habits-all in the name of the citizens of California.

Of course, Nunez is everything you would expect of a liberal Socialist politician. Born in the San Diego area, Nunez spent his college years in MECHA, the activist Mexican-American university organization that, among other things, believes that the American Southwest should revert back to Mexico. He is a liberal activist who believes in more government programs and more taxes to pay for them. Last year,he and his fellow political hack, Don Perata (D), authored a bill to extend their terms in office while trying to fool the voters into thinking it was a term limits bill. Fortunately, it was rejected by the voters. If you watched any of Hillary's campaign rallies in California, you may have seen him on the stage with her along with our other embarrassment and possible future governor, Antonio Villaraigosa, the erstwhile Mayor of LA, with whom Fabby has shared a mistress).

As stated, Nunez lives high off the hog as speaker of the assembly. Last year, it was publicized that he has made several trips to Europe in the name of his official duties, flies first class, stays in 5-star hotels and treats himself to lavish meals while meeting with whomever he is supposed to meet with. For example, problems with California's educational system? (You bet'cha) The solution is to gallivant off to France (Paris-the Bordeaux region) and consult with French school officials who surely have the secret to educating our schoolkids, gangbangers and others who can't speak English. Of course, it is also necessary to bring back cases of the most expensive French wines in the process, which he can turn around and sell.

So now, after months of embarrassing publicity, Nunez, this week, gave an interview to Univision's (Spanish-language) Voz y Voto (Voice and Vote) in which he defended his actions by playing the race card.

According to Fabian, the criticism is all because he is a Mexican (not a Mexican-American-a Mexican). Nunez also told Univision that his critics think that "just because he is a Mexican, that he should be expected to "sleep under a cactus and eat at a taco stand". Surprisingly, Nunez didn't add that he should be expected to drink Dos X instead of fine Bordeaux wines-or sneak into France illegally hidden in the trunk of a car.

These comments have drawn howls of derision from his enemies including many Mexican-Americans who consider Nunez to be an embarrassment. Nevertheless, he is far from the only joke we have in public office in California. And what does our famous governor, the "Republican", Arnold Schwarzenegger, think of Fabby? Why they get along "fabulously" (pun intended), especially since Anabolic Arnie gave up fighting the Dems and joined them in their wild spending.

Once the laughter from this lame excuse dies down, Nunez can try another excuse-one that usually works: He can always say that "he did it for the children".

Hillary's Comments About the RFK Assassination

Today, the campaign trail is buzzing with Hillary Clinton's comments to the South Dakota newspaper, the Argus Leader, about why she is remaining in the race against all odds. Hillary raised the specter of the assassination of Robert F Kennedy in June of 1968-just after he had won the California primary, an apparent reference to how a race could suddenly change. Critics are charging that Hillary has improperly brought up the possibility that Obama could be assassinated between now and the final nomination-or election-especially since we are approaching June. (Clinton today apologized and denied that there was any intention of even raising that thought.)

Perhaps. But what was the purpose of bringing that up? Is that possibility actually in her mind? If so, that it is something she should keep to her own inner thoughts. The power of suggestion can be taken to extremes, as we all know. I don't want to take this to extremes, but this was a comment-or speculation that should not have been made.

My first reaction to this news was to drag up some pictorial that would have suggested that Clinton was making an implied threat-something along the lines of "You know, Obama may be walking down the street and have a load of bricks fall on his head". After thinking twice, I decided that would not be proper-or fair. I don't think that Hillary is hoping for such an event. I just think that her comments were wrong and worthy of an apology. That she has done.

We must be very careful about how we refer to assassinations. Hopefully, Mrs Clinton has learned that lesson.

Ann Coulter at UCI

Last night, I had the pleasure of attending an appearance by Ann Coulter at UC-Irvine. Of course, I wanted to observe and document any disruption that might have occurred at this "bastion of free speech" called UCI Irvine. The event was sponsored by the Young College Republicans and Young America's Foundation.(I would like to comment here briefly that the best thing the Republican Party has going for it at this moment in time is the Young College Republicans. They are still driven by conservative principles-unlike so many of the politicians that have been corrupted by power- and they are willing to put up with the grief they get on university campuses.) All in all, there were no real fireworks to report.

As we filed into the hall, a small group of students silently held crude (as in amateurishly drawn) posters criticizing Ann's previous comments about.....I actually forget what they said. Not important.

At any rate, the talk was supposed to begin at 7, but, as happens in our neck of the woods, Ann was caught in traffic coming down from LA. About 7:30, it was announced that Ann had arrived, and the moderators went through the preliminaries. As is their custom, one student read the California state law regarding disruption of our first amendment rights to hear the speaker. (Translation: We are not going to tolerate any disruption.) Another speaker thanked the administration and deans for their assistance in putting on the event-though they may not agree with the content. (chuckles from the audience). Then we had a short prayer and stood for the Pledge of Allegiance-all while I imagined the deans squirming uncomfortably in the back of the room.

At this point, the moderator asked all to give a big welcome to Ann Coulter! We stood and applauded...... but no Ann Coulter. What happened? Where was she? Had she been intercepted by protesters? By a gang of politically-correct deans? Finally, 2-3 minutes later, Ann entered the room in her signature mini-skirt, came onto the stage to rousing applause. (I should note here that the overwhelming majority of the audience was pro-Coulter, many of whom were adults.)

Without going into detail, Ann gave her customary talk humorously mocking liberals, Democrats, Obama (Baruch Hussein Obama), "my girl, Hillary", the news media, Islamic fanatics ("head-chopping savages"), all to laughs and applause- while the deans sat sullenly in the back of the room. She drew occasional gasps from liberal students when she spoke nonchalantly about nuking our enemies and waterboarding terrorists-all while the deans sat sullenly in the back of the room.

The line of the night? Ann referring to Obama being interviewed by a semen-splattered MSNBC commentator named Chris Matthews.

Then Ann opened it up for questions, and about 20 or so people, mostly students, lined up. Most of the questions were serious and well-thought out. Of course, a few students were critical, mostly concentrating on Ann's support for the Iraq war-innocent civilian dead etc. With all due respect to the poor students trying to nail Ann, they simply were not ready for Prime Time. Ann deftly and humorously tore them to pieces. One poor student awkwardly tried to ask about the damage President George Bush's"pro-Americanism" was doing to our relations with the rest of the world. Once the laughter died down, unflappable Ann basically told the audience that she didn't care about what the rest of the world thinks. She also stated that America owes a debt of gratitude to President Bush for responding to 9-11 with a war on terror and mocked Democrats and liberals for their opposition to wiretaps, Gitmo etc-while the deans sat sullenly in the back of the room.

I would guess that Ann probably got one of her easiest appearances at a college campus. In my view, it all came down to the fact that whatever our problems with Muslim students and administration indifference to that problem, we don't have the same kind of student body as say, Berkeley, Columbia, Harvard and.... well, I could go on and on.

No question, Ann is a tough cookie. She has taken all the shots and never gets unnerved or loses her sense of humor. A couple of times she admonished hostile questioners who tried to nail her on her statements that they must have walked in on the wrong lecture. Finally, a young gal asked her about her reported "friendship" with some liberal Democrat. Ann's response: "You gotta stop reading those supermarket tabloids, Missie"- or something like that.

All in all, it was a refreshing experience to see a sensible conservative speaker come to UCI and get an overwhelmingly positive response from the audience...except for you know who.

Let's Play "Name That Monument"

What'cha Gonna Do Now, Hillary?

"Florida, Michigan, women, bloggers, Tony Rezko-Help me!! Wonder where Bill is tonight?"


Kentucky notwithstanding, Hillary Clinton cannot surpass Barack Obama in delegates before the primaries run out. Undeterred, she is now pulling out all the stops in trying to convince the superdelegates that they should ignore the primaries and annoint her as the candidate.

Her next goal is to pressure the DNC to reverse themselves on the issue of Florida and Michigan and give her those delegates.

Earlier this week, Hillary called on the liberal bloggers to come to her rescue. Now, she is in Boca Raton, Florida telling voters that she is the successor to the abolitionists and Sojourner Truth. She likens her quest to the freeing of the slaves and the struggle for women to get the right to vote. She is Joan of Arc. She is a victim. Today, she told a reporter from the Washington Post that she is the victim of sexism in the media. She is imploring the voters of Florida to rise up and save her from the forces of unfairness. "Somebody save me!"

If that wasn't enough, she is threatening to carry the fight to the convention in Denver. She has also told the DNC that, if Florida and Michigan are not reinstated, they cannot be expected to vote Democratic in November. Translation: Hillary is telling Florida and Michigan voters that if their delegates are not given to her, they should not vote for Obama in November.

One thing you have to give to Hillary; she puts nothing ahead of her own personal ambition. It's not about the party; it's about Hillary. She figures she has a lot of arrows in her quiver. She can argue that Obama can't carry the big states. She can argue that the demographics have turned against Obama. She may yet be able to argue that she has won the popular vote (with Florida and Michigan). She can argue that women voters will revolt if Hillary is denied the nomination. Already, many female supporters are starting to complain that a woman is being pushed to the curb in favor of an upstart man.

What is Hillary's strategy here? Is she simply intent on fighting to the end? Does she plan to strong arm superdelegates for their votes? Does she want the veep nomination? (Not likely. The White House isn't big enough for her and Michelle Obama.) Is she trying to drag the game out hoping that Obama will implode when another Jeremiah Wright comes popping out of the closet? Perhaps she is hoping Tony Rezko gets convicted in Chicago and decides to cut a deal by telling all he knows about Obama.

Of course, many are saying that, at this point, Hillary would just as soon scuttle Obama's chances in November and insure his defeat. That way, she can return in 2012, still relatively young and run again. Does that make sense? Absolutely.

Rush Limbaugh, in his classic way, is urging Hillary to go to court and argue a 14th Amendment violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Of course, that is ridiculous, but our courts have made more ridiculous decisions, you know.

At any rate, there is one obstacle that she cannot overcome. Obama has the delegate votes from the primaries. Not enough to secure the nomination, but as it stands now, the superdelegates are moving his way. They know the last thing they can do is push Obama to the curb after he has prevailed in the primaries.

Memo to Hillary: If your team is 3 games out of first place with only two to play, the only way you can win is by doing something dirty. I think she has alreay figured that out.

Orange County Human Relations Commission

In regards to the incident we have reported that happened last Thursday night at UC-Irvine, I am listing the contact information for the Orange County Human Relations Commission for anyone who cares to write to their director (Rusty Kennedy) and inquire as to what they plan to do about this incident. (See post entitled: "...and all I got what this lousy....")

Rusty Kennedy
Executive Director
Orange County Human Relations Commission
1300 S Grand Blvd, building 8
Santa Ana, ca 92705
(714) 5677470
fax (714) 567-7474
email: rusty@ochumanrelations.org
www.ochumanrelations.org

(Tell him Gary sent you)

More Idiocy From The Prince of Wales

"So I says to dis dolphin guy, whadda ya complainin' to me for? He's the Prince of Wales-not the Prince of Whales"


You gotta hand it to Prince Charles; the guy is funnier than a barrel of monkeys. Once again, this boob has put his foot in his mouth with some absurd comment about Global Warming-one of his biggest "causes"-typical of a man with a lot of time on his hands.

Now this guy has announced to the world that we only have 18 months left to reverse Global Warming or we will be faced with a series of natural disasters- you know, drowned polar bears washing up on the Thames River banks, tidal waves hitting Kansas, him becoming king and all that rot.

Charles also says that he is tired of talking himself blue in the face and people not taking him seriously. Take him seriously? Is he also sick of people laughing at him and calling him an idiot? I would hope that the people of Britain are tired of supporting Charles and his family in such an opulent life style-but that is their problem, not ours. (Thank God we fought the American Revolution. This jerk could have been the Prince of the United States as we speak.)

Take him seriously? To borrow a joke from Jay Leno, why should we take anything from him about Global Warming seriously when this is the one man in the world who thinks Camilla is hot? Take him seriously when, according to some historians, this guy may be a direct descendant of Jack the Ripper?

Take him seriously, indeed.

"......And All I Got Was This Lousy......"

"Y'all doin' a hell of a job"


This week, a well-meaning correspondent who shares my concern about the hate speech being spouted at UC-Irvine suggested that I send my views to Rusty Kennedy, the director of the Orange County Human Relations Commission (OCHRC). Not knowing anything about Mr Kennedy or the OCHRC, I went ahead and sent Mr Kennedy an email expressing my concern about the anti-Semitism at UCI during Muslim Student Union events and my disappointment at the failure of the UCI Administration to confront this filth. To say the least, his response was disappointing. It was also nasty.

Here is my original email to Mr Kennedy: (I apologize for the line problems-too much cutting and pasting, I guess.)

Dear Mr Kennedy,

My name is Gary Fouse, and I am an adjunct teacher at UCI-Ext (ESL).
I have been in that position since 1998 (subsequent to my retirement
from the Drug Enforcement Administration. I am writing to you per
the suggestion of Dr Brian Levin, CSUSB to give you my perspective
as a teacher at UCI regarding the quarterly events hosted by the
Muslim Student Union on our campus.

Recently, I have heard that various figures in the university
administration have described critics of the MSU events and their
speakers as "hysterical Jews", "troublemakers, "outside groups", etc.

I am neither a "hysterical Jew" (I am not even Jewish) nor am I an
outsider. I have seen and heard what is happening for several years. I can tell you:

1 The claims of hate speech made by Jewish students are justified. When we listen to the words of Amir Abdel Malik Ali, Abdel Musa, and Mohammed Al-Asi, we hear them call for the destruction of Israel, glorify suicide bombers as heroes and martyrs, rail about "Zionist Jews", advocate the destruction of the Jewish state, defend terrorist organizations like Hizbollah and Hamas, condemn America, refer to Jews as "lowlife ghetto-dwellers" (Al-Asi)and on and on and on.

This past week, the "Wall" erected by the MSU had a characterture of
Ariel Sharon, drawn with a hooked nose and over sized lips, exactly in
the style of Julius Streicher's, Der Stuermer, the virulent, anti-Jewish
newspaper of the Nazi era. How was this allowed to appear on a
university campus?

Also this week, during Al-Asi's speech in front of the flagpoles, while
he was spouting his racist rhetoric, a group of about 20-30 small
schoolchildren were gathered yards away by their bus listening to this
man's vile words. Meanwhile, university deans (who are known to be
antagonistic toward the Jewish students' concerns, were scurrying around like hall monitors, moving peaceful Jewish student protesters with their "hate Speech" warning posters here and there and keeping walkways open while ignoring the kids being exposed to this garbage.

2 The leadership of this university clearly has no concern for the
concerns of Jewish students. They have dismissed numerous complaints and shown every indication that they are more sympathetic to the MSU and their inciteful speakers. This past week, David Horowitz, in his talk at UCI, described UCI as the worst university campus in the nation when it comes to MSU radicalism. There were two deans in the audience, one of whom took copious notes on her laptop, yet none of them even attempted to defend the university in the question and answer session. When I told Mr Horowitz that 99% of the students at UCI were not involved in this
ugliness, I told him that we had 2 problems: the MSU and an administration that is hiding under their desks, either out of fear, apathy or they just don't care about their Jewish students. They did not respond to me either.

They can't.

Why is it that hundreds turn out to hear and applaud the words of
Hamas/Hizbollah, Iran supporter, Norman Finklestein including numerous
deans and faculty, but only 20 come to hear Nonie Darwish, a courageous
woman who has left Islam, condemned terror and defended the US and
Israel? I was the only faculty member present (and I am only a
part-timer). No deans (except one pacing outside the hallway who could
not bring himself in to hear Ms Darwish's words) were present.

Sir, as a part-time teacher, who has no tenure nor long-term contract, I
am fully aware that what I am doing and saying jeopardizes my continued
employment at UCI. They don't even have to fire me-just tell me they
have no available classes for me next quarter. I am willing to accept
those consequences to stand up for what is right.

This is not about free speech. It is about inciteful speech. If this
situation is not addressed, someday there will be a tragedy on the
campus, and everyone will be wringing their hands wondering how it could
happen at UCI. I won't be wondering.

I thank you for your attention, and you may feel free to share this
letter with whomever you deem appropriate.

Sincerely,

Gary Fouse
Adjunct teacher
UCI-Ext-ESL

Here is Mr Kennedy's response:


Dear Mr. Fouse

Thank you for sharing your perspective on the issues pertaining to UCI
and the state of Jewish/Muslim/Arab relations there.

The OC Human Relations Commission has been deeply involved at the
request of the UCI administration, students, faculty and community
groups for many years on campus seeking to build a safe, inclusive
community where bigotry is frowned upon.

In our years of experience at UCI we have attended the events of all of
the sides in this struggle to inform our perspective. We have engaged
in conversations, dialogues, discussions and disagreements with all
sides. We also carry this work out on other college campuses in Orange County
where similar issues arise.

Additionally since our inception in 1971 we have provided comprehensive
intergroup relations and tolerance teaching programs that reach over
40,000 students in OC schools annually. We founded in 1991 and have
hosted regular meetings/trainings since then of the Hate Crime Network a
broad based community/law enforcement network dedicated to building a
community wide collaboration at responding to and preventing hate crimes
and incidents. We conduct police and community trainings, forums,
leadership development programs and dialogues to build understanding
between diverse communities that make up Orange County.

Where I agree with you in some of your characterizations of hate mongers
who have spoken in OC and at UCI, and regularly speak up to condemn this
bigotry, I take strong exception to your comments about UCI and
particularly your insulting, demeaning and inaccurate statements about
the administration.

In our extensive experience with the UCI administration we have never
heard any of them address the concerns that you outline, (and I think
they all share) with anything but appropriate concern. And we have
never heard them calling those community members who speak out on this,
Jewish and others, anything derogatory. In fact, I have seen them time
and again address even the most passing comments of hate, bigotry or
fear as absolutely top priority, seeking to document, investigate and
appropriately respond.

I do not know what you have done to address the bigotry that exists in
our community, on campus and across our country, but I have seen the
extraordinary steps taken by UCI administration, from the Chancellor, to
the Vice-Chancellor, to the Dean of Students, on down through the ranks
to condemn bigotry, respond decisively to hate crime, and to set a
community standard that works to discourage hate.

I see that you go on with statements like, "the leadership of this
university clearly has no concern for the concerns of Jewish students".
Rather than respond to this unfair comment I will let the Jewish
students speak for themselves as to the lack of veracity of your claim.

You report that you are risking your job to speak up for what is right,
this is a noble act. I would hope that you would be more thoughtful about your accusations and hostility to well meaning efforts; more constructive in your engagement; more mindful of the impact of your diatribe; if indeed you seek to do what is right.

Sincerely

rusty


Rusty Kennedy, Executive Director
Orange County Human Relations Commission
1300 S. Grand, Bldg B
Santa Ana, CA 92705
714-567-7470
fax 714-567-7474
www.ochumanrelations.org

MISSION: Fostering mutual understanding among residents and eliminating prejudice, intolerance and discrimination in order to make Orange County a better place for ALL people to live, work and do business.


Here is my response sent yesterday. Attached to it is a report posted by Red County Blog of an incident that occurred at UCI last Thursday night:


Dear Mr Kennedy,

I am sorry that you took offense to my email. You probably think that I am some radical "bomb thrower". I am neither. I am retired from law enforcement (DEA). As such, I know a volatile situation when I see it, and I have seen it for several years at UCI. What I am is a concerned citizen simply reaching out to those who should be concerned about hate speech on a university campus.

I will not engage in further debate with you on the performance of the UCI Administration. I have expressed my opinion, and you have expressed yours. I will stand by what I said.

I should state that I was warned that writing to your office was a waste of time, and I won't take up any more of your valuable time. I would, however, like to attach a posting from this morning's Red County blog about an incident that reportedly happened at UCI last Thursday night. I have no personal knowledge and cannot vouch for it, but I will attach it for whatever inquiry you may deem appropriate. It makes reference to the response of the university, in this case, the campus police.


"UCI PD Allow Muslim Students to Attack Jewish Woman
Posted by: Jonathan Constantine | 05/18/2008 9:38 PM


The attacks from MSU members continued after Amir Abdel Malik-Ali's evening lecture. According to a member of the Orange County community who witnessed the event, a young Jewish female who was filming the event was followed back to her car and surrounded by 6 male members of the Muslim Student Union. When officers from the UCI Police Department arrived at the scene, they stood idly by and watched as the Muslim students began to assail the witness. When the witness (turned victim) called the police department for answers, they explained that the MSU members were just "getting back at the Jews:"


"On Thursday May15, 2008 I went to the UCI campus to hear a talk: Death to Apartheid, A Farewell to Zionism. Since much of my life was spent fighting the apartheid system in my native country of South Africa, I was interested to hear speakers who probably had not personally lived through that time. I noticed that there were many people filming the speaker's presentation. Afterwards, I walked
to my car in the university underground parking. I noticed a young woman standing backed up against her car. She was surrounded by at least 6 males who appeared to be of university age. There was an additional young man who appeared to be with the girl. She looked scared and I asked her if she was OK. She said she had called 911. I have 4 children aged 22-30, and was very concerned for her safety. I did notice she had a camera and that she was not engaged in talking with the 6 males that had surrounded her and her car. I thought they wanted her camera but she was not taking photos. She told me that they wanted to see the license plate on her car. Since they were not the police, I thought this to be very strange. I realized that they were trying to photograph her license plate.

I breathed a sigh of relief when the police arrived. I attempted to describe to them the scene that I had just witnessed. The policeman replied sarcastically: "good ---- do you feel better now that you got that off your chest". I was shocked! My emotions had swung like a pendulum. From the initial fear at seeing the young woman being harassed, to relief at the sight of the police, and now back to fear, as I the realized that the arrival of the police would not provide the protection that I had anticipated. At this point it occurred to me that these were University of California, Irvine campus police. I know that police are usually interested in a witness statement, and what I saw was intimidation of two people in a parking lot who were outnumbered 3 to 1. To my amazement the police refused to take a witness statement from me.

By asking the girl if she was OK, I had somehow become involved in this altercation, and now my safety was in jeopardy. After the officer had expressed his disinterest in my account, I turned to enter my car to head home. The patrol car, though, was blocking my vehicle and preventing my exit. At this point another woman came walking by. I was too afraid to speak, but welcomed seeing another woman there. She said it was not safe to be there in the parking structure and that I should try to get out. I showed her that I could not, since my car was blocked. I asked if she was part of the university administration, as I did not think she was a student. She said that she just happened to be walking through the parking lot - I remembered thinking that it was strange that it was after 10 pm and this is not a parking lot you just walk through. I Shrugged off my suspicions. The woman then told me that I could go to other "meetings" with her. She described the meetings as the same as the ones held on campus, but at different venues, such as hotels. At that minute the young boy who had been with the girl student ran over to me and asked for my phone number. Simultaneously, the police angrily shouted to him to get into his car.

After the woman left, I noticed that one of the "intimidators" was situated on the hood of my car in an attempt to photograph the VIN number under the windshield ( he lifted up the windshield wiper to get a better look at the number). He glared at me in a way I will describe as intimidating and menacing. Then he took photos of my car's license plate, and then snapped photos of me. All the while the police officers were present and did absolutely nothing! I asked for their card and told them that if anything were to happen to my person, family or property, that I will hold them and the university responsible.

Once I arrived home, I called the Irvine police and old them what had happened. I asked if it was reasonable for the police to not take a statement or to protect me, and that was definitely not the protocol. It was recommended that I speak to the watch commander. I was put through to them and a lady Lori said she would call him. I told her my concern was about what I saw in the parking garage. After awhile she said he was not available and she further informed me of the following: the 2 people in the parking lot were Jewish and they had been harassing the Muslim students on campus during the day, and the Muslim students were simply getting back at them. I had not asked her what the incident was about, but she volunteered that information. I told her that what I saw was two people outnumbered and surrounded in the parking structure, and I was concerned because the girl looked terrified. It was ludicrous to portray her as capable of harassing anyone. I told her that I did not feel safe and that I was phoning to report the lack of concern on the part of the police to take my eyewitness account. They did nothing to assure that I got safely out of the parking structure. I have reported this to the university and have been told that someone would contact me. My complaint to the campus police has so far gone unanswered, as well.

Even if the 2 Jewish students had in some way "wronged" the Muslim students earlier that day, was it appropriate for the Muslim students to take things into their own hands? Is vigilantism now acceptable and legal on University of California campuses? The incident has left me struggling with many things. How do the police come to a conclusion regarding this event, while refusing to take a witness statement? If I was scared, how do students feel when confronted with menacing behavior? If we can not depend on police officers to protect us and to intervene in a tense situation, who can we depend on? What were they waiting for- property damage or physical injury? Is the university administration and their campus police in charge of maintaining law and order and a safe campus environment? Or do they allow gangs of students to assume control of the campus through intimidation?"


Thank you for your time and attention,

Gary Fouse


Since then, I have learned more about this county agency. It is apparently another liberal, feel good agency, created in 1971, that has a big budget (Mr Kennedy reportedly makes $131,000 per year). Kennedy is a former organizer for the United Farm Workers. They do things like conduct sensitivity seminars and compile hate crime statistics. Yet, it seems to me that their attention to hate issues is selectively placed. Kennedy obviously thinks that UCI is doing a great job of addressing these issues as it pertains to anti-Semitism. I disagree.

I would hope that Mr Kennedy and his agency would look into the alleged incident described above (of which I have no personal knowledge). If true, I would maintain that the alleged "response" of the Campus Police would belie the statements made above by Mr Kennedy. Hopefully, Mr Kennedy and his agency will do their job.

But I won't hold my breath.

Ted Kennedy

Today, it is being reported that Senator Ted Kennedy is suffering from a brain tumor. While I have been a big critic of Senator Kennedy over the years, at this time, I can only wish him well and a speedy recovery.

I think it is also important at this time that we, as conservatives, set a higher example than some of those on the far-left who have expressed joy and satisfaction over the health problems or deaths of certain conservative figures. I specifically remember the folks who talked about President Reagan burning in Hell upon his passing, as well as expressions of hate on websites such as MoveOn.org, Huffington Post and Daily Kos directed toward Tony Snow when he came down with cancer.

We are better than that.

This is simply an issue of human decency and compassion for a man who is now gravely ill. We should all be praying for Senator Kennedy and his family.

"If you Can't Stand the Heat....."

"Listen here, young man"


This week, the Republican Party of Tennessee has launched an ad highlighting Michelle Obama's speech when she told a UCLA audience that "for the first time in her adult life, she was really proud of her country." The ad featured retorts by private citizens telling the camera that they had always been proud of their country. Immediately, Barack Obama responded, telling the Republicans to "lay off his wife."

Sorry Senator, your wife is fair game, and I'll tell you why. She has chosen not to remain in the background or stand behind you with the adoring smile and remain silent. Instead, Michelle Obama has put herself front and center, just as Mrs Clinton did when her husband ran for president and just as Teresa Heinz Kerry did 4 years ago. Indeed, Mrs Obama has made a series of speeches featuring controversial and critical statements about our country, statements that should be taken into consideration by every voter. She has called our country selfish. She has challenged other candidates to match the "unique" qualifications of Barack as a one-time "community organizer". Furthermore, she has left little doubt that, as First Lady, she would be an activist in the White House, influencing policy that would affect all our lives.

Mr Obama, stop crying foul. The public is getting weary of the victim game, whether practiced by you, your wife or Hillary Clinton. We don't need "victims" in the White House. Now that the "magic" is disappearing and the cheers are dying down, it is clear that you are not handling adversity well. You don't handle hard questions well, and you complain when they are asked. You don't handle criticism well, either. How do you think it will be if and when you get to the White House? First, you cry when President Bush makes a reference to "those" who would negotiate with evil regimes, assuming he was talking about you-then you scream bloody murder when Michelle draws rightful criticism for her negative comments about our country. I won't even go into your pitiful handling of the Wright and Ayers controversies.

Mr Obama, if you want to be president, start acting like a big boy because that is what we need as our president.

Anthony Pellicano Convicted- Could He Be Hillary's Rezko?

L-Tony Pellicano R-Tony Rezko



As the trial of Barack Obama's friend, Tony Rezko, nears its end in Chicago, speculation is rife as to what kind of cooperation he might offer the government if he is convicted. Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, this week, the federal trial of private investigator, Anthony Pellicano ended with his conviction in federal court on 76 (out of 77) counts, including wiretapping, racketeering, wire fraud, etc. Sentencing is set for September 24. Pellicano faces 20 years on each of the racketeering counts and 5 years on most other counts.

Pellicano is a tough-talking thug, who has bragged of using physical force on behalf of his clients-including the use of knives and baseball bats. He has been linked to several celebrity clients including comedian Chris Rock, who was dragged in to testify at the trial.

Pellicano's name has also been linked to another prominent celebrity-Hillary Rodham Clinton-dating back to the days when she was First Lady. According to numerous reports at the time, Pellicano was one of the private investigators brought in to "investigate"-or harass women who were claiming sexual affairs-or approaches by President Clinton. The investigators were dubbed, "the Clinton Shadow Team".(Clinton attorney, David Kendall, has denied to the NY Daily News that Pellicano was ever used by anyone connected to the Clinton White House.)

Others say different. According to Joseph Farrah in World Net Daily, July 2005, Pellicano was one of the investigators working for Terry Lenzner's Investigative Group International in Washington DC when they were hired by the Clintons to check into the backgrounds of their critics-and female associates of Bill Clinton.

According to Carl Limbach of Newsmax (in 2003), Pellicano was hired by the Clintons in 1992 to discredit the claims of Jennifer Flowers about her relationship with Bill Clinton. Pellicano is reportedly the one who analyzed Flowers' tape-recorded conversations with Bill and pronounced them doctored. Pellicano's involvement in discrediting the Flowers tapes was also described in Ron Kessler's book, "Inside the White House".

According to Limbach (Newsmax 2-2-99), Pellicano also reportedly is the one who dug up Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend, a teacher named Andy Bleier, who claimed that Lewinsky told him of her plans to go to Washington and "get her presidential knee pads on".

According to the Washington Post, in an article dated 2-22-98, Sidney Blumenthal was asked (in the grand jury)about contact he had had with three private investigators, Lenzner, Jack Palladino and Pellicano. The Post also reported that Pellicano had denied doing background investigations on Special Prosecutor, Ken Starr and his staff. He refused to say if he had done work on the Lewinsky matter.

In fairness, it must be pointed out that many of these above sources are conservative. They charge that the mainstream news media has not followed the so-called Clinton-Pellicano connection-ever since his initial arrest in 2002. It should also be noted that if Pellicano decides to "roll over" on the Clintons, prosecutors should only be concerned about illegal allegations-not information that would simply embarrass Hillary Clinton.

I should note that the news article I read this week announcing Pellicano's conviction (Orange County Register) said nothing about Pellicano's alleged connection to the Clintons.

Reported or not, Senator Clinton must be watching the events in LA with some trepidation, just as Obama is surely watching the events in Chicago-a tale of two cities- or a tale of two Tonys, if you will.

Keith Olbermann's Goofysburg Address

This is a doberman. It rhymes with Olbermann


This week, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann launched into another diatribe, this time a 12 minute attack on President Bush. Olbermann, who never lets a show go by without blasting the president ad hominem, apparently spends weeks drafting his own State of the Network speeches, drafted to release on his show, Countdown, on a regular basis.

The inspiration for Krazy Keith's latest Goofysburg Address was Bush's statement in an interview that he quit playing golf after the Iraq War started since it would appear unseemly, especially to parents of soldiers fighting in the Middle East. KKO's response is one of unhinged anger. Now, he is spending time and energy trying to document days when Bush has indeed played golf since the war started.

On this occasion, in referring to Bush's description of our enemies as "cold-blooded killers", Olbermann rhetorically asked the President if he was aware that people in his employ were "cold-blooded killers" who someday may be indicted for war crimes.

Really, Mr Olbermann? And who are these "cold-blooded killers" whom you are referring to? American soldiers? Donald Rumsfeld? Robert Gates? Condoleeza Rice? Indicted by whom? The UN? The World Court? C'mon, Keith. You are the brave voice of rebellion here. Name names.

This is clearly a man with issues. Aside from Bush, almost every night, Olbermann engages in attacks against Bill O'Reilly and Fox News. How unseemingly and unprofessional is that? What is it that O'Reilly did to you in the past, Mr Olbermann? There is clearly bad blood between the two. Why it has to be dragged onto the airwaves is beyond me.

The truth is that Keith Olbermann is a totally biased political commentator who switched from sports with ESPN to political commentary (and burned a lot of bridges in the process). He nightly has the same liberal houseguests like Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, Rachel Maddow of Air America, Chuck Todd, etc. Together, they all sit there and bash Bush and the Republicans. There are no opposing voices. True, Sean Hannity espouses the conservative point of view, but he engages in debate with those who disagree, as do most conservative commentators. The only thing Olbermann debates with is a TV camera and teleprompter.

Do I want Olbermann taken off the air? Absolutely not. Do I want some "Fairness Doctrine" to force him to bring in opposing voices? Absolutely not. Should MSNBC be pressured into firing him? Absolutely not. Mr Olbermann has every right to mount his soapbox every night and show his few viewers what a boob he is. If MSNBC wants to put his show on the air, that is their business. All I am saying is that when Olbermann shoots off his mouth, we will shoot off our mouths as well.

At any rate, Olbermann is genuinely outraged by President Bush. He actually believes the president is an evil-and stupid man. That is his right. It is also his right to say whatever he wants on his show. After all, we shouldn't be that upset. Krazy Keith Olbermann's ratings, like those of his network, are in the toilet.

Pizza, Potroast, Burgers!!! Real Food For Real Guys!!!

Local Schoolkids Exposed to Hate Speech at UCI

(Photo courtesy of Jonathan Constantine, Red County blog)

This photo was taken last Monday as radical Imam Muhammed Al-Asi gave his speech describing Israel's coming destruction and condemning the US as well. In the background are local schoolkids in front of their bus while being given a tour of the UCI campus.

Meanwhile university deans were running about playing hall monitor in moving peaceful Jewish protestors here and there and keeping walkways clear for passing students. They took no action to prevent these kids from being exposed to Al-Asi's words.

My Letter to Daniel Tedford, LA Times

Below is the text of my email to Daniel Tedford, a reporter in LA who is writing about the on-going problems at UCI. (I have also written a similar letter to Rusty Kennedy, Director of the Orange County Office of Human Relations. (I am trying to pull up a copy to post here.)


Dear Mr Tedford,

My name is Gary Fouse, and I am an adjunct teacher at UCI-Ext (ESL). I have been teaching part-time at UCI since 1998. (I am retired from the Drug Enforcement Administration.) It is my understanding that you have been writing about the on-going controversy at UCI over the speakers brought to our campus each quarter. I will not repeat details you already know, but I want to add my voice.

The concerns of the Jewish students are justified. Many (not all) of the speakers who appear at UCI are rabid anti-Semites (though they will deny it) and supporters of terrorist groups in the Middle East.

Complaints that UCI's administration is indifferent to the concerns of Jewish students, in my view, are also justified. I believe that they are negligent in their duties to keep inciteful, hate speeach off of our campus so that all students can study in a peaceful environment.

I am attaching a copy of a letter I sent to the New University Campus Newspaper that gives my view of the past 2 weeks (I don't know as yet if it will be published.) I would also invite you to check out my blog site (fousesquawk), which contains my description of the past two week's events.

I am fully aware that, in speaking out and criticizing the university, I am jeopardizing my continued employment at UCI. I don't care. It is a consequence I am prepared to accept in order to stand up against what I consider true hateful, inciteful speech on our campus.

You may do with this letter what you wish and share it with whomever you wish.

Sincerely,

Gary Fouse
Adjunct teacher
UCI Ext (ESL)

Below is my letter to New University Newspaper:

Now that the Israel 60th Birthday celebration and the “Palestinian Holocaust” week have concluded, I would like to make a few brief comments. I have commented in the past on the words of Amir Abdel Malik Ali and Mohammed Al-Asi, so I won’t repeat them here.

I would hope, however, that casual student observers will compare and contrast the tone of each week. The Israeli celebration was upbeat and happy, while some of the MSU’s speakers (not all) used inflammatory language to describe Israel and America. At least three of the speakers (Malik Ali, Al-Asi and Norman Finklestein are vocal supporters of Hamas and Hizbollah-terrorist organizations.

There were two items on the “Wall” put up by the MSU that drew my attention. First was a quotation from former Black Panther, H. Rap Brown (who now bears a Muslim name that escapes me). H. Rap Brown now sits in prison for the murder of a police officer (that had nothing to do with any “struggle“). Second was a picture of Ariel Sharon, drawn in the old style of Julius Streicher’s Der Stuermer, a virulent, anti-Semitic Nazi newspaper of the Third Reich. The picture featured the big hooked nose, big lips and all that. To anyone who is unfamiliar with Streicher and Der Stuermer, I urge you to do the research. That a university would even allow this type of picture on its campus is a disgrace. It is anti-Semitic and racist.

During Finklestein’s appearance, hundreds came to hear him speak including professors and deans. Yet the same week, about 20 people came to hear Nonie Darwish, a courageous former Muslim who has put her life on the line to defend Israel, America and condemn terror. I was the only faculty member present (and I am only a part-time teacher).

During Al-Asi’s vitriolic speech, several deans scurried about playing hall monitor, moving Jewish protesters here and there and keeping walkways clear for students. That‘s all well and good, yet, during the speech, a busload of about 20 young schoolchildren, visiting the campus for a tour, stood outside their bus just yards from Al-Asi’s vitriolic speech. I wonder if there were any Jewish children in that crowd. Why did any of those kids have to be exposed to this? Where were the hall monitors?

To be sure, a few of the MSU’s speakers were not vitriolic. I am referring to Ms Anna Balzer and Mr and Mrs Corrie, who tragically lost their daughter. They seem like decent people, there was nothing objectionable in what I heard the Corries say, and I sympathize with them. I wish, however, that they had been present on Thursday to hear the words of Malik Ali (I don‘t believe they were present.) It might have given them pause.

Finally, David Horowitz, in his campus appearance, singled out UCI as “the worst campus in this country” for anti-Semitic activity. In the question and answer period, I informed Mr Horowitz that 99% of the students at UCI have nothing to do with this ugliness. I also told him that there are two problems: first, the MSU (that brings in hateful speakers); second a university administration that is hiding under their desks, either out of fear, apathy or that they just don’t care about the concerns of their Jewish students.

The public needs to know what is going on at UCI, and I hope Horowitz and others keep the spotlight shining.

Gary Fouse
Adjunct teacher
UCI-Ext

Jay Leno's Funniest Guest-Howard (The Jerk) Dean

Howard (The Jerk) Dean


This week, Jay Leno had one of his funniest shows in years. Though I watch Leno every night when I go to bed, once the "celebrity" guests start coming on, I go to sleep. Most of these Hollywood types are insufferable bores, and the interviews are inane. But when I heard that Howard (The Jerk) Dean was going to be on, I decided to watch since he is always good for a few yuks.

First I had to suffer through Jay's 2 segment interview with some actor mope whose name I don't know. He looked like Wally Cox in a suit with keds.

Finally, Howie the Jerk sauntered onto the stage. Leno launched into a series of questions trying to get Howie The J to explain this crazy Democratic primary system (which Howie the J and his cronies in the party came up with). Howie, of course, could not make it clear.

Of course, Howie the J is not very good at expressing himself-without pissing someone off. In 2004, it looked like he was going to be the Democratic candidate for president until he got to Iowa. Then, an old Canadian tape was released showing Howie the J explaining to Canadian moderators why the primary system was all screwed up-specifically that candidates had to go to places like Iowa and have some farmer tell them how the country should be run.

Then, in Iowa, Howie the J told an older gentleman to shut up because he didn't like the question. That cooked him in Iowa because Iowans suddenly pegged him for what he was-an abrasive, fast-talking easterner who looked down on them.

Strike three was primary voting night when he gave his famous scream and convinced the rest of the nation that he was a nut case.

Since then, he has gone on to become the head of the DNC, where he has continued to put his foot in his mouth. This is the same boob that called George Bush AWOL during the Viet Nam War-but never served a day in uniform-unlike Bush, who at least, served in the National Guard.

At any rate, Howie the J did not disappoint on Jay Leno's comedy show-unless you were expecting him to clarify his party's nominating process.

JERK.

If the Shoe Fits....

Last night, I watched President Bush's speech before the Knesset in Israel to mark the occasion of that country's 60th birthday. I was glad that the president went to Israel to declare US support. I think Bush gave an excellent speech, which was well received by the Knesset. Unfortunately, not everyone back home approved of the president's words.

In his speech, Bush referred to "those" who believe they can negotiate with outlaw regimes and terrorists who want to kill them. History, said Bush, has shown that it doesn't work. He was absolutely correct.

Yet, the Democrats have gone ballistic. Nancy Pelosi, in an otherwise dreary press conference describing whatever trivial pursuits she and her Democratic colleagues have been up to, reacted angrily to a question from a reporter about the president's comment. You would have thought the president had called for the arrest of Congress.

Not to be outdone, Barack Obama and his campaign jumped up and down in protest at the "insult" directed at the Illinois senator. After John McCain jumped in declaring that Obama didn't have the strenth, judgement or determination to deal with dictators, Obama told everyone who would listen that he was ready to debate McCain and Bush on national security anytime, anywhere because they had a lot to answer for. That sounded like Neville Chamberlain telling Winston Churchill that he had a lot to answer for.

Hillary Clinton, outvoted but not to be outdone, has also protested.

But who exactly was President Bush referring to? Neville Chamberlain? Jimmy Carter? Barack Obama? Hillary Clinton? He didn't mention any names, and the White House has issued a statement claiming that the president was not referring to any particular person. Why are the Democrats so quick to jump up and identify themselves as weaklings and appeasers? Why does Obama assume that Bush was referring to him?

You know, no matter how much and for how long the Democrats have been calling Bush an idiot, he outfoxes them everytime.

Four Judges Declare Gay Marriage Legal in California

Today, by a 4-3 vote, the California State Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the California law that affirmed that marriage was an institution between a man and a woman. In doing so, they overturned a recent ballot decision by the voters of California to that effect-substituting their own beliefs for that of the California voters and throwing out an age-old concept that has lasted thousands of years all over the world.

According to the 4 justices who prevailed, limiting marriage to a man and a woman was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because it discriminated against homosexual couples.

Personally, I could care less if homosexual couples want to love each other, live together and make contractual arrangements with each other. I do object when they and their judicial activist supporters on the bench choose to turn the age-old institution of marriage on its head. I do object when they replace the judgement of the voters with their own designs.

But this is California, after all. California courts are notoriously liberal. Ridiculously so, in fact.

I don't know what remedies are in order, but if the recall option is there, I say, there should be a recall movement to remove these judges from office. We have already removed an incompetent governor. Why not remove judges who have so abused their power?

What is that tired old leftist phrase, "Power to the people"?

Hate Fest at UCI-Day 4 (Final Day)

On the final day of the Muslim Student Union's "Palestinian Holocaust Week" at UC-Irvine, the highlight of today's program was the speech by Amir Abdel Malik Ali, a fiery Imam from Oakland, who comes to UCI every quarter. He is an open supporter of Hamas and Hizbollah and anti-American to boot.

Malik Ali is the classic example of the adage: "Show me a great speaker, and I will show you-a great speaker". He is a magnificent public speaker. It is what he says that is objectionable. In past appearances at UCI, he has described suicide bombers, as heroes and martyrs, and railed about "Zionist Jews". Today, he took pains to state that many Jews oppose Zionism. (Thanks a lot.) Yet, his hour-long speech was all vitriol toward Israel-and toward America. Imperialistic America. He referred to President Bush as "an idiot" on numerous occasions. He referred to an unnamed African-American general (head of US forces in Africa) as an "Uncle Tom".

A few of the Jewish students vocally expressed their disagreement with Ali on some occasions, but never tried to shut him down. At one point, an elderly professor wearing the MSU olive green T-shirt, (who is apparently from Columbia University) told the students to "Shut up".

Toward the end, Malik veered off course and talked about the drug epidemic that plagues black neighborhoods. He implied the old canard that the government planted crack into the black community. (As a retired DEA agent, I could have reminded him that no black crack addict gets his or her crack from any white dealer-only black crack dealers, but I had a more pertinent question in mind.)

At the conclusion of his speech, I raised my hand and got the first question:

I asked him simply-which he hated more, Israel- or America.

His answer: "I hate imperialism."

He went on to expound on that, but I wasn't really listening. I wanted to pin him down on my question. I followed up by asking if he loved his country, America.

Again, he started on a long answer that started out with why a rape victim should love her rapist. I then finished by concluding that he hated America-as the student moderator cut me off in order to move on to the next questioner.

Before the program started, I looked around to see if Cindy and Craig Corrie (whose daughter was killed in Israel trying to block an Israeli bulldozer from demolishing a house) were present since they had stayed around to watch yesterday's program-which was relatively tame. They were apparently not present. I had hoped that they would hear Malik Ali's words. It might have given them pause.

My Letter to the UC-Irvine Campus Newspaper

Below is the text of a letter to the opinion page of the New University Newspaper (UCI) tonight regarding the past two weeks of Israeli-Palestinian "discourse".

(I don't know if it will be printed next week.)


Now that the Israel 60th Birthday celebration and the “Palestinian Holocaust” week have concluded, I would like to make a few brief comments. I have commented in the past on the words of Amir Abdel Malik Ali and Mohammed Al-Asi, so I won’t repeat them here.

I would hope, however, that casual student observers will compare and contrast the tone of each week. The Israeli celebration was upbeat and happy, while some of the MSU’s speakers (not all) used inflammatory language to describe Israel and America. At least three of the speakers (Malik Ali, Al-Asi and Norman Finklestein are vocal supporters of Hamas and Hizbollah-terrorist organizations.

There were two items on the “Wall” put up by the MSU that drew my attention. First was a quotation from former Black Panther, H. Rap Brown (who now bears a Muslim name that escapes me). H. Rap Brown now sits in prison for the murder of a police officer (that had nothing to do with any “struggle“). Second was a picture of Ariel Sharon, drawn in the old style of Julius Streicher’s Der Stuermer, a virulent, anti-Semitic Nazi newspaper of the Third Reich. The picture featured the big hooked nose, big lips and all that. To anyone who is unfamiliar with Streicher and Der Stuermer, I urge you to do the research. That a university would even allow this type of picture on its campus is a disgrace. It is anti-Semitic and racist.

During Finklestein’s appearance, hundreds came to hear him speak including professors and deans. Yet the same week, about 20 people came to hear Nonie Darwish, a courageous former Muslim who has put her life on the line to defend Israel, America and condemn terror. I was the only faculty member present (and I am only a part-time teacher).

During Al-Asi’s vitriolic speech, several deans scurried about playing hall monitor, moving Jewish protesters here and there and keeping walkways clear for students. That‘s all well and good, yet, during the speech, a busload of about 20 young schoolchildren, visiting the campus for a tour, stood outside their bus just yards from Al-Asi’s vitriolic speech. I wonder if there were any Jewish children in that crowd. Why did any of those kids have to be exposed to this? Where were the hall monitors?

To be sure, a few of the MSU’s speakers were not vitriolic. I am referring to Ms Anna Balzer and Mr and Mrs Corrie, who tragically lost their daughter. They seem like decent people, there was nothing objectionable in what I heard the Corries say, and I sympathize with them. I wish, however, that they had been present on Thursday to hear the words of Malik Ali (I don‘t believe they were present.) It might have given them pause.

Finally, David Horowitz, in his campus appearance, singled out UCI as “the worst campus in this country” for anti-Semitic activity. In the question and answer period, I informed Mr Horowitz that 99% of the students at UCI have nothing to do with this ugliness. I also told him that there are two problems: first, the MSU (that brings in hateful speakers); second a university administration that is hiding under their desks, either out of fear, apathy or that they just don’t care about the concerns of their Jewish students.

The public needs to know what is going on at UCI, and I hope Horowitz and others keep the spotlight shining.

Gary Fouse
Adjunct teacher
UCI-Ext

Our "Boob" Congress At Work

"Snarlin" Arlen Spector in action. On his left, fellow boob, Patrick Leahy


I read in the sports page today that Pennsylvania Senator, "Snarlin" Arlen Spector is calling for "an independent" investigation" of the New England Patriots' taping of opposing coaches' signals.

The ever-obnoxious Spector is furious at NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell's handling (or non-handling of the situation). According to "Snarlin" Arlen, Goodell has made "ridiculous assertions that wouldn't fly in kindergarten."

All of which may be true, but one wonders what the hell Congress is doing wasting the taxpayers' time and money getting involved in this matter. Already, we have seen Congress drag in baseball players to inquire whether they ever used steroids. Don't they have anything better to do with their time?

What's next Spector? Are you going to start investigating pitchers who may be throwing spitballs? How about card sharks on those ESPN Poker Championships? How about those weekend golfers who take too many mulligans?

What a collection of boobs we have in Washington-on both sides of the aisle.

Hillary Wins in West Virginia-Thanks to Those "Hardworking White Voters"

"Heigh ho! Heigh ho! It's off to work we go!"

John Edwards Makes His Choice-Finally

Nice hair

News item: After months of indecision, John Edwards has finally decided to endorse-Barack Obama.

"Hillary....is a really fantastic person. I really think she is my soulmate. Lately, I've been feeling something inside of me saying, 'I could really spend the rest of my life with her'. Last night, I couldn't sleep agonizing over this decision that will affect the rest of my life....."

"When I'm with Barack, I have this feeling that I just can't describe, something I have never felt with anyone else. I know he feels the same way about me...."

"Barack, Hillary....Hillary, Barack......."

"What the hell..heads it's Hillary-tails it's Barack......"

"It's heads!.................. Spend the rest of my life with her........"

"Barack, will you accept this here Rose?"

John Edwards would have made a great president. You know, a real leader.

Hate Fest at UCI-Day 3

Today, the Muslim Student Union continued their "Palestinian Holocaust" Week at UCI. Today's featured speaker at noon was Anna Balzer, a young Jewish-American activist, who has traveled often to Israel and the Palestinian-occupied territories. She is a Palestinian sympathizer, and is associated with the International Women's Peace Service.

I should state that Ms Balzer does not come across as a "bomb thrower" (no pun intended.) Her presentation argued that Palestinians are being treated unjustly by Israel in the name of maintaining a Jewish state. She did not blast the United States, unlike many of the other MSU speakers. She is opposed to Israel as a "Jewish state".

It was what she didn't say that I would criticize. Nowhere in her talk did she mention the suicide bombings that led to the creation of the wall. Nowhere did she mention the rocket attacks that are lobbed regularly from Gaza into Israel. In describing the poor conditions under which Palestinians are living in Gaza, she neglected to mention that they are under the control of Palestinians, not Israelis, specifically, Hamas.

In the question and answer session, a Jewish student asked her about the suicide bombings. In her response, Balzer described them as horrific and conceded that human rights abuses are being conducted by both sides. She then added that the Palestinian violence has to be considered in context; in other words, one could hardly expect the Palestinians to act non-violently in the face of their suffering. She also advocated deinvestment and boycotting Israeli products.

Balzer was preceded to the microphone by Dennis Lopez of the Student Worker Alliance, a radical group that condemns everything the US does. He described (among other things) the Iraqi War as being driven by a desire for US corporations to enrich themselves with Iraqi oil (even though the US has not taken Iraqi oil from Iraq). Though speaking in a calm and rational manner, the occasional buzz words came out: imperialistic US, imperialistic powers, capitalist US-you get the picture.

Finally, there was a brief spiel by Israeli (anti-Zionist) professor, Ilan Pappe, who previewed his speech later this evening by encouraging his audience to visit Israel to learn about the situation, inform others about the injustices committed by Israel and to protest, protest, protest. (Pappe is detested by many in Israel because of his anti-Israel activism.)

Today's speakers, at least during the noon hour, were subdued. I noted that Craig and Cindy Corrie were in the audience. I sincerely hope they stay around for tomorrow's appearance by the vicious, racist, anti-Semite, Amir Abdel Malik Ali. It might be an eye-opener.

Day 2 of Hate-Fest Week at UCI

On Tuesday, the Muslim Student Union continued their anti-Israel week at UC-Irvine. At 12 noon, they opened their program with Jim Lafferty, a lawyer from LA. Lafferty is with the LA chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, a liberal legal activist group. He is also associated with Answer, an anti-war group and KPFK Radio, a far-left radio station in Los Angeles.

Mr. Lafferty’s theme was, as expected, an indictment of Israel, "an illegal occupier of the Palestinian people’s land". According to Mr. Lafferty, Israel is a racist, genocidal state (sound familiar?)

According to Lafferty, Israel was created by the Western powers at the end of World War 2. It was decided to create this state in the Middle East because the West wanted to have a friendly, Western-oriented state there to act as a bulwark in the West’s efforts to obtain Middle East oil. (I guess Mr. Lafferty never considered the fact that we have been buying that oil all this time from countries like Saudi Arabia.)

He also cautioned the crowd not to believe that the election of Barack Obama would change US policy since Obama “had recently met with American Jewish leaders and assured them of his continuing support for Israel”.

Not content to bash Israel, Mr. Lafferty also launched into a simultaneous attack on the “imperialistic” US. Throughout his talk, he alternated between references to "racist genocidal" Israel and the "imperialistic" US. Score another one for the MSU in bringing anti-American speakers to campus. (Hopefully, people have noticed a pattern by now.)

He also took a shot at the Jewish students at UCI (“our Jewish brothers and sisters”), who had set up posters warning of a "Hate Speech zone” prior to hearing what he had to say-even though he proceeded to fulfill the prediction. He also ominously stated that he had just been informed by "student leaders" that there was not a level playing field for groups expressing their views in this area. He implied that his organization (the National Lawyers Guild) might "do something to make sure everyone had a level playing field", whatever that means. (Maybe his group will file a lawsuit demanding that Jewish students be expelled from UCI.)

After his talk, a Jewish student asked him how Israel could be genocidal when the Palestinian population has actually increased over the decades. In his answer, Mr. Lafferty "clarified" that by saying he was referring to “genocidal policies” (whatever that means).

When asked his opinion of a 2-state solution, he opined that it was all up to the Palestinians. He said that usually the ideal solution is for all parties to live together in harmony, but it was all up to the Palestinians. I took that to mean that whether Jews could remain in the region or live in harmony was all up to the Palestinians. I guess if the Palestinians decide to expel the Jews-or worse, that’s their choice, according to Mr. Lafferty.

Since Lafferty ran out of things to say in 30 minutes, and only a couple of people had questions, Lafferty was followed by an impromptu appearance by Craig and Cindy Corrie, parents of Rachel Corrie, an American activist, who was killed when she sat down in front of an Israeli bulldozer as it tried to tear down a house. They were scheduled to make a longer appearance later that evening, but came to the microphone to say a few words. They seem like decent people and did not engage in any harsh rhetoric against Israel or the US. They are, of course, sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and seem interested in peace in the region. It is hard to criticize people in their position. Everyone processes their grief in different ways, and this seems to be the way they are processing theirs. I think they are mistaken in their sympathies and being exploited, but I re-emphasize that, unlike someone like Cindy Sheehan, they don’t seem to have turned against their own country.

A few other observations:

Before the program began, I watched a Jewish fellow wearing a yarmulke having a polite debate with 4 or 5 Muslim students. I found that encouraging.

Less encouraging is the wall that the Muslims have put up as a display. Among other things, there is a quotation by H. Rap Brown, former Black Panther from the 1960s. He is now a converted Muslim. (I forget his Muslim name.) There is, of course, no mention that he is now in prison for the murder of a police officer just a few years back. Then there is a drawing of Ariel Sharon made in the old style of Julius Streicher’s Der Stuermer in the Nazi era, hooked nose, big lips and all. It must be said that these young MSU folks are not very sophisticated in their PR.

That evening, I attended David Horowitz’s lecture on campus. His speech had been shifted to an out of the way location away from the Student Center. The room had no microphone, and when Horowitz attempted to draw a map of Israel on the whiteboard, he discovered that of the 20 or so markers, none had any ink.

Without me going into detail, he opened his presentation by stating unequivocally that UCI was absolutely the worst campus in the country when it came to anti-Semitic activity and the administration’s failure to confront it. Two deans were in the audience, Sally Peterson and Edgar Dormitorio, both of whom are antagonistic toward the concerns of UCI’s Jewish students. During the question and answer session, I pointed out to Horowitz that 99% of the students at UCI have nothing to do with the ugliness, but that we had 2 problems: the MSU and the administration, which was “in the tank for the MSU” and was hiding under their desks, either out of fear, apathy or just not caring about their Jewish students. I implored Horowitz to keep the public spotlight on UCI because the public needs to know what is going on our campuses. Horowitz urged me to keep him informed of what is going on. (I will.)

There are two more days to report on. That is if I don’t get fired today. These academic types have no sense of humor, you know.

"There is no Room for Hate Speech ar UC-Irvine"

UCI Administration: "No hate speech on our campus, right boys?"


News item: Recently, University of California Chancellor Michael Drake assured a meeting of the Jewish organization, Hillel in Washington DC that, "there is no room for hate speech at UCI".

This week, the Muslim Student Union at UCI is hosting a parade of anti-Semitic speakers including Imam Amir Abdel Malik Ali and Imam Mohammed Al-Asi, who will condemn Israel, condemn America and denigrate Jews.

On Monday, Al-Asi made note of the fact that during the Oslo Accords, the chief US diplomat was "of the Jewish faith."

The MSU has erected a mock wall (imitating the Wall erected by Israel). One illustration on that wall is a drawing of Ariel Sharon in the style of Der Stuermer, the notorious Nazi publication, hook nose and all.

No room for hate speech, Mr Drake?

Hate Fest at UC-Irvine-Mohammed Al-Asi

After an upbeat week-long celebration of Israel's 60th birthday last week, the Muslim Student Union now takes over the stage at UC-Irvine this week with their usual invited speakers who come and preach hate. Today, I witnessed the speech of "Imam" Mohammed Al-Asi as he talked for an hour about the "racist, Zionist State of Israel".

Let me set the scene for you. The event took place outside near the flagpoles. The Muslim Student Union boys were all decked out in paramilitary-looking olive green T-shirts with Palestinian-type scarves. On the front of the shirts was a tank with some reference to "Resistance". On the back was a quotation from Martin Luther King (an apostle of non-violence who would never have countenanced terror and suicide bombings.) During the speech, about 5 of them flanked the speaker, trying to look menacing in the fashion of Louis Farrakhan's Fruit of Islam. (Personal note to MSU: dressing up like Jihadist fighters will not win many hearts and minds in this country.)

Meanwhile several of the university deans and their assistant deans hovered around the area making sure bystanders (and Jewish counter-protesters) kept the walkways clear for students. Several Jewish counter-protesters walked around with posters referring to Hate Speech. The ever-vigilant deans,led by Dean of Judicial Affairs, Edgar Dormitorio, tried on several occasions to move them here and there.

Al-Asi, who is an American-born Arab, was formerly affiliated with the Islamic Center in Washington DC until they apparently cashiered him for his radical preachings. He is an ally of Iran, Hizbollah and Hamas. He advocates the destruction of Israel and removal of Jews from "The Holy Land". In his past speeches, he has made such statements as, "You can take a Jew out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of the Jew". In his previous speech at UCI, he questioned Jews on why they would want to live in the ghetto of Israel (by building a wall to keep out Palestinian suicide bombers).

In his speech, Al-Asi took us through his version of the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Of course, he conveniently ignored how Arabs attempted to invade Israel in their unsuccessful wars to wipe out the Jewish state. Also missing was any mention of the terror attacks and the suicide bombings. It was all about how Israel has victimized the Palestinians. Al-Asi basically painted the Arabs as victims who are merely trying to reason with Israel in the interest of fair play.

Al-Asi is a master of the implication in his speech. As his speech progressed, he became increasingly angry in his tone. He made an ominous reference to the millions of Palestinians, Muslims and others who surround Israel and implied that Israel's time is running out. His main implication was that Jews must leave the Holy Land-or else("or else"- my words).

He also made a slip when he referred to the Oslo Accords, that led to increased hope for Palestinians that never succeeded. He informed us that the principal US negotiator was a "member of the Jewish faith" (a polite way of saying that he was- a JEW). Of course, Mr Al-Asi would insist that he is not anti-Jew, only anti-Zionist.

At the conclusion of the speech, the MSU shouted "Allahu Akbar!", and Al-Asi took a couple of questions from a Jewish student. The first question was whether during the Jordanian occupation of Jerusalem, Jews could pray at Temple Mount. His answer was that he could not speak for Jordan since he was just as opposed to the government of Jordan as he was to Israel (No answer).

The next question was whether Muslims are allowed to pray at the Al-Aqsa Mosque. His answer was that some were, but it was restricted by the Israelis.

The last question was from a sympathetic listener who asked why Palestinians had to pay for the crimes that were done to Jews in Europe (the Holocaust).

The audience? Muslim students, Jewish students and deans- A total of perhaps 100 people. The vast majority of students passed through the area and ignored the whole thing.

But there was another group of people present. A group of about 30 or so middle school students who had been bussed in for a UCI tour. There they were, gathered by the flagpoles with their bus in the background, listening to the words of hate being preached by Mr Al-Asi. It would have been fitting had Dean Dormitorio and his horseholders taken the pains to move them out of the way of Al-Asi's poison.

Why We Are Suspicious of Muslims

(Thanks to Action in England)


The on-going dispute at UC-Irvine (where I teach) over the Israel/Jewish/Muslim issue is bringing up (again) an unpleasant but obvious question; that is, the position of American Muslims in American society-especially since 9-11. Today, many American Muslims are feeling isolated, besieged, under suspicion, and forced to choose between their religion and their country. They know that so many Americans view them with suspicion and have developed a very negative perception of Islam as an intolerant religion trying to impose its will on the non-Muslim world. They resent the fact that America is a long-time ally of Israel and that most Americans support the right of that country to exist and to defend itself from attack.

To an extent, they have a point. Those feelings must be acknowledged and dealt with directly and honestly. In this article, I will try to do so in a civil manner, but many Muslims will not like what I have to say.

First of all, Americans in general do view Muslims here with a certain degree of suspicion. Since 9-11, we have tried to put it into some sort of perspective and not paint all Muslims with the same paintbrush. Certainly, most Muslims worldwide are not involved in terrorism, but that does not eliminate the fact that Islamic terror is a reality.

I think it also has to be stated that most Americans have been disappointed by the response of Muslims here to the whole terror issue. For the most part, there has been silence-either out of fear, apathy or sympathy with the terrorists. In many cases, organizations like CAIR have added to the resentment with their complaints of Islamophobia and discrimination. We had hoped that, after 9-11, American Muslims would have stood up and proclaimed to the Islamic world that they reject terror and stand with their nation in opposition to it. We have been disappointed.

We want to believe the phrase, "Islam is a religion of peace", but it is increasingly difficult to do so.

Also, the actions of many Muslim Student Organizations on numerous university campuses have only added fuel to the fire and increased suspicion. Many of the speakers they sponsor to come onto the campuses are virulent, racist, anti-Semitic, glorifying of terrorists and condemning of America as well. UCI is a prime example. When your sponsored speakers regularly speak in praise of Hamas and Hizbollah and condemn our own country, how can ordinary Americans feel that you are loyal? (Of course, the obvious response is that many walks of American life criticize our country, but Muslims must acknowledge that they sit in a unique position. People are going to listen to their radical speakers and draw negative conclusions. Sorry. That's just the way it is.) We also view with disgust the cowardly pandering of many on the academic left since it fits into their world view that the US and Israel are basically flawed, racist countries-which they are not.

Does that make America a nation of religious intolerance? No. You have to go back to the Salem Witch Trials to find true intolerance of religious issues. Though we have experienced forms of anti-Semitism, Jewish commentators like Dennis Prager and Michael Medved have expressed the thought that Jews have been able to prosper in America precisely because we are a predominantly Christian country that has traditionally tolerated all religions in our midst. That should never change.

In the case of Islam, we have welcomed Muslim immigrants and permitted them to construct their own places of worship. This is a form of tolerance that is not seen in many places in the Middle East, where any religion other than Islam is not permitted, or Egypt, where Coptic Christians are being persecuted as we speak (as are those of the Ba'hai faith in Iran). As for Jews in these countries, they have been already driven out. Many of us in the West are also aware of the poisonous education that Middle Eastern children receive that teaches them that Jews are nothing but apes and pigs.

It might be appropriate here to say a few words about our Jewish population in America. As a Gentile child in West Los Angeles, I grew up among Jewish families. Later, as a US serviceman, I was stationed with the Army just outside Nuremberg for over two years. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of the Third Reich is aware of Nuremberg's significance in that era. I not only visited the many sites made infamous by the Nazi era, I have also visited many of the Nazi's concentration camps, including Auschwitz (in Poland). It has left an indelible mark on me insofar as the subject of anti-Semitism is concerned because I have seen the residue of what anti-Semitism brings. Today, many of the same words, the same caricatures that were used by the Nazis to portray Jews are being repeated by many Muslims today. It must be confronted and exposed for what it is and not passed off as simply anti-Zionism.

Rightfully, or wrongfully, my perception of American Jews today is that of Americans going back generations. My perception of Muslims is one of recent immigrants though I recognize that many Muslims were born here. My point in stating this, perhaps in a nationalistic manner, is that I view the resurgence in anti-Semitism in our country as being largely imported from abroad. I don't have the empirical evidence to back that up, but that is simply my perception.

Many of us, in the wake of 9-11, have tried to learn more about this religion called Islam. Is it violent? Are the terrorists breaking away from true Islam-or merely putting it into practice? As Americans, we want to believe the former.

When we read the Koran, much of it reads like the Bible. Yet, there are disturbing passages that speak of killing infidels. Virtually every chapter refers to non-believers burning in Hell. (Christianity also has this as a tenet, but it is not repeated constantly throughout the Bible.) I believe the constant repetition of that principle instills a hatred for those who do not share the faith.

When we read the life of Mohammed, we are struck by the irrefutable fact that he was a soldier, a military leader who spread Islam at the point of a sword and was responsible for the deaths of thousands-through battles and executions. For a military leader, that is one thing; for a religious prophet, it is troubling to many of us non-Muslims.

Be that as it may, Americans are perfectly willing to concede that holy books can be interpreted different ways by different people, and to let Muslims worship as they choose without interference-as long as it doesn't impinge on the rest of us. One of my conservative blog co-respondents, convinced that Islam is a religion of hate and intolerance, argues that the US should outlaw Islam. I respectfully disagree since this would be counter to everything our country stands for. We also have to accept that this is a religion practiced by over a billion people world-wide-with whom we wish to live in peace.

Having said that, it must be stated that a free and democratic society like the US can never accept any religion, whatever it is, dictating our everyday life. In our society, we allow freedom to practice any-or no religion. We also have to accept certain freedoms that many of us do not approve of in terms of dress, art and sexuality. Muslims who choose to immigrate to America-or the West-must understand that we have freedoms that we would die to protect, and that we will never accept Shariah Law. That means that so-called "honor killings" and fatwas will be severely punished as any murder would be.

Yet, we do see forms of accommodation toward Muslims in America-and Europe. Certain state-run universities and airports are installing foot baths in rest rooms-in disregard of the separation of state and religion that would preclude the spending of government money for religious purposes. Muslim student unions, like the one at UCI, receive school funding taken from tuition fees. Do Muslims not recognize that the rest of us question that? Do they not understand our resentment when we read about Muslim cab drivers in places like Minneapolis who refuse to carry passengers because they are carrying alcohol? Or Muslim store clerks who refuse to check out customers purchasing pork? Do they not understand when some of us ask; "Who do they think they are?" Who did those "Flying Imams" think they were when they deliberately provoked airline passengers into complaining to the airline about their suspicious behavior, an incident that led to their being removed from the plane-then filing a lawsuit and trying to drag in the complaining passengers?

We also read about what many Muslims are doing in European countries that have accepted them. We see the demonstrations in the UK, where radicals wave posters calling for the beheading of those who defame Islam, call for the overthrow of British democracy and imposition of Shariah law. We read about the violent death of Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands at the hands of a Moroccan immigrant because he had the temerity to make a film critical of Islam's treatment of women. We see the riots over Danish cartoons, the riots in France, the Madrid train bombings, the London bombings and the despicable suicide bombings in Israel that kill hundreds of innocent men, women and children-killings that are cheered by some Muslim students and their chosen speakers on our campuses.

We read about people like Nonie Darwish, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Muslim heretics who have spoken out against the violence-and have to live in hiding under security.

Yes, we are suspicious of Muslims.

Finally, the question must be asked in all Western countries: Can Muslim immigrants really assimilate into our tolerant, open and democratic societies? Or is Islam incompatible with our form of society and our values? It may sound racist, but it is a legitimate question, and we must not shrink from asking it. We had previously thought that American Muslims were more assimilated than European Muslims since they came here with more education than their European, blue collar counterparts. Now we are wondering since radical thought spreads across socio-economic boundaries.

I can readily understand why Muslims here in America want to defend their faith. It is natural. I have said this before in my writings, but it bears repeating. Muslims should, indeed, defend Islam. But they don't need to defend it from non-Muslims. They need to defend it-to the death-from those violent terrorist elements that are bringing disrepute to Islam in the eyes of the entire non-Muslim world.

It comes down to this: If Muslims in America are willing to accept our values, warts and all, assimilate and be loyal, then they should be welcome and free to practice their religion in a peaceful and tolerant manner. However, if they feel that our values are in conflict with Islam, and they feel they cannot assimilate and be loyal Americans-even if it means taking up arms against other Muslims in the War on Terror, then, at the risk of being called Islamophobic, racist, xenophobic, or whatever you choose to call it, I can only repeat what former Prime Minister John Howard of Australia publicly proclaimed to his country's Muslims a couple of years back: He told them that if they could not accept Australian values, then they should return to where they came from.

I think that advice applies everywhere in the West. And I am not afraid to say it.

Happy 60th Birthday Israel

Let's Play "Name That State"

News item: This week in Beaverton, Oregon, a perhaps weary Barack Obama told his audience that, during the campaign, he had visited 57 states, with one to go. Today, in Bent, Oregon, he took care to say that he had visited 47 states-with no mention of the one yet to go.

"And tomorrow, it's on to Alberta!"


Top: The great state of China (with Mexican border fence)

Middle: The great state of France "Look, Bob! On a clear day, you can see the state of Germany. What's with all the tanks coming our way? Must be the National Guard."

Bottom: The great state of Egypt (Luxor Hotel in background) "Let's try our luck, Clyde."

Nonie Darwish at UC-Irvine

This week, I was fortunate to be able to hear Nonie Darwish speak at UC-Irvine as part of the week-long celebration of Israel's 60th birthday. I have previously written about Darwish in my blog (Three Muslim Heretics). Briefly, she was born in Cairo and has lived in Gaza. Her father fought against Israel and was eventually killed by Israeli forces. Thus, she grew up hating everything about the Jewish state and Jews in general. Subsequent to 9-11, she rejected Muslim violence, broke with the religion and has become an active voice against Jihad. She is the author of a book entitled: Now they call me Infidel.

I wish I could say that there was a big crowd to hear her presentation (which was coupled with a film entitled: The Suicide Killers). However, the turnout was quite small-about 20 or so people-including her bodyguards. I was the only faculty member there.

Darwish began by describing her early upbringing in the Middle East and her feelings of hatred toward Jews, which she attributed to the death of her father as well as the way Arab youth were educated in Cairo to hate Jews. She also made some important observations about the general outlook on the part of Muslims that we in the West should be aware of. I will mention them below in no particular order.

The penalty for a Muslim who leaves the religion is death.

She quoted the part of the Koran that describes when Jews will hide behind trees and rocks and the tree will tell Muslims that there is a Jew hiding behind (the tree)-come and kill him).

In the Koran, according to Darwish, in 97% of the references to Jihad, it is the context of fighting against non-believers. Only in about 3% of cases is Jihad described as a struggle to be a better person, etc.

She described how in Israel, Muslims are free to practice their religion freely, unlike in Muslim countries, where a Jew would be killed if he walked down the street wearing a yarmulke or other item that marked him as a Jew.

Darwish remarked that if somehow all the Jews in Israel were to convert to Islam, the whole problem would disappear. (Implication: It is not about land, rather about religion.)

She also noted that neighboring Arab nations have preferred to see Palestinians languish in refugee camps rather than give them citizenship and assimilate into their own societies through intermarriage, etc. Such assimilation would cause the Palestinian issue to fade away.

She derided Muslim efforts to have American universities and airports install foot baths. In the Middle East, only Saudi Arabia has public foot baths to her knowledge. She also pointed out that many US universities receive funding from Middle Eastern sources such as Saudi Arabia- a nation that promotes Wahhabi teaching among Muslims in the West. (note: At UC-Irvine, the MSU receives funding from the university-taken from student tuition fees.)

In regards to Saudi Arabia, she recounted how just recently, a top religious leader has issued a Fatwa calling for the murder of two Saudis who had publicly called for moderation within Islam.

She also spoke of so-called "Honor Killings", recounting the story of a young maid in her childhood home who had become pregnant as a result of being raped. After Darwish's family assisted the girl to find refuge with a social services agency, they learned later that the girl had been returned to her family. Her father and her brother then murdered her-for the shame of being raped-in accordance with Shariah law. In Muslim countries, such "honor killings" are treated leniently under the law.

Perhaps most alarmingly, she warned against creeping Shariah in the West, which would impose Muslim rules within our countries.

In her mind, there is no real difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

Darwish noted how America has struggled for many years to overcome our own prejudices and cautioned us against allowing new prejudices to enter our country (i.e.: Muslim prejudice against Jews).

I am sorry that so few people turned out to hear the words of this courageous woman. As I stated above, I was the only faculty member present (and I am only a part-time teacher at that). In contrast, fired DePaul professor and terrorist sympathizer, Norman Finklestein's anti-Israel monologue this week was attended by Dean of Students, Sally Peterson, who took copius notes and Dean of Judicial Affairs, Edgar Dormitorio, who tried to get a pro-Israel supporter, Jonathan Constantine, to sit down while he was filming. But they could not bring themselves to hear the words of a woman who has put her life on the line to oppose Muslim terror. Dormitorio, for his part, was pacing outside the hall where Darwish spoke, yet would not come in to hear what she had to say. Why is this? Is it because they were unsympathetic to Ms Darwish's point of view? Was it because they were afraid to offend the Muslim Student Union? A combination of the two? Ms Darwish's theme was a rejection of hate. Yet, that was apparently not of interest to those who teach and lead UC-Irvine. They would rather pander to a tiny minority of students who have brought national disrepute to their campus.

What a collection of empty suits.

"Wild Bill" Loses it Again

"Fousesquawk"


I swear, Bill and Hillary Clinton must be reading my blogs. No sooner did I call for Bill to bust loose again, he responded today in some place called Fayetteville, WV.

Standing before the usual crowd of curious on-lookers, Bill took exception to a woman in the crowd questioning his claims of all the work he and Hillary put in to bring about Health Care Reform.

"You're Wrong", he shouted-then proceeded to launch into a tirade about the "millions of documents" that show the work he and Hillary put into the issue.

"You interrupted me", the former president of the United States complained. He pointed his finger at the unfortunate lady in his inimitable fashion and berated her for having the temerity to doubt William Jefferson Clinton.

In truth, however, Mr Clinton might be excused for showing the strain of the past weeks and months. His dreams of returning in triumph to the White House, this time hanging on the skirt hem, er...coattails of his erstwhile wife now lie in tatters. No more will he be able to sneak behind that infamous door leading off from the Oval Office with some "special assistant to the First Husband".

He also can't be too happy about the new book that is coming out that talks about his post-White House philandering (Clinton in Exile by Carol Felsenthal). According to the book, Clinton is traveling the country campaigning in his own plane, separate from Hillary but accompanied by other ladies. ("Just make sure you're on the stage when I give my speech, Bill.") God forbid that this would outsell his own latest auto-puff-piece (Giving: How each of us can save the world-or some such nonsense).

At any rate, one cannot help but feel a touch of sadness that step-by-step, this fantastic campaign is coming to an end. But until it does, let's enjoy the ride.

OK, who's next? Reverend Wright, Hillary, Obama, Michelle, Bill. We're waiting.

Of Egg-Heads and African-Americans

"Your (white) audience is waiting, Mrs Clinton."

"Bill. Where is Bill? I want Bill."

"Er,....he's down in the pool. He went for.... a swim."


Just when we thought the Democratic primary couldn't get any more bizarre, Hillary and her supporters seem to be pulling out the race card again. In the wake of the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, Mrs Clinton (starting to remind us of Gloria Swanson in her portrayal of Norma Desmond in Sunset Blvd.)is justifying her insistence on staying in the race by informing interviewers that she won the white vote in those two states. Therefore, she is the candidate who appeals to a wider range of voters.

I don't want to split hairs here, but can you imagine the firestorm that would ensue if John McCain (or any Republican) said that he was the candidate who could win the "white vote"?

As if that isn't enough, we have two Democratic operatives, John Begala (a Clinton toady) and Donna Brazile, an African-American, having an on-air spat when Begala stated that Democrats could never win elections with only "egg-heads" and African-Americans. (This was in the context of discussion about Obama's support from blacks and college educated whites.) Brazile responded by accusing Begala of engaging in divisive rhetoric.

Admittedly, Begala's analogy may have come across as a bit too flippant and colorful, but I would remind Ms Brazile that it was she who once referred to the Republican Party as having a "white boy mentality". Divisive? You make the call.

Still it is ironic to see the party that calls the Republicans racists tearing itself apart, largely over race. Unfortunately, race is a factor. Obama is pulling down about 90% of the black vote. While he also is getting white support among younger voters and educated folks, Hillary is correct when she says that she is getting most of the white (working class) vote. The polls show it. Maybe she shouldn't have said it and let it sit there as an open secret, but in stating it, blacks must now be wondering if they should reconsider their almost monolithic loyalty to the Democratic Party, a party that, for years, has tried to convince blacks that only they (the Dems)can protect them from a return to the days of Jim Crow.

So it seems that at least for a few more weeks, this spectacle will continue. Racial lines are being drawn-and that's within the Democratic Party, regardless of absurd claims about the evil Republican Attack Machine lurking in the shadows ready to tear Obama apart. Who needs the RAM when we have Jeremiah Wright and the Clintons?

Speaking of which, I think it is now Bill's turn to make some dumb comment to add fuel to the growing fire. C'mon, Bill. Your audience is waiting.

Hang in There, Hillary!

Arizona- 202 051 103-14
Chicago- 000 000 001- 1

Today, in his post-game news conference, Cubs manager, Lou Piniella told reporters, "Lose? We didn't lose. We broke the tie in the 9th inning."


Hillary Clinton took the cake last night in her "victory speech" in Indiana. She made spin history when she told her supporters that thanks to them, she had broken the tie and now it is "full-speed ahead" to the White House.

Broke the tie?

According to her figures, she had won Pennsylvania, Obama had won North Carolina, and she had broken the tie by winning Indiana. Using her logic, my beloved Cubbies would be defending their 10th consecutive World Series title this year.

By the way, did you catch the effervescent Bill Clinton standing behind her on the stage? Hillary may be a loser, but Bill was a winner-of the Teddy Kennedy look-alike contest. A little heavy on the rouge, eh Bill? Of course, the reporter types tried to cover up for him by passing it off to sunburn incurred while campaigning. Looked to me like he was easing the evening's pain with a few highballs.

Today, it was also disclosed that Hillary has loaned her campaign another 6 million bucks. Nice investment if you follow the advice of the party-and drop out. Starting today, more Superdelegates will declare for Obama. Everyone is saying that the numbers can never add up for Hillary.

Of course, the Clintons don't drop out. Give Hillary credit for one thing; she is a fighter and doesn't quit. On the negative side, staying in can only continue to rip the party apart. Hillary still insists she will not drop out.

So why should she stay in? Here are some reasons:

Try to convince the party to reinstate the votes of Florida and Michigan.

Jeremiah Wright-who will not go away.

Former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers- who Americans are only now starting to learn about.

Tony Rezko- whose federal trial in Chicago is nearing an end. The defense rested this week. If Rezko is convicted, he is facing a lot of jail time. Speculation is rife that Illinois Governor Blagojevich could be indicted if Rezko turns on him. Obama also has a lot of questionable history with Rezko. Should Rezko be convicted, he may look to make a deal with the US Attorney's Office. Don't think that Hillary isn't watching that trial closely-and praying for a conviction. At this point, Hillary is probably hoping that another revelation could blow up Obama's candidacy at the last moment.

Nonetheless, things are not going well for Hillary. This week, she was supposed to have a radio interview with a Charlotte political talk show. Problem was, she called in late after the show was finished and wound up talking on air with a shock jock, who proceeded to have his way with her. After offering to take a message for the two political commentators, he offered to put her through to their voice mail. Then, he led her through a silly conversation about the Three Stooges as Hillary repeatedly cackled, probably inwardly furious at the foulup.

At any rate, next we have West Virginia and Kentucky, which Clinton figures to win. Hopefully, this sausage race will continue a while longer. If nobody breaks the tie, that is.

Michelle Obama on Barack's "Experience" Walking the Streets of Chicago

White Sox fans "walking the streets of the south side of Chicago" at the 1919 World Series



Add Michelle Obama to the list of problems that her husband has to overcome in his quest for the presidency. The would-be future first lady is cementing her reputation as an angry woman with a chip on her shoulder. Like Teresa Heinz Kerry before her, Mrs Obama is becoming a weight on her husband's aspirations. Her stump speech of last Friday is a case in point.

According to Mrs Obama, Barack's experience as a "community organizer" in Chicago before entering politics is experience that no other candidate can match. Leave aside for the moment what exactly a "community organizer" is, according to Mrs Obama, it must be something really special.

In describing what the senator did, she tells us that:

For years, he walked the streets of the south side of Chicago.
He bussed women to City Hall so that they could "find their voices".
In all those years, "we have seen it all. Barack has seen it all."
No other candidate had made that "kind of choice" or had that kind of experience.

Pretty vague stuff. "Walk the streets", "find their voices", "seen it all".

I would like to point out to Mrs Obama that there is another candidate who can match that "impressive" resume. What did John McCain do before he entered politics? True, he was never a "community organizer". What he did was join the Navy, become a bomber pilot, survive a massive explosion on his aircraft carrier, fly bombing missions in Viet Nam, get shot down, spend 5 years in a North Vietnamese prison camp and suffer torture in the process. Add to all that his many years as a US Senator.(Of course in the world of the Obamas, serving in the military doesn't count for much on a resume; it was a choice that Barack never made.)

But McCain was never a "community organizer". Unlike Barack Obama, he has never "seen it all". He has never "walked the streets of the south side of Chicago".

So what exactly is a "community organizer"? Someone who organizes communities? What specifically did he do? He may have done a lot of good things, but to me, this is just another example of how thin this man's resume is for one who is running for the presidency.

Let's look at Obama's political record. What is he remembered for as a state senator in Illinois? What did he accomplish? How about his 2 year record as a US Senator- what has he accomplished legislatively? Don't tell me what he has voted for. What has he himself accomplished except start running for president virtually the day he arrived in Washington.

This is the dilemma whenever you ask Obama supporters to come up with one accomplishment that would qualify him to be president. They start talking about his gift of oratory, his charm, his talk of bringing people together, change, hope, etc. What they cannot do is tell you one thing that he has really accomplished in his political career beyond making great speeches and getting elected a couple of times.

But for Mrs Obama to put her foot in her mouth and imply that John McCain cannot match her husband's life story is patently absurd. It fits right in with her previous whining about how bad things are in this country for everyday folks. She and her husband have been blessed by what this country has offered them. They both have Ivy League educations and high-paying jobs that enable their family to live well. Indeed, they may wind up in the White House.

Mrs Obama should get off the negativity and stop exaggerating her husband's years as a "community organizer".

Hillary "Breaks the Tie" in Indiana

Hillary tells Indiana crowd, "Thanks to you, we've broken the tie, and now it's full speed ahead to the White House!"

What is Going on in Indiana?

At 9 pm Western Time, with 91% of the Indiana vote counted, Lake County (Indiana)votes are starting to come in-finally. This county is located in the part of Indiana near Chicago and includes largely black Gary. Initial reports indicate Obama is winning heavily in the county, and Clinton's lead has shrunk to 51-49%.

While the networks wondered why the delay in Lake County's reporting, Fox News' Bob Beckel, a Democrat, has once again, laughingly told the story of a past election when he called an (unnamed) mayor of Gary asking when the votes would come in. According to Beckel, the answer was, "When you tell me how many votes you need." This is not the first time I have heard Beckel tell this story.

So, as I write, is there monkey business going on in Gary, Indiana? Fox News reporters at the scene asked officials what the problem was and could only get the answer that the counting was slow.

Will this late surge in Lake County give Indiana to Obama? Interesting, very interesting.

Jamiel Shaw Update- May 5, 2008

Today, Jamiel Shaw Sr spoke on the John and Ken radio show on KFI (Los Angeles)on the pending prosecution of Pedro Espinoza for the murder of Jamiel Shaw Jr. Mr Shaw is due to meet with LA DA Steve Cooley tomorrow and is demanding that the asst. DA assigned to the case (Michelle Hennessey) be taken off.

According to Mr Shaw, the prosecutor has been spending the last couple of months investigating young Jamiel-the victim! The reason is, according to Mr Shaw, that the prosecutor is trying to show that the victim was a member of a gang-or at least, the killer thought that was the case since Jamiel had a Spiderman backpack that was partially red, a gang color. That would enable the prosecutor to argue that the killing was gang-motivated rather than a hate crime committed simply because Jamiel was black. (Jamiel Shaw had no gang affiliation. He was simply an innocent random victim.)

Mr Shaw also states that the prosecutor has tried to pressure him to drop his efforts to have Special Rule 40 amended to allow police to act against known illegal alien gang members.

When asked if he has heard lately from the City Council, he responded, "Nothing. They don't care."

To be fair, I am presenting Mr Shaw's statements without the benefit of the DA's side of this story. It is Mr Shaw's feeling that the city wants to downplay any suggestion that blacks are being targeted by Latino gang members based simply on their race. I think it is vital, however, for the DA's office to speak out and clarify this matter.

Israel Fest at UC Irvine-With Hate Fest to Follow

This week, I-Fest, the 60th anniversary of the birth of the state of Israel is being commemorated by the Jewish student group, Anteaters for Israel, Hillel and the Jewish Student Union.

The tone of the celebration is upbeat, featuring food, music, belly dancing, a Shabbat dinner and nightclub event. The theme of the week is "Peace, Love, Israel". I witnessed the start of the festivities today, which featured free hamburgers and two belly dancers.

On a more serious note, David Horowitz will appear on campus May 13th. His topic will be: Campus Support for a New Holocaust. I plan to attend, and will report on the event. It will be interesting to see if Horowitz's freedom of speech is respected.

But there will be a skunk at the garden party. The Muslim Student Union is bringing in radical former DePaul University professor, Norman Finklestein to speak against Israel. Then, the following week, all the skunks will arrive, again courtesy of the MSU. As every quarter, radical Oakland Imam, Amir Abdel Malik Ali, will slink onto campus to spew his anti-Semitic venom, talk about destroying Israel and glorify suicide bombers as "heroes". He will be joined by another radical "religious" figure, Mohammed Al-Asi, who will insult Israel, Israelis and Jews in general. Other leftist professors will join in to tell listeners what an evil country Israel is. It is the same show every quarter from the MSU.

What I hope will be noted by the various audiences at UCI is the happy, upbeat tone of the I-Fest compared with the hate that will be expressed the following week by the MSU and their speakers.

Of course, the administration of the university will hide under their desks, "support freedom of speech", and insist that there is no place for hate speech at UCI-a real contradiction. Chancellor Michael Drake recently told a meeting of Hillel in Washington DC that "there was no room for hate speech at UCI"-even as it happens every quarter. The Dean of Student Affairs, Manuel Gomez, as is his wont, will reject all criticism of MSU speakers as the unfounded allegations of outside groups. (I am not part of an outside group-I have taught part-time at UCI for 10 years. I've seen it. I've heard it. I know what I am talking about.) And the rest of the faculty, with a handful of exceptions, will remain silent-either out of fear, apathy or sympathy with the enemies of Israel.

It should be an interesting two weeks.

Rotten Fruit in Orange County -V

Yesterday, the presiding judge in the federal corruption case against former Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona ruled that recorded tapes of conversations between Carona and cooperating witness, Don Haidl, would be admissible in the trial. In those conversations, Carona and Haidl discussed how to keep monies that Haidl had paid to Carona secret from the Grand Jury. Carona's attorneys had argued that the tapes violated the rules because Carona had been represented by a lawyer at the time. On the tapes, Carona can be heard telling Haidl that the money was "completely untraceable". (Don Haidl was a wealthy car auctioneer who Carona appointed as Assistant Sheriff, and whose son, Greg, was convicted of rape a couple of years back.)

The judge also separated the trial of Carona's wife, Debbie from that of her husband and his mistress, Debra Hoffman. So now, Carona, who previously painted himself a "Christian family man", will be tried along with his mistress while his wife will be tried alone. Got it?

Still pending is a decision by the judge to move the trial, scheduled for August, outside of Orange County due to critical comments about Carona made on the John and Ken radio show on KFI in Los Angeles. The two radio jocks, for months, have lambasted Carona and read the taped transcripts over the air. More recently, they have recruited listeners to read the transcripts over the air in various foreign languages, like Hebrew, Arabic and French. Carona's attorneys want to move the trial to some part of California where KFI is not heard.

May Day in Olympia

May Day somewhere in the world

"Power to the People!!"

Kudos to Michael Medved for reporting on this year's May Day disturbances in Olympia, Washington. It seems that Washington's capital city regularly experiences disturbances on May Day. This year was no exception.

In the downtown area, the usual rabble of anarchists threw rocks at the windows of a bank, painted graffiti on walls and grappled with police. Six people have been charged with felonies. At least one of them has been described by authorities as a "professional protester".

Meanwhile, at the capital building, protesters, who had been allowed to gather on the capitol steps, broke into the building demanding to meet with Washington's ultra-liberal governor, Chris Gregoire. This forced a lock down of the building with employees being locked in their offices. The "protesters" were advised that 5 of them could meet with a representative of the governor, to which one numb scull responded, "We will not be divided!" Eventually, some did meet with the representative while others busied themselves painting graffiti on the walls of the recently-restored capitol. No arrests were made-not surprising considering the liberal crowd that is "in charge" at the capitol.

According to an article in The Olympian, the populace is getting fed up with the annual intrusion of troublemakers celebrating May Day, the sacred Communist holiday. The Olympian also speculated that this year's brouhaha may imperil a proposal for Olympia to become a "sanctuary city."

Let's Play "Name That Mayor"

Match the current or former mayors with the letter that describes them. (There may be more than one letter.)


1 Bill Campbell (Atlanta)
2 Dennis Kucinich (Cleveland)
3 Gavin Newsome (San Francisco)
4 Antonio Villaraigosa (Los Angeles)
5 Kwame Kilpatrick (Detroit)
6 Ray Nagin (New Orleans)
7 Jerry Brown (Oakland)
8 James Hahn (Los Angeles)
9 Marion Barry (Washington DC)

a Had affair with aide's wife
b Declared his city "sanctuary city"
c Had affair with TV reporter
d Recently visited Syria
e Busted in possession of crack
f Indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice
g Gov. Moonbeam
h Had affair with aide
i Called his city a "chocolate city"
j Convicted for tax evasion
k Told illegal alien rally, "We
clean your toilets!"
l Fiddled while his city drowned
m Stated, "The bitch set me up!"
n Called "the Boy Mayor"
o Former gang member
p Hillary Clinton national co-chair
q Not noted for anything

Answers:

1 Bill Campbell- c,j
2 Dennis Kucinich- d, n
3 Gavin Newsome-a, b
4 Antonio Villaraigosa-b, c k, o, p
5 Kwame Kilpatrick- f, h
6 Ray Nagin- i, l
7 Jerry Brown- g
8 James Hahn-q
9 Marion Barry-e, m

Fousesquawk for President

"Is this mike on?"


Below is the transcript for the big news conference where Fousesquawk announces his candidacy for president:

Reporter (R): "First question, Fousesquawk- What do you plan to do about global warming?"

Fousesquawk (F): "Nothing."

R: "Will you sign the Kyoto Treaty?"

F: "No."

R: "Sir, what role do you see for the federal government in solving the education crisis in this country?"

F: "None."

R: "What is your plan for Iraq?"

F: "Win."

R: "But when will you bring the troops home?"

F: "When we've won."

R: "What about Al Qaeda?"

F: "Kill 'em."

R: "How do you plan to deal with Iran?"

F: "Kill 'em."

R: "But we're not at war with Iran."

F: "Stand by."

R: "What about Guantanemo Bay?"

F: "Nice place."

R (Helen Thomas): "When are we going to stop killing people in the Middle East?"

F: "You mean terrorists, Helen. How does 2150 sound to you?"

R: "Sir, how do you plan to restore America's reputation in the eyes of the world?"

F: "I don't."

R: "But our European allies are angry with us."

F: "What else is new?"

R: "Do you have a Middle East peace plan"?

F: "Yes, support Israel."

R: But what about the Palestinian people?"

F: "What about 'em?"

R: "What is your plan for solving the energy crisis?"

F: "Two words: Anwar and refineries."

R: "But where will you build new refineries?"

F: "Hyannisport."

R: "But that's the home of the Kennedy compound."

F: "I know."

R: "What kind of justices would you put on the Supreme Court?"

F: "You don't want to know."

R: "But can you think of someone as a model of who you are looking for?"

F: "Roy Bean."

R: "Perhaps you have a plan to solve the housing crisis."

F: "What housing crisis?"

R: "Do you have a plan for comprehensive health care coverage?"

F: "Absolutely not."

R: "Do you have a comprehensive immigration plan?"

F: "No. Next question."

R: "What are your thoughts about taxes?"

F: "Bad idea."

R: "But how will government have the money for new programs?"

F: "It won't."

R: "Do you have any ideas about closing the gap between the rich and the poor?"

F: "Glad you asked. No."

R: "How do you plan to reach across the aisle and work with Democrats"?

F: "I don't. Next question."

R: "What country would you visit first after taking office?"

F: "I dunno, someplace warm."

R: "Do you have any ideas about a running mate?"

F: "Don't need no stinking running mate."

R: "What role do you envision for the First Lady in your administration."

F: "None."

R: "Don't you think that's rather sexist?"

F: "You bet'cha."

R: Who will be your White House press secretary?"

F: "No one."

R: "But how will the press know what's going on in the administration?"

F: "They won't. Next question."

R: "But don't the American people have the need to know?"

F: "The only thing the people need to know is the ball scores."

R: "Are you prepared to debate the other candidates?"

F: "No."

R: "Why not?"

F: "What's to debate?"

Final question:

R: Mr Fousesquawk, it is clear you have absolutely no plan whatsoever. How do you expect to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate?"

F: "Two words: Barack Obama."

Advice to Obama-Attack (Hillary, of Course)

With Barack Obama so clearly now on the defensive, Hillary Clinton, unable to overtake him in pledged delegates, can only argue to the superdelegates that she should be the nominee because Obama will be unelectable in the general election. I would like to humbly offer my advice to the senator from Illinois: It is time to get off defense and turn on the offense against Mrs. Clinton. After all, you have so much ammunition that you have yet to use.

Rather than go through a long narrative, I will put it in the form of a list. These are the points you need to start talking about. In other words, you should argue that Mrs Clinton has so many ethical issues that she is not fit to be president. Here they are.

1 The Rose Law Firm and her years as First Lady of Arkansas- How is it, Mrs. Clinton that you were able to turn a $1,000 investment into $100,000 in a matter of weeks? What about those Rose billing records that no one could find but that turned up accidentally in your White House living quarters?

2 Did you or did you not have a role in the hiring of Craig Livingstone, who went from bartender to official in the White House in charge of 900 FBI files on Republican figures?

3 Did you have any role in your Chief of Staff, Maggie Williams cleaning out Vince Foster's office after he was found dead in a Washington-area park?

4 What role did you have in the firing of the White House Travel Office people so that your Hollywood pals could take over that duty?

5 Mrs. Clinton, what was your role in having private investigators go after women who claimed to have had affairs or been assaulted by your husband?

6 Mrs. Clinton, could you please explain your role in the pardons your husband gave to New York Hasidic Jews who were doing time for embezzlement? More specifically, what about the reported meeting you and Bill had with Hasidic leaders in the White House? Even more specifically, was their connection between the pardons and the fact that the Hasidic community voted for you overwhelmingly for senator-even though they had traditionally voted Republican?

7 How many times, Mrs. Clinton, did you state, "I don't recall" when testifying before the grand jury investigating Whitewater?

8 Mrs. Clinton, do you still believe, as you told Matt Lauer, that the Monica Lewinsky affair was a "vast, right-wing conspiracy"?

9 Inlight of your recent disclosure that you and Bill have made 109 million dollars since leaving office, even if legally earned, don't you think it is unseemly for former presidents and first ladies to make so much money off of their government service?

10 Mrs. Clinton, could you please explain to the public the financial relationships you and Bill have with Middle Eastern interests, such as the Government of the United Arab Emirates?

11 What have your brothers, Hugh and Tony been up to lately? And does Hugh plan to open up a pardon business if you are president?

Mr. Obama, the mainstream news media has conveniently forgotten all these questions about Mrs Clinton's integrity. Isn't it time you reminded them?

The "Drug Wars" (17) Los Angeles ca. 1980

"Where's my treat, Fousesquawk?"


One of the unfortunate aspects of doing drug raids on homes is that occasionally, officers/agents are confronted with vicious guard dogs. In recent years, many drug dealers have made it a practice to keep dogs like Pit Bulls, Rottweilers or Dobermanns as guard dogs. When confronted with such animals, officers frequently have no choice but to shoot the dog once it starts to attack.

The closest I came to having to shoot a dog happened during a home raid our office and LAPD narcotics officers carried out around 1980 in the Los Angeles area. During the pre-raid briefing, I was assigned to cover the rear of the house while other agents and officers hit the front door. Two LAPD officers were teamed up with me. In order to cover the rear of the house, it would be necessary to hop a fence into the back yard.

The suspect, a heroin trafficker, was known to own a Dobermann, which he used as a guard dog.

"Great", I thought. "Now I'm going to have to shoot the dog."

The two LAPD guys who were going to go into the back yard with me assured me it wouldn't be necessary.

"No problem. We have these special flares. Once the dog sees the flares, he'll back off."

So we proceeded to the house and hit the place as planned. As the others hit the front door, I hopped over a fence on the side of the house into the back yard. Immediately, the Dobermann came around the back porch and stopped about 20 yards from me.

At this point, I turned around and saw that the cops were nowhere to be seen. No cops, no flares, just me and the dog.

For about 5 seconds, I looked at him and he looked at me-then turned and ran whimpering to his dog house-where he stayed until the animal control people came and took him away.

Our Energy Needs-and the Sacred Caribou

"Not now, George. I got a headache from all that oil drilling."


I am certainly no expert on the subject of energy, but I do have some ideas on the subject. I have heard a lot of explanations as to why the price of gasoline is so high; the world-wide market, China and India, the speculators, the greedy oil companies, Bush and Cheney helping their oil buddies make big profits, etc. I don't know what to believe, but if I were in charge, here is what I would propose.

1 Start developing more of our own sources for oil. That means drilling in Anwar and off the coasts of California and Florida if necessary. In the case of Anwar, the majority of folks in Alaska are all for it. It will bring in jobs and help their economy.

2 Start building more nuclear power plants.

3 Start building more oil refineries.

Sounds simple, doesn't it? Why are we not doing that? The environmentalists, that's why. They oppose every way for America to develop our own sources of energy. And they wield a lot of clout-especially with the Democratic Party that is completely in the tank for the environmental lobby.

Back in the Clinton Administration in the 90s, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) stated that if we started drilling in Anwar, we wouldn't see a drop of oil for 10 years. Of course, Clinton was against Anwar as well and nothing was done. Today, we could have been off and running.

And what is the reason for not drilling in Anwar (in a remote region of Alaska about the size of a university campus)? The main reason according to the enviromentalists is that we should not disturb the mating habits of the caribou!! Wasn't that the same argument that was used against building the Alaska Pipeline? As it turned out, the warmth from the pipes actually attracted the animals, and mating increased!

In addition, how long has it been since any new nuclear power plants or oil refineries have been built? Three decades? Do you think the lack of sufficient oil refineries might just be connected to rising oil prices?

In addition, we in California are paying about 50 cents more per gallon because of the special blend that is required by the state in the name of reducing pollution. When I drove to Arizona a couple of weeks back, gas cost 40-50 cents less per gallon.

The only solution I hear from Democrats is to tax the oil companies on their "windfall profits". How about governent foregoing the taxes they attach to gas purchases? They don't want to do that.

It seems to me that this is a national security issue and worthy of urgent action. We cannot continue to depend on places like the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Iraq), Venezuela, Mexico and Indonesia for our oil. These are unstable countries that, under a hostile government, could bring us to our knees. Not becoming energy-sufficient is unconscienceable.

What is more important, a few caribou in Alaska-or our national security?