Thursday, July 31, 2008

The LA Times Memos Regarding the John Edwards Story


LA Times Building- Hard at work on the third floor


Below are two internal LA Times memos from last week from Times' editors to the paper's bloggers in regards to the John Edwards story. The first memo, written by Editor Tony Pierce, was leaked last week to blogger Mickey Kaus of Kaus Files. It was read over the air on the John and Ken radio show (KFI 640 am).


Subject: john edwards
Hey bloggers,

There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his alleged affair. Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified.
If you have any questions or are ever in need of story ideas that would best fit your blog, please don't hesitate to ask

Keep rockin,
Tony



From: Artley, Meredith
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 11:59 AM
Subject: Hubbub

Hi everyone. Many of you have probably seen the Slate item titled “LAT Gags Blogs” citing Tony’s note asking you all to steer clear of the alleged Edwards affair. It’s now linked to from Drudge, and Gawker has an item too.

In the spirit of transparency I want to give some background on this, and to note how in hindsight we might have done things differently to avoid the discontent that led to yet another public poke in the eye.

Various colleagues on the 3rd floor have been working on reporting the story. I made the decision that while we are working on verifying if this has any truth to it, we should stay away from joining the fray. We still don’t know that, and national and metro are still pursuing.

Our message to you (I asked Tony to drop you guys the note) should have been more nuanced. I should have first not encouraged posting on this topic, but if any of you feel that you have a post you really to write, to please discuss it with Tony and myself first since we must always tread carefully on unverified stories. And I should have explained the thinking behind that decision. The idea was not to muzzle any of you and then walk away – that is never a recipe for success.

Russ, myself, Tony and all the editors you work with trust you guys to engage us in open and frank dialogue on just about anything that’s on your mind, and we’ll do the same. You have our confidence and we expect the same. We have a strong network thanks to all of the thoughts that many of you have shared, creating better blogs, growing the readership, and staying focused on the work and not the drama. Let’s keep that up and settle for nothing less.

Questions, thoughts, etc? Ask me or Tony.

Meredith Artley
Executive Editor, LATimes.com


Fousesquawk comment:

I have a couple of thoughts, Meredith.

Is this typical of what is going on in newspaper offices all over the country? How many other memos are floating around directing newspaper bloggers -or reporters- to stay away from the Edwards story?

Ms Artley states that Times reporters (on the third floor) are working on reporting the story. Apparently not very hard since not only did the National Enquirer get the scoop on them, but Fox News beat them to the security guard from the Beverly Hilton who was involved in the incident and confirmed much of the Enquirer's report.

Keep rockin, LA Times.

Is Obama Playing the Race Card? It Appears So

After an ugly Democratic Primary, where race raised its ugly head in a party that claims to be so egalitarian, now it seems to be emerging in the general election. This week, in Missouri, Barack Obama described criticism coming from the McCain campaign in this manner:

"....So, what they are trying to do is make you scared of me. You know, he's (Obama) not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills. You know, he's risky."

The McCain campaign (Rick Davis, McCain Campaign manager) reacted by accusing Obama of "playing the race card from the bottom of the deck."

I would agree, and here is why. First of all, who in the McCain campaign (or Republican Party) for that matter, has said anything about the fact that Obama doesn't look like previous presidents?

Who in the McCain campaign has tried to scare voters about Obama because of his name?

Are the Republicans trying to say that we should be afraid of an Obama presidency? Sure, why not? I am afraid of an Obama presidency. I am afraid of the policies he will institute if he is elected. I regard him as a leftist. I am conservative.

Is he risky? Absolutely. There is nothing wrong with making Obama's policies front and center.

Is there a question about his patriotism? Well, yes. I have not come to a final conclusion on this question, but given the language coming out of his church the past 20 years and some comments from his wife, I have to say that there is a bit of doubt. Thus, it is a legitimate campaign issue. Remember this:

"God D--- America!" (Jeremiah Wright)

"America is a really mean country" (Michelle Obama)

"For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud to be an American" (Michelle Obama).

But to get back to the race issue, in my mind, Obama is indeed playing the race card with this week's comments. In Berlin, he made a similar comment to the crowd reminding them that he didn't look like previous presidents who had visited Berlin.

I speak for myself here, but I think America is ready for an African-American president, a woman president, Hispanic president or Asian-American president. But it depends on who the person is and what his/her policies are. I am ready to vote for a black candidate for president, but it is not Barack Obama. There are some black Republican conservatives I find very attractive such as Michael Steele or Lynn Swann, but I don't think either one is ready to run for the office.

Frankly, I am burned out on the whole subject of race. Burned out or not, however, we have to continue addressing it. However, if Barack Obama intends to make this election a referendum on race, he is making a mistake. Originally, he said that if he lost his campaign it would not be because of his race rather because his message was not accepted by the voters. He should stick to that theme.

So who is he directing this argument to? Is it to the African-American electorate? Or is it to guilt-ridden white voters who would give him their votes to assuage their own guilt for America's racial past?

Let this election be decided on the future direction this country should take. Most Americans will turn away from Obama if he makes this a referendum on race. It will only bring back memories (still fresh) of Jeremiah Wright.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Obama is arrogant and starting to believe his press clippings as the "second coming of the Messiah." However, if he loses this election, it will not be because America is still a racist country. It will be because the American people looked closely at him-and found him wanting.

Mainstream News Media Press Conference on "The Missing Story"










"Today, we have nothing new to report. Since Fousesquawk is not sending us any new leads, the trail in the search for "The Missing Story" has run cold. We await further contact from Fousesquawk."

"But Sir, what about reports on the blogs that......."

"No comment."

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

In Defense of Lionheart










Which is more dangerous to the UK?


Several of us bloggers have been following the story of British blogger Lionheart. (Lionheart is the name of the blog and the pseudonym of the blogger.) You can find a link to Lionheart on this blog under the heading "Our real European allies".

While Lionheart writes about several topics, his main topic is the threat of radical Islam in the UK. Make no mistake, the UK has a serious threat. From the London bombings to the radical mosques and the open threats of violence towards anyone who criticizes Islam, there is a serious problem in the UK.

Unfortunately, most of the British institutions seem unwilling and/or afraid to stand up to the outrages. The order of the day is political correctness and accommodation to Muslims no matter how radical they may be.

Not so Lionheart. He calls a spade and spade. For that, he is the object of death threats. That would be bad enough, but it gets worse. In addition to the death threats, Lionheart is now the object of British prosecution-for "stirring up racial hatred", a vague charge that is covered in sections 18(1) and 27(3) of the 1986 Public Order Act.

How disgraceful of the British authorities. How ironic that Muslims can congregate in the mosques and on street corners threatening death, beheading, butchering, and massacring of anyone who "defames Islam" and that is just fine.

But let a British blogger call it what it is, and the authorities want to put him in jail-to placate the Muslim extremists.

People like Lionheart need the support of everyone, just as Muslims who speak out against terror and hate need our support. Of course, our American concepts of freedom of speech don't apply in Britain. Yet, the UK is supposed to be one of the world's free nations. It strikes this American as outrageous that a person can be prosecuted in a supposedly free country for saying what is obvious to all.

I suggest that my readers follow the case of Lionheart and its implications for freedom of speech and the West's resolve to stand up to radical Islamic intimidation.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

John Edwards and the Mainstream News Media- 7 Days and Counting


John Edwards: There is a big story out there about him. Do you know what it is? If you don't, why not?

Two Americas? Or two standards of journalism?


Hey Mainstream News Media! It has been one week now and still no story. What's the deal?

Vincent Bugliosi and His Book on Bush





I am old enough to remember the Manson murders, which occurred almost 40 years ago in Los Angeles. I was living in LA at the time and lived through the trial. I will be the first to state that the prosecutor in that case, Asst. DA Vincent Bugliosi did a great job of prosecuting that case and obtaining convictions and death sentences against Charles Manson and his followers (subsequently commuted to life imprisonment when the death penalty was successfully challenged.)

Subsequent to the trial, Bugliosi wrote an excellent book on the case (Helter Skelter).

Unfortunately, in recent years, Mr Bugliosi has made a post-prosecutorial career as a writer and commentator that, in my estimation, has detracted from his overall career. His book, Outrage, a criticism of the prosecutors who tried the OJ Simpson case, while probably correct in many respects, was to me an example of another legal figure jumping on the bandwagon and capitalizing on the most sensational murder case in recent memory. (Almost every legal figure involved in the trial later wrote a book on the trial, which I still consider unseemly.)

Now comes Mr Bugliosi with a book on the Bush Administration arguing that George W Bush and his top aides should be prosecuted for murder (The Prosecution of George W Bush for Murder). Based on what? Lying to the American people to get us into a war in Iraq, that's what.

First of all, Bugliosi is out of his area of expertise. If he opposes the War in Iraq, fine, I respect that. However, as a prosecutor, he should know that there were arguable reasons why Bush launched the attack against Iraq. Virtually every intelligence service that mattered believed that Saddam was pursuing the development of weapons of mass destruction. After all, he had already used chemical weapons against Iran and against his own people who revolted after the first Gulf War.

In addition, after 9-11, it is clear that the Bush Administration was determined to prevent further terrorist attacks on American soil. It can also be (legally) argued that Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of surrender in the first Gulf War. In addition, Iraq was in violation of 17 United Nations resolutions pertaining to the issue of WMD.

Now read this carefully. I am not trying to destroy the arguments of those who were and are opposed to our attack on Iraq. That is not the point here. My point is that an experienced prosecutor like Bugliosi should recognize the obvious defense arguments that Bush et al would raise. If a law enforcement agency were to bring a request for indictment to Mr Bugliosi, he would have to examine the case not only from a point of view as to whether a crime had been committed and whether the suspect had committed the crime, but also how strong the case was. Was there a reasonable doubt? Were there points of defense that could be raised-such as I outlined above? Would a jury be swayed by arguments showing the torture chambers, rape rooms and mass graves in Iraq under Saddam? Mr Bugliosi knows that these are considerations that a prosecutor must take into account-and probably present to a committee of his fellow prosecutors for a consensus decision on whether to proceed.

I know what I am talking about here. As a former DEA Agent-and Customs agent before that, I had several experiences when I presented a case to the US Attorney's Office or a local prosecutor for prosecution-and was told to go out and get more evidence. It wasn't that the prosecutor felt that the suspect(s) were innocent-just that there was a question that a conviction could be obtained.

It is easy for Bugliosi to grandstand and advocate the prosecution of Bush et al for murder. He doesn't have access to the intelligence and thinking that went into the decision to invade Iraq-and he knows it. What Bugliosi is doing is the same thing he did with his book, Outrage. He is trying to cash in on a controversial issue.

Vincent Bugliosi is entitled to his opinion on the Iraq War. He knows, however, that using American rules of evidence and independent of partisan emotion, a conviction is doubtful at best. The only reason he would take such a case on as prosecutor would be for his own self-aggrandizement.

Ted Stevens Indicted


Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK)


As many long suspected, Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) has been indicted on federal corruption charges involving lying about favors and gifts he received. Everyone in Washington knew the senator was in trouble when the FBI served a search warrant on his Alaska home last year. According to the charges, Stevens lied to conceal over $250,000 worth of gifts and home renovation services he received from an oil contractor seeking favorable treatment from the government.

The 84-year-old Stevens has been around the political scene forever, building a reputation for pork barrel politics and abrasiveness. He is the longest-serving Republican in the Senate. Now he stands accused of criminal corruption.

I have no opinion on the charges, and Stevens is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Yet, this is just one more black eye for the Republican Party and politics in general. What is the public to think of our elected leaders? Is it now commonly accepted that our politicians are in office to feather their own nests, make a fortune and have a fantastic sex life? From mayors to governors to congresspeople and yes, to senators-it seems that everybody is in politics for their own interests-not because they want to serve their country and the people.

Of course, that is not completely fair. There are decent and dedicated politicians who are not corrupt. However, they all suffer when a bad apple is uncovered. And it must be stated here, bad apples in politics are not an aberration these days. There are a lot of them. It has reached the point where Congress has got to start policing their own-in more draconian fashion. Yet, I suspect that there are many in Congress today who are thinking that they could take a fall themselves.

This should not be a partisan issue. Yes, political junkies on both sides have greatly delighted in watching a politician from the opposing party get caught with his/her hand in the cookie jar, so they could crow about "the culture of corruption". But the reality is that this is a cancer that infects both parties at all levels.

How did we get to this point? is there something about our political system that is conducive to corruption? Apparently so. I think we as voters have to look in the mirror and accept our share of the blame. Why do we vote for any political candidate? Because of party loyalty? Is it due to agreement on the issues? Is it because a candidate is charismatic and speaks well? Is it because the incumbent has a proven record of bringing home the pork? How much do we really care about integrity and character? That last point is open to question when you look at so many of the characters we have put into office in recent years, both Democrat and Republican.

Though I am an independent, being conservative, I have always voted Republican. For that reason, I care about the quality of Republicans in office. The indictment of Stevens is another black eye for the Republican Party. Without passing judgement on his guilt or innocence, his continued presence in the Senate can only further embarrass his party.

He should resign. Now.

Earthquake in LA- Villaraigosa on the Job


Don't worry, Wolf. I got it under control, right boys?"


In case you have not heard yet, the greater Los Angeles area had a 5.8 earthquake today. Although it was felt in Orange County, I didn't feel a thing since I was driving my car. I was listening to Al Rantel's radio talk show when he began telling the audience and the guy he was talking with on the telephone about it. As of this evening, there was minimal damage and apparently no injuries.

Any time there is big news coming out of LA, the city's empty suit, playboy mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa is usually good for a few laughs, and today was no exception. Today, he was being interviewed over the phone by CNN's hapless Wolf Blitzer. The mayor reassured Blitzer that everything was fine in the city, that he had been briefed by all his emergency response people, that he was in touch with everyone he needed to be in touch with and he had a handle on everything. (I am paraphrasing, which is always a good idea when reporting anything Villaraigosa says.)

At this point, a breathless Blitzer asked the mayor where he was when the earthquake struck. (At the risk of digressing, I am reminded of watching CNN International at the time of the 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan. The CNN anchor was speaking by phone with an American man who claimed to be in Kobe and was relating details of the earthquake. Then the anchor asked the man where he was when the earthquake struck, and his answer was, "I was lying across Howard Stern's lap, and he was spanking me."

But, of course, I digress. Villaraigosa, when asked the same question, told Blitzer, "Uh, ...well, I was uh, where I am now, in London on vacation."

Of course, Villaraigosa is a well-traveled man, who usually is out of town, most recently having criss-crossed the country as Hillary Clinton's national campaign co-chairman. When LA had last year's Immigration demonstration fracas, the mayor was conveniently in El Salvador, possibly guessing that trouble was on the way.

At any rate, don't worry. LA is fine-thanks to its illustrious mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, who is "on the job".

Monday, July 28, 2008

A Comparison Between Decent Germans in the Third Reich and Today's Decent Muslims

This message was sent to me by a friend. I am posting it because I think it says what needs to be said about the Islamic threat. It also needs to be read by all decent Muslims who do not subscribe to Jihad/terror.

The author of this email is said to be Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well known and well respected psychiatrist. (I have no personal knowledge of this individual.)

A German's View on Islam

A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II,
owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. "Very few people were true Nazis," he said, "but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories."

We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads" that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor- kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque.

It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape
victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.

The hard quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the
"silent majority," is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live
in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the
murder of about20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.

China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese
Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace loving"?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our posers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.

Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world wide, read this and think about it, and send it on - before it's too late.


Emanuel Tanay, M.D.

Fousesquawk comment:

This is a very cogent message-both to the West and to decent Muslims world-wide. The fact of the matter is that otherwise decent Muslims are being made irrelevant by their silence in the face of the atrocities that are being carried out in the name of Islam. Even more so, we non-Muslims must recognize and support those Muslims who have chosen to speak out against Islamic terror and intimidation. They put their lives on the line, and we must make it clear that we stand with them and will protect them if necessary.

Thank you, Dr Tanay, whoever you are and wherever you are for putting it in perspective.

Does the Bush Administration Support its Border Patrol?

Today it was reported that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the convictions of ex-Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who are serving prison sentences of 10 and 11 years as a result of the shooting of a Mexican drug smuggler in 2005. While the most serious charges were upheld, cover-up charges (for not reporting the shooting incident) were thrown out

I have previously written about the case and advocated that the two agents should have received a pardon. To date, they have not. I still believe they should get a pardon. From a strictly legal point of view, I was troubled by the fact that jurors were never told that the shooting victim was subsequently arrested for smuggling drugs-while he was a cooperating witness. I felt-and still do that this was information that should have been disclosed to the jury and would constitute reversible error.

The case and the conduct of the US Attorney, Johnny Sutton, who is a close personal friend of President Bush, has raised questions about the support (or lack thereof) that the Administration and its Justice Department has given to its Border Patrol. Many have charged that the Mexican Government unduly pressured the American Government to prosecute the agents.

These suspicions can only be reinforced by the latest incident, in which Border Patrol Agent Luis Aguilar was run down and killed by a Mexican drug smuggler who has been identified as Jesus Navarro Montes. The incident happened January 19, 2008. Navarro was arrested by Mexican police in northern Mexico a few days later and held on unrelated charges.

At this point, the story becomes very murky. In June, Navarro was released from jail in Mexicali when he was cleared of an unrelated alien smuggling charge, which sparked outrage on the US side, while Dept. of Homeland Security Chief, Michael Cherthof expressed shock. The question is at this point, what extradition steps were taken by the US to have Navarro turned over to US custody?

On June 25, Mexican Embassy spokesman, Ricardo Alday stated that "the US to this date, has presented neither a provisional order (request) of arrest for Mr Navarro Montes nor a formal extradition request." (LA Times June 25, 2008) On July 24, USA Today reported Alday stating to AP that the US presented a "provisional arrest request for extradition" more than a week after Navarro's June 18 release.

So what did the US Government do to request extradition after Navarro was arrested in Mexico?

Representative Brian Bilbray (R-CA), who represents an area of San Diego near the border, is pressing the Justice Department for information relative to its efforts to have Navarro extradited. In other words, did the Justice Department provide a timely request for provisional arrest and extradition request to Mexico, and if so, when?

It seems incredible that in a case involving the murder of an American agent that there would be any delay whatsoever.

Bilbray states that the Justice Department has apparently committed a huge blunder and is trying to learn the facts. It has not been easy.

White House Counsel, Fred Fielding reportedly wrote Bilbray that the White House is leaving the case to the Justice Department to pursue, but "we are watching this matter closely to ensure that justice is done." (USA Today-July 24, 2008)

Deputy Asst. Attorney General Keith Nelson reportedly wrote to Bilbray informing him that Justice "personnel were in communication with Mexican officials about this matter very soon after the death of Agent Aguilar", but that the department was unable to offer more information. (USA Today 7-24-2008)

In addition, Bilbray has been told by the Justice Department and the White House that they "were unable to offer an explanation, saying that information sought by Congress would inevitably compromise highly sensitive law enforcement investigative information."

And the US Attorney's Office in San Diego? No comment.

As a retired DEA Agent, I remember vividly in 1985 when DEA Agent Enrique Camarena was kidnapped by drug traffickers in Guadalajara, Mexico and tortured to death (with the connivance of Mexican police). The US Goverment, Justice Department and Treasury Department moved heaven and earth to find Cararena and arrest his murderers. The head of US Customs personally ordered the closing of the Mexican-US border. After the bodies of Camarena and his pilot were discovered, DEA and the Justice Department pushed the Mexican Government and police to pursue true justice. The ringleader of the gang was captured in Costa Rica and other members of the group were arrested in Mexico. Still others were prosecuted in the US.

That was under the Reagan Justice Department. What a sad contrast to today.

While I support President Bush in many areas, the whole border/illegal immigration issue is not one of them. Not only has this administration failed to secure our border, but it has not adequately supported our Border Patrol in its vital and dangerous mission.

They owe it to the public and to the Border Patrol to give a full accounting as to why extradition was not in place when Navarro was cut loose by the Mexicans.

The LA Times Finally Reports on the San Francisco Sanctuary Murder Case


San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and Jennifer Siebel


After more than a month, the LA Times, after much criticism, has finally decided to run a story about the San Francisco murder case in which an illegal alien gang member with two felony convictions is accused of murdering a family of three this June. The story ran Saturday.

The Times story was little more than a re-write of previous articles reported by the San Francisco Chronicle and AP, plus an interview of a family member of the murder victims. As for any independent inquiry by the Times or new information not already known to the public, the was nothing added.

Yet, the Times had to insert the following paragraph to suit their own liberal agenda:

"Immigration activists have embraced the grieving family using the June 22 deaths of Anthony, Matthew and Michael Bologna to call for change. Conservative broadcasters have vilified the city and its officials all week."

Read what you will into that paragraph. Yes, conservative broadcasters have vilified the city and its officials. Why not? The three victims would be alive today if not for San Francisco's Sanctuary policy. The accused, Edwin Ramos, a 21-year-old member of the vicious Salvadoran gang, MS-13, should have been turned over to ICE after his previous violent felony convictions when he was 17-or after he was detained on a gun investigation this past April.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. It has recently been disclosed that the city has been shipping illegal alien juvenile offenders to "youth homes" in other parts of the state such as San Bernadino County, from which they walk away. One case involved a group of Honduran crack dealers.

And as the Bologna family grieves, and Danielle Bologna, the widow of the murdered father, tries to put her life back together, San Francisco's playboy mayor, Gavin Newsom, who is largely and unapologetically responsible for this disgrace, tied the knot for the second time this past weekend, this time with some actress named Jennifer Siebel at her father's ranch in Montana. A quiet affair it was not. Numerous high-flyers attended, including none other than Nancy Pelosi and others who arrived on the Google jet. Participants reportedly rode to the service on horseback. Honeymoon? You bet, in Africa no less. Nothing but the best for San Francisco's narcissistic mayor.

And nothing for his law-abiding citizens like Danielle Bologna.

Sunday, July 27, 2008

My Letter to The Nation

In regards to the on-going controversy over anti-Semitism at UC-Irvine, the liberal publication, The Nation, recently published an article by UCI professor, Jon Wiener, in which he attributes the transfer of a Jewish professor (Daniel Schroeter) from UCI to the University of Minnesota to pressure from "right-wing Zionists" in the UCI community who allegedly put undue pressure on Schroeter to speak out about anti-Semitism at UCI. Wiener also blames "right-wing Zionists" for fanning the flames at UCI and basically defended the university administration. His article may be viewed at:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080707/wiener

This week, I assisted UCI Professor Seymour Menton in sending a critical response to Wiener's article through The Nation's blog. It also may be viewed on The Nation's blog.

This morning, I have sent my own response to The Nation, which is below:


"As one who has been a part-time teacher at the University of California at Irvine since 1998, I would like to respond to Jon Wiener’s recent article in your publication on the on-going issue between the Muslim Student Union (MSU) and Irvine‘s Jewish community.

Leaving aside the controversy over Daniel Schroeter‘s decision to leave UCI, an issue I am not qualified to comment on, there is no question in my mind from my own observations over the years at UCI that the MSU has been guilty of bringing radical, hateful speakers to UCI over the years. Many of these speakers are not only anti-Israel, but anti-Jewish and anti-America as well. Anti-Semitism (on the part of the MSU) is a problem at UCI. To borrow a line from professor Wiener, I should know. I teach there too.

Virtually every quarter, the MSU brings in Oakland based imam, Amir Abdel Malik Ali. This is a man who not only condemns Israel and the US, but calls suicide bombers in Israel heroes and martyrs. He defends organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Another controversial speaker is Abdul Alim Musa, a Washington-based imam, who is an ally of the above two organizations and Iran. He speaks of the day when Islam will take over the US.

Then there is Mohammed Al-Asi, another frequent speaker at UCI sponsored by the MSU. This imam is also a supporter of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranian Government. In previous speeches at UCI, he has referred to Jews as “low life ghetto dwellers” and said, “you can take the Jew out of the ghetto, but you can’t take the ghetto out of the Jew.” In his last appearance at UCI in May, in which I was present, he gave ominous warnings to the Jews to get out of “Palestine” before it is too late. (I am paraphrasing.)

Also, during the MSU-sponsored events in May, they erected a mock wall depicting the wall Israel has erected to keep out suicide bombers. On that wall were numerous photos, phrases and slogans. Most notably, there was a cartoon depiction of Ariel Sharon drawn in the old style of Julius Streicher’s Der Stuermer, a notorious anti-Semitic newspaper of the Third Reich. The picture showed Sharon with all the stereotypical Jewish features, huge hooked nose, big lips and a leering expression on his face. That drawing remained there for an entire week.

These are examples of why I consider the MSU to be sympathetic to terrorism directed against Israel and to be anti-Semitic (though they deny it).

In addition, I have nothing but criticism for the administration at UCI. They deny charges of anti-Semitism at UCI and defend “free speech”. I too defend free speech. No one is dragging these hateful characters off to jail and I don’t advocate that. However, I call this what it is-hate speech. I also believe that the UCI administration has been indifferent to Jewish complaints of anti-Semitism at the university. They have failed to provide a safe and peaceful environment for their Jewish students.

Wiener, in his article, passes off complaints as coming from “right-wing” Zionists” and three Republican senators. His repeated use of the term, “right-wing Zionists” betrays his political agenda. Anti-Semitic hate speech should not be an issue of liberal vs. conservative nor an item of concern for only Jewish Zionists. Reasonable people can disagree on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. However, for this issue to lead to expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment on an American campus is wrong.

As I have stated repeatedly, 99% of the students at UCI are not involved in this ugliness. There are two problems; a radical MSU and an indifferent administration and faculty . As a result, what should be a great university has acquired a notorious national reputation-which, as far as I am concerned, it deserves.

Gary C Fouse
Adjunct teacher
University of California Ext"

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Obamamania and the Germans




I have paid particular attention to the German aspect of Barack Obama's trip for many reasons. The spectacle of the Berlin speech struck me as grossly overdone in terms of location, the tone of the speech and the presence of 200,000 viewers. It would have been much more appropriate for a visiting American president than for a candidate-even one with Obama's ego.

In light of Germany's history, eyebrows have also been raised about the reaction of Germans to Obama's presence. The sight of 200,000 Germans wildly cheering a charismatic and gifted speaker brings back troubling memories for many even if, as I would insist, this is a new Germany-not the Germany of the 1930s and 40s.

I have a personal connection to Germany. I first set foot on German soil in 1966 as a young American soldier. I spent two and a half years there, almost all of that period in Erlangen, a university town 20 kilometers from Nuremberg. In subsequent years, I became sort of an amateur scholar on the history of the Third Reich. Being greatly attached to Germany, I have returned countless times and eventually wrote a history of Erlangen a few years back. I freely admit that I am a Germanophile, and I think the Germans are basically a good and decent people. I also maintain that Germany, at least since the 1960s, has admirably met its responsibility to confront and acknowledge its past, much as we Americans have acknowledged our history of slavery and discrimination.

My reaction to the Obama appearance in Germany is a little different. I never expected for a second that the crowd was going to break out in "Sieg Heils". My question is why Obama met with such an overwhelming reaction in Berlin.

During my last trip to Erlangen in June, I met with several friends and colleagues who are professional people in the university, education and politics. I also spoke at a local gymnasium English class. Everyone is interested in the American election. Yet, as much as the Germans are interested in America, I sense that their knowledge about our country, its people and institutions is rather superficial even for educated people. For example, everybody wanted to know about Obama, yet few had any knowledge about John McCain. Some were not even sure about his name. I sensed also that many of the people I spoke to had high expectations for what a President Obama would accomplish. Why is this? (For that matter, why do so many Americans have such an inflated image of this man-one not justified by his experience and accomplishments?) Is it because of the novelty of his ethnic background-or his youthful appearance-or his speaking ability?

Or is it that Germans look to Obama to end the war in Iraq, end all wars and bring peace to the world?

That is an aspect that deserves more attention. The Germans lost two disastrous world wars in the 20th century, each one bringing misery to the German nation and its people. The last one also brought international damnation upon Germany and a legacy that they are still trying to overcome. The last thing Germans want to see is another world war. That is understandable and should be respected.

While German pacifism is certainly understandable, I suspect they are forgetting one lesson of Hitler and the Nazi era. That I would call the lesson of Munich and Neville Chamberlain in 1938. There are certain people who cannot be negotiated with. In that category, I place people like Hitler and Islamic fanatics. They are fanatical and they are evil. During the Cold War, we could negotiate with the Soviets because, whatever they were, they were not irrational. The idea of mutual assured destruction was always in their minds. Today's enemies, people like Al-Qaida, Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah, are not rational. They don't care if the world goes up in flames. They don't care if they die-as long as their version of Islam triumphs world-wide. What is there to negotiate? We can leave Iraq tomorrow, and our enemies will not lay down their arms. Furthermore, Germany and the rest of Europe are just as threatened as America.

Dennis Prager is an LA-based talk show host whom I respect greatly. He is a practicing Jew, who also says that the Germany of today has done an admirable job of acknowledging its past-much more so than some other countries who were on the wrong side of World War 2. Yet, in discussing the Germans and the Obama speech in Berlin, Prager made the point (and I am paraphrasing)that there is a vast difference between fighting evil and the notion that fighting is evil.

I think that is a point worthy of thought on both sides of the Atlantic.

Friday, July 25, 2008

San Francisco's Shame

Twice during the past week or so, I have listened to radio interviews with Danielle Bologna, the San Francisco woman whose husband and two sons were senselessly gunned down in San Francisco, allegedly by Edwin Ramos, an illegal alien gang member and convicted felon who was protected from ICE by the city under its "Sanctuary City" policy. (See my previous posts.)

Both times, I have heard Mrs Bologna on the radio, she has been unable to keep from breaking down while discussing what happened to her family. To hear her words is truly heartbreaking.

It is also enraging. Special outrage has to be reserved for San Francisco's mayor, Gavin Newsom. He is largely responsible for the policy that led to the deaths of three innocent people. Yet, he is unapologetic about the policy and prefers to pass the buck about Ramos' release from jail prior to the killings-blaming federal authorities.

When asked by interviewers if she had been contacted by the mayor or any other city officials, Mrs Bologna replied in the negative-nothing. Not one word. Newsom had been invited to the Rosary, but didn't even bother to RSVP.

Such is the man who is mayor of San Francisco. Such is the man who may well be California's next governor. Such is the nature of the radical leftists who run the city of San Francisco.

This weekend, Newsom is getting married in Montana. As he celebrates his joyous occasion and starts a new family, one of his constituents in San Francisco is mourning the loss of hers.

John Edwards and the National Enquirer Story



L-R John Edwards-Rielle Hunter








At this point, I think it is appropriate to call a halt to the little game I have been playing dropping "clues" to the Mainstream News Media and "The Missing Story". Everyone in the news business knows what the story is. Sadly, most of the American public is still unaware of a story that the MSM does not want to print-though eventually, they will have to. This week, I have been astounded at the number of my friends and colleagues, well-educated and well-informed people, who had no idea of what happened this week in Beverly Hills. The story is a result of the investigation by the controversial tabloid, the National Enquirer, a source that many are understandably unwilling to accept. Yet, the story is not based on some anonymous source, but the observations of several Enquirer reporters themselves. Additional details have come out from other sources. This is a story that is clearly legitimate. The subject of the story is former North Carolina Senator, former presidential candidate and vice-presidential candidate, John Edwards.

First of all, there are a number of reasons why this is a story of legitimate public interest. Edwards is still a public figure and is rumored to be on Barack Obama's short list for VP candidate. He is also rumored to be under consideration as Attorney General in an Obama administration. The story goes directly to the judgement, veracity and character of a man who would be in such a position.

Last year, while Edwards was running for the presidential nomination, rumors surfaced (by the Enquirer) that he was involved in an affair with a woman named Rielle Hunter and that Hunter was pregnant with Edwards' child. Both Edwards and Hunter denied the story. Later, an Edwards campaign aide named Andrew Young came forth and stated that he (Young-a married man) was the actual father of the baby.

At that point, the story seemed to die. However, the Enquirer continued to believe that there was something to the story.

What follows below is from the Enquirer story published this week, as well as an interview today of Enquirer Editor, David Perel on the John and Ken Radio Show (KFI 640 Los Angeles).

This Monday, while Edwards was in Los Angeles making an appearance with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the Enquirer learned that Hunter and her infant would be staying in the Beverly Hilton Hotel. Further, that two rooms (246-252) had been rented by Hunter's friend, a certain Bob McGovern. Acting on the belief that Edwards would show up at the hotel, a team of seven reporters set up a surveillance.

According to the Enquirer article, at about 9:45 pm, Edwards was observed being dropped off at a side entrance to the hotel. Edwards reportedly looked around nervously before entering the hotel, avoiding the lobby and proceeding down side stairs to the basement where he took an elevator. Later, reporters observed Edwards and Hunter leave the hotel, then return.

At 240 am, Edwards was observed leaving the hotel through the basement, at which time, he was confronted by reporters. According to the article, reporter Alexander Hitchen asked Edwards why he was visiting Hunter, and if he would admit being the father of her baby. At this point, Edwards, without saying a word, ran up the stairs in the direction of the lobby. Seeing another reporter in front of him, Edwards turned and ran into a restroom where he attempted to barricade the door with his body to prevent the reporters from entering. After about 15 minutes, a hotel security guard arrived on the scene and escorted Edwards out of the hotel.

According to the Enquirer, several hotel guests observed the incident from a stairwell.

It should also be added here that the Enquirer believes that the Edwards campaign had engineered an elaborate charade to cover up the fact that Edwards is the father of Hunter's child, and that this cover-up involved having Young come forward as the father of the baby.

The Enquirer is also reporting (and this was also stated by Mr Perel today on the radio) that Young is still married and furthermore, Hunter was a dinner guest at the Youngs after his "admission" became public. According to the Enquirer, Young had brought Hunter to Chapel Hill, North Carolina to live in a nearby gated community.

On Wednesday of this week, Edwards was making an appearance at a poverty event in Houston when he was asked by a reporter if the incident in Los Angeles would harm his VP chances. Edwards said that he didn't want to talk about tabloid trash and lies and that he was (in Houston) to help people (I am paraphrasing). Then, on Thursday, in New Orleans, a reporter asked him about the incident, and Edwards replied that he had no idea what the reporter was talking about, but that he had already addressed those allegations.

Mr Perel also advised the John and Ken Show that the Enquirer was filing a complaint against Hilton Hotel Security for impeding them from doing their jobs.

It was also reported on the above show that KFI had received a leaked memo from LA Times editor, Tony Pierce to the papers bloggers directing them not to discuss the Edwards incident in their blog. The memo was read on the air today.

Finally, Fox News is reporting that they have interviewed the security guard who responded to the incident. He reported that the scene was one of bedlam with Edwards blocking the rest room door from reporters who were shouting questions and trying to enter. The guard described Edwards as "ashen and shaken".

So there we are. At this point, what we have is a very detailed story by the National Enquirer outlining the observations of their own reporters. We have Edwards' evasive responses, and we have the Fox News interview of the security guard. As it stands, this story is known all over the news media but reported only by certain outlets and bloggers.

Let us concede for the sake of argument that the Enquirer is a questionable source. Is there now not enough detail for the major news networks and newspapers to launch their own inquiries and report the story? Why are they not reporting this story? Is it because they don't find it newsworthy since Edwards is no longer a senator or candidate for president? I would refute that since he is still mentioned as a VP candidate or future attorney general.

Let us also remember that when he was running for president, Edwards put his family front and center. He portrayed himself as a family man. He drew criticism from many when he decided to continue his presidential campaign even though his wife was suffering from cancer. He denied being involved in an affair with Ms Hunter. It seems ludicrous for anyone to defend keeping this story under wraps.

The fact of the matter is I can only see two reasons for the MSM to be trying to keep the lid on this story. First and foremost, Edwards is a liberal Democrat. Had he been a Republican, the whole nation would be aware of it by now. Remember not so long ago when the New York Times was trying to develop a story about a John McCain affair? There is clearly a different standard. Tonight, since Fox News has jumped into the investigation, the matter was discussed on Hannity and Colmes. Sure enough, Alan Colmes weakly tried to make the case that Edwards is not really a public figure now and, thus, the story is not important.

Secondly, could it be that the media is trying to keep this thing from exploding while Obama is on his big trip to the Middle East and Europe? In other words, could it be that the media does not want anything to steal the limelight from Obama?

One thing seems clear to me. If the MSM is hoping this story doesn't have legs, they are in a state of denial. It is only a matter of a couple of days before the public at large becomes aware of what kind of man John Edwards really is. Then, when that outrage dies down, the public can ask what kind of news media we have in this country that attempts to control what is and isn't news according to their political agenda. Those that refuse to believe anything from the National Enquirer will have to face a more painful dilemma.

What are they to think of the LA Times, the NY Times, the Washington Post and all the other news organs that knew this story was out there and tried to bury it?

Thursday, July 24, 2008

The Missing Story- The Final Clue


Every dog has his day


It seems every clue I pass on to the Mainstream News Media is fruitless. They just can't find the missing story-even when it's right in front of their eyes.

So here goes one last try. If they can't get it this time, there is no hope. Anyway, here goes (This should be the $100 dollar question on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?").

Now MSM, read carefully. On the right hand column of the front page of this blog, scroll down until you get to the NEWS heading.

Directly under that, in big bold letters, is THE MISSING STORY- again in big bold letters. Got it?

Double click.

And behold the hidden treasure.

PS: For those readers who depend on the Mainstream Media for your news, feel free to click on THE MISSING STORY as well. It's free.

The Pied Piper Comes to Berlin


"Obama! Obama!"


The much-anticipated Obama speech at the Winged Victory Column in Berlin has now taken place in front of 200,000 Germans. Quite a spectacle by all accounts. The crowd was ecstatic and wildly cheering. They chanted his name, "Obama! Obama!". Young girls swooned, and mothers held their babies up in their air. The candidate put on one of his great stemwinder speeches. His oratory was flowing. The words rang out to the heavens. He referred to himself as a proud American and a fellow "citizen of the World". He talked of bridging the divides between peoples. He talked of fighting global warming. He talked of saving the farmlands from Kansas to Kenya. He.....

Basically, he said nothing. But he said it so beautifully.

"People of Berlin! People of the World! This is the moment! Our time has come!"

So now, the Germans, to be followed in short order by the French and the Brits, are showing their love for "Obama the Great" and telling us rube Americans who they want to be our next president.

But those Europeans are supposed to be so.....sophisticated. Surely, they would see through the empty rhetoric and the generalities. "Where's the beef", they would say. "What specifically are you going to do?" The Germans, especially, have historical experience with stirring speakers who only lead the country.....well, you know what I mean. (No, I am not suggesting for one moment that Obama is another Hitler. What I am saying is that a great speaker is ....a great speaker, period.)
But I am obviously naive. Obama is clearly Europe's sweetheart-especially since he is a "Citizen of the World".

But I sure do take issue with Obama's statement that he came to Berlin not as part of a campaign. Nonsense. Setting up an outdoor event designed to draw 200,000 people is a campaign event-even if no one in the crowd was eligible to vote. This was clearly designed to show the folks back home that everyone in the World will love America again-if only Obama is our president.

What brazen arrogance. Aside from convincing me that he is an empty suit politician who lacks the experience and judgement to be president, now he has demonstrated that he is a megalomaniac. He has taken his case out of America and to other countries-over the heads of the American people in a sense.

And who are his accomplices? For one, the Mainstream Media that chose to send their three network anchors along to document and record this "historic" voyage by one "citizen".

The other accomplices are the Europeans, who have been so hoodwinked by the charisma of this candidate that they provide a backdrop for this cynical campaign.

Perhaps a more sober evaluation comes from Israelis, who are not wholly convinced that Obama will take their side vis-a vis the Palestinians. Before jetting to Germany, Obama made an early morning appearance at Jerusalem's Western Wall, where at least one protestor shouted out, "Jerusalem is not for sale, Obama".

Final note: It was reported on one talk show today that "Obama the Great" cancelled a scheduled stop at a US Military base in Germany to visit soldiers while adding two more hours to his German stop in order to catch a gym workout at the Ritz Hotel. (I cannot vouch for the accuracy of that report.)

Still Searching for the Missing Story






Top picture: ABC News investigative reporters looking for the Missing Story

Middle picture: CBS investigative reporter looking for the Missing Story

Bottom picture: NBC investigative reporters looking for the Missing Story

Another Clue for the MSM



"Excuse us, Sir, could we have a statement please? Sir...Sir? We know you're in there."

It has now been 48 hours, and still the Mainstream News Media is unable to find the Missing Story. So, in the spirit of the Public's right to know, here is yet another clue.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

48 Hours- Time is Running Out, Mainstream Media


You know that TV detective show, 48 Hours? It shows municipal police departments rushing to get leads in murder investigations. Usually featured are the Memphis, Miami and Kansas City PDs. The premise is that once detectives are notified about a homicide, they have 48 hours to get a solid lead or their chances of solving the crime are cut in half.

Well, while no crime has been committed, the vaunted investigative reporters of the Mainstream News Media have thus far failed to pick up any leads on a major news story almost 48 hours since it happened (about 40 hours).

So, in the spirit of helping the MSM crack this story, I am giving them yet another clue.

Who is the woman in the above picture?

The Mess in Sanctuary San Francisco


Gavin Newsom


Today, accused murderer Edwin Ramos appeared in Criminal Court in San Francisco and entered a plea of "not guilty". Meanwhile, more details are coming out about how the City of San Francisco shielded Ramos from ICE prior to the murders of three people taking place in June.

As reported, Ramos was twice convicted of felony offenses four years ago when he was 17. In April of this year, Ramos was detained by San Francisco police when a car he was riding in was stopped and a passenger was found trying to dispose of a handgun that had been used just the day before in a double homicide. Eventually, it was decided that Ramos would not be charged, and he was released. At some point, the San Francisco Sheriff's Department sent an immigration inquiry to ICE. At this point, ICE and the City of San Francisco are pointing fingers at each other. ICE states that, according to their records, the only communication they received from SFSD was at 3:44 am on April 2. They then processed Ramos' name and learned that he was subject to a deportation order, at which time, they sent a message back to SFSD to hold onto Ramos. The problem was that Ramos had already been released at 1:55 am. So, accordingt to ICE, Ramos had already been released before they received the notification from SFSD.

Why would SFSD send an immigration inquiry to ICE if they had already released the person, you ask? Well, it seems that the San Francisco jail receives reimbursement from the feds for housing federal prisoners-which apparently would include those subject to the jurisdiction of ICE-in other words, illegal aliens.

The San Francisco Chronicle, which is following the story, has just interviewed Mayor Gavin Newsom, who has made a couple of interesting comments. Newsom is pointing the finger of blame at ICE. During the interview, Newsom claimed that the city turned Ramos over to federal authorities, and "they chose not to deport him." In a separate answer, Newsom stated that the City turned Ramos over to federal authorities and they "chose not to pick him up."

Which is it, Mayor Newsom? Did ICE choose not to pick Ramos up or choose not to deport him? Did San Francisco actually turn Ramos over to ICE, and how would that square with "they chose not to pick him up"?

One thing is clear. ICE never had custody of Ramos. Somebody is lying here, and it appears to be Mayor Newsom. The Mayor of San Francisco is lying, you ask? This is the same Gavin Newsom who, not too long ago, was having an affair with the wife of his chief of staff.

At least the San Francisco Chronicle is following the story. Not so the LA Times, which still has seen fit to report the story. That makes TWO stories the LA Times is missing out on; one that occurred in San Francisco-and another right in their own back yard. What story is that, you ask?

Be patient.

More Clues




Several hours have passed, and still, the Mainstream Media can't seem to find the hidden treasure (story). So here are a couple of more clues.

By now, I assume the msm is outside the hotel I pictured in my last posting. However, the trail has apparently run cold, so here are the next clues:

Rooms 246 and 252.

Talk to a man named Bob McGovern.

See above picture.

Another Clue for the Mainstream News Media




Apparently, my earlier clues (see previous post) were not sufficient for the Mainstream News Media to find The Missing Story. So to help "The Big Boys" in the MSM find the missing treasure, I am posting another clue.

Follow the treasure map.

A Helpful Tip to the Mainstream Media




Attention all you Mainstream Media outlets! I know all your reporters are out of the country following Barack Obama, but you are missing out on a big story right here at home. But fear not. Allow Fousesquawk to gently lead you to it.

Now here is clue number one:

Los Angeles (are you reading this, LA Times?)

Here is clue number two:

Yesterday morning (wee small hours)

For clue number three, see the picture above.

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Will This Man Be Back in the News?



Stand by.

The Ramos Case in San Francisco- LA Times Takes No Note

Kudos to the John and Ken Show on KFI Radio (640 AM)in Los Angeles for picking up on the outrageous case in San Francisco, where an illegal alien gang member, Edwin Ramos, is charged with the senseless murder of a family of three (see my previous post).

Yesterday, John and Ken interviewed the widow of Tony Bologna and mother of two murdered sons, Danielle Bologna.

Today, the two radio jocks pointed out that the LA Times, while ignoring the story in San Francisco, has chosen to publish a sob story about an American woman from Kentucky who married an illegal alien from Mexico. Unfortunately for her, her husband could not be admitted into the US because he had been caught sneaking into the country on two prior occasions. Thus, the poor woman is now forced to live with her husband in Mexico (Tijuana).

Sorry, but this is a case of free choice. The woman chose to marry the man and has chosen to live with him in Mexico. What is the problem?

One LA Times reader, wondering why the Times would place so much emphasis on one story while ignoring the other, decided to call the Times today and ask for an explanation. Unable to reach the writer of the article, Anna Gorman, she spoke to her editor, Carlos Lozano, who expressed total ignorance of the story in San Francisco (Some editor). After a back and forth with Mr Lozano, she was basically told that both parties would have to agree to disagree. (The lady was interviewed on John and Ken's Show today.)

It is obvious that to the LA Times, the plight of this Kentucky woman is of more importance than the fact that three innocent Americans were senselessly killed by an illegal alien who had already been arrested on at least two occasions-and never turned over to ICE. As far as the story in San Francisco is concerned, the LA Times does not even want to know.

Monday, July 21, 2008

More Innocent Victims to Sanctuary Cities-San Francisco

In the wake of the murder of Jamiel Shaw Jr in Los Angeles, allegedly by an illegal alien gang member, now comes this outrageous news out of San Francisco.

On June 22, a family of three; Tony Bologna (48) and his sons, Michael (20) and Matthew(16)were gunned down in cold blood as they drove home from a bar-b-que. The reason? Their car had momentarily gotten in the way of another car making a left-hand turn. The accused murderer? An illegal alien by the name of Edwin Ramos (21) a native of El Salvador and member of the notorious Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) gang, arguably the most violent and vicious in the nation.

Ramos entered the country illegally with his family when he was 13. In the past 8 years, he has had several run-ins with the law including two juvenile felony convictions. On one occasion, he was busted for his part in a gang assault on a bus. He has also been arrested for the attempted robbery of a pregnant woman.

As Ramos went through the juvenile justice sysyem, he was never turned over to ICE.

Recently, it was disclosed that San Francisco, which proclaims itself a sanctuary city and has spent tens of thousands of dollars to advertise that fact, was shipping juvenile illegal alien offenders out of the city to holding homes-from which they usually escaped-rather than turn them over to ICE.

Bologna's widow, Danielle, is tearfully begging the DA's Office to seek the death penalty for Ramos, which is not likely since DA Kamala Harris has publicly vowed never to seek the death penalty for anyone.

So this is San Francisco, under left-wing mayor Gavin Newsom (D), a city that welcomes illegal aliens, but wants no military presence-no recruiters, no Naval ships-nothing. Now the two major cities of California, LA, under Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and San Francisco, under Gavin Newsom, are trying to outdo each other in protecting illegal alien gang members who are murdering their own citizens.

And guess who the two leading candidates are to be the next Governor of California? Gavin Newsom and Antonio Villaraigosa.

Obama's Grande Tour is Coming to Europe


"Your Majesty, Obama will receive you now. Don't forget to remove your hat"


In the wake of Barack Obama's flap over his choices of speaking venues in Berlin, no sooner did I joke about him using the top of the Arc de Triomph in Paris as a paltform, now comes this: While in London, the Great Man now reportedly plans to hold a press conference at 10 Downing Street-without the Prime Minister even being present. (Presumably, Mr Brown will be peeking out from the curtains.) Is there no limit to the vanity of this man?

Apparently, Obama is going to need every last one of those reported 300 "foreign policy advisors" on his team-mostly retreads from the Clinton Administration. Up to now, however, they seem to be giving him a lot of bum advice. Even I could do better than this.

Who advised him to hold speaking engagements at the Brandenburg Gate-and when was nixed-the Winged Victory Monument in Berlin? Anybody with any basic knowledge of German history would have known those were tasteless choices. Maybe they can fly Obama down to Nuremberg, where the old Nazi Party Rally Grounds are still lying there unbooked-albeit crumbling. Obama seems to prefer those places that can hold a hundred thousand screaming admirers. That would be just the place.

Now that I'm on a roll, how about a few more ideas? I would suggest, while in Paris, Obama have the entire Champs d'Elysees closed off as he promenades from the Arch de Triomph down to the Place de la Concorde. Along the way, he can stop off at one of those famous pubs and chug down some of France's great beer that his "foreign policy experts" must be telling him about. As The Great Man wolfs down a great French bratwurst that his "foreign policy experts" have recommended, he can field softballs from Katie Couric or Brian Williams, who will be lapping at his heels.

Then in London, after a hard day at 10 Downing Street, he can have a gourmet dinner and enjoy the exquisite British food that his "foreign policy experts" must be telling him about.

I also suggest that Obama have a few of his closest associates fly over and join him in Berlin to assist in the campaign. Maybe Jeremiah Wright can give a warm-up speech in a beer hall, throw out a few "God Damn Deutschlands" and call the Germans "beer guzzling white people". That otta set the beer mugs flying.

Maybe William Ayres can join Obama in Berlin and set fire to the Reichstag-just for old times sake.

Maybe Michael Pfleger can hook up with Obama in London and hold a joint rally with some radical Muslim clerics, call for someone's head to be cut off-just for solidarity's sake.

Even Obama's newly-found friend, Bill Clinton can be put to good use in Paris. While Obama is briefing the French president, Nicholas Sarkozy on his new policies once the formality of the election is out of the way, Bill can entertain the comely French First Lady, Carla Bruni.

Then, when it's over and the cheers have died down, Obama can fly home on his Airbus (holding 300 "foreign policy experts" and 300 reporters) to an American public now convinced once and for all that Obama is truly presidential.

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Obama Moves His Berlin Speech From the Frying Pan to the Fire


"Hey Fritz, look up there. It's Obama!!"


Barack Obama, wrapped in his exploding ego, is showing his total ignorance of German history in his determination to follow in the footsteps of JFK and Reagan in making historic speeches in Berlin. Now that his efforts to give a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate have met with proper rejection, Obama has a new brainstorm. Now he intends to give his speech in front of Berlin's Siegessaeule (Goddess of Victory) Monument.

The Siegessaeule Monument is another structure built to commemorate German military victories in a by-gone era (in this case, built to commemorate the Prussian victory in the Prussian-Danish War in 1864. The gilded figure at the top was added to commemorate later victories over Austria and France.) Originally situated in front of the Reichstag (Germany's Parliament Building), it was re-located a short distance up the road by none other than Adolf Hitler. It is arguably, after the Brandenburg Gate, Berlin's most imposing structure.

What is the thinking that led to this curious choice of a site for an Obama speech? For that matter, why is it fitting and proper for a presidential candidate to give a speech at all in Europe? If Obama is going to give any speeches in Berlin, why not in a more subdued setting, such as a university or convention center-or a beer hall, perhaps? This has to be judged as nothing less than an exercise in self-aggrandizement. It not only calls into the question of Obama's taste, but once again, his judgement. Hopefully, the Europeans, who are so smitten with Obama, will see this for what it is and re-evaluate their opinion of this character.

Where does he plan to speak in Paris-on top of the Arc de Triomph?

The National Lawyers Guild and the MSU


R-L, James Lafferty, unidentified, unidentified, Che Guevara


During last quarter's Muslim Student Union week-long events at UC-Irvine (May 2008), one of their sponsored speakers was James Lafferty, Executive Director of the National Lawyers Guild, Los Angeles Chapter. Lafferty's appearance may have been lost in the shuffle of speakers since more flamboyant figures were on the schedule, such as Amir Abdel Malik Ali. Yet, Lafferty's presence at this event should not escape notice. It shows that once again, the MSU's choice of associates and speakers is open to question.

The National Lawyers Guild (NLG)was founded in 1937. According to "Discover the Networks.org", NLG's earliest predecessor organization was MOPR, a Russian acronym for International Class War Prisoners Aid Society, founded in 1922 under the auspices of the Communist International (Comintern). The NLG (according to Discover the Networks.org) was founded in 1937 by attorneys for the Communist Party USA. During the period of the Cold War, the organization consistently allied itself with the pro-Soviet agenda. It labels itself as a "progressive" legal body of lawyers and activists that involves itself in issues of civil rights, human rights, etc. On the surface, its agenda, when taken in a general context (civil-human rights), might appear laudable.

Yet, the organization over the years has allied itself with virtually every far left-wing cause imaginable-anything that would paint the US in a bad light is fertile ground for this group. Indeed, over the years, their critics have understandably accused them of being little more than a communist front group.

In recent years, this group has taken up the banner for people like Lynne Stewart, the convicted attorney for the "Blind Sheikh", Omar Abdul Rahman who passed terrorist communications from Rahman to his terrorist associates and Jamal Abu Mumia, the convicted Philadelphia cop killer on death row, Sami al-Arian, ex-terrorist fugitive Sara Jane Olsen and Leonard Peltier of the American Indian Movement (AIM), who was imprisoned for the murder of two FBI agents. In 2005, the Guild floated a resolution equating Zionism with racism.

Quite a record. In Lafferty, this is another example of what UCI's Muslim Student Union brings to our campus as a featured speaker.

During his UCI speech (in which I was present), Lafferty went through the usual litany of complaints, condemning Israel, the US Government and the Bush Administration for all the problems of the world. In answer to a question about the solution to the Middle East problems, he stated that "Jews should leave Palestine."

He also made this rather ominous statement: He said that just prior to his talk, someone (presumably at UCI) had informed him that there was not a level playing field at UCI for those expressing their opinions about the (Israel-Palestinian) issue. He then added that he and his organization were going to see what they could do to provide such a level playing field. (I am paraphrasing.)

So here we have yet another example of how the MSU aligns itself with radical, far-left and anti-American voices. As they say, you are known by the friends you keep. Nevertheless, the MSU will still complain and wonder why so many Americans view them with suspicion. Maybe the National Lawyers Guild and CAIR can file a lawsuit on behalf of the MSU forcing Americans not to view them with so much suspicion.

*http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6162

Saturday, July 19, 2008

The New Nazis



L-R Adolf Hitler, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah



They are the new Nazis, the successors to Adolf Hitler. They hold many of the same hatreds, and they use many of the same tactics. They hate Jews. In fact, they hate everyone who is not of their own persuasion-in this case, religious. There are many similarities between the Nazis of Germany and their successors- those who want to spread their own ideology around the globe. They are the radical Islamists-the Islamo-nazis.

While Hitler and his followers preached their ideology (prior to coming to power) in beer halls, radical Muslim imams spout their hateful rhetoric in mosques.

The Nazis had a written basis for their hatred. It was Hitler's own book, Mein Kampf. The radical Muslims find their guidance in the Koran, in which page after page, Sura after Sura, repeats the idea that non-Muslims will burn in Hell. Not surprisingly, Hitler is to this day, admired by millions in the Middle East. His book is translated into Arabic, coincidentally enough, entitled; My Jihad.

The new Nazis use similar tactics as the old ones. They employ murder, violence and intimidation. Like the Nazis, they draw no distinction when it comes to the age or gender of their victims. Men, women, children, babies. It doesn't matter.

Like the Nazis of old, they have driven their Jewish citizens out of Arab lands. They preach separation from those who are not like them. They deride any concept of freedom and democracy. Like the Nazis, they seek world domination-an Islamic Caliphate, if you will. Like Hitler and the Nazis did to the reputation of the German people, both good and bad, the Islamo-nazis have cast a pall of suspicion over Muslims, both good and bad everywhere. Like the Nazis in Germany, the Islamo-nazis have largely succeeded in intimidating decent Muslims into silence. Those that speak out against the evil ones put themselves and their families at risk. Like those Germans who spoke out against Hitler, such as Thomas Mann, they are forced, in many cases, to go into hiding in the West and live under the protection of bodyguards. Examples? Nonie Darwish and Ayaan Hirsi Ali to name just two.

Like the Nazis, the Islamo-nazis have their defenders and/or apologists in the West. Hitler had like-minded allies like Oswald Mosely in Britain and American admirers such as Charles Lindbergh. The Islamo-Nazis have their modern-day supporters or Dhimmis in the West as well. Consider the useful idiots, who seek to reach an accommodation with radical Islam. Neville Chamberlain-meet the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams and Lord Phillips, Britain's top judge, both of whom are ready to accept Shariah Law in the UK in the place of British Civil Law. Meet Jimmy Carter, the critic of Israel and champion of the Palestinians-no matter how many innocents they kill-Israeli and American. Many Jews in Israel and America have sadly concluded that Carter is an anti-Semite.

Like Hitler, who browbeat the British and French into accepting the dismantling of that "inconvenient country", Czechoslovakia, the Islamists seek to browbeat the West into abandoning the new "inconvenient country", Israel.

Like Hitler, who had the German-American Bund in America, the radical Islamo-nazis enjoy the presence in America of organizations like the Muslim Student Associations, with chapters in some 150 American universities, groups of radical Muslims who bring fiery speakers to their campuses to preach hate against Israel, Jews and America-with the acquiescence of compliant and cowed university administrators (like my school at the University of California at Irvine), who insist there is no hate speech going on when it is clear that it is right there in front of their collective noses. Then there are the legions of university professors in the US, who support the Islamo-nazis, simply because they are against the US and Israel-people like Ward Churchill, formerly of Colorado University, Norman Finklestein, formerly of Depaul University and Julio Cesar Pino of Kent State. One could go on and on.

Then there is CAIR, which seeks to litigate any perceived slight against Muslims in America in the false belief that they can legally force the American people to respect Muslims.

Like Hitler, much of the world prefers not to accept the truth, that there is a large and growing element among the world's Muslim population that seeks to destroy us, our freedoms and our way of life. Largely because of the world's refusal to accept the truth about Hitler and the true nature of his intentions, World War II resulted.

Today, the world faces the same danger. Yet, it compromises. It plays for time in the hope that the threat will simply go away. It deludes itself into thinking that we can convince the Islamo-nazis of our good intentions, and thus, we can reach an accommodation with these people, as if one can negotiate with fanatics. In many cases, especially in Western Europe, it simply submits to the threats and intimidation.

Why have we not learned the lesson of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis? At what point does the world draw the line in the sand and say enough of the outrages? Is it not too late to nip it in the bud?

Rotten Fruit in Orange County VII


This week, the scheduled trial of former Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona on federal corruption charges was pushed back from August to October 28 in Santa Ana. Also this week, federal prosecutors filed a motion asking the presiding judge to allow testimony from an unidentified woman that, while she was employed by the OC Sheriff's office, Carona allegedly asked her to lie to investigators about sexual harassment charges against former Asst. Sheriff and Carona crony, George Jaramillo-even as he (Carona) was publicly proclaiming that he wanted the charges investigated. (Jaramillo has already pleaded guilty to federal income tax charges and is scheduled to be a witness against Carona, once dubbed by Larry King on Life Support as, "America's Sheriff".)

It has also been reported that the employee was herself involved in a long-term affair with Carona.

Also scheduled to go on trial with Carona is his alleged mistress, Debra Hoffman (not the woman cited above). Carona's wife, Debbie Carona, will be tried separately.

Obama and the Brandenburg Gate


"Mr Putin, put back that wall!"


Now that Barack Obama has begun his "Grande Tour" beginning in Afghanistan, accompanied by a planeload of what seems the entire American news media (already, the BBC is complaining that there is no room for them), a flap has arisen over the senator's planned stop in Berlin. The flap centers around that city's most famous landmark, the Brandenburg Gate.

The Brandenburg Gate is a victory column erected long ago in an age when Germany used to win wars. On January 30, 1933, thousands marched through the gate on their way past the Chancellery to salute Hitler on his appointment as Chancellor. In the post-war era, it straddled the line between East and West Berlin, sitting in "no-man's land". It also served as a backdrop for the visits of Presidents Kennedy and Reagan during the Cold War. Reagan stood in front of the gate when he stated, "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall." (Kennedy's "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech was actually given at another location in West Berlin.)

Suffice to say, a speaking appearance by Obama at the Brandenburg Gate would have tremendous symbolic meaning. Thus, it was reported this week that the Obama campaign was involved in negotiations with Berlin's Mayor, Klaus Wowereit, to stage just such a speaking appearance. That unleashed some proper criticism from observers who characterized the choice of location as presumptuous. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was not keen on the idea since it smacked to her of a campaign ploy, which it was.

Besides, what would he say? Put the wall back up?

So now, it appears in light of reactions that Obama has scrubbed the idea. One of his (reportedly 300) foreign policy aides, Denis McDonough, has now told the press that Obama himself had nixed the idea of the Brandenburg Gate. Said Mr McDonough, "He didn't think it made sense for him to speak at the Brandenburg Gate, which he thought would be too PRESUMPTUOUS." (caps mine).

Presumptuous indeed. But no more presumptuous that Obama's desire to move his convention acceptance speech to Denver's Investco Field, with its 75,000 seating capacity plus all those adoring young fans that they can flood the field with-kind of like they do at the Superbowl halftime shows.

Nevertheless, Obama can console himself with the knowledge that the American news media is doing its part to help make this trip what is, in effect, a campaign promotion. During the European phase, adoring Europeans will show the American public how much they want this man to be our next president.

Then, when the senator returns home in triumph from his "Grande Tour", he can choose an American venue for his next big speech-Gettysburg, perhaps.

Friday, July 18, 2008

Dhimmitude in The Netherlands


Dutch submission


Recently, I reported on the arrest warrants issued by a Jordanian prosecutor against Dutch politician Geert Wilders for producing a short film (Fitna), which was critical of Islam, as well as 11 Danish journalists connected to the Danish cartoons that sparked a world wide outrage by Muslims.

Now it is reported that the group that brought the complaint in Jordan, "Messenger of Allah Unites Us", has launched a move to have Dutch products boycotted across the Muslim world. According to a spokesman, the only way Dutch companies could escape the boycott was to place newspaper ads condemning Wilders' film.

Sure enough, two Dutch companies, Zwanenberg Food Group and Friesland Foods, have quickly submitted. Zwanenberg has placed an ad in Jordanian papers in which it condemns the film and expresses "solidarity with the efforts of 'Messenger of Allah Unites Us' in its attempts to pass international legislation banning insults to religions including Islam and the Prophet Mohammed (Peace be with Him)".

Keep those two companies in mind when you go to the grocery store.

The Energy Solution


ANWR, Alaska


At the very outset, let me state that I am no expert on the economy nor on energy matters. Yet, I venture to write an opinion on the solution to our on-going energy crisis. Although I am no expert, I feel very comfortable advancing my solution because, to me at least, it is based on common sense.

In the light of the ridiculous rise in gas prices, it is clear to any sane person that something must be done. The situation as is cannot be allowed to continue. My ideas are very simple, perhaps so simple that some expert may come along and refute them, but here they are:

First of all, I see both a long-term solution and a short-term solution. First, the long-term solution: Certainly, we must find alternative sources of energy, first and foremost, alternatives to oil. We simply cannot continue being reliant on a finite source of energy to power our transportation vehicles and heat our homes. In addition, to depend upon nations like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Indonesia, Mexico and Venezuela (under Hugo Chavez) strikes me as insane. Therefore, I support the idea that we should do whatever we can to find alternative sources of energy. In other words, if you can invent a car that will run on human urine, I am all for it. If we can put a man on the Moon, I am sure we can find something else to run our cars on and heat our homes with.

But that is a long-term project. In the meantime, oil is what the world's economy is based on. Like it or not, that is a fact. That leads me to our short-term solution. We must, in the next 10-30 years, work on providing our own oil. That means we must drill at home. We can disagree on how much oil we can obtain from our own sources, but we must obtain what we can at home. Therefore, it strikes me as common sense that, as we work feverishly to develop alternatives to oil, we drill off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and in ANWR (Alaska).

And what is the objection to the above? Environmentalism. The environmentalists and their proxies in Congress, the Democrats, are stopping us from any new drilling. Not only that, they have stopped us from building nuclear power plants and new oil refineries for the past 2-3 decades. It is time that we tell the environmental lobby to sit down and shut up. Let's be honest. Some environmentalists are sincere in wanting to protect the environment. Others, however, are driven by a desire to bring America to its knees economically and otherwise.

The argument about ANWR has been going on since Clinton was in office. As Clinton was vetoing drilling in ANWR, Democrats like Senator Charles Schumer were telling us that it would take 10 years before we ever saw a drop of oil from ANWR. That was back in the 90s. Now the argument is the same. The Democrats are telling us that if we started drilling now (in 2008), it would take 10 years to see the first drop of oil. Had we started when Clinton was president, we would be using that oil now.

And how do our presidential candidates stand on drilling? Obama will oppose new drilling everywhere. McCain would drill off the coasts, but still opposes drilling in ANWR because it is so "pristine". Forget the fact that the ANWR drilling area makes up an area about the size of Los Angeles International Airport and resembles a moonscape. Forget the fact that the overwhelming majority of Alaskans favor drilling in ANWR because of the beneficial effect it would have on their economy and jobs.

Then there is the position of the environmentalists and the Democrats. It is all the fault of the "evil oil companies making those obscene profits". Perhaps there is merit to that argument, but it seems to me that this is a problem of supply and demand-especially with developing economic powers like China and India requiring more and more oil. Let us also consider that the oil companies are making a profit of some 8 cents per gallon while the federal government takes in about 18 cents per gallon in taxes and some states like California take in 50-60 cents per gallon in taxes. Yet, we don't see state and federal governments foregoing those (windfall) profits, do we?

As things stand now, President Bush has just come out for drilling off the two coastlines. Just that announcement this week caused the price of oil to drop. If we became truly serious about finding our own sources of energy, the price of oil would drop further. However, the Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, stand in firm opposition. Why? Because they don't want to alienate the environmental lobby.

So what is the alternative? To continue to depend on unstable regions and nations which wish us ill for our oil at whatever price they decide? To worry about the Iranians trying to close the Strait of Hormuz? Or having to go to war to protect our access to Middle Eastern oil? Would it not be preferable to begin now to find our own oil until that grand day arrives when we can run our cars and heat our homes on something else? It seems to me to be a no-brainer.

As for the long-term goal in creating new sources of energy, when that day arrives, I will celebrate (if I am alive to see it). Until it does, oil is what makes the world go around. And those caribou up in ANWR that the environmentalists are so worried about? They will be just fine.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Ehud Goldwasser-Eldad Regev-In Memorium


Obama and the Three Anchors


"Ooooosaaamaa- Ti aaaamo"

(OK, all you feminists, save your cards and letters. There were no women among the Three Tenors.)

Like a recent American college grad doing the obligatory summer tour in Europe, Barack Obama is about to "do" the Middle East this summer. The purpose? To give himself creds for knowing the region and what should be done in Iraq. Fine. I have no problem with Obama going to see the situation first-hand. Now, however, it has been announced that the three major news networks are sending their anchors along to cover the trip (Charles Gibson-ABC, Katie Couric-CBS and Brian Williams-NBC).

The question begs to be asked-why?

Did these three network superstars accompany John McCain to Iraq? Of course not. So why are they all going along on this trip? The answer is easy.

All three networks are doing this as part of a huge campaign rally for Obama.

That's right. Long ago, it was obvious that the mainstream news media wants Obama to be president. They wanted him to win the Democratic nomination, and now they want him to win the general election as well. Their coverage of his travels, activities and their interviews with the candidate will all be designed and programmed to show that Obama is presidential when it comes to national security and military matters-which he of course is not.

So here is what viewers should look for when the Three Anchors take turns interviewing Obama at the end of each day's activities: Will they ask him hard questions, such as what would he do if (after the troops are pulled out of Iraq) Iran moves in, Al Qaida takes over, Iraqi supporters of the US effort are massacred, etc? Will they hit him with hard follow ups when he starts to stumble his way around answers? Or will they throw up softballs designed to allow Obama to hit homers and return home in triumph after showing the public he is ready to be president and deal with the war issues?

Well, Gibson may do the right thing since he did hit Obama with some hard questions in the debates, but Couric and Williams? Don't bet on it.

To those who watch this exercise in propaganda on TV, I hope you will think long and hard about the propriety of the major news organizations brazenly promoting a particular candidate. I hope I will be proven wrong, but I don't think so.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Joe (The Jerk) Biden on "Wisdom"


Joe Biden, Wise Guy and Senator from the Great State of Delaware


Yesterday, John McCain made a statement to the effect that he "knows how to win wars". In response, Joe (the Jerk) Biden (D-DE), in an interview with CNN's John Roberts, took a shot at McCain. Acknowledging that McCain was a war hero, Biden stated that what America didn't need as president was a war hero, but wisdom.

One thing that has to said about Joe (the Jerk) Biden. He knows a thing or two about wisdom. In fact, he considers himself the smartest person in the world. No one who has ever watched him on C-Span during Senate hearings can come away with any other impression. But since he failed to win the Democratic nomination for president, Joe (the Jerk) apparently thinks that Barack Obama is the next best thing.

But if Joey the Jerk thinks that Obama has wisdom, perhaps he can explain the "wisdom" of Obama spending 20 years in a church listening to a racist, anti-American demogogue rant against America and white people-even after he became a state senator for Illinois and US senator. Perhaps, Joey the J can explain the wisdom of Obama's association with another lunatic minister, Michael Pfleger, for whom he procured government funds. Or how about the wisdom of Obama's (financial) association with convicted racketeer, Tony Rezko? Not enough examples of "wisdom"? Don't forget Obama's association with former Weather Underground fugitives, William Ayres and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn?

Granted, Senator JJ Biden might respond that those were personal issues, not related to policy positions. Perhaps, but if Obama has so much "wisdom", why is he constantly changing or "refining" his stances on virtually every issue including the war in Iraq? Does he have a clue as to what he thinks-or does he just adjust his positions as he goes along?

As he usually does, Joe the Jerk has put his foot in his mouth once again.

What Else Did Jesse Jackson Say About Obama?

Since the video came out with Jesse Jackson's comment about wanting to "cut off Barack Obama's nuts", there have been new revelations about other words that Jackson reportedly used.

First, a black New York DJ, James Mtume, came out on WRKS, KISS FM in New York claiming that "high authority and the most respected sources" had revealed that Jackson had referred to Obama as a "no good half-breed n......".

From there, the story slowly spread that there were other comments attributed to Jackson beyond those initially reported by Fox News. Fueling the fire was the comment by Bill O'Reilly that there were other comments made by Jackson which he did not want to disclose since they were "irrelevant" to the issue and he (O'Reilly) had no wish to make Jackson look bad.

My reaction is that the details held back by O'Reilly, if as reported above, were not substantially different from those which Fox released. Then, once the additional remarks began to hit the news, O'Reilly, far from denying them, explained that someone (presumably from Fox News)had taken it upon him/herself to leak the other remarks.

At this point, variations are being spread about on what exactly Jackson said. In one version, Jackson is reported as saying that Obama "was talking down to n.......s". Again, if true, is that so much more embarrassing than what has been shown to the public on tape? A matter of opinion, perhaps.

Whatever the truth is, it would seem that the entirety of the "hot mike" is available through Fox News. Also available is the gentleman to whom Jackson was talking on the tape. Has anyone contacted him for his explanation? If so, why not?

Leaving aside the whole question of whether black people should be casually using a word that society has been trying so hard to make disappear from the English lexicon, the question now must be asked if the mainstream news media has any interest in digging out everything that Jackson said about Senator Obama.

Not that any of this is a slam against Obama. Rather, it represents another embarrassmant for Jesse Jackson, one more in a long line of actions and statements that can only discredit this man as a public figure. Had some white Republican or conservative figure made these kinds of comments about Obama, there would be a firestorm in the media and among Civil Rights groups. No stone would be left unturned to dig out every word that was uttered. Will this be the case with Jesse Jackson?

Don't hold your breath. Apparently, not even Bill O'Reilly was willing to take that extra step.

The Israel-Palestinian Swap

Now that the details of the prisoner swap between Israel and the Palestinians have been made public, the exchange should provide an education for those in the West who think the Palestinians are the "good guys".

Basically, Israel exchanged 5 prisoners for the bodies of two Israeli soldiers, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, who had been abducted two years ago. The soldiers, plus one other, who is still held by Hezbollah (if not already killed), had became a cause celeb among Israelis, who had prayed with their families for their safe return. Instead, what Israel received were two coffins containing the bodies of the soldiers-who, it is believed, were captured alive.

How cynical, how sadistic of Hezbollah.

Meanwhile, who did Israel release to the Palestinians? Most notable was Samir Kantar, a Lebanese who had been imprisoned for the 1979 murder of an Israeli family, in which the father was killed before the eyes of his 4-year-old daughter, subsequent to which, Kantar killed the girl by smashing her skull with a rifle butt.

None of which matters to the Palestinian public which has greeted this animal's release with celebrations and a red carpet welcome home.

Leaving aside the question of why Israel should engage in these prisoner exchanges, which seem to invite more kidnappings, this should highlight the evil of Hezbollah and the mis-directed sympathies of Palestinians. If this animal, Kantar, is a hero to the Palestinian populace, what does that say about the Palestinians?

For several decades, they have hitched their wagon to hijackers, terrorists, and other assorted murderers to further their cause.

Those who sympathize with the Palestinians or see shades of gray in this conflict, should pay close attention to this latest "exchange", in which Israelis exchange imprisoned murderers for the bodies of their dead soldiers and citizens.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

While LA Burns


LA Crackdown


Lately, I have been reporting on the efforts to get Jamiel's Law passed in Los Angeles so that LAPD could start getting known illegal alien gang members off the streets. A sensible common sense move, right? Well not according to the overwhelming majority of the LA City Council, the mayor, the police chief and whoever else draws a paycheck from the City.

But not to worry. While LA burns under the violence of gang warfare, its mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa has time to go to Washington to give a warm up speech for Barack Obama at the League of United Latin American Citizens convention (now that his first favorite, Hillary Clinton, has flamed out).

Meanwhile, savor this piece of pending legislation offered up by City Council member Jan Perry, who represents South LA. It seems Ms Perry is alarmed about the rate of obesity of her constituents (how she knows is beyond me). It also seems that 45% of the eating establishments in her district are fast food joints. Solution to this clear and present danger? Ms Perry is proposing a moratorium on allowing any more fast food restaurants in South LA.

Well done, Ms Perry. Now the city leadership is micro-managing what its citizens should eat. Talk about a nanny state gone wild. But on the positive side, if the LA City Council can't prevent its citizens from being killed by gangs, they sure can prevent them from dying of coronary disease-if they live long enough without being killed by the gangs, that is.

One Congressman Who Passes on Earmarks


Congressman John Campbell (R-CA)


In one of my past postings, I urged that Republican politicians campaign on a pledge not to bring pork back to their districts in the form of earmarks-which tax-payers all over the country have to pay for. Today in the Orange County Register, I read an article about one congressman who has turned his back on earmarks. Coincidentally, he is the congressman for my district in Orange County-John Campbell (R-CA).

According to the tone of the article, Campbell has incurred the wrath of many in Orange County who feel that Campbell has failed to bring in needed projects. One big example is a projected $46 million dredging project of upper Newport Bay which has stalled due to the lack of federal funding. Campbell is taking no action to get the funding released because of his pledge to not engage in earmarks until the process is reformed to permit more transparency.

I applaud the congressman's stance, whether or not the project would help my region. The whole earmark system has been corrupted and is in need of reform. It's a small step, but if more people in Congress would follow Campbell's example, perhaps we could start cleaning up our political system.

Let's Play" Name Those Marchers"


The above photograph shows:

a German troops entering Paris during World War II

b German rodeo performing in Paris

c Undocumented German workers marching for "Comprehensive
Immigration Reform" and a "path to (French) citizenship"

d The German Clydesdales carrying a load of Becks to grateful French consumers

e All of the above

f None of the above, and this is an utterly tasteless posting

Monday, July 14, 2008

Barack Obama's Outrageous Comments on ICE


"When communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids, when nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing, when people are detained without access to legal counsel, when all that is happening, the system just isn’t working, and we need to change it."

(Barack Obama speaking before the National Council of La Raza July 13, 2008 in San Diego.)

It should not surprise anyone that Barack Obama would pander before La Raza when it comes to the subject of illegal immigration. If he had limited his remarks to platitudes of "comprehensive immigration reform", it wouldn't be such a big deal. But when he calls ICE agents people who terrorize communities and tear babies from the arms of nursing mothers, he is engaging in false libel against those who would be working for him in an Obama administration.

After hearing other prominent Democratic leaders like John Kerry, John Murtha and Dick Durbin make inflammatory charges against our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, why should we be shocked? If they have such disdain for our troops, what kind of respect should federal law enforcement agents expect.

Obama's comments are false, repeating canards we have heard for years from the open borders crowd. The truth is that ICE agents take every precaution they can not to separate mothers from children. Enforcing the law and arresting illegal aliens is not terrorizing. It is bad enough that ICE receives so little support in the way of manpower and resources from the government (Democrats and Republicans). Now they have to contend with inflammatory and false accusations from a presidential candidate-one who is, as we speak, raising bloody murder (and rightfully so) over a New Yorker Magazine cover depicting him and his wife as Al Qaeda sympathizers.

I can only hope that everyone who wants our borders secured and an end brought to illegal immigration is made aware of Obama's comments before an organization whose very name means "The Race" in Spanish. It is clear that under a President Obama, there will be little support for border enforcement, law enforcement in general and for those we entrust with enforcing the laws.

Now will the mainstream media make a big deal of it and ask him (in his characteristically stumbling manner) to clarify those remarks? Don't bet on it.

As-Sabiqun and the Muslim Student Associations in America



top to bottom: Abdul Alim Musa, Amir Abdel Malik Ali














Thanks to the courtesy of my friend and colleague, Ms Reut Cohen, I am re-producing her posting on the As-Sabiqun movement in the US. Two principal figures in this radical, Sunni movement are American imams, Abdul Alim Musa and Amir Abdel Malik Ali, who are also frequent speakers at the University of California at Irvine and other universities on behalf of the Muslim Student Associations.

Reut Cohen is an Israeli-American,a recent graduate of UCI and former member of Anteaters for Israel, a UCI-based Jewish student group. She has been at the forefront of exposing the hatred and radicalism of the MSU at UCI, an effort in which she received little or no support from university officials.

In addition, Reut has just produced a video on As-Sabiqun, which can be accessed on her blog (Reut Cohen- there is a link on this site) as well as Red County blog (Campus Watch), edited by Jonathan Constantine-also linked on this site).

http://reutcohen.blogspot.com/2008/07/as-sabiqun-blatent-terror-support-on.html

"Abdul Alim Musa and Amir Abdel Malik Ali, two radical imams, are no strangers to UC Irvine where they regularly spread their seething hatred of America, Israel and Jews on behalf of the Muslim Student Union (MSU). These speakers are involved with the As-Sabiqun movement which aims for Islamic revivalism and enabling Islam to take "complete control of ... the lives of all human beings on Earth." Below is information about both speakers and the radical and hateful As-Sabiqun movement.

DiscovertheNetworks.org includes the following information about Musa:

Imam Abdul Alim Musa is the founder and director of the As-Sabiqun movement, which aims to “enable Islam to take complete control of … the lives of all human beings on Earth.” He serves as director of Masjid Al-Islam in Washington, DC, and is a senior member of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought (ICIT) -- a pro-Iranian, pro-Hezbollah, Islamist think tank. Musa also sits on the governing body of the Muslim Alliance of North America, which is headed by Siraj Wahhaj. In addition, Musa is a frequent speaker on American college campuses, often at the invitation of the Muslim Student Union and chapters of the Muslim Students Association. In 2004 the San Francisco Bay View described Musa as “one of the highest-ranking Islamic leaders in the Black community, nationwide and specifically in the Islamic movement.”

Two days before 9/11 -- at a September 9, 2001 fundraiser at UC Irvine on behalf of the cop-killer Jamil Al-Amin -- Musa said:

“Imam Jamil coined a phrase, and that phrase meant this: ‘If you don't give us justice. If you don't give us equality. If you don't give us our share of America. If you don't stay out of our way and leave us alone, we’re gonna burn America down.”

During a May 9, 2007 “Islamic Revival” event at UC Irvine Musa discussed his belief that the U.S. carried out the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon:

“When you hear about some bomber that blew up the World Trade Center or blew up this or blew up that, I'm telling you brothers and sisters, that is your CIA. That is your government blowing up people, blaming it on us … Didn't Adolph Hitler burn the Reichstag, blame it on the people and he became the Fuhrer and what happened? He could suspend civil liberties. And he could wipe out and he could war against all of his enemies. That's what Adolph Hitler did, isn't that right? He burned the Reichstag himself.... They blew up the World Trade Center, blamed it on us, and then come out with the PATRIOT Act and all these criminal laws. Right?”

At the same event, Musa said:

“Who ran the slave trade … who funded [it]? You’ll study and you will find out: the Jews … It was the Jewish bankers … in Vienna, with pockets full of money, funding and insuring, that’s who did it…. you can’t tell us about no holocaust. Between the African Americans and the Native Americans, everybody else’s stuff was [supposedly] small potatoes [according to Jews].”

Here is a bio for Amir Abdel Malik Ali:

Amir-Abdel Malik-Ali (also known as Abdul Malik Ali and Abd Al-Malik) is a black Imam associated with the Masjid Al Islam mosque in Oakland. A graduate of San Francisco State University and a former Nation of Islam member, he is a frequent guest lecturer at Muslim Student Union and Muslim Students Association events. A passionate supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah, he helped organize a July 1999 rally in San Francisco at which Imam Abdul-Alim Musa proudly displayed a cashier’s check made out to “Hamas, Palestine.” Malik-Ali endorses suicide bombings as a legitimate “resistance” tactic: “Palestinian mothers are supporting their children who are suicide bombers, saying, ‘Go honey, go!’ That ain’t suicide; that’s martyrdom.”

Also among Malik-Ali’s notable quotes and positions are the following:
“The enemies of Islam know that when we come back to power we’re gonna check ’em.”
“Stay conscious and ask Allah to raise the Muslims and give us victory over the disbeliever.”
“When it’s all over, the only one standing is gonna be us [Muslims].”
“Sooner or later, today’s Muslim students will be the parents of Muslim children. And they should be militants.”
“Neo-cons are all Zionist Jews.”
Israelis ought to return “to Germany, to Poland, to Russia. The Germans should hook y’all up. You [Israelis] should go back to Germany.”
“In America, you’re mostly fighting with your tongue, but you should also learn how to fight with the sword.”

At the Sixth Annual Muslim Student Association Conference held at UC Berkeley in February 2004, Malik-Ali denounced “the white man, who is the enemy.”

At the Universal Heritage Foundation’s December 2003 Islamic Conference in Florida, he warned moderate American Muslims that their desire to be “liked” was turning them into “‘house slaves’ in the mansion of a racist, imperialistic and destructive America.”

He has described Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a “pretty good guy.”
DiscovertheNetworks.org notes the following about As Sabiqun:

Founded in the early 1990s by Imam Abdul Alim Musa, As-Sabiqun (whose name means “The Vanguard” in Arabic) is a Sunni endeavor that seeks, through “an organized Islamic movement,” to establish Islam “as a complete way of life in America” -- “in total, complete, and uncompromised service of Allah.”

On July 4, 1994, As-Sabiqun enumerated its major organizational objectives in a document that stated, most notably:

"We resolve to work with other communities (movements) … toward the end of harnessing the power of Muslims and their resources for the purpose of reestablishing the system of governance known as Khilafah, or the Caliphate, patterned after the leadership exemplified by Prophet Muhammad."
"We resolve to utilize all the tools of Islam to develop an analysis and plan of action to totally and completely obliterate the hold of jahiliyyah [spiritual ignorance] and enable Islam to take complete control of our lives, and ultimately, the lives of all human beings on Earth."

"We resolve to shape the ideas, beliefs, and moral viewpoints of the people into an Islamic mold. Toward this end we will … develop the comprehensive educational system that is necessary to inform, inspire, and direct the society toward Islamic revolution (or evolution)."

"We resolve to make Islam a living force by challenging and breaking the hold of social and political forces seeking to suppress and destroy Islam."
Believing that “Islam is fully capable of producing a working and just social, political, economic order,” As-Sabiqun “does not advocate participation in the American political process as an ideal method for advancing Islamic issues in the U.S.” Instead, it calls for “a strong and active outreach to the people of the U.S.” -- an effort aimed at persuading Americans to embrace Islamic beliefs, customs, and institutions. The movement endorses “cooperation on domestic social issues with like-minded non-Muslim groups,” but only “as long as Islamic ethics and morality are not compromised.”

As-Sabiqun’s major ideological influences include the writings and crusades of Malcolm X, Maulana Mawdudi, Shaikh ‘Uthman dan Fodio, Sayyid Qutb, Kalim Siddiqui, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna.

Though As-Sabiqun is a Sunni entity, it has publicly voiced support for such Shi’a movements and organizations as the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran and the Lebanon-based terrorist group Hezbollah. According to Abdul Alim Musa, Muslims today ought not engage in the "counter-productive" habit of focusing on the differences between Sunni and Shi’a Islam; rather, they should aim to unite in their struggle against non-Muslims."

Fousesquawk comment:

I would encourage my readers to go to the above websites and learn more about this group. These are the invited speakers of the MSU at UCI. What does that tell you about this student organization? I have heard both of the referenced speakers at UCI over the years. Theirs is a message of hatred-hatred against Israel, hatred toward America-and hatred toward Jews ("Zionist Jews" as they call them). Ali appears at UCI virtually every quarter, courtesy of MSU-and a cowardly administration that will not stand up to a bunch of racist, anti-Semitic, anti-American agitators.

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Random Shots in the Dark (3)


Catching up on current events, here are some random observations, comments and questions.

Are William "Cool Cash" Jefferson, Larry Craig, and David Vitter still in Congress? Yes? OK, just checking.

I noted this week that the LA City Council, on the motion of Councilmember, Eric Garcetti, has renamed the intersection in front of the CNN Building, "Larry King Square". One would think that the council had more pressing actions-such as amending or doing away with Special Rule 40-that keeps LAPD officers from taking pro-active action against illegal alien gang members.

Does anyone still take Jesse Jackson seriously anymore? Yes? Just asking.

Sure seems quiet lately without Hillary's shrill voice telling us how we need a president who is "ready on day one".

Which presidential candidate pandered more this past week to the Latin American group, LULAC?

If Brett Favre unretires and comes back to Green Bay next year, at what point does back-up quarterback, Aaron Rodgers, tell the Packers adios?

If the Cubs don't go to the World Series this year, then that stuff about the "Billy Goat Curse" has to be real. Does anyone have a more logical explanation to explain a century of futility? If they maintain this year's hot streak, will it be blamed on Global Warming?

Is it just me, or has there been a rash of NFL players getting busted lately? What the hell is goin' on?

There also seems to be a rash of Hollywood types getting divorced lately? What the hell is goin' on?

Speaking of the Windy City, I see Michael Pfleger is back preaching at St Sabina Catholic Church in Chicago (no pun intended).

Remember beautiful Catalina Island 26 miles off the coast of LA? Guess what? Avalon, which is about 2 blocks long, is having problems with an illegal alien gang.

How's that border fence that Congress approved coming along?

I see Congress is still trying to nail Karl Rove for something-anything.

Meanwhile up at the state capital in Sacramento (or Excremento, if you prefer), our political leaders are bemoaning a 15 billion dollar budget shortfall (due to their wild over-spending) and saying only way to fix it is to (drumroll).........raise taxes. The two principle architects of this madness are Fabian Nunez and Don Perata, both of whom are under various investigations for financial shenanigans. Nunez lives the life style of a Fortune 500 CEO while Perata is under FBI investigation and has reportedly spent 2 million on his legal defense. No wonder they want to raise our taxes.

And remember "America's Sheriff", Mike Carona of Orange County? He is scheduled to go on trial on federal corruption charges in Santa Ana this August along with his mistress. (His wife was granted a separate trial.)

Who named Mike Carona "America's Sheriff"? Larry King on Life Support Square, that's who.

Isn't it amazing to listen to Barack Obama try to give a speech without a teleprompter? ("er, uhh, but listen to this, uh, I tell ya' I uh, didn't get much sleep uh, last night")

The next time someone reminds you of GW's low approval ratings, you might ask them if they know Congress' approval ratings, as of the last poll (9%).

9 PER CENT!!

Meanwhile, Erwin Chemerinski, the in-coming new law school dean of my school, UC-Irvine, was interviewed recently and stated that he had never witnessed the slightest evidence of anti-Semitism at UCI. Of course not. How could he? He has spent the past several years at USC and Duke. No one has that good eyesight.

I haven't watched Keith Olbermann's "Meltdown" show for over a week, but I would bet my mortgage that every night, he has had the same guests, Rachel Maddow, Chuck Todd, Richard Wolffe, Eugene Robinson, and the little guy who has gone bald in the past year, whose name escapes me (all ruminating on what a bad guy Bush is). Also, I figure Bill O'Reilly has racked up another half dozen "Worst Person in the World" awards. He's going to need to buy a bigger house soon to hold all his trophies.

Well, that wraps up another edition of "Random Shots in the Dark". If anything interesting happens in the next month or so, I'll crank up another edition. Hopefully, it won't be necessary.

PS I just remembered. That little guy who is going bald? Jonathan Alter. That's him.

Reaction From the Far-Left Blogosphere to Tony Snow's Passing

While I was composing my own remarks to the passing of Tony Snow, I also took the time to see what some of the far-left blogs were saying. As I write this, MoveOn.org seems to be ignoring the story. The Huffington Post put up a wire release with reader comments. I guess I would have to say that the comments were mixed, some proper, giving condolences to the family, but several others not at all kind.

As for the Daily Kos, one really has to wonder about their readership. While the Kos put up a lead post by someone who knew Tony's pastor and reported positive things, the overwhelming majority of the Kos' readership wrote in with negative words, several being vicious, vile, and not worth repeating here. Unfortunately, this seems all too typical for the far-left and reminiscent of when President Reagan passed on.

I don't want to waste too many words on those folks. Rather we should grieve for Tony's early passing, pray for his family and celebrate the good he did with his life.

The White Rose


L-R Hans Scholl, Sophie Scholl, Cristoph Probst


From all the horror and evil that came out of the Third Reich in Germany, there is a story of heroism that many today outside of Germany may not be aware of. The principal figures were Hans and Sophie Scholl, brother and sister, who were students at the University of Munich during World War 2. They were involved in a small group of anti-Nazis at the university, which was called Die Weisse Rose (The White Rose). For their opposition, they paid with their lives.

As a student-soldier, Hans Scholl had served in the German Army in France. He returned home turned against the war by the things he had experienced. Later, he was told a first-hand account of atrocities on the Eastern Front. Together with his sister, Sophie, they became involved with a small group of like-minded youth and a university professor, Kurt Huber. Later, after the group had begun its activities, Hans and two other members of the group served a short tour of duty on the Eastern Front, an experience which only solidified their opposition.

Of course, in the Third Reich, public anti-government demonstrations were impossible. Clandestinely, the group printed anti-war flyers which they posted in the dead of night or mailed to random addresses around the country. They also rode trains to other universities in Germany, where they left their posters. Of course, the Gestapo was feverishly trying to identify the authors.

On February 18, 1943, Hans and Sophie were caught distributing leaflets at a lecture hall at the University of Munich. Follow-up investigation quickly resulted in Probst's arrest. For them, punishment was swift. At a hastily arranged trial, which was presided over by the notorious Nazi judge, Roland Freisler, who was specially brought in from Berlin, the Scholls remained defiant. Sophie made a statement in court that,"Somebody, after all, had to make a start. What we wrote and said is also believed by many others. They just do not dare express themselves as we did."

On February 22, just 4 days after their arrests, the Scholls and Probst were found guilty of treason and sentenced to die. From the courthouse, they were taken to Munich's Stadelheim Prison. Hans and Sophie were permitted a final visit with their parents, after which (the same afternoon) all three were beheaded by guillotine. They went to their deaths with courage and dignity. Hans' final words as the blade fell, were "Es lebe die Freiheit!" (Long live freedom). Sophie was not yet 22. Hans was 25, and Christoph was 24.

In quick order, three other members of the group, Willi Graf, Alexander Schmorell and Professor Kurt Huber, were also arrested and executed for their roles against the Nazi regime. For the latter three, their eventual executions were delayed for months due to the formal appeals process-a process denied to Sophie, Hans and Christoph. Nonetheless, the executions were eventually carried out.

Today, the names of the Scholls and the other members of the White Rose are known to all in Germany as national heroes. Several books and films have been made about them, both in German and English. The plaza in front of the lecture hall where they were arrested has been named Geschwister Schollplatz (Sibling Scholl Plaza). A small room on the ground floor of the lecture hall has been converted to a memorial exhibit of the White Rose.

In 2005, a film about the Scholls was released in Germany entitled, "Sophie Scholl-The Last Days"- Sophie Scholl-Die letzten Tage). The film is based on court transcripts and was filmed at the locations where the events actually happened. It has won numerous awards.

Hans and Sophie Scholl and Christoph Probst lie buried together in the Perlacher Cemetery next to Stadelheim Prison in Munich.

Tony Snow


With sadness, I learned today of the passing of Tony Snow, 53, from cancer. We had been following Tony's battle with cancer, always encouraged when he appeared on radio for an interview, and hoped that he would win his fight. Tragically, he did not.

Those in the profession who knew Tony, uniformly liked and respected him. With his upbeat way and good cheer, he was a bright and articulate voice for the conservative cause.

Tony's voice will be missed. I wish his family comfort, and may he rest in peace in the arms of the Lord.

Friday, July 11, 2008

Let's Play "Name That Language"


"They laughed when I said I could cut his nuts off in French"


In the wake of Barack Obama's complaint, er, maybe I shouldn't use that word- statement that Americans don't know other languages, coupled with Jesse Jackson's recent complaint, er, comment about Obama, I have put together a little quiz for those who are multi-lingual. Wouldn't it be great if all Americans were language-proficient enough to score 100% on this quiz?(and if anybody needs to pick up a new language, it's Jesse Jackson.)

Match the sentence with its language.

1 Je veux couper ses testicules
2 Yo quiero cortar sus huevos
3 Ich will seine Eier ausreissen
4 Phom jak tat luuk khong khaw ook (phonetic alphabet)
5 Eu quero cortar os testiculos dele
6 Io voglio cortare i suoi coglioni
7 Mi ke corta su testiculonan
8 Jag vill skara av hans ballar
9 As /ash/ noriu nupjauti jo seklide

* The author reserves the right to make minor mistakes. Corrections are welcome.


a Lithuanian
b Papiamentu
c Swedish
d Thai
e Spanish
f Italian
g Portuguese
h French
i German

Answers:

1 h
2 e
3 i
4 d
5 g
6 f
7 b
8 a

Now total up your score. If you got 0 right, you are an American.

If you got 1-3 right, you just guessed right (law of averages).

If you got 4-6 right, you work for the State Department.

If you got 7 right, you are a European.

If you got all 8 right-you are Barack Obama.

Oh, the translation?

"I want to cut off his nuts" (English)

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Obama on Language

Barack Obama has offended some with his recent comments this week in front of a Georgia audience on the topic of language. In putting down those who advocate English as the ONE language of the US, Obama used the occasion to point out that we Americans (him included?) are unable to go to another country and speak other languages. He said it was embarrassing that Europeans can come to the US and use different languages while Americans who go to Europe can't say more than "merci beaucoup". He went on to add that American schoolkids should all be learning Spanish.

Why? because the US is being overrun with Spanish-speaking illegal aliens? Is it more important that we learn Spanish than they learn English? Is it more important that we learn Spanish than legal immigrants-of all languages-learn English?

To be fair, Obama added that he supports the idea of immigrants learning English, but that was hardly the theme of his words; he said it only in passing.

Also to be fair, Americans, by and large, are deficient in foreign languages as compared to other nationalities, especially Europeans. There are reasons for that, however, and it has nothing to do with our genes. Put an American in an environment where more than one language is prevalent, and they will be bi-lingual. For example, if you go to the Southwestern border, you will find plenty of Anglos who speak Spanish. You will also find many bi-lingual Americans who are products of a bi-national, bi-lingual family. My own children are an example (my wife is Mexican.)

The two main reasons why Americans tend not be be bi-lingual or multi-lingual is that:

First- The United States is geographically isolated by two large oceans. Europe, on the other hand, is composed of dozens of small countries, mostly with their own languages, English, German and French being the most dominant. As a result, most Europeans with any degree of education have learned the other major languages-or at least one or two. The Dutch, whose language is basically limited within their borders (plus Flemish, a related language in Belgium), are forced to learn other languages. Ditto the Scandinavians.

Second: The English language, thanks to the history of international importance of the British and Americans, has achieved a dominance in international relations. Presently, the whole younger generation of the world is rushing to learn English. I know- I teach English to college age foreign students. They are unanimous on the importance of English to their careers.

Please don't get the impression that I am down on other languages. I have lived in three other countries, Thailand, Germany and Italy for a total of 11 years. I speak those languages. I also speak Spanish, as well as a few others. Learning other languages has been a life-long passion. I certainly support increased language learning on the part of Americans and would support higher language requirements in our schools. Where I draw the line is stating that Americans need to learn a particular language due to increased immigration into our country. What is more important is that we insist that our immigrants learn English-not for our sake-but for theirs. To send them any other message is doing them a disservice.

Obama, notwithstanding his own international background, I think has missed an important point on a very important topic in our society.

What Did Jesse Jackson Really Mean?


"Sex change we can believe in, Jesse?


It seems that Jesse Jackson, in making his apologies for his comments about wanting to "cut Obama's nuts off", is getting the assistance of the main stream media in allowing him to make his apology in his own way and reiterate his support for Obama's candidacy. Of course, the Democrats are not about to throw Jackson under the bus any more than the MSM. (The harshest criticism to date from any Democrat has come from none other than Jesse Jackson Jr.!)In his long history of embarrassing himself, he has never really been held accountable. Why should we expect him to be held accountable now?

As usual, Jackson's "apology" is weak, meandering, and without challenge from the liberal media. In his explanation, he rambles on about every topic imaginable, as if they had anything to do with the issue at hand.

I don't want to delve into Jackson's record in the Civil Rights Movement. In that, he fought the good fight. I also recognize that Jackson is a legitimately ordained minister having attended the requisite seminary. What I question is his career in the post-Civil Rights Era. There is little doubt that over the course of past decades, Jackson has played the "victim card". His Rainbow-Push Coalition has been charged with engaging in corporate shakedowns, threatening to sue companies for discrimination in the hiring practices unless they agree to do business with the reverend's chosen cronies, both in hiring and contributions.

Jackson has also raised questions over the years as to his true religious convictions. Whether it be his infamous "Hymietown" comment about New York City or his fathering an illegitimate child a few years back or bringing his mistress to the White House as he provided "counseling" to Bill Clinton, his personal life has been at odds with that expected of a man of God.

It also may be fairly argued that Jackson holds feelings and attitudes that contrast with Christian thought. He has been accused of wanting to be the chief spokesman or "leader" of African-Americans. Many are now speculating that his comments about Obama are driven by jealousy. Jackson, of course, made unsuccessful runs for the Democratic nomination for the presidency in the 1980s. Now, Obama has come out of nowhere in a couple of years to surpass Jackson's political achievements. What does it do to Jackson's message of a racist America and black victimhood if Obama is elected president? It would mean that Jesse Jackson is irrelevant-if not already.

Almost overlooked in the "nuts" comment was what he said about Obama seconds before. Jackson feels that Obama is talking down to black Americans with his faith-based ideas. Really? What does Reverend Jackson have against faith-based programs? Is he upset about Obama's speeches to black audiences stressing parental responsibility to children who are being fathered out of wedlock at an alarming rate? Jackson, who grew up without his biological father, has also fathered a child out of wedlock with his mistress. Has this issue angered Jackson? In his "acceptance" of Reverend Jackson's "apology", Obama has mentioned that he himself (Obama) grew up minus his father, who abandoned the family when the senator was a toddler. A subtle dig back, perhaps?

Jackson's explanation about his comments is nothing short of bull. It is hard to imagine at this point that Jackson wishes Obama well. As it has been for decades, for Jesse, it is all about Jesse, first and foremost.

So what did Jackson really mean when he said, "I want to cut his nuts off"?

He wants to cut his nuts off.

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Watch Out, Obama!!


Beware the Ides of March


Who was caught on an open mike today saying (about Barack Obama) that he wanted to "cut his nuts off"?

a Bill Clinton
b Hillary Clinton
c John McCain
d OJ Simpson
e The Reverend Jesse Jackson

I'll give you a hint.

Still don't know? It was the Reverend Jackson (e).

"Tom Brown's Schooldays" 2008 Style


"You are hereby placed on detention."


When I was a small kid growing up in the 1950s (and television was a novel thing), one of my favotite movies was "Tom Brown's Schooldays", a film about a young British schoolboy and his adventures at Rugby School. The movie (there were two or three made over the years)was an adaptation of an 1857 novel. I guess the biggest reason I liked the movie was its stirring theme music.

I was reminded of Master Tom recently while browsing through the British blog, Lionheart. The editor of Lionheart has often run afoul of British authorities due to his unrelenting reporting on the outrages of many of Britain's Muslims. One of his latest reports concerns the recent outrage at a school near the English town of Stoke-on-Trent. (Stoke-on-Trent happens to be a "Partner City" of the German town of Erlangen, where I spent my Army time and which is the subject of one of my books.)

But I digress. Just recently, two boys were punished for refusing to take part in prayers at Alsager High School. Not Christian prayers, mind you, but Islamic prayers to Allah. As part of a class on religion, the class was told to put on Islamic headgear, kneel down on prayer rugs, and go through the Muslim prayer ritual. As punishment, the two boys got detention, and the rest of the class missed their refreshment break. Predictably, many of the children's parents reacted with anger that their children were forced to take part in prayer rituals of a faith they do not practice-and that two boys received punishment for refusing.

Master Tom Brown faced a lot of predicaments at Rugby School, but never had to experience this!

I wonder what else the good headmaster and staff at Alsager High had planned for the children. Perhaps they could have taken them on a field trip to one of the more radical mosques and listened to the imam condemn British society. Or maybe attend one of those exciting demonstrations where folks hold banners demanding the murder, butchering or decapitation of those that insult Islam. I know some good film clips circulating on the Internet showing the stoning to death of women in Iran for the "capital crime" of adultery. That would wake the little rascals up, wouldn't it?

As Lionheart correctly points out, this is just another example of the UK submitting to a very vocal, threatening, and, at times, violent element in its society.

As many others point out, there is nothing wrong with teaching comparative religions in public schools. There is something wrong in pushing a particular religion down the throats of unwilling children and their families. It is undeniable that given what is going on the world today, many in the educational establishment are desperate to provide a positive image of Islam in the spirit of mutual understanding. It is happening not only in the UK and Europe, but here in the US as well. It is being carried to such extremes that it is engaging in mistruths. Any scholarly discussion of Islam has to include current events. Islam is at a crucial crossroads in its history, and I don't think any of us know which faction within the religion will win out. If educators are trying to present only a positive image of Islam to schoolchildren while ignring present-day realities, then they are doing everyone a disservice-including decent, peace-loving Muslims who dare to speak out.

Unfortunately, the problem is not just within the field of education in the UK.

Maybe, if the modern-day Tom Browns eventually decide to enter the field of law, they might follow in the footsteps of Britain's top judge, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, who recently opined that the Kingdom should accept Shariah law-presumably to allow Muslims to settle their civil affairs independent of national laws.

And if Master Tom's successors decide to turn to a career in the clergy, they could do no better than emulate Rowan Williams-the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has echoed Lord Phillips' surrender call to Sharia.

It is easy to decry the decline of Great Britain and ask, "What would Winston Churchill say?" But here in the US, we are also yielding step by step. Many of our universities are not only silent, but complicent in providing forums for young radical Muslim students to spout hatred not only against Israel, but Jews and America as well. My own university (the University of California at Irvine), is one of the worst in this regard.

What is so unsettling about Britain is that we in the US seem to be heading in the same direction, albeit a little more slowly. So, at the risk of repeating what is becoming a tired old adage:

What would Winston Churchill say? Come to think of it, what would Tom Brown say? And while we're on the subject, what the hell would Benny Hill say?

Monday, July 7, 2008

Obama on Iraq


"President Obama, you are cleared for takeoff."
"Roger, uh, which button do I push first"?


Barack Obama has raised a few eyebrows lately with his recent comments on the situation in Iraq. As he announces his upcoming trip to that country, he is creating more confusion about what he really intends to do if he becomes president.

The confusion started when Obama explained to reporters that during his time in Iraq, he would consult with military leaders on the ground, and, based on that, would "refine" his policy. Two hours later, he was speaking a different tune to reporters, insisting that his determination to end the war and give his military a new strategy (withdrawal) was unchanged.

When one reporter pointed out discrepancies between what he was saying then vs what he had said mere hours before, Obama hemmed and hawed and blamed the McCain campaign for creating the confusion.

Well, excuse me, Senator Obama, but no one from the McCain campaign took any part in your two explanations to the press within hours of each other. What created the confusion was likely-your own confusion.

The question must be asked (if the mainstream news media is willing to follow up) is whether Obama is starting to re-think his Iraq policy based on the surge and recent success in that war-a success that the MSM doesn't want to talk much about. Can Obama, who claims he was against the war from the start (as an Illinois state senator)acknowledge that maybe-just maybe- we are winning in Iraq and that maybe-just maybe- we should see it through? Or is he committed to getting out and damn the consequences in order to please his constituency?

I have a feeling that Obama right now doesn't even know what he should do, something that I suspect would be a recurring theme in an Obama presidency.

Rotten Fruit in Orange County-Part VI


When former Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona was indicted on federal corruption charges, he proclaimed loud and clear that he would be vindicated. Since then, his attorneys have worked long and hard (and up till now unsuccessfully) to get most of the evidence excluded from the trial (scheduled for August). First they tried to get tape recorded conversations between Carona and his former crony, Don Haidl, thrown out on legal grounds. Now that that has failed, they are still trying to get certain tapes thrown out on the grounds that they "likely to offend and anger the jury".

I'll say!

In these conversations, Carona (who has called himself an evangelical Christian) is heard using racial epithets, vulgarity and bragging about his high-flying life style and sexual exploits as OC Sheriff.

"......Not that I haven't, you know, drank some great wine, and had great booze and ...got some, you know phenomenal (sex) along the way."*

Of course, the issue to be decided is whether the tapes prejudicial nature outweighs their probative value. As today's Orange County Register pointed out in its editorial, the very corruption charges leveled against Carona revolve around his acceptance of various gifts and favors while in office. Carona's attorneys argue that these conversations are irrelevant.

Meanwhile, Orange County has appointed a new sheriff, Sandra Hutchens, to try and clean up the squalid mess left behind by the man Larry King on Life Support once called, "America's Sheriff".

* OC Register editorial Local p 6 dated July 7, 2008

Sunday, July 6, 2008

John Kerry and "Judgement"


John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz-Kerry expounding on "judgement"


This weekend, John Kerry (who supports Barack Obama for president) lashed out at John McCain, specifically claiming on CBS' "Face the Nation" that the Arizona senator lacked the "judgement" to be president. Kerry, who reportedly asked McCain to be his bi-partisan running mate in his 2004 quest for the presidency, has now apparently "flip-flopped" on his opinion of the Republican standard-bearer.

And why not? Wasn't it John McCain who spent 20 years in a church listening to a racist, anti-American preacher (Jeremiah Wright) rant against America and white people in general?

Wasn't it John McCain who had a 20 year relationship with a radical leftist Catholic priest in Chicago (Michael Pfleger), who once threatened to "snuff out" a gun store owner? Wasn't it John McCain who funneled government earmarks in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to said priest?

Wasn't it John McCain who had a financial relationship with Tony Rezko, now a convicted racketeer?

Wasn't it John McCain who had a political activist relationship with an unrepentent Weather Underground fugitive (William Ayers-and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn)?

Yeah-that John McCain!

You gotta hand it to Mr Heinz-Kerry. He knows judgement when he sees it.

And he sure doesn't see it in John McCain.

Let's Play "Name That City"




All of the above scenes took place in the same city. Can you name it?





a Teheran, Iran
b Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
c Islamabad, Pakistan
d Cairo, Egypt
e London, England

The answer is e-London, England.

Think about it.

Friday, July 4, 2008

The "Drug Wars (20), New Delhi, India 1990


"I hear DEA's in town."
"I hope they know we have the right of way."


To anyone visiting India for the first time, the country can easily overwhelm your senses. From the poverty, to the cows in the streets, to the snake charmers, all the other animals you see in places you might not expect to see them, to the smells, the food-India is indeed different. It is easy to dismiss it as a primitive country, but that would not be fair. The people are interesting-and I mean that in a positive way. On my first trip to Delhi, I found many of the women to be strikingly beautiful. Of course, in a country like India, a visitor will come back with stories aplenty.

Although I had previously landed in Delhi while flying from Bangkok to New York in the 1970s, my first real trip was in 1990 as part of a DEA International Training team. On this occasion, we spent two weeks in Delhi conducting a drug training seminar for drug cops at India's National Police Academy.

Our lodging was at the Delhi Hyatt Hotel, a luxury hotel that provided us with much-needed comfort over the two weeks. On school days, we were transported in a van to the police academy, which was rather run-down with ceiling fans beating back the heat.

Prior to beginning the school, our team was told by the State Department Embassy coordinator that we should provide a block of instruction on "Human Rights". It was not in our schedule (certainly the Indians had not asked for it), and we pretty much told the diplomat we would "take care of it". We then proceeded to forget about it.

In my first class, I was about 5 minutes into my lecture when one of the students let out a belch. I didn't say anything about it, deciding to let it pass without comment. A couple of minutes later, another student belched. I soon learned that this was considered normal as the students continued belching throughout the class-and during the entire two weeks.

Later, I participated with other team members in a class on interrogation techniques. We held a mock interrogation of a drug suspect using standard American techniques. At the conclusion of the class, one student came up and asked me if I would ever torture a suspect. When I replied that I would not, he asked why, seemingly not accepting my answer. I then explained that if I were to do such a thing, I would be subjecting myself to arrest, prosecution and loss of my job. He then retorted that I didn't understand. "You wouldn't be doing it for yourself, you would be doing it for your country", he explained. At that point, I tried to find a diplomatic way of ending the exchange.

Indeed, shortly before our arrival in Delhi, there had been a controversial incident in the city police station where a suspect, under interrogation, had supposedly jumped to his death from the window of police hqs. It got quite a play in the local press.

On another day, as we were on our way to the academy (just down the street) we came upon the scene of a bus accident. Apparently bus accidents were not uncommon. It was also not uncommon, if there were injuries, for the bus driver to get out and run from the scene, in which case, a crowd would proceed to stone the bus. That was the case on this occasion. As we tried to steer around the scene, rocks were flying. A couple of projectiles came flying into our car, just missing our heads as we retreated into the police academy.

On some days, after class, we would go to the DEA office, located in the American Embassy, one of the largest and most impressive compounds we own around the world. On one occasion, I met a visiting DEA agent and his family who were on R&R (Rest and Recuperation) from their posting in Pakistan. (Does that tell you anything about Pakistan?)

While at the embassy, I was made aware of a cartoon that had recently appeared in the State Department's monthly magazine that depicted an embassy cocktail party. In the cartoon, a couple of DEA agents were chatting with a State Department official. The diplomat was a stereotypical State Department type, dressed in a suit with a haughty-taughty expression and holding a cocktail in his hand. The two DEA agents were portrayed as "cowboys", boots, cowboy hats, cigarette packs tucked into their shirt sleeves and holding beer cans. The caption was, "Yeah, we're DEA agents. How did you guess?" Our DEA country representative in India had reacted by sending a letter to the editors of the magazine protesting the cartoon and reminding them that "diplomacy starts at home". (In a subsequent edition, the editors printed the letter and admitted that they had screwed up.)

Of course, since the Taj Mahal in Agra was only a couple of hours away by train, we spent our Saturday off going to see the Taj. It turned into an exhausting all day affair, rising at dawn to catch a 6am train and returning at 11pm. Once was enough, and on my second trip to Delhi with DEA International Training a couple of years later, I stayed at the hotel while the others made the trek.

The final blow (to me) was en route home. The night after departing Delhi, in Frankfurt, Germany, I came down with a severe case (delayed reaction) of the "Delhi Belly" and had to be taken to the Army Hospital. Fortunately, it passed and I was able to continue home without delay.

Hey Jordan-Summon This!





Interpol alert: From top to bottom:

Fousesquawk
Geert Wilders
Kurt Westergaard




In the grand tradition of Iran's lunatic Ayatollah Khomeini (who issued a Fatwa against British subject, Salmon Rushdie) and the murder of Dutch Filmmaker, Theo Van Gogh on a Dutch street by a Muslim immigrant a few years back-comes this out of the Kingdom of Jordan: During the past month, a Jordanian prosecutor has filed charges for blasphemy and "contempt of Muslims" against Danish cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard, as well as 10 Danish newspaper editors who published the cartoons that infuriated the Muslim world and set off deadly riots across the globe. In addition, also charged with similar "crimes" is Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, whose offense was to make a short film (Fitna or Strife) that stated that the Koran incited violence. The charges against the Danes came in early June, while charges against Wilders came early this month. The warrants issued by Prosecutor, Hassan Abdullat, in Amman come as a result of a complaint filed by a Jordanian group called "The Prophet Unites Us". Thus, the Jordanian prosecutor has summoned all of the above Europeans to report to Jordan for trial or international arrest warrants will be issued.

Can you say "Chutzpah"?

Though neither Denmark nor the Netherlands have signalled any intention of arresting their citizens and extraditing them to Jordan, all of the affected individuals may have their ability to travel outside their own borders restricted if international arrest warrants are obtained. An international arrest warrant could be circulated within Interpol. On the surface it would seem implausible that Interpol would enforce arrest warrants on these charges (They do not honor warrants based on political crimes) However, given the cowardly manner in which many European countries are conducting themselves in the face of Islamic intimidation, who knows?)

In the case of Wilders (who is a Dutch Member of Parliament), he appealed to his foreign minister, a certain Maxime Verhagen, to summon the Jordanian Ambassador in Holland for a lecture on freedom of speech. Verhagen declined, stating that it would represent "interference in Jordanian judicial matters"!!??!

Meanwhile in Riyahd, the Organization of Islam Conference (OIC), a league of 56 Muslim nations, expressed "disappointment" that the Dutch prosecutors could take no action against Wilders based on "free speech issues" (something they would know nothing about).

So now, Middle East prosecutors are filing charges against foreigners in the West who dare to criticize Islam-and this from one of the so-called "moderate, pro-American" nations. Have you ever heard of such brazen arrogance? And what about the cowardice of the Dutch Foreign Minister who will not speak out and summon the Jordanian Ambassador for a good chewing out? At what point does any self-respecting nation tell these fans of the 7th century that, here in the West, we have freedom of speech, and we will never give up our citizens to some Third World banana republic (which Wilders has correctly called Jordan).

A note to the Jordanian prosecutor, who is so concerned about "contempt of Muslims": You could go a long way toward eliminating said "contempt" if you would go after and eliminate the killers that are giving Islam such a bad name around the world.

The entire civilized world should stand shoulder to shoulder with the Geert Wilders, Kurt Westergaards and Salmon Rushdies of the world.

Thursday, July 3, 2008

Colombia: Score One For The Good Guys


On Wednesday, the Colombian military pulled off a daring rescue of 15 hostages (including three Americans and Ingrid Betancourt, a former presidential candidate who had been held captive for 6 years, from their captivity at the hands of the insurgent group, FARC.

The above rebel group, which has financed their insurgency against Colombia with drug trafficking and kidnappings (with not a little support from Hugo Chavez), has suffered a series of setbacks in recent years. According to most estimates, the guerrillas have seen their numbers decline by half in the last few years to about 9,000 due to Colombian military actions, deaths of their leaders and defections.

In the latest operation (which coincided with John McCain's visit to the country to lend his support to a trade pact between Colombia and the US, as well as the Colombians' efforts against the drug traffic),Colombian military had infiltrated the FARC in an undercover capacity and had convinced the guerrillas to deliver 15 hostages to a central gathering point for "delivery to the prime FARC commander". Once the hostages were loaded onto undercover helicopters, they were flown to freedom. No lives were lost in the operation.

Also participating in the operation were American counterparts, who provided intelligence and logistical support to the Colombians.

Though the operation is an obvious success for the Colombian government and their president, Alvaro Uribe, not all Americans are cheering. It should be remembered that Uribe, in his recent visit to the US, was shunned by the Democratic leadership in Congress. According to people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, Uribe and the Government of Colombia are "persona non grata" due to perceived "Human Rights" abuses against rebels and union leaders, the last group being of special concern from US labor unions, such as the Teamsters Union. The Teamsters had, in fact, criticized the trip to Colombia by Senator McCain. Democrats and labor leaders in the US oppose the pending trade pact between the US and Colombia.

(Here's a trivia question: How many Teamsters presidents can you name in the last 50 years who have not gone to prison? My point: I could care less what the historically-corrupt Teamsters Union says about our relationship with Colombia.)

The fact of the matter is that Colombia is a democratic nation that has been fighting vicious drug cartels and guerrillas for decades. There is a long list of courageous police, prosecutors, politicians, and journalists that have risked-and sacrificed their lives to stand up to the drug cartels and guerrillas. The policy of the US is to support Colombia in this endeavor and, in my view, it is the correct position. That our government played a supporting role in this latest operation is a point of pride.

It would be nice to hear some Democrat like Reid or Pelosi utter a statement of praise for the Colombian governemt for this great operation. But I won't hold my breath.

The US must continue to stand side by side with Colombia, which is arguably, our greatest ally in the region. They are fighting the good fight. Most Colombians are good people who deplore the criminality that plagues their nation. To me, it is troubling that the Democratic Party in the US has no interest in supporting Colombia.

UK Puppy Flap-Are You Kidding Me?


It doesn't get any more offensive than this, folks.


As further evidence that the UK is surrendering to Shariah law and genuflecting to its minority Muslim population-now comes this:

Police in Tayside, Scotland recently created posters advertising police contact numbers that featured a cute little puppy sitting on a policeman's hat. When they passed the posters around to various shopowners, they were met with hostile reactions from Muslims who rejected the posters, and local Muslim leaders protested the "affront" since dogs are considered "unclean animals" under Islam.

So now a European country is being hit with more accusations of "offending Islam". How? By featuring a photo of a dog!

Rather than laugh it off, the police have now apologized to local Muslims for "offending them". According to the police spokesman, the cops had "neglected" to clear the "offending" photo with their "diversity advisor". This mistake won't happen again promised the police.

Seems to me that an apology isn't enough. Heads should roll (no pun intended). How about more diversity training for the obviously Islamophobic cops. Put the puppy to sleep, I say. In fact, since British Muslims consider dogs to be so offensive, why not round up and destroy all canines in Britain? Confiscate them from their "infidel" owners by force if necessary. So now, instead of rounding up terrorist and bombers, the cops can put their resources to better use-rounding up dogs! Maybe that will bring peace and harmony in the UK.

What is wrong with those Brits? Even the Archbishop of Canterbury was quoted recently stating that "eventual Shariah law in the UK was inevitable". Whatever happened to the old idea that immigrants should assimilate and adapt to the values of the host country?

Whatever happened to those British soccer hooligans? Hell, at least they were fighters. Have they succumbed to Shariah law as well?

If only Prince Charles were King!!

(On second thought, he'd have to get rid of Camilla.)

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Supreme Court Gun Decision



L-R Sharon Tate-Charles Manson
What if Sharon Tate had had a gun?





Last week's 5-4 decision by the US Supreme Court declared Washington DC's total ban on gun possession unconstitutional. Once again, the swing vote came from Anthony Kennedy, the one unpredictable vote on the Court. While an encouraging result, equally troubling is that only one vote upheld the citizens' right to own firearms.

The chief legal argument revolved around the language of the Second Amendment, which refers to a "well-regulated militia". Liberals have used this phrase to argue that only a duly authorized "militia" could be armed, not private citizens. Nevertheless, the court affirmed the right of private citizens to own firearms.

In terms of background, the city of Washington, plagued by high crime and murders, tried to ban firearms altogether in an effort to solve the problem. It didn't work. The criminal element continued to be armed on the streets. The fact that they could not buy guns in Washington was of little consequence. The Washington experiment was proof that gun control in America doesn't work. It only would ensure that innocent, law-abiding people would be disarmed-and at the mercy of the criminals.

Perhaps, in some past era in our history (I don't know when-I am only speaking theoretically), we could have created a society without guns. Not now. The horse left the barn long ago. We live in a society with a violent crime problem that is a disgrace to any nation that calls itself civilized. The question is this: How can law-abiding people protect themselves and their families from vicious predators, both in the home and on the street? I am afraid that is to allow them to arm themselves. We cannot depend solely on the police to protect us. By the time they arrive, we will already be dead.

Yet, that is precisely what liberals want to achieve-a society where only police are allowed to have guns. What they will achieve is a society where only police are authorized to have guns-and only police and criminals will have them.

What the liberals choose to ignore is that statistics indicate that crime goes down in places where people are allowed to own guns. It is a deterrent to criminals who deliberately seek out and choose victims they perceive to be defenseless. Liberals can quote statistics on handgun crimes and assaults all day long. Unfortunately, no one keeps statistics on how many crimes are averted or nipped in the bud by armed citizens. How many lives have been saved because an intended victim or by-stander was armed?

When I was in DEA, there were many anecdotal stories about agents who came across crimes in progress and were able to intervene with their guns-myself included.

When we look back at all the senseless murders that have happened in our country over the years, how many lives could have been saved if someone on the scene was able to take effective action before the cops arrived? Wouldn't it have been great if someone in the Sharon Tate home was armed when the Manson family came charging through the door? How about the killings at Virginia Tech? More recently, just in the past 24 hours, a Palestinian terrorist's killing spree was brought to an abrupt end when an off-duty soldier shot the killer in the head.

But wait a minute, you say. If everybody is armed, won't we have more domestic shootings in the home or during a barroom argument or during an incident of road rage? I am afraid the answer is yes, but that is a price I am prepared to pay. Overall, I think we would save lives. Another argument I often hear is that legal gun ownership would take us all back to the Wild West.

When did we ever leave it?

But shouldn't there be some restrictions? Sure. Convicted felons should not have guns. People with diagnosed mental problems should not be allowed to have guns. Of course, there should be age limits, training and background checks. I don't even have an objection with licensing. I also don't see any reasonable purpose to own an Uzi. My position may not be completely in line with the NRA (which I do not belong to). They alienated me many years ago when they opposed laws against bullets that would pierce body armor (worn by cops).

At any rate, the above decision is welcomed, but 4 justices don't believe that a citizen should have a gun to protect him/herself. As I mentioned in my posting on the death penalty for child rapists ruling, the next president will probably have the chance to put 2-3new justices on the Supreme Court-as well as a host of federal judgeships. It is one of the most important things a president does.

Keep that in mind come November.

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Recent Comments About UCI


"Anti-Semitism at UCI? What anti-Semitism? Musa, Malik Ali? Never heard of 'em."


I am including recent updates from Reut Cohen and Red County Blog on the on-going situation at UCI in regards to MSU-sponsored anti-Semitism. It appears that the university is going on the offense with some of their professors publicly defending the university against charges of tolerating anti-Semitism and other radical expression by the Muslim Student Union and their sponsored hate-mongering speakers.

First is a description of two of the MSU's favorite speakers, Addul Alim Musa and Amir Abdel Malik Ali as provided by Reut Cohen, recent UCI grad and former officer of Anteaters for Israel.

Next is an article published in the liberal periodical, The Nation by UCI History Professor Jon Wiener followed by my own response.

Last is an excerpt of an interview of Erwin Chemerinski, newly-hired law school dean by Marlo Jo Fisher in the Orange County Register in which Chemerinski declares he has no knowledge of anti-Semitism at UCI. They are numbered 1-4.

1 Below is courtesy of Reut Cohen, a recent UCI grad and former officer of Anteaters for Israel

"Abdul Alim Musa and Amir Abdel Malik Ali, two radical imams, are no strangers to UC Irvine where they regularly spread their seething hatred of America, Israel and Jews on behalf of the Muslim Student Union (MSU). These speakers are involved with the As-Sabiqun movement which aims for Islamic revivalism and enabling Islam to take "complete control of ... the lives of all human beings on Earth." Below is information about both speakers and the radical and hateful As-Sabiqun movement.

DiscovertheNetworks.org includes the following information about Musa:

Imam Abdul Alim Musa is the founder and director of the As-Sabiqun movement, which aims to “enable Islam to take complete control of … the lives of all human beings on Earth.” He serves as director of Masjid Al-Islam in Washington, DC, and is a senior member of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought (ICIT) -- a pro-Iranian, pro-Hezbollah, Islamist think tank. Musa also sits on the governing body of the Muslim Alliance of North America, which is headed by Siraj Wahhaj. In addition, Musa is a frequent speaker on American college campuses, often at the invitation of the Muslim Student Union and chapters of the Muslim Students Association. In 2004 the San Francisco Bay View described Musa as “one of the highest-ranking Islamic leaders in the Black community, nationwide and specifically in the Islamic movement.”

Two days before 9/11 -- at a September 9, 2001 fundraiser at UC Irvine on behalf of the cop-killer Jamil Al-Amin -- Musa said:

“Imam Jamil coined a phrase, and that phrase meant this: ‘If you don't give us justice. If you don't give us equality. If you don't give us our share of America. If you don't stay out of our way and leave us alone, we’re gonna burn America down.”

During a May 9, 2007 “Islamic Revival” event at UC Irvine Musa discussed his belief that the U.S. carried out the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon:

“When you hear about some bomber that blew up the World Trade Center or blew up this or blew up that, I'm telling you brothers and sisters, that is your CIA. That is your government blowing up people, blaming it on us … Didn't Adolph Hitler burn the Reichstag, blame it on the people and he became the Fuhrer and what happened? He could suspend civil liberties. And he could wipe out and he could war against all of his enemies. That's what Adolph Hitler did, isn't that right? He burned the Reichstag himself.... They blew up the World Trade Center, blamed it on us, and then come out with the PATRIOT Act and all these criminal laws. Right?”

At the same event, Musa said:

“Who ran the slave trade … who funded [it]? You’ll study and you will find out: the Jews … It was the Jewish bankers … in Vienna, with pockets full of money, funding and insuring, that’s who did it…. you can’t tell us about no holocaust. Between the African Americans and the Native Americans, everybody else’s stuff was [supposedly] small potatoes [according to Jews].”

Here is a bio for Amir Abdel Malik Ali:

Amir-Abdel Malik-Ali (also known as Abdul Malik Ali and Abd Al-Malik) is a black Imam associated with the Masjid Al Islam mosque in Oakland. A graduate of San Francisco State University and a former Nation of Islam member, he is a frequent guest lecturer at Muslim Student Union and Muslim Students Association events. A passionate supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah, he helped organize a July 1999 rally in San Francisco at which Imam Abdul-Alim Musa proudly displayed a cashier’s check made out to “Hamas, Palestine.” Malik-Ali endorses suicide bombings as a legitimate “resistance” tactic: “Palestinian mothers are supporting their children who are suicide bombers, saying, ‘Go honey, go!’ That ain’t suicide; that’s martyrdom.”

Also among Malik-Ali’s notable quotes and positions are the following:

“The enemies of Islam know that when we come back to power we’re gonna check ’em.”

“Stay conscious and ask Allah to raise the Muslims and give us victory over the disbeliever.”

“When it’s all over, the only one standing is gonna be us [Muslims].”

“Sooner or later, today’s Muslim students will be the parents of Muslim children. And they should be militants.”

“Neo-cons are all Zionist Jews.”

Israelis ought to return “to Germany, to Poland, to Russia. The Germans should hook y’all up. You [Israelis] should go back to Germany.”

“In America, you’re mostly fighting with your tongue, but you should also learn how to fight with the sword.”

At the Sixth Annual Muslim Student Association Conference held at UC Berkeley in February 2004, Malik-Ali denounced “the white man, who is the enemy.”

At the Universal Heritage Foundation’s December 2003 Islamic Conference in Florida, he warned moderate American Muslims that their desire to be “liked” was turning them into “‘house slaves’ in the mansion of a racist, imperialistic and destructive America.”

He has described Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a “pretty good guy.”
DiscovertheNetworks.org notes the following about As Sabiqun:

Founded in the early 1990s by Imam Abdul Alim Musa, As-Sabiqun (whose name means “The Vanguard” in Arabic) is a Sunni endeavor that seeks, through “an organized Islamic movement,” to establish Islam “as a complete way of life in America” -- “in total, complete, and uncompromised service of Allah.”

On July 4, 1994, As-Sabiqun enumerated its major organizational objectives in a document that stated, most notably:

"We resolve to work with other communities (movements) … toward the end of harnessing the power of Muslims and their resources for the purpose of reestablishing the system of governance known as Khilafah, or the Caliphate, patterned after the leadership exemplified by Prophet Muhammad."

"We resolve to utilize all the tools of Islam to develop an analysis and plan of action to totally and completely obliterate the hold of jahiliyyah [spiritual ignorance] and enable Islam to take complete control of our lives, and ultimately, the lives of all human beings on Earth."

"We resolve to shape the ideas, beliefs, and moral viewpoints of the people into an Islamic mold. Toward this end we will … develop the comprehensive educational system that is necessary to inform, inspire, and direct the society toward Islamic revolution (or evolution)."

"We resolve to make Islam a living force by challenging and breaking the hold of social and political forces seeking to suppress and destroy Islam."
Believing that “Islam is fully capable of producing a working and just social, political, economic order,” As-Sabiqun “does not advocate participation in the American political process as an ideal method for advancing Islamic issues in the U.S.” Instead, it calls for “a strong and active outreach to the people of the U.S.” -- an effort aimed at persuading Americans to embrace Islamic beliefs, customs, and institutions. The movement endorses “cooperation on domestic social issues with like-minded non-Muslim groups,” but only “as long as Islamic ethics and morality are not compromised.”

As-Sabiqun’s major ideological influences include the writings and crusades of Malcolm X, Maulana Mawdudi, Shaikh ‘Uthman dan Fodio, Sayyid Qutb, Kalim Siddiqui, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna.

Though As-Sabiqun is a Sunni entity, it has publicly voiced support for such Shi’a movements and organizations as the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran and the Lebanon-based terrorist group Hezbollah. According to Abdul Alim Musa, Muslims today ought not engage in the "counter-productive" habit of focusing on the differences between Sunni and Shi’a Islam; rather, they should aim to unite in their struggle against non-Muslims."

2 Below article is by Jon Wiener, History professor at UCI in "The Nation". Note the title and his use of labels such as, "Right wing Zionists" and "Republicans" used to described concerned US Senators. (courtesy of Red County blog)

Warriors For Zion
June 19, 2008

"Columbia and Barnard aren't the only campuses where right-wing Zionists have fought bitter campaigns in the name of defending Israel and Jewish students. The unlikely site of the latest battle, as intense and angry as anything in Manhattan, is the University of California, Irvine (UCI). I should know--I teach there."


Warriors for Zion--in California

Jon Wiener: Accusations by right-wing Zionists of anti-Semitism at the University of California, Irvine, are suspect at best.


"While the campaigns at Columbia and Barnard failed to persuade those schools to deny tenure or otherwise penalize faculty members the right-wing Zionists found objectionable, at UCI the professor who occupies the chair in Jewish history, Daniel Schroeter, has decided to leave after being condemned for failing to support the right-wing Jews' campaign. Thus that campaign has had its first big success--but instead of getting rid of a Palestinian professor, they've gotten rid of a Jewish one.

UCI has been described as a place where rocks are thrown at Jews, swastikas painted on campus buildings and Hamas slogans displayed at a commencement ceremony. These charges have been disseminated widely--not only in the Jewish press, including the Jerusalem Post, but also in such mainstream media outlets as Fox News, where Bill O'Reilly featured the Hamas commencement story. And they were listed in a formal complaint filed by the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) with the US Office of Civil Rights (OCR), arguing that Jewish students at UCI were the target of harassment and that the university had failed to protect them from anti-Semitic acts.

The OCR exonerated the UCI administration in a report issued in November. You might think that would have been the end of it, but the report only escalated the ZOA claims of Jewish victimization and its campaign against UCI. Three Republican senators--Arlen Specter, Sam Brownback and assistant minority leader Jon Kyl--and five members of Congress recently expressed "concern regarding anti-Semitic incidents aimed at Jewish students" at UCI and complained about the OCR report.

The OCR issued its report after federal investigators visited the campus eleven times to monitor demonstrations and interview students and staff. Stone-throwing at Jews? The ZOA complaint listed one stone thrown at one Jew in 2004. Swastikas on campus? The ZOA complaint listed one swastika found in a men's room toilet stall--with Bitch Ass Asians written underneath. "The campus police investigated the incident immediately," the OCR found, "but were unable to determine the culprit or the motive." The swastika was promptly removed. And the "violently anti-Semitic" commencement where Muslim students displayed "Hamas slogans"? At the 2004 commencement some Muslim students wore green stoles over their gowns that contained Arabic script. The script, according to faculty members who read Arabic, spelled out the creed recited daily by all devout Muslims, "There is no god but God"--the equivalent of the Jewish "Shema Yisrael" ("The Lord is One").

After the OCR concluded that there was "insufficient evidence" that the UCI administration had failed to protect Jewish students from harassment, an off-campus, ad hoc Jewish group issued its own report in February. It urged Jewish students "with a strong Jewish identity" to leave UCI and newly admitted students not to enroll.

And then there's Daniel Schroeter, an internationally recognized scholar of Moroccan Jewish history who was appointed to UCI's Teller Family Chair in Jewish history fourteen years ago. Recently he's been denounced not for anything he said but for not taking a public position in favor of the ZOA campaign. Part of the problem, apparently, was that he worked on a program promoting campus dialogue between Muslims and Jews, and he brought to the campus Muzammil Siddiqi--a Muslim scholar who often speaks to Jewish groups. Siddiqi, who received an award in 1999 from the National Council of Christians and Jews, was invited by George W. Bush in September 2001 to participate in the National Day of Prayer and Remembrance at Washington National Cathedral. Nevertheless, Schroeter was condemned by some local Jewish activists for bringing to campus someone with "connections to terrorists." Clearly feeling the pressure, Schroeter decided to accept an offer from the University of Minnesota. Cheaper real estate and a bigger Jewish studies program were factors, but Minnesota is also a place where the Jewish studies faculty have not been targeted or harassed by right-wing Zionists.

It's true that the campus has an active Muslim Students Union, which sponsors Zionist Awareness Week, during which speakers denounce Israeli treatment of Palestinians and have shouted "Death to Israel!" It also sponsored an event titled "Holocaust in the Holy Land" and had a torn Israeli flag marked with what appeared to be blood. One speaker at Zionist Awareness Week in 2006, Amir Abdel Malik Ali, said, "The Zionist Jews own Fox News.... They got the CIA. They got the media. They got Congress."

The ZOA complaint argued that Zionist Awareness Week created a "hostile environment" for Jewish students. The university's position has been that the Muslim Students Union has a free speech right to make these statements as long as it does not target individuals. And of course the Jewish students have a right to hold their own rallies and put up their own signs.

The statement by the three senators criticizing the OCR for exonerating Irvine appears to have a broader legislative purpose. Their letter, addressed to Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, whose department oversees the OCR, argued that Jews are a protected group under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is a clear endorsement of the ZOA position that Jews have the same right under that law to federal protection from anti-Semitism that blacks have to protection from racism.

The ZOA, which claims a national membership of 50,000, is a militant defender of Israeli settlement of the West Bank and regularly targets liberal Jews and others who criticize that policy. The lead item on its website in April attacked the Harvard Hillel for sponsoring a Breaking the Silence tour, in which Israeli soldiers who have served in the territories speak out against Israeli policy, describe their actions in the territories and talk about "what being part of an occupying army does to the occupier" [see Eyal Press, "Israeli Army Vets Speak Out," The Nation online, March 1]. ZOA head Morton Klein said the exhibit sponsored by the Harvard Hillel "incites hatred of Israel, violates the Jewish law of not bearing false witness, and plays into the hands of Israel's enemies."

In the most recent round of this battle, the ZOA condemned the national Hillel summit in March for inviting UCI chancellor Michael Drake to speak on the university and anti-Semitism. That criticism was featured in a widely read story in the Jerusalem Post. At the conference Drake condemned anti-Semitism but defended the principle that the university should remain "content neutral" and refrain from regulating student speech. The ZOA has demanded that Drake not only condemn anti-Semitism in general but also denounce specific anti-Semitic statements made by campus speakers.

After Drake's appearance at the Hillel summit, leaders of four Jewish student organizations at UCI issued a statement saying they "strongly supported" the chancellor and declared that while "verbal anti-Semitism...unfortunately continues to exist on campus," Jewish student life was prospering, with more than100 students attending Hillel's weekly Shabbat dinners and seventy-one joining the Jewish fraternity Alpha Epsilon Pi.

For a while it looked like the campaign may have gone too far. The report that called on Jewish students to shun UCI attacked the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, the Orange County Jewish Federation and Hillel for "complicity" with UCI in failing to protect Jewish students. But the ZOA claimed a crucial victory in early June when it announced that the OCR would open a new investigation of anti-Semitism at UCI, focusing on Muslim Students Union activities in May 2007. A triumphant ZOA declared that if UCI is found to have failed to protect Jewish students' rights, the entire campus "can lose its federal funding."

3 My response to Professor Wiener's article, which I posted in Red County:

I don't know anything about Wiener, but after reading his article in the Nation, I suspect that he is approaching this issue from a liberal, politically-correct perspective.

Often a writer's language gives away their agenda, and Johnathan has hit the nail on the head in pointing this out. Using terms like "Right-wing Zionists" and identifying concerned senators as "Republicans" is illustrative.

Does Wiener really think that all of us who object to the MSU and their speakers are "Right-wing Zionists-or even Zionists"? Does he really want to split legal hairs in defining which groups are entitled to protection from acts of hate? In my view, all groups should be protected equally. Unfortunately, for many liberals, it all boils down to who the victim is and who the offender is. Certain victims and certain offenders do not fit into their liberal agenda.

Wiener mocks reports of swastikas and rock throwing, yet concedes one example of each. Is he aware of the recent caricature of Ariel Sharon shown on the MSU mock Israeli wall? Is he aware of the recent reported incident where a Jewish student was allegedly followed to her car by MSU males and surrounded after filming a Malik Ali speech? Maybe Wiener would like to hear from Jonathan or Reut Cohen regarding their experiences in filming MSU events.

This reminds me a bit of the Jamiel Shaw case in LA where an innocent young black high schooler was shot down for no reason. The defendant is an illegal alien gang member who had just been released from jail without his immigration status being checked. Yet, when the Shaws turned to the city in an effort to have LA's Special Rule 40 amended to allow cops to pro-actively remove illegal alien gang members from the streets, they were met with nothing but opposition. Even black activists have refused to take the Shaw's side since it doesn't fit into their liberal agenda.

In the case of Wiener, I suspect that his position on anti-Semitism at UCI being fomented by the MSU and their speakers is formed by his political agenda.

To paraphrase Wiener's own words, I know the problem at UCI is real. I teach here too.

Gary Fouse
adjunct teacher
UCI-Ext


4 Then there is this exchange between newly-hired UCI Law Dean Erwin Chemerinski and Marlo Jo Fisher, Orange County Register reporter on the question of anti-Semitism at UCI. (OC Register 6-29-08- courtesy of Red County blog)

Q. Some Jewish people have described UCI as "the most anti-Semitic campus in America." You are Jewish. What do you think about that?

A. This is something I looked at very closely. I think it's a misapprehension. There was a letter written by students at several Jewish organizations on campus talking about the wonderful Jewish student life here. As a Jew, I have never seen the slightest evidence of anti-Semitism on campus.

There have been some speeches on campus against Israel that crossed over into anti-Semitic speech. But a university has to be a forum for all ideas, even if we don't agree with them.

Q. If your children were raised Jewish, would you send them to UCI?

A. My children have been raised Jewish; there's a picture of my son's recent bar mitzvah right there (he points). If I had any trepidation at all on this point, I would not have accepted a job here. If I had the slightest concern, I would not have come.

Comment: This is an interesting observation from the noted liberal law professor about his observations at UCI since he is a new hire, having spent recent years at Duke University. At present, Chemerinski is just moving in to his new office space at UCI, with the law school scheduled to open in 2009. My question: what makes him an expert on the situation at UCI?

UCI is fully aware that the school has a nation-wide reputation for radical activity by the MSU and anti-Semitic expression. If the university wants to engage in PR, then perhaps they can explain why they provide a platform for hate mongers like Musa and Malik Ali to spout their anti-Jewish venom at UCI. Of course, their defense is "Free Speech". No one has been arrested for their vile words at UCI (and I am not advocating that they should be). Yet, it seems to me that a self-respecting university would tell the MSU to move their speakers to some city park.

Chancellor Michael Drake recently stated in a meeting with Hillel (a national Jewish campus organization) in Washington that "there was no room for hate speech at UCI". That statement does not square with the vile words uttered on UCI's campus for the past several years by characters such as Ali, Musa and others.

Wesley Clark's "Clarification"


Wesley Clark "clarifying" his remarks on John McCain
(OK, it's not really Wesley Clark, but you get the point.)


In response to the flap resulting from Wesley Clark's dismissive remarks over John McCain's military service over the weekend, the retired general is now "clarifying" his comments. Actually, he is digging himself a deeper hole.

While not apologizing to McCain, Clark is now denying that he was being derogatory in any way toward the Arizona senator's war record. Today on "Good Morning America", Clark stated that he was merely trying to make the case that Obama has the judgement necessary to be president as compared to McCain.

Judgement?

General Clark, are you talking about the judgement that allowed Obama to spend 20 years in a church listening to the hate-filled rhetoric of Jeremiah Wright?

Or perhaps you mean the judgement that allowed Obama to maintain a 20 year relationship with Father Michael Pfleger, the radical priest. Or the judgement that led Obama to obtain hundreds of thousands of dollars in government funds for Pfleger's projects.

Maybe you are referring to the judgement that led Obama into a political relationship with William Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn, two ex-Weather Underground members who remain unapologetic about their past terrorist activities.

Or perhaps you are referring to the judgement that led Obama into a years-long financial relationship with now-convicted racketeer Tony Rezko.

Judgement?

As I stated before, General Clark will get no criticism from me when it comes to his military career. Unfortunately, since retiring, Clark has become a pathetic political hack, first doing the bidding of the Clintons and now Obama. In doing so, he has disrespected the courageous military service of McCain, who was a lower-ranking officer.

McCain, as his his wont, has chosen to remain above the fray and not lash back. As of now, it seems that Bob Dole has taken the lead among Republicans with his public condemnation of Clark's remarks. (Where are the voices of the other Republicans?)

Wesley Clark is an embarrassment, a political climber who still sees himself as a future president riding on the coattails of whomever will carry him to the next step up the ladder. In trying to extricate himself from this latest statement (an act of poor JUDGEMENT), Clark is only digging himself deeper.