Lyndon B. Johnson-America's Most Fascinating President?

One has to admit that in the past couple of generations, we have seen some pretty interesting characters come and go as president. When I was born, Harry Truman was in office though I have no memories of him. My memories of presidents past begins with Dwight Eisenhower. I was 18 when John F Kennedy was assassinated. Other figures like Reagan and Clinton had their share of interesting qualities both in and out of the White House. Yet, of all the presidents in my lifetime, I still think that the most interesting character was none other than Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Johnson's principle biographer, Robert Caro, is presently writing the fourth and final book in his history of the life of Johnson (The Years of Lyndon Johnson). I have read the first three, The Path to Power, Means of Ascent, Master of the Senate, and eagerly await the fourth, which will deal with his presidency.

Johnson, who came up poor in the hill country of Texas, was a complex figure. He was crude and foul-mouthed. He was a woman chaser, though hardly of the ilk of Bill Clinton or John F Kennedy. Prior to going into politics, he was a lowly school teacher, whose pupils were mostly dirt-poor Mexican-American children, an experience which made him a life-long supporter of the underdog. During World War II, Johnson was already in Washington though a Lt Commander in the Naval Reserves. He did spend a month in the Pacific and rode along on one combat mission in which he experienced enemy fire. He then returned to Washington, where he rose to become the most powerful man in the Senate and was known as the consummate politician and deal-maker. He was elected to the Senate in 1948 and earned the nickname of "Landslide Lyndon" because of a razor-thin and highly controversial election victory in Texas. As Senate Majority Leader in 1957, he helped get the 1957 Civil Rights Act passed.

After losing to Kennedy in the 1960 Primary Election, he shocked everyone by accepting the VP spot on Kennedy's ticket though it was thought that the two men detested each other. Many of Kennedy's aides and followers resented Johnson, a feeling that carried over into his presidency.

Upon taking office when Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, Johnson made his mark as President in two areas; Viet Nam and Civil Rights. Though, under Kennedy, the US had troops in Viet Nam as advisers, under Johnson, it became America's war after the controversial Gulf of Tonkin incident. It was the prime issue that drove Johnson from power as he decided not to run for re-election in 1968 in the face of nation-wide protests. Those around him all said that Johnson, who micro-managed the war, agonized over the reports of increasing US deaths.

But it was his involvement in the Civil Rights movement that stands as Johnson's monument. His contributions to the passage of civil rights legislation over the objections of many in his own party in Congress cannot be minimized. Many wondered why Johnson, a Southerner known to occasionally use the "N-word", went so far to champion this cause. At any rate, Johnson used all his political skills to get the votes needed for passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Act, which had been initiated by President Kennedy, had been bottled up in committee. It was Johnson more than any other person who got the legislation through Congress and to his desk for his signature.

During the 2008 Democratic Primary, Hillary Clinton drew heat when she made a comment on Johnson's importance to the Civil Rights movement which seemed to belittle Martin Luther King's contributions. Yet the fact remains that no other president aside from Abraham Lincoln and probably no other white person besides Lincoln did more to advance the rights of African-Americans in this country.

With the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, Johnson left office and died five years later, aged beyond his years. He was 64.

Probably more than any other president (with the possible later exception of Clinton), Johnson's memory survives in Secret Service folklore. Of course, the code of the Secret Service prohibits agents from publicizing the dark little secrets that they learn about the people they protect, a code which they adhere to being the professionals that they are. Yet, among themselves and certain other federal law enforcement agents, stories do circulate, and those about Johnson were legion. As a DEA agent who occasionally worked with the Secret Service, I heard a few which are hysterically funny. As stated above, Johnson had a reputation for crudity. He was a stern taskmaster, and when he walked into a room, everyone knew who was in charge. He was not universally liked by his protection detail. One story that I will repeat goes along the lines that when he died and was buried on his property along the banks of the Pedernales River, one of his agents walked out to the fresh grave site later that night when it was dark and proceeded to urinate on his grave.

(If anyone from the Secret Service is reading this, forget the subpoenas. It was long ago, and I don't remember who told me this or when and where I heard it.)

History has not yet been too kind with Johnson, mostly due to Viet Nam. Johnson suffered from a lack of charisma. He was not a gifted public speaker, nor was he an attractive-looking man in his later years. History still seems to be working out whether his civil rights contributions outweigh the tragedy of Viet Nam. Make no mistake about it though; Lyndon Johnson was a giant.

Samantha Power Paving the Way for Hillary at State!!??

Samantha Power at the State Department

"The monster is coming! The monster is coming!"


It is now being reported that Samantha Power is on Barack Obama's transition team. Specifically, she is doing a departmental review at the State Department. So who is Samantha Power, you ask?

You don't want to know.

But you need to know, so I'm going to tell you anyway. First of all, Ms Power is a Pulitzer Prize winning Professor at Harvard University. That is strike one. Second, she is the one who was fired from Obama's campaign after she called Hillary Clinton a "monster" during an interview with a British news outlet (that's ball one).

Immediately after making the comment coupled with some references to Hillary doing anything to win, she added, "that's off the record." Yeah right, Samantha. Your secret will always be safe with the media. So much for her judgement.

In the aftermath of the comment, Power apologized to Her Majesty claiming that the remark in no way reflected her true feelings about Sen. Clinton, whom she admired greatly. Yeah, right. So much for her honesty.

Power has written on the subject of genocide, and she apparently believes in armed intervention to stop human rights abuses.

Another thing you need to know is that Ms Power is a big supporter of the Palestinian cause. Consider this:

"Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Power said in 2002, that if she were an advisor to the U.S. President she would recommend investing "billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force [in Palestine], not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence", even though this may alienate "a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import".[7]"

* Wikipedia. The footnote references an interview of Power by Harry Kreisler of UC Berkeley

Is this a harbinger of an Obama foreign policy that will feature more overseas adventures, albeit for different reasons? I don't know. Is this a harbinger of an Obama foreign policy that will favor the Palestinians over Israel? I hope not, but I am not optimistic.

But how does this square with Hillary Clinton supposedly becoming the next Secretary of State? Is Obama playing games with her, like a cat plays with a mouse before he delivers the coup de grace? Is he trying to maneuver her into telling him to keep his Secretary of State position? Who knows, but as we all know by now, anything that involves Hillary Clinton has to be accompanied by some sort of melodrama.

Who knows? Maybe Obama will actually give the post to Ms Power. Now that is one scary thought.

In Memoriam

Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and wife Rikvi

Murdered in cold blood by Muslim terrorists at the Chabad Lubavitch House in Mumbai, India

Meanwhile at the UN..........

"Anybody home?"


Almost as an afterthought (perhaps because the United Nations is little more than an afterthought), I checked out the UN's webpage today to see how they were reacting to the events in India. As I suspected, there isn't much there, although certain pages are suddenly not available, such as the "Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People" page. Yet, it is instructive to see what is posted at the UN website.

There is a statement that the Security Council has strongly condemned the acts of terror in Mumbai, expressed sympathy for the victims and called for the prosecution of those arrested. There is also a similar statement from Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon. There is little mention of the perpetrators beyond a vague reference to a group that has claimed responsibility and probably doesn't even exist. (Deccan Mujahadeen). There is no mention of the Chabat House, the Jewish center in which several Jews including Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife, Rivki, were executed in cold blood as Indian commandos closed in.

If you click the page on events in the Middle East, it contains mostly a litany of Palestinian grievances against Israel.

Then I clicked on the page concerning UN actions against terrorism. It is nothing short of a white paper, something every official organization needs to have in its files when the inspectors come looking. It condemns terrorism in all its forms, calls for worldwide coordination to combat it, speaks of conferences and resolutions.....

Oh yes, it stresses that terrorism has no connection to any religion, people, nationality.....

Yet, beyond one passing reference to Al-Qaida and the Taliban, I could find no reference to Islamic terror nor any reference to specific victims of terror-like Jews, Americans, Israelis and other non-Muslims. In all those reams of paper and resolutions, the word Islamic does not appear once. There is no mention of terror-sponsoring states like Iran and Syria. As far as the UN is concerned, terrorism must be committed by Martians.

What a useless and corrupt organization is the UN. It is a body that gives new meaning to the word, "empty".

Mumbai

m
I was going to wait until the tragedy in Mumbai (formerly Bombai) India was over before writing my thoughts down, but I couldn't wait. As I write this, it is said that over 150 people are dead. The courageous Indian commandos are still fighting their way through the Taj Hotel clearing out the remaining terrorist murderers and still rescuing hostages. The exact group that is responsible for this mass atrocity is still unclear, but one thing is clear; they are Muslims. Their targets were Westerners, British, Americans, and yes, Jews. One of the locations raided was Chabat House, a Jewish center. According to news reports, hostages, including Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife,Rivki, were murdered in cold blood as commandos closed in. (Their two-year-old son miraculously escaped.) I am outraged, and I am fed up with the excuses. It is long overdue, but we need to call a spade a spade and demand that the Muslim world rise up and remove this evil from its house.

By any means necessary.

Mumbai is now India's 9-11. We have suffered ours. We reacted, and at least, we can now say that two murderous regimes have been driven from power. Spain had their own 9-11. They reacted and elected a cowardly government that promptly pulled their forces out of Iraq. Britain had theirs and now prostrates itself at the feet of a hateful Muslim minority that spits in the face of British society as they demand Shariah law.

This latest incident is pretty much the final blow for me personally in trying to appeal to decent Muslims to take a stand. It is not easy. I know decent Muslims. I teach Muslim students, mostly from Saudi Arabia, who seem quite nice. I listen to the words of American Muslim leaders who speak of moderation and say they condemn terrorism. I have heard President Bush describe Islam as a religion of peace as he meets Muslim leaders. One of those leaders, whom he has invited to the White House, is Imam Muzammil Siddiqi, former head of the Islamic Society of North America and now head of the Islamic Society of Orange County-himself an Indian.

Last week, I attended a joint Jewish-Muslim discussion at Chapman University, where Dr Siddiqi spoke for Islam. (See post of last week). Dr Siddiqi is considered a "moderate Muslim", who decries terror. Yet, he has made statements in the past regarding Jihad and Shariah that many Westerners might find troubling. In the 1990s, he hosted the "Blind Sheihk" Rahman at his mosque. Let's just say I wasn't convinced at Siddiqi's words last week.

I have just checked the websites of CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, and the Islamic Society of Orange County. Only the Islamic Society of North America has a statement on Mumbai, condemning the attacks and offering prayers for the victims. That is all well and good, but nowhere-nowhere is there any mention of the fact that the perpetrators were Muslims. There is also no mention of the attack on Chabat House. This is insufficient. As for CAIR and the Islamic Society of Orange County, there is nothing on their websites about Mumbai (as of this writing). What will they eventually say? What will the Muslim Student Associations at our US universities say about Mumbai when they have their next "Islam Awareness Week"? Will they continue to claim that they are not anti-Jewish, only anti-"Zionist"? That is the constant disclaimer they use, yet the raid on Chabat House puts the lie to that. It is clear that the killers wanted to include Jews (in India) among their targets. Why?

Because they hate Jews.

So what is it that Muslims in America must say and do, you ask? What is needed is for them to stand up and publicly condemn the MUSLIMS who are carrying out these atrocities in India and around the world in the name of Islam. Muslim leaders need to tell their congregations and members that if they sympathize with these actions, they are not welcome in their midst. They must give the FBI the names of those in their communities who they suspect to be involved in subversive activities. They must publicly proclaim to the world that they are Americans and will stand with America and defend her against ISLAMIC terror.

A few, of course, have stood up and condemned the actions of terrorists acting in the name of Islam. Nonie Darwish and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are a couple that come to mind. They have gone beyond bland statements about "condemning terrorism and that Islam is really a religion of peace". They call it what it is, and as a result, they will spend the rest of their days-in Western countries even-living with bodyguards and dealing with threats to their lives because they are considered apostates.

You see, people like Darwish and Ali have crossed the line. They have spoken out against Islamic doctrine itself. They have said what people in CAIR and Siddiqi cannot say; that so much of what is in the Qu'ran is nothing more than an incitement to hate, shun and murder those who are not Muslims.

You will not hear these Muslim leaders, even if they are "moderates", say that the very words of the Prophet Mohammed are wrong, and that they are not appropriate in the modern world. The problem is that the Prophet Mohammed was a warrior. That is an undeniable fact. Mohammed was not a mythical figure who may or may not have existed. He, indeed, existed, and he spread Islam at the point of a sword. As a result, thousands of people died in the Holy Land. The words in the Qu'ran are his words. If there are conflicts and contradictions, then the latest writing takes precedent.

Mohammed stated that Muslims should not take unbelievers as friends. Almost every page and Sura in the Qu'ran speaks of non-believers burning in Hell, a point constantly reinforced. There, of course, is the famous and oft-quoted Hadith that speaks of trees and bushes saying, "there is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him."

There is the principle of Shariah law, which no Western democracy could ever allow to be adopted; honor killings, stonings, limited rights for women and non-believers, taxes for dhimmis, death for the "crime of apostasy", and on and on. Islam is a belief system that is designed to control every aspect of life including the very law itself.

You see, there is a limit as to what the Muzammil Siddiqis of the world can say when they "condemn terrorism". There is a line they cannot cross. How can they engage in a theological debate with the so-called "extremists"? Is it not the "extremists" who are following the teachings of Mohammed-to the letter? Thirty years ago, we were calling them "fundamentalists"-for a reason. We seemed to have dropped that term. Why? Because it would mean that they are merely following the teachings of Mohammed and Islam.

I think the time is long since past when we in the non-Muslim world wake up and recognize the unavoidable fact; that our enemy is not just a group of a few thousand fanatics around the world-it is an idea. It is an idea that can be found within the covers of a book written by a man who had no concept of a larger world outside the region where he lived and fought.

It could be argued that Islam was in a centuries-long slumber-from which it is awakening with a vengeance. And it is growing. In mosques and hadrassas all over the Muslim world-and in many cases in Western countries as well, children are being taught that according to the Qu'ran, they have mortal enemies-non-believers and especially Jews. Many young Muslims in Western countries are being taught that their mission is to spread Islam until the day comes when Islam will rule that country-and indeed the world.

I have heard many say that Islam needs a Reformation. A nice thought, but it would require more than just "reform". Martin Luther, in his Reformation, was rebelling against a corrupt Vatican that had lost its way. He was not rebelling against the Bible or the teachings of Jesus Christ. To reform Islam would requiring rejecting many passages in the Qu'ran and many of the teachings of Mohammed as simply not being applicable to a modern world-and as being morally wrong. But how do believers decide that their religion does not contain Eternal Truth? That is a big leap.

Meanwhile, so many in the West delude themselves into thinking that this phenomena we call terrorism does not represent true Islam. They insist that Islam is a religion of peace, and that we who bring up the inconvenient facts about the life and teachings of the Prophet Mohammed, the words in the Qu'ran and the words of so many Muslim clerics, are somehow Islamophobes, and that Islamophobia must be fought with the same vigor as anti-Semitism, racism and homophobia. Last week, I listened to a respected rabbi, a decent man who only desires peace and understanding, say that very thing at Chapman University.

Let me set this straight. Aside from the fact that the word "Islamophobia" itself means "fear of Islam", an understandable feeling given world events, I do not believe that individual Muslims should be persecuted. They have a right to practice their religion (indeed, there are some aspects of Islam I find admirable) as long as it does not conflict with the rights of others and local laws. Certainly, there are many Muslims who are used to living around non-Muslims and have no desire to be engaged in violence in any way. Surely, many older Muslims have spent their lives picking and choosing which parts of the Qu'ran they choose to obey. Yet, many are afraid to speak out because of the fear of violent retribution. I have long resisted the temptation to repeat the mocking statement of others when these events happen as, "the religion of peace strikes again." Yet, what other phrase is appropriate?

Yes, it has reached the point where Muslims must take a stand if they want to be accepted by the rest of the world. It is not just in America or Britain or India. Thai Muslims must stand with the majority and reject Muslim insurrection in that country's south. Filipino Muslims must do the same. This is not a call for persecution of innocent Muslims. But how can they be accepted by the larger societies in which they live as minorities if they remain silent? Do they really want to live isolated from the larger society? Some, I believe, actually do.

Meanwhile as the 9-11s, the Londons the Madrids now Mumbais continue to add up, more and more people can only turn against Islam and become "Islamophobes". And fewer and fewer people will be able to insist that Islam is really "a religion of peace".

A Tribute to Marty

As I was driving north from Orange County to the San Fernando Valley with my mother and daughter to attend a family Thanksgiving dinner today, I happened to listen to the Sean Hannity Show on the radio as I usually do when in my car on a weekday. Since it was Thanksgiving, the show was a taped replay of previous broadcasts. Thankfully, I was wearing thick, dark sunglasses because Sean's show started the tears flowing down my cheeks. You see, Sean was doing a tribute to his friend, Marty Kenney, a daily caller to his show who had died November 4th at the age of 90.

Marty was not just any caller. He had been calling into Sean's show on a daily basis since 1996. He was not just a radio talk show enthusiast. Marty, who lived in New Jersey, was a true American patriot and true American hero. As a young soldier during World War 2, he had participated in the invasion of Normandy in 1944.

On countless, occasions while driving in my car, I had listened to Marty call in to Sean's show in the closing minutes for a short comment-always accompanied by Sean's tape of a turn-of-the-century piano piece. Marty's comments were simple and to the point-he loved his country, and he loved the young men and women in uniform who are defending it today.

Today, I listened to Sean talk about what Marty meant to him, what an inspiration Marty was to him, and how Marty had become like a second father to him.

Marty didn't like to talk about his experiences in World War 2, particularly in Normandy though Sean wanted to hear about them. For Marty, it was too painful. Today, Sean's show played a tape of his conversation with Marty this past anniversary of D-Day, in which Marty managed, through his emotions, to recount the horrors of landing at Normandy amd struggling past the bodies of his killed comrades as he tried to fight his way to shore and across the beach.

As I listened to Marty talk about that day, I recalled the day in the 1980s when I and my family visited Normandy. I will never forget walking through the cemetery among the headstones and thinking how the young men who were buried there had truly died for a noble purpose. As we walked down the hill to the beach, I imagined the soldiers coming in the opposite direction, fighting their way across the sand dunes and trying to scale the hill in the face of withering German machine gun fire.

Had it not been for those young men and so many others like them, what corner of the world would be living in freedom today?

Marty Kenney was one of those men.

Marty was one of those people who were part of the "Greatest Generation". As their numbers dwindle, it is sad that so many of our younger generations are so ignorant about their sacrifices. Sadder yet that so many Americans don't appreciate what our military has done and does today. It seems to me that it should be a standard part of every young American's education to take them on excursions to places like Normandy and Pearl Harbor.

I won't demean Marty's memory here by comparing him to certain well-known contemporary figures who have shown nothing but disdain for their country. They don't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Marty Kenney. Just let this be a tribute to a great American and thanks to Sean Hannity for sharing Marty with the rest of us.

Somali Pirates? What Somali Pirates?

Happy Thanksgiving

And if you don't like it, tough turkey

PS- There's a great football game going on in Detroit as I write. Turn it on and catch the exciting finish.

The Holy Land Foundation Trial

Ghassan Elashi-CEO of Holy Land Foundation


On November 24, 2008, a jury in Dallas convicted 5 members of the Islamic charity Holy Land Foundation(HLF)for funneling approximately 12 million dollars to the terrorist organization, Hamas, disguised as charitable contributions to the Middle East, principally in the Palestinian territory. This ended a years-long effort by federal authorities to bring the leaders of the Holy Land Foundation in the US to justice.

In 2001, the US Government froze the assets of the HLF as did the EU. Three years later, in 2004, a federal grand jury in Dallas indicted the organization and several of its members on 42 counts of providing financial aid to a designated terrorist organization (Hamas). It is believed that much of the funding went into the recruitment of suicide bombers (including the indoctrination of school children) targeted against Israeli civilians. In July of 2007, a mistrial was declared when jurors were unable to agree on a verdict. This week marked the culmination of the retrial. The jury deliberated eight days before convicting the defendants, who are identified below:

Shukri Abu Bakjer
Mohammad El-Mezain
Ghassan Elashi
Mufid Abdulqader
Abdulrahman Odeh

Due to the possibility of long prison terms, the defendants were remanded to custody pending sentencing.

Below is a link to the US Government witness list:

http://counterterrorismblog.org/newslinks/upload/2007/06/HLF%2BGoverment%27s%2BWitness%2BList.pdf

Note the expected testimony of several of the witnesses linking the HLF not only to Hamas but to the Muslim Brotherhood, that organization that portrays itself as a peace-loving opponent of terrorism.

Another piece of evidence introduced at the trial was an interesting document entitled: "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America", which is dated 5/22/1991. It was written by Mohamed Akram and consists of 18 pages in English. It is addressed to several Muslim groups in North America. This document is stamped, "US v HLF (Holy Land Foundation) and bears prosecution exhibit number 003-0085, which identifies it as a government exhibit in the the Holy Land Foundation prosecution. It is now in the public venue.

Of particular interest is page 7 of the document, section 4, which is entitled:

"Understanding the Role of the Muslim Brother in North America". It reads;

"The process of settlement is a 'Civilization-Jihadist Process' with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal".

On October 8, 2008, Muslim Brotherhood spokesman, Ibrahim El-Houdaiby, appeared at the University of California at Irvine. He spoke to a group of students in a class per the invitation of Professor Mark LeVine, a Middle East expert who is known to be sympathetic to the Palestinian side in the struggle against Israel. The appearance was open to the public. During the speech, El-Houdaiby presented the Muslim Brotherhood as a peaceful organization that opposed violence. During the Q&A, I confronted El-Houdaibi with the above document and gave him both Arabic and English copies as I read the document for the audience. El-Houdaiby promptly questioned where I had obtained the document and pronounced it a forgery. What ensued was a series of exchanges between El-Houdaiby and me on this blog in which he insisted the document was a forgery and that the Muslim Brotherhood was a non-violent organization.

So what does the verdict in the Holy Land Foundation tell us? Without trying to paint all US Muslims as terrorist supporters, I think it illustrates the undeniable fact that we have a cancer growing in this country. Of course, I understand that very few Muslims in the US could be expected to take the Israeli side. Yet, Israel is our ally, and we are committed to support that country. If US Muslims are sending funds to organizations like Hamas, they are not only supporting terror, but they are working at cross purposes with our government as well.

Sadly, but not surprisingly, with the exception of the Dallas newspapers, it seems that the mainstream media (once again) has chosen not to make this front-page news.

The convictions in Dallas are encouraging. Yet, they are disturbing as well because we are going to have to face an unpleasant truth. We have a 5th column in this country. It is not all Muslims, but there is a segment we need to be concerned about.

Kalifornia Krashing

Our beloved governor-leading the way to a brighter future


Twenty-eight billion dollars and counting, folks. That's the latest budget deficit in California under Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the left-wing Democrats in Sacramento. To "solve" this crisis, Arnold called the legislators into special session in the State Capitol. Yesterday, they all went home for Thanksgiving, and, since the new legislature comes in the first of December, some won't be back at all.

What did they accomplish? Nothing. The Democrats, as is their wont, tried to increase taxes. For example, one idea would have tripled the car tax. Republicans, of course, refused to go along with any tax increases. So it was back home to carve the turkey.

Arnold, of course, slammed the lawmakers and described the whole legislature as a "kindergarten". That charge is true, of course, but our governor, under the careful guidance of his wife, Maria Shriver, has been complicit in the whole mess. Once he learned that he could not get Sacramento to cut its insane spending and that he could not win against the powerful state employee unions, he joined them.

So now the deficit is 28 billion. In a couple of months, it will probably be 35 billion. Who is to blame? Sacramento, of course, and the irresponsible people who infest the state capitol.

In the words of an old friend, long forgotten, "you could drop a nuclear bomb on that place and not harm one innocent bystander."

The Claremont Thanksgiving Affair- A Happy Ending

Warning: The above picture is politically incorrect and not suitable for children.


* Please refer to my previous post on this topic entitled: "Assault on Thanksgiving in California" (November 21, 2008).

Who says a protest can't have a happy ending? After the Claremont (Ca) School Board reacted to one parent's letter of protest about a planned Thanksgiving dinner in which children from two local elementary schools would dress up as Pilgrims and Indians by banning the costumes, parents took matters into their own hands.

Outraged at the politically correct decision by School Superintendent David Cash that would have ended a decades-long tradition, the overwhelming majority of the concerned parents went ahead and dressed their kids up in the costumes anyway and accompanied them to Condit Elementary School yesterday. Once there, the children sat down to their Thanksgiving feast dressed in their paper outfits.

Meanwhile, several parents participated in a demonstration on the street outside the school and exchanged angry shouts with those protesting the costumes as an affront to Native Americans. Police had to be called to make sure nothing got physical. The kids meanwhile, had their feast and played with each other, oblivious to the commotion. Of course, the news media was there from as far away as Los Angeles, and some kids came up to the cameras asking to get on TV.

A wonderful time was had by all. Except for Superintendent David Cash, who asked the local gendarmes to patrol his house due to hate mail he has received.

And that's not all, folks. Today, most of the parents are keeping their kids out of school. What that means to the schools is-money. No attendance-no money from the government. The schools figure to lose $50 per student who is absent today.

Now that's a protest I can get behind. It's about time common folks stood up to officials imposing political correctness on them.

Deal- or No Deal?

Why is it that everything that involves Hillary Clinton has to be carried out like a soap drama? The appointment of a Secretary of State could and should be carried out in a simple and dignified manner-befitting the post. Not so with Madame Hillary. We the public have had to be treated with two or more weeks of suspense wondering if America's political diva, our own version of Evita Peron, would become our next Secretary of State. It is typical Clinton tackiness, and it doesn't make Barack Obama look like much of a leader. This whole show looks like some kind of "Deal".

The issue of why she is a disastrous pick for State is the subject of another essay. What concerns me here is how she came to be the pick for this position.

Remember that secret meeting in Washington at the home of Senator Dianne Feinstein, when it was obvious that Obama was going to be the nominee? There were questions of if and when she would end her campaign. Would she support Obama and ask her followers to do the same? Would she campaign for Obama after the convention?

Now, with all this nonsense leading up to The Big Announcement, is it fair to ask if any deals were made for Hillary's role in an Obama Administration? So what, you ask. That's just politics. True. However, I would argue that the position of Secretary of State, especially in this dangerous era in which we are living, is too crucial to give the position to someone as part of a "Deal". Obama should be seeking out the best possible choice for this position, and I would argue that Hillary Clinton is not the best choice-not even close. She is not qualified.

So, it seems that the announcement will be made after Thanksgiving, and we learn that the vetting process is underway and will be done by then. What about the question of the notorious Clinton finances (i.e. all the money Bill gets from Middle East entities for his library, foundation and giving speeches)? People have been trying for about 16 years to get to the bottom of the Clintons' finances-without much success. And the Obama team thinks they can vet it all in a few weeks?

Give me a break.

This episode involving this woman and her erstwhile husband, who refuse to go away, coupled with the massive appointments of Clinton Administration retreads, leads me to wonder who will really be in charge in the Obama Administration. Will it be President Obama-or the couple that won't go away?

Deal-or no deal?

Let's Play, "Name That Ballpark"

Taxpayer Field- Your tax dollars at work


News item: Two New York City Councilmen in Queens have suggested that the New York Mets new ballpark, which will open next year, have a slight name change. You see, Citi Group (that outfit that is getting a 25 billion dollar bailout from the Government), is paying the Mets 400 million dollars over the next twenty years for naming rights to the stadium. Thus, the new ballpark will be known as "Citi Field".

The council members have suggested that the ballpark be known as "Citi/Taxpayer Field".

I like the idea, but why not just call it "Taxpayer Field". You know, cut out the middleman.

"America's Sheriff" on Trial- Did Greg Haidl Get Preferencial Treatment?

Greg Haidl- With a son like him, you need all the favors you can get.


Tuesday's session of the Mike Carona corruption trial continued with the testimony of an Orange County Sheriff's deputy who testified about a 2003 encounter with Greg Haidl, the son of star witness, Don Haidl, who had just finished testifying for 11 days.

As background, it should be remembered that Don Haidl was a successful businessman who was appointed Asst Sheriff by Carona-with no law enforcement experience. The defense has been arguing that there was no legitimate motive for Haidl to funnel illegal money and gifts to Carona since he (Haidl) was already a wealthy man. Haidl has testified that his motive was to be in a position of power where he could receive special favors and advantages.

Well, according to Tuesday's testimony, Haidl's son, Greg, received a special favor in 2003 when he was already out on bail charged for his involvement in a gang rape that he and two of his friends video-taped. (They were all convicted.)

According to the testimony of one deputy, John Roche, he encountered Greg Haidl and two other youths in a business parking lot in San Clemente, where they were skateboarding. During the encounter, Roche found a baggie of marijuana in a nearby car that Haidl was driving. Haidl denied ownership of the marijuana, and eventually, following a short period of time in which the deputy left the three together, one of the boys, a 16 year old, stated that the marijuana was his. (It was suspected that Haidl might have pressured the younger boy to take the blame.)

At any rate, the deputy called his supervisor since it was known who the younger Haidl was. Apparently, a couple more phone calls were made up the ladder, and the deputy was instructed to take Haidl home and not charge him. It was also ordered that the marijuana not be logged into evidence at the police station.

Lt Lloyd Downing testified that he was watch commander on that date, and was instructed by Asst Chief George Jaramillo not to log in the incident, lest the news media get ahold of it.

"I was only following orders", Downing testified.

Under cross-examination by Carona defense attorney, Jeff Rawitz, Downing was asked if he knew whether Carona had any involvement in the incident, to which he replied in the negative.

If that wasn't enough, about five days later, according to the testimony, Roche was instructed to write a report and log the evidence in. Roche testified that Lt William Hunt, a commander at the station, ordered the deputy to re-write his report in a way to absolve Haidl from any guilt.

Eventually, local news reporters started getting leaks from disgusted Sheriff's deputies about the incident, and it became a big news story in Orange County-already outraged about the pending criminal trial of Greg Haidl and two others for gang-rape and the fact that his father, Don Haidl, was an Asst Sheriff without any previous law enforcement experience.

As local LA reporter, Eric Leonard was reporting the testimony on KFI's John and Ken radio talk show, Hunt called into the show to vehemently state that he did nothing wrong, was only acting on the information known to him at the time and had received no orders from higher up. (Hunt, actually ran against Carona for Sheriff a couple of years back claiming that he would reform Carona's running of the department. Carona won and later, according to Hunt, retaliated against him by demoting him after the election.)

What was the importance of dragging up the Greg Haidl mess? It went to corroborate Don Haidl's stated motive of wanting to be in a position to get special favors. The defense, as stated, is trying to destroy Haidl's testimony as to his motives for having a secret financial relationship with Carona. In that incident in 2003, it appears that Don Haidl got a special favor from the Orange County Sheriff's Department.

After the above testimony, Carona's former secretary, Rlaine Vasquez, took the stand. She provided evidence regarding the obligation of people like Carona to provide information annually regarding their financial interests. This is done on a state form 700. According to Vasquez, she helped Carona file these reports in cases where he had been provided gifts or favors, such as a free limousine ride to Hollywood to view "The Lion King" at the Pantages Theatre. In cases like this, the Sheriff would send a letter to the donor that as Orange County Sheriff, he was not allowed to accept such favors free and would enclose reimbursement.

Why was that mundane testimony important? It went to show that Carona actually knew the law regarding favors, and, in several instances, actually followed the law. The prosecution is arguing that in cases where Carona's inner circle (Haidl, Jaramillo, etc) was providing the favors, he ignored it. According to Vasquez, she never saw any report of the alleged $1,000 monthly payments from Haidl to Carona.

The saga of "America's Sheriff" continues with a half-day of testimony on Wednesday before breaking for Thanksgiving.

The Latest UN Shame

This is what you will see at the UN




This is what you won't see at the UN



If you had not marked today's date on your calendars, folks, you may have missed the Big News. Today, November 24th, has been designated by that august body, the United Nations as its annual "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People".
Of course, no expression of "solidarity" with the Palestinians could go by without bashing the state of Israel.

Sure enough, that temple of world understanding in New York will feature a film that compares Israelis as Nazis ("La Terre Parle Arabe" or "The Land Speaks Arabic."), a film that compares the "Zionist plan for Palestinians" with the Final Solution, as well as an exhibit that paints Israel's 60 years of existence in a terrible light. never mind the fact that 60 years ago-November 29, 1947, the same UN proclaimed two states, Israel and an Arab state side-by-side. The Jews accepted the idea. The Arab world rejected it and prepared for war. The UN lobby will be festooned with a display entitled; The Palestinians- 60 years of struggle and enduring hope.

In addition, there will be resolutions. There will be exhibits. There will be speeches-all condemning Israel for violations of human rights. The UN's former Secretary General, the corrupt Kofi Annan has referred to November 29 as a "day of mourning-a day of grief."

What you won't see-what you won't hear is this:

Nothing will be said about the millions of Jews who were driven from their homes and communities in places like Iraq, Egypt or Syria after 1948.

Nothing will be said about acts of Palestinian terrorism. There will be no mention of the airplane hijackings. There will be no mention of the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre of Israeli athletes. There will be no mention of the Achille Lauro takeover in the 1980s, when Palestinian terrorists took over a cruise ship. Nothing will be said about Leon Klinghofer, an elderly American Jewish passenger, who was murdered and tossed overboard-in his wheelchair. There will be no mention of the airport massacres carried out by Arab terrorists in Rome and Vienna in the 1980s. There will be no mention of the suicide bombings carried out by Palestinians in crowded buses, cafes and pizza parlors.

There will be no photos of Palestinians dancing in the streets and passing out candy on 9-11.

There will be no discussion of the corruption of Yassir Arafat.

There will be no discussion of the hanging or stoning of women in Iran for the "crime" of adultery. Similarly, there will be no discussion of the execution of homosexuals in Iran.

There will be no discussion of rape victims being punished for the "crime" of having illicit sex in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

There will be no discussion of forced female circumcision in parts of Africa.

This "commemoration" is just another sad example of why the UN has no further justification for its existence. This body is just a collection of nations, the majority of which are corrupt, third world countries which don't practice democracy, and have no respect for democracy. Human rights? How many of these banana republics know the first thing about human rights? How many of these countries can match Israel (the only democracy in the entire Middle East) when it comes to human rights?

So why does this useless body exist? Probably to transfer wealth from the developed world to their own sorry countries-where government leaders can siphon it off to Swiss bank accounts while their people live in extreme poverty. They certainly don't exist to stop genocide (witness Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur and others). They certainly don't exist to save people from natural disasters. When the tsunami struck Indonesia and Thailand a couple of years back, the US military was on the ground delivering food, equipment and medical supplies while the UN bureaucrats were scheduling meetings in Tokyo to decide what they should do first. Then, as American citizens were donating millions of dollars to relief agencies, the UN had the cojones to criticize the US and other developed countries for not doing enough! They seem to forget that, courtesy of the US taxpayer, our country pays almost 25% of their total budget.

It is high time for the US to form a coalition of democratic states and leave this thing called the United Nations in the dustbin of history where it belongs. And as for this idea of "solidarity with the Palestinians", you can count me out.

Let's Play, "Name That Bailout!"

Which of the below Detroit firms do you think will get the next government bailout?

The Proposition 8 Backlash-Is it Time for RICO?

In the aftermath of the passage of Proposition 8 in California establishing marriage as between one man and one woman, the gay activists are mobilizing for a multi-front fight. Already, a series of lawsuits is being filed and the California Supreme Court has already agreed to entertain the case-yet again. The most prominent attorney filing against Prop 8 is the ubiquitous Gloria Allred, who seems to attach herself to every controversial case in the stste. Other factions are vowing to put the gay marriage issue on the ballot yet again in 2010. All that is part of our legal and constitutional system. What is truly objectionable, however, are the massive attacks on Christian churches for their support of Prop 8. The Mormon Church, which gave huge financial support to the measure, has been singled out for special attention. The recent disruption of services at Mt Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan on November 9 by a group calling itself, "Bash Back" was especially outrageous. Demonstrators shouted, "Jesus was a homo". The pulpit was stormed, parts of the church were vandalized and worshippers confronted and intimidated. Believe it or not, no arrests were made. See details at:

http://www.afamichigan.org/2008/11/11/news-lansing-family-group-condemns-homosexual-activists-disruption-of-local-church/


My question is this; if gay activists and their supporters, specifically "Bash Back" are organizing disruptive actions against churches across the nation, is it time for the Justice Department to take a look?

I am in no way suggesting that the right to conduct legal demonstrations and protests be abridged. Yet, as we all know, many protests do get out of hand, become violent, and thus, cause police to make arrests. The violent and disruptive invasion of church services is a crime and should not be tolerated.

What appears to be shaping up is a nationwide wave of intimidation and disruption aimed at the American religious community. Diverse as they may be, most faiths are opposed to same-sex marriages. Many elements of the so-called gay community are singling out the religious communities for blame-and retaliation. If it turns out that this is a nation-wide, organized movement that crosses the line of legitimate protest, then it may be appropriate for the US Justice Department to launch an investigation. One possible way might be the RICO Statute.

The RICO Statute (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations-Chapter 96, Title 18 US Code 1961-68) was passed in 1970 to deal with interstate criminal organizations-in effect- Organized Crime. It also proved to be useful in the prosecution of large-scale drug trafficking organizations that were operating across state lines or internationally. It provides for enhanced penalties and has civil provisions as
well.

Since its passage, RICO has been applied to other organized forms of criminal activity. (There was also an unsuccessful attempt to apply RICO to abortion clinic protesters).

I should add that I am not an attorney, so I am not calling for the Justice Department to initiate a RICO investigation at this point. The disruptive actions of certain gay groups may simmer down as they concentrate on the legal avenues they can follow. I cannot even say with authority that RICO would be appropriate. That would have to be figured out by the Justice Department attorneys if the pattern of church harassment such as what happened in Lansing continues.

I do have a feeling, however, that this gay marriage issue and the backlash caused by Proposition 8 may be the start of a concentrated, organized and nation-wide campaign to target the faith communities. This group called "Bash Back" appears to have branches in Chicago, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Memphis, and a few other cities as well.

There are legal ways to protest outside churches, and in many cases, protesters outside churches have not crossed the line. However, if Lansing becomes part of a pattern, then I feel the Justice Department has a duty to protect churches from undue intimidation and harassment. Investigating "Bash Back" may be a good place to start.

But would an Obama Justice Department led by Eric Holder undertake such action if the situation continues and worsens?

Time will tell.

Hate on our College Campuses

Tolerance on parade-The Minutemen appear at Columbia University


Gary Larson of Frontpage has written about an incident that happened on election night at Augsburg Collage in Minnesota. It may be read in its entirety at the site below:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=9C957DF6-624E-4A43-9839-29F8EB3E10C8

According to the report, 18-year-old freshman, Annie Grossmann was accosted on campus after leaving an election night gathering. Her attackers were 4 young black women (unknown to her)who followed her from the event and beat her up a short distance away. Ms Grossmann suffered a concussion and blurred vision. As yet, the attackers have not been identified or arrested.

What was the motive for the attack? Grossmann, who is a Republican, was wearing a McCain-Palin button. During the beating, she was called a racist by her attackers. In earlier social gatherings, Grossmann had been jeered for identifying herself as a Republican.

My reaction to this article is outrage but not surprise. First of all, college campuses across the nation are becoming hotbeds of intolerance. Intolerance of what, you may ask. Is it intolerance of blacks or Hispanics? Hardly. Any sign of that is met immediately by condemnation from the university and the student body-and rightfully so. Actually, it is more an intolerance of ideas that go against the majority sentiment on university campuses. In other words, if you represent anything conservative, Republican, pro-US or pro-Israel-you will be singled out to be ostracized. Universities, which traditionally have been supposed to be centers of discourse and the exchange of ideas from all sides, are now bases for the propagation of ideas from the left. If you want to bash the US Government, the President, our military, or Israel, your speech will be welcomed in the name of "Free Speech". On the other hand, if you want to honor America, support Israel, speak out against Islamic terror, praise the US Government and our military-you will be jeered-not only by students-but by professors as well. Need I recite the long list of conservatives who have had their appearances at colleges disrupted by know-nothing students-egged on by know-nothing professors?

This is the climate that exists on university campuses today. I know. I have taught part-time at the University of California at Irvine for 10 years.

Recently, at Elmhurst College in Illinois, a young Muslim woman filed a police report that she had been attacked by an unidentified male in a campus restroom after speaking at a campus event. The college and the community rallied in support of the woman. Candlelight vigils were held to speak out against hate. All well and good-until a few days later, the woman was arrested for perpetrating a hoax and filing a false police report. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which had posted the news of the "attack" on its web site, waited 5 days before they took it down.

Question: Has anyone at Augsburg College held a candlelight vigil for Annie Grossmann? I seriously doubt it.

I could go on and on about the double standard that exists on college campuses when it comes to these types of conflicts. Yet, I need go no further than UC Irvine where the Muslim Student Union sponsors hateful speakers on a regular basis. To listen to these speakers is to listen to anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic diatribes. (They even brought in the odious Ward Churchill a couple of years back.) There have also been incidents of physical confrontations against Jewish students on campus. A Jewish female student had her camera shoved in her face by a Muslim student while she was filming an MSU event. The university and campus took no action. Last May, a Jewish female student who had filmed an MSU speech was followed back to her car, surrounded and intimidated by a group of MSU men. The campus police and the university took no action.

Of course, as I have written repeatedly, the people who run UCI are apparently terrified of the MSU and probably CAIR as well. They not only tolerate this inciteful hate speech on campus, but won't even condemn it beyond making vague statements about hate speech in general. A couple of years back, after an incident of vandalism of a Jewish display on campus, the university organized a kumbaya event to condemn hate and hate speech in general. Guess what. The leaders of the university dis-invited the campus Jewish organization group from the event.

You see, under the code of political correctness, it all depends who the victims and perpetrators are. If the victim is white, Jewish, conservative, Republican, then no one will care. If the victim is black, Hispanic, gay or Muslim, the candlelight vigils break out all over the place. I'm sorry folks, but this is hypocrisy in its purest form. It should not matter who the victims are or the perps. Right is right, and wrong is wrong. This is something that has been lost on universities across the land for several years now.

Mayne someone should call for a national candlelight vigil-to mark the death of our universities as centers for serious learning.

Assault on Thanksgiving in California

Viewer warning: The above picture may contain disturbing images. Viewer discretion advised.


Claremont, a community southeast of Los Angeles, is now the scene of a fight over a Thanksgiving celebration that was scheduled to be held by two local elementary schools. The planned event would have involved some 150 elementary schoolchildren from Condit Elementary School and nearby Mountain View Elementary School. The program, which was in the preparation stages, would have involved the kids dressing up as Indians and Pilgrims as they shared a Thanksgiving dinner. In preparing for the event, the children were busy at work cutting out their costumes from paper. Then it all came crashing down.

What happened was that one woman, the mother of one of the children, wrote a 2 1/2 page letter to the Claremont School Board, protesting the event as being denigrating and demeaning to Native Americans. As a result, the costumes have been scrapped by the school board.

In the letter, the woman, who is an Asst Professor of English at the University of California at Riverside and apparently of Indian heritage, described the Thanksgiving dinner as a "celebration of genocide". She compared the depiction of the first Thanksgiving dinner to showing slaves having dinner with their masters and Jews having dinner with Nazis.

On Thursday evening, the Claremont School Board held a public meeting, in which several parents showed up to defend having the event. They were told by the Board that the decision had already been made to have the students dressed in their normal clothes-and that no costumes would be permitted.

Whatever happened to Native Americans in our history, what in the world is wrong with showing a historical event that was conducted in friendship-before the wars began? Is this the first step in an all out assault on Thanksgiving-much as we have seen with Christmas? That this cowardly and/or politically correct school board would capitulate to one activist professor is absurd. Did she threaten them with a lawsuit? So now, in the interest of "sensitivity", to use the Board's own words, the event has been reduced to something as meaningless as an outing to Chucky Cheese.

The Carona Trial-Haidl Under "Cross-Examination"

From car auctioneer to "Asst Sheriff" to "rat"-Don Haidl


This week, Don Haidl continued his testimony against ex-Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona in the federal corruption trial in Santa Ana. Today, Haidl was cross-examined by Silvia Torres-Guillen, who is the public defender for co-defendant Debra Hoffman (who was Carona's mistress and accused co-conspirator).

Ms Torres-Guillen spent considerable time trying to get Haidl to admit he was a "snitch" or "rat". No Perry Mason moment there.

She also irritated the judge by trying to make a major point of how many times Haidl had met with prosecutors and police when he began cooperating. Haidl didn't recall but accepted Ms Torres-Guillen's number of 18 as being pretty close. At this point, the attorney tried to have Haidl read the government report for each meeting out loud in court. The judge put a quick end to that idea-probably to the relief of the jurors who are now anticipating a trial that might go into January.

But the real laffer was when Torres-Guillen went after Haidl's testimony about some $100,000 that Haidl had funneled into propping up Hoffman's failing law firm (she is also charged with bankruptcy fraud). Torres-Guillen put up an enlarged image of a check book purported to be Hoffman's that showed two payments of $2,000 each as "evidence" that Hoffman was repaying the "loan". Haidl replied that it was his own check book that the attorney had put up and that these were payments made by him.

Moral of the story; if you ever get arrested, don't get a public defender. You might as well plead guilty.

Muzammil Siddiqi at Chapman University

Imam Muzammil Siddiqi


Last night I atttended a panel discussion at Chapman University in Orange, California. The event was hosted by the Dept of Religious Studies at Chapman and featured Rabbi Stuart Altschuler and Imam Muzammil Siddiqi, both of whom are on the staff at Chapman. The moderator was the Department Chair, Marvin Meyer. The topic of discussion was Muslim-Jewish relations. About 30 members of the community attended.

Prior to descibing the event itself, I am cross-posting a summary of Siddiqi which has been published by the Investigative Project with appropriate citations: (I apologize for the disjointed text.)


"Muzammil Siddiqi was born in India in 1943 and studied at Aligarh Muslim
University and Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama in Lucknow. After receiving a
graduate degree in Arabic and Islamic Studies at the Islamic University of
Medina in Saudi Arabia, he went on to earn an M.A. in Theology from Birmingham University in England and a Ph.D. in Comparative Religion from
Harvard University.[1]


He is the director of the Islamic Society of Orange County

(ISOC)[2]

and was formerly the president of the Islamic Society of North America
(ISNA) from 1997 to 2000.[3]He

> still serves on ISNA's board of directors and is Chairman of the ISNA
> affiliated North American Islamic Trust

> (NAIT).[4]

>
> ISNA's founders had roots in the Muslim Brotherhood. In addition, Siddiqi's
> public statements range from endorsing laws in countries where homosexuality
> is punishable by death to wishing for Sharia law to govern America.
>
> ISNA was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 Hamas-support
> trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF). The
> society was listed among entities that were part of the Muslim Brotherhood
> structure in America. In a statement issued during the trial, ISNA said it
> "is not now nor has it ever been subject to the control of any other
> domestic or international organizations including the Muslim Brotherhood."

> [5]

>
> However, ISNA was mentioned repeatedly in internal Brotherhood documents
> from the late 1980s and early 1990s seized by federal law enforcement
> officials and introduced at the HLF trial.
>
> In one introduced at trial, a strategy

> memodated

> May 22, 1991, ISNA is the first listed among 29 groups labeled "our
> organizations and the organizations of our

> friends.[6]"

> The ISNA Fiqh Committee and the ISNA Political Awareness Committee also
appear on the list.[7]

>
> But it is the strategy laid out in the memo that has garnered the most
> attention and concern. Written by Mohamed Akram, AKA Adlouni, the strategy
> memo lays out the role of the Muslim Brothers in North America:
>
> The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the
> word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind
> of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from
> within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of
> the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious
> over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up
> to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a
> Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he
> lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny
> except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the

> Mujahedeen be equal.[8]

>
> The year after this memo was written, Siddiqi's mosque hosted a lecture by
> Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, according to *The New

> Yorker

> * Sheikh Rahman, longtime spiritual leader of Egypt's largest Islamic
> militant group, al-Gama'a al-Islamiya (Islamic Group) was indicted in 1993
> for conspiring with a group of followers to destroy New York bridges and
> tunnels. He was sentenced to life in prison. Siddiqi translated Rahman's
> lecture in real time. According to the *New Yorker*:
>
> Abdel Rahman dismissed nonviolent definitions of jihad as weak. He stressed
> that a number of unspecified enemies had "united themselves against Muslims"
> and that fighting them was obligatory. "If you are not going to the jihad,
> then you are neglecting the rules of Allah," he said. The opportunities for
> jihad were virtually everywhere, ranging from apostate Middle Eastern
> regimes to "those who are taking the wealth of Muslims from petrol or from
> oil." As he spoke, a red toolbox, with a slit cut into its lid for
> donations, was passed around the room. Videotapes of the lecture were later
> offered for sale at the society's

> bookstore.[9]

>
> Regarding the incident, Siddiqi said Rahman "was touring, and some people
> insisted that he should be

> there."[10]

>
> In addition to his role at ISNA, Siddiqi served as Chairman of the
> Department of Religious Affairs at the Muslim World League (MWL) Office to
> the United Nations from 1976 to

> 1980.[11]The

> Muslim World League (MWL) was set up in 1962 by the royal Saud family,
> to "promote Islamic

> unity"[12]and
to spread the Wahhabi brand of Islam.

> [13] Since its

> founding the MWL has frequent allegations levied against it for linkage to

> terrorist activity.[14]

>
> The following examples show Siddiqi speaking in his own words:
>
> - At a "Jerusalem Day Rally" in Lafayette Park in Washington, DC on
> October 28, 2000, Muzammil Siddiqi said Jerusalem is land "that belongs to
> Muslims."
>
> …
And al-Aqsa, my brothers and sisters, is our sacred mosque. It belongs to
> Islam. It belongs to all the Muslims of the world, 1.5 billion Muslims of
> the world, it belongs to them. We cannot accept any threat to the al-Aqsa
> mosque. We cannot give up Jerusalem. Jerusalem belongs to Islam.
>
> America has to learn that because if you remain on the side of injustice, the
wrath of God will come .

> Please! Please all Americans, do you remember that, that Allah is watching
> everyone. God is watching everyone. If you continue doing injustice, and
> tolerating injustice, the wrath of God will come.[15]
>
>
> - During a "Live Dialogue," on IslamOnline.net on May 31, 2001, Siddiqi
was asked about implementing *Sharia* (Islamic law) in the U.S. Siddiqi
> answered:
>
> The criminal law of the Sharia is not practiced here [in America] and it is
> not even required for Muslims to practice the criminal law in a non-Islamic
> state. Muslims have to continue living their own lives faithfully and
> presenting the message of Islam to others. Once more people accept Islam,
> insha'allah, this will lead to the implementation of Sharia in all areas.

> [16]

>
> During the same dialogue, Siddiqi was asked about participating in American
> politics and whether Muslims should participate in it or focus on building
> Islamic schools instead:
>
> As an American Muslim do (you) think that by voting we as Muslims can bring
> Sharia in this country or to even think that the Kufar (unbelievers) are
> going to help us establish ourselves in this country when they have been
> supporting countries such as Turkey, Russia, India and China and list goes
> on and on, where every practising Muslim is being oppressed? If they really
> care about our vote they would not have lobbies(legal bribery institutions
> working in this country? I think we should build Islamic schools rather then
> support AMC or any other political unless all of these organizations have an
> agenda to make Muslims

> "Modern."[17]

>
> Siddiqi responded:
>
> We should not lose hope, Islam is a religion of optimism. Prophet Muhammad
> (SAAWS) started his work as a single person in Mecca and by the grace and
> mercy of Allah, he was able to bring a large portion of humanity to the path
> of truth and righteousness. We should also work with sincerity, devotion and
> wisdom. We should work in all fields: social, economic, political,
> spiritual; the Islamic dawa includes

> everything.[18]
>
>
> - In the Oct. 18, 1996 issue of the newspaper, *Pakistan Link*, Siddiqi
> wrote an articlein

> which he responded to reader questions. On the subject of the
> political
> participation of Muslims in a non-Islamic state, he said:
>
> It is true that Islam stands for the sovereignty of Allah subhanahu wa
> ta'ala and Allah's rules are not limited to the acts of worship, they also
> include social, economic and political matters. By participating in a
> non-Islamic system, one cannot rule by that which Allah has commanded. But
> things do not change overnight. Changes come through patience, wisdom and
> hard work.
>
> I believe that as Muslims we should participate in the system to safeguard
> our interest and try to bring gradual change for the right cause, the cause
> of truth and justice. We must not forget that Allah's rules have to be
> established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.

> [19]
>
>
> - In a video recording made roughly 15 years ago in California, Siddiqi

> lectured on "jihad," proclaiming:
>
> When people really carry on Jihad, they carry on the Islam in its peak in
> its totality. And that's why in the hadith the Prophet (SAS) said (Arabic),
> 'No people have ever neglected Jihad except they became humiliated.' And
> people leave, renounce Jihad, they became humiliated. That means in order to
> gain the honor, Jihad is the path, Jihad is the way to receive the honor.
>
> …
>
> I can see that there is already some impact after Jihad in Afghanistan in
> the Intifada movement in Palestine. With this, more courage, more strength,
> more confidence and shall I even say that in a few years we will be
> celebrating with each other the victory of Islam in Palestine. Insh'allah,
> we shall be celebrating the coming of the Masjid al-Aqsa under the Islamic
> rule. We shall be celebrating insh'allah the coming of Jerusalem and the
> whole land of Palestine insh'allah and the establishment of the Islamic
> State throughout that area.
>
>
> - The *San Francisco Chronicle* published a story in June 2001 about
> homosexuality among Muslims. Siddiqi was interviewed for the story, as shown
> in the following excerpt:
>
> "I ask those people to repent, turn to God and take Islam seriously," said
> Muzammil Siddiqi, president of the Islamic Society of North America and the
> director of the Islamic Society of Orange County in Garden Grove. "Being gay
> and Muslim is a contradiction in terms. Islam is totally against
> homosexuality.
>
> It's clear in the Koran and in the sayings of the prophet Mohammed."
>
> Siddiqi said he did not condone violence against gays, but supported laws in
> countries where homosexuality is punishable by death. As in the Bible,
> Siddiqi said, the Koran includes the story of Lot, in which men who have sex
> with men are punished.
>
> "How can people accept something that is against the Koran, unless Muslims
> stop being Muslims?" Siddiqi said.

> [20]
>
>
> - In a September 2002 speech at an ISNA convention, Siddiqi stated of

> 9/11, well after Osama Bin Laden took credit for the attacks:
>
> It is, the point is that we said, whosoever did it, we condemn it. We did
> not say it is Muslims who did it. We did not say this and that. But the
> point is that whosoever did it, it was wrong. And this is a basic point … We
> cannot say in surety whoever did it or not. But the point is that if the
> name of Islam is taken, we have to clarify the name of

> Islam.[21]
>
>
> - During a 2006 sermon, Siddiqi offered mixed messages about the

> controversy surrounding Danish political cartoons that mocked the Prophet
> Muhammad. He said he did "not condone any violence and strongly reject those
> who misbehaved in expressing their disapproval," but then advocated limits
> on free speech when it offends religious

> sensibilities.[22]

>
> "Religion and religious figures are dear to people's hearts. Their emotions
> are attached to them. Even if one does not believe in a religious figure,
> one should express one's criticism in a responsible and respectful manner."

> [23]

>
> He added: "We do not force others to believe in Prophet Muhammad the way we
> believe in him; but they should not insult us and humiliate us by abusing
> his name, his personality and character in

> public."[24]
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> [1] "Dr. Muzammil

> H. Siddiqi," Pakistan Link,
> http://www.pakistanlink.com/religion/siddiqi.html (Accessed December 14,
> 2007).; "Islamic Director's Biography," Website of Islamic Society of Orange
> County (ISOC), http://www.isocmasjid.com/Administration/dbio.htm (Accessed
> December 14, 2007).
>

> [2] "Islamic

> Director's Biography," Website of Islamic Society of Orange County (ISOC),
> http://www.isocmasjid.com/Administration/dbio.htm
>

> [3] "Muzammil

> Siddiqi, Past President," ISNA Website,
> http://www.isna.net/about/profiles/Muzammil_Siddiqi.html (Accessed December
> 18, 2007).
>

> [4] "Board of

> Directors (Majlis Ash-Shura)," ISNA Website,
> http://www.isna.net/about/board.html (Accessed December 18, 2007).
>

> [5] ISNA

> Statement of Position: Who We Are and What We Believe," ISNA website,
> September 12, 2007.
>
> http://www.isna.com/articles/Press-Releases/ISNA-STATEMENT-OF-POSITION-Who-we-are-and-what-we-believe.aspx
>

> [6] *US. v, Holy

> Land Foundation*, (TXND 3:04cr240) Government Exhibit 003-0085; "An
> Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North
> America."
>

> [7] Ibid.
>
> [8] *US. v, Holy

> Land Foundation*, (TXND 3:04cr240) Government Exhibit 003-0085; "An
> Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North
> America."
>

> [9] "Azzam the

> American: The Making of an Al Qaeda Homegrown," *The New Yorker*, Raffi
> Khatchadourian, January 15, 2007
>

> [10] Ibid.
>
> [11] Dr.

> Muzammil Siddiqi," http://www.pakistanlink.com/religion/siddiqi.html .
>

> [12] "Muslim

> World League," Saudi Arabia Information Website,
> http://www.saudinf.com/main/k312.htm (Accessed December 21, 2007).
>

> [13] Evgenii

> Novikov, "The World Muslim League: Agent of Wahhabi Propagation in Europe,"
> Jamestown Foundation Terrorism Monitor, Volume 3, Issue 9, May 6, 2005,
> http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369686(Accessed
> December 21, 2007); Dore Gold,
> *Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global
> Terrorism*(Washington, DC: Regnery Publising, 2003), p. 76.
>

> [14] Susan

> Schmidt, "Spreading Saudi Fundamentalism in U.S.," *Washington Post*,
> October 2, 2003.
>

> [15] Muzammil

> Siddiqi, Jerusalem Day Rally, Washington, DC, October 28, 2000.
>

> [16] Dr.

> Muzammil Siddiqi, "The Future of the Muslim Community in America," Live
> Dialogue, IslamOnline.net, May 31, 2000.
> http://www.islamonline.net/livedialogue/english/Browse.asp?hGuestID=04wWNv(Accessed
> December 14, 2007).
>

> [17] Ibid.
>
> [18] Ibid.
>
> [19] Dr.

> Muzammil H. Siddiqi, "Issues and Questions," Pakistan Link, October 18,
> 1996.
>

> [20] Christopher

> Heredia, "Gay Muslims battle oppression," *San Francisco Chronicle*, June
> 21, 2001.
>

> [21] Muzammil

> Siddiqi, ISNA Convention, September 2002.
>

> [22] Khutbah

> (sermon) by Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, "Freedom of Expression or Freedom to
> Abuse," Islamic Society of Orange County, February 3, 2006.
>

> [23] Ibid.
>
> [24] Ibid."



If I could characterize the tone of the three speakers, I would say that it was all about brotherhood and fighting both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Dr Meyer reminded us that we are all people of the Book and sons of Abraham. Rabbi Altschuler spoke of the centuries-old relationships between Muslims and Jews in the Holy Land. Siddiqi echoed Altschuler's remarks stressing the need to come together to solve the World's problems.

After both Altschuler and Siddiq had spoken for abut 10 minutes each, the floor was opened for questions. I asked the first question. Without going into detail, I directed Siddiqi's attention to the on-going problems at UC-Irvine regarding hate speech by MSU-sponsored speakers. I specifically recited statements made at UCI by Amir Adbel Malik Ali and Mohammed al-Asi, statements which were clearly anti-Semitic and asked him if he would condemn such statements. (Siddiqi is well aware of the situation at UCI since he has served as the head of the Islamic Society of Orange County.)

Siddiqi's answer was a long, indirect reference to "outside" speakers who were not from Irvine. He then started talking about speeches made at UCI by Daniel Pipes. Somewhere along the way, he made a general condemnation of hate speech-including the speech of which I was referring.

A couple of minutes later, Ted Bleiweis, the head of the Independent Orange County Task Force on Anti-Semitism, asked Siddiqi to comment on certain specific acts of anti-Semitism that had occurred at UCI perpetrated by members of the MSU. Again, Siddiqi (who speaks heavily accented English), gave a long winding answer that danced all around the issue.

Another member of the audience, a middle-aged Jewish man, asked Siddiqi what the attiude of most of his congregation was toward Israel. Did they want Israel extinguished? Siddiqi answered that attitudes were mixed on that question, but used the question to launch into a recital of the Palestinians and their plight of being treated unequally and removed from their homes and homeland. He asked the questioner how he would feel if his people experienced something like that.

Comment: Is Dr Siddiqi even aware of something called the Holocaust?

He was also asked about passages in the Qu'ran that spoke of killing Jews. The convoluted answer was that one had to consider context and what the state of conditions were at that time. The other speakers also pointed out questionable passages in the Old Testiment.

In fairness, Siddiqi used the opportunity near the end of the discussion to say that he has condemned suicide bombings. That was by far his most positive comment.

I think it is fair to say that the audience (mostly Jews) had a strong desire to connect with Muslims and create mutual understanding. The stated goal of Rabbi Altschuler and Dr Meyer are obvious-to come together with Muslims. This is an admirable goal. Dr Siddiqi also spoke in moderate terms. After the event ended, many of us lingered to chat. Dr Siddiqi came over to me and we shook hands and exchanged small talk. Mr Bleiweis and I spoke extensively with Altschuler and Meyer about the situation at UCI. (Siddiqi had already left).

So what is my impression of Siddiqi? After reading the above report from the Investigative Project, I was-and am-leary of him. He is soft-spoken and comes across as a true gentleman. Though he has been in the US for many years, his English (while fluent) is often a little hard to follow due to his soft voice and heavy accent. Obviously, I think he sort of danced around his answers to my question and that of Mr Bleiweis. (I should also add that our questions seemed to cause Dr Meyer some discomfort since they broke the atmosphere of love and brotherhood that was the intended message-although we were always polite and professional.)

In summary, I wish Rabbi Altschuler all the success in the world in what he is trying to do. Unfortunately, I cannot share his optimism.





--

Let's Play, "Name That Steeler"!

This is a Pittsburgh Steeler. His name is Troy Palamalu.



This is a Pittsburgh Steeler. His name is Ben Roethlisberger.



This is a Minnesota election stealer. His name is Al Franken.

Amir Abdel Malik Ali Speaks at UC-Irvine

Amir Abdel Malik Ali on a previous visit to UC-Irvine


This week is Islam Awareness Week at UCI, where the Muslim Student Union brings in speakers to tell the masses how evil America and Israel are. As is their wont, the MSU featured their old standby, Amir Abdel Malik Ali, an Oakland-based imam who comes to our campus on a periodic basis to spread his message of hate.

In the wake of a recent trip to Israel (Olive Tree Initiative)by Jewish and Muslim students which lent hope that understanding was being reached on both sides, it was anticipated that the MSU might ask Ali to moderate his rhetoric. Yesterday afternoon, he spoke on the topic of "One God". I was not able to attend because I was teaching class. However, one of my colleagues did attend and reported that it was a pretty mild presentation. I attended in the evening. There were about 50-75 people in attendance predominantly Muslim students. Most of the females wore hijabs. Ali's topic in the evening was "My story", which described his life growing up in Philadelphia and the San Francisco Bay Area, his student days at San Francisco State University as a young black activist and his conversion to Islam.

In describing the years of black activism, Ali made reference to the election of Ronald Reagan. He stated that it was that very night, he decided to quit marijuana and get serious in activism. He also stated that after Reagan was elected, blacks started being hanged in the South again and also referred to the serial murders of black children in Atlanta, implying that there was a connection to Reagan's election! He also spoke of the assassination of Malcolm X, leaving the audience with the impression that the US Government carried that out. (He later stated explicitly that the Government was complicit in the murder of Martin Luther King.) He also referred repeatedly to H Rap Brown without telling the audience that H Rap Brown was currently in prison for murdering a police officer. He went on to talk about how the Government destroyed the 1960s movement corrupting it with drugs and gangs and added that today in 2008, when a black man "stands up"-he is killed.

Ali left Israel out of his discussion, only referring once in passing to "Zionist oppression" in the same vein as US Government oppression and oppression of blacks.

In the question and answer session, Ali was asked about the election of Barack Obama. Ali dismissed Obama as a "Fitna" (deception) who would continue the same policies. He also pointed out three of Obama's aides, "Rahm 'Israel' Emanuel, Madelyn Albright and David Axelrod", one of whom he called a "Zionist" (I don't recall which.)

In my view, this was a telling moment because it told me that the Olive Tree Initiative had not had the desired effect of moderating the MSU and leaving out the anti-Semitic speech. If the MSU had, in fact, asked Ali to moderate his speech, in the end, he failed.

I was the first questioner to walk to the microphone. I had not decided whether I would ask him anything depending on the tone of his speech. He gave me the issues, however. I told him that since I was a few years older than he, I also recalled many of the historical events he talked about. I first told him that he had implied that the Government had killed Malcolm X when the real assassins of Malcolm were members of the Nation of Islam under the orders of Elijah Muhammed. I also reminded him that the serial murderer of the children in Atlanta in the 1980s was a black man (Wayne Williams-Ali corrected me on the first name). Finally, I threw in a fact that he had not mentioned about H Rap Brown-that Brown was currently in prison for killing a police officer.

In his response, Ali gave me and the audience three conspiracy theories to the effect that;

1 The US Government, through its informants, had manipulated the Nation of Islam into killing Malcolm X.

2 Wayne Williams was convicted on the flimsiest of evidence (carpet fibers). In other words, Williams is innocent. I added that even at the time, I found it preposterous that some white person....

Ali: "Or white persons" (Ali's theory is that the Government wanted to prevent civil unrest if it was found that a white person was guilty of the murders.)

...could drive through the black neighborhoods of Atlanta picking up black children without raising red flags and having people notice and call police.

Finally, Ali told me and the audience that H Rap Brown was also innocent, and that another man had come forward and confessed to the crime only to be ignored by the police.

I want to say at this juncture that Ali is not a stupid man. He is educated and well-spoken. At times, he is quite impressive in what he says. I don't know if he actually believes these conspiracy theories or he is simply standing up there and lying to young and impressionable students. While he was responding to me, I turned to look at the audience to see if they were buying into his conspiracy tales. As I said, almost all were Muslim students and they seemed impassive. (as I sat down, one young Muslim girl in hajib was actually smiling at me in what I perceived as a friendly, not mocking manner.

All in all, "My story" degenerated into the MSU's featured speaker bashing the US Government as an evil entity. Yet.....

A couple of things Ali said should be taken seriously. He stated-and repeated, "Islam is coming. Islam is coming." He also pointed out, correctly in my view, that the more our society and our leaders are corrupted, the more Islam will grow.

Much of what Ali says should be condemned. Some other things he says can be laughed away.

That final comment, I think, bears remembering.

"We Don't Have the Resources"

I was listening to a tape of the hearings on Capitol Hill this week in which the big 3 automaker CEOs were testifying before Congress and asking for their bailouts. It was pointed out in their testimony that all three of them flew from Detroit to Washington in their corporate jets. In the testimony I was listening to, GM CEO Rick Wagoner couldn't even tell an inquiring congressman how much money he needed.

Think of the irony of that; three CEOs flying into Washington on corporate jets to beg for money because they are going broke, but at least one of them can't even say how much money he needs and when he needs it.

No wonder this country is going broke.

Also think of the bailouts going to these Wall Street fat cats; companies like AIG (who promptly blow it on boondoggle getaways to super-expensive resorts). Think of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and all the other financial companies who went bankrupt through inept management. These companies are getting 700 billion of tax-payer money to keep them afloat. Now, the automakers (who for decades have been producing cars that are only 10 years and 50,000 miles from the junkyard) are trying to get a piece of that pie.

No wonder this country is going broke.

Yet, when it comes to spending money for honorable purposes, we hear the same old line. We don't have the resources.

We don't have the resources to adequately control our border with Mexico.

We don't have the resources to deport illegal alien gang members and criminals as they get out of jail after having committed crimes. Thus, they hit the streets and continue to commit crimes. Take the case in Los Angeles, when an illegal alien gang member senselessly gunned down Jamiel Shaw Jr. The killer had been released from jail less than 48 hours earlier.

Think of the Bologna case in San Francisco, where an illegal alien gang member, who had been arrested previously and never turned over to ICE, killed two innocent people, a father and his son. Of course, both of those cities are unapologeticly sanctuary cities who refuse to turn these criminals over to ICE.

Think of the recent case in Arizona where an illegal alien from Afghanistan with a criminal record, whom ICE had been trying to deport for 14 years, killed two girls in a car crash. Why was he still in the country?

Well, here comes the answer; either the specific locale is a sanctuary city, which refuses to notify ICE or-

"We don't have the resources."

It is true that we don't have the resources to round up 12 million illegal aliens and deport them. It is not going to happen. Since most of them are poor, hard-working people from Mexico who simply need to work, we can afford to be humane here.

But there is no excuse for turning a blind eye to the criminal element, especially violent street gangs.

In another area, we don't have the resources to build new prison facilities to lock up our huge criminal population. Thus, judges issue orders to release criminals out onto the streets due to "prison overcrowding".

(I have a solution for that. Let 'em sleep on top of each other; they do anyway.)

Whether you are Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, we all must admit that over the past several decades, our government has served us horribly. This latest bailout mess is just the latest example.

So now, while our government figures out how to distribute at least 700 billion to companies that should be bursting at the seams with money, our real needs go unaddressed because, "we don't have the resources".

No wonder this country is going broke.

Where is the Change?

"And when I'm President, there will be change...Hillary, Podesta, Emanuel, Gates, Holder...you know, real change we can believe in."


Isn't it great to see all these fresh new faces coming into Washington? If you read Time Magazine, Barack Obama is the reincarnation of FDR. Newsweek is now comparing him to Abe Lincoln. NBC News, which everyone knows was in the tank for Obama during the election, has now come out with a DVD on Obama called, "Yes, we can". How about, "Wir folgen unserem Fuehrer!" (We follow our leader in German).

One would expect that on inauguration day, the temperature in Washington will be balmy 75 degrees with lots of sunshine. Yes, a new day is dawning. CHANGE is in the air. Why, just look at the people Obama has named or is about to name to his cabinet.....

Uh,.......

First, it appears that Obama will retain Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who would be a holdover from the Bush Administration.

White House Chief of Staff- Rahm Emanuel, former Clinton hatchet man, who is now a representative from Illinois.

Head of the Transition team- That would be John Podesta, another Clintonista who spent much of his time in the Clinton Administration defending Bill from one scandal or another.

Today, it has come out that Eric Holder is the top choice for Attorney General. Holder, who was Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration, was mixed up in the infamous Marc Rich pardon. He was apparently the only one in the Justice Department who thought it was a grand idea to pardon a man who was still a fugitive from justice. It may even be that Holder was the only person in the Justice Department who had any knowledge of the pardon. Great choice.

And finally, it appears that none other than Hillary Clinton will probably be our next Secretary of State. Hey, why not? Hillary has now had her ticket punched as Senator, so now she can add Secretary of State to her "impressive" resume:

1992-2000 Wife of President of US (well, sort of)
2001-2008 US Senator for New York (a state where she had never previously lived).
2009- Secretary of State

(Boy, I can hear those striped-pants boys at State shaking in their boots right now.)

But what does this do for Obama? What it does is make the presidency a triumvirate between Obama, Hillary and ....BILL!!

Is this what Obama really wants-to have TWO loose cannons with their own agendas at his side? And what about the probable conflicts of interest that will arise when Hillary engages in diplomacy and negotiation with countries who have poured millions into Bill's library and other endeavors (UAE, Kazakhstan, etc)? And what administrative experience does Hillary have to run a huge government department like State?

At any rate, as the posts start to fill up, the question begs; with all these Clinton people in the top tier of the Administration, will Obama be his own man?

More importantly, where is the Change? Joe Biden certainly doesn't represent Change. What we are now seeing (so far) is, to borrow a phrase, just more of the same.

So what's next Mr Obama? Are you going to appoint Bill Clinton as President?

Press Release from Project Meridian Foundation

Per the request of Nathan Wilson, CEO of Project Meridian Foundation, I am pleased to post the below press release. I have written about Project Meridian Foundation recently. They are truly doing God's work in helping save the victims of child sexual abuse.

Press Release: 11/18/08
Contact: Project Meridian Foundation
Tel: (202) 257-0987
Email: Nathan.Wilson@projectmeridianfoundation.org
Website: www.projectmeridianfoundation.org


JEFFERY “JEFF” S. WILLIAMS JOINS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF PROJECT MERIDIAN FOUNDATION, INC.


.Jeffrey (Jeff) S. Williams

We welcome Mr. Williams his expertise in communication and leadership in government and the non-profit arena will be great asset to Project Meridian Foundation as we move forward with the Board of Directors.

Jeff is currently the Program Development Consultant for the Virginia Department of Social Services Division of Licensing Programs (Licensing). He has worked for Licensing since 2000. During that time he has been a licensing inspector, operations consultant, and information technology specialist. He brought to Licensing a great deal of experience and education in the area of human services and human development. His professional experience ranged from directing religious and secular child care programs to managing the educational and general programming of a large church.

Jeff obtained a Masters in Communication (with an emphasis in mass media and culture) from Regent University in 2005 and a Bachelor in Social Science (with an emphasis in education and psychology) from Virginia Wesleyan College in 1993. Jeff continues to increase his knowledge and experience in the field of human services by attending numerous trainings. Because of his skills and accomplishments, he was recently selected to attend the Virginia Social Services Leadership Academy. He has found the program to be extremely empowering and fulfilling.

Because of his experience and education, Jeff has been asked to service in numerous capacities in a number of different not-for-profit organizations. He has led a large number of church committees, planning and visioning retreats, and training on organizational communication and technology. Because of his personal experience with adoption and work with Licensing, he has been asked to sit on several state committees to improve the services to foster care children and to increase the quality of childcare in Virginia.

Jeff and his wonderful wife Angie have one teenage daughter. They live in Henrico, Virginia where Jeff serves as a director for his neighborhood’s home owner association. Angie is the Director of Youth, Young Adult and Single Adult Ministries for the Virginia United Methodist Church.

We are grateful to have Jeff Williams serving on our board and value her expertise in helping our foundation’s own cause in helping bring victims and awareness of human trafficking in the world. We are welcoming him to the Board of Directors.

The Dispicable William Ayres

Distinguished Professor William Ayres


Now that the American voters have decided that Barack Obama's ties to former Weather Underground bomber William Ayres was no big deal, I think it is time to put Professor Ayres himself in perspective especially since he has decided to go public after the election with an interview on "Good Morning America".

By now, the American public pretty much knows who Bill Ayres is. Had it not been for Fox News and talk radio, this guy might have sailed completely under the radar with assistance from the mainstream media, who chose to ignore him until they no longer could.

During the turbulent days of the 1960s-70s, Ayres was a main figure in the Weather Underground. During the 1970s, he was a fugitive, along with the woman who is now his wife, Bernadine Dohrn. During their fugitive years, Ayres was involved in bombs that went off in the Pentagon, the US Capitol and New York City Police Hqs. Though no one was killed, there were injuries. There was also a 1970 bombing in New York at the home of a prosecutor who was involved in the trial of some Black Panthers. Not only was the prosecutor home, but his wife and 9-year-old son were as well. In the early morning hours, three bombs went off, two under the front porch and one under the prosecutor's car, which was parked in the driveway. Fortunately, no one was injured. This bombing was found to be the work of the Weather Underground as well. In addition, three of Ayres' co-conspirators were killed in 1970 when a bomb accidentally went off in a Greenwich Village neighborhood damaging several other residences in the process. One of those killed was Ayres' girlfriend at the time. It was then that Ayres and Dohrn went into hiding.

Eventually, in 1980, Ayres and Dohrn came in and surrendered themselves after several years on the run. Because of the suppression of evidence due to illegal eavesdropping by the FBI, Ayres walked a way a free man, saying, "Guilty as Hell, free as a bird. What a great country."

Indeed.

Dohrn for her part, made a plea deal and was given probation.

So what became of Ayres as he walked away from his legal difficulties? Well, as you might guess, Academia welcomed him with open arms. Ayres and Dohrn went on to get their advanced degrees and became professors in the Chicago area (Ayres is presently a "Distinguished Professor of Education" at the University of Illinois at Chicago while Dohrn teaches law at Northwestern and is director of the Children and Family Justice Center in Chicago.

Since leaving the life of terrorists and bombers in favor of working within the system, neither has shown any remorse for their past acts. On the eve of 9-11, Ayres told a New York Times interviewer that he did not regret his past-only that they "didn't do more". A few years ago, Ayres was photographed by Chicago Magazine standing in an alley, an American flag underfoot.

As for his activities in the field of education, Professor Ayres reportedly has been active in trying to indoctrinate young inner-city youth with the spirit of leftist activism. It was in connection with this goal that he served together with Obama on the Woods Foundation, funneling money to leftist activist groups in the Chicago inner-city. (Both Ayres and Dohrn admit they are still radicals.)

And finally, in the "Good Morning America" interview with Chris Cuomo, Ayres refused to express remorse for his past acts-only saying that they may have crossed the line of "common sense". For Ayres, the real terrorists were the forces of the US Government that was waging the war in Viet Nam. Was he a terrorist? Not at all insists the good professor. The targets of the bombings were always government targets-not innocent civilians.

There is a man named John Murtagh who would disagree. He was the 9-year-old son of that New York prosecutor who was awakened early one morning when 3 bombs went off in front of his residence. He has spoken out lately about how he feels about Ayres and the Weather Underground. What words would Professors William Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn have for John Murtagh? To date-none.

William Ayres and his wife may live the rest of their lives embraced by the academic community. Already there is a petition going around the academic world asking for people to lay off Ayres. I simply hope that everyday Americans remember the names William Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn as they do Jane Fonda. Until they come forth with a sincere public apology to their country and to their victims, they should be shunned by decent society.

Article by Shelby Steele

As I frequently do, I am posting an article by the National Black Republican Association-specifically an essay by Shelby Steele on Barack Obama and white guilt. Steele, whom I consider one of the most brilliant thinkers in America, gives a thought-provoking perspective on the election of Barack Obama and what it means for African-Americans and racial relations in America. The article was published by the LA Times.


THE END OF WHITE GUILT

White Guilt Emancipation Declaration

We, black American citizens of the United States of America and of the National Black Republican Association, do hereby declare that our fellow white American citizens are now, henceforth and forever more free of White Guilt.

This freedom from White Guilt was duly earned by the election of Barack Hussein Obama, a black man, to be our president by a majority of white Americans based solely on the color of his skin.

Freedom is not free, and we trust that the price paid for this freedom from White Guilt is worth the sacrifice, since Obama is a socialist who does not share the values of average Americans and will use the office of the presidency to turn America into a failed socialist nation.

Granted this November 4, 2008 - the day Barack Hussein Obama was elected as the first black president and the first socialist president of the United States of America.

__________________________________

Los Angeles Times
Opinion
Obama's post-racial promise
Barack Obama seduced whites with a vision of their racial innocence precisely to coerce them into acting out of a racial motivation.

November 5, 2008

By Shelby Steele

For the first time in human history, a largely white nation has elected a black man to be its paramount leader. And the cultural meaning of this unprecedented convergence of dark skin and ultimate power will likely become -- at least for a time -- a national obsession. In fact, the Obama presidency will always be read as an allegory. Already we are as curious about the cultural significance of his victory as we are about its political significance.

Does his victory mean that America is now officially beyond racism? Does it finally complete the work of the civil rights movement so that racism is at last dismissible as an explanation of black difficulty? Can the good Revs. Jackson and Sharpton now safely retire to the seashore? Will the Obama victory dispel the twin stigmas that have tormented black and white Americans for so long -- that blacks are inherently inferior and whites inherently racist? Doesn't a black in the Oval Office put the lie to both black inferiority and white racism? Doesn't it imply a "post-racial" America? And shouldn't those of us -- white and black -- who did not vote for Mr. Obama take pride in what his victory says about our culture even as we mourn our political loss?

Answering no to such questions is like saying no to any idealism; it seems callow. How could a decent person not hope for all these possibilities, or not give America credit for electing its first black president? And yet an element of Barack Obama's success was always his use of the idealism implied in these questions as political muscle. His talent was to project an idealized vision of a post-racial America -- and then to have that vision define political decency. Thus, a failure to support Obama politically implied a failure of decency.

Obama's special charisma -- since his famous 2004 convention speech -- always came much more from the racial idealism he embodied than from his political ideas. In fact, this was his only true political originality. On the level of public policy, he was quite unremarkable. His economics were the redistributive axioms of old-fashioned Keynesianism; his social thought was recycled Great Society. But all this policy boilerplate was freshened up -- given an air of "change" -- by the dreamy post-racial and post-ideological kitsch he dressed it in.

This worked politically for Obama because it tapped into a deep longing in American life -- the longing on the part of whites to escape the stigma of racism. In running for the presidency -- and presenting himself to a majority white nation -- Obama knew intuitively that he was dealing with a stigmatized people. He knew whites were stigmatized as being prejudiced, and that they hated this situation and literally longed for ways to disprove the stigma.

Obama is what I have called a "bargainer" -- a black who says to whites, "I will never presume that you are racist if you will not hold my race against me." Whites become enthralled with bargainers out of gratitude for the presumption of innocence they offer. Bargainers relieve their anxiety about being white and, for this gift of trust, bargainers are often rewarded with a kind of halo.

Obama's post-racial idealism told whites the one thing they most wanted to hear: America had essentially contained the evil of racism to the point at which it was no longer a serious barrier to black advancement. Thus, whites became enchanted enough with Obama to become his political base. It was Iowa -- 95% white -- that made him a contender. Blacks came his way only after he won enough white voters to be a plausible candidate.

Of course, it is true that white America has made great progress in curbing racism over the last 40 years. I believe, for example, that Colin Powell might well have been elected president in 1996 had he run against a then rather weak Bill Clinton. It is exactly because America has made such dramatic racial progress that whites today chafe so under the racist stigma. So I don't think whites really want change from Obama as much as they want documentation of change that has already occurred. They want him in the White House first of all as evidence, certification and recognition.

But there is an inherent contradiction in all this. When whites -- especially today's younger generation -- proudly support Obama for his post-racialism, they unwittingly embrace race as their primary motivation. They think and act racially, not post-racially. The point is that a post-racial society is a bargainer's ploy: It seduces whites with a vision of their racial innocence precisely to coerce them into acting out of a racial motivation. A real post-racialist could not be bargained with and would not care about displaying or documenting his racial innocence. Such a person would evaluate Obama politically rather than culturally.

Certainly things other than bargaining account for Obama's victory. He was a talented campaigner. He was reassuringly articulate on many issues -- a quality that Americans now long for in a president. And, in these last weeks, he was clearly pushed over the top by the economic terrors that beset the nation. But it was the peculiar cultural manipulation of racial bargaining that brought him to the political dance. It inflated him as a candidate, and it may well inflate him as a president.

There is nothing to suggest that Obama will lead America into true post-racialism. His campaign style revealed a tweaker of the status quo, not a revolutionary. Culturally and racially, he is likely to leave America pretty much where he found her.

But what about black Americans? Won't an Obama presidency at last lead us across a centuries-old gulf of alienation into the recognition that America really is our country? Might this milestone not infuse black America with a new American nationalism? And wouldn't this be revolutionary in itself? Like most Americans, I would love to see an Obama presidency nudge things in this direction. But the larger reality is the profound disparity between black and white Americans that will persist even under the glow of an Obama presidency. The black illegitimacy rate remains at 70%. Blacks did worse on the SAT in 2000 than in 1990. Fifty-five percent of all federal prisoners are black, though we are only 13% of the population. The academic achievement gap between blacks and whites persists even for the black middle class. All this disparity will continue to accuse blacks of inferiority and whites of racism -- thus refueling our racial politics -- despite the level of melanin in the president's skin.

The torture of racial conflict in America periodically spits up a new faith that idealism can help us "overcome" -- America's favorite racial word. If we can just have the right inspiration, a heroic role model, a symbolism of hope, a new sense of possibility. It is an American cultural habit to endure our racial tensions by periodically alighting on little islands of fresh hope and idealism. But true reform, like the civil rights victories of the '60s, never happens until people become exhausted with their suffering. Then they don't care who the president is.

Presidents follow the culture; they don't lead it. I hope for a competent president.

Shelby Steele is an author, columnist and senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

Please check here for more information about the National Black Republican Association

Incident at UC Berkeley

"Heard ya had a little dust-up up there in Berkeley."
"No big deal. Just boys bein' boys."'


On the evening of November 13, there was a violent incident at the University of California at Berkeley involving students from two student groups; the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Zionist Freedom Alliance (ZFA). The event occurred during a ZFA hip hop concert promoting Israel Liberation Week. During the event, members of the SJP showed up carrying Palestinian flags on a balcony of Eshleman Hall overlooking the event. It appears that a confrontation ensued on the balcony between members of both groups. At this point, there are different versions of how the fight started or who assaulted whom. What is known is that a fist-fight ensued and a handful of students were charged with battery, apparently on both sides.


Below, I have put up the competing versions from both groups' websites. First is the ZFA version, followed by the SJP version. Finally, I have posted the up-dated version by the Daily Californian (UC Berkeley's campus newspaper).


Members of Students for Justice in Palestine Attack Jews at UC Berkeley Hip-Hop Concert
(Berkeley, CA- November 13, 2008)

"We, the Zionist Freedom Alliance student group at Cal, are deeply concerned by the latest in a series of attacks on Jewish and pro-Israel students at UC Berkeley perpetrated by members of Students for Justice in Palestine. On the night of November 13, 2008 at around 6:00 PM, members of Students for Justice in Palestine disrupted our hip-hop concert that celebrated the Jewish connection to the land of Israel. Then they attacked students who asked them to stop their disruption.

Three members of the Students for Justice in Palestine illegally draped large Palestinian flags behind the stage of the concert, which was part of Israel Liberation Week. Yehuda De Sa (one of the performers), Cal alumnus Gabe Weiner, and current ASUC Senator John Moghtader walked to the balcony from which the flags were hanging and asked the students to remove the flags as they misrepresented the concert's message. The SJP members immediately became hostile at this request and current SJP leader Husam Zakharia instigated a physical altercation by striking Weiner on the head. As Weiner and the performer tried to defend themselves, Moghtader stood away from the scuffle and then made a successful effort to break up the fight.

Members of Students for Justice in Palestine shouted anti-Semitic epithets referencing the Holocaust throughout the ordeal. Zakharia and others from SJP were detained by the police and charged with battery. Citizens' arrests were filed against SJP members who took part in the altercation.

The violence, intimidation, and harassment exhibited by members of Students for Justice in Palestine at the concert is only one act in a pattern of similar behavior that they have exhibited towards Jewish and pro-Israel students on this campus. Last year, multiple charges were filed against SJP and some of its members citing harassment, violence, intimidation, and violation of numerous other campus rules. These charges all went ignored by Dean of Students Jonathan Poullard.

We call on state officials, the President of the University of California, the Chancellor, the Dean of Students, faculty, and the student body to take a unified stand against the continued harassment of Jewish and pro-Israel students on this campus, particularly by members of Students for Justice in Palestine."


Here below is the Students for Peace and Justice in Palestine version on their website:


"SJP is extremely concerned about a violent attack on three Arab Palestinian students on the evening of November 13, 2008 around 6:00PM, and calls upon campus administrators and authorities to immediately investigate the incident and bring those responsible to justice.

According to dozens of witnesses on the scene, three organizers for the “Zionist Freedom Alliance” attacked one male and two female Arab students who stood nearby the event holding a Palestinian flag. The assailants were identified by the Daily Californian to include current ASUC student senator John Moghtader, Cal alumnus Gabe Weiner, and performer Yehuda De sa. The paper also reported that all three had been cited by the UC Police Department on several counts of battery (Update 9:00AM 11/14: The Daily Californian now identifies only Gabe Weiner as having been cited. We are unsure what the status of the other two individuals is).

The three Arab students had decided to display the flag as a silent statement after hearing offensive anti-Arab remarks at the concert. They did not attempt to interfere with the event. Shortly after they put their flags on display, the assailants were seen angrily rushing into Eshleman Hall and disturbing several meetings to reach the protestors who were located on the 2nd floor balcony. Students on the scene report that the men were yelling racial epithets directed at Arabs and Palestinians.

When the assailants arrived at the balcony, they attempted to push the protestors aside and take their flags away. Witnesses claim that the assailants eventually knocked one protestor against the balcony railing, with a scuffle ensuing where two Arab students, one male and one female, were hit several times. Within a few minutes the assailants began to rush away, though a small group of their supporters had followed them upstairs. Throughout the process the assailants and their supporters were also overheard making remarks like, “we’re about to take care of some f***ing Palestinians,” and “you Arab dogs, we will kill you.”

The group of assailants was eventually pushed away by a crowd of students who were waiting for the police to arrive and collect statements. One of the assailants accused his victims of assaulting him, causing citations to be issued on the victims despite the testimony of several witnesses on the scene refuting the claim. Fortunately nobody was seriously hurt during the ordeal.

SJP is concerned by the willful and concerted escalation to violence by these individuals, who are members of student organization Tikvah. SJP disagrees with the Daily Californian’s characterization of the event as the result of “tensions between Palestinian and Jewish students.” In fact, the incident was isolated, and the assailants are not representative of the Jewish community at Cal. After a series of similar threatening encounters with a handful of individuals this semester, SJP members began to document these incidents. Two of the attackers, John Moghtader and Gabe Weiner, were involved in another outburst at a campus lecture last month that led the Jewish Student Union to place Tikvah on probation [1, 2].

SJP calls upon campus administrators to pursue the incident immediately, and for students to remain committed to resolving their political differences through peaceful dialogue and discussion."


Here is the report by the UCB Student Newspaper, the Daily Californian:


By Will Kane and Vincent Quan
Daily Cal Staff Writers
Friday, November 14, 2008 | 3:10 am
Category: News > City > Crime

"A previous version of this story was removed by editors after we became aware that some facts in the story were incorrect. That story has been replaced with this updated version.

The Daily Californian holds itself to high journalistic standards and always strives to produce objective and accurate content. The Daily Cal follows the ethics policy laid out by the Society of Professional Journalists, which is available at http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp.

If you have any comments or questions regarding this article or our policies, please contact me at editor@dailycal.org."

-Bryan Thomas, Editor in Chief & President

"Tensions between Palestinian and Jewish students on campus ran high Thursday night after a fight broke out on an Eshleman Hall balcony overlooking a concert promoting Israel Liberation Week.

At about 5:45 p.m., as rap artists performed on Lower Sproul Plaza, three Palestinian students hung up two Palestinian flags on the building's second floor balcony, witnesses said. The students said they were responding to the anti-Palestinian lyrics they heard.

Upon seeing the flags, ASUC Senator John Moghtader, former senator Gabe Weiner and Yeduda De sa, the concert's opening act, went up to the balcony in an attempt to remove the flags. All three men are Jewish.

At that point, a fight broke out, police said. Witnesses added that the fight prompted up to half a dozen members of the audience to run up to the second floor. Police said two students and one non-student were cited for battery. Weiner was one of those students.

"I went up to the second floor because the message they were sending was an abomination to our national rights," Weiner said.

Senior Husam Zakharia, who was hit in the face during the altercation, said the rap lyrics he heard spurred him to hang up the Palestinian flag.

"We're going to go up and we're going to put up our Palestinian flag in silent protest-exercising our freedom of speech to say we're here and we exist," he said, adding that he was surprised by the violent reaction.

A number of UCPD officers and Dean of Students Jonathan Poullard spent at least two hours interviewing students and witnesses, attempting to piece together the series of events.

According to police, the fight was related to incidents of vandalism earlier this semester. In September, a bus stop sign outside Eshleman Hall promoting Israel was vandalized. That vandalism was followed by pro-Israel graffiti in a classroom in Dwinelle Hall, increasing tension among Israeli and Palestinian advocacy groups on campus.

As the altercation on Thursday night took place, Eshleman Hall's second floor was full of ASUC officials including President Roxanne Winston.

Many senators who saw the fight expressed shock that such an incident could happen among students, most notably former and current ASUC senators.

"I'm very strong now in my sentiments in that there should be immediate disciplinary action," said ASUC Senator Kifah Shah. "If it culminates to violence where three members of SJP (Students for Justice in Palestine) are hit ... then that's just ridiculous."


So who actually instigated this violence? At this point it is not clear. I am not familiar with either organization. Therefore, I am going to withhold judgement until more information emerges.

I do know one thing, however. The UC system, especially UC Berkeley, UC Santa Cruz, and UCI (where I have taught part-time for 10 years) has been plagued for some years by tension between Jewish and Muslim students due to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. I have repeatedly written about the hate speech being brought to UCI by the Muslim Student Union, so I won't go over that here.

What this incident illustrates is that the leadership of these universities has been negligent in putting the lid on this situation. One would think that the so-called leaders at these universities would have opened their eyes and realized that they have a volatile situation on their campuses. Their defenders tell us that the chancellors at UCI and UCSC (Michael Drake and George Blumenthal respectively) have spoken out strongly against hate speech. Where they are wrong is that statements condemning "hate speech" in general don't suffice. When has the Chancellor of UCI, Michael Drake, or the Vice Chancellor of UCI, Manuel Gomez, ever publicly stated that the words we have heard over and over at UCI by the likes of Amir Abdel Malik Ali glorifying suicide bombers in Israel or Momammed al-Asi calling Jews "low-life ghetto-dwellers" constitute hate speech and are to be condemned? When has the chancellor of UCSC, Mr Blumenthal, made similar statements?

And what about the President of the UC system, Mark Yudof? President Yudof (himself a practicing Jew and strong supporter of Israel), though newly-installed, knows the reports that have emanated out of UCI and UCSC. He has heard the complaints about the tepid responses from those campuses' leaders. Yet, he talks of "free speech" and defends his chancellors. Will he now take a fresh look at what is going on in his own university system?

One day, on one of the UC campuses, there is going to be a tragedy. Instead of a fist-fight, someone is going to be seriously injured-or even killed. And then, everyone will ask, "How could this have happened here-on our campus?" I won't be asking because I will know.

It is time for a thorough housecleaning in the UC system.

The Proposition 8 Backlash

Last week, voters in California passed Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman. It was the second time in recent years that voters had passed such a measure. The first time, the California Supreme Court overturned the will of the people and ruled same-sex marriage as legal in the state.

The reaction by the gay and lesbian lobby has been swift and ugly. Churches and Mormon temples in California have been targeted for noisy and disruptive demonstrations (the Mormon Church gave financial backing to the measure). In one Church in Palm Springs, a man grabbed a large styrofoam cross out of an old lady's arms and stomped on it. Demonstrations against churches have also been held in other states like New York and Colorado. People of faith are being insulted for their faith without any regard for who voted for or against the measure. Those who voted for Prop 8 are now labeled as "haters". Now that it has been revealed that some 75% of black voters also favored Prop 8, they are being targeted for insults. Rosanne Barr and Rosie O'Donnell, two of the most ignorant "celebrities" on the planet, have both come out and insulted black voters for their "ignorance" in voting in favor of the measure. Interesting however, that no demonstrations are being held in front of inner city black churches-only in white neighborhoods. I wonder why.

Here is my take, and I'm not going to parse words. I have previously written on gay marriage, and I won't repeat everything here. Suffice to say that while I believe in treating homosexuals as equal human beings, I oppose the idea of gay marriage (I voted yes on 8). I don't care who lives with whom, who has sex with whom or who loves whom, but I fail to see why an institution that has stood all over the world for thousands of years needs to be stood on its head because in the past decade or so, gays have decided that they have a constitutional right to marry.

I also feel that gays and lesbians are doing their cause no service by engaging in these tactics. We all know that Prop 8 will be challenged again in the courts and the liberal judges in California will probably once again overturn the will of the people, as is their wont. Disruption, intimidation and taking over of churches, however, will not win friends and influence people just as many of these "Gay Pride" parades in places like San Francisco, where people parade down the street in various forms of nudity and engage in public sex acts, offend a lot of people-and not just religious people.

Or "haters".

The Carona Trial- Haidl Finishes Direct Testimony

Mike Carona (R)in better days


Today, Don Haidl finished his direct examination in the Mike Carona trial. Among the additional details that came out was that Carona was taking credit (in tape recorded conversations with Haidl in mid-2007) for setting in motion the investigations that led to the indictments of ex-Astt. Sheriff George Jaramillo and lawyer Joe Cavallo (both of whom are now convicted felons and scheduled witnesses against Carona.) The motive was apparently to discredit Jaramillo and Cavallo in case they ever wound up testifying against Carona (at the point, Carona knew he was under investigation.

In answering final questions from the prosecutor, Haidl stated that his motive for all he did for Carona was to have full access to the Office of the Sheriff.

As the cross-examination began, the defense lawyer got Haidl to admit that he was an independently wealthy businessman. Haidl also admitted that he was "acting" and lying when he engaged in taped conversations with Carona, the man who had placed his trust in Haidl. It was the old, "why should we believe you now when you were lying then" line of cross-examination that is always used when a snitch is testifying.

Stop! I have the answer to that question. It lies in one word-corroboration. The prosecution and the judge themselves will underline the fact that Haidl, Jaramillo and Cavallo are unsavory characters, whose testimony should not be accepted by juries-in the absence of corroboration. It is the job of the prosecution to corroborate their testimony as much as possible.

One big form of corroboration is the tapes themselves-Carona's words out of his own mouth. It is the government's corroboration of three sleazebags that will win or lose the case against "America's Sheriff."

Haidl resumes cross-examination tomorrow. As yet, there is no word whether "The Little Sheriff" will testify for or against Carona.

The Carona Trial-More Babes, More Scams

Government Exhibit 1- "The lines and boxes under column A represent Sheriff Carona's schemes. Those under column B represent Sheriff Carona's love affairs."


Listening to the testimony of ex-Mike Carona crony, Don Haidl is starting to remind me of the old black sitcom from my childhood, Amos and Andy. (Good luck trying to find any old episodes-they've been blacklisted as racist.) In a typical episode, George "Kingfish" Stevens always had a new scam going that he would try to drag Andy into. Such is the life and career of former Orange County Sheriff ("America's Sheriff") Mike Carona, who is on trial for bribery. It seems that (according to Haidl's testimony) Carona was careening from one love affair to another and from one scam to another.

Haidl was back on the stand today for the 4th day testifying about his relationship with Carona and explaining taped conversations that he secretly recorded with the ex-Sheriff. In one of their get-rich-quick schemes, Haidl, co-conspirator ex-Asst Sheriff George Jaramillo, and Carona were planning to make a deal with some unidentified doctor that made body scan machines. In the deal, Carona would require every one of his deputies to take an annual body scan and the doctor or his company would kick back money to Carona, Haidl and Jaramillo.

In another scheme, Haidl testified about plans to get an LA Sheriffs Deputy to refer cases to their favorite crooked attorney, Joe Cavallo.

And then Haidl testified about their plans to make a deal with somebody who wanted to set up a paintball amusement park in Orange County (I'm not making this up, folks). Under this scheme, Carona would go to the Orange County Board of Supervisors to arrange zoning permits for the land and, in return, get a payment of 25,000 from the paintball proprietor.

But wait! There's more! Haidl further testified about a scheme to have some Orange County prisoners transferred to a private jail facility run by some guy named Rod Cedillos-in return for.....you guessed it-cash. According to Haidl, the relationship went sour because Carona suspected that Mr Cedillos was hitting on Carona's mistress-co-defendant, Debra Hoffman. Haidl also added that Carona intended to run away with Ms Hoffman, who he (Carona)got appointed to a state juvanile board in Sacramento and hired her husband, Robert Schroff, so he could keep an eye on him. (if you are getting confused refer to the above flow chart.)

But wait! There's still more. Haidl further testified about a scheme whereby Carona got illegal campaign contributions from a businessman named Charles Gabbard, who wanted Carona to promote legislation that would have required every police car to be outfitted by an anti-police pursuit device, made by Gabbard's company, naturally.

Speaking of which, Haidl also described Carona's concern about a sexual harassment complaint that had been filed by a Sheriff's female employee against Jaramillo because he feared it might come out that he (Carona) had been having a relationship with the lady.

It seems one would need a flow-chart to keep track of all of Mike's girlfriends.

Then there was the infamous gang-rape case a few years back against Haidl's son, Greg and two other punks (they were convicted). It was this case and the resultant scandal of Don Haidl's relationship with Carona that fueled the investigation into the whole mess in the Sheriff's Dept. In this case, the Newport Beach PD Chief wrote an angry letter to Carona complaining about Jaramillo coming into his jurisdiction and trying to dissuade witnesses from cooperating. This reportedly led to a meeting between Jaramillo and OC DA Tony Rackaukas, in which Jaramillo reportedly threatened Rackaukas. According to Haidl's testimony, Carona was concerned that Rackaukas would go directly to the Justice Dept.

Finally, Haidl has testified about his gift of a water-ski boat to Carona. This was camoflaged by Carona writing a check to Haidl to make it look like a purchase. Haidl then gave the money back to Carona in cash. Unfortunately, there were witnesses to the cash handover, so he and Carona manufactured a bogus conversation in front of the witnesses to make it look like Haidl was reimbursing Carona for needed repairs on the boat.

Haidl is expected to finish his direct testimony tomorrow, at which time, he will be cross-examined. The defense has been saying from the outset that Haidl is not a man who can be trusted. True enough, but this is the man that Mike Carona chose to be his Asst. Sheriff and friend.

Random Shots in the Dark (8)

US Government cheeseburger



Introducing the 2009 US Government People's Car



Here is another month's worth of bad news, folks.

Lindsay Lohan, Hollywood's top scholar, last night referred to Barack Obama as "America's first colored president". Ms Lohan must be prepping for a 1940s style film noire when that term was in vogue. Yet, if she had said "America's first president of color, no one would have blinked."

Are the stories about Israel-hater Robert Malley (former asst. to Sandy Berger) being sent to the Middle East by Obama to reassure the leaders of Syria and Egypt that Obama will be more supportive really true? Wasn't this guy canned once by Obama for meeting with Hamas? And is it true (as says Hamas) that they have had pre-election secret meetings with Obama reps, which no longer need to be secret since the election?

The Israelis must be feeling real good right now.

And there are rumors that none other than Jamie Gorelick, is being considered for Attorney General. Yes, the same lady who, as Asst AG under Janet Reno, set up the so-called firewall that kept the CIA and FBI from sharing intelligence. The same Jamie Gorelick who sat on the board of Fannie Mae, and the same Jamie Gorelick who most recently was defending Duke University against a lawsuit brought by their former Lacrosse players who had been falsely accused of rape.

That Jamie Gorelick.

Of course, Obama is the same guy who called in LA's playboy mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, to advise him on economics. Maybe "Fast Tony" will be our next Treasury Secretary. At least that will get him out of California.

Speaking of AGs, news comes in that SF DA (now there's a contradiction in terms) Kamala Harris is running for California State Attorney General, citing, "tough and smart" strategies to fight crime. Like vowing never to seek the death penalty under any circumstances. Ask Danielle Bologna, whose family was murdered by an illegal alien gang member in SF if she supports Harris.

Is there any reason why John McCain cannot come out and publicly defend Sarah Palin against these unnamed attacks on her by his staffers? No wonder he lost the election.

The news say today that some deranged fan of Paula Abdul was found dead in front of Abdul's house. Makes sense to me. First of all anybody who is a fan of Abdul doesn't have a life to begin with and is obviously deranged by definition.

Is there a more dispicable person in this country than (Professor) William Ayres?

As I was following the news of Al Franken stealing the Senatorial election in Minnesota, they were playing a film clip of Al haranguing some crowd. Sitting behind Al was Bill Clinton, himself. In back of him were a bunch of wild supporters jumping up and down waving Obama signs as Al was getting the crowd all stirred up. And there was Bill sitting there with his eyes closed, probably dreaming about the after-the-speech party. Classic.

And Hillary? Probably sitting in her house alone with the shutters closed thinking about what should have been.

Speaking of Bill Clinton, did you catch O'Reilly last night when he showed a clip of his debate with ex-newscaster and Professor Marvin Kalb of Harvard, which was filmed September 27? In one exchange in front of Kalb's students, the learned professor asked Bill the following:

Kalb: "Do you believe that a President who avoided military service himself should be sending young men and women to fight in what are called ‘wars of choice’?"

O'Reilly then asked Kalb if he were referring to Bill Clinton (because Bush served in the National Guard) as the students cracked up.

I see Mark Foley has "broken his silence" on his page boy scandal. Bummer. Foley, predictably, is wallowing in self pity and parsing his words about just what exactly he did. In one colossal statement, he says, "Well, they were 17 years old." And then, there is this, "Well, I didn't actually have sex with them." Shades of Bill Clinton.

I see where the Court of Appeals in Richmond upheld the indictment of Rep. William "Cool Cash" Jefferson, which clears the way for his trial. Hurricane Gustav delayed the primary in Louisiana's 2nd District until November 4, and the general election will be held December 6. Safe to say, however, that Jefferson will be tossed out on his ear by the good voters in New Orleans........

What? You say Jefferson won the primary and is favored to win the general election?

Silly me.

After all, I'm the same guy who thought that America would never elect a one-term senator and ex-community organizer who had ties to Tony Rezko, William Ayres, Bernadine Dohrn, Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger.

Silly me.

I'm also the guy that thought that Bill Clinton would surely be driven from office when it was disclosed he was playing "hide the baloney" with a White House intern-in the Oval Office, no less.

Silly me.

And Larry (I am not gay, nor have I ever been gay) Craig is still in the Senate?

Silly me. Why should being busted in a men's room get in the way of a senate career.

So now, we are bailing out General Motors? If you want to know why Detroit is going belly-up (the auto industry-not just the city)......Look for the union label. So now that the US Government is going to pump our money into the auto industry, will they impose new quality standards so the cars don't fall to pieces after 50,000 miles? And what's next? What happens if Burger King goes under? Bailout? I've heard of government cheese, but I've never heard of government cheese burgers!!

That's it for now. Pass the Tylenol.

The Demise of the USSR-Could the USA Be Next?

Some readers may dismiss the title of this essay as silly and hysterical, but I think the question-absurd as it may sound-is work considering.

As I was growing up in the Cold War, it seemed a set fact of life that our chief adversary, the Soviet Union, was a fact of life that was here for the long haul. It was hoped that the Cold War would never end in a nuclear war, which was considered a real possibility.

Then, suddenly, the Soviet Union imploded under the weight of its inner weaknesses. Welcome as it might have been, it was shocking. Within a few short years, the USSR saw its client states in Eastern Europe break away, followed by their own non-Russian republics.

Only a handful of years later, having had the chance to visit many of the former Soviet Republics with DEA's International Training section, I was inspired to write a book on the languages of the former USSR. (The Languages of the Former Soviet Republics-Their History and Development). It required a lot of research, not only into the various languages, but also the history of the region itself. What I learned, in my opinion, is worthy of review since it could be relevant to what the US is going through today.

Prior to the Russian Revolution, the area was under the centuries-long control of the Russian tsars. When Lenin came to power, he became a cult-like figure, in whom the masses placed great hope. Lenin had grown into adulthood as an opponent of the tsars. He was expelled from Kazan University for his agitation activities while his own brother was executed by the tsarist regime for his alleged role in a plot to assassinate the tsar. Of course, one of his first acts was to order the execution of the Tsar Nicholas and his entire family, who had been kept in custody after Nicholas' forced abdication.

Yet, in the history of the Soviet Union, Lenin was something of a reformer when compared to his successor, Stalin. Lenin declared an end to ethnic discrimination including that against the Jews, who had been severely restricted under the tsars, subject to occasional pogroms while being forced to live in the western fringes of the Russian empire (Pale of Settlement). Under Lenin, discrimination against Jews was ended-a development that led many Jews to embrace the new government. All were considered equal in the new nation.

In the non-Russian republics of the newly-created Soviet Union, native languages and cultures were encouraged under the policy of korenizatsiia or indiginization. Within those republics, the native languages were emphasized. Local leaders were placed in charge of the republics.

Of course, we also know that things like education and health care were all controlled by the government-for better or worse.

After Lenin died, Stalin, his eventual successor, gradually ended korenizatsiia in favor of Russification. Centralization in Moscow became the norm. Of course, that was the least of Stalin's changes as he became one of history's worst dictators.

Then, as we know, under Gorbachev, the USSR collapsed under the weight of its own weaknesses and the desire of many non-Russians (especially the Balts) to be independent.

So is there a parallel to be drawn with recent events in the US? There is no question that our new president has big changes in mind. It would seem that the country, in electing Obama and solidifying his Democratic support in Congress, has chosen to try the road of greater governmental control. It has to be assumed that the electorate has opted to turn to government to help them get through life. There is a price to be paid for that. One fact must be kept in mind by those who have chosen to place their economic well-being in the hands of government; that requires something in return. For example, more money has to go to government, and more power has to go to government. Do most people in the US really want the government to take over things like health care and the economy? Is the public really in favor of income redistribution that would bring most of all of us in the same economic class? Given the election results, it would seem that they do.

It could also be argued that Obama's charisma and speaking skills, aided by a compliant press, have elevated him to something of a cult figure. Will that continue once he becomes president? Or will events and his lack of experience bring him back down to normal level? What will the media do when Obama makes errors? Will they criticize him? Will they investigate scandals? Or will they ignore his shortcomings? Now that the media has the government it wants, will they play the role of watchdogs, of which they are so proud? The answer remains to be seen.

So, is it so preposterous for conservatives like me to fear that our government is poised to take greater control over our lives-in the name of serving us? At the risk of angering some of my fellow conservatives, I would argue that the establishment of the Soviet Union was based on mostly good intentions in the interest of the people. However, it went terribly wrong.

The collapse of the USSR demonstrates that what seems to be stable in the world can suddenly collapse given the right conditions. Could it also happen to us, say within my own lifetime? Here are my fears:

The US becomes increasingly socialist in nature, which I feel would destroy the economy as well as our culture of free market capitalism and individualism that made our country great in the first place. To borrow a line from someone (I don't know who), we are going from "Ask not what your country can do for you..." to "Demand what your country can do for you". This attituide is not what made America the greatest nation in the world.

I also fear that we will gradually lose certain freedoms incrementally until we wake up one day and realize that we are no longer the freest nation in the world. If that seems crazy to you, consider the so-called Fairness Doctrine applied to talk radio and the card-check system being planned for labor unions. Consider what was done to Joe the Plumber by state officials in Ohio. Consider the damage done to our electoral process by ACORN. Consider the suspicious senatorial election re-count being done in Minnesota as we speak.

I also fear that the US will unilaterally disarm to the point that we are no longer the world's only superpower. There is little doubt that Obama will cut military spending-according to Barney Frank (who himself has done so much damage to our economy), we can expect a 25% reduction in military spending. The same thing happened under Carter, and the same thing happened under Clinton. The implications of all this are terrifying since who would stand against tyranny and terrorism if not us? That is not to say I want us to be the policeman of the world-I don't-but at a certain point, you have to have a free, democratic superpower that will stand up to the Hitlers, Stalins and now, Islamic fascists who would take away everyone's freedoms. Say what you want about our use of the military over the last several decades. Were it not for the US, and specifically, the US Military, how many nations would be living in freedom today?

None.

Another fear I have is that under the incoming government, the US will shift its favor from Israel to the Arab nations and increasingly radical Muslims that want to destroy our greatest ally-and only democracy in the Middle East. Indeed, the pressure is growing to the point I fear that within 20-25 years, Israel may cease to exist. We already have reached the point that we have more Muslims in the US than Jews. Unfortunately, many young Muslims are increasingly militant and devoted to the destruction of Israel. Obama will be under pressure from the left to favor the Palestinians at the expense of Israel-which I fear he is inclined to do anyway.

I also fear that the US will now defer more and more to the inept and corrupt United Nations, an organization which, in my view, has outlived its usefulness.

At home, I also fear that the new administration will only increase and feed the growing feeling of tribalization that exists in our society. Obama has convinced many that he is the one man who will bring together black and white. Yet, he comes from a church where the pastor has achieved notoriety for his outbursts against whites and America in general. I am not convinced that anyone coming out of that church is going to bring anyone together.

I also fear that Obama's election is resulting in overblown expectations about our racial issues. With all due repect to the emotions of African-Americans at seeing a black man elected as president, this does not cure the myriad of problems that exist in inner city communities. It does nothing to reduce a 70% illigitimate birth rate among African-Americans. The inner city, crime-ridden slums are still there. What happens when people wake up to the fact that symbolism aside, the realities of life have not changed? How many American cities (Detroit, Washington DC, Philadelphia) have we seen that are now solidly entrenched in black city governments, but have done nothing to change existing problems? I hear white voices already that say Obama's election should mean the end of any excuses for black underachievement. I can only partially agree with that statement. But the question begs; what will an Obama presidency really mean for black Americans. We shall see.

During the election, voters chose to overlook the long history of associations that have formed Barack Obama's life from Jeremiah Wright, to Tony Rezko to William Ayres. Yet, here was charismatic figure who promised "change", notwithstanding the fact that he came up in politics from the old Chicago machine, arguably the most powerful and corrupt in the nation. Here was a young man also seemingly influenced by the philosophy of Saul Alinski. Yet millions of voters have placed their trust in him. For many of us, suspicion as to Obama's inner mind still exists.

Eventually, I suspect that the whole issue of gay marriage, which has only arisen in the last decade or so since we began to recognize that gays should be treated as human beings, will be resolved in their favor. I am against it since I think that marriage, an institution that has endured for thousands of years between a man and a woman, is being turned on its head without much thought. Nevertheless, with the current mood in the country and the courts-especially the judges that will be appointed by Obama will push it through in short order.

The issue of judges is another fear since I saw first-hand the damage liberal, activist judges appointed by Carter and Clinton did to federal law enforcement efforts in the courts. As much as Obama may pose as a centrist, watch who he appoints, and watch the judges he puts on the bench.

So now, the great American experimentation with the Left begins. Hopefully, the public, after four or even eight years of Obama's changes will turn in revolt against him at the polls. Whether the Republican Party will be viable at that point is open to question. They have to find their own way. As we speak, the party is divided between those who want to chart the conservtive course as a matter of principle and those who want to compete with the Democrats as to who will give the people more goodies. There is doubt they can even be competitive in the next decade. Do we benefit from having only one viable party? Ask Mexico. Ask Russia.

Things are changing fast in America and in the world. I may sound crazy, but why couldn't we collapse just as suddenly as that other superpower?

Robbery in Progress-In Minnesota

News report: "We understand that more ballots are coming in from one Hennepin County precinct. They were reportedly found in the trunk of a precinct official's car, but she insists that she always maintained secure custody, so they will be counted. Back to you, Bob"



In the Minnesota Senate race between incumbent Norm Coleman and the despicable "comedian" Al Franken, with 100% of the vote counted on election night, Coleman came out with a narrow 725 vote victory. Yet, in the past week, election officials have "discovered" additional ballots, including 32 absentee ballots in the trunk of one official's car (ALL going to Franken), "clerical errors" and "typos" that have gone disproportionately to Franken, thus reducing Coleman's lead to 206 votes. Now, there must be a hand-recount which will probably begin November 19.

It is interesting that in an election that was divided 50-50, Franken has benefited from the disproportionate share of the new ballots. By one study, Franken has befitted 2.5 times as much as Obama did with the new ballots. It appears that the proportion of questionable ballots (which have already been added to the count), have gone over 90% to Franken. (See Megyn Kelly interview with Tim Pawlenty, posted on Hot Air November 11, 2008)

Could it be, with three Senate races still hanging in the balance, that the Democrats are trying to reach that 60 vote filibuster majority in the Senate-by any means necessary? Remember, we are talking about the Democratic Party that is in bed with ACORN.

It appears to this not-so-paranoid observer that we are witnessing voter fraud in action right before our very eyes, the same type of operation we saw in Florida in 2000 (keep counting until we get the result we want). Fortunately, Team Bush was able to fight off the Dems attempt to steal Florida. Will Coleman also be successful?

If Franken manages to pull off this heist, all you Democrats can celebrate. But think what it is you will be celebrating; another nail in the coffin of honest elections.

Another nail in the coffin of our democracy.

What will be George W Bush's Legacy?

Now that the Bush Administration's time in office is down to its last couple of months, it is way too early, in my view, to predict his historical legacy. That will probably take at least a generation and largely depend on how Iraq and Afghanistan play out. I do think it appropriate, however, to contribute a few words on the president who is leaving office.

George Bush, from the moment he was sworn in following the controversial election in Florida, was greeted with hate from the left. Indeed, his motorcade was the target of a few eggs as it proceeded from the Capitol to the White House. The hate has never ceased-though he did enjoy a huge spike in support following 9-11. Except for that, the Democrats have done everything in their power to undermine and demean Bush even though he tried to reach out to them. The media also has spent most of the last 8 years contributing to the demonetization of the President, which he could never overcome.

To be sure, many conservatives have also been disappointed with some of Bush's policies. His lax stand on illegal immigration and border security-even after 9-11, angered many on the right. The aggressive prosecution of two border agents who shot a Mexican drug smuggler caused many (including myself) to believe that the Bush Administration and its Justice Department was not supportive of the Border Patrol.

In addition, Bush, who came to office proclaiming himself a "compassionate conservative", did nothing to reduce the size of government and cut government spending. As Congress (Democrat and Republican) was having an orgy of earmarks, Bush set aside his veto pen and let it roll on. History will also have to judge his share of the blame for the financial crisis. Though he was, indeed, president, I see a lot more culpability in Congress-especially when it comes to the mortgage-lending fiasco. Yet, the Democrats succeeded in steering public attention toward Bush (and his "tax cuts for the rich") and away from people like Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer, who were prime culprits in the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac scandals. To me, there was nothing wrong in Bush's cutting taxes. It was the right thing to do.

One unfortunate aspect of Bush is his inability to be articulate in front of a microphone in the absence of a prepared text. This hurt in two respects. First, he was unable to articulate his convictions. Secondly, it led to the public image fed by the late night comedians that he was a dolt, which he is not.

One area that Bush has done well in is the appointment of federal judges. In spite of unconscionable Democratic obstruction, he has managed to put two outstanding conservative judges on the Supreme Court (notwithstanding the Harriet Miers fiasco), as well as on the federal bench.

But it was his aggressive response to 9-11 that eventually sent liberals and Democrats over the edge. While Afghanistan was and is mostly supported, his invasion and occupation of Iraq sealed his doom. America has few allies in this endeavor, and the establishment of Gitmo and the NSA intercepts have led to the further demonetization of a president who, in my view, was trying to prevent any further
9-11s. To hear the left describe it, we have all lost our freedoms in the past 8 years.

As far as Iraq is concerned, if Bush was lying about weapons of mass destruction, then so was Clinton. The fact is that everyone believed Saddam was building WMD. The CII believed it. The UN believed it. All the major intelligence agencies in the world believed it. Saddam did everything in his power to make the world believe it. And why shouldn't we have believed it? Saddam, in fact, used chemical weapons against Iran and against the Kurds in the north after the first Gulf War-in one instance, killing 5,000 Kurds in one village with poison gas.

Yet, whether or not they ever existed in terms or amounts we believed-or were dismantled or taken out of the country prior to the invasion, Saddam's continued rule of Iraq was a world-wide scandal. As he and his sons terrorized an entire nation, major nations were being secretly bought off with oil vouchers to oppose any invasion. There was nothing principled in their opposition to an invasion. It was all about greed. Meanwhile, innocent Iraqis were being dragged off to torture centers, rape rooms and mass graves-by the tens of thousands-as the world sat by and twiddled their thumbs.

Say what you will, George Bush will go to his grave with two things on his resume that any world leader would envy. He removed two of the worst regimes in recent memory and gave some 50 million people an opportunity to live in some measure of freedom. What do the Jacques Chiracs, Gerhard Schroeders, Kofi Annans or Vladimir Putins have on their resumes?

In terms of fighting the war on terror, Bush has also drawn condemnation for the establishment of Guantanemo Bay as a detention center for captured terrorists-a center that will almost certainly be shut down by President Obama when he takes office. Many argue that the prisoners should be afforded the protections of the Geneva Convention-even though these terrorists represent no nation, wear no uniform, have signed no such accords, have targeted innocents as victims and do not abide themselves with any of the Geneva accords-preferring instead to torture, murder/behead their captives.

Others argue that we should overburden our federal court system with these terrorists even though the courts are not equipped to handle them in large numbers and may require the disclosure of classified material to prosecute them. Have we forgotten the German saboteurs who landed on our shores during World War II intent on wreaking havoc here? They were captured, brought before a military tribunal and most of them were executed as spies.

My point here is that these prisoners do not fit into any neat little category of law-breakers or prisoners of war. If you want to consider them as POWs-then they stay in captivity until the "war" is over. In this case, that will be a long time.

As to the NSA intercepts. I still cannot perceive any rational objection to these intercepts. In the wake of 9-11, these intercepts seem to be a perfectly rational response to the threat of mass murder being carried out here at home. If the NSA abroad has identified a terrorist telephone that they are monitoring and that telephone places a call to the US, what in God's name is the problem with listening in and setting up a tap on the US phone? True, we have a normal procedure for wiretapping phones being used for criminal purposes using the normal court-authorized process. However, and I am speaking from personal experience (as a retired DEA agent), it is a cumbersome process that takes time and resources. The FISA court process is also available in cases of national security, but in the wake of 9-11, when speed may save thousands of lives, even that process was deemed to be insufficient to deal with the threat.

If George Bush has erred in the case of Gitmo and the NSA intercepts, he has done it for one reason-to prevent any future 9-11s on American soil-to save innocent lives. While much of America has gone back to sleep, Bush has remained vigilant. And to this point, he has succeeded (knock on wood). For that, George W Bush deserves our gratitude.

President Bush will leave office with an abysmally low approval rating, much as did Harry Truman, who today is regarded as one of our finest presidents. Many Republicans will blame him for the dire straits their party finds itself. Some of the criticism will be fair-some unfair. Through it all, however, Bush has withstood the hatred directed toward him with grace, which tells me that he is a good and decent man.

Bush's final legacy will not be determined for a long time. Perhaps it will be that he foolishly believed that bringing democracy to a region that had never experienced it would remove the terrorist threat in the long term. Much of it will depend on the success or failure of Iraq. After 4-8 years of Obama, perhaps, Bush will look wiser to us. I do feel, however, that in a couple of generations, Bush's reputation as president will be much higher than when he leaves office.

Islam Awareness Week at UC-Irvine

Amir Abdel Malik Ali


Mutah Beale aka Napoleon


Recently, I wrote a piece based on a letter I sent to the Orange County Register. The letter was in response to their article on the UCI Olive Tree Initiative (15 students, Jewish and Muslim who visited Israel had reported back on their findings to a packed hall at UCI).

The initiative seems to have given rise to hope that Jewish and Muslim students at UCI might better understand each other's feelings and positions after having gained insight based on on-the-scene observations. I opined at the time (my letter was never published by the Register) that the proof of the pudding would be the next MSU-sponsored week of activities. In the past, MSU has hosted a parade of vitriolic speakers who shout their hatred of Israel. Most of these speakers don't seem to care much for "Zionist" Jews-or the US-their own country either. Typical of these speakers is Oakland-based imam, Amir Abdel Malik Ali, who is always invited to spew his venom at the UCI campus. Anyway, many people hoped-perhaps naively, that the MSU might decide to go in a different direction.

So, from November 17-20, will be Islam Awareness Week, and guess who will be one of the featured speakers? You got it- Malik Ali. Like a bad dose of Herpes, this guy just keep coming back and coming back. His two topics sound innocent enough; "The one God" and "My story". We don't know what he will actually say, however, until he shows up. Once this guy gets on a roll anything can happen. Ali is a gifted speaker although someone needs to tell him about introduction, body and conclusion.

Also appearing will be some former rapper named Mutah Beale aka Napoleon, who left the world of rap behind him when he started taking Islam seriously (he was born to a Muslim father). Not being a rap follower, I had to do some Googling on Beale. From what I can find out so far, he speaks all over the world on the dangers of the rapping lifestyle, which certainly sounds good to me. What he thinks about other issues, I don't know yet. His topics are "From Outlawz to outlawed-My story" and "Changing my game: My view of women before and after Islam.

It is hoped that the MSU-"newly inspired" by the Olive Tree Initiative- will tell Ali to keep his hate filled statements about "Zionist Jews, Israel, America and President Bush under wraps in the spirit of friendship and reconciliation between two groups of people who, for the most part, are Americans after all is said and done.

But, on the other hand, I was also hoping for a Cub pennant this year.

Project Meredian Foundation

When you read about prostitution busts, you think of prostitutes, pimps and johns. You think of undercover cops arresting hookers and johns, and Date Line NBC helping cops catch men looking for underage sex on the Internet. Yet, there is another form of prostitution that is expecially insidious; that is forced child prostitution. Usually, we read about child sex slavery in Third World countries, where enforcement is lax, and corruption allows the child sex-trade to flourish-aided by Western men who travel to these countries to engage in activities they know they would go to prison for here. Shockingly, however, it is going on right here in the United States, sometimes even involving the kidnapping of young children for sexual slavery purposes. The statistics show that forced child sexual exploitaion is formly rooted right here at home. Aside from the cases of child sexual abuse within the home and those involving runaway children who are preyed upon by pimps, many cases of child sexual abuse involve organized criminal activity such as gangs and ethnic organized crime organizations. Many of the child victims are brought to the US from other countries for sexual purposes. Young women and children are being forced into the sex slave trade every year. Now nearly 1,000,000 American children in the United States alone have been victimized and trafficked across state lines to include Richmond, VA To L.A. Califorina and every small town and big city across the United States. These represent true crimes against our children and young women.

One organization that is devoted to help fight this scourge is Project Meridian Foundation Inc. The founder and CEO of Project Meridian Foundation is Nathan Wilson, who is based in Richmond, Virginia, which, surprisingly enough, is part of a region where much of this activity goes on. Wilson interacts with countless organizations to help bring a public awareness to the problem, help in the rescue of child victims, and assist in sheltering and helping them recover from their ordeal. One of the organization's present goals is to establish an initial secure facility (safe house) where rescued children could be housed, given medical treatment and counseling under 24 hour security. Such a facility would have the capacity to serve 100-120 children per year for a three month period before moving to a step-up facility. In addition, the organization is seeking funding for an operational office/victim call center and an updated website.

In addition, Wilson makes numerous speaking appearances to bring public awareness to this problem. I myself will be making inquiries next week at UC-Irvine, where I teach part-time, to see if we can bring Mr Wilson out to our campus.

Without question, such an undertaking requires funding. If you are looking for a worthwhile organization to send a check to, please consider Project Meridian Foundation. Their website can be found at http://www.projectmeridianfoundation.org and is linked on this blog. Project Meridian Foundation is a non-profit IRS 501 c3 organization.

I will be giving periodic updates on Project Meredian Foundation's work.

Update on Fairness Doctrine

"He was out!"

"I know, but we gotta keep it fair."


The below is cross-posted from Maggie's Notebook and Radarsite:

The Fairness Doctrine-What you may not know

"Democrat dominance in Washington, D.C. guarantees the reinstitution of some type of policy to control the balance of Conservative and Liberal radio talk shows.

Barack Obama announced the appointment of radical, far-left lawyer, Henry Rivera, to head the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Rivera, a former FCC Commissioner who resigned during Reagan's term is believed to be a strong supporter of a Fairness Doctrine, and a seeker of his version of media justice on the airwaves.

Democrats Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Dennis Kucinich Nancy Pelosi and Louise Slaughter are all on the record as wanting "Fairness" in radio. Slaughter introduced failed legislation for a Fairness Doctrine in the House in 2004 and 2005.

With a Democrat in the White House, the five-member Commission board-balance reduces in June 2009 to two members of the minority Republican party. Through the FCC, The Fairness Doctrine can be reinstated, or can be newly drafted, without laws, without Congress...just a majority vote of a Democrat majority Board, imposing the Doctrine as an FCC regulation.

If you are unfamiliar with The Fairness Doctrine...and perhaps "fairness" sounds like a good thing, here is an example of what such a doctrine, more commonly known today as a "censorship doctrine," would require: if Rush Limbaugh has a 3 hour daily program, that station must allow a 3 hour daily program with an opposing viewpoint - think the failed Air America, Al Franken, Randi Rhodes. If sponsors do not want to advertise on an unpopular show, because no one listens, then what? I don't think we know.

The original Fairness Doctrine is squarely at odds with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing the people's right to free speech and free press, and guaranteeing that Congress will make no laws lessening, diminishing, depriving, cutting off or as the Amendment says, "abridging" such rights.

A background article from The Museum of Broadcast Communications says this on page two, regarding the dissolution of the Fairness Doctrine by the FCC in August 1985:


"The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.

By the 1980s, many things had changed. The "scarcity" argument which dictated the "public trustee" philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine.

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it." To read the entire document by Val E. Limburg and to find a reading list, go here.

Should the FCC fail to resurrect a Fairness Doctrine, Congress can pass laws to mandate it, and are willing to do so.

Stiffle dissent...any and all judgement of The Obama Years, and the Pelosi House and the Reid Senate - that's the goal. The only way to do it is to hush Rush, and Hannity, and Ingraham, and Boortz, and O'Reilly, and Levine, and the list goes on.

Will the FCC, under Rivera, attempt to resurrect a Commission Fairness Doctrine? We don't know the answer, but consider this:

Here's what you may not know about the Fairness Doctrine: In January 2007, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps unveiled a new American Media Contract at a gathering of the National Media Reform Conference in Memphis.

The text of the speech appears to have been removed from the web, although I have found several links to it, one titled Copps Unveils New American Media Contract, which then takes the reader to the 2008 Conference speech. Just a typo? I don't think so. Maggie's Notebook reported on this on January 27, 2007 and is likely not the only webpage documenting the words of Michael Copps.

Here are portions of the American Media Contract 2007:

We expect these:
1. A right to media that strengthens our democracy
2. A right to local stations that are actually local
3. A right to media that looks and sounds like America
4. A right to news that isn’t canned and radio playlists that aren’t for sale
5. A right to programming that isn’t so damned bad so damned often
Who decides what America "looks and sounds"like?
Who decides if the news is "canned" or not"
Who decides what strengthens our democracy?

Copps said this about the state of television in 2007:

And what do the American people — who own the public airwaves, by the way — get in return? Too little news, too much baloney passed off as news. Too little quality entertainment, too many people eating bugs on reality TV. Too little local and regional music, too much brain-numbing national play-lists. Too little of America, too much of Wall Street and Madison Avenue...."
An immediate red flag: "...too much baloney passed off as news." I think Mr. Copps' baloney is not my baloney.

Other speakers for the event were well-known leftists Jane Fonda, Danny Glover, Geena Davis, Senator Bernie Sanders, Bill Moyers, Helen Thomas and Jessie Jackson.

Henry Rivera is said to see "communications as a civil rights issue," and my research bears that out. As current Chair of the Minority Media & Telecommunications Council, he has proposed to:

1) funnel more "federal advertising" to minority media [39]

2) allow foreign ownership; relax U.S. trade barriers to provide "overseas capital," for minority broadcasters [17]

3) develop "constitutionally permissible yet non-dilute method of defining" the class [race] of licensees, i.e., "an applicant's race would be one of the numerous factors considered when the Commission reviews a license application." [30]

4) change the FCC Commission to a more diverse Commission - it should look like America [38]

In addition, Rivera wants a blue-ribbon panel discussion, now, to bring Communications to the table by creating a White House Cabinet position, and he advocates for "localism" to prevail when issuing broadcasting licenses - a position to be seen in Copps' comments above.

The above is taken from Rivera's Minority Media & Telecom Council pdf, page numbers are in brackets.

To date I've found nothing in Rivera's own words directly calling for a Fairness Doctrine, however, in a January 2008 news release, Rivera and a law partner, Richard Wiley, discuss the issue of "localism," - requiring TV stations to "cover local news," Mr. Wiley added, "Are we going to return to the broadcast regulations of the past? That's the question."

I believe this may speak directly to a Fairness Doctrine, which is particularly difficult for smaller local stations to implement. Limited cast and crew find it difficult to allow equal time ON EVERY ISSUE. It's costly, often not pertinent, and history shows that that the stations just give up and don't report controversial issues.

It is reported that Obama is not interested in a Fairness Doctrine, but if you take a look at his press secretary, Michael Ortiz', statement, it not reassuring:

He [Obama] considers this debate [Fairness Doctrine] to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible.
When it comes to "fairness" in media, we have nothing to feel good about in an Obama administration. Team Obama attorneys:

1) asked the Department of Justice to remove TV ads produced by American Issues Project

2) threatened individual TV and radio stations airing NRA ads even "intimidating cease and desist letters...threatening their FCC license if they run the ads" according to the NRA

3) at the direction of a Team Obama email, deluged the Milt Rosenberg's Chicago radio show interview of Dr. Stanley Kurtz, by jamming phones during the live show, sending copious emails, and gathering outside the studio. ALL at the command of the Obama campaign.

Obama does not bode well for free speech.

The SayAnything Blog put it this way:

...only liberals would think that “fairness” is something that can be implemented by government mandate. but that speaks to how they see the world. This country was founded up on the idea that all men are free, and that all should have equal opportunity to pursue life, liberty and happiness. But rather than equality of opportunity, liberals are only interested in equality of outcome."

Still think it's not going to happen?

Will There Be a Fairness Doctrine Now?

"It's time for Rush Limbaugh, Honey."

"Shhh-not too loud. The neighbors might hear"


Now that the Democrats are in firm control of Washington, there are rumblings that they plan to re-institute the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", which would dictate that all radio talk shows provide opposing points of view. Since talk radio (often called "hate radio" by its critics), is dominated by conservatives, it it is a prime target for liberals. Note that there is no call for a "Fairness Doctrine" which would apply to newspapers or TV news networks, which are dominated by liberals and have become de facto wings of the Democratic Party.

I have written before on the Fairness Doctrine, so there is no need to repeat my arguments here. I would add, however, that the practical effect of such a regulation would lead most radio stations to do away with political talk shows altogether and switch to a different format, like say country music, rather than put up with the hassles. A Fairness Doctrine would in effect be the death knell of conservative talk radio. It would not make much difference to liberals since they have not been able to achieve any measure of success in talk radio. People aren't listening.

When I wrote the above-referenced post, I sent it directly to Rep Henry Waxman's office since he is one of those who believed to be in favor of the Fairness Doctrine, and since he is the current Chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. In short, he is the guy who would lead the charge.

The post, which was sent to Waxman's office can be found here:

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2007/10/henry-waxman-goes-after-hate-radio.html

I subsequently received a letter from Waxman dated 10-24-07, which reads as follows:

"Dear Mr Fouse,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about rumors you have heard that the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which I chair, is investigating conservative and Republican talk radio hosts. The news story that began this rumor was fictitious and I welcome the opportunity to clear up any confusion that this story caused.

On October 8, 2007, The American Spectator printed a fictitious story alleging that the Oversight Committee was investigating talk show radio programs. This report is completely false and was written without any documentation or attribution. There is not now nor has there ever been any investigation of this subject.

I believe that The American Spectator should retract its report and apologize for the confusion this fictitious report has caused. If you share my concern about false reporting, you may contact The American Spectator at (703) 807-2011 to register your views.

To learn more about the investigations that are currently being conducted by the Oversight Committee, please visit www.oversight.house.gov.

Again, thank you for contacting me and I hope you will continue to keep in touch on issues of concern,

With kind regards, I am

Sincerely,

Henry A Waxman
Member of Congress"

Waxman, as you can see in his letter, denied allegations that he was going to investigate talk radio hosts, an issue which I had also raised. He did not address, however, a point I also raised about rumors he was tasking the FCC into reconsidering the Fairness Doctrine.

So the question begs; are the Democrats, flush with power, now prepared to go after talk radio with the so-called, "Fairness Doctrine"? I say it's time to make a fresh inquiry with Rep Waxman, so I will send this to his office this weekend.

Obama's Planned Community Service- Goal or Requirement?

I am posting the below from my friend and colleague, Roger Gardner at Radarsite. It concerns Barack Obama's plans for national youth service. Specifically, it concerns the words "require" vs "setting a goal" (for 50/100 hours of community youth service). It seems that the original wording ("require") which appeared on Obama's website was replaced by "setting a goal".

As for the photo above, calm down, folks. I am not comapring Obama to Stalin. Time will tell, however, if this planned youth service will take on aspects of hero worship and indoctrination. (Will they call it, "The Obama Youth"?) In addition, the question begs: Will such service be required or not-even for those who don't go to college?


Note from Radarsite: "This morning I received the following comment to our previous article about Obama's announcement on his official website."


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "And You Thought We Were Exaggerating":

"Except for, you know, you totally misquote it. Here is the quote from the website:"

"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.

Notice the total lack of the word "require"


Radarsite: So I went back and checked Obama's website, and here it is.


America Serves

"When you choose to serve -- whether it's your nation, your community or simply your neighborhood -- you are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not just for ourselves, but for all Americans. That's why it's called the American dream.

"The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start."


Radarsite: "The following paragraph has just disappeared."


"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year."


Radarsite: "It has now been replaced by this one."


"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free."


Radarsite:

"Take note my friends, because this is just a sample of what we are going to be dealing with in our turbulent future. The highlighted text that was the subject of our previous article is just gone. Gone. Gone without explanation or acknowledgement. Furthermore one of their minions writes in a comment telling us that it was never there in the first place, that I misquoted it. Is it really going to be this easy to manipulate the truth, to manipulate us? Evidently they think so.

We can not, we must not accept this totalitarian manipulation of the truth. We must fight back against each and every one of these outrageous attacks on our freedoms. We warned you and you ignored us, and now it is here." - rg

"Another update: Read this new comment. Now they are accusing me of altering the original document. Take your pick readers. Is Radarsite lying? Or are the Obamaites lying? There is no middle ground here."

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "And
You Thought We Were Exaggerating":

"If you are going to alter what you copied, it's not a good idea to link to it. Per the source:"

"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.

Unjustified fear is one thing, altering meaning to feed fear erodes your credibility and left me wondering if you lack morals and ethics."



"[Update-Susan Duclos] The original wording was caught as a screenshot by hillaryclinton forum, bless their hearts and I am adding it here for those claiming the word require was never there."


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7kwIiNndOcg/SRXBcMxnwOI/AAAAAAAAGnI/L0f19NBtiwg/s1600-h/Obamarequire1.jpg

You be the judge.

"America's Sheriff" on Trial (Cont.)

Yesterday, Don Haidl continued his testimony against ex-Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona in the on-going corruption trial in Santa Ana. Haidl, who earlier pleaded guilty and secretly tape recorded conversations with Carona under the guise of having been subpoened to the Grand Jury, had been elevated by Carona from wealthy businessman to Asst. Sheriff in charge of the Reserve Division (1998-2004). Haidl's testimony concerns his activities in funneling bribes to Carona.

In his testimony of Friday, Haidl described how 86 contributors to Carona received Sheriff's badges in return, badges that were designed to look identical to those carried by actual deputies. Many also received concealed-gun permits in exchange for their contributions.

In what has to be the most disgusting allegation against Carona, Haidl also described the arrangements by which he and Carona directed cases to local attorney Joe Cavallo (previously convicted), a character who puts a completely new meaning into the age-old term, "sleazebag attorney". This thug obtained notoriety a couple of years back when he defended Haidl's son Greg and two other punks in a gang-rape trial (they were convicted). During the whole ugly process, Cavallo insulted and mocked both the victim and her family in crude terms both in and out of the courtroom.

Not only did Carona and Haidl direct cases to Cavallo, but, according to Haidl's testimony yesterday, they managed to convince the widow of a highly decorated deputy (Brad Warner), who had died unexpectedly after knee surgery, to have Cavallo handle the resultant lawsuit against the hospital involved. According to Haidl's testimony, Cavallo handled the suit and subsequently gave Haidl $28,338 as his cut. Haidl further testified that Carona and ex-Asst Sheriff George Jaramillo were supposed to split $5,000 from the case-though he did not personally witness that payment.

Below is an excerpt from a recorded conversation between Mike Carona and Don Haidl on July 15, 2007 (source: OC Register, 11-8-08):

Carona: "And I'm not looking for sainthood. I, you know, I never thought I'd go to jail for (expletive) around. Apparently, that's, you know, you know, the new current practice. It's the new state law."

Haidl: "Well, like I said, what I'm dealing with, it's, I'm trying to keep focused on the facts. What we know (expletive) the rumors. I don't know what's going to happen."

Carona: "I don't either, Don."

Obama's Economic Advisors-Antonio Villaraigosa??

Antonio Villaraigosa

"We must 'invest' in toilet brushes!"


It sure is comforting to see that Barack Obama is surrounding himself with a "solid" team of economic advisers. The president-elect has gathered an all-star team of experts in Chicago to help guide him through the mysteries of the American economy. Some have solid credentials, some I think are to the left (like Robert Reich). Among the luminaries are Paul Volcker, Larry Summers, Warren Buffett, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (who has run that state into the ground economically) and.....drum roll, please..............

LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa!!

Yes, there was Tony Villar (his real name before he married his wife, who was named Raigosa before he had an affair with a Telemundo TV reporter, and his wife divorced him and left Tony with her name, and.....well never mind.)

Where was I? Oh yeah, there was Antonio Villaraigosa, LA's playboy major, who knows as much about economics as I know about oceanography, standing behind Obama for the press conference and photo ops. Somewhere tonight, Tony is sampling the nightlife of Chicago much as he does in LA.

Aside from his lovelife, Tony is perhaps most noted for his memorable "We clean your toilets" speech at one of those big immigration protests in LA a couple of years ago.

But the question begs: Why in the world would Obama bring in Tony Villaraigosa to advise him on economics? The only thing that Villaraigosa could tell Obama is how to raise taxes, lie about why you are raising taxes, and how to pick up dates on the cheap. Beyond that, he knows nothing about economics.

Maybe, Obama is trying to put a Hispanic face on his transition team since Hispanics did not support him in the primaries but did in the general election. But if Obama needs a Hispanic as window dressing, I would suggest Manny Ramirez, who does have some skills and knows how to MAKE money.

It never ceases to amaze me how the Democratic Party can continue to pump this guy (Villaraigosa, I mean) up when he has been such a joke as Mayor of Los Angeles. But at least, he's not the Mayor of San Francisco.

The Carona Trial-The Tapes

Yesterday, in the federal corruption trial of ex-Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona, jurors listened to tape recorded discussions between Carona and Don Haidl (now a government witness). Haidl, on the witness stand, helped explain the conversations and the meaning of the statements. The conversations centered around hiding the bribes he (Carona) had allegedly received as sheriff. A sampling:

Carona to Haidl on August 13, 2007: "And, by the way, if you go back and look, my answer's gonna be, yeah (the money)came from my account. Look at my ATM receipts."

In another exchange, Haidl tells Carona that he prefers crisp new dollar bills, to which "America's Sheriff" replies, "I do, too. But you know what? I like the old stuff, too. I'd roll around in it like a puppy dog."

In yet another exchange, Haidl says, "We can't take the Fifth."

Carona: "We wouldn't want to anyway 'cause all that does is just, you know, create a bigger, you know, target on your back."

At one point, Asst US Attorney Brett Sagel asked Haidl to define the purpose of the cash he had given to Carona. Haidl replied that the cash were bribes so that Carona wouldn't take other bribes.

More to follow.

What, Me Worry?

"What, me worry?


Had McCain won-American Embassy in France



"Welcome to the UK, Fousesquawk. Long live America!"



"Welcome to France, Fousesquawk"



"Another round of beer for our American friend"




Now that we have elected Barack Obama, a lot of my friends are asking me what I am going to do now-as if they think I am going to cut my wrists or move to Newfoundland.

Don't worry. Things are great. I always look on the bright side. For starters, the World loves us Americans again.

For example, next year, I plan to go back to my old stomping grounds in Germany and drink liters-many liters- of that fabulous beer. What's more, Germans will be lining up by the hundreds to buy the next liter for me since "I am an American". And I shall proudly accept them all in the name of my country.

I may even hit a few other countries to bask in the adulation that will greet American tourists over there. In fact, there was a piece in the Yahoo news about "no more ugly Americans". Just think, Frenchmen and French women will be throwing flowers at my feet as I walk down the middle of the Champs De L'Elysee (which will be closed off by the French gendarmes for my sole benefit). As I near the Place de la Concorde, near which the American Embassy is located, I can breathe a sigh of relief that McCain wasn't elected, which surely would have led to said embassy being burned to the ground. But it's all a mute point now. We are loved again.

Of course, I could head down to Italy, where I used to live when Republican presidents like Reagan were in power. Surely, Silvio Berlusconi will greet me and take me to some resort on the Italian Riviera, where we can work on our tans.

Maybe I could even take a Greek cruise. While I am there, I can be interviewed by that Greek newspaper, Avriani, and tell them that, yes, Jewish domination is over-just as their headlines blared on election night.

I might even hop up to merry old England and tip a pint with some of the local beastie boys, that is if the wacko Islamist community, that seems to be taking over, hasn't shut down the pubs yet.

Of course, I may have to lie a little-like tell them how I woke up at the crack of dawn to be the first in my neighborhood to vote for "The One". I can also tell them all about my blog (the Daily Kos), which tirelessly supported Obama from day one.

Or even better, I can tell them that I am a writer for the New York Times or that I am one of Keith Olbermann's inner circle of regular Bush-hating guests on his nightly "Meltdown".

And when I return from my grande tour of the Old World, I will pass through Customs and Immigration and probably find that my name is in the computer as a "dissident", "rootless cosmopolitan", "counter-progressive", hate-monger", or some such thing, at which point, I will be whisked off to Harvard University for "re-education" and a PHD!

Yes, indeed. It is truly a great time to be an American.

Obama's First "Change"-Rahm Emanuel?

News item: Rahm Emanuel appointed new White House Chief of Staff in Obama Administration.

"Nice Rahm. Say hello to our Republican colleagues, Rahm."

Meanwhile in Greece....

Avriani (Greece) Newspaper headline announcing Barack Obama's election.

Headline: "The end of Jewish domination."

sub-title: "Everything in America changes so that we hope it will be more democratic and humane"

Fousesquawk comment: Maybe Greece should worry more about their own "humane" society.

Happy Days Are Here Again......

News item: The Dow has dropped over 900 points since the election.

"Why it must be those d... Bush tax cuts for the rich."

Fousesquawk Prediction-Sometime in 2009

I told you Barack Obama couldn't walk on water.

Project Promise

The below is from Raymond Smalley and is posted with my pleasure.


"Dear Everyone,

Obviously, Tuesday was disheartening. While I sympathize with your emotional state, I have one more request. On November 7-11, Project Promise will hold an online event to raise money for our wounded veterans. They will post letters and essays, video and audio clips, poems and posts on Veteran's Day and soldiers in tribute to the sacrifice of these American heroes.

As a means for spreading the word, I am asking everyone to please link our website, which is enclosed. We would very much appreciate this."

www.projectpromisesoldier.com

Sincerely,
Raymond Smalley
Martin-Stewart

Keep up the good work on behalf of our wounded vets.

Who Are the "Unnamed Sources" in the McCain Campaign"

"Unnamed sources"


As the election came to its conclusion, in the waning days, "unnamed McCain campaign members" began leaking information to the press that Sarah Plain was hurting the campaign for a variety of reasons. After last night's defeat, the "unnamed sources" crawled out from under their collective rocks again blaming Palin for the defeat. In my view, even if true, it is dispicable for these people to take shots at Palin in anonymity.

For years, no decades, we have seen the press using unnamed insider sources to feed political stories. Notwithstanding the news media's need to "protect" their sources, I find this contemptible. If an insider is trying to reveal information about corruption, that is one thing-though I would still come right out and use my name if it were a disclosure of corruption. But this is merely a matter of personalities, pointing the finger of blame and revenge. In this case, this is nothing more than a couple of sore losers trying to get the message out that it was "Palin's f---in' fault.

To me, it is a matter of principle. If you want to take a shot at someone, don't do it anonymously. Put your name under it if you want credibility. Besides, what were these sources trying to protect-their next campaign job?

Years ago, during my DEA career, someone in our office wrote an anonymous letter to DEA HQs regarding alleged mismanagement by our bosses. One day in the office, I overheard a passing exchange between one of the managers and one of our agents (who the manager suspected might have written the letter). When the boss, asked, "You didn't write that letter did you?", the agent replied, "I sign all my letters."

That has been a lesson that has guided me ever since. It is why whenever I write a blog essay or send in a comment to another blog, I always sign my name.

Those "unnamed sources" from the McCain campaign are cowards.

The Election in Irvine- One Candidate Who Hid From The Voters

On October 10, 2008, I posted an essay entitled; "Guess who's running for City Council in Irvine?" It concerned Todd Gallinger, a Southern California attorney for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), who was running for Irvine City Council. In that essay, I described a lawsuit brought recently by Gallinger against Yale University Press on behalf of KinderUSA, a supposed charity group directed toward Palestinian children. Yale University Press had published a book entitled: "Hamas:Politics, Charity and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad", by Matthew Levitt, in which KinderUSA was described as a Hamas front group. Gallinger's suit was dropped when Yale filed a SLAPP countersuit against KinderUSA. (SLAAP means strategic lawsuit against public participation, in effect a suit designed to pressure someone who may not have the resources or will to fight in court.)

This essay was posted on Orange County-based blog, Red County, a blog that Gallinger reads and occasionally comments on-usually in defense of the Muslim Student Union at UC-Irvine. What resulted was a thread of exchanges between Gallinger, myself and a couple of other commentators. To be more accurate, Gallinger only "replied" three times to numerous questions from me. In his replies, he stated that if I had any further questions, I should send them to his official site and he would "try to get to them" though he was very busy with his campaign. I replied on two occasions that since he was a candidate for office, I would continue to ask him questions in a public forum to which he should reply publicly.


To summarize, I asked Gallinger throughout the course of the thread the below questions:

1 Is there a connection between CAIR and Hamas as alleged in the Levitt book?

2 Did he file a SLAPP-type lawsuit against Yale University Press designed to pressure them to pay a settlement and suppress a book?

3 Could he comment on an article in the Irvine Tattler to the effect that he and his political allies running for spots on the Irvine City Council had financed a newspaper called the Irvine Community News and Views-which was actually printed in Northern California and was basically a campaign newspletter sent to Irvine residents.

4 How could he put up campaign signs along the roads of Irvine with the phrase, "Homegrown leadership" when he had just moved to Irvine this past April in order to run for City Council?

5 Did he report an alleged telephone death threat he received to the police?


To this date, Gallinger has only replied to the last question (He did, in fact, file a police report.)


Here are his three replies:


Gallinger:


"I've talked about my work with CAIR on here before, you can draw your own conclusions based upon that. I'm proud of the work I've done with them, I know it has been in defense of civil rights and also national security.

I've never represented CAIR-National nor have I ever heard the story about there founding here. I honestly could't understand the claims, but its clear they're more attempts at guilt by association, which I reject.

My work with KinderUSA is described in the article.

If you have meaningful questions, just email me, I'll try to get to them, but am pretty busy right now."

October 12, 2008 2:36 PM


Gallinger:

"To Fouse - Yes, a police report was filed the day the threat came in. This of course was reported in both the OC Register & LA Times articles. You guys honestly amaze me with your intellectual laziness.

To whoever wanted a tape recording, I don't make it a habit of recording all incoming calls. Do you?

I don't see a need to. Also, if I did record every call, it would be in violation of CA law which requires permission before taping.

What do you all think of the McCain volunteer w/ the B on her cheek? Does this now mean every report by a white person is subject to suspicion?

Though I do occasionally read this blog, if you want to find something out, try using the google or emailing me. But it seems like you wouldn't want any knowledge which challenges your preconceived notions."

October 24, 2008 7:31 PM


Gallinger:

"Fouse -

You still didn't answer my question, will this make you less likely to believe crimes reported by white people, as you feel with the false report by the Muslim girl? Does this report discredit the McCain campaign & the Republican party, the same way you believe CAIR was discredited?

Also, you can email me and then post my response, rather than simply rely on me to read everything that gets written on here. I have dead time tonight, the first in a long time and likely the last for at least the next 10 days. Additionally, your question could have been answered by reading below the headline of any of the articles which were published on the threat, which I assume is how you originally heard of it."

October 24, 2008 10:10 PM

* Note: I did, indeed, answer Gallinger's question on the Pittsburgh hoax by posting my own essay on the incident.


During the past week of the election, I posted a daily comment to Red County blog asking, "Where is Todd Gallinger?" I kept asking Gallinger to reply to my questions before the election. He never did.

Yesterday, Gallinger, part of a 4 member team that was trying to be elected to the City Council/Mayor's Office, was the only one who failed. (Three spots were open plus the mayor's office.)

I am certainly not trying to take full credit for Gallinger's failed campaign. Of more concern to Gallinger is information being published by the Irvine Tattler website pertaining to him and his fellow candidates. Yet, his arrogance in dealing with my questions on the widely-read Red County blog could not have helped his cause.

If you are interested in reading the entire thread, go to;

http://www.redcounty.com/rccampuswatch/2008/10/criticism-of-todd-gallingers-a/

Where do the Republicans Go From Here?

Make no mistake about it. The Republicans suffered another crushing defeat last night. Not only did Barack Obama win the presidency, the Democrats made gains in both the House and Senate. The door is now open for Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to push a liberal agenda for the nation. The only saving grace is that Democrats didn't achieve a super-majority in Congress; thus, the Republican senators can put up some degree of a fight against any extreme measures.

As far as making any kind of comeback, the Republicans, in my view, have a major reconstruction in front of them. The public, rightfully or wrongfully, has laid the major portion of blame on their doorstep for the weak economy and the poor performance of Congress. George Bush, rightfully or wrongfully, will leave office with a horrible approval rating.

So what should the Republican Party do in the next two to four years?

First of all, they must look introspectively at themselves. They must look back as far as the 1990s when they gained control over Congress based on Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America". Did they live up to their promises? Initially perhaps, but they soon grew too fond of their newly found majority status. Republicans came to Washington-and decided they liked it there inside the Beltway. They learned how to make backroom deals just like the old pols had before them. They took advantage of the attention of the lobbyists, their gifts, their trips on planes to boondoggle destinations, and all the rest. They learned how to engage in earmarks to bring the pork back to their constituents who, in turn, re-elected them. Spending, rather than be cut, was greatly expanded. Some, married or not, took advantatge of their offices and power to enjoy more female attention than they normally would have.

In short, they became corrupted.

Not that the Democrats were squeaky clean all these years. They were doing what they had always done. But it was the Republicans who got all the attention, largely because they had always talked about family values. So when a Mark Foley got nailed chasing pages or a Larry Craig got nailed in a men's room, it severely damaged the Party. Meanwhile, when William "Cool Cash" Jefferson was revealed to have accepted a bribe from undercover FBI agents, the story didn't carry as much weight because it really didn't shock anybody.

Second, it is time for Republicans to clear out their deadwood and make room for a new generation of up and coming leaders. Fortunately, Craig is retiring. Ted Stevens, who has been convicted, yet apparently re-elected (at this writing), must be gotten rid of. If he returns to Washington in January, his Republican counterparts must do everything in their power to get him out of Congress. If he refuses, they should join with Democrats in expelling him. Along that line, Stevens' Alaska crony, Rep. Don Young should also be shown the door. (The FBI may take care of that problem.) The old horse traders and Washington pros, even if not tainted by corruption, must fade into oblivion

The Republicans do have rising young stars; Louisiana Governor, Bobby Jindall, Lynn Swann, Paul Ryan, Michael Steele, and yes, Sarah Palin are prime examples of young conservatives who should be groomed for higher offices. What the Republicans need are young, energetic voices who can effectively articulate conservative values. George W. Bush could not. John McCain could not.

In addition, if the Republicans decide that they need to move closer to the Democrats and compete for their votes with a "we can do more for you" than the Democrats, I think it will be a huge mistake. Do they need to bring in more blacks and Hispanics? Sure they do, but they need to do it with a message that conservatism is the better way. For example, they need to convince blacks that they will be treated equally-not as handicapped children who need to be nurtured-as the Democrats do. With a black president, what need is there for nurturing?

As for Hispanics, Republicans need to convince them that their in-grained family values are more at home with Republicans than Democrats. Competing with Democrats in caving into border/immigration issues didn't accomplish much did it? Did the Republicans overlook a lot of Hispanic Americans who wanted new immigrants to play by the rules-as they had done? Who spoke for their voices? Who spoke for the Hispanics who wanted relief from illegal alien street gangs that were preying on their communities? Nobody, that's who.

All that is a round-a-bout way of saying that Republicans need to get back to their conservative base and sell it to the rest of the American people. They need fresh voices who can stand and debate with the Democrat liberals and show how wrong the latter are. They need to start now-even if inexperience costs them elections two years from now-elections they figure to lose anyway if the country is still basking in the Obama presidency.

The Republicans do have one thing going in their favor begiining in January. If things go bad in the next two years, there is only one party that can be blamed. In the meantime, let the rebuilding begin.

Obama is Elected

Since it is late and there are so many thoughts running through my head, I thought I would write down a few thoughts on Barack Obama's victory and save a longer essay for later when I am refreshed and had a chance to digest it all.

First of all, congratulations to Obama for a hard-earned victory. There is no doubt he ran a great campaign. I am also quite relieved that the victory was clear and decisive. There is no need to be divided over ACORN tonight. Whatever they did or did not do, it did not affect the outcome. There was no stolen election, thank God.

I think John McCain gave the greatest concession speech I have ever heard. Like him or not, he is a great American who has given more to his country that most all of us could imagine.

Tonight, watching the images on television, even I was a little swept away by the hope that this election might really be a turning point in America's long history of tortured racial relations. That remains to be seen because Obama's election does not wipe out the social-economic divide between the races. I do think, however, that it makes it a whole lot harder for people like Jeremiah Wright to say this is a racist country.

As for President Obama, he will, indeed, be tested by international events-specifically militant Islam. As our commander-in-chief, I will look to him to protect America from the likes of Al-Qaida.

The Republican Party has a lot of introspection to do. They need to decide what it is they stand for beyond getting themselves elected. They have a lot of deadwood that needs to be swept out and new blood that needs to be brought in. I hope they will return to their conservative principles and find leaders who can articulate that message to the public.

As for the new administration, there will be plenty of time for criticism and holding their feet to the fire. Now it will be us conservatives who have the opportunity to "speak truth to power" (to borrow a liberal line).

But for now, Obama will be our president, and he has my prayers.

Congratulations, Senator Obama and God speed.

Barack Obama's Grandmother Passes Away- a Time for Condolences

The news today that Barack Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, passed away today in Hawaii is a sad event. In spite of my opposition to Obama's candidacy for the White House, we should all stop for a moment, say a prayer for the lady who raised Obama, and express to him our condolences.

Should Obama win the election tomorrow, it would have been nice if his grandmother had lived to see the moment. Sadly, she did not.

My Response to the Orange County Register Article

The below article appeared today in the Orange County Register (11-3-08). It was written by Register reporter Marla Jo Fisher, who has been following the on-going controversy at UC-Irvine between Muslim and Jewish students. Specifically, her article concerns a 2-week trip taken by 15 UCI students, Jewish and Muslim, to Israel in September. Last week, they reported on their experiences to a packed hall at the UCI campus.


Jewish and Muslim UCI students come together
MORNING READ: Students on both sides of issue trek to Israel to investigate first-hand what they've been arguing about.
By MARLA JO FISHER
The Orange County Register


"IRVINE: It was a trip people said could never happen.

Jewish and Muslim student leaders from UC Irvine, whose feud over Israelis and Palestinians has sparked national headlines and even a federal probe, set aside personal misgivings and the lack of any official sanction to explore together the issues over which they'd been sparring.

"It was so profound and so eye-opening, I can't even put it into words," said Sepi Termechi, a UCI student leader with the Jewish group Hillel, in a short video students produced about the trip.

Flying, driving, sleeping and eating together throughout Israel and the Palestinian territories, the 15 Irvine students met people whose children had been killed by Islamic suicide bombers – and those whose children were slain by Israeli snipers.

They heard from politicians, taxi drivers and people in the street.

And, as they told a full-house crowd of 450 at UCI's Crystal Cove auditorium last month, they returned with a new take on an argument they thought they knew well.

"I learned it was OK to disagree and it was OK to not have the same viewpoint as everyone else, said Sameera Ali, a UCI senior who belongs to the Muslim Student Union.

"And you can still have a discussion and not hate each other."

Bad reputation

Muslim and Jewish students have clashed at UCI for years about the Israeli government and the way it has dealt with Palestinians. While similar clashes have taken place at campuses around the nation - and controversial speakers on both sides of the issue have stirred tempers - UCI has gained a reputation in the blogosphere as one of the nation's most anti-Semitic campuses.

Officials at UCI deny this, as have students on both sides of the question. But frictions remain.

Outside groups with their own agendas have added fuel to the fire, culminating in a federal investigation that found no wrongdoing on the part of UCI officials, but remains a sore spot for some Jewish observers.

And the atmosphere has only fueled tension between campus student groups.

Carter sparks idea

The idea for an Israel trip was sparked in May 2007 by ex-president Jimmy Carter, who came to UCI to talk about his controversial new book on Israel and the Palestinians.

During his standing-room-only speech at the Bren Center, Carter challenged feuding students to go see the situation first-hand. He even promised to find them the money to go.

After the speech, some students immediately began discussing how they could take such a trip, but decided against accepting Carter's money. His positions on Palestinians had angered supporters of Israel, potentially making any trip sponsored by his foundation seem politically motivated.

Instead, the students decided to raise the money on their own.

However, they were disappointed when the University of California - citing a U.S. State Dept. warning against travel to Israel's West Bank and other territories - declined to offer money or any official sanction for the trip.

And that turned out to be a good thing, says graduate student and Middle East expert Daniel Wehrenfennig, who helped organize the project.

Without UC money, Wehrenfennig says, students had to turn to their own communities to raise the $60,000 they needed - and that including making requests of polarized groups that opposed each other politically.

Students come together

Campus activists from both sides of the Palestinian issue, who angrily faced each other down at annual events such as UCI's Zionism Awareness Week, sponsored by the Muslim Student Union, were invited to come along.

Some were initially loathe to participate.

"We called them out and said, 'You're so passionate to defend your position, but you have not really been there'," Wehrenfennig said. Even students who had been to Israel, he said, had not seen both sides of the issue.

Wehrenfennig, a doctoral student from Germany, used contacts from some of the 100 interviews he's conducted in Israel to help the students design an agenda. He also accepted suggestions from friends and supporters here.

As they planned the trek, Wehrenfennig said he saw loud, showy antagonists begin to show something new - mutual respect.

While the political demonstrations remained as controversial and strident as ever, he said they would end with students involved on opposite sides shaking hands and talking.

"The way things were before, they would scream at each other and go away, but would not engage," he said.

"There was no communication between the groups."


The full tour

For two weeks in September 15 UCI students from a variety of groups, and students of the Middle East, toured Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Bethlehem, Hebron, Qalqilyah, Nazareth, Ramallah and Haifa.

Accompanied by Professor Paula Garb and UCI Vice Chancellor Manuel Gomez, who asked to come along as an observer, they visited mosques, churches, synagogues, checkpoints, terror victim burial sites and refugee camps. The group met with Holocaust survivors, negotiators, business people, soldiers and politicians.

Last month, the group made its first public appearance to talk about the trip. Their audience included UCI Chancellor Michael Drake, Irvine Mayor Beth Krom and philanthropist Susan Samueli.

Gomez said his proudest moment came when Ron Nachman, the mayor of Ariel, one of the largest Israeli settlements on the West Bank, told the students what he thought of them.

"He looked us over and said, 'I'm impressed with you guys,' " Gomez said. " 'I invited (U.S. Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice here and she was afraid to come.

"You guys," he added, "were not afraid.'"



My response dated the same date (November 3, 2008)

"As one who has been teaching part-time at UCI for 10 years, it is a hopeful
sign if the Muslim and Jewish students who took a trip to Israel have come back with
greater understanding of both sides of the issue. I do take issue, however with
some of Marla Jo Fisher's comments in her article of November 3, 2008.

Ms Fisher states that "UCI has gained a reputation in the blogosphere as one of
the nation's most anti-Semitic campuses." She goes on to state "that outside
groups with their own agendas have added fuel to the fire."

It should be stated that 99% of the students at UCI are not involved in the
controversy whatsoever and are certainly not anti-Semitic. The problem is that
the Muslim Student Union, for years, has been bringing in virulently
anti-Semitic, anti-America, anti-Israel and, yes, anti-Jewish speakers to the
UCI campus on a regular basis who engage in what could only be called hate
speech. That is what has brought UCI its dubious reputation. Let me offer a
couple of examples:

Amir Abdel Malik Ali is an Oakland-based imam who regularly speaks at UCI. He
openly calls suicide bombers in Israel "heroes and martyrs".

Mohammed al-Asi is a Washington DC-based imam who has appeared on more than one
occasion at UCI. On one occasion at UCI, he stated, "Jews are low-life
ghetto-dwellers" and, "You can take the Jew out of the ghetto, but you can't
take the ghetto out of the Jew."

In addition to the Israel and Jew-bashing, these speakers regularly condemn
everything about America.

All of which is conveniently ignored by Ms Fisher as she blames "outside groups
with their own agenda" for fanning the flames."

Well, I am not an outsider. I work (part-time) at UCI, and my "agenda" is
standing up to and reporting on the hate speech that is brought to UCI by a
small minority of students and their speakers. I have personally heard the
words of these radical haters sponsored by the Muslim Student Union. I have
spoken out in the school newspaper, the UCI EEO office and the Orange County
Human Rights Commission, the latter of which was a complete waste of time.

As stated above, I welcome any endeavor that will bridge the gap between our
Muslim and Jewish students over the Israel-Palestinian issue. The real test of this trip will be the next time the MSU hosts a week of speakers on campus. If the same speakers and the same rhetoric comes back, then what will it have accomplished?"

Gary Fouse


At this point, I don't know if the Register will print my reply. It seems that Ms Fisher has her own agenda, which is to pooh-pooh the idea that there is anti-Semitism at the campus on the part of the MSU. She also seems to be a supporter of the university administration, which has been severely criticized for their unwillingness to condemn the hate speech by MSU speakers. Notice also that there was gratuitous slap at Condoleeza Rice as Fisher quoted Vice Chancellor Manuel Gomez, who in turn quoted the mayor of the town of Ariel (an Israeli settlement on the West Bank), "I invited US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice here, and she was afraid to come. You guys were not afraid".

Of course, Ms Fisher conveniently failed to mention that a US Secretary of State might be reluctant to visit an Israeli settlement in the West Bank because of the diplomatic message it might send. That would be a consideration that visiting university students would not be concerned about.

Finally, Ms Fisher appears to be very selective in choosing her sources for information. For example, she has brushed off the Independent Task Force on Anti-Semitism, whose findings are apparently contrary to her own. Why would a reporter trying to get the facts not get input from all interested sides?

As I stated in my response to the OC Register, I hope that this visit to Israel will lead to greater understanding between Jewish and Muslim students on campus. The proof of the pudding, however will be the next MSU-sponsored week of events on the campus. If it's the same speakers with the same rhetoric, then the trip will have failed to achieve its purpose.

The Carona Trial-From "America's Sheriff" to "The Little Sheriff"

"The Little Sheriff"



Thank God, former Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona decided not to plead guilty to federal corruption charges. As a result, Orange County residents will get a daily dose of just how ridiculous this guy was.

Friday's testimony by Lisa Jaramillo was highlighted by a new figure in the trial; "The Little Sheriff" (Mike Carona's penis). Seems that Mike, who we now know was using his office to score more than money, liked to refer to his male organ as, "The Little Sheriff". In fact, so proud was he of his junior partner, that he sent a couple of birthday cards to Lisa (which were shown to the jury by Prosecutor Ken Julian.) In one of the cards, Sheriff Mike asked Jaramillo (the wife of his asst Sheriff, George Jaramillo), if she wore "butt-floss-style panties". In both of the cards in question, Mike signed them with his own name, those of his family and "The Little Sheriff".

At one point, Lisa broke down on the stand, turned to Debbie Carona (a co-defendant) and said, "I know I wasn't a very good friend."

Of course, it has already come out that Sheriff Mike was having sex with another co-conspirator, Debra Hoffman and Lisa's sister, Erica Hill.

And to top it all off, Judge Andrew Guilford, at one point, asked the attorneys (who were arguing for exclusion of testimony regarding the affairs with Hoffman and Hill), "I didn't hear a motion to strike 'The Little Sheriff'".

With this trial expected to go a couple of months, this should keep Angels' fans entertained until another baseball season begins. As for the lack of NFL football in Southern California-who cares? We have the Carona trial.

Obama Has Aunt Living in US-Illegally

Zeituni Onyango

"I am my brother's keeper (but not my half-brother or my aunt)."


Just as you thought this election couldn't get any more bizarre, now it has been revealed that Barack Obama (who talks about being his brother's keeper) has an aunt living in public housing in Boston and who is in the country illegally.

The aunt, Zeituni Onyango, is the half-sister of Obama's deceased father. Obama referred to her as "Auntie Zeituni" in his book, "Dreams from my father". She is Kenyan and was ordered to leave the country four years ago by an immigration judge.

Well, orders shmorders.

Today, Onyango sits in a Boston public housing project in a building for disabled persons, apparently living in some degree of poverty-and apparently being ignored by Obama.

The Obama campaign is saying that Obama was unaware of her status and believes the law should be fully applied. Apparently, Onyango had contributed $260.00 to Obama's campaign, which is being returned, according to an Obama spokesperson. It has also been reported that Onyango attended Obama's swearing-in ceremony as US Senator.

So how should the public react to this? On the one hand, this adds to the hypocrisy of Obama talking about being "his brother's keeper" and deriding those who object to his redistribution plans as being "selfish". We had already known that Obama had a half-brother in Kenya living in a tin shack outside Nairobi. What has Obama done for him? Moreover, I would like to know what Obama has done to help his aunt regularize her status with Immigration authorities?

On the other hand, what should we expect from Obama in securing our borders when he has an aunt who herself is an illegal alien? If Obama has not done anything to help his aunt normalize her status here, has he turned a blind eye to her being here illegally?

With so many skeletens that have crawled out of Obama's closet, one must ask-how many more are there? At what point do voters conclude that enough is enough. At what point do the American people wake up and realize that Barack Obama is about to pull off the greatest con job in American history?

A Message From Radarsite

I am cross-posting the below essay by Roger Gardner, my colleague at Radarsite, in its entirety. It also includes a couple of articles I think merit strong consideration.



A message from Radarsite:

"Is there some subtle distinction between the 'persuadables' and the 'undecideds'? If so, I guess I am not politically astute enough to discern it. However I will say this: if two days before this fateful election you are truly undecided, I find this utterly incomprehensible. Where in the world have you been? What more would it take to move you? If at this late date you are still undecided this means you have remained untouched by the enormous accumulative weight of all of those infamous Obama scandals. All of Reverend Wright's 'Goddam Americas', all of the sinister implications of Obama's Ayers/Weathermen associations, Obama's outrageously cynical manipulations of our troop withdrawal timetables in Iraq, the Rezko scandals, the 'New Party' scandals, his radical African connections, and on and on and on -- none of this had any effect on you whatsoever. You still remain undecided. To me this is incredulous.

However, the purpose of this essay -- this final essay -- is not to admonish you, but to appeal to you. And yet if none of the above outrages have moved you from your adamant indecision, what can I possibly bring up here that would do the trick? There is I believe one last argument, one final outrage that just might do it. And it is this:

It is inarguable that our American troops are fighting and dying on the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan and even occasionally Pakistan. They are fighting our sworn enemies, enemies who go by multiple names but who are essentially the same people driven by the same bloodthirsty ideology -- Al Qaeda, the Taliban. etc. Whether or not you may have approved of these original military decisions is a moot point: our troops are there and the battles rage on. And our enemies have clearly defined themselves and their goals. They are not undecided, they are not persuadable.

Now I don't know about you but if I found out that our enemy's goals were endorsed and promoted by one of our presidential candidates, if I discovered that our enemy's most respected leaders were calling for the destruction of the opposition party, the Republicans, it would most certainly give me pause. In fact I would find it highly embarrassing to say the least. How could I possibly support a candidate who was enthusiastically supported by our enemies, a candidate whose stated foreign policies would work to their advantage? These facts alone would obliterate my indecision.

This then is my final plea. Please read the following two articles and decide for yourselves how you could in good conscience vote for Barack Hussein Obama." - rg



Qaeda wants Republicans, Bush "humiliated": Web video


From Reuters
Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:15pm EDT

DUBAI (Reuters) - An al Qaeda leader has called for President George W. Bush and the Republicans to be "humiliated," without endorsing a party in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, according to an Internet video posting.

"O God, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him," Abu Yahya al-Libi said at the end of sermon marking the Muslim feast of Eid al-Fitr, in a video posted on the Internet.

Libi, a top al Qaeda commander believed to be living in Afghanistan or Pakistan, called for God's wrath to be brought against Bush equating him with past tyrants in history.

The remarks were the first from a leading al Qaeda figure referring, albeit indirectly, to the U.S. elections. Muslim clerics often end sermons by calling on God to guide and support Muslims and help defeat their enemies.

Terrorism monitor SITE Intelligence Group said in a report on Wednesday that militants on al Qaeda-linked websites have for months been debating the significance of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama or Republican John McCain.
Some posters have also argued over the merits of trying to attack the United States before the election or waiting until later, the report said.

But SITE said it did not expect al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden or deputy Ayman al-Zawahri to openly favor a candidate.

"To support a particular candidate would debase al-Qaeda's long-standing argument that the United States government is a corrupt institution no matter who is at the helm," SITE director Rita Katz said in the group's November newsletter.
In 2004 bin Laden issued his first video in more than a year just days before the U.S. elections. It derided Bush and warned of possible new September 11-style attacks.

Bin Laden made little mention of Bush's Democratic challenger, John Kerry, telling Americans: "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not harm our security will remain safe."

Kerry has attributed his loss in part to the video's high-profile reminder of the terrorism issue.

In 2006, after Democrats captured Congress, Zawahri issued an audio message saying all Americans remained al Qaeda's enemies regardless of party, SITE said.
SITE said militant postings on al Qaeda-linked websites typically discuss Obama in terms of his race, or his religion and foreign policy. Some forecast a racial crisis dividing the United States if he wins. Others say his planned phased withdrawal from Iraq would be a boon to al Qaeda's affiliate and give it a base for Middle East expansion.

Republican presidential nominee John McCain has been portrayed as likely to allow "the continuation of Republican control and aggressive policies toward the Islamic world."

(Additional reporting by Randall Mikkelsen in Washington; editing by Chris Wilson)
(dubai.newsroom@reuters.com)Obama on Iraq: Two Disturbing Alternatives



1. The Terrorists On The Importance Of Iraq:

Osama Bin Laden: Baghdad Is "The Capital Of The Caliphate." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)

Bin Laden: "The Most Important And Serious Issue Today For The Whole World Is This Third World War … Raging In [Iraq]." BIN LADEN: "I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)

Bin Laden: "This Is A War Of Destiny Between Infidelity And Islam." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)
Bin Laden: "The Whole World Is Watching This War And The Two Adversaries; The Islamic Nation, On The One Hand, And The United States And Its Allies On The Other. It Is Either Victory And Glory Or Misery And Humiliation." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04

Ayman al-Zawahiri: We Must "Establish An Islamic Authority … Over As Much Territory As You Can To Spread Its Power In Iraq … [And] Extend The Jihad Wave To The Secular Countries Neighboring Iraq." ZAWAHIRI: "So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals: The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate – over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq … The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity." (Complete Text Of Al-Zawahiri Letter To Al-Zarqawi, 7/9/05, Available At: http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20051011_release.htm, Accessed 9/5/06)

Bin Laden: "The War Is For You Or For Us To Win. If We Win It, It Means Your Defeat And Disgrace Forever." BIN LADEN: "Finally, I would like to tell you that the war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever as the wind blows in this direction with God's help." (Bin Laden Threatens New Operations, Offers 'Long-Term Truce,' Posted On Al-Jazirah Net, 1/19/06)


2. Barack Hussein Obama on Iraq War:

"Surge strategy has made a difference in Iraq but failed."

Q: Is Petraeus correct when he says that the troop increase is
bringing security to Iraq?

A: There is no doubt that because we put American troops in Iraq, more American troops in Iraq, that they are doing a magnificent job. They are making a difference in certain neighborhoods. But the overall strategy is failed because we have not seen any change in behavior among Iraq's political leaders. That is the essence of what we should be trying to do in Iraq. That's why I'm going to bring this war to a close. That's why we can get our combat troops out within 16 months and have to initiate the kind of regional diplomacy, not just talking to our friends, but talking to our enemies, like Iran and Syria, to try to stabilize the situation there. This year, we saw the highest casualty rates for American troops in Iraq since this war started. The same is true in Afghanistan. If we have seen a lowering violence rate, that's only compared to earlier this year. We're back to where we started back in 2006.

Source: 2007 Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Nevada Nov 15, 2007

Q: If you get us out of Iraq and somehow al Qaeda takes over anyway, what will you do then?

A: Well, look, if we had followed my judgment originally, we wouldn't have been in Iraq. We're here now. And we've got no good options. We got bad options and worse options. The only way we're going to stabilize Iraq and make sure that al Qaeda does not take over in the long term is to begin a phased redeployment so that we don't have anti-American sentiment as a focal point for al Qaeda in Iraq. We can still have troops in the region, outside of Iraq, that can help on counterterrorism activities, and we've got to make sure that they don't establish long-term bases there. But right now, the bases are in Afghanistan and in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan; that's where we've got to focus.

Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 8,2007

"A short message from Radarsite: Anyone who has read the captured correspondence of the Al-Qaeda leaders concerning the importance that they attach to Iraq, and the central role that Iraq plays in their scheme for a world-wide Caliphate knows how delighted they would be if we followed the advice of Barrack Hussein Obama, and shifted our focus and resources from the oil-rich center of gravity in Iraq, the universally acknowledged keystone to the Middle East, to the mountainous wastelands of Afghanistan.

It is the opinion of this writer, that if we abandoned the Land of the Two Rivers to the enemy now, the long-term strategic consequences of this monumental blunder for our GWOT would be nothing less than disastrous. The idea that we could somehow return to the area if it at some point in the future it became infested with Al-Qaeda is at best naive and ludicrous, and at worst naggingly suspect.

Nothing would suit our enemies in Iraq better than a publicly proclaimed schedule of withdrawal of our troops and their eventual complete pullout.

To this particular observer the absurdity of this plan, which so obviously plays into our enemy's game presents us with one of two troubling alternatives: Either it was purposely designed to enhance the chances for our defeat in this crucial region of the Middle East and enhance the capabilities of our sworn Al-Qaeda enemies, or it is the dangerously delusional bumblings of a hopeless amateur." rg


Original Radarsite article published 2/27/08

Ohio Update - Joe the Plumber

The below article was published by stoptheaclu.com on November 1, and has been cross-posted by several other blogs. This gives updated information on the situation in Ohio involving state authorities doing official background checks on Sauel Joseph Wurzelbacher, better know as Joe the Plumber.


"As DrewM points out at Ace of Spades HQ, Team McCain needs to have an ad out on this in Ohio. Heck, they should put together a national ad, showing what life would be like under an Obama presidency, where, if you disagree, you will be investigated."

"Vanessa Niekamp said that when she was asked to run a child-support check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher on Oct. 16, she thought it routine. A supervisor told her the man had contacted the state agency about his case. Niekamp didn’t know she just had checked on “Joe the Plumber,” who was elevated the night before to presidential politics prominence as Republican John McCain’s example in a debate of an average American. The senior manager would not learn about “Joe” for another week, when she said her boss informed her and directed her to write an e-mail stating her computer check was a legitimate inquiry.

The reason Niekamp said she was given for checking if there was a child-support case on Wurzelbacher does not match the reason given by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. Director Helen Jones-Kelley said her agency checks people who are “thrust into the public spotlight,” amid suggestions they may have come into money, to see if they owe support or are receiving undeserved public assistance. Niekamp told The Dispatch she is unfamiliar with the practice of checking on the newly famous. “I’ve never done that before, I don’t know of anybody in my office who does that and I don’t remember anyone ever doing that,” she said today.

First of all, as has been said many times, isn’t this grounds for a criminal investigation of Jones-Kelley? Unauthorized access to personal records? Second, isn’t this a violation of the code of conduct for Ohio employees? I work for a really, really big company, and it would be grounds for discipline up to and including termination. And I have seen this in action. Not against me, but, other employees. This goes for other companies, as well. Of the employees involved, the only ones not terminated were those who owned up to it."

Fousesquawk comment: As I have said before in my posting, "What about the civil rights of Joe the Plumber" (Oct 30), this Obama's constant calls of "Change" a joke. If you think Obama is going to bring integrity to Washington, this is an example of why he won't. I ask you Democrats out there; do you think this is right?

Selfishness and Neighborliness in Obama's World

"John McCain and Sarah Palin, they call this socialistic," You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."

-Barack Obama in Sarasota, Florida, Thursday in defense of his so-called “spread the wealth” tax policies.


Hold on there, Mr Obama. You are making a fundamental error here when you are describing the selfishness of people vis-a-vis your term of "neighborliness".

The American people are not selfish, Mr Obama. We are the most generous people on the face of the earth. When disasters like Katrina or the tsunami in Indonesia occur, we are there before anybody. Our troops were on the ground in Indonesia distributing supplies while the useless UN was holding staff meetings in Tokyo trying to figure out what to do. The American public donated food and money-even while some bureaucrat at the UN was calling us selfish too.

But more to the point. When it comes to charitable giving, we have nothing to be ashamed of. The disclosure of your and Joe Biden's charitable giving, on the other hand, seems modest even when compared to everyday people. You have also said that, "I am my brother's keeper." Yet, you have a half-brother living in poverty in Kenya and now we learn of one of your aunts living in poverty in Boston. What have you done for them, Sir? (Yes, it's true. The woman, Zeituni Onyango, the half-sister of Obama's father, is living in public housing in Boston-even though she is in the country illegally and was ordered to leave the country 4 years ago.)

But to the main point. Charity to others should be a private concern. Why does the government have to mandate our assistance to others through higher taxes and "spreading the wealth around", to use your own words? We are perfectly prepared to having our government render assistance to others in time of disaster. But we resent being called "selfish" when we expect to keep a little more of our hard-earned money rather than see government take it and distribute it to others who have not earned it.

Americans are the most neighborly people in the world. However, if you think that means the government should take charge and ensure our neighborliness, then you are talking about something entirely different.

And what you are talking about may very well cost you the election.

A Reply to FJ

"You suck, Fousesquawk!!"


Sorry FJ, I published your retort, but I have no idea which thread you sent it under. Now I can't find it, so rather than go through my 700 plus essays (which you apparently did), I'll just give you the honor of a complete post, how's that?

FJ, in a comment said that he had been following the comments section of my blog (probably my back and forths with Lance and Bryan). For some reason, he takes exception to my use of the word, illuminati vs luminati, which might have been a semantic error on my part. He also objected to my calling Paul Krugman, ("one of the world's greatest economists") a worm. FJ goes on to say that I come across as a teenager and to "keep up the good work".

Did I get it all right?

Keep those cards and letters coming, FJ. Believe it or not, this is a site that welcomes disagreements. I may be a little sophmoric at times in my efforts to inject a little humor into a subject, but unfortunately for me, my teenage years ended some 45 years ago.

As for Mr Krugman, he may well be the world's greatest economist. I didn't attack him as an economist. I attacked him because he, as a political columnist, has attacked a lot of other people. He now opens himself up to retorts. When Paul Krugman comes face to face with one of those he has attacked, yes, like the ever-effervescent Bill O'Reilly, he acts like a worm. I described his actions when he was confronted by O'Reilly. He loves to dish it out behind his typewriter, I mean word processor, but he shrivels up like a worm in a heat wave when he has to go face to face with those he attacks.

Yes, Paul Krugman is a worm.

As for the luminati/illuminati exchange, you must be an expert at finding needles in haystacks. Inept as I am at the computer, I can't even find your comment now that I've published it.

Last comment: I hope you at least clicked a few of those ads while you were scouring through all my comment pages. Keep up the good work.

What If.............McCain Wins?

McCain Wins!!!

"Hey, look up there. Isn't that King Kong?"

"Nah. That's Keith Olbermann"



I may be whistling Dixie here, but what if John McCain wins Tuesday?

What will the Mainstream media say? For example, Chris Matthews, who has all but implied that he wants to have Barack Obama's baby, might break down and cry on national television instead of screaming hurray, like he did in the 2006 Congressional elections when hearing another Democrat had won.

Will the New York Times shut down?

Will Keith Olbermann finally go over the edge and take hostages?

Think of all the angry e-mails CNN's Jack Cafferty will be reading on The Situation Room. And poor Wolf Blitzer will be so discombobulated, he won't know what to say.

What will be the reaction in Hollywood? Will there be air traffic congestion over the skies of LA as half of the "stars" in Tinseltown leave the country-never to return?

And what will Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger tell their Sunday congregations?

And think of all the unrest in our universities as outraged professors lead outraged students on mass demonstrations.

And what about our European allies? Will they be in shock and scold us for not electing "The One"?

Will the Democratic Party cry foul and charge "voter intimidation" because a few thousand ACORN registrations were disqualified? Will Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi call for a congressional investigation of how McCain could win when all the polls said Obama was ahead?

Will they all blame it on the "Right-wing smear merchants" and bloggers?

Who knows what will happen if Mccain wins. However, if the odds are correct, I guess I won't see all that outrage from the left. Pity.

But wouldn't it be great?

The Mike Carona Trial Begins

Ex-"America's Sheriff" Mike Carona and his wife arriving at the courthouse

"Why is this man smiling?


This week, testimony began in the long-awaited federal trial in Santa Ana, California of ex-Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona, who was once dubbed, "America's Sheriff" by Larry King On Life Support. Now Carona, his wife and ex-mistress stand accused of engaging in official corruption during Carona's 9-year term in office.

Friday, jurors heard the testimony of Lisa Jarramillo, wife of ex-Assistant Sheriff George Jaramillo, who has already served a year in jail for his part in the scandal. Mrs Jaramillo described illegal contributions and the gifts and favors passed back and forth between Carona, her husband and Don Haidl, a businessman Carona elevated to Asst Sheriff. (Haidl is cooperating with the Government after pleading guilty.)

Mrs Jaramillo, who served as a campaign fundraiser for Carona, also testified to overhearing Carona tell another person in the spring of 1998, "Sweetheart, if anyone goes to jail, it's going to be me, not you."

On another occasion, testified Mrs Jaramillo, she accompanied Carona to Haidl's Newport Beach home where he picked up 10 $1,000 checks.

Mrs Jaramillo's testimony will resume Tuesday.

Proposition 5 - Another Wacky and Dangerous Ballot Measure in California

"Hey Judge, I'm a drug addict too."


Next Tuesday, Californians will go to the polls to vote for Barack Obama (except me, of course). We will also vote on a bunch of voter measures, most of which are to authorize our state government to spend billions more on various projects. Proposition 8, which would define marriage as being between a man and woman, has gathered the most publicity out of the state. Yet there is another proposition on the ballot that (in my view) has much more serious consequences. That is Proposition 5, which would replace criminal sentencing for certain non-violent crimes in favor of drug rehabilitation treatment.

Of course, the ads in favor of Proposition 5 claim that millions will be saved in prison costs (Yeah, I guess so if you empty the prisons). They claim that these programs have already saved 84,000 lives. These claims are accompanied by images of clean-looking happy youths walking into the sunshine, etc, etc.

Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley paints a different picture of Prop 5, which is truly frightening. According to Cooley, this proposition represents a get out of jail free card for tens of thousands of "non-violent" criminals if they assert in court that they are substance abusers in need of treatment. According to Cooley, it would be the prosecution's burden to show the court that the defendant is not a substance abuser.

Here is one scenario as outlined by Cooley:

A burglar breaks into your house, steals your valuables, takes off in your car, steals your ID and charges thousands of dollars on your credit cards. He is arrested, goes to court and says, "I am a drug addict", or he shows signs of being a substance abuser, for example, he shows up in court high or drunk. Unless the prosecution can prove otherwise, jail/prison is taken out of the equation because he is a "non-violent offender". Instead of jail, he goes to a drug rehabilitation facility.

Of course, under this system, billions would have to be spent to build new rehabilitation facilities. All this for criminal defendants, while non-criminal substance abusers have to depend on insurance or family financial assistance to go into treatment, which in most cases they could never afford themselves.

According to Cooley, the measure is being banked by four billionaires, one of whom is none other than George Soros, and if you don't know who Soros is-you should. This Hungarian-born financier made his fortune by speculating on and nearly breaking the British pound. Now he runs the Soros Open Society, which among other things, is pushing for such things as drug legalization and also financing the Democratic Party including Obama's campaign. Soros, in short, is trying to help establish a socialist society in America, and he is using his vast fortune to accomplish that goal.

If Proposition 5 passes Tuesday, Cooley predicts chaos in our criminal court system. One would think common sense would prevail, but this is California.

Article From the Investigative Project on Terrorism

The below article comes to us from the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) and concerns the Muslim Student Association Treasurer at San Diego Mesa College. It is troubling. While it concerns the words of one young man, my experiences at UC-Irvine convince me this is not just a lone voice.

I am posting this article as a warning to something that is growing right here in our midst. The original may be viewed at:

http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/797


MSA Chapter Official: Don't Vote; Destroy
IPT News
October 28, 2008

In the final days of the 2008 Presidential election season – with just 6 days now remaining until voters cast their ballots – both campaigns are carefully maneuvering to gain an edge, while still others are singularly focused on just "getting out the vote." Regardless of the outcome desired by these activists, there seems to be one unified message across the American political spectrum these days: Participate in our democratic system.

However, one college's Muslim student organization has sought to air a completely different message regarding the election: that of the Islamists.

A student named Farhad Akbari posted an essay on the internal Yahoo! Group of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) at San Diego Mesa College on October 14. In his post, "The Issue of Voting," Akbari delves into the election, warning his fellow group members of the fate in store for those who cast a ballot for "a person who fights Islam, governs contrary to Islam, and is himself a kafir [infidel or unbeliever]…" Akbari does not reserve this treatment for any specific candidate. Rather, he holds both major party candidates in equal regard.

Continuing in his reproach of American democracy, Akbari writes:

"Whether you vote for the white kafir or the half-black kafir, they will kill our brothers and sisters. They will subjugate our brothers and sisters. And they will certainly support Israel in killing our brothers and sisters. There is no "lesser of two evils" here. They are both greater evils. The lesser evil is avoiding the situation, as both are equally poisonous to the cause of Islam…Brothers and sisters, I have one thing to say: DON"T [sic] VOTE."

In most cases, publicly proclaiming one's decision not to vote – even encouraging others to follow suit – would not be noteworthy. For better or worse, the right to vote in the U.S. democratic system includes the choice not to exercise that right. For many, this decision is one of protest – speaking out on a variety of concerns from the lack of third party viability, to the perceived unimportance of a single vote. "The Issue of Voting," however, is in a league of its own, considering what Akbari, the MSA chapter Treasurer, proposes to be the real answer to Muslim grievances by invoking the words of Islamic scholars:

"Those who do not govern according to to [sic.] the (law) which Allah has revealed [Shari'ah law], verily, they are the kaafiroon…

Democracy, like all other systems fabricated by the minds of men are untenable in Islam. It is an un-Islamic system…[and] there is absolutely no basis anywhere in the Qur'aan for western democracy and its parliamentary system. A government of democracy is a government appointed by Juhhaal (ignoramuses). Ignoramuses, fussaaq and fujjaar have no share in appointing a government in Islam. The Islamic system is Khilaafat…"

The moral of the story: don't support the "infidel" system; defeat democracy in the U.S. and replace it with Islamic law. So much for a mere protest.

While postings similar to Akbari's do not appear to be common among the group, it is telling that not one person responded to challenge his argument (nor does it appear that anyone followed up in support either). Additionally, the fact that the MSA members voted in as Treasurer an individual whose MySpace page includes a photo of him wrapped in a kefiya (reminiscent of Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamist militants) with a caption reading "not shown: AK-47/Suicide bomb jacket strap/anthrax/airplane/boxcutter" leads to questions about the activities of the MSA chapter on the whole. Akbari's newly created Facebook profile shows that he lists his "Political Views" as "Khilafa" – or a political system based on the Islamic caliphate and Shari'ah law.

As far as the chapter itself, it's not clear whether the San Diego Mesa College MSA is directly affiliated with the Muslim Students' Association - National (MSA) organization. The college's chapter is not among those listed on the MSA - West Zone USA directory of chapters. However, as noted in the IPT's dossier on the national, Muslim Brotherhood-linked organization, the MSA has nearly 600 chapters, of which roughly 150 are directly affiliated.

MSA is a member organization of a national "taskforce" that recently sent out an "election advisory," encouraging Muslims to "full[y] participat[e]" in elections on Tuesday.

However, it must be noted that the radical rhetoric being spewed in San Diego is not an anomaly among MSA chapters on campuses nationwide. At chapters across the U.S. and Canada, directly affiliated to the parent organization and not, Islamism and its hate-filled ideology is on full display. Take, for instance, the March 2003 account of Aaron Klein of WorldNetDaily.com, who, after secretly attending a private MSA (aka "Muslim only") event at Queensborough Community College in Queens, NY, reported what he saw. According to Klein, one of the speakers at the event, Mohammad Faheed, blasted America and its democracy, and encouraged the audience to help bring about its demise:

"We are not Americans!" [Faheed] shouted. "We are Muslims! [The U.S.] is going to deport and attack us! It is us vs. them! Truth against falsehood! The colonizers and masters against the oppressed, and we will burn down the master's house…we reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don't lobby Congress or protest because we don't recognize Congress! The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it!"

Faheed continued, paralleling Akbari's more recent calls for Shari'ah:

"The so-called terrorists are the only people who truly fear Allah. We must join these organizations. They are the only worthy causes, and the mighty superpower only fears them…[the U.S.] is not strong. Vietnam, they lost. Somalia, they ran away from. America hasn't won anything since World War II. We can defeat America…Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of the Shariah."

Such radical sentiment against the United States rises to the highest levels of MSA leadership. At the April 2007 MSA-West Zone Conference, West Zone President Amir Mertaban told students their paramount loyalty is to Muslims first, no matter what they may do:

"Osama bin Laden – I don't know this guy. I don't know what he did. I don't know what he said. I don't know what happened. But we defend Muslim brothers and we defend our Muslim sisters to the end. Is that clear? I am not saying support terrorist acts. I am not saying any of that. I am saying generally speaking. If a man comes and robs a store – if you're going to rob the store, go ahead and rob the store, are we going to condemn him? No, you support your Muslim brothers whether it is right or wrong. When they do wrong you grab them and you slap some sense into them, you're doing wrong. You see what I am saying.

So you never compromise on your faith. You be confident in every aspect of life. In every aspect of Islam you are confident. Four wives? Yes men are allowed to have four wives within this context. Jihad? Yes Jihad! Jihad is the tightest thing in Islam. Don't compromise on these little things. Be proud of it. Why? Because Islam is a perfect religion. If you sit here and you start saying, ‘Jihad is only an internal this and that,' you are compromising on your faith."

These comments beg the question: is it possible that the small, community college MSA chapters are as radical as some of their larger campus counterparts? San Diego Mesa College and Queensborough Community College – from two opposing coasts, both not directly affiliated with the national MSA, yet still espousing the same hate-filled and violent rhetoric seen at larger and more directly-affiliated chapters. It is clear that the Islamist infiltration goes far beyond what may first meet the eye.

Quote of the Week

"This is the Land of Opportunity. It is not the Land of Handouts."

Mike Ditka speaking at a Sarah Palin campaign rally this week in Pennsylvania