"The most traveled secretary of State in a new administration"
File this Department of State announcement in the "are you kidding me?" folder. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OVERALL DEPARTMENT POLICY ACCOMPLISHMENTS, REGULATORY INITIATIVES, AND INTERAGENCY EFFORTS
"In the first 100 Days of the Obama Administration, Secretary Clinton and the State Department have made significant progress in advancing America’s national security goals and promoting America’s values around the world.
Secretary Clinton is already the most traveled Secretary of State in a new Administration. The Secretary’s trips have included her inaugural trip to Asia, the Middle East and Europe, Mexico and across the border to Texas, the Hague in the Netherlands, Europe with President Obama, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago with President Obama, and to Iraq and Kuwait.
The work undertaken on these trips, the many bilateral and trilateral meetings hosted by Secretary Clinton, and the tireless efforts of others throughout the State Department have contributed to early and significant progress on the following priorities: Afghanistan/Pakistan policy, the Middle East, Iraq, Asia, Russia, North Korea, the Western Hemisphere, the climate crisis, engaging in public diplomacy, and other core issues." -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boy, I'll say! Things are looking great in Pakistan with the Taliban now 60 miles from Islamabad, North Korea firing its missiles, Haiti really developing, Russia still giving us the finger, the Middle East being well.......still the Middle East.
Maybe DOS would like to be a little more specific about Mrs Clinton's so-called "significant progress". Maybe they would also like to explain what "across the border to Texas" means. Or "the most traveled secretary of state in a new administration". If you read between the lines, "work", "meetings", and "tireless efforts" do not equate to accomplishments or progress.
It looks like the Clinton Spin Machine has taken up residence at Foggy Bottom. Based on my own experience with the Department of State when I was working overseas with DEA, I would have to admit that when it comes to arrogance, Hillary Clinton and the State Department are a good match after all.
The above video shows the attack yesterday in Apeldoorn, The Netherlands, in which a male driver drove through police barricades in an attempt to crash into the royal motorcade carrying Queen Beatrix and members of the royal family. The incident happened as the Queen was helping the country celebrate Queen's Day.
The driver struck down several pedestrians before crashing into a monument to Queen Wilhemina. Five people are reported dead. The driver, tentatively identified as Karst Tates, a Dutch male in his 30s, is in a hospital in serious condition. Suspect driver (Klein Verzet)
At this point, there are several conflicting eye-witness reports. Some say a passenger was seen exiting the car before it began its rampage. Another said that the driver appeared to be unconscious before striking the monument. It has also been reported that Tates told police he was trying to kill the royal family. The above probably should be considered unconfirmed at this point.
The on-going Israel-Palestinian conflict continues to rear its head on University of California campuses. This time the furor is at UC Santa Barbara, where sociology professor William I Robinson (who is Jewish) recently sent an email to his students containing images of Nazi atrocities against Jews compared with images of "Israeli crimes" against Palestinians.
At least two students were offended by the images, with which they did not agree. They have taken the step of formally complaining to the administration. As a result, an investigation by the university is on-going into whether Robinson violated his academic role or whether he was simply exercising his academic freedom. Predictably, his professorial colleagues are rallying behind Robinson, who states that his academic freedom is under attack.
How this plays out at UCSB is anybody's guess. To me, it is just another case of a liberal university professor trying to shove his personal views down the throats of his students. It is also another example of why so many Jewish students feel under siege on UC campuses as a result of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. (I myself teach at UC-Irvine, and as I write this, we are gearing up for another week of attacks against Israel-as well as America and "Zionist" Jews- being sponsored by the Muslim Student Union at UCI.)
Here is what I would say to Professor Robinson:
First of all, my students (English as a second language) have no idea what I think about the world and its issues. My job is to teach them English-not teach them what they should think. You can teach sociology without injecting your personal views. You could remain neutral and present both sides of an issue.
Be that as it may, you are entitled to your opinions. If you sympathize with the Palestinian cause, I can respect that, and certainly, there are valid points to be made on their behalf. Moreover, Israel is not immune from criticism. Where I take issue with you is comparing Israel's policies to those of Nazi Germany, a practice that is currently popular-but outrageously false. I respect the fact that you are Jewish, but I also have extensive knowledge of Nazi Germany. I have spent three years of my life in Germany and return regularly. I also have written a history of a small town in Germany, which includes an account of the Nazi era and the fate of its Jewish residents.
First of all, Nazi Germany was never under external threat of attack from its neighbors. Jews were not undermining the country's security, nor were they engaging in acts of terror against the German state or people. Nobody was launching rockets into Germany from neighboring countries. Jews were not blowing themselves up in crowded marketplaces or on buses. In fact, with few exceptions (like the Warsaw ghetto) Jews went to their fate submissively. Israel is, indeed, under attack from the Palestinians and from its neighbors ever since its creation in 1948. They are entitled to defend themselves from their enemies who are determined to wipe them out.
Where can you point to an orchestrated government campaign against Palestinians as sub-humans? Where is the Reichskristalnacht against Palestinians? Where can you find a deliberate attempt by Israel to literally extinguish the Palestinian people?
Gaza is not, as you have claimed, comparable to the Warsaw ghetto. The Warsaw ghetto was only a step to the Final Solution, and the Nazi intent was to destroy the Jews. That is not the intent of Israel vis-vis the Gazans/Palestinians. Gazans today are living under Gazan rule. There are no Jews in Gaza. They left. Unless I am mistaken, there is a border crossing between Gaza and Egypt. Is it fair to condemn Israel for shutting off its border with Gaza when under rocket attack and not criticize Egypt when they shut down their border? Why is it that the Arab countries in the region want to keep the Palestinians confined to this small area living as refugees and in squalor rather than let them assimilate into their countries? I think you know the answer.
If Israelis are to be compared to Nazis, where are the gas chambers? How can you compare the sad fact that Gazan/Palestinian and Lebanese civilians are killed because they were caught in the cross-fire (Hamas and Hizbollah are notorious for setting up their combat operations in populated areas)or killed by air strikes when the targets were Hamas/Hizbollah fighters with the deliberate genocide that took place in World War II? Where are the cases of Israeli troops rounding up Palestinians, marching them to pits and shooting them(men, women and children) by the hundreds?
If this sounds like a history lesson directed toward Professor Robinson, it is not. I am sure Robinson knows his German/Jewish history quite well. Rather, it is directed toward those students who have to have his distorted version of history shoved down their throats.
University students are entitled to an education-not an indoctrination.
Back in the mid-1990s, I was in Delhi, India as part of a DEA training team participating in a drug law enforcement training seminar with Indian, Sri-Lankan, Bangladeshi and Nepalese police. In the last couple of days before our departure, the black plague hit India, and people started dying. Our team was fortunate to be able to be on one of the last planes allowed to leave the country while the non-Indian police officers had to travel by car to their home countries. As we were boarding our plane to Frankfurt, a health official in a white coat was seated at a desk in front of the boarding area. We had to pass his desk and be cleared by him for boarding. When it was my turn, he took my wrist and monitored my pulse for a few seconds before telling me to go ahead. Upon arrival in Frankfurt, we were not allowed to disembark before a German doctor-followed by a nurse walked up and down the aisles looking at everybody before giving the OK. Of course, that somewhat experience reminds me of the current crisis we are facing with the swine flu.
Epidemic, pandemic-whatever you want to call it, I think we all agree that ground zero for the swine flu is in Mexico. While hoping for the best for the Mexican people in coping with the problem, we also have to look out for our own people since we are next door, and there is a ton of traffic between the two countries, both legal and illegal. Last night, President Obama assured us he and his government would do everything necessary to protect us from the flu. Yet, in the next breath, he rejected suggestions that the Mexican border should be closed calling it a case of closing the barn door after the horses have left. Then Joe Biden, in his own inimitable way, contradicted the President when he said that he would not let his family get on an airplane-which infuriated the airline industry. So how are we, the public, supposed to sort all this out?
Quandary number one: Just how serious is this? Obama says it is a cause for "concern", but not for panic. On the other hand, the head of the World Health Organization is calling this a pandemic, which threatens all of man-kind (by its very definition).
Quandary number two: LA-based radio talk show host Doug McIntyre hit the nail on the head this morning when he pointed out that when it comes to our border with Mexico, there is no barn door to begin with. We can't (or won't) secure that border to stop the flow of illegal aliens, drugs or to protect the US from the violence that is spilling over into the border states and cities like Phoenix. It looks like we can't (or won't) secure it to protect against the swine flu.
Be that the case, if we don't have the wherewith all to shut down the border with Mexico, why are we still allowing flights to come into the US from Mexico every single day? That we can stop right now-if we had the will, which, apparently, we do not. It is my understanding that France has stopped flights to and from Mexico. If so, why can't we?
You all know the answer to that, don't you? It is all about politics, diplomacy and political correctness. The Mexican Government would protest if we did that as would many of the Hispanic pressure groups. It would look bad. It would be called racist. So don't expect anything to happen on that front. Flights from Mexico City, Guadalajara and Cancun will continue to arrive daily in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and other places every day.
And Joe Biden's comment? Well, as expected, his office has come out with a "clarification". What the VP really said-or meant-was that people should not travel if they feel sick and exercise the proper precautions when traveling-just like Obama said.
Here is what Biden said on NBC's "Today" Show:
"I would tell members of my family -- and I have -- I wouldn't go anywhere in confined places now. It's not that it's going to Mexico in a confined aircraft where one person sneezes, that goes all the way through the aircraft. That's me,"
"I would not be, at this point, if they had another way of transportation, suggesting they ride the subway. From my perspective, this relates to mitigation. If you're out in the middle of the field and someone sneezes, that's one thing. If you're in a closed aircraft, a closed container, a closed car, a closed classroom, that's another thing."
Biden's spokesperson, Elizabeth Alexander, released a statement shortly after Biden's remarks, saying, "The advice he is giving family members is the same advice the administration is giving to all Americans: that they should avoid unnecessary air travel to and from Mexico. If they are sick, they should avoid airplanes and other confined public spaces, such as subways. This is the advice the vice president has given family members who are traveling by commercial airline this week." Joe Biden's spokesperson at work
Here is what White House Press Spokesman (and professional comedian) Robert Gibbs said about Biden's remarks in answer to a question from ABC's Jake Tapper: "I think ... what the vice president meant to say was the same thing that again, many members have said in the last few days, that is, if you feel sick, if you are exhibiting flulike symptoms -- coughing, sneezing, runny nose -- that you should take precautions, that you should limit your travel. Jake, I'm telling you what he meant to say," he said as everybody laughed.
And of course, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, fulfilled her daily quota of silly statements as she tried to rephrase what Biden said.
"I think the vice president, if he had, if he could say that over again he would say if they're feeling sick they should stay off public transit or confined spaces because that is indeed the advice that we're giving," Napolitano said on MSNBC.
These comments raise another question: If the government is advising us to avoid all unnecessary travel to Mexico, why is there no urgency or desire to stop, control or inhibit travel into the US from Mexico?
This swine flu issue has the potential to leave a permanent scar on the Obama presidency. If this epidemic continues to spread in the US and causes huge loss of life, Obama's actions-or lack thereof- will come under close scrutiny. Is there the potential for over-reaction? Sure. However, it seems that this is a case for better safe than sorry. Certainly, we should lend evry possible assistance to Mexico in their efforts to fight the flu, but the President's primary duty is to protect the American people from its spread into the US. Politics, diplomacy, economic concerns for the airline industry and sensitivities need to take a back seat here.
"Mr President, in your first 100 days, what has most surprised you, what has most troubled you, what has most enchanted you about the presidency?"
-Jeff Zeleny, New York Times
President Obama: "Enchanted.....enchanted.......can you use it in a sentence, please? Enchanted........E-N-C-H-A-N-T-E-D."
So much for this softball game masquerading as a news conference. So much for the credibility of the New York Times ("All the news that's fit to print") With all the problems going on, this is the best the White House Press Corps can do? No follow ups on why he won't consider closing the Mexican border when there is a Swine Flu epidemic going on down there? (H1N1 flu, sorry) No follow-ups on whether there could ever be a situation under which he would authorize water boarding? How about this?
"Mr President, how can you insist that we could have been successful in getting information without water boarding?"
And can you believe not one reporter had the temerity to ask him about that Air Force One fiasco this week over New York City? Do you think maybe they would have hammered George Bush about it if he had been president?
If this isn't irrefutable evidence of the death of the news media, I don't know what will convince you folks. Helen Thomas was there in the front row. (She probably hadn't moved since the last press conference.) Couldn't she have asked why we are still killing Iraqis? They didn't even call on her. This is the woman who takes the side of Hamas even though she has no idea what's in their charter-stuff about never negotiating with Israel, killing the Jews and establishing an Islamic state of Palestine. They would have had a better press conference if Perez Hilton were there firing away. Isn't it great to watch our national news media having a love affair with the president? Soon they will be referring to Obama as "The Dear Leader".
Today, Air Force One, fresh from its buzzing of Manhattan, will carry President Obama to St Louis, where he will hold a press conference. Aside from the question of why he has to use all that precious fuel to go to St Louis to do what he could do in the White House, it is hoped that AF One won't fly under the Gateway Arch with a streamer attached to the tail reading, "Eat at Joe's".
Speaking of the NYC flyover, I heard the plane was flying so low, it almost knocked the high-powered rifle out of Keith Olbermann's hands as he was taking aim at the streets below from his perch on top of the NBC tower.
So what if Arlen Spector is now a Democrat? He was precisely the kind of guy the Republicans needed to purge. Let the Dems have their 60 vote majority. They won't be able to blame anyone but themselves for the fiasco that is coming. Spector is a pathetic little man who at 79, can't let go of power even if it means screwing those who propped him up in his last election-then blasting Republican primary voters in Pennsylvania. The man is nothing more than a crass opportunist. He'll look great standing there next to Harry Reid. And while he's leaving, he can take the two liberal gals from Maine with him.
Note to Nancy Pelosi: You want a "truth commission"? Be careful what you wish for. What's your next excuse going to be about those CIA water board briefings? Did you think they were talking about surfing? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: "Whee....Thanks for taking me surfing, guys. Now what do you want to know?"
Guess which state's lawmakers are looking at another pay raise? Yep, none other than California, where a commission is set to meet on the question of a pay raise. This commission meets once a year. In case you don't know, California commissions are landing pads for unre-elected politicians. They get $100,000+ salaries to meet once, twice, three times a year. And you wonder why California is going broke and wants to raise taxes?
Janet Napolitano is better than Jay Leno, who makes people laugh five nights a week. With Napolitano, it's 7 days a week with her ridiculous comments on the problems that she is supposed to be dealing with. Swine flu? Please don't call it swine flu. It's the H1NI flu according to her and Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsack. (Reminds me of the Overseas Contingency Operations). It's called protecting the pigs. Close the border because of the Swine flu? Why, there's never a reason to close the border, you know. Add that to the New York flyover, the Canada remark, entering the country illegally is not a crime statement, and those dangerous right-wing extremists and military veterans. One can only wonder what she'll say today.
Ditto for stand-up comedian Robert Gibbs. The man is funnier than a barrel-full of monkeys. "So this guy walks into a bar.........."
Speaking of jokes, Kalifornia Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has assembled a group called the "California Dream Team" to help push this Proposition 1A past the voters-the tax extension that is described in the official voter handbook as a spending cap bill. And who is in this "Dream Team", you ask? Well, according to the radio ads, the "Dream Team" is included in a list of police, firefighters, doctors, nurses, seniors, juniors, and some mysterious guy named Jerry Finocchio-or something like that. Meanwhile, as illegals pour across the southern border, tax-payers and business owners are pouring out of California across it's eastern border. Sign in Arizona: "Beware of Californians"
California "Attorney General" Jerry Brown is at it again. Instead of doing anything about real crime (which is rampant), crime bustin' Jerry goes after corporate polluters. Now it's the Maywood Police Department that Jerry is investigating. Maywood, an eyesore on the fringes of LA, is so inundated with illegal aliens, they actually sit on the city council (well, almost). According to Jerry, the PD is out of control. Why they are actually "stopping people on the streets", according to Jerry-and occasionally "tasering citizens". The only problem is there are no citizens in Maywood.
Now that the Cubs are off to their annual El Foldo, I have come to the conclusion that only government intervention can produce a Cub pennant. That's what we need, fellow-Cub fans-a government program. With Obama in the White House-Now Is The Time! In fact, President Obama should apologize to Cub fans everywhere for the lack of a Cub pennant since 1945 and World Series title since 1908. He could also stop off in Chicago and shake hands with folks like Milton Bradley and some of the other Cub players who haven't been producing. A few words from the president should change all that, I'm sure. In the meantime, however, as Gene Autry used to say when he was the owner of the (then awful) Angels: "I'm back in the cellar again"
Speaking of apologies, when Obama was in Europe, did he say anything to the Europeans about how America has bailed them out of two world wars and saved them from fascism, Nazism and communism? Of course not. That would be arrogant, just as it would be arrogant to remind them of the American cemeteries located at Normandie, as well as other sites in France and Belgium.
Did you hear anything come out of that Durban II conference in Geneva last week about Darfur, Mumbai, terrorism, piracy, beheadings, stonings, or anything like that? No? Either did I.
What bonehead came up with the idea of having Air Force One do a flyover above Lower Manhattan (the site of the World Trade Center)? That was the scene yesterday morning that sent office workers scurrying out of their work places onto the street screaming as emergency call centers were inundated with 911 calls. Was it another hijacked plane on a suicide mission? What were those Air Force jets in pursuit going to do-shoot the plane down right over Manhattan? Was it the next 9-11?
Well, no. It was just a White House photo shoot. Apparently, some genius in the White House decided it was time to "upgrade" their photos of AF One flying over the Statue of Liberty. Apparently, the statue had too many pigeon droppings in the old photos.
And apparently, no one bothered to tell the mayor's office. Mayor Michael Bloomberg was clearly upset at the stealth operation that caused such panic in the streets and buildings below. The NYPD says they were notified but were instructed "not to tell anybody."
White House Press Secretary Roberts Gibbs was customarily unhelpful when asked about the incident waving it off in a flippant manner.
Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano, as always, had no answer for Ann Curry when asked about the incident. All she could offer was that "mistakes were made", the old traditional use of the passive voice to avoid stating WHO made the mistake.
And President Obama? No word from him, but aides say he was "furious".
Then some White House military aide named Louis Caldera fell on his sword and took the blame saying he authorized the flight. Predictably, many Republicans are calling for Caldera's resignation. Of course, they were already calling for poor Janet's resignation before this happened. Gibbs? What Republican in his/her right mind would want Gibbs to resign? This buffoon is too valuable and entertaining-if you are a Republican, conservative or just don't like the Obama Administration.
This footage was captured by cell phone and smuggled out of Pakistan. It shows the Taliban in Pakistan executing a man and a woman for allegedly having an affair.
For those of you who think that the West should make accommodations to Shariah law, watch this film.
To those of you who question the war on terror, watch this film.
To those of you who want to prosecute Americans for conducting or authorizing water boarding, watch this film.
And remember that the Taliban is now 60 miles from the Pakistani capital of Islamabad-and its nuclear weapons.
Today, former Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona was sentenced to five and a half years in federal prison and ordered to pay a $125,000 fine for his conviction on one count of witness tampering.
The sentencing hearing lasted a few hours due to defense attempts to sway Judge Andrew Guilford with testimony as to Carona's previous "good works" as sheriff. The defense asked that Carona be let off with probation and community service, while the prosecution asked for a sentence of 9 years.
In the end, Guilford followed the recommendation of the probation office. He allowed Carona to remain free until July 24, so that he can attend his son's high school graduation.
So ends (pending appeals) the sad saga of a major Sheriff's department being corrupted by a greedy sheriff who put unqualified co-conspirators into positions of leadership as he attempted to use his position to line his pockets, live the high life and bed down a bevy of babes. As Judge Guilford told Carona in handing down his sentence, he had brought shame to the residents of Orange County.
When the sentence was finally announced, LA talk jocks John and Ken (KFI AM), who had followed this story in their own inimitable way lambasting Carona, popped open a bottle of champagne on air as they celebrated.
I don't blame them a bit. I have a feeling a lot of Orange County Sheriff's deputies are popping the corks as well.
Now that I am teaching a morning class, I've been listening to Joe Scarborughro and Mika Bryzyzinski on the radio lately. All I knew about Ms Bzrzzynsky was that she was a news reporter and daughter of Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, Zabighniyef Brizynxhshy (strikes one and two). Initially, however, I formed the opinion that while certainly attractive, she didn't seem to have an opinion on much-just sort of fed off whatever Scorboro was saying. Today, however, I learned that Ms Byrzunkgski does have opinions-she is a liberal. After all, she attended Williams College in Massachusetts.
As I tuned in while driving down the freeway (we still have something that's free in California), Scarburou and Bryzhanzscky were arguing over whether the government should meddle itself into the dietary habits of Americans. Of course, like a good liberal, Bzyrazinski told Skarborro that it should since everywhere you looked, you saw fat Americans-especially fat children. According to Mica, the government should step in and make sure that every American child was getting enough vegetables.
(Personally, I don't care if I eat another vegetable the rest of my life, Micky. And I really don't care about all those fat people walking around. It's their life.)
Then, we turned from the opinion phase of the show to Mike giving the news-which was more opinion. First up was a shot at Miss California. According to Bullshinsky, Carrie Prejean was capitalizing on her fame by telling her church in San Diego that God was directing her to give a truthful answer about gay marriage to that revolting reptile, Perez Hilton (my description, not hers). All a PR move according to Brkzhxnsky. Skarburrow, thank God, came to Miss California's defense for being a Christian and being honest. Amen.
Well, anyway, now I've got Brkxjynski pegged even if I can't spell her name. And as for all you Polish folks who are offended, save your cards and letters. What you need to do is lobby the Polish Language Academy in Warsaw to standardize its darned language-you know, like throw in a few vowels and make it simple like in English.
A few years ago, I wrote a book about the town in Germany where I was stationed in the army during the late 1960s. (Erlangen-An American's History of a German Town). Naturally, part of the book covered the years of the Third Reich. Erlangen, located just a few miles north of Nuremberg, is a university town and one of the leading medical centers in Germany. Not surprisingly, much of its darkest chapters were connected to Hitler's corruption of the universities and of the medical practice. Today, part of that history has come back to the forefront as the city debates a proposal to tear down part of the old Heil und Pflegeanstalt (mental asylum).
Even before the Nazis instituted their Final Solution with the Holocaust, they engaged in what was called a dress rehearsal in the late 1930s when they began doing away with their mentally ill population. Those deemed "unworthy of life" or "useless eaters" were simply done away with through various means. Eventually, the public became aware of what was happening, and protests led to the ending of the program in 1941.
Erlangen's Heil und Pflegeanstalt, referred to locally as the Hupfla, was one of those places where patients died by the hundreds-by government design. Even after public protests led the government to end the program, hundreds continued to die at the Hupfla by simply being allowed to starve. Wilhelm Berger, a minister from a local church, did what he could to smuggle bread in to the patients with the help of a sympathetic attendant. Yet, he knew that it was far too little.
Today, a memorial to the victims stands at the entrance to the institute.
Since the 1960s, when Germany, at least West Germany (East Germany maintained they had all fought the Nazis as communists), really began to come to grips with its Nazi past, the nation has gone to great lengths to acknowledge the past and educate its younger generations so as to prevent any re-occurrence. Many of the sites associated with the Third Reich still remain. An example near Erlangen is the site of the Nazi Party Rallies in Nuremberg, which still stands though gradually crumbling. In addition, the state of Bavaria has what it calls its law for the preservation of historical monuments. Erlangen's Hupfla, which dates back to 1846, is included (Denkmalshutz).
Yet those entrusted with the preservation of historical landmarks feel that they have been by-passed in the rush to build a new research center on the site. The architectural plans for the new center would include tearing down one of Erlangen's important historical sites, both from the standpoint of its age and archectural design, as well as its historical role during the Third Reich.
The Hupfla is one of those many historical landmarks that I was totally unaware of during my time in Erlangen as an American soldier in the 1960s. Once I became aware (during my research and subsequent visits), I found the site to be a moving experience. I hope the city can find a way to keep the site, both to maintain the archectural character of the city and to maintain a site for commemmoration and reflection.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed- The left's favorite "victim"
This editorial comes to us from the The Telegraph (newspaper) in the UK. The writer, Gerald Warner, is spot on when it comes to the actions of Barack Obama on the water boarding issue. Not only is Obama following in the footsteps of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, both of whom cut our military and intelligence services to the bone, Obama seems prepared to go even farther than that. What CIA officer will stick his/her neck out to prevent the next 9-11 knowing that this president will throw them to the wolves? What presidential attorney or advisor will risk giving controversial advice to a president in the interest of preventing another 9-11?
The CIA officers and the Bush advisers who are responsible for water boarding should be thanked by a grateful nation for thwarting at least two known attacks-against Los Angeles and the Brooklyn Bridge. Only through water boarding of that puke, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, were the plots uncovered. And now the Democrats, MoveOn.org, the ACLU, MSNBC and the rest of our 5th columnists in this country want to prosecute these people. It makes me sick to my stomach.
Thank you, Mr Warner. It is refreshing to know that not everybody has lost his/her mind in the UK. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Barack Obama vs the CIA-Why Does President Pantywaist Hates America So Much?
"If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.
Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.
That is why he opened Pandora's Box by publishing the Justice Department's legal opinions on waterboarding and other hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to rush to Langley, Virginia to try to reassure a demoralised CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda.
"Don't be discouraged by what's happened the last few weeks," he told intelligence officers. Is he kidding? Thanks to him, al-Qaeda knows the private interrogation techniques available to the US intelligence agencies and can train its operatives to withstand them - or would do so, if they had not already been outlawed.
So, next time a senior al-Qaeda hood is captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers.
Obama promised his CIA audience that nobody would be prosecuted for past actions. That has already been contradicted by leftist groups with a revanchist ambition to put Republicans, headed if possible by Condoleezza Rice, in the dock. Talk about playing party politics with national security. Martin Scheinin, the United Nations special investigator for human rights, claims that senior figures, including former vice president Dick Cheney, could face prosecution overseas. Ponder that - once you have got over the difficulty of locating the United Nations and human rights within the same dimension.
President Pantywaist Obama should have thought twice before sitting down to play poker with Dick Cheney. The former vice president believes documents have been selectively published and that releasing more will prove how effective the interrogation techniques were. Under Dubya's administration, there was no further atrocity on American soil after 9/11.
President Pantywaist's recent world tour, cosying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America's enemies. Here, they realised, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners. His only enemies are fellow Americans. Which prompts the question: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?" ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that Nancy Pelosi has publicly put out her version of the briefing(s) she and other members of Congress received regarding water boarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques, the question is this: Is she telling us the truth about how much she knew and when she knew it?
That should not be too hard to determine now that the White House is ordering the CIA to release its memos for public inspection. Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) is also asking National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair to release details of the congressional briefings and who specifically attended. The below appears on Hoekstra's official website (excerpted): -----------------------------------------------------------------------
"It was not necessary to release details of the enhanced interrogation techniques, because members of Congress from both parties have been fully aware of them since the program began in 2002. We believed it was something that had to be done in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to keep our nation safe. After many long and contentious debates, Congress repeatedly approved and funded this program on a bipartisan basis in both Republican and Democratic Congresses.
Last week, Mr. Obama argued that those who implemented this program should not be prosecuted -- even though the release of the memos still places many individuals at other forms of unfair legal risk. It appeared that Mr. Obama understood it would be unfair to prosecute U.S. government employees for carrying out a policy that had been fully vetted and approved by the executive branch and Congress. The president explained this decision with these gracious words: "nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past." I agreed.
Unfortunately, on April 21, Mr. Obama backtracked and opened the door to possible prosecution of Justice Department attorneys who provided legal advice with respect to the enhanced interrogations program. The president also signaled that he may support some kind of independent inquiry into the program. It seems that he has capitulated to left-wing groups and some in Congress who are demanding show trials over this program.
Members of Congress calling for an investigation of the enhanced interrogation program should remember that such an investigation can't be a selective review of information, or solely focus on the lawyers who wrote the memos, or the low-level employees who carried out this program. I have asked Mr. Blair to provide me with a list of the dates, locations and names of all members of Congress who attended briefings on enhanced interrogation techniques. " -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pelosi, in the above statement, refers to a meeting in which the possibility of enhanced techniques was mentioned, but insists that no mention was made that the methods had been used or were definitely going to be used. So her statement is that she was never briefed to the effect that enhanced methods were, in fact, being utilized. She is on the record, albeit, not under oath. If there is going to be a "truth commission" as she would like, such "truth commission" should include the degree of knowledge and approval on the part of each concerned member of Congress. Hopefully, a "truth commission" would include putting those in Congress who were briefed under oath. (Maybe such action would dampen the enthusiasm of the Democrats to hold such an ill-advised "truth commission" in the first place.)
Notwithstanding the above, if it turns out that Pelosi is lying in the above statement, it would seem appropriate for her to resign her position as Speaker of the House, if not from Congress altogether-not because (and if) she was briefed about water boarding and advised it was being done-rather because she would be lying about her role.
If, in fact, Speaker Pelosi, who wants to drag this whole thing out into the open and prosecute those responsible, turns out to have been aware all along, it would mark her as a liar and colossal hypocrite of the first order. So, if we have to go through this circus, then we should not let Congress off the hook. What we don't need is a repeat of the 9-11 Commisssion where Jamie Gorelick, the architect of The Wall that kept the CIA and FBI from exchanging information and intelligence that might have nipped 9-11 in the bud, wound up sitting on the commission-when she should have been sweating it out as a witness.
Are you sure you want to push this "truth commission", Speaker Pelosi?
One of the most dishonest ballot propositions of all time has to be Proposition 1A and its companion ballot measures B-F, which were put on the May ballot in California by Governor Schwarzenegger and his Democratic co-conspirators in Sacramento. This comes in the wake of the largest state tax increase in the history of the US-passed in the middle of a recession no less. Under this measure, voters are being asked to approve a two-year extension of the recently-passed tax increase that would carry it from 2011 to 2013. In return, a spending cap is imposed, which critics feel can be easily by-passed, and a "rainy day" fund established.
In pushing for this piece of legislation, Prop 1A's proponents deliberately underplay the two year tax extension. But the dishonesty doesn't stop there. Listen to the radio and TV ads, and you wonder what PR hack dreamed them up. First, there's the TV ad showing a father going out to play catch with his (school-age) son. The closing line is, "First, I'm going to play catch with my son. Then I'm going to vote for propositions 1A-F."
Kind gets you right here.
Then there is the radio ad that tells us that 1A-F will prevent "THE POLITICIANS" from spending our hard-earned money any way they like. What the ad doesn't tell you is that THE POLITICIANS wrote this bill and put it on the ballot.
"Stop me before I kill again!"
Finally, there is the old boiler plate advisory that goes something like this:
"That's why teachers, firefighters, police, nurses, paramedics, doctors, lawyers, and Indian chiefs ALL support Proposition 1A-F."
Well, maybe their unions, anyway.
Plus the ultra-left LA Times. Ultra-left editorial writer George Skelton (no relation to Red-I think) writes today that Propositions 1A-F are not, repeat not, deceptive. Republican turncoat Mike Villines, Republican Assembly Minority Leader, asserts that he and the others are not trying to trick Californians in pushing this bait and switch on us.
Fortunately, the polls show the measure going down to a big defeat (42-29%), which will be the second such defeat for Republican-in-name-only Schwarzenegger. The first was in 2005 when he was thrashed by the unions in trying to reign in spending. In a recent interview, the governor said that he has learned from his past mistakes and has learned to work (deals) with others.
George Galloway (L), Uday Hussein (R) during "happier times" in Baghdad
From May 5-21, the Muslim Student Union at UC-Irvine will be hosting more anti-Israel events with their usual collection of professional Israel-bashers, many of whom are making repeat performances at the Orange County campus (Amir Abdel Malik Ali, Anna Baltzer, etc.) This time the MSU has really reached into the dregs by bringing in America/Israel-hating radical British MP George Galloway (Saddam Hussein's old pal from the Oil for Food Program) and none other than Cynthia McKinney, former congresswoman from Georgia, whose loony theories and ideas are too numerous to list here. Of late, Ms McKinney was recently run ashore by the Israeli Navy while trying to smuggle God knows what to Gaza during the fighting there earlier this year. One wonders whether Ms McKinney will bring in a platoon of her New Black Panther Party thugs, like Hashim Nzinga to provide security and threaten any Jewish on-lookers (as they are wont to do). Chances are good since the UCI Campus Police chief has already conceded they don't have the resources to police these events.
McKinney will make her appearance May 13, while Galloway will crawl out from under his rock May 21. By the way, all you UCI students, the money to pay for these creeps to come to UCI and spout their hate comes out of your student tuition fees.
Galloway, of course, was a loud voice of opposition to sanctions against Saddam's Iraq as well as the invasion of that country. No wonder. According to numerous allegations, Galloway was on the dictator's payroll during the Oil for Food program receiving oil vouchers worth a small fortune. He was even seen in Iraq during the good old days whoopin' it up and smoking cigars with Saddam's son, Uday, the rapist and torturer. Not only does Galloway hate Israel, but America as well, leading one to wonder why he comes here so often-or why we let this scoundrel in.
McKinney, when she is not sailing the Mediterranean in the Leakin' Lena with supplies for the boys of Hamas, is hitting Capitol policemen or accusing Jews of orchestrating her election defeats-at least through her goons in the New Black Panther Party, like Hashim Nzinga, who she uses for security. Her father, former politician Billy McKinney has also made a few anti-Semitic remarks in his daughter's defense-blaming Jews for said election defeats. By the way, the elder McKinney does not use the phrase "Zionist Jews"-he spells the word out: ("Jews have bought everybody. J.E.W.S.".)
So the fact that the MSU is inviting these two odious characters as their speakers again says volumes about the nature of that organization. Their presence at UCI will be an embarrassment to the university.
The above exchange came during Hillary Clinton's testimony before Congress today. Rep Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) attempts to ask Clinton if she would favor release of documents requested by Dick Cheney that reflect the results of water boarding of Al-Qaeda suspects. This is where she states that she does not consider Cheney a reliable source of information. She continues to duck the question until Rohrabacher's time runs out.
Left unstated is the question of whether the above-referenced documents would be considered reliable by Mrs Clinton.
Tip of the hat to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Haaretz.com and the Orange County Independent Task Force on anti-Semitism
On Tuesday, the above scene was recorded at the UN Conference on Racism in Geneva. The video shows a member of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's entourage shouting "Zio-Nazi" at Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel.
How ironic that a representative of the odious Iranian regime would hurl such labels at Wiesel. This from a regime that finances terrorism, storms embassies and takes diplomats hostage, stones women to death for adultery and hangs homosexuals.
This further illustrates why no self-respecting nation should have attended this conference with the likes of the barbarians from Teheran
This whole flap over whether to prosecute members of the Bush administration over the water boarding of (3) al-Qaeda terrorists is leaving me more disgusted every day. First President Obama rules out prosecution-then he flip-flops and says a prosecution of higher-ups may still be possible but not against those who actually carried out the water-boarding. Leaving aside the obvious lack of decisiveness of the President, it strikes me that Obama is playing politics with an issue that concerns our national security.
Whether or not one feels that water-boarding is a form of torture-as opposed say to pulling out ones fingernails- it has to be acknowledged that the motivation for such action was to save innocent lives by the thousands in the wake of 9-11. It was not done to persecute George W Bush's political opponents, as most dictatorships would have done.
Nonetheless, some say, America should never practice torture or any other harsh interrogation methods. The saving lives argument is countered by these folks when they claim that torture never produces truthful information. Never? Apparently, not only does Dick Cheney disagree, but so do folks in the CIA, who have stated that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed spilled his guts about future attacks when water boarded. Cheney is demanding that internal memos to that effect be released by the present administration.
The most outrageous news coming out this week is that Obama's own National Intelligence Director, Dennis Blair, had made statements defending those involved in the decision to water board in a memo to the White House, which proceeded to redact that portion of said memo as it was releasing previous memos from the Bush administration. So now it appears that Obama is dilly-dallying with the fate of Bush administration aides who were involved in the decision to employ water-boarding while suppressing memos that would defend the practice.
Defend water boarding, you say? Yes. If there are memos out there that report that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed refused to answer questions until he was water boarded then gave up a pending plot to fly plane)s) into downtown Los Angeles, then that strikes me as all the justification in the world once we had already been subjected to 9-11. This begs the question to those who say water boarding could never be justified: How many innocent deaths does it take before you change your mind?
The officials who made the decision to authorize water boarding or other mild forms of "torture" such as slapping with an open hand, placing insects in a cell, sleep deprivation, etc. were acting not out of sadism, but out of a concern to prevent more terrorist attacks. Should they not be afforded the benefit of the doubt?
President Obama should stop playing politics with this issue once and for all. And Dennis Blair should resign in protest.
CQ Politics.com writer Jeff Stein has broken a story that Rep. Jane Harman (D-Ca) was picked up on a NSA wiretap talking with a suspected Israeli agent about intervening in a Justice Department prosecution of two AIPAC (American Israeli Political Action Committee) figures for espionage. (AIPAC is considered the most-powerful pro-Israel lobby in the US.) In exchange, the person talking to Harman promised to put pressure on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to name Harman to the leadership of the House Intelligence Committee should the Democrats win the 2006 mid-term elections. The story is based on revelations by at least two ex-NSA employees with first-hand knowledge of the conversation.
In an interesting story that embarrasses both parties, a subsequent FBI investigation into Harman's activities was allegedly short-circuited by Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez on the grounds (allegedly) that Harman was a supporter of the administration's wiretap policy in the wake of 9-11. According to Stein, a planned FBI interview of Harman was stopped by Gonzalez.
According to Stein's report, Harman was overheard on the wiretap telling the other party that she would "waddle into" the case "if you think it'll make a difference". She then, allegedly, told the person in ending the conversation, "this conversation doesn't exist."
Harman is denying the report and any wrongdoing.
“These claims are an outrageous and recycled canard, and have no basis in fact,” Harman said in a prepared statement. “I never engaged in any such activity. Those who are peddling these false accusations should be ashamed of themselves.”
The important point here is whether, subsequent to the alleged intercepted call, she actually contacted Justice and tried to influence a pending prosecution in return for political favors. That would constitute obstruction of justice and corruption.
Subsequent to the 2006 elections, House Speaker Pelosi initially tried to appoint Alcee Hastings, the disgraced former judge to the post sought by Harman. When that proved too embarrassing, she appointed Silvestre Reyes of Texas by-passing Harman, who had been the ranking member of the committee when the Republicans controlled the House.
Of course, if true, this would be a case that also embarrasses the US-Israel relationship, one I happen to support. However, it is a fact of life that even friendly nations and allies spy on each other. Yet, when it is uncovered, there are still consequences to be paid. Just ask Jonathan Pollard.
Maybe I'm shooting from the hip here because I don't watch beauty contests, nor did I know there was one going on. Nor had I ever heard of some flake named Perez Hilton, who was one of the judges. However, what I am hearing and reading about this Miss California flap is disconcerting.
As I understand it, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was first runner up to Miss North Carolina in the Miss USA pageant. During the judging, this guy Hilton (who I should mention here is gay) asked Miss California about gay marriage. Her answer was that she believed marriage was between a man and a woman provoking booing from the audience.
Perez Hilton: “Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?”
Prejean: “Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”
You would have thought the lady was Miss Nuremberg 1934.
Some guy who was an organizer of the Miss California pageant expressed something like "sadness" or "regret" or something like that. People backstage were having heart attacks over this "controversial" answer. Prejean, regretfully in my view, claimed that the answer had cost her the crown. (Maybe it did.)
However, the most regrettable of all was the blog post by Mr Hilton, in which he lambasted the young lady and called her a "dumb bitch". You can check it out at the below site.
I don't know anything about this Hilton guy, but when he calls the lady a "dumb bitch" for answering the question in the manner she did, Mr Hilton showed more about himself than he could ever say about Carrie Prejean.
Now I'm going to ask the question about that 800 lb gorilla in the back of the room that no one else wants to ask:
What the hell is a gay guy doing being the judge of a women's beauty contest..hmmm?
I know, I know. More than beauty is being judged here, you know, brains, talent, etc, I get it. Maybe Hilton was taking a pee break during the swimsuit part. Yet, it still strikes me as nonsensical as if I were judging the sexiest Chippendale dancer.
So answer my question any way you like, but it still comes down to some obnoxious blogger/gossip columnist calling a young female contestant a "dumb bitch" because she has the audacity to answer his stupid question honestly and give her true belief. This guy Hilton came across as a jerk. In fact, he may be a finalist in the Fousesquawk Jerk of the Year award for 2009.
It is highly ironic that the UN opens its Durban ll "conference against racism" on the occasion of Adolf Hitler's 120th birthday. Not withstanding its name, this conference is nothing more than an exercise in anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing being led by some of the most racist countries on earth (namely in the Middle East).
The conference is a repeat of Durban 1 held a few years back and which was noted for its singling out of Israel as a "racist" state. This year's event promises to be the same with the featured speaker none other than Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Fortunately, not only are Israel and the US boycotting the conference, but also Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada and Australia. Among European countries who are attending we find the UK and France. The latter should be ashamed.
Today, when Ahmadinejad referred to Israel as a "racist entity", dozens of EU delegates rose and walked out of the hall. That is well and good, but why were they there to begin with? Why did Swiss President Hans-Rudolf Merz personally meet with Ahmadinejad? Does not the state of Switzerland stand for anything other than being an international banking center?
In addition to the requisite Israel-bashing led by the Arab states, also on the agenda is a move to make it a crime to criticize a religion. Sounds great, but the only religion that is really concerned here is Islam.
What is really astounding is when you examine the countries that are at the forefront of this effort to demonize Israel while making it a violation of international law to "defame" Islam.
First, let's look at Iran, whose president is the featured speaker. This is the man who has denied the Holocaust and called for Israel to be wiped off the map. In Iran, members of the Ba'hai faith are routinely persecuted as part of a government policy. What do I mean by persecuted? I mean things like arrest, rape and killing. This is the country where women accused of adultery are buried up to their shoulders and stoned to death while the faithful shout, "Allahu Akbar!" This is the country that hangs homosexuals. This is the country that storms embassies, takes diplomats hostage and finances terror.
In Egypt, members of the Coptic Christian minority are subject to discrimination by the Muslim majority. As in other Middle Eastern countries, mainstream newspapers and magazines publish anti-Semitic rants and cartoons reminiscent of Julius Streicher's Der Stuermer, the old Nazi anti-Semitic newspaper popular in the Third Reich. In the Middle East, People still write about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as if it were fact. Mein Kampf is still a best seller in the Middle East. In Saudi Arabia, it is illegal to openly practice any religion other than Islam. Under Islamic law, the penalty for apostasy is death.
Then there is Sudan, a country that has recently chaired the UN Human Rights Council, but has perpetrated the genocide in Darfur.
These are the countries that are sitting in judgement of Israel and complaining about defamation of religion (their own).
What does it say about the Western nations that are attending this travesty? Of course, they will tell you that only by attending can they lend a moderating voice to the madness. That is a cop-out. What they are doing is giving legitimacy to this disgraceful gathering. The UK and France are there because they are afraid of upsetting their Muslim minorities, who are liable to riot in the streets-or worse. Special mention and praise has to go to Germany, a nation with its unique history, that makes it a point to stand up for decency.
The larger issue is what this says about the UN, a corrupt and inefficient organization that is been taken over by the Middle Eastern states. At the UN, anti-Semitism reigns supreme, terrorism is swept under the rug, and the US is used as both a whipping-boy and cash cow. The time has long passed for the decent nations of the world-the democracies-to walk away from the UN and establish a new international organization that stands for something decent.
The above demonstration just took place in Luton, England as a response to Muslim demonstrators who had disrupted a recent march of returning Iraq war veterans.
(As much as I sympathize with the spirit of the demonstrators, I can only wonder why the British police have no clue when it comes to crowd control. Curiously curious)
Future MSNBC anchor Susan Roesgen covers the tax protests in Chicago for CNN
(Don't bother clicking this video. CNN has pulled it from public view.)
The burning question of the day is why CNN pulled down that video on YouTube that showed CNN reporter Susan Roesgen trying to denigrate tax protesters in Chicago on April 15.
We have all seen the video of Ms Roesgen speaking condescendingly to a man with a child in his arms then being lectured in turn by a female demonstrator. Through it all, the arrogant Ms Roesgen looks back at the camera and speaks disparagingly of the demonstrators to her colleagues in the news room. She states that these demonstrations were put together by that "right-wing conservative news organization"-Fox News. She acts like the situation is about to explode in violence (which none of the demonstrations did). The video not only appeared on TV, but was immediately posted by numerous conservative blogs like mine.
Alas, however, if you click on the image, all you get is a notice that the video is no longer available because CNN has claimed its copyright-and pulled it. Why would CNN do such a thing? After all, this "The Most Trusted name in News" (Is that how it goes?)
The reason the video has been pulled is because the arrogance and condescension of Ms Roesgen and CNN towards these everyday folks shines through and through. Add to that the reporter tried to inform the obviously ignorant demonstrators that in return for all those taxes they pay, (the corrupt state of) Illinois gets billions in bailout money back from the government. I forget the exact total she quoted. I would go back and check the tape........
but I can't!!!!
Ah, but CNN was not the only people with cameras that day. Founding Fathers Blog also captured some of the events with Ms Roesgen.
And this:
"But he's the President of the United States!"
Anyway, CNN has compounded its goof by removing their video from public view. The best thing they could do now is remove their other goof (Ms Roesgen) from public view. But cheer up, Suzie. MSNBC has its eye on you.
I recently wrote a piece on UC Santa Cruz and some of their questionable curricula. Shortly thereafter (and coincidentally in my opinion), the university announced plans to cut back on the Community Studies Department department if not eliminate it altogether. That sparked a firestorm of protest. In reporting the story, the Santa Cruz Sentinel listed David Horowitz and myself as conservative pundits who had mocked the program.
The Santa Cruz Sentinel has published a piece dated April 19, 2009 by UCSC graduate Tony Newman that defends the program. In the spirit of being fair and balanced, I am posting Mr Newman's article.
Tony Newman: A UC Santa Cruz Community Studies success story- Posted: 04/12/2009 01:30:25 AM PDT
Tony Newman
"I am very grateful to have a job I love, especially in these scary and uncertain economic times. For the last nine years I have been the director of media relations for the Drug Policy Alliance, a national nonprofit that is working to end the failed war on drugs and replace it with a more sensible and compassionate approach to national drug policy.
There is no doubt that the Community Studies program at UC Santa Cruz is the reason I am doing what I do today. When my dad e-mailed me a story from the Santa Cruz Sentinel about the possibility of UCSC shutting down the Community Studies program because of budget cuts, I thought I should share my experience and appreciation for a program that has deeply impacted my life.
I moved to Santa Cruz from Echo Park, Los Angeles, when I was 14. I loved my high school years at Santa Cruz High. My happiest memories of high school are spending time in the quad with the surfers, and the beautiful days and evenings on the cliffs. Those were carefree and blissful years. When it came time to apply for college I only chose two schools: Cabrillo and UCSC. I knew I didn't want to leave the city I loved.
I was accepted into UCSC, and during my sophomore year the first Gulf War broke out in Iraq. The war sparked my political consciousness, and in 1991 I co-founded a group called Santa Cruz Students for Social Responsibility that organized anti-war demonstrations with thousands of students. When it came time to choose a major that year, I decided to look into Community Studies, a program that requires students to get out of the classroom and get some real-life experience. After reading numerous books and attending many lectures about activism and social movements, I was hungry to dive into the real world and work for the issues I cared about.
I did my six-month internship at the human rights group, Global Exchange, based in San Francisco. During my internship, I was introduced to organizing and activism that you just can't get from a classroom. As an intern I sat in engaging and strategic meetings, organized major events, and eventually learned how to do public relations, a skill set that I have been using ever since. Afterwards, I returned to UCSC and wrote a thesis on my experience of bringing supplies to Cuba and challenging U.S. foreign policy through high profile civil disobedience.
When I graduated from Community Studies, Global Exchange hired me and I ended up being their media director for six years. During my years at Global Exchange I honed my PR skills and publicized several high-profile campaigns, including the fight against Nike's sweatshops in Asia.
UCSC's Community Studies Department introduced me to the world of nonprofit organizations, taught me invaluable skills, and helped to launch my career. Because of Community Studies I have a fulfilling professional life that is driven by my values: my work makes a difference in the world while allowing me to put food on the table and support my family.
Community Studies benefits the individual student, the Santa Cruz community, and the larger world. It introduces students to issues and organizations that provide valuable experience and life-long connections. It builds a much-needed bridge between students and the Santa Cruz community by providing volunteers to local service organizations. And it sends passionate and committed people into the world to work on issues of local, national, and international importance.
It would be a serious loss for Santa Cruz, and for the greater world, if UCSC cuts the Community Studies program. There must be another way to save a few dollars."
Tony Newman graduated from Santa Cruz High and UC Santa Cruz. He lives in Brooklyn, N.Y., and is the director of media relations at the Drug Policy Alliance.
"We've come to arrest you for human rights violations."
The recent flap over a Spanish prosecutor's attempt to issue arrest warrants for 6 members of the Bush Administration for war crimes underlines a deeper problem that is going on in Spain. Strangely, that country seems to feel it has world-wide jurisdiction for any alleged war crime, act of torture or human-rights abuse-whether it involves Spain or not. There is also a similar case going on in Spain which involves members of Israel's government.
A Spanish judge is working double-time trying to prosecute 7 Israeli officials for their alleged role in the targeted assassination of Hamas military leader Salah Shehadeh in Gaza in 2002. Judge Fernando Andreu of Spain's National Court is reacting in the wake of a notification by the Israeli Embassy in Spain that no charges will be brought against Israeli officials in the above case (in Israel).
Spain is not the only country in Europe that has somehow felt that it had world-wide authority. Belgium has also tried to stick its foot into international "human-rights violations" by the US. Part of the problem is loose-cannon judges and prosecutors who try to latch onto a big case and run it on their own. But the laws that enable them to do that are cause for concern.
One might ask whether these attempts have no meaning outside of Spain, but theoretically, they could require other EU countries to arrest the so-called violators if they entered Europe and turn them over to the Spanish.
In the case of Spain, it really begs the question of whose side are they on. This is the nation that suffered a horrific terrorist attack in Madrid in response to Spain's participation in the Iraq war-and responded by voting the government of Jose Maria Aznar out of office and bringing in a prime minister (Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero) who promptly pulled Spain's troops out of Iraq. Whether you think Spain should have participated in the Iraq war or not, the action by Spain in response to the terror attack was cowardly.
Now Spain turns against Israel in an effort to curry the favor of the Islamic terrorists who threaten their own country by going after Israel. When will the Europeans wake up and realize that Israel's enemies are their enemies as well? (I could ask the same question of many Americans.)
Centuries ago, there was a time when Spain was a great imperial and colonial power. Those days are long gone, thankfully. If this once-great nation wants to stay out of the war on terror, that is their prerogative, I guess.
President Barack Obama with Mexican President Felipe Calderon
The below posting was written by an old friend and colleague, Charles Lutz, a retired Drug Enforcement Administration agent, with whom I served in Bangkok, Thailand in the mid-late 1970s. During his DEA career, Chuck served two tours of duty in Thailand, the second of which as Special Agent in Charge. He also served as DEA's Country Attache in Cairo, Egypt, during which time, he was instrumental in establishing DEA's first office in Cyprus. His US-based assignments include Philadephia, Miami, Reno and several tours in DEA Hqs in Washington. Chuck's extensive overseas and domestic experience gives him a valuable insight and perspective on the drug problem, which I am happy to post below. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot has been made of Hillary Clinton having put the blame for Mexico's drug war on the United States. During her visit to Mexico, Clinton said she accepts that the United States market for drugs and the cross-border trade in weapons contribute to Mexico's drug violence. She told Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon, "We know very well that the drug traffickers are motivated by the demand for illegal drugs in the United States, that they are armed by the transport of weapons from the United States to Mexico." Last week, her "apology" was reinforced, in part, by President Barrack Obama's remarks during his visit to Mexico praising the efforts of Mexico's government to counter drug cartels. In an appearance with President Calderon, Obama said, "The United States must take further steps, such as ensuring that illegal guns and cash do not flow from north of the Rio Grande to the cartels in Mexico." I think they're right.
I spent most of my 32-year career with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration stationed overseas or managing international programs from the United States. I saw first hand our government's finger pointing at Burma and Thailand in the 1970's for our heroin problem; at Mexico, Colombia and Jamaica in the 1980's for our marijuana problem; and at Bolivia, Peru, Colombia and Panama in the 1980's and 1990's for our cocaine problem. We said, "You need to be doing more to stem the flow of drugs to the United States." There is a convenient, mistaken belief in America that we are the victims.
In reality, the citizens of Colombia and Mexico, and of the other countries along the drug route to America, are the victims. Drug money enriches the cartels-not the national treasuries in those countries. It underwrites the violence cartels use to intimidate governments, and increases their ability to corrupt legislators, judges, and military and police officials, thereby undermining the rule of law. Not too many years ago Colombia was on the verge of becoming the first "narco-democracy." And now Mexico is suffering from the first serious attempt by its government to crack down on drug cartels. We too are victims, but from self-inflicted wounds that take their toll on the health, crime rate, social services and productivity in this country.
Drug abuse is a question of supply and demand. If no one wanted drugs, no one would make them. It's our insatiable appetite for drugs that is driving the market. But it's always easier to blame the other guy for your problems. Politicians love to blame foreign governments for our drug problem-after all, foreign governments don't vote in U.S. elections. On the other hand, politicians hate to blame their own constituents, many of whom are the drug users who are perpetuating the problem. After all, it may cost them a few votes. Reducing the supply of drugs in the United States is a law enforcement responsibility. But no matter how risky law enforcement can make it for drug traffickers to conduct their business, there will be those willing to take that risk as long as there are those willing to buy them.
Reducing demand for drugs is not a law enforcement responsibility, although it has been left largely to the police to handle-and who have taken the brunt of criticism for not stopping a problem that is not within their power to solve. No matter how risky police can make it for users to buy drugs, there will be those who take that risk to satisfy their cravings or curiosity. So any way you cut it, there's no denying that it is our demand for illegal drugs that drives the supply.
The answer to demand reduction is either to surrender, by legalizing drugs, or find a way to reduce the demand for them. I personally believe the former is too morally repugnant and socially costly, although that is a matter for the electorate to decide. Education is often touted as a panacea for reducing drug abuse. However, education alone is not the answer. As teenagers we are taught that speeding in an automobile is dangerous. But it's not our intellect that keeps most of us from speeding. It's the thought that a cop might be around the next bend. We must educate the populace as to the harm of using drugs, but there has to be a consequence for doing so. Educators and law enforcement officials must work together. And we also need our communities (and perhaps our community organizers!) and our entertainment industry to stigmatize the use of drugs; our social scientists, and psychiatric and medical professionals to find solutions to the cravings and addictions for drugs; and the parents in our permissive society to assume greater responsibility by setting a better example, and better supervising their children. It will take a multi-faceted approach to have a positive impact on drug abuse in this country.
I don't think we should be apologizing to the Germans for how we treat prisoners of war, telling the French that Americans are arrogant, or calling military veterans right wing extremists. But Obama and Clinton should not be criticized for putting the blame for the drug problem where it belongs-right here at home. Lord knows there are enough issues to criticize them about. But this is not one of them. Nancy Reagan once said at the United Nations, "If we cannot stem the American demand for drugs, then there is little hope of preventing foreign drug producers from fulfilling that demand. We will not get anywhere if we place a heavier burden of action on foreign governments than on our own mayors, judges and legislators. You see, the cocaine cartels do not begin in Medellin (Colombia). They begin in New York, Miami, Los Angeles and every American city where crack (cocaine) is bought and sold." Nancy was right then. And Barrack and Hillary are right now . . . if only on this one matter.
Much like Bill Clinton, shrewed observers of the current president need to pay less attention to his efforts to appear moderate and pay more attention to the worker bees he puts into government. Such is the case with his recent selection of Rosa Brooks to be an advisor to Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy.
Who is Rosa Brooks, you ask? Her most recent gig was as a left-wing editorialist for Los Angeles left-wing (and failing) Los Angeles Times. Previously, she has been a Georgetown University law professor and most alarming of all, a special counselor to George Soros (and if you don't know who George Soros is, you have no idea of the dangerous situation this country is in).
As Times columnist, Brooks alternated between condemning the war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq with calling George W. Bush names like liar and torturer and comparing him to Hitler.
"How did they ever get away with it?
On Tuesday, the Justice Department released a batch of memos drafted in 2001 and 2002by lawyers in the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel. Written mainly by John Yoo, then a deputy director in the office, they laid out the purported legal justifications for a theory of presidential power amounting to virtual dictatorship."
(LA Times, March 5, 2009)
"Barack Obama ended four wars during his first week as president. With just a few words and strokes of his pen, the president ended the war on terror, the war on Islam, the war on science and the war on women." (LA Times January 29, 2009)
So now this character is going to wield considerable power in the Department of Defense, an appointment she refers to as her own "personal government bailout". God only knows what type of advice this lady will be handing out-perhaps some suggestions of the type of weapons our troops should be using. In the words of Zell Miller-"spitballs?"
Rachel Maddow here to tell you that it is time to put those tea bags down, do your patriotic duty and pay your taxes. Like Joe Biden says, it's your patriotic duty. Just ask my twin brother Tim (Turbo-Tax) Geithner. (You didn't know that, did you?)
When he was nominated for Treasury Secretary, Timmy chipped in and paid $34,000 that he had gotten away with because it was his patriotic duty to Pay His Fair Share.
Let me tell you folks why me, Keith Olbermann, Jeanene Garofalo, and all the kids at MSNBC didn't support your protests. It's because you commoners out there in the heartland have no clue how to do a real protest that can garner the support of us elites in the liberal news media.
First of all, you have to wave foreign flags-not those so uncool American flags.
Second, you have to be more unruly-you know, throw rocks at the police, break store front windows, pull motorists out their cars and beat them up, get arrested and scream "police brutality". That's a real protest.
Finally, you must show the proper respect to President Barack Obama. How dare you criticize the President of the United States. Besides, he's my brother Timmy's boss.
You also need to show more respect to reporters when they demand to know why you are protesting. Take CNN reporter Susan Roesgen (or whatever her name is) in Chicago. I never witnessed such disrespect in my life. The lady was only doing her job-which was to expose your protests as being orchestrated by the Republicans and that right-wing news organization Fox News. And what did she get? Insubordination, that's what! This despicable and shameful action has been reported to your Representative in Congress, Jan Schakowsky for appropriate action.
So tough luck you few hundred tea-baggers who turned ouy to protest in vain because President Obama-and my twin brother Timmy completely ignored you. In fact, Timmy said that President Obama even told him, "let them eat cake".
Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) issued a statement on the April 15 tax protests which is as follows:
“The ‘tea parties’ being held today by groups of right-wing activists, and fueled by FOX News Channel, are an effort to mislead the public about the Obama economic plan that cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans and creates 3.5 million jobs. It’s despicable that right-wing Republicans would attempt to cheapen a significant, honorable moment of American history with a shameful political stunt. Not a single American household or business will be taxed at a higher rate this year. Made to look like a grassroots uprising, this is an Obama bashing party promoted by corporate interests, as well as Republican lobbyists and politicians.”
Dispicable and shameful says Rep. Schakowsky. Indeed.
Speaking of taxes, here is something despicable and shameful, Ms Schakowsky. Have you ever heard of a guy named Robert Creamer? (You should. He's your husband.)
In March 2004, Creamer, who was the executive director of the Illinois Public Action Fund, was indicted in federal court on 16 counts of bank fraud involving check-kiting schemes which caused several banks to experience at least 2.3 million dollars in shortfalls during the 1990s.
Now that was despicable and shameful.
Nevertheless, Schakowsky supported her husband.
"He is innocent", said Schakowsky, who had served on the organization's board at the time the crimes occurred and signed the IRS income tax filings along with her husband.
In August 2005, Creamer pleaded guilty to one count of failure to collect withholding tax, and bank fraud for writing checks with insufficient funds. On April 5, 2006, Creamer was sentenced to five months in prison and 11 months of house arrest.
This is what Schakowsky had to say then.
"I am obviously disappointed that Bob's sentence included incarceration, but we accept the judge's decision and look forward to the day that we can finally put this nearly decade-long chapter behind us," Schakowsky said.
She went on to declare that she was proud that her husband "has for his entire adult life devoted himself to fighting for a better future for others -- he has been a constant crusader for social and economic justice in this country and beyond."
Creamer (who was also a crony of Rod Blagoyevich) is now crusading for social and economic justice by writing articles for the Huffington Post. Here's his bio as it appears on the HP:
"Robert Creamer has been a political organizer and strategist for almost four decades. He and his firm, the Strategic Consulting Group, work with many of the country’s most significant issue campaigns. He was one of the major architects and organizers of the successful campaign to defeat the privatization of Social Security. He is a consultant to the campaigns to end the war in Iraq, pass universal health care, change America’s budget priorities and enact comprehensive immigration reform. He has also worked on hundreds of electoral campaigns at the local, state and national level. Creamer is married to Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky from Illinois. Arianna Huffington calls his recent book, Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, a master’s class in electoral politics."
Show full bio
(when you click the above, it reads, "Hide full bio".) I'll say.
Incidentally, Schakowsky was one of those Illinois politicos who expressed interest in getting that notorious Senate appointment from Blago.
So the next time you hear Jan Schakowsky call those tax protests "despicable and shameful", rest assured she knows shameful and despicable when she sees it.
Last night, Keith Olbermann had one of his soul mates, Jeanene Garafalo on his show, "Countdown". The video is above.
So Ms Garofalo has concluded that all those people who demonstrated on 4-15 were all a bunch of white redneck racists who can't stand the thought of a black man being in the White House. This is what passes for reasoned discourse on MSNBC.
Seriously, as much as Olbermann and his cronies like to minimize the demonstrations-including how many people actually turned out- one has to wonder why they are so vociferous, or should I say vicious, in their denunciation of ordinary folks who turned out to protest.
Is it because they were unruly and out of control? No, because they were not.
Is it because they threw rocks at police? No, because they didn't.
Was it because of all the arrests that had to be made? No, because to my knowledge, there were not any.
Actually, the kinds of protesters that Olbermann and Garofalo support are the ones who do the above things. They're not used to hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding, America-loving people turning out to protest. So when they do, the Olbermanns and the Garofalos get all upset. After all, we're just supposed to shut up and keep paying more and more taxes.
Just what is it that people like Olbermann and Garofalo are afraid of, anyway?
The fact of the matter is that MSNBC is an embarrassment. Yet, I would never call for them to be taken off the air. That would be against my conservative principles. On the contrary, every time these smug, arrogant liberals open their collective pieholes and put down everyday Americans, they make our case for us. Someday, Olbermann will self-destruct and take that high-powered rifle to the top of the NBC HQs building in Midtown Manhattan, while, as for Garofalo, perhaps, we should pity her rather than get angry. Sean Hannity said on his radio show today that the lady is not all there, which would seem to explain it all for me.
To sum it up, Garofalo does what so many on the far-left do. According to her deductive power of reasoning, people who oppose higher taxes are all white racists.
This is CNN coverage of the tax protest in Chicago yesterday. It speaks for itself in demonstrating the disdain, contempt and condescension that this reporter has for the demonstrators.
The Department of Homeland Security has issued a nationwide alert for the below persons who have been deemed the greatest risk to national security.
If you see any of these persons, do not, repeat, do not attempt to apprehend. Pick up the phone and call the Department of Homeland Security at the below number:
(202) 282 8000
or call the comment line at:
(202) 282 8495
Ask to speak directly to Director Janet Napolitano.
On Tuesday of this week, UCLA held yet another forum on the Israel-Palestinian conflict in which no one was invited to speak for Israel. In other words, some thirty like-minded people gathered for the express purpose of bashing the state of Israel. No, I didn't go, but a colleague did, one who succeeded in making the principlal speaker look bad and rousing the wrath of the pro-Palestinian crowd.
The principal speaker was somebody named Marie Kennedy, who is a visiting professor at UCLA (from the University of Massachusetts-Boston) in community planning (whatever that is). Kennedy also belongs to an outfit called Grassroots International. She is another one of those types that likes to go to the Palestinian territories and bring back stories and pictures of Palestinian suffering-all because of the Israelis-never because of their own terrorist leadership (Hamas).
During the Q&A, our colleague managed to get in a couple of questions that revealed her (Kennedy) lack of expertise on the issue. Kennedy went back and forth on the question of whether US aid to Israel should be cut off entirely or just aid for military purposes. In effect, Ms Kennedy was unable to articulate a clear position as to why aid to Israel should be cut off but aid to Gaza should not be. On multiple occasions, Kennedy, unable to deal with the pointed questions, admitted she was not an expert and looked to a male seated to her right for help. The man attempted several times to answer the questions, and at one point, the questioner told him that the question was directed to Kennedy not him. By this point, the crowd was starting to get angry at the presence of a skunk at the garden party. One woman yelled at our colleague, "Israel isn't a democracy. It's an apartheid state."
Can't these folks come up with something original? Sounds like the same woman who yelled at me at the UC-Irvine event on January 31 that she was ashamed to be an American because the US was supplying the bombs to Israel that were being dropped on Palestinian babies.
It's bad enough that these anti-Israel groups have to drag in some professor who just happened to go to the Palestinian territories, but can't deal with someone with a different point of view. If she's not an expert, what the hell is she doing on the platform? Hell, I've been to France many times, but I would never try to stand in front of a crowd and give a talk about France.
But there also arises the issue of what kind of education is a university offering when no opposing voices are invited to take part in the panel. These panels or forums or whatever you want to call them are becoming a recurring feature at many universities, especially in California. They are one-sided to begin with, and opposing voices are not welcome, rather they draw angry reactions from the crowds. Another question is whether UCLA put its official imprimatur on the event, which could be a violation of state law.
When it comes to education, these events have as much credibility as roller derby.
Once upon a time, there lived a man called Blackbeard the Pirate. His real name was Edward Teach. Young Edward was born in England two or three hundred years ago (exactly when doesn't matter). England, at that time, was the center of the evil British Empire. While it reigned over much of the world, living conditions were extremely harsh at home. Children had to work in dreary factories that belched so much smoke into the atmosphere that the planet was in deadly peril. In short, England was a hellhole.
For a young lad like Edward, there were no real opportunities in life. So he did what many young Englishmen did. He joined the British armed forces,in his case, the Royal Navy. At that time, England was fighting against a bunch of other countries in one of their never-ending wars-in this case, the War of the Spanish Succession, in which Europe decided to go to war over who was going to be the next Spanish king-or some other silly cause, perhaps.
What happened to Edward was typical. He was turned into a trained killer. He was exposed to terrible fighting on the sea, experienced Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome, and when he left the Navy, there were no jobs available for him, so he turned to being a pirate-the only natural choice. He thus became known as Blackbeard the Pirate-and Victim.
As a pirate, Blackbeard was active in the Caribbean and the waters off the east coast of that other imperialistic state, the United States. Blackbeard struck terror into the hearts of those capitalistic shippers and their crews. He was noted for his long black beard. When he went into battle against the imperialists and capitalists, he would light matches in his beard, which would strike terror into the hearts of liberals who insisted on paying his ransoms. Efforts by the US Secretary of State to convince shipping companies not to sell him any boats were futile. Numerous conferences were called by the Secretary of State with all the colonies to find a solution always with no results.
One day, however, Blackbeard and his ship were attacked by a mercenary crew led by the CIA on the coast of North Carolina. Popular history records that Blackbeard was killed in this battle, but such was not the case. In reality, he was captured alive and taken to a secret prison camp in the swamps of North Carolina. Everything looked bleak for poor Blackbeard. But lo and behold, a new president was elected and reigned over the land with a kind and benevolent heart. Blackbeard was ordered to be turned over to the federal courts for a proper trial. He was given a lawyer, who promptly succeeded in having much of the evidence against Blackbeard thrown out due to an illegal search of his ship. His confession to being a pirate was also thrown out because the nasty CIA agents never advised him of his Miranda rights. In the end, the kindly old judge hearing the case dismissed all charges against Blackbeard.
At this point, the US attempted to deport Blackbeard back to England, but after numerous hearings that lasted for years, the Supreme Court ruled that sending Blackbeard back to England would constitute cruel and inhuman punishment because he would be forced to go back to work in one of those filthy factories that were polluting the environment.
In the end, Blackbeard was allowed to remain in the US. He achieved US citizenship and was hired to teach at Harvard University. His lectures were always filled to the rafters with students eager to hear him excoriate the US for violating his human rights and the rights of pirates everywhere. As a speaker, he was most eloquent, and his audiences were all captivated by his oratory.
"AAAARRRRRR"
Today, in his memory, Harvard University has named a scholarship in his name-the Edward Teach Scholarship, which is bestowed annually to the student who best exemplifies the qualities of Blackbeard the Pirate. "AAAARRRRR"
(All you history types, save your cards and letters.)
It's hard to put into words just how arrogant a man Keith Olbermann is after watching his performance on "Countdown" tonight, which was devoted to insulting the thousands of Americans who turned out to demonstrate against high taxes and profligate government spending today. And why did he insult them? Was it because they threw rocks at police, rioted or had to be taken off to jail? Hardly because that did not happen. No, Olbermann attacked them for having the temerity to protest high taxes and out-of-control spending.
Throughout his narrative, Olbermann continued the double-entendres begun by Rachel Maddow that link tea bags with oral sex. (One of the by-lines at the bottom of the screen read, "Tea-baggers go nuts".)
But leaving that aside, what was really outrageous was Olbermann's visceral insults directed toward the protesters. He referred to them as "slack-jawed tea baggers", "sheep" and "simpletons in Sacramento" as he personally attacked Fox commentator Neil Cavuto for his estimates of the crowd he was covering in the California state capitol. Olbermann went on to list many of the small (insignificant) towns that held rallies-an obvious slap at small town America.
As his guests, Olbermann started off with Howard Fineman, who covered the event in Louisville. Fineman also had less than kind words for the protesters. They were "localists, not globalists", in the judgement of Fineman, people who had no idea of the larger world out there. He quoted the old song, "Make the world go away", which "tells you something about the mentality of these people".
Then it was some guy from Texas named James Moore, who co-authored a hit piece on George W Bush called, "Bush's Brain", and who proceeded to tear down Texas Governor Rick Perry and "all those voices in Texas calling for secession". Yes, Olbermann and this character actually engaged in a serious dialogue about the "Texas secession movement".
After that, the show degenerated into a serious discussion of the DHS report about "right-wing extremists", giving it proper credence and respect, more shots at Fox News, George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly until I couldn't take any more and turned it off.
What is truly sad is that Olbermann is obviously a man driven by anger and contempt for anything and anyone conservative. His treatment of former President Bush, which still continues, as well as his obsession with Bill O'Reilly strikes me as pathological. I have often written of him in humourous terms, but what I witnessed tonight was downright sickening. From his perch in Midtown Manhattan, Keith Olbermann holds Middle America in utter contempt. He is a poster child for all that is wrong in our mainstream media.
Reading Hillary Clinton's new grand anti-piracy plan she unveiled today reminded me of an incident back in the 1970s when I was stationed in Bangkok with DEA. We had received information from our Seattle office that an American heroin smuggler who had just been indicted was located in a small Bangkok hotel where he was in the process of sending more heroin into the US. It was requested that we take the Thai police and have him arrested for extradition back to the US.
When we got to the hotel, the Thai cops and I proceeded to the second floor where the suspect's room was located. He was in the room, but the Thais were concerned that he might flush any heroin he had if someone knocked on the door. The cops then proceeded to pose some ruses we could use to get him to open the door. One cop proposed going into the adjoining room and crawling through the ceiling then dropping down into the suspect's room, whereupon, we would all say, "Sawat dii" (bad idea). Another cop proposed calling him from the lobby and telling him he had a package from Teheran.....
Teheran?!? My idea, on the other hand, was simpler:
"Kicko el dooro downo".
At this point, the door to the room opened, El Bad Guy came out and said to us, "hey, can't a guy get any sleep around here?" at which point the Thais proceeded to grab him. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now here is Hillary Clinton's grand proposal for dealing with "the scourge of piracy".
The State Department will seek ways to track and freeze pirate assets.
It "could be possible" to find ways to get boat building companies to stop doing business with pirates.
Work with shippers and insurers to help them strenghten their defense against pirates.
Call for immediate meetings of an international anti-pirate task force.
The State Department will call on Somali Government leaders (whoever they are) and tribal leaders to crack down on pirates.
And last but not least, the State Department will seek to increase aid to Somalia's "government" at a donors conference next week in Belgium. Of course.
Hey Hillary! How 'bout we call the pirates and tell them they got a package from Teheran?
Bottom line? Hillary has no ideas. She's just making it up as she goes along like she always does. She is talking about blue ribbon commissions, police actions as opposed to miltary ones, international cooperation with "allies" that are unwilling to use military force (except, interestingly, the French, who have rescued a couple of their ships), pleading with mysterious Somali "leaders" to police their own country and giving more aid to one of Africa's biggest stinkholes. Brilliant.
Here's my idea. If it is, in fact, in America's vital national interest to keep those shipping lanes safe for American ships, then it's time to send in the rockets. Forget the land troops. Forget the helicopters. Just identify the boats and wipe 'em out. Howzat?
"Excellent article, Paul. What is wrong with those commoners, anyway?"
What does it say about our media when that once-in-a-blue-moon event comes along in which ordinary law-abiding, tax-paying citizens get angry enough to hold protests against the government and the media gives it a big thumbs down? That's exactly what is happening today as thousands of ordinary citizens are holding "tea parties" to protest the outrageous taxes and profligate spending being hoisted on us by our government.
Take for example, the clowns at MSNBC who call themselves journalists and commentators (I am referring to Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, David Shuster and the guy who wants to have President Obama's baby, Chris Matthews). I already wrote on the high-brow dismissal of the tea parties by Shuster and Lawrence O'Donnell a couple of nights ago. Last night, Maddow (the one who closely resembles our Secretary of the Treasury) used her nightly show to make repeated joking references to "tea-bagging". I must confess that I was not previously aware of the sexual connotation of "tea bagging"- but I am now (you'll have to look it up yourself.) Seriously, is this what a professional political talk-show host is supposed to blabber about on TV?
Then there is the New York Times editorial by that Nobel Prize-winning idiot, Paul (the worm) Krugman this week. He writes about how the tea parties have been the subject of "considerable mockery, and rightly so." He also attempts to imply that the tea parties are a creation of the GOP and talks about how attendees at tea parties claim Obama is a Muslim, the Clintons are murderers, and so on and so forth. In other words, Mr Krugman is telling his readers that they should ignore the protests because they are all just a bunch of crazies. He then goes on to link the whole thing to Rush Limbaugh, Tom Delay and any other conservative target he can think of.
Mr Krugman should come out to California and attend one of the tea parties. He would see that the GOP is just as much the object of anger as the Democrats since they are perceived to have sold the tax-payers out on the recent state tax hikes. Similarly, though there may be several Republicans in Congress who want lower taxes, the general perception is that the whole lot of the politicians in Washington are corrupt and should be thrown out-Republicans included.
Mr Krugman even referred back (as I did this week) to that Florida incident in the 2000 recount-the "spontaneous riot actually orchestrated by GOP activists that shut down the presidential vote recount in Florida's Miami-Dade County". Krugman, who spends his life running between the New York Times and the Halls of Ivy, wouldn't know a riot if one ran right over him.
So far, the reports I hear from various demonstrations all over the country describe scenes of hundreds or thousands of peaceful demonstrators lobbying their government for redress. In one account, a demonstrator phoned in to a radio talk show describing a sullen news camera crew standing silently by, apparently frustrated that no one was throwing rocks at police or having to be arrested.
I would suggest that these arrogant media-types climb down off their perches and ask themselves what is so objectionable about ordinary citizens peacefully protesting high taxes and wild government spending. I would submit that people like Maddow, Shuster, Krugman and all the rest are sadly out of touch with mainstream America. Maybe if they got out of New York, Boston and Washington a bit, they might get a clue as to what every-day people are feeling.
Tomorrow, April 15, is not only the day taxes are due, it is a day that will be marked all over the US by angry tax-payers, who are tired of seeing their taxes raised in hard times by a government-be it federal-state or local that never tires of wasting our money. Tomorrow, thousands of people are expected to turn out at "tea parties" all over the nation to show their displeasure.
Given today's revelation about the Dept. of Homeland Security report on the "threat from rightwingers', I suppose dozens of agents will be assigned to infiltrate the demonstrations, take photos, write down license numbers, identify the ringleaders and make sure all the names get into the DHS computer system. Maybe the National Guard will be called out to maintain order.
The media on the left is also taking note with a critical eye. Last night on MSNBC's "Countdown", liberal commentator David Shuster, sitting in for liberal commentator Keith Olbermann, was interviewing liberal commentator Lawrence O'Donnell (that's all they have on MSNBC) on the subject. O'Donnell opined that the whole thing was ill-advised, no leader wanted to be identified with it, and anger was misdirected since tax increases came about when Bush was president-not Obama.
Mr O'Donnell conveniently left out California, which just got hit with the biggest state tax increase in US history even though we were already the most heavily-taxed state in the country. Who was responsible for that? A Democrat-run state legislature, aided by Republican-in-name only Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and a handful of Republican sell-outs (who are now on their way to being recalled by the voters).
Mr O'Donnell, we are angry at both parties. We are angry at the Democrats because your party should be renamed the Tax and Spend Party. We are angry at Republicans because they have not done what they promised they would do-fight new taxes and fight unnecessary government spending. We are angry at the entire government-federal, state and local for what they are doing to us so they can get more money to spend on their pet projects for their pet constituent groups.
And what do the likes of Lawrence O'Donnell and David Shuster say?
"How dare they?"
In reality, it's only once in a blue moon that normal, everyday folks are stirred up enough to protest because we normally appreciate our country and are happy to live here. It's almost always the far-left crazies who turn out to protest this or that because they essentially believe America is a really bad place. But when people like tax-payers say, "enough is enough", by the reaction on the left, you would think the Republic was on the brink of collapse. The last time I remember such a reaction was the 2000 election fiasco in Florida when a group of white Republican guys in suits in Miami tried to prevent a handful of Democrat vote counters from taking the ballots into a closed room to count. From the mainstream news accounts, you would have thought blood was flowing in the streets of Miami. Absurd.
So it will be interesting to see how the media covers (if they cover it at all) these events. Will the protesters be described as a handful of kooks or dangerous rightwingers intent on toppling the Republic? Or will they ask the question "the whole world wants to know"....
I knew when Janet Napolitano was appointed the head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)it was a lousy choice. What were her credentials to begin with-that she was the governor of Arizona, a state whose borders were being overrun with the flow of illegal aliens? Now she is exhibiting the politicization of a federal law enforcement agency under a liberal administration by issuing a DHS "assessment" of the threat of ...........
Extreme Right-wingers
Don't take my word for it. The handbook is online and you can read the following excerpts yourself. (I got these from Michelle Malkin.com)
Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.
"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
Comment: Please be specific, DHS. Who are the groups or movements you are talking about? Hate-oriented? We know about the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Brotherhood, but who else are you talking about on the right? The KKK and the Aryan Brotherhood are guilky of racial hate, but what other conservative issues are they even aware of, frankly? If the DHS hacks who produced this document want to accuse conservatives of being racists, that is an old canard that has no basis in fact.
As for the anti-government stuff, please be more specific. There are highly-trained legal minds who argue for less government or that states should have more authority vis-a-vis the federal government. So what? Was Ronald Reagan a dangerous right-wing extremist when he preached that government was the problem and should be smaller and less intrusive? No, it is a legitimate political and philosophical question that should always be open to debate in a free society.
As for the single issue examples that are mentioned (abortion and immigration), aside from a few kooks, there are millions of people in this country who think abortion is morally wrong. Are they dangerous rightwing extremists? When the handbook mentions "immigration", don't you think they should have said "illegal immigration"? Few of us are opposed to legal immigration. We are opposed to illegal immigration, and why should we apologize for it? We have the law on our side. All we are saying is enforce the law. But to say that people are against "immigration" implies racism-particularly against Hispanics. My wife is a Mexican immigrant, for cryin' out loud.
"Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical (stress mine)election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers."
Comment: Note the subtle political jab by pointing out President Obama's election as "historic". Implication? Rightwingers are opposed to the election of a black president. We are racists. In addition, we are extremists because we disagree with Obama's leftwing agenda. What rightwing extremists, DHS, capitalized on racial prejudices to try and defeat Obama in the election? The only ones I detected were on the Hillary Clinton campaign. Who, DHS, stated that Obama should be defeated in the election because he was black? Which "propaganda campaigns" are you referring to, DHS?
Exploiting Economic Downturn
"Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.” These “accusatory” tactics are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize those already subscribing to extremist beliefs. DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen."
This is a slam dunk. I would like DHS to name these anti-Semitic elements on the right who speak of a Jewish cabal of financial elites. I can name some names, but they are not on the right. It is on the right that you find support for Israel and documentation of anti-Semitism coming from the supporters of those who want to destroy Israel. So, I am going to do what DHS didn't do and name names. They are the radical Muslim elements, not only in the Middle East, who openly speak of Jews in the same manner as the Nazis did in the 1930-40s, but right here in the US, Canada and Europe- aided and abetted by their leftist radical supporters on university campuses. Jewish banking cabal? Go back and watch Maxine Waters, hardly a rightwinger, questioning Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner about "talk going around" about Goldman-Sachs and their role in the financial mess. It was obvious what she was implying (It's the Jews). DHS should check out the blogosphere (which apparently they are doing) and see which end of the spectrum is defending Jews against a very real resurgence in anti-Semitism. I suggest they start with this very blog.
From the report, p. 5:
"Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point, and recruiting tool. Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent."
Comment: I think I adequately addressed this issue above, but if they are referring to groups like the Minutemen, I would point out that this group has not, to my knowledge, committed one violent, provocative or illegal act in carrying out their mission on the border. What acts can DHS point to where opponents of illegal immigration have engaged in violence against illegal aliens?
Disgruntled Military Veterans
"DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today."
Comment: Please be specific. It doesn't say that "extremists are attempting to recruit and radicalize returning veterans". It says they "will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans". What basis or empirical evidence does DHS have for this prediction, which can only cast a shadow over our servicemen, women and veterans? It is insulting, and, like the other statements made in the report, is not backed up by any concrete evidence. It is speculation.
p. 8:
"DHS/I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization."
Comment: Ominous. It basically says that if you disagree with the current administration, you are going to be investigated.
What is going on here is what we can expect when the far-left takes over federal law enforcement. There are voices of dissent out there, and the new administration, along with their Democratic majority, is looking for ways to stifle said dissent-witness the attempt to revive the Fairness Doctrine-targeted at conservative talk radio.
Of course, for eight years, George Bush, who was called every name in the book by his opponents, was accused of trying to stifle dissent, but there was never any substance to those charges. If there was such an attempt, how come every day, we heard the press, media, Hollywood, the Democrats and universities screaming bloody murder about Bush, Cheney et al?
Some stifling of dissent.
But now that we have a Democrat in the White House and a Democrat-controlled Congress, we are all supposed to shut up. If we disagree with the direction the country is going, we are labeled dangerous rightwing extremists who must be investigated. And don't forget those guns that they are so in love with. Gotta do something about that too. (It was mentioned above by DHS.)
Let's set partisanship aside (if it's possible). Those of who voted for Obama remember very well how unhappy you were with President Bush-and you made your feelings known every day till the day he left office. Are you comfortable with this document put out by DHS?
If DHS can identify any individuals who are preaching racial or religious hatred and advocating violence, revolution or threatening the physical well-being of the president, then they should investigate such persons or organizations. To simply identify the threat as being "Rightwing extremists" is not only irresponsible, but implies that our freedom of speech may be under attack by the current government-namely, the Dept.of Homeland Security.
Afterthought: Wasn't DHS created to fight terrorists?
(Tip of the hat to UN Watch and my friend and colleague, Reut Cohen for the above video)
The above video is from the March 2009 UN session on the forthcoming Durban II conference to be held in Geneva, and which will be nothing more than an exercise in condemning Israel.
Note the voices speaking on this issue; Libya, Iran, Cuba, China, and Saudi Arabia. Then listen as UN Watch debunks all that this conference stands for.
Make no mistake about it; I am a Sean Hannity fan. Not only do I agree philosophically with him, I also know that Sean does a lot of good work on the side, for example, raising funds for our wounded soldiers and Marines. Having said that, I have to be critical of his new Fox show, "Hannity", re-structured after the departure of his liberal co-host, Alan Colmes.
First of all, Hannity's show is very one-sided, notwithstanding the appearances of folks like Bob Beckel, who offer some measure of debate. The new version of the show only gives Fox opponents more ammunition to deride Fox's claim of "fair and balanced" coverage. (I always have considered Fox to be more fair and balanced than the others, but still leaning conservative.) As it stands now, Hannity's show is more similar to the shows of Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow on MSNBC (which are completely one-sided-no debate-no opposing voices).
Tonight, Bernie Goldberg chastised Hannity on his show for his attempt to find criticism in President Obama's handling of the pirate incident. Goldberg pointed out that had Obama made an ill-advised comment during the standoff and the ship captain had been harmed, Hannity would have led the charge to condemn the President. Goldberg's point was that conservatives can only lose credibility if they refuse to give any praise whatsoever to Obama no matter what he does. I have to agree with that assessment.
Undoubtedly, there will be plenty of opportunities to find fault with Obama's handling of foreign policy if he stumbles. It may be entirely possible that the people in the White House behaved like politicians once the naval rescue operation proved successful. The fact remains, however, that the president, whomever he/she may be, gets credit as Commander-in-Chief when a military operation is a success. Let's acknowledge the success here and hope that it will inspire the president to organize an international operation to clean up this pirate mess once and for all. It doesn't seem that complicated. It just requires a little will and ruthlessness.
It seems like forever since we've been able to feel so good. Too many indignities, too many humiliations, too many instances of the rest of the world spitting in our faces. Today, our US Navy did us proud, once again underscoring why our military is the most-respected institution in American society. Three snipers took out three pirates as the 4th was taken into custody-and Capt. Phillips was rescued unharmed. Virtually everyone performed brilliantly, from the heroic actions of Capt. Phillips himself in offering himself up as a hostage for the sake of his crew, to the Navy and FBI hostage rescue team. Praise must also go to President Obama for allowing the Navy to do its job as they were trained to do.
It is now up to the civilized world to set to the task of rescuing the 250 some odd hostages who remain in the hands of this scum on Somalia's shores and ending this scourge once and for all. One way or another, these pirates' existence has to be terminated.
It will be interesting to see who second-guesses our actions or remains mute. Surely, there must be some hand-wringers in the UN who will suggest there might have been another way to rescue Capt. Phillips without killing the three pirates. What will Code Pink or Cindy Sheehan have to say?
This week's test of President Obama's will has been resolved positively. Further tests lie ahead, and hopefully, this event will set the pattern for his foreign policy vis-a-vis piracy and terrorism.
Just when I thought Hillary Clinton couldn't get any tackier, along comes this el stinko. Still owing some 5.4 million dollars from her failed presidential campaign, Hillary and her motley pals have come up with a grand scheme to pay off the debt.
Introducing the Friends of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Raffle. (Her friends are James Carville and Paul Begala.)
It works something like this; Each ticket costs 5 dollars. The winning tickets get one of the following:
Tickets to the finale of American Idol (date with Paula Abdul not included)
A day spent with Hillary's erstwhile hubby, Bill Clinton, in New York City (date included depending on winner)
A day in Washington DC and lunch with Carville and Begala "I'll just have a glass of water, please."
During lunch, you'll be talking politics-you know, stuff like how to destroy political opponents and such.
It'll be interesting to see who ponies up the most tickets (you know, the more tickets you buy, the more chance you have to win). Oh him? That's just King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. He'll probably buy a couple of tickets.
What a classy idea. The Secretary of State having a raffle.
There is a disturbing video going around courtesy of Volkskrant (Netherlands). On December 7, in Paris, a young Frenchman was attacked on a bus by a group of foreign punks. While no one came to his defense, fleeing the bus instead, the young man was robbed and beaten as his assailents called him names such as "a miserable Frenchman". In addition, the bus driver also refused to come to his aid, preferring to sit in his seat and push the silent alarm. (Police did arrive and make arrests).
Subsequently, the bus company filed a complaint against the agent who released this clip from the security camera.
Up to now, I haven't written anything about President Obama bowing to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, but the comment by White House Press Spokesman, Robert Gibbs, has only exacerbated the issue. When asked about it during a press briefing, Gibbs stated that the President didn't bow-only bent down.
Funny, I didn't see that quarter lying on the floor.
That reminds me of the old Clinton line that oral sex wasn't sex (but it is now-or was it the other way around?)
In all seriousness, why can't the Obama camp just admit he bowed and forget about it? This guy Gibbs just can't concede one little point, and now he's compounded the issue by making a Clintonian denial. But as they say on the left, if we get down to the root cause of the problem, none of this would have happened if the Secretary of State had properly advised the President that bowing to an oil potentate is not considered proper protocol for a President of the United States. That's you, Hillary.
So my advice to President Obama is to flip that quarter he was "bending down" to pick up; if it's heads, fire Gibbs. If it's tails, fire Hillary.
After 9-11, one of the first things I did was to check out an English-language Koran from the library. I wanted to get an insight into what this Islamic religion was all about. I wanted to know if the hijackers who killed three thousand human beings on that terrible day were really true Muslims following the dictates of their faith or simply crazed fanatics who were actually "hijacking" Islam-to borrow a commonly heard term.
As I understand it, the Koran, which like the Bible, can be interpreted different ways, and appears to have contradictions, is divided into suras or chapters, if you will. Each sura is in order of length, longest being first, shortest being last. Since the Koran was written down over a period of years, contradictory statements are resolved by taking the latter writing as "abrogating" any earlier writing that differs. (At least, that is my understanding. Muslims feel free to correct me.)
Much of the writing in the Koran is innocuous or easy to approve of. Yet, what struck me was the fact that over and over, there are references to non-believers burning in Hell. Of course, that is also a tenet of Christianity, but you don't see the constant references to this belief in the Bible. It seems to me that the constant references to Hell can only serve to instill in a Muslim the idea that non-Muslims are bad people.
Of course, there are the more controversial passages in the Koran and the hadiths that refer to Christians and Jews as "apes" and pigs", the statement of the rocks and trees about a Jew "hiding behind me-come and kill him" (hadith), the references to battle, killing the non-believers, and on and on. Add to that the undeniable fact that the Prophet Mohammed was also a military leader, who was responsible for the deaths of thousands, and there is another cause for concern.
Clearly, millions of Muslims over the past several centuries have lived their lives not putting these ideas into practice, just as millions of Muslims live their lives today-concerned about making a living, taking care of their families, and living in peace and harmony with the rest of the world.
Yet, there are those who are determined to put the former ideas into practice. There are those who are determined to place non-Muslims into subjugation-or dhimmitud-if not kill them. There are those who have embraced hatred and murder-all in the name of God-the same God that Christians and Jews worship as being our Creator.
So I would like to pose a few questions to those who subscribe to the militant, violent form of Islam, those who preach hatred in certain mosques, those who feel a need to join the (violent) jihad against non-Muslims.
First of all, if God is indeed the Creator of all humankind, why would He want some of us (who are Muslims) to kill His other children-including those children (Jews and Christians) who also worship Him? That would also include all His children, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, etc, though they may not accept His existence.
What about those in the Far East, such as Buddhists? Once the Jews and Christians are gone, do you intend to go after them as well-as non-believers?
Who appointed you as judge and executioner of who is not worthy of life based on their faith or lack thereof in God? Should that not be left to God Himself? I say "based on their faith" because I support the death penalty for crimes such as murder, as well as killing in self-defense etc.
If a Muslim becomes an apostate-should not that be left with God to deal with?
If God is all powerful, why does He need you to defend Him? Isn't God beyond the reach of any human who would do Him harm? Won't God be there forever-regardless of whether Man believes in Him or not?
If Muslims, Christians and Jews all worship the same God, which is more important in determining who goes to Heaven-our love of God-or who we accept as our Prophet? (I acknowledge that the same question could be posed to Christians).
For those of you who have immigrated to non-Muslim countries, what gives you the right to try and impose your values on the rest of us and trash our own values? Do you really think you can win acceptance in that manner?
Regarding Israel, what if magically, tomorrow, every Jew in Israel converted to Islam? Would the whole problem be resolved? If so, doesn't that indicate that the issue is not land, rather religion?
Why is it after the creation of Israel in 1948 that Jews living in Muslim countries were driven out-by the hundreds of thousands?
Finally this: Does it ever give you pause the image you are projecting of Islam around the world? Why should anyone consider embracing a religion that is associated, rightfully or wrongfully, with hatred, violence, death, destruction and subjugation? Should non-Muslims convert to Islam out of fear or honest conviction?
After those questions, I leave you with a personal comment. I recognize that not all Muslims in the world subscribe to your agenda. To those Muslims, I wish them peace. But to those who are dedicated to the messages of hatred, violence and the imposition of Islamic Shariah law on our country, with all its stripping away of our hard-earned freedoms that we cherish, I say never. Don't be fooled by the weak Europeans and leftist/academic Americans who have either succumbed to you or support you respectively. The majority of Americans will fight to the death to resist your oppression.
And we will expect our peaceful and decent American Muslims to join us.
"We're gonna get a whole bunch of hostages today, right, Bob?"
(Tip of the hat to the great Don Martin)
News update:
Somali pirates are reportedly sailing to rescue their compatriots who are surrounded by the US Navy. May God speed them on their journey and give them a favorable wind. (Hee hee).
"We (US and Morocco) worked together to end piracy..." (Please don't send this woman to Germany.)
Don't you just love the way Hillary Clinton shifts her eyes around when she is making things up? The above shot was Hillary's response to the pirate issue off Somalia. Of course, she is talking about international cooperation to end the scourge of piracy. It will be most interesting to see how that plays out since, up to now, these Somali pirates are collecting their ransoms from all those other weak-sister nations.
By the way, wasn't tough-talkin' Hillary spouting off about a "tough" response if North Korea launched that missile? Well, they launched it, and it looks like we're going to the good old feckless UN for another one of those "strong resolutions".
But back to the issue at hand. The reason Hillary started to crack up was because she was referring to the Barbary Wars back in Thomas Jefferson's time, when the US went to war off the North African coast to end the "scourge" of piracy. No wonder her Moroccan counterpart was also cracking up. They were one of the Barbary states.
By all means, NATO should be patrolling those waters and taking care of the Somali pirates in summary fashion the way pirates used to be treated when captured. (And you ACLU types, don't talk to me about bringing them to the US or The Hague for a court trial. They are not entitled.)
The US Navy now has a golden opportunity to set an international example. First, they need to rescue the ship captain who is being held hostage. If they have to make a deal to let the pirates go-fine.
That's how Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa described Los Angeles Tuesday-the city he has led as mayor for the past 5 years. Not exactly a ringing endorsement is it? The question is-why is the once-great city of Los Angeles in such a mess?
We could start off by pointing out that LA is the nation's largest magnet for illegal aliens coming from Mexico and Central America. Part of that is because Southern California has always had a large Spanish-speaking population. Part of it has to be blamed on the federal government's failure to secure our borders. But a large part of it is that LA has put out the welcome mat for illegal aliens. In fact, the LAPD has been saddled with Special Order 40, which prevents cops from effectively grabbing illegal aliens who are also known gang members-a subject I have written about often. The Jamiel Shaw murder case by an illegal alien gang member who had just been released from jail-and never turned over to ICE- is a classic example of the city's negligence. Why wouldn't an illegal alien (whether he be an honest worker or gang member) head for Los Angeles-or San Francisco, which is also a "sanctuary city"?
The practical effect of LA and San Francisco's sanctuary policies is that they are actively inviting the poorest of the poor to come to their cities. San Francisco has been especially receptive to the homeless (who are rarely Latin immigrants, by the way), who now patrol the city streets. In LA, my own-father-in-law and his neighbors in Venice are plagued by homeless who camp out in front of his house, which is located on a busy intersection. Complaints to the police and the city has achieved zero results.
So before Mayor Villaraigosa (who, along with San Francisco playboy Mayor Gavin Newsom, has dreams of becoming governor) complains about his city's dilemma, he might want to ask himself what his responsibility is for the situation. This is a mayor, who, along with the city government and a lap-dog police chief (William Bratton) has imported the very folks into the city who have now made LA the capital of virtually every negative statistic that can be applied to a municipality. This is a guy who hops around the country campaigning for Hillary Clinton and then Obama, and then comes home to LA, where he hops around the nightlife circuit while the city crumbles around him-and then complains about it. What is he doing to alleviate the problem-other than asking Washington for money? Nothing.
"Why do I gotta meet those yahoos from the US? I got better things to do. Give 'em a few autographed cigars and tell'em to come back tomorrow."
This week, members of the Congressional Black Caucus traveled to Cuba where they kissed the ring of dictator Fidel Castro. Predictably, they are now calling for an end to the US embargo. You won't believe the comments they came back and made.
Rep Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) stated, "For the past 50 years, the United States has been swimming in the Caribbean Sea of delusion," and described the United States as "the isolated nation" compared to those sophisticated European countries which have diplomatic ties with Havana. (Yes, and don't forget all those European tourists who flock to Cuba to take advantage of the teenage prostitutes.)
"This is the dawning of a new day," said Rep. Bobby Rush, (D-IL) (a former Black Panther who pointedly injected race into the controversy swarming around the Blagoyevich-appointed Illinois Senator Roland "Trailblazer" Burris. "Fifty years of foolishness is over. It's time for the children to sit in the corner and the adults to take over."
and this:
".....So I know foolhardy approaches and asinine labels when I see them," said Rep. Rush. "American people need to be told the truth and they have been lied to for too long about the threat from Cuba." (I wish somebody would tell me the truth about the threat from Illinois. As for Rush, I'm glad his statements were reduced to writing because no one can understand what the hell he says.)
Rep. Laura Richardson, (D-Ca), was one of those who actually met with The Great Leader. She reported that Castro was alert and "looked directly into our eyes, quite aware of what was happening".
I wonder if Castro was alert enough to ask Richardson if she had paid off on all those foreclosed homes she left behind in California when she was elected to Congress (see my posting on Richardson dated August 19, 2008 entitled, "Deadbeat Congresswoman-Meet Laura Richardson").
Then there was Barbara Lee, (D-CA) who was the only member of Congress to vote against a resolution authorizing force after 9-11. She described Castro as "engaging and energetic (as any dictator should be when he orders the imprisonment of dissidents).
On Tuesday, the Cuban government issued a press release in which Castro said that one of the members of the delegation told him that the United States should "apologize" to Cuba. Castro also reportedly stated that another member of the delegation told him that despite the recent election of President Obama, American society is still "racist." (All of the delegation members have subsequently denied making the above statements.)
So welcome home, Members of Congress. As you are crossing the Caribbean, you might keep an eye out for Cynthia McKinney trying to get back to the US in her boat, "The Leakin Lena", which had a mishap while trying to deliver God knows what to the Gazans while they fighting the Israelis. I figure if the boat is still afloat, she should be somewhere in the Caribbean about now. Hopefully, she will land in Cuba-and stay there.
The above video shows Joel Pollak, a Harvard Law School student, politely asking Barney Frank what responsibility he (Frank) took for the current bank meltdown. This exchange occurred at Harvard on April 6.
Note how defensive Frank gets after being posed the question (twice). Note how Frank starts talking about "right-wing" types who oppose him.
Barney Frank is not only an incompetent boob, who has played a major role in this financial fiasco with the banks; Barney Frank is also an arrogant man.
Below is an article that appeared in the Santa Cruz Sentinel yesterday concerning the planned elimination of UC Santa Cruz's Community Studies department due to budget considerations. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Santa Cruz Sentinel April 7, 2009
Budget ax to fall on UCSC's popular and controversial Community Studies department
By GENEVIEVE BOOKWALTER
SANTA CRUZ -- The Community Studies Department at UC Santa Cruz, a popular program that to many is a symbol of the university itself, faces the fate that the many conservative pundits who mock it have long sought.
In the wake of the ongoing recession, university officials have proposed cutting the department's undergraduate administrative staff, thus eliminating it from campus as of July 1. The news was delivered Wednesday by Sheldon Kamieniecki, dean of social sciences, to department staff.
While conservative commentators like Gary Fouse and David Horowitz have called the Community Studies Department "the outline of a political agenda," local nonprofits said they will be devastated by the closure; each year hundreds of students volunteer locally as part of the department's curriculum.
At the Santa Cruz Boys and Girls Club, for example, director Alex Fey said almost all of his UCSC volunteers come through the Community Studies Department, and he receives as many as six in one year. Fey said he considers the students to be role models for younger kids whom he hopes will attend college, too.
"The Community Studies Department is perhaps the biggest resource in terms of student engagement in the community," said Fey, who moved to Santa Cruz in 2007 to lead the club. "I thought UCSC was a science-based school, and then I found out about Community Studies and thought, This is wonderful.'"
The Community Studies Department was founded in 1969 on the then-fledgling UC Santa Cruz campus. It promotes itself as an "interdisciplinary major that integrates scholarship and community engagement. ... Across radically changing political landscapes, the department has maintained a focus on identifying, analyzing and helping to construct sites for social change and cultural transformation." About 135 students will graduate from the department this spring.
Forty years after it was founded, the department's graduates can be found on the staffs of many local nonprofits like the Santa Cruz AIDS Project, Community Action Board and Barrios Unidos. Its volunteers can be found inside the doors of many more worldwide, as students work part time with local groups and serve six-month "field studies" that involve volunteering full time at nonprofits of their choice anywhere on the globe. The department has inspired similar programs at University of Maryland and University of Massachusetts.
"We don't have a football team, we don't have a business school, we don't have civil engineering. What we have are huge numbers of interns that serve social programs in this community," said Mike Rotkin, the department's field studies coordinator and a Santa Cruz councilman. "The university wants to cut the one thing that actually provides a service to the citizens of Santa Cruz."
The department has come under fire in recent years as conservative pundits point to classes like "Whiteness, Racism and Anti-Racism," "Experiments in Community: Utopia and Communalism in Post-War California" and "Wal-Mart Nation" as examples that students are being "indoctrinated" into their professors' liberal agendas. Horowitz has called UCSC "the most radical university in the United States" and pointed to it and the Community Studies Department in the introduction to his latest book, "One-Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America's Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine Our Democracy."
UCSC staff said the proposed cuts to the Community Studies Department are not the result of political persuasion, but are necessary as they try to slice $13 million from the university budget.
"The scale of our cuts has left me with no easy choices," Kamieniecki said, noting that the Community Studies cuts total about 15 percent of Social Sciences' assigned budget reduction of $1.3 million.
He added: "On UC campuses, decisions to add or eliminate undergraduate majors are made by faculty within those divisions and in full consultation with the campus's Academic Senate. Such decisions cannot deny currently enrolled students who have declared that major, current students who have proposed declaring that major, or incoming students who have declared that major with the opportunity to earn a degree in that discipline."
Kamieniecki said it was "premature" to discuss the details of what other cuts might be made and where.
Sophomore Elena Rossman, 20, said students would not let go of the department without a fight.
"This major trains community activists and organizers," Rossman said. "So they're kind-of messing with the wrong people."
She's not the only one upset. A Facebook group, "Coalition to Save Community Studies," had nearly 1,400 members by Monday evening.
A meeting tonight at Oakes College on campus is expected to draw hundreds, as is a Q&A event with Chancellor George Blumenthal at 6 p.m. Thursday in the College 9/10 Recreation Lounge. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Say hello to the Bad Guy.
Apparently, the Sentinel somehow found my March 16 posting (UC Santa Cruz-America's Wackiest University?), which pointed out some of the ridiculous programs taught within the Community Studies and History of Consciousness departments. David Horowitz has also pointed out the fact that these departments are little more than indoctrination centers for the "community activists" and "revolutionaries of tomorrow".
I seriously doubt that anything that David Horowitz or I said or wrote was a significant factor in UCSC's decision. If a credible institution is going to have to make cuts, what does one cut first-Spanish/German and French-or Community Studies? Science, biology, history or History of Consciousness? This should be a no-brainer, and hopefully, the next one to go will be Angela Davis' History of Consciousness Department, which does nothing but occupy valuable real estate.
Of course, the left-wing faculty and students as well as Ms Bookwalter (who wrote the above sob story) will not be happy with the decision. But look on the bright side; hopefully, now students will graduate from UCSC with some real knowledge to go with that diploma-knowledge that will serve them in the real world.
1 "The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness (of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae), the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the Federal Government doesn't bail them out. But the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing." (2003)
a Fibber McGee b Molly c George Bush d Dick Cheney e Unidentified lunatic in an insane asylum f Barney Frank
If you guessed "f", you're a winner!!! (If you guessed "c" or "d", you're a Democrat. If you guessed "a" or "b", you're a really old fart.)
2 "We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Frank Raines" (2004)
a Fibber McGee b Molly c Bernie Madoff d Frank Raines e Unidentified lunatic in an insane asylum f Maxine Waters
I'm not going to come down too hard on President Obama for his attempt to reach out to Muslims during his stop in Turkey-as some have. At a press conference, he assured his listeners that the US was not or ever had been at war with Islam.
Fair enough. Of course, what everybody knows there are a fair number of Muslims in the world who are at war against the US and the West in the name of Islam-among other issues, of course.
Choosing Turkey to make his appeal was a wise choice given the unique situation Turkey occupies. First of all, Turkey, since the rule of Kemal Ataturk, Turkey's national hero, has been secular in its approach to religion. Ataturk maintained a separation between church and state. As any visitor to Turkey will attest (I have been there twice), Turks are not only allowed to drink alcohol, but partake quite enthusiastically. Their national drink is raki, similar to the Greek uzo. In addition, they produce one of the world's best beers, Efes Pilson. The Turks are a tough but friendly people, and Turkey is a genuinely nice country.
Unfortunately, the call of Jihad and Islamic fundamentalism has infected some Turks both in Turkey and in Europe. Because of their secular background and the importance of Turkey strategically, it is fervently hoped that militant Islam can be contained in that country. Turkey has been trying for years to gain acceptance into the European Union, and this issue will be an important factor.
The below statement by Obama does give me pause, however:
"One of the great strengths of the United States," the President said, "is ... we have a very large Christian population -- we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."
Not exactly. Where does Obama think we get our ideals and values from? With all due respect to people of other religions and atheists-who can be equally good people-the history of our country and the way we developed is linked to our Judeo-Christian heritage and values (no matter how often we have strayed from those values).
He also made this curious statement:
“We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.”
With all due respect, what exactly has Islam done over the centuries-or over the history of the US-to shape our country? That is a platitude that simply does not hold water.
I think Obama erred if he intends to send out a message to the Muslim world that Christianity and Judaism no longer matter to Americans. Many militant Muslims will take that as a sign of weakness-just as they see in secular Europe, where great churches and cathedrals are little more than historical monuments, generally empty save for tourists and an occasional old priest walking around and lighting candles. Many of the radical Muslims living in European cities are already envisioning the day when those buildings will be turned into great mosques-or torn down with the quiet acquiescence of remaining minority Europeans. When it comes to America, Obama should never give that signal to the Islamic world.
By all means, President Obama should reach out to the moderate and peaceful Muslim world and let them know we mean them no harm. However, he could have pointed to the fact that in recent years, we have liberated millions of Muslims from tyranny in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. Is there something Obama thinks America needs to apologize for? In addition, Obama is not the first president who has extended his hand to the Muslim world. Even after 9-11, President Bush made it a point to let the Muslim world know that America had no quarrel with Islam itself. He called Islam "a religion of peace", a statement he felt he had to make given the world situation.
I hope Obama's conciliatory words will resonate throughout the Muslim world. I have no hope that they will mean anything to the Jihadis and those already engaged in terrorism. It is against that segment that the president must remain vigilant and prepared.
We here in California have narrowly dodged another bullet from the crazed gunmen up in Sacramento. As they say, what begins in California spreads to the rest of the country. So guess what the new innovation is in the Golden State?
Cool paint colors for our cars.
Yes, the California Air Resources Board (whatever that is), recently decided that all our cars had to be painted an acceptable color. You see, they decided that cars that have a dark color (black specifically) were causing greenhouse gases or more carbon footprints, or something like that. That's because dark colors absorb heat causing the temperature to rise in a dark painted car. That means more use of the air conditioner, which in turn means polar ice caps melting and dead polar bears floating down Main Street.
That's right.
On the other hand, white cars reflect heat thus lessening the need for the air conditioner, and thus, saving the planet.
As a result, our government busy bodies have tasked our best scientific minds to come up with a so-called "cool color", which, while not exactly white, would satisfy the selfish cravings of right-wing extremists who insist on driving a dark-colored car and which would still reflect the heat, thus reducing the need for the air conditioner, and thus, saving the planet.
For the Children.
Unfortunately, the result of all the testing came up with a color that resembled something like pastoral Mother Earth cow pie brown. "Hey Merle, this looks like a cool color for my pick-up."
Plus, now that word has leaked out about this proposed change and ban on cars painted black, the resultant public laughter and derision (lots of "driving while black" jokes) has caused the Air Resources Board to crawl back into their government pods and assure us that it's not really going to happen.
Just for now, anyway.
But watch out America. As I learned years ago when I bought a Volvo in Sweden and had it shipped to the States, there are certain US standards that must be built into imported cars. And when it comes to emissions and windshield reflections and all that stuff, California has the strictest standards, therefore Volvos for export to the US are built according to California standards.
So for all you other 49-staters who happen to go overseas and order a BMW or Volvo (or maybe even a Fiat/Chrysler) in the next couple of years, think twice before you order black.
a The Indianapolis 500 b The Daytona 500 c A figure 8 stock car race d The Washington 500 e Chrysler about to "merge" with FIAT f A Government Motors executive board meeting g d,e&f
If you guessed "g" (d,e&f) you win the checkered flag!
"We have made great progress here in London in creating a world........."
"Hurt me again! Oooh, it feels so good..... Yes!"
News item:
During the G-20 Summit in London, Obama Administration officials handed out a special phone number for journalists to call to receive a pre-recorded "foreign policy briefing" from Hillary Clinton and National Security Advisor Jim Jonas. When journalists called the number, they were answered by a sulty-sounding female asking for their credit card and promising something "nasty".
I attended a funeral service for a dear friend Saturday, not something I would normally post on my blog. By the time the service was over, however, I had decided that this one was of interest to my readers.
My friend, Ronaldo Tomas, passed away a few days ago after long years of illnesses and physical ailments. He was just a few days past his 70th birthday when death came. In his last years, he had suffered from diabetes, undergone a kidney transplant, several toe amputations, and, finally, succumbed to cancer of the liver and pancreas.
My wife and I had visited him in the hospital just days before he passed. We were in Las Vegas when his wife called with the news.
I hadn't known a great deal about Ronaldo's life in the few short years I knew him. I knew that he had been born in Panama and immigrated to the US when he was young. I also knew he had served in the US Air Force and was teaching English as a Second Language to the immigrant community in Orange County. His mother-in-law, Argentina, was roommate to my mother in a local board and care until she (Argentina) passed away a couple of years ago. Ronaldo's wife and mother-in-law were from Argentina, and so it was natural that our families became friends since my own wife is from Mexico. Even after Argentina's passing, we kept in contact on a social basis. When my Mom had to go into a hospital or skilled nursing facility, Ronaldo and Maria would make it a point to visit her as well as at the board and care.
Unfortunately, many of our visits with Ronaldo occurred at hospitals and skilled nursing facilities as he continued to have one medical problem after another. Yet, he seemed to keep his good cheer. It was also obvious that Ronaldo was a person who loved people. Between him and I, our communication switched back and forced between English and Spanish (he spoke both perfectly). When greeting and saying good-bye, the abrazo and kiss on the cheek was obligatory. He usually called me hermano.
The last time my wife and I visited him, we knew the end was near. He was greatly emaciated and had just learned of the cancer. When we entered his room, he had just been served dinner and was saying a silent grace. As we chatted, my wife spoon-fed him.
At his service, most of the time was spent listening to his family, friends and associates telling stories about their experiences with Ronaldo. As I said above, there was a lot I didn't know about his early life.
After his military service, Ronaldo joined his family in South Central Los Angeles, where he became active in the Catholic Church. During that time, he engaged in much community work and became closely associated with Father John Coffield, who was a major civil rights leader in Los Angeles and, in turn, a colleague of Cesar Chavez. Coffield also marched in Selma with Martin Luther King. When Coffield died, Ronaldo was a spokesman quoted by some of the local papers.
A few months ago, while I was visiting him in the hospital, the topic of race came up somehow (I don't remember how). Ronaldo, who was of African descent, told me that while growing up in Panama, he had never known about prejudice and discrimination. At his service, one of his close friends from those early LA days described how racial attitudes were found even within the Church, something Ronaldo had to contend with. In those years, the LA Archdiocese was under Cardinal James Francis McIntyre, who did not enjoy a good relationship with his Latino and black parishioners. In 1962, Ronaldo entered the seminary to study for the priesthood. He eventually left the seminary and pursued a career in community work, business, education and counseling, earning his PHD in the 1970s. Ronaldo spent his life helping other people as his career and his life spanned three countries, Panama, Argentina and the US.
Aside from being just a time for mourning Ronaldo's loss, Saturday's service was more a celebration of his life. Though his family shed tears, it had to be acknowledged that Ronaldo's suffering was at an end and that he was in a better place with his Lord.
"American Leadership? World-wide Stimulus Plan? More troops to fight in Afghanistan? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha"
Now that this 20-chair circle-jerk in London has concluded, it's time to ask-what did President Obama accomplish for the USA? It seems his biggest "win" was getting the Gang of 20 to join in on giving another 1.1 trillion dollars to the always-developing nations of the world via the International Monetary Fund. Maybe that's what all those rioters in the streets of London were there for. They were hoping that the 20 would throw the 1.1 trillion dollars down to them from the top of the London Bridge................(I know, I know. The bridge is now in Arizona).
Less successful was our president in convincing our erstwhile European allies to join in on the "Stimulus Fever" and make it a world-wide venture. After all, the Europeans are starting to wake up to the fact that nannie state socialism isn't all it was cracked up to be. I guess they finally realized somebody has to pay for it.
So what did Obama do in London? He told us that among other things, he intended to "provide American leadership". Well, not quite.
One of his goals was to make it up to British Prime Minster Gordon Brown, whom he had (probably unintentionally) snubbed during the latter's recent visit to Washington. Someone forgot to tell the president that a diplomatic nicety would have been to hold a joint press conference with the prime minister to underline the importance of the relationship. (Hey Hillary-that's your department!) Don't think that Brown's rivals in the UK didn't make note of that. The other snafu was when Obama gave Brown some CDs that are not adaptable to the UK current. He can blame that on Her Excellency also for not giving him the proper advice and guidance.
Then Obama gets to London, where he and the missus go to see the Queen. Don't get me wrong; I am no fan of the British Monarchy, but when in the UK, one should follow protocol and CURTSY before the Queen (much as I hate to even say it). Michelle committed a boo-boo by hugging the Queen instead. Then they give the Queen just what she has always wanted but could never afford-an ipod! Yes, indeed. Just what an 80-something year-old woman who has been sitting on a feather pillow all her life needs. An ipod!
My advice to Obama? Fire your Secretary of State.
As an American, I don't much appreciate Obama's remarks to his hosts that Americans have been arrogant and dismissive instead of celebrating Europe's leadership in the world.
What leadership? Leading us into two world wars? Inventing great concepts like Communism, Fascism, and Nazism?
Of course, just like Hugh Hefner's guests at the Playboy mansion parties who run upstairs with the bunnies, Obama had a chance for separate meetings with the Chinese and Russian leaders. In meeting with Russian "President" Medvedev, Obama also took an indirect shot at his predecessor in admitting that in recent years, we had let the US-Russian relationship "drift". Maybe it was the Russians' fault that the relationship "drifted": you know, little things like the invasion of Georgia-but, of course, that was all Bush's fault.
Gordon Brown, who is being painted as the big winner in organizing this boondoggle, is now proclaiming, "a new world order".
Where have we heard that before?
So now, Obama goes to a NATO meeting to ask our allies to send more troops to help out in Afghanistan, which I am confident they will do-like send a couple hundred mechanics to work on our jeeps.
The below article is cross-posted from Haaretz.com (a major Israeli news outlet), and was written by Assaf Uni, a Haaretz correspondent. The article concerns the rise in anti-Semitic incidents in various European nations. It is highly alarming.
Study cites dramatic rise in anti-Semitic attacks in Europe
By Assaf Uni, Haaretz Correspondent Tags: Israel News, Jewish World
"The number of anti-Semitic incidences in Europe through the first three months of this calendar year exceeds the total number of such occurrences from all of 2008, according to a report issued by the European Jewish Congress.
The findings were announced by EJC president Moshe Kantor during a special session of the European Parliament which was devoted to the subject of anti-Semitism on the continent.
The report cites the reaction to this past January's Israel Defense Forces operation in Gaza as one of the key triggers of anti-Semitic attacks against Jewish communities in Europe. In addition, the current financial crisis is giving rise to age-old anti-Semitic stereotypes suggesting "Jewish control of the global financial system."
EJC members from all over Europe who gathered in Brussels for the special session reported a significant rise in the number of anti-Semitic incidents. The head of official Jewry in Finland, Rony Smolar, said that the 25,000-strong Jewish community living in the Scandinavian countries is subject to repeated harassment due to its support for Israel.
"Public opinion links Israel with the local Jewish community, which turns us into enemies," Smolar said, adding that his country has seen "a dramatic rise" in the number and severity of anti-Semitic attacks.
Smolar said that Molotov cocktails have been thrown into synagogues and Jewish cemeteries in Sweden and Norway have been vandalized. He also cited a shooting incident in which two Israelis were wounded by a gunman in Denmark during Operation Cast Lead.
"Cartoons likening the Star of David to the Nazi swastika have become commonplace in Scandinavia," Smolar said.
Richard Prasquier, the head of the umbrella organization representing the Jewish community in France (CRIF), also pointed to a rise in anti-Semitic incidents. "France is home to the largest Jewish community in Europe and the largest Muslim community in Europe," Prasquier said, hinting that the sizable immigrant community from North Africa is most responsible for instigating the anti-Jewish violence. European politicians have shied away from blaming Muslim immigrants for attacks against Jews.
The EU's human rights arm, the FRA, told the gathering that increases in anti-Semitism have been reported in Holland, Belgium, France, and Britain. An organization representative said the reasons for the phenomenon must be studied and examined.
Peter Feldmeier, the head of the Jewish community in Hungary, said that anti-Semitism in his country still features historical overtones "as we knew them in the interwar years."
While noting that "there is barely a Muslim community in Hungary," Feldmeier brandished a copy of a widely circulated newspaper affiliated with a far-right party. The newspaper made waves after featuring on its cover a Hungarian politician bearing a fictitious yellow Star of David. The paper demanded that the politician admit to his Jewish roots."
Related articles:
Spanish Holocaust survivors testify in U.S. Nazi extradition case
Greek court clears far-rightist of Holocaust denial
New French Web site aims to work against Holocaust denial
Fousesquawk comment: Europeans know better than most other populations around the world where this phenomena leads to. It is critical that they confront this issue directly with the public, condemn it and identify its perpetrators. This cannot be tolerated. Unfortunately, it appears that European willingness to react strongly may be limited by the fact that much of the anti-Semitism is being instigated by Muslim immigrants. It would be simple for the Europeans to react strongly against anti-Semitic acts perpetrated by their own native populations. Are they reticent to confront said anti-Semitism on the part of another minority group-in this case, by Muslim immigrants? If so, that would just constitute another sorry example of political correctness in action. The targeting of people because of their ethnicity, religion, nationality etc cannot be tolerated no matter who the perpetrators are and no matter who the victims are. (It would be just as wrong to carry act acts of hate against innocent Muslims.)
Europe has a problem on its hands. In many major European cities, Jews are not free to walk in certain areas of town in security and safety. The fact that European countries now have relatively small Jewish populations (and we all know why) doesn't minimize the issue. Those Jews who remain in Europe have every right not to be returned to an existence comparable to the 1930s and early 1940s.
I would encourage each of my readers to visit the below site for Project Meredian Foundation, a great organization that is working with government and police agencies to help rescue and provide treatment for girls and women in America who have been abducted for sexual purposes. Part of their goals are to establish a safe and secure location where victims can receive help, treatment and referrals on to longer-term care facilities if needed. They are having a gala event on May 14, 2009 to raise funds in support of their mission. This event will take place at the Vanderbilt South Beach, New York. Additional details are contained in the below site. Even if you are not able to attend, you might consider making a contribution to this worthy organization.
The below article was written by conservative columnist Don Feder regarding his disrupted speaking appearance at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst on March 11, 2009. The article is copyrighted by Grasstops blog. It is cross-posted here with Mr Feder's consent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIMIAN STUDENTS THROW FECES AT CONSERVATIVE SPEAKERS GrassTopsUSA Exclusive Commentary By Don Feder 03-24-09
On March 11, I joined a growing fraternity – conservatives who’ve been prevented from speaking on college campuses.
Student storm troopers have become the final arbiters of who may speak and what views may be expressed in academia – once dedicated to free inquiry and open discussion, now as intellectually open as a Stalinist gulag. The academic archipelago?
I was invited by the University of Massachusetts at Amherst Republicans and Young America’s Foundation to speak on hate crimes laws as a threat to free speech and religious freedom.
That there is a national epidemic of hate crimes incited by hate speech – which drastic action is needed to curtail – is sacred dogma for the sensitivity goons.
To question these assumptions is sacrilege. When challenged here, leftists react like Muslims in a murderous rage over Mohammed cartoons
That does a lot to explain what transpired when I tried to speak at the collegiate zoo in Western Massachusetts – that and the fact that the administration refuses to keep the animals leashed.
Half of the audience of 300 came not to listen, question or debate, but to disrupt.
The mob scene was coordinated by the International Socialist Organization (a group found only on college campuses and in the Obama administration), the Pride Alliance, the Coalition Against Hate and the Campus Anti-War Network. Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade and the Committee for Justice for Sacco and Vanzetti were conspicuous by their absence.
Not more than 20 seconds into my address, the catcalls and heckling began. A group of young scholars turned their backs on me – a potent argument to their way of thinking. I felt like I’d stepped into Mr. Peabody’s Wayback machine and been transported to my student days at Boston University, circa 1969.
The honorary citizens of Crete unfurled banners, waved signs, chanted slogans, shouted insults and taunts, jeered, laughed derisively and generally demonstrated the self-control of toddlers with Tourette syndrome.
Their signs read, “Hate Speech Leads to Hate Crimes” (this from people who insist there’s no connection between pornography and sex crimes), “Free Speech Does Not Equal Hate Speech” (who decides what speech should be censored in the name of countering hatred? They do, of course) and – my favorite – “Abolish Hate.” Bravo! After that, we can abolish lust, greed, sloth and unhygienic habits (though the protestors might consider that a personal attack). My terrier has taken to toting around a sign that says “Abolish Cats!”
Some of the protestors had flyers pinned to their tiny chests to represent the victims of hate crimes. “My name is Hollywood Montrose, and I’m a bisexual, bi-racial, bi-lingual transgendered person of color who was stabbed 27 times because the Family Research Council says gays can change.”
Among other antics, a barefoot girl tried to bring a rat into the lecture. Rumor had it that Rat Girl planned to let the rodent loose to raise the level of discourse. Then again, perhaps it was her boyfriend. Besides supporting cross-dressers, activists are in to cross-species dating.
Before I gave up, I was interrupted roughly once every 15 seconds. Finally, I decided that attempting to speak over the tumult served no useful purpose and the speech was cancelled. I stayed at the podium for another 20 minutes talking to those who came with questions instead of slogans.
After the room had cleared, 50 or so of us – some supportive, others curious – repaired to the offices of the Republican club, where I spoke impromptu and answered questions for about an hour.
Perhaps conservative speakers should go to campus lectures armed, thereby exercising their Second Amendment rights to forestall violation of their First Amendment rights.
March 11 was my bar mitzvah under fire. Here are some of the other conservative speakers who’ve experienced the open-minded student body of today.
• In 2005, at the University of Connecticut, Ann Coulter called it quits 15 minutes into a lecture to 2,600, when boos and jeers made it impossible for her to continue. She switched to a question-and-answer session. “I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am,” Ann joked. She’ll be in 7th heaven if she ever speaks at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
• In 2007, when commentator Daniel Pipes tried to speak on “The Threat to Israel’s Existence,” at the University of California-Irvine, he was disrupted minutes into the lecture by people of the jihad persuasion and their Marxist allies. Pipes could barely be heard over chants of “anti-Israel,” “anti-oppression,” “anti-racism” and “anti-hate.” On the college campus, to support the Jewish state is the supreme act of hate speech. Oppression is unknown elsewhere in the Middle East, but especially in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia (if you’re an independent-minded woman) or Egypt (if you’re a Coptic Christian).
• When Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol tried to speak at the University of Texas in 2006, he was almost eaten alive. Kristol’s topic – political events in the aftermath of 9/11 – provoked Oliver Stone paranoia. “We’re here to expose the truth about 9/11,” film student Aaron Dykes proclaimed. Presumably, that would be the truth about the Zionist-CIA-Karl Rove-AIG Executives cabal (cleverly disguised as Saudi citizens) responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans in 2001.
• When she attempted to speak at Penn State in 1999, black conservative Star Parker was forced from the stage. Parker described the experience as “very frightening” and said she “feared for my life.” Parker’s hatefullness was her contention that single mothers are better off with jobs than on welfare, based on her own experience.
• At Emory University in 2006, David Horowitz gave a lecture as part of Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week. To show their outrage at the comparison of radical Islam to fascism, protestors behaved like fascists. A mob of over 300, from groups like Amnesty International, Veterans for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine, waved signs and shouted, “Does George Bush respect anybody’s rights?” and “Why don’t you talk about fascism in America?” mixed with chants of “Racist, sexist, anti-gay, David Horowitz go away!” (They can’t reason. But they sure can rhyme.) “Are we going to talk about who killed JFK?” one protestor demanded. (The Zionist-CIA-Karl Rove-AIG Executives cabal?). Horowitz (who had to be escorted off stage) observed, “This is exactly what the fascists did in Germany in the 1930s.” True, but at least they weren’t hypocrites claiming they were motivated by concern for minority rights.
• In October 2006, leftists (this time flying the colors of the Chicano Caucus and the International Socialist Organization) rushed the stage and knocked over tables and chairs to prevent Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, and his colleagues from speaking. “Minutemen, Nazis, KKK – racist fascists go away,” they cleverly chanted. (“Duck, frog, pig, pup – you spread hatred, so shut up!”) To prove their commitment to fighting racism, protestors shouted the “N-word" at black Minuteman Marvin Stewart. But it was in a good cause, combating hate speech. Even New York’s liberal Republican Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, was appalled: “Bollinger’s (Columbia’s president) just got to get his hands around this…. There are too many incidents at the same school where people get censored,” the mayor complained. But not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s Holocaust-denier-in-chief, invited by Bollinger to speak at Columbia in 2007.
With honorable exceptions, administrators do nothing to discipline the bundists, either for fear of making themselves targets or because they’re in league with them.
My encounter on the 11th was videotaped. It would be relatively easy for the university to identify those who kept me from speaking and punish them. One group, the Socialist Workers (an oxymoron if there ever was one), even bragged about their performance on their website and pledged to keep disrupting Republican events.
On the other hand, administrators have no trouble coming down like a ton of bricks on conservative students for almost any reason.
On February 19, two students from California’s Claremont McKenna College attended a public lecture by a Planned Parenthood representative at neighboring Pomona College. The conservative students asked challenging questions and videotaped the response. (They turned off the camera when requested to do so by the speaker.)
Two Pomona deans went postal, claiming the students “interrupted the event” with “disruptive questions,” which constituted “harassment or hostile behavior.” The Claremont students were summarily banned from the Pomona campus. The ban was later lifted after a public outcry.
The Claremont students didn’t chant. They didn’t heckle or shout slogans. They didn’t wave signs or laugh derisively. But, two (count ‘em, two) conservatives were the equivalent of a lynch mob, in the eyes of pro-censorship administrators.
The left’s double-standard on speech goes back to Herbert Marcuse. A new left icon, Marcuse taught ‘60s radicals that it was their moral duty to censor the right.
In his essay, “Repressive Tolerance” (published in 1965), the Marxist scholar explained that because conservatives are “oppressive,” revolutionaries should be “intolerant towards the protagonists of the repressive status quo.”
Marcuse’s dictum was a great excuse for cowards and intellectual weaklings unable to deal with opposing views.
The kiddies also learned from their elders that any opinion can be censored in the name of spreading sweetness and light.
Campus speech codes – promulgated by sensitivity-besotted administrators (with the avid support of leftist faculty and whining student interest groups) – have exactly the same effect as demonstrators shouting down opposing views.
Not just epithets, but words which make certain groups feel uncomfortable (because they challenge their worldview) are officially banned at many colleges and universities.
In their 1993 book, “The Shadow University,” Harvey Silverglate and Alan Kors showed the lengths to which this is often taken.
Students are punished for “intentionally producing psychological discomfort” (at the University of North Dakota), “inconsiderate jokes” (University of Connecticut), “inappropriate laughter” (Sarah Lawrence College), “eye contact or lack of it” (Michigan State University), “communication with sexual overtones” (Lincoln University) and comments which “annoy” or “offend.” The foregoing is quoted by John Leo in his essay “Free Inquiry? Not on Campus,” City Journal (Winter 2007).
At Ohio State University’s Mansfield campus in 2006, the entire faculty voted to file charges of sexual discrimination and harassment against librarian Scott Savage for recommending three conservative books to incoming freshmen. Let no hate speech go unpunished. In Germany, those who began by burning books ended by burning people.
Leftist students have learned from leftist administrators that they have an absolute right to be intolerant in the name of tolerance.
Thus, because speech criticizing affirmative action, feminism, abortion, same-sex marriage, hate-crimes laws, illegal immigration, global terrorism and attacks on Israel are “hurtful and hateful,” they should not be tolerated at institutions supposedly dedicated to the free exchange of ideas.
Not surprisingly, only conservatives cause psychic pain.
Burning the American flag (which offends veterans and patriots), parodies of Catholicism (to which Catholics object), accusing U.S. forces in Iraq of atrocities (which might hurt the families of our war dead) and comparing Israel’s self-defense to the Holocaust, are examples of free expression which must be defended, while criticizing hate-crimes laws is hate speech at its most vicious and must be crushed.
Revolutionary consciousness and repressive tolerance aside, there are other factors driving student brown shirts.
The modern college campus is an ideological echo chamber. Day in and day out, leftist ideas are inculcated by professors, assigned reading, campus lectures (the one which aren’t censored), and commencement speakers.
Horowitz notes the stark political imbalance of most faculties, writing in 2006: “Tulane Law School – one of the institutions I visited this spring – has not a single Republican or conservative faculty member; the Duquesne Law School – where I also spoke – has one. The students I met at the University of Michigan could not identify a single conservative on their faculty, although they could name several Marxists…. Out of 15 professors in the Department of Political Science at the University of Richmond, a private school with a decidedly conservative student body, there is one Republican.”
Like mental patients who become agitated when their delusions are challenged, the student left goes bonkers when encountering a worldview that contradicts their own. This provokes temper tantrums and other infantile behavior.
In a way, I’m glad I experienced just how vile these creatures can be. It’s one thing to read about students in armbands and jackboots and quite another to be subjected to the catcalls, heckling and other intimidation tactics.
After I announced that I would not continue speaking, demonstrators applauded and cavorted. The odious hatemonger had been driven from the podium – hooray, hooray! They had won.
Or had they?
Suppose a man visiting a zoo stops at the monkey cage whose denizens begin throwing feces at him. If the man decides to take himself out of range, have the monkeys won?
The preceding commentary can also be found at http://www.grasstopsusa.com/df032409.html. Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant. He also maintains his own website, DonFeder.com.
Fousesquawk comment: This, sadly, is hardly an isolated event. Unfortunately, scenes like these are all too common on American university campuses. Why did not the campus police restore order and remove the hecklers, who were stripping the rights of the audience to hear Mr Feder's words? Where were the leaders of the university? What action has been taken against the ones who disrupted the event? Does UMass at Amherst have a student code of conduct? Obviously not.
The problem is that leftist, anarchist students, who have been brainwashed by leftist professors, have determined that they have the right to shut down any speech with which they disagree. On the other hand, leftist radicals who come to speak at college campuses get much more respectful treatment when they stand up to give their rants. Often, no one even raises a voice in disagreement or asks a critical question. When they do, they are greeted with the same reaction Mr Feder received.
What a pathetic disgrace our universities have become.
Now that Ted Stevens' corruption conviction has been reversed, and the Justice Department is dropping the charges, the ex-senator from Alaska and his supporters are claiming vindication. The reason for the reversal is alleged prosecutorial misconduct, specifically, that prosecutors failed to turn over some investigators' notes to the defense under the rule of discovery, thus depriving Stevens of his right to a fair trial.
Without passing judgement on the misconduct allegation, as a retired federal agent, I know full well how original notes pertain to the laws of discovery. Basically, an investigator's handwritten notes taken during the course of an investigation must be preserved and available to the defense prior to trial-even after the formal investigative report has been written, at which time, it used to be customary to discard the written notes. If I recall correctly, that ended sometime early in my career when a federal court ruling dictated that original hand-written notes had to be preserved. Thus, it was our custom to keep those notes-from all agents participating in an operation, arrest, surveillance, etc-in an envelope within the case file. The reason was that original notes or the notes of other agents might differ from testimony given at trial, thus, giving the defense an opportunity to impeach a prosecution witness' testimony.
So does this turn of events vindicate Stevens? In the eyes of the law, of course. But what about in the eyes of the public? That depends on the question of whether in the eyes of the public, Stevens was an innocent man unfairly prosecuted. Unfortunately for Stevens, that will always remain divided. There are plenty of high-profile cases that we all remember where a famous defendant got off the hook, but many in the public continued to believe he or she was guilty (OJ Simpson, Robert Blake, Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant, etc.) Only in rare cases, is a case resolved to the point that the overwhelming majority of the public concludes that the defendant was really railroaded and thus, fully vindicated. The Duke rape case comes to mind.
The fact is that the public is always entitled to its opinion, and no law can change that. Ted Stevens will enjoy his freedom and all legal privileges that come with the reversal. That's about it, however-no matter how much his former colleagues in the Senate rally to his defense and give him standing ovations. Alaska Republican Party Chairman Rudy Ruedrich has already called for Mark Begich, the Democratic Senator who unseated Stevens in the last election, to step down and allow the running of a special election. That is ridiculous.
The legal process is done with Stevens. It is up to the public to decide what his ultimate legacy will be.
Hey tax-payers! It's that time of the year again. Tax time. This year, however, there's no need to get stressed out preparing those messy tax forms. Why not let us handle it for you? DC Tax Fixers Ass. has years of experience in using the tax laws for your benefit. We can't guarantee that your tax rates won't go up (in fact, we can guarantee that they will.) But you can sleep easy at night knowing that our team of experts knows how to work the system to your advantage.
First of all, while other tax firms boast of having retired IRS agents on their staff, we have the Secretary of the Treasury on ours! While others tell you they can save you thousands of dollars, we can save you hundreds of thousands. Just ask our Sr Vice-President Tom Daschle. While others boast of having the latest technology, Tax Fixers has Turbo-Tax at our disposal! Our CEO, Tim Geithner thinks so much of it, he has virtually lent his name to it (Tim Turbo-Tax Geithner).
We also have all the right contacts in Washington.
Need we say more?
Already owe money to the IRS? No problem. While others boast of being able to negotiate with the IRS so you only have to pay pennies on the dollar, our team of well-connected advisers can get you a high-paying cabinet position in the Obama Administration that will more than make up for any back payments and late penalty fees you may have to pay.
So don't be a sucker. Let us put the system to work for you.
Call us at DC Tax Fixers Ass.
* DC Tax Fixers Ass. is licensed only in the District of Columbia
For an administration that loves taxes, it is sure is ironic how many of President Obama's cabinet nominees have problems paying their own taxes. Now it has been disclosed that Kansas Governor and Health and Human Services nominee Kathleen Sibelius has repaid almost $8,000 in back taxes for the years 2005-07. As usually happens, once someone is nominated and the vetting begins, past errors are discovered-or the nominee decides it's time to pay up.
Nonetheless, even Republican senators like Charles Grassley are saying mox nix-no big deal. Honest mistake they say. Maybe so. (The errors have to do with charitable deductions, the sale of a home and business expenses.
But isn't it also ironic that Governor Sibelius' state, Kansas, has also delayed sending tax refunds to its citizens? No money they say.
At what point do people conclude that there are different rules for different people? At what point do people conclude that the series of Obama cabinet nominees who haven't paid their taxes in full represent not an aberration or two-but a pattern?
"Surely, those who believe, and the Jews and the Christians and the Sabians, whoever have faith with true hearts in Allah and in the Last-day and do good deeds, their reward is with their Lord, and there shall be no fear for them nor any grief." Qur'an 2:62
Taken from the website of the Center of Islamic Pluralism
I have just added a link on this website to the Center for Islamic Pluralism (CIP), which is located in Washington DC and is headed by Stephen Suleyman Schwartz. This is a Muslim organization which has spoken out publicly against the Wahhabi form of Islam as being the main source of Islamic extremism. CIP also has spoken out publicly against CAIR as not being truly representative of peaceful Muslims. They have applauded the action of the FBI in breaking off its relationship with CAIR. CIP also has singled out the Islamic Society of North America and the Muslim Student Associations for criticism.
I have seen Mr Schwartz several times on television, so I know where he stands. He, his organization, and all Muslims who reject the call to violent jihad, intolerance and imposition of Shariah law in the West deserve to be applauded and supported.
a A Soviet era show trial with a deranged judge, public clamoring for the death penalty while the UN stands silent
b The deranged President of Sudan sending his troops to kill and rape in Darfur while the UN stands silent
c A public demonstration in London with a deranged imam directing his clones to follow Jihad while the British Government wrings its hands
d A Nazi parade with a deranged party demogogue haranging the crowd while Neville Chamberlain proclaims peace in our time
e A typical US university graduation with a deranged commencement speaker, student drones, and an administration that stands silent
What's the answer? Well, this is a close one, but the deranged speaker is Ward Churchill, so that eliminates "d" since Churchill wasn't around in those days (wrong Churchill). Since he's not Russian and doesn't have the requisite degree, it can't be "a". He doesn't live in London, so I guess it can't be "c". He's not the president of Sudan, so that eliminates "b".
"Global Warming, eh? Apparently, Mr. Gore, we didn't get the memo."
About Me
Gary Fouse
Born in 1945, native of Southern California. Spent 3 years in US Army 1966-68 as military policeman in Erlangen, Germany. 1970-73, US Customs Agent, 1973-1995, DEA Agent. I was stationed in LA, Bangkok, Milan, Italy, Pittsburgh and Washington DC area (DEA Training.) Retired in 1995. Since then, I have been teaching English as a Second Language (since 1998 at the University of Calif at Irvine.)
I have also written 3 books which are: The Languages of the former soviet republics-their history and development (University Press of America, 2000)
The Story of Papiamentu-a study in slavery and language (UPA-2002) and Erlangen-an American's history of a German town (UPA-2005). In addition, I have published the following articles: Kompa Nanzi and Brer Rabbit-Two Tricksters and Their Fates-Published in Carib Kaleidoscope, 2003.
Slavery and the Development of Papiamentu- published in Journal of Caribbean Literatures, summer 2007.
.jpg)
