Grizzly Groundswell Blogtalk Radio This Coming Monday Night

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~Teddy Bear

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

What is Wrong With the Republican Party

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, not exactly.

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

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

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

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

They deserve it.

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

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

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

So what should Republicans do to right the ship?

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the meantime, I sure ain't joining.

Let's Play "Name That Copycat"

Match the speaker with the words.

a Father Michael Pfleger
b Pat Boone
c Michael Bolton

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

Answers:

a- 3
b- 1
c- 2

Scott McClellan' s Book

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh No! Another Obama Minister- Meet Father Michael Pfleger

Father Michael Pfleger (R) with Louis Farrakhan



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All this as the congregation went wild.

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

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

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

Let's Play "Name That Uncle"

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


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

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

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

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

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

Let's Play "Name That Pal"

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


The above three persons are all pals of whom?

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

Answer: (Is this really necessary?)- e

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A New Feature- European Blogs

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

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

The Imposters

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

After Sleeping On It.....

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

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

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

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

Memorial Day

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

No one.

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

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

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

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

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

Fabian Nunez Plays the Race Card

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hillary's Comments About the RFK Assassination

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

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

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

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

Ann Coulter at UCI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's Play "Name That Monument"

What'cha Gonna Do Now, Hillary?

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orange County Human Relations Commission

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

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

(Tell him Gary sent you)

More Idiocy From The Prince of Wales

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


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

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

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

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

Take him seriously, indeed.

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

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


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

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

Dear Mr Kennedy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They can't.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Gary Fouse
Adjunct teacher
UCI-Ext-ESL

Here is Mr Kennedy's response:


Dear Mr. Fouse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely

rusty


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

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


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


Dear Mr Kennedy,

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


Thank you for your time and attention,

Gary Fouse


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

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

But I won't hold my breath.

Ted Kennedy

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

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

We are better than that.

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

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

"Listen here, young man"


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

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

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

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

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

L-Tony Pellicano R-Tony Rezko



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keith Olbermann's Goofysburg Address

This is a doberman. It rhymes with Olbermann


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local Schoolkids Exposed to Hate Speech at UCI

(Photo courtesy of Jonathan Constantine, Red County blog)

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

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

My Letter to Daniel Tedford, LA Times

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


Dear Mr Tedford,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Gary Fouse
Adjunct teacher
UCI Ext (ESL)

Below is my letter to New University Newspaper:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gary Fouse
Adjunct teacher
UCI-Ext

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

Howard (The Jerk) Dean


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JERK.

If the Shoe Fits....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Four Judges Declare Gay Marriage Legal in California

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hate Fest at UCI-Day 4 (Final Day)

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

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

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

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

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

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

His answer: "I hate imperialism."

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

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

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

My Letter to the UC-Irvine Campus Newspaper

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gary Fouse
Adjunct teacher
UCI-Ext

Our "Boob" Congress At Work

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Edwards Makes His Choice-Finally

Nice hair

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Barack, will you accept this here Rose?"

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