Sunday, June 29, 2008

Win a Date With Bill Clinton!!!

"Will you be the lucky winner?"

Announcing the opening of the "Win a date with Bill Clinton" contest. Yes, you can actually win a date with the former President of the United States, Bill Clinton. It's easy! All you have to do is send in a photo along with an essay (ten words or less) stating why you want to go on a date with Bill Clinton.

If your photo and essay are selected, you will be flown first class to New York for a final "interview" with the former prez himself (Bring your toothbrush.) The winner will be announced August 1, 2008.

The lucky winner will actually accompany Bill to the Democratic Convention in Denver, Colorado, as well as accompany the former president in his personal "love jet" as he flies around the country campaigning for Barack Obama!* You will meet all the top Democrats (except Hillary). In addition, the lucky winner will receive an official certificate certifying that she is a member in good standing of the Mile High Club!


So get your applications in today because time is running short. The address is:

Bill Clinton Goodworks Foundation
attn. Vernon Jordan, Director, Special Programs Dept.
PO Box 222
Chappaqua, NY, NY

...and YOU may be the lucky winner of a date with Bill Clinton!!

* Campaign travel contingent on Barack Obama kissing the former president's ass. Offer not valid in Saudi Arabia.

Let's Play "Trivial Pursuit"

Who is this man? Heavyweight champ? Wesley Clark's pick for Executive of the Year? Vice President of Zimbabwe?........Nah.

See if you can answer the below questions:

1 Which country won the European soccer championships this week?
(Contest limited to US residents.)

2 Who was Robert Mugabe's running mate in the recent "election" in Zimbabwe?

3 Who is the heavyweight champion of the world? Hint: It's not Haystack Calhoun.

4 Which pastor (a Clinton supporter) said, "Barack Hussein Obama is a long-legged pimp with a white mama"? (I'm not making this up.)

5 Where is Ralph Nader these days?

6 How many home runs does Barry Bonds have this year?

7 Who has more home runs this year, Barry Bonds or Bill Clinton?

8 Who does Wesley Clark think has the requisite "executive experience" to be president?

9 Name one Republican that Keith Olbermann likes-other than Scott McClellen.

10 Which former president reportedly said this week that Obama "can kiss my ass"?

Bonus question: Who is the person in the above photograph? Hint: His name appears in the above questions.

And the answers (sort of):

1 Spain

2 I don't know, but I suspect nobody

3 I don't know-hell, maybe it is Haystack Calhoun

4 Rev. James David Manning of Harlem

5 I don't know

6 None

7 Same number-none. On second thought, probably Clinton.

8 Robert Mugabe?

9 I give up

10 William Jefferson Clinton-who else?

Answer to bonus question- Haystack Calhoun (on second thought, it could be any of them.)

Add up your correct answers. If you got 6 or more-you scored better than I did.

Wesley Clark Belittles McCain's Military Service

Wesley Clark (R) with pal Michael Moore

"Where were you stationed, Mike?"
"Whadda'ya mean 'stationed', Wes"

(Michael Moore never served in the military, but he is a movie executive, sort of.)

I hate to take a shot at a retired general, but Wesley Clark's belittling of John McCain's military record this weekend in promoting the candidacy of Barack Obama is laughable. Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation", Clark pointed out that McCain's experience as a Navy squadron commander did not give him the executive experience to qualify him to be president (saying that it was not a wartime squadron). He called McCain, "untested and untried". Clark also pointed out that getting in a plane and getting shot down did not qualify anyone to be president.

Compared to whom, Sir? If you are comparing yourself to McCain in terms of executive experience, then your argument might have credence since you were a commanding general leading troops in a war (as unseemly as it is for a general to belittle the military service of a lesser officer who survived the explosions on the USS Forestal and five years of captivity and torture in a North Vietnamese prison camp).

Yet, it is Barack Obama who Clark is representing. What executive (or military) experience does Obama have? Answer: None. How in the world can Clark try to make an argument that McCain lacks the executive experience necessary to be president-and pointing out his military record as proof-when Obama doesn't even have that much? Forget the fact that McCain has over 20 years more service as a senator than Obama. (Yes, I am aware of the argument that senators don't execute anything.)

Maybe Clark might want to draw a comparison between McCain and the general's old pal, Bill Clinton, a certified, bonafide draft dodger, something that Mr Clark chooses not to point out or talk about.

As I have pointed out before, as a Viet Nam-era veteran who was stationed in Germany, I am very careful about judging the military records of others. (I never joined those questioning John Kerry's service in Viet Nam, for instance.) I would not question General Clark's military service in any way because it certainly ranks way above mine. Yet, it must be pointed out that since retiring from the military, Clark has basically been little more than a political hack for the Democrats. He is promoting Obama's candidacy, which is his right. Probably, he has visions of being Obama's running mate and perhaps even being president someday. That is also his right. If you want to split hairs and agree that McCain's military service was not "executive" in nature, that may be true. However, Clark's remarks can only come across as being petty.

I think it would be fitting and proper for General Clark to come out with a "clarification" of his remarks, as they say in politics. Whatever anyone thinks of McCain or his candidacy, his military record deserves more than the dismissive remarks of Wesley Clark.

Saturday, June 28, 2008

Is UCI Becoming America's "Brown University"?

Is the anteater turning brown?

In 2005, I published a book entitled: Erlangen-An American's History of a German Town. It was a history of the German university town of Erlangen, near Nuremberg. I had spent almost three years in Erlangen as a young US Army MP (1966-1968). Since that time, I have returned several times, most recently this month, due to my love for the city where I spent a formative time of my youth.

During my research, I learned a lot about Erlangen in the years leading up to and during the Third Reich. In the years prior to Hitler taking power, Erlangen University acquired a reputation as a bastion of Nazi support and anti-Semitic feeling. Though there were not that many Jewish students or professors there, those that were found themselves subjected to a lot of abuse from students who were Nazi sympathizers. Indeed, the university was the first in Germany whose student government was dominated by Nazis. Hitler himself paid tribute to the university which gave him the most support in his early years of rising to power in Germany. As a result, Erlangen University boasted the moniker of "The Brown University".

I offer that as a backdrop because the university where I teach part-time, the University of California at Irvine (with the improbable mascot name "Anteaters"), has acquired a reputation in recent years as a bastion of radical Islamic activity (on the part of the Muslim Student Union), as well as anti-Israel-and anti-Jewish expression. It has reached the point where several Jewish students have opted to go elsewhere to study because of the perception. While not equating UCI with anything that existed in Nazi Germany, it is undeniable that words and deeds are on-going at UCI that can only be troubling to Jewish students and their families.

First of all, I have written extensively about this issue for over a year now, and I won't try to recount everything I have written in detail. I have also made the point that 99% of our students have nothing to do with anything that could be called anti-America or anti-Jew. Most of our students are Asian-American, and they have nothing whatsoever to do with the problems on our campus.

The problem, as I see it, is two-fold: First, we have an MSU that is virulently anti-Israel. The problem is that this has included much expression of Anti-American sentiment-and anti-Jewish sentiment on the part of MSU's sponsored speakers who come to UCI every quarter to speak. Many of MSU's speakers are radical Muslims who advocate the destruction of Israel, glorify suicide bombers, defend Hizbollah and Hamas and damn America in the process for its support of Israel and other offenses, real or imagined. Often, some of these speakers use anti-Semitic statements, usually careful to say, "Zionist Jews" to avoid the charge of anti-Semitism.

For example, Mohammed Al-Asi, an imam from Washington DC, has referred to Jews (on the UCI campus) as "low-life ghetto dwellers." He has also stated on the UCI campus that, "You can take the Jew out of the ghetto, but you cannot take the ghetto out of the Jew". He is also a defender of the Government of Iran, as well as Hizbollah and Hamas.

Amir Abdel Malik Ali, (formerly Derek Gilliam) a black convert to Islam, who is an imam in Oakland, comes to UCI every quarter and rails against Israel, America, and Zionist Jews as he defends Hamas and Hizbollah. He has appeared on tape glorifying suicide bombers in Israel.

Then there is Abdul Alim Musa (formerly Clarence Reams), from Washington DC, who echoes all of Ali's above sentiments, calls for Islam to take over the world and maintains that 9-11 was an inside job. This former drug dealer turned imam has also appeared at UCI spouting his nonsense.

This past quarter, the MSU week of "Holocaust in Palestine" featured a mock wall depicting the wall Israel has established to keep out suicide bombers. On the wall were various photos, drawings and slogans. I personally observed (and have posted) a caricature of Ariel Sharon drawn in the classic style of Julius Streicher's Der Stuermer, a vicious anti-Semitic weekly newspaper of the Third Reich. (Streicher was hanged after the war as one of the major war criminals.) Sharon was depicted with an over sized nose, thick lips and leering gaze.

In addition, there have been occasional incidents where Jewish students who monitor and film these events have been harassed, threatened and shoved by MSU members. During last quarter's events, one Jewish female student who was filming Ali's evening speech, was reportedly followed back to her car by about 6 MSU males, who surrounded her car. This incident was reportedly witnessed by a South African woman who had come to hear the speech. According to her account, when the police arrived, they treated the incident with complete indifference. (This alleged incident was reported in the Red County blog.)

This leads me to the second problem. The response of the university administration over the past several years has been negligible. Their position is that this is all a matter of free speech and free expression. Jewish students who have complained about the MSU have met with similar indifference. Certain university officials have been quoted as having called complaining Jewish students "hysterical Jews", "troublemakers" or "outside groups". Another faculty member just this week stated in an email (which I have read)that complaining Jewish students were misrepresenting the facts. He also took a shot at certain blogs like Pajamas Media and Little Green Footballs for reporting on the issue. The professor opined that whatever was being said by the MSU, no matter how offensive, was protected speech.

UCI Chancellor Michael Drake recently met in Washington DC with representatives of Hillel (a national Jewish student organization). He assured them that there was no room for hate speech at UCI. No room for hate speech at UCI? No room for imams calling Jews "low-life ghetto dwellers"? No room for Nazi-like caricatures of Ariel Sharon? No room for glorifying those who blow up innocent men, women and children on buses and in pizza parlors?

This past quarter, David Horowitz appeared at UCI and characterized it as the "worst in the country" when it came to this problem. There were at least two deans in the audience who listened to Horowitz's remarks. In the question and answer session that followed, none of these individuals took the opportunity to speak up and defend the university.

It appears that the Jewish students at UCI are on their own as far as the school is concerned. Yes, there are a few professors who are alarmed at the MSU. Yet, few if any have spoken out publicly to criticize the MSU and the administration. Some choose to lend their influence quietly in working with the administration to make changes.

I have chosen to hold the university's feet to the fire in a public manner. I have written to the campus newspaper, the UCI EEO Office and the Orange County Human Relations Commission outlining my concerns. This last endeavor was a waste of time. All I got was a nasty email from the OCHRC director, a certain empty suit hack named "Rusty" Kennedy, who called my letter a "diatribe" against the university (which was doing a great job along with his office to combat racism, blah, blah, blah.) He then had the cojones to sign his nasty-gram, "Rusty".


Fortunately, the US Department of Education (Office of Civil Rights) has agreed to re-open an investigation into anti-Semitic allegations from 2007, which they had previously determined to be "unfounded". Where this will go is anybody's guess.

What is needed here is public exposure of the activities of the MSU that have brought so much discredit to what should be otherwise a fine university. As I stated above, I am not suggesting that anyone at UCI harbors pro-Nazi sympathies, but I personally believe from my own observations that anti-Jewish feeling exists among at least some of the MSU members and especially many of their sponsored speakers. If the university administration cannot or will not meet its responsibility to provide a safe and hate-free environment for its Jewish students, then they should be held up to public exposure as well. While they fiddle and preach about "free speech", UCI is gradually becoming a version of America's own "Brown University". (And that has nothing to do with the one in Rhode Island.)

Mugabe Defender in America? Meet Charles Barron

L-R: Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe-NYC Councilman Charles Barron

If you have been reading the news out of Zimbabwe lately, you know all about President Robert Mugabe, now arguably the worst dictator in the world. In recent years, Mugabe has shocked the world by confiscating farms from white farmers, supposedly to give them to poor black farmers but actually giving most of them to his cronies. Now, in recent weeks, he has managed to steal an election that he was on his way to losing, killing many of his political rivals and their supporters in the process. This farce of an election was carried out in a climate of fear with his principal challenger dropping out in the interest of not further jeopardizing the lives of voters.

In response, the Bush Administration is looking for new ways to impose sanctions against Mugabe's regime. One would think that no one in America would lend support to this brutal thug. Well, there is one. Meet New York City Councilman Charles Barron-also a thug.

Barron, a former Black Panther, has a long history of outrageous behavior and statements. He has incited violence in New York when there is a police shooting involving blacks. He has called the police vile names. He has spoken publicly about wanting to slap white people because of slavery. None of this matters, of course, to his constituents.

Now Barron, who hosted Mugabe at New York City Hall 6 years ago, has spoken out in defense of the dictator for doing what the government of South Africa did not do(farm seizures from white farmers). According to Barron, the West loves Nelson Mandela and Bishop Tutu because they allowed whites in South Africa to keep their property. He denies that Mugabe's forces are carrying out violence against political opponents. Criticism of Mugabe is all racist, you know. Of course. It always is.

By the way, in case you are wondering what party this vile character belongs to- he is a Democrat, naturally. I mean Barron, not Mugabe.

Jamiel's Law-Continuing Update

This past week, an LA Superior Court Judge, granting a motion by the City of Los Angeles and the ACLU, threw out a lawsuit filed against Special Rule 40 by a private citizen. Harold Sturgeon, an LA resident had brought the suit in 2006. In his ruling, Judge Rolf Treu said that Special Rule 40 was not in conflict with state and federal laws that dictate the flow of information between state and federal authorities regarding a person's immigration status.

Today, LA residents are holding a rally together with the Shaw family (whose son was allegedly murdered by an illegal alien gang member this past March)in support of Jamiel's Law, a proposed law that would force revisions in LA's Special Rule 40 (which restricts LAPD officers from taking pro-active action on the streets when they spot known illegal alien gang members.) The rally, being held at California State University at Northridge, will kick off a petition drive to get Jamiel's Law on the March 2009 ballot. One LA City Council member, Dennis Zine, will sign the petition, as will members of his staff. The proposed law was authored by LA Mayoral candidate, Walter Moore.

As for the City Administration itself? Most of the City Council, the mayor (Antonio Villaraigosa), the police chief (William Bratton) and virtually everybody else that counts in LA-are opposed to any change in Special Rule 40. LA remains a sanctuary city for illegal aliens.

As things stand now, only the voters of Los Angeles will be able to make Jamiel's Law a reality. They can expect no help from the City, it's police or the courts.

* Monday, June 30th, I will be a guest on Chad Everson's Grizzly Groundswell Show on Blogtalk Radio to discuss Jamiel's Law. The show will start at 5pm, PST. The dial-in number to join in is: (646) 915-9997 (New York City).

Friday, June 27, 2008

It's All About Unity

Hillary: "Let's get this over with quick, shall we?"
Obama: "Not soon enough for me, babe."

Today, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton made a joint appearance in some town called Unity, New Hampshire to bring out the new Democratic buzzword-unity. They hugged, they kissed, they spoke of each other in glowing terms to the audience. So now, along with Change and Hope, we have Unity.

Hillary, as she spoke to the audience, conceded that the campaign had been "spirited". Then she threw a whopper out to the crowd when she explained that the campaign had been so "spirited" because, "we both care so much."

Yeah-about themselves.

Obama, probably gritting his teeth, told the audience that he needed the Clintons-both Hillary and Bill-who was conspicuously absent. Yes, America needed the Clintons, said Obama as Hillary stood next to him with that smug look on her face.

But the message of the day was UNITY. Unity for the Democratic Party and unity for America. How Hillary Clinton, one of the most polarizing figures in American political history, will bring unity to America Obama did not say, but why let that get in the way of a good speech line.

Once the show-and it was a show-was over, Hillary and Obama parted and stayed parted. They had both put in their eight hours of work, and it was time to go home.

As noted above, Bill was conspicuously absent fueling talk that he still can't bring himself to stand next to Obama and play the unity game, at least not yet. His horse-holders, of course, insist that Bill will campaign for Obama. Why not? That will give old Bill more opportunities to hop on that "campaign jet" that has been the subject of recent rumors.

All in all, today's appearance was a choreographed event designed to bring Democratic voters together, a cynical move that implies that said voters are gullible fools who will swallow anything their candidates say.

Perish the thought.

The Supreme Court Child-Rape Ruling

Justice Anthony Kennedy-Is He the Most Powerful Man in America?

In the past few days, the US Supreme Court ruled in Kennedy vs Louisiana that no state may sentence a convicted child rapist to death. As usual, the decision was a 5-4 vote, with the 4 liberal justices lined up against the 4 conservative justices. The deciding vote? Anthony Kennedy, of course.

For those of you who don't follow the make-up of the Supreme Court (which everyone should), the 4 liberal justices are; John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and David Souter. The 4 conservatives who dissented were Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Sam Alito and John Roberts. Anthony Kennedy, who is the one swing vote on the Court, sided with the majority and wrote the majority opinion. As Bill O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham opined last night, Kennedy may well now be the most powerful man in America.

And what did the majority base its legal ruling on? Incredibly, they based it on "evolving standards of decency"..."Based on both consensus (among state legislatures) and our own independent judgement, our holding is that a death sentence for one who raped but not kill a unconstitutional under the 8th and 14th Amendments."

Where in the Constitution did they find that reasoning? What consensus in state legislatures are they talking about? Does that mean that the elected officials in all state legislatures all are against the death penalty for child rapists? Even if so, what connection is that to the Constitution?

Then there is this statement: "Society's desire to inflict the death penalty for child rape by enlisting the child victim to assist it over the course of years in asking for capital punishment forces a moral choice on the child, who is not of a mature age to make that choice."

In dissenting, Samuel Alito, joined by Scalia and Thomas, demonstrated why they were solid choices to sit on the Supreme Court. Thomas writes, "The court today holds that the 8th Amendment categorically prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of raping a child. This is so, according to the court, no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the perpetrator's prior criminal record may be."

(In the Kennedy case in Louisiana, the defendant, who raped his step-daughter, indeed, nearly killed her in the process.)

Finally, this comment: "Once all of the court's irrelevant arguments are put aside, it is apparent that the court has provided no coherent explanation for today's opinion."

When I was 14, the State of California (back in a different era) executed one Caryl Chessman, who had raped a series of young women leaving one of his victims severely psychologically damaged. (No one died, but one element of his crime that made him eligible for the death penalty involved kidnapping.) After years of appeals and stays of execution, Chessman was executed in California's gas chamber at San Quentin Prison in 1960. That was almost 50 years ago. Had Chessman had the good fortune of committing his crimes today in Massachusetts or Vermont (two states notoriously lenient when it comes to child rape), he might have served a minimal time in jail-even if his victims had been small children. (To repeat, Chessman's victims were not children, but young women.)

Is this the evolving standard of decency that Judge Kennedy refers to? What decency is there in taking a less condemning view of child rape?

This case illustrates why presidential elections are so vitally important. It is not just about taxes, health care, bringing the troops home and all that. The next president will probably select not only 2-3 Supreme Court judges, but a large number of federal judges as well. As a retired DEA agent I well recall the disasterous judges that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton appointed to the federal bench. Is there any doubt that Barack Obama will do the same? Those conservatives out there who are dissatisfied with John McCain as the nominee should think long and hard before sitting out the election.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Germany Runs Out of Beer-Fousesquawk Returns to US

"Nothing like a great German beer to cool off the effects of 'Global Warming'"

I just got back home from Germany last night. We spent a total of 11 days there, and as always, for me, it was a great trip (the actual travel excluded). I try to get back to the university town of Erlangen every few years. It was where I spent my Army time in the 1960s, and I developed such a big connection with the town that I wrote a book on its history a few years back. That gained me a lot of new contacts and friends in the city in academic, historical and political circles. I also got to renew my love affair with German beer, which, with a couple of exceptions, cannot be obtained in its authentic form in the US.

We flew over on Air India out of Los Angeles, arriving in Nuremberg on the 15th. Along with my wife, her sister, brother-in-law and her niece, we spent a couple of days in Erlangen, visited Nuremberg, then headed down to Munich for two days. My wife's relatives had never visited Europe.

In Nuremberg, which is close by Erlangen, I showed them the old city and then took them out to the Reichsparteitaggelaende, the massive area where the Nazis held their annual party rallies. The old Zeppelinwiese stands where Hitler spoke still exists though gradually crumbling away from disuse. It poses a ghostly appearance.

I had been to Munich several times previously, but I was especially impressed with the classiness of the city on this last visit. My brother-in-law is a master mechanic with BMW, so we went out to the BMW Museum and factory where he was able to take a factory tour. After that, we took the subway to the university area, where we visited the lecture hall where students Hans and Sophie Scholl were caught distributing anti-Nazi leaflets during the Third Reich. They were tried and executed in quick order along with a few other members of their group (The White Rose). The area in front of the building is now called Scholl Platz. I recommend a movie called "Sophie Scholl", which came out a couple of years ago. It was filmed at the locations where the events occurred. It is in German with English sub-titles.

We also visited the Hofbrauhaus (twice), which in summer, is overrun with American college kids. No matter. I was able to confirm that the beer is identical with that served in the two Hofbrauhaus's in Las Vegas and northern Kentucky, making them the only places in the states I know of where one can drink REAL German beer.

From Munich, I put my wife and her relatives on a train to Zurich where they have a couple of nieces. I then headed back to Erlangen, where I had intended to spend most of the time.

I guess this is as good a place as any to mention that the European soccer championships were in progress. Our pension was located on a street in what could be called the Turkish/Arab quarter. There was a Turkish cafe across the street which was a gathering place for the Turks in town to watch the games. On the night we arrived, Turkey was playing the Czech Republic. While we were eating dinner in a restaurant, the game was on TV and the Czechs were winning 2-0. Game over, right? Well, in the second half, Turkey scored a goal, much to the delight of a couple of Turks watching at a table. As we rounded the corner to our hotel, a bunch of Turks came piling out of the aforementioned cafe, shouting, "Goal!Goal!". Then, just as we were entering our hotel, out they came again as Turkey took the lead. One taxi had to screech on his brakes to avoid hitting a couple of the exuberant fans. Finally, the place went crazy as Turkey won, and cars with Turkish flags began roaring through the town, horns blaring. I don't know if it was because of the soccer, but it seems that the restless youth of Erlangen were all cruising the city with their flags waving, radios blaring, gunning their engines-interesting in a country where gas is about 7-8 bucks a gallon.

The next night, Germany won, and the Germans similarly celebrated. The next night, all the Italians in Erlangen celebrated Italy's win by taking to the streets in their cars and flags. Then the Russians, with a few Turks joining the parade with their flag. As it turned out, Germany wound up playing Turkey on the Wednesday we left (thankfully). There are a lot of Turks in Germany, and I had visions of Germans and Turks crashing their cars into each other during and after the game-or worse.

Which leads me to my next point: The face of Germany, much like the face of America-and much of Europe is changing-now more than ever. Germany (at least in the cities) is increasingly bursting with immigrants. A large percentage is made up of Turks and other Muslim nationalities. Unlike the US, most of the Muslim immigrants in Europe come from working class backgrounds. For the Germans I talked to, there is a genuine concern about assimilation. With the current influence of Islam, that concern is multiplied. The Turks, who previously had been influenced by a secular home country, are also becoming increasingly radicalized in Germany.

The Germans are following the US election with great interest. Many asked me about Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain. On one occasion, I was able to speak before a local gymnasium English class taught by a friend. They also asked about the up-coming election.

As always, the beer was great, and while the memory is fresh, I want to make some comments about German beer, which is one of my favorite topics. Erlangen is located in the northern Bavarian region of Franconia, which is home to many small local breweries and beer fests. Erlangen's major brew is Kitzmann, which is a fine beer. The brewery just opened a restaurant and beer garden, which features fine food and fresh beer in a great environment.

As I have felt for some time, Munich, while having a wealth of breweries, beer halls and beer gardens, doesn't really have beer any better than the rest of the country. Many Germans share that assessment, and tell me that the larger, more well-known breweries do not produce as good a beer as the tiny breweries in small towns. The reason? Mass production and the fact that large conglomerates have bought up many breweries. Of all the beers I had during my trip, there were three I would put at the top of the list in no particular order:

Kitzmann (of Erlangen)
Gunzendorfer (from the village of Gunzendorf near Bamberg).
* Efes Pilsen

* This is actually a Turkish beer that I had fallen in love with during my visits to Turkey. While eating lunch in a Turkish kabob place in Erlangen, I found they had Efes, so I ordered a couple. It was great-just like Turkey and just as good as the German beer I had been drinking. It is a world-class beer.

The worst part was the actual travel-12 hours in the air and having to deal with two nightmare airports-Los Angeles and Frankfurt-Europe's major hub. As many times as I have gone through Frankfurt, never have I seen it so busy and confusing. Going through LAX is like JFK, mobs of people and nothing but hassles going through security and Customs. It has just about gotten to the point where air travel is not worth it, especially a long trans-continental flight.

At any rate, it is good to be home. Now where are those liberals?

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Tim Russert 1950-2008

Just before taking off on vacation, I would like to add my own words about the passing of Tim Russert. Those of us who follow politics closely have been used to seeing Russert on an almost daily basis. Without comparing him to any other individual in his profession, it must be said that he was among the best-if not the best-and almost certainly the most professional. He came to journalism after having worked for the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY). To his credit, he did his best to leave what partisanship he may have felt out of his journalism.

Though Russert was a Democrat, anyone who was to be interviewed by him knew they had to prepare thoroughly. Politicians from both sides of the aisle knew they would be asked tough questions with follow-ups.

More than that, the tributes pouring in all portray Russert as an overall good guy, family man, and one who had no airs-just a very hard worker from Buffalo, New York who stayed true to his roots.

Tim Russert will be missed by those in his profession who need every true professional they can find. He will also be missed by a public hungry for true journalistic integrity.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Don't Bother Me-I'm Drinking

"All for you, Fousesquawk."

This blog will be taking a much-needed rest and vacation starting Saturday. I will be flying off to Germany-Erlangen to be exact, where I will be seeing old friends and checking out as many beer gardens and beer halls as I can.

Erlangen is where I spent three years in the US Army (1966-68). The town was also the subject of a book I wrote, "Erlangen-An American's History of a German Town".

I will be back on the 25th of June, at which time, the old blog will be cranked up again.

The "Drug Wars" (19)- Ravenna, Italy 1984

Ravenna, Italy-October 13, 1984
Guardia di Finanza/DEA (Gary Fouse is on far right)

In October, 1984, our DEA office in Milan, Italy was notified that Italian Customs officials in the eastern port of Ravenna had discovered approximately a ton of Middle Eastern hash contained in a ship container in transshipment, destination New York.

As we responded to Ravenna, we notified DEA in New York and began arrangements for a "controlled delivery" of the shipment to its intended recipients, who were, as yet, unidentified. A controlled delivery entails arranging for the shipment to proceed to its recipient, who would then be arrested upon delivery.

In this case, Italian law precluded allowing seized drugs to leave the country-for whatever purpose. Yet, a controlled delivery would still be possible with a small representative sample in the shipment.

The problem was that the local prosecutor was a stickler for details. Not only would he not allow the hash to leave Italy, he would not even allow a representative sample to be kept in the shipment. At any rate, we went ahead and helped the Italians unload the hash, which we intended to substitute with sand.

Then the prosecutor (who was continually present at the site) found some obscure law that said not even Italian sand could be shipped out the country!! (He finally relented and turned his back while we loaded a ton of sand into the container.) While we were doing that, some of us scraped up some hash residue from the floor and tossed it into the container-thus giving us our representative sample.

Finally, once we had packed the sand into the shipping container, for identification purposes, we all marked our initials in an obscure part of the inside of the container in case we were called to testify in New York.

Testify in New York??!!?

You should have seen the Italian cops line up to scribble their initials. The commander, not content to write his initials, proceeded to write his full name, rank, biographical history, and contact details.

So off went the shipment to New York, with DEA and Customs waiting on the other end. As it turned out, upon arrival in New York, further shipment to Ontario, Canada was arranged by the recipients-who were finally arrested in Canada when they arrived to pick up the cargo. It turned out they were a group of Filipinos living in Canada.

And no, no one ever got to go to Canada and testify.

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

What to Say to an Obama Supporter

Eddie Gaedel (3' 7" tall) batting for the St Louis Browns in 1951. (It was a publicity stunt by Bill Veeck.) Gaedel's accomplishment? He walked, thus had a 1000% career on-base percentage. BUT HE NEVER BECAME PRESIDENT.

Since the admirers of Barack Obama are generally guided by feelings and emotion as opposed to reason, it might be a good idea to keep a few "talking points" in mind when engaged with these folks. Fox News host Sean Hannity has hit the nail on the head with his debating points on this issue, which boils down to one central question:

Name one accomplishment that Barack Obama has that qualifies him to be president.

This tactic has been used quite effectively on the Hannity and Colmes Show when Sean has posed the question to Obama supporters on the air. They are stumped.

So if you find yourselves in such a debate, you will be hit with certain responses such as;

"Obama is a great and inspirational speaker."

Yes, he is, although he had a verbal collapse the other day when his teleprompter went off and he was left speechless. He has also performed poorly when hit with hard questions on his questionable associations. Yet, it comes down to this: Show me a great speaker, and I will show you-a great speaker-nothing more and nothing less. Oratorical skill does not translate into having the right ideas. History is replete with great speakers who were horrific leaders and/or demagogues. (Do I really have to name examples?)

"Obama was the editor of the Harvard Law School Review."

Fine, but one's accomplishments in college mean nothing as to his/her qualifications to be president. That argument should be summarily dismissed.

"He has been a (Illinois) state senator and US Senator."

And what did he do in those positions? More specifically and to the point, what has Obama done in the US Senate since he was elected besides run for president since arriving in Washington?

"Well, he voted for this and that..."

So what? What legislation has he pushed through? What are his legislative accomplishments?

If your interlocutor is really desperate, he/she might quote Michelle Obama in describing Barack's "unique" experience as a "community organizer" in Chicago. If you really want to dignify that, you could respond, "Doing what?"

Of course, you will be hit with the "change" mantra.

Change what? When Obama gives his stump speech talking about change and hope, what specifically would he do?

Then, after parrying all these arguments, you might bring up the subject of judgement. What kind of judgement does Obama have when it comes to his associations over the years?

Jeremiah Wright
Michael Pfleger
Bill Ayers
Bernadine Dohrn
Tony Rezko

Obama himself would claim that he should not be held responsible for the actions and words of the above individuals (Guilt by association). But has not Obama on at least one occasion (Rezko) admitted to a lapse of judgement in being associated with the above?

All this leaves aside the question of Obama's left-wing beliefs. If his supporters advocate a left-wing agenda for this country, then there is not a lot to argue about. However, if these folks want to engage in a debate that Barack Obama is qualified to be president, that is an argument they cannot win.

Unless you think Eddie Gaedel should be in the Hall of Fame.

Latest Update on Jamiel's Law

Lately, I have been following the efforts of Mr and Mrs. Jamiel Shaw Sr. to have Los Angeles Special Rule 40 amended so that LAPD officers could take action on the streets against known gang members who are in the country illegally. The Shaw's son, Jamiel Jr., was gunned down in March. Pedro Espinoza, a member of the 18th Street Gang and illegal alien is charged with the crime.

Mr Shaw was recently interviewed on Full Disclosure, a public affairs cable program. During the interview, Shaw claimed that LA City Council Member, Herb Wesson had tried to convince the Shaws to drop their efforts to have Special Rule 40 amended. Mr Shaw also claimed that during his appearance before the LA City Council to plead his case, City Council Member Bernard Parks (formerly LAPD's Chief of Police) left the room.

Shaw has also claimed that Asst DA, Michelle Hanisee, told him and his wife that the position of the DA's Office was that Jamiel was the victim of a gang murder as opposed to a hate crime (Shaw was black.), and that the DA would attempt to show that Jamiel was a gang member himself, a charge Mr and Mrs Shaw vehemently deny. (Jamiel was a star high school football player.)

As for action to amend SO 40, at this point, the Shaws are still waiting for their petition to return from the City Clerk's Office. They need 76,000 signatures within 120 days that would qualify it to be placed on the March 3, 2009 election ballot.

In addition, LA Council Member, Dennis Zine, who is supporting the measure, has stated that once on the ballot, he will write a resolution of support (which would open the door for the City Council to discuss Jamiel's Law).

In his latest posting, Mr Shaw states,"We truly miss Jas, and we will never stop fighting to get Jamiel's Law passed. Please fight with us."

The interview of Mr Shaw on Full Disclosure can be found on:

It is a two-part interview to be featured on 45 cable systems. A preview can be found on:

It should also be pointed out that City Council Member Jack Weiss controls the passage of Mr Zine's resolution through the City Council bureaucracy. Mr Shaw is urging supporters to call Weiss' office to urge him to support the measure (which he currently does not). Weiss' phone number is (213) 473-7005.

Speaking of Mr Weiss, who some regard as the worst of the cast of Disney characters that is the LA City Council, he is currently jockeying for the position of LA City Attorney, currently held by another empty suit named Rocky Delgadillo. Mr Weiss may be too busy to care about the grief being endured by the Shaws, but he is not too busy to attend a big fund raiser June 10 on his behalf held in Santa Monica by a certain Steve Sugerman. Mr Sugerman, who is considered a fixture at City Hall, pleaded to a felony charge a few years back for his role in the Fleishman-Hillard scandal.* However, that apparently did not make him persona non grata at City Hall, nor does it concern Jack Weiss.

So, as things stand now, Mr and Mrs Shaw struggle literally against City Hall while said institution just goes on feathering its nest.

And where might you ask is LA Mayor's mayor, Antonio (Viajero)Villaraigosa? Well, now that he is no longer on Hillary Clinton's campaign trail, he is getting ready to go on a junket next month to Israel with half a plane load of his horseholders to study that country's security procedures and "green technology". The cost is being paid for by the mayor's budget, LA Airport, Harbor Commission, and the Department of Water and Power. (Yes, their bosses are all going as well.) And if you can figure that one out, drop me a line.

* Fleishman-Hillard was a PR firm hired by the ever-questionable Department of Water and Power, which also became enmeshed with former mayor, James Hahn-just one of his many scandals.

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Why Obama Won't Pick Hillary

Bill: "Look, Obama's gettin' on a plane."
Hillary: "Allright, you know what they say-when the cat's away...."
Bill: "That's right, baby. Say, when are you gettin' on a plane?"

Far be it from me to advise Barack Obama on anything, but I can think of a lot of reasons why he shouldn't pick Hillary Clinton to be his running mate. It may be a dream ticket to a lot of folks, but I see nothing but headaches if Obama chooses her.

First of all, why would Obama want to have someone who can and will upstage him? Hillary is, if nothing else, ambitious. She also, being a technocrat, knows more about most of the issues than Obama. How could he trust her not to knife him in the back? The last thing Obama needs is this (yes) strong and devious woman standing over his shoulder (All you feminists, save your cards and letters-it's the truth.)

One hears a lot of speculation that Michelle Obama does not want Hillary on the ticket because she can't stand her. That seems like a no-brainer. There isn't enough room in the White House for both Hillary and Michelle. Truth be known, after this campaign, Barack and Hillary probably don't have much love lost-no matter what they say publicly.

There may be 18 million people out there who would vote for Hillary, but how many people would crawl out of their deathbeds to vote against her? Nearly half the electorate, that's how many. Nothing can energize the Republican/conservative base more than having Hillary Clinton on the ticket-even in the second spot. In addition, a lot of Democrats have finally become disillusioned with her.

Then there is Bill. If Obama doesn't want Hillary hanging over his shoulder, what does he think about Bill hanging around the White House checking out the hired help?

In addition, Bill brings added baggage as a campaign issue. There are a lot of questions out there about money that Bill is earning from Middle East sources such as the United Arab Emirates.

There is also the issue of the ex-president's "social life" since leaving office. Rumors abound that Clinton is still...Clinton. Obama has enough problems on his hands with Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers without having to take on the Clinton baggage. Even if Mr Clinton were leading a squeaky clean life, he has proven during the campaign that he cannot be controlled and cannot keep his mouth shut. He would be a constant headache for Obama.

Even former president Jimmy Carter says that an Obama-Clinton ticket would be the biggest mistake the Democrats could make. And when it comes to making mistakes, Jimmy Carter is an expert.

No, I think Obama will go through all the motions in giving consideration to Clinton, but will choose someone who won't overshadow him and won't undermine him. With Hillary and Bill in the picture, Obama will never feel comfortable as president. He shouldn't.

In my view, Obama would feel much more comfortable with, say, Maxine Waters on the ticket. Now there's a dream ticket.

Random Shots in the Dark (2)

Just a few questions I would like to throw out:

Does anybody really believe that it took Barack Obama 20 years to realize that Jeremiah Wright was a racist lunatic?

Does anybody really believe that it took Barack Obama 20 years to realize that Father Michael Pfleger was a lunatic?

Does anybody really believe it took Barack Obama 20 years to realize Tony Rezko was a crook?

Does any body really believe that anyone coming out of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago is going to "bring us together"?

In light of the above, is there a question out there about Barack Obama's judgement?

Why did it take people like Fox News and the conservative blogosphere to drag the mainstream media into covering Jeremiah Wright?

Same question for the Bill Ayers story.

Same question for the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky story.

After watching the Democratic Primary in action, does anybody really want to turn health care over to a Democrat-led government?

Does anybody really think Barack Obama wants Hillary Clinton as her VP-with Bill hanging over his shoulder as well?

Does anybody want to know what Michelle Obama has to say about Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger?

Does anybody out there still think Obama is a great speaker-when his teleprompter shuts down?

Should all ethnic and religious groups receive the same protection from hate? If so, why are Muslim Student associations on college campuses (like mine at UC-Irvine) allowed to engage in anti-Semitic hate speech?

Why do such organizations (like the MSU at UC-Irvine) receive university funding in the form of money taken out of student tuition fees? Isn't that a violation of separation of church and state?

If we have a separation of church and state, why do universities like the University of Michigan at Dearborn install footbaths in restrooms for Muslim students?

Same question for certain airports like Kansas City.

Why are we allowing Jihadist blogs to be run in the US, for example, the one run by Samir Khan in Charlotte, NC, which advocates the killing of American soldiers?

Along those lines, whatever happened to the concept of "undesirable alien"?

Why should Americans give a rat's rear end about Palestinians after they danced in the streets on 9-11?

When one sees what is going on in Gaza, does anyone think the Palestinians can run a peaceful, functional state?

In light of the price of gasoline and the situation in the Middle East, why would anyone still object to the US drilling for oil here at home?

If Congress wanted to do something about the high cost of gasoline, why don't they suspend the state and federal taxes they get from the sale of each gallon? (Don't hold thy breath.)

What's with the new friendship between Republican-hater, Keith Olbermann and former White House Press Spokesman, Scott McClellan?

Doesn't Congress have more important things to worry about than which athletes have taken steroids?

When will the city of Los Angeles (and other cities) rethink their "sanctuary city" status in the light of murders committed by illegal alien gang members, including victims that include cops and innocent citizens?

Is there anyone else out there except me that suspects that Hillary is still waiting in the weeds for Obama to have another major slip and cause Democrats to rethink their support of him for president?

Just wondering.

Sunday, June 8, 2008

Let's Play "Name That Headband"

What do the green handbands say?

a Go Celtics!
b Beat L.A.!
c Kiss me I'm Irish
d Support Greenpeace
e God bless America
f Hell if I know-anybody out there know?

The "Drug Wars" (18)-Paris ca. 1986

"I love Paris in the springtime.....Hey, look out! I love Paris in the fall...isn't that our street? I love Paris in the summer...go, go!

During my tour of duty with DEA in Milan, Italy (1982-87), I had a couple of occasions to travel to Paris on cases. On the second occasion, around 1986, I flew to Paris with an Italian Carabinieri officer. While we were at the DEA Office in Paris, we met a British Customs officer who was also there on another investigation. He was quite a character and kept us in stitches for the next several hours as we all went out to dinner followed by lemonade and cookies at a Paris Chicago style pizzeria and pub.

Our "designated driver" was a DEA agent name Rick, who had just transferred to Paris from Chicago a couple of weeks previous. Obviously, he was still learning his way around the city. So after a night of drinking, Rick took us all back to our hotel, which was located on one of those side streets that runs off the Arc de Triomphe. Around midnight, our car drove up the Champs d'Elysee, Rick driving and 4 or 5 of us riding in the car singing "I Love Paris". As we entered the traffic circle that surrounds the Arc, traffic was extremely heavy and cars were entering the circle from all the side streets. Rick was confused and inexperienced in Paris traffic. As he inched his way around the circle, we had to tell him when to stop and go as cars came speeding into the circle. (As I recall, cars entering the circle had the right of way-but who knows?) It was a nightmare (for Rick at least), and we must have driven in circles around the Arc about 4 times before we finally got off and found our hotel-singing "I Love Paris" all the while.

Saturday, June 7, 2008

In Our Own Back Yard- Jihad Blog in Charlotte, NC

Coming to America? - or already here?

Fox News is running a story today about a Jihadist, anti-American blog that supports Al Qaeda, praises Osama bin Laden, and calls for the killing of American soldiers. What is particularly outrageous is the fact that the blogger is not in the Middle East or Pakistan; he is right here in America.

Samir Khan is a 22-year-old, who lives with his family in an upscale Charlotte, North Carolina neighborhood. He immigrated to this country with his family from Saudi Arabia when he was 7 and began the site when he was a student at Central Piedmont Community College. The blog is called Not only does Khan condemn our country, he rails against non-Muslims as well, according to the article. What arrogance!

I have linked the news story to the Fousesquawk site and will keep it up for the foreseeable future. This is just another example of a 5th column that we have allowed to come to this country, reap its benefits, spit in our face, and advocate the killing of our soldiers. If this creep is now a citizen, do we not have sedition laws that could be used here? Or is this another example of free speech accompanied by political correctness and a fear of offending Muslims-no matter how radical and anti-American they may be?

Are we now going the way of the UK and other European countries that are bowing and scraping to a radical presence in our midst-one that is devoted to our very destruction?

This story deserves the widest dissemination possible.

Hillary Clinton's "Concession" Speech

"Here's my endorsement, dearie."

I missed the first few minutes of Hillary Clinton's "concession speech" this morning because my wife sent me out to walk the dogs (you know how it is). I was able to catch most of it though, and to me it was vintage Hillary Clinton.

The Grand Event was held in the National Building Museum in Washington. Actually, I'm surprised it wasn't held on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. You have to hand it to the Clintons; when it comes to upstaging people on what should be their day in the sun, these people are pros. This was a throwback to George Bush's first inauguration when the Clintons did everything they could to upstage the new president with their farewell ceremonies leaving Washington and arriving in New York.

As is her nature, Mrs Clinton's speech was precious little about Barack Obama and a whole lot about her historic run and what it meant for women everywhere. Oh, she announced that she was "suspending" her campaign and endorsing Obama, but other than that, it sounded like she was giving her inauguration speech.

At the conclusion of the speech, Hillary and Bill hit the rope line to shake hands with their admirers for what seemed like an eternity. (Actually, Big Red was usually several yards away, and it seemed every time I looked at him, he was hugging some young babe-but I'm sure it was all professional and platonic.)

For the post-speech analysis, I switched around from Fox to CNN to MSNBC. One Fox commentator immediately pegged it for what it was-a speech all about her. Someone else thought it sounded like she was auditioning for the VP slot reminding everyone about the 18 million people who support(ed) her. MSNBC, on the other hand, led by Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and Tim Russert, pronounced it a "splendid speech"-as dispassionate an analysis as anyone could humanly hope for, of course.

Maybe it's just me, but I still have a lingering feeling in the back of my mind that something could still happen between now and the convention that could derail Obama. I know there are several reasons that Hillary uses the term "suspend" her campaign, but "suspend" means the possibility of re-starting.

Advice to Obama: Watch your back.

Friday, June 6, 2008

Do We Know What Today Is?

As I was watching the Cubs-Dodgers game on TV, the Dodgers venerable broadcaster, Vin Scully, came on between innings and asked if we knew what today was. I must confess that I didn't know. I was trying to guess that it was a baseball milestone. Then Scully reminded us that on this date, June 6, 1944, the Allies invaded Normandy.

Vin also described how, earlier in the day, he turned on the news and waited hours for someone to mention the anniversary of D-Day. He ended with a plea: "Please, don't let this happen again."

Well said, Vin.

UCI Academic Senate Denies Administration Inaction

Thanks to Reut Cohen and Jonathan Constantine (Red County Blog) for this article

A Conflict of Interest in UCI's Academic Senate
Posted by: Jonathan Constantine | 06/06/2008 9:25 AM

Why are the problems of antisemitism at UC Irvine repetitively white-washed? Well, look no further than Bruce Blumberg, a Biology Professor who also sits as Chair of the Academic Senate at UCI. Despite evidence of a hostile and racist environment, Blumberg is dismayed that concerned students and community members are starting to question the leadership at UCI. Reut Cohen has more in her article at Pajamas Media:

UC Irvine or UC Intifada? By Reut Cohen

"My PJM article on the frightening situation at my alma mater was not meant to create fear and hatred where there is none. Faculty members who claim that the administration is taking the appropriate action against the radical Muslim Student Union need to get out of their offices more.

Bruce Blumberg, who is the Chair of the Academic Senate Council on Student Experience at the University of California-Irvine, wasn't happy about a recent PJM article I co-wrote with Jonathan Movroydis. In the piece, we make the claim that UCI administrators have capitulated to the university's radical Muslim Student Union (MSU), whose members regularly voice support for terrorist groups and denounce America and Israel.

In an email posted by Jerry Pournelle, Blumberg writes that "no one" in the "media or on campus" is aware of the inaction on the part of the administration and the UCI Police Department that is alleged in the article. It appears that Blumberg, like most of the UCI faculty and administration, will never come the defense of students who can think for themselves, will stand up for their civil liberties, and won't flock with the rest of the sheep.

During the academic year at UCI, the MSU holds several hateful events, including an annual anti-Israel week. Although MSU events certainly fall within the bounds of "free speech," freedom of speech and expression does not include the right of MSU members to engage in blatant harassment. Nor should it enable UCI administrators to restrict the freedoms of other individuals at the university campus.

For example, student journalist Jonathan Movroydis and his brother were harassed out of an auditorium for simply recording a lecture by the radical imam Amir Abdel Malik-Ali in 2007. University officials allowed for members of the MSU to police their own event and allowed the group to prohibit filming at a public university event. Fortunately, California Assemblyman Chuck Devore was able to convince UCI Chancellor Michael Drake to reverse the campus taping policy. The administration, however, has been unwilling to fully enforce this new rule.

Moreover, UC Irvine police officers will stand idly while intimidation occurs, and administrators continue efforts to censor certain groups and people on the campus. I learned this firsthand last year, when I had a camera shoved in my face by a member of the MSU. At the scene a police officer refused to take a statement from me. Because I was appalled and could not believe that shoving a camera in someone's face would be considered lawful behavior, I could not let such a matter fall. After several phone calls and e-mails, I was finally able to schedule a meeting with Edgar Dormitorio, Dean of Judicial Affairs at UCI, and given the opportunity to file a complaint with the police department on campus. I had the perpetrator's face on camera and witnesses. However, no action has yet been taken against the student.

While I studied at UCI, I witnessed an affirmative action bake sale being shut down by administrators. Because a group of students wanted to sell cupcakes at different suggested prices for various racial groups in order to demonstrate what they felt were the injustices of affirmative action, the administration decided to completely shut down the event for what appeared to be "sensitivity" issues. Regardless of one's position on affirmative action, it is outrageous that one's view on a college campus, which so often promotes itself as the marketplace of different ideas, would be restricted by the administration.

Interestingly enough, when the Muslim Student Union brings speakers who have called for genocidal actions against Jews and Israelis, the administration refuses to speak out against this blatant hate speech. MSU's right to free speech does not require the administration to be silent when the group's members call for the destruction of Israel and threaten students who are Israel supporters . At the very least, administrators should uphold the rights of all students and make certain that individuals have the right to film and protest. The university should refrain from selective enforcement of its rules and regulations.

Thus far the administration at UCI has been extremely negligent. An independent task force investigation recently issued findings that clearly suggest anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, and pro-terror speech is well documented at UC Irvine. The full report can be read here.

According to this independent investigation, harassment and intimidation has occurred on campus and the administration has not worked to alleviate the problems that plague the campus. Instead, the administration's lack of response and selective enforcement of policy has aided groups like the MSU in vilifying other students and groups.

For instance, when an anti-hate rally took place after a cardboard "apartheid wall" put up on campus by the MSU was vandalized in 2004, Vice Chancellor Manuel Gomez refused to invite Jewish organizations. In a more recent incident, a non-Jewish student described the atmosphere at UCI as dominated by a philosophy that looks at the United States and Israel as enemies, while supporting terror organizations. The same student had a professor who had a picture of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on her computer. She also recounts an argument with an Iranian student who said "f- Israel" and pulled down his trousers to show his swastika tattoo.

In his email, Blumberg implies that the situation at UCI is a "pro-Israel" and "pro-Palestine" issue with mistreatment on both sides. With all due respect to Dr. Blumberg, he has got to venture outside his office a bit more. If the Academic Senate Council really supports the freedoms of all students and believes that UCI is truly a beacon of "free speech," they are doing a poor job of showing it. The could learn a thing or two from Democratic Representative Brad Sherman, who recently urged Chancellor Drake to "publicly denounce" the MSU's hate speech.

As a recent alumnus of the university, I will continue to advise my friends and family members not to attend UC Irvine unless changes are made."

Reut Cohen recently graduated from UCI, where she ran a blog to document the 'anti-Israel,' anti-Semitic and anti-American incidents on campus.

Fousesquawk kudos to Reut Cohen and Jonathan Constantine, who as UCI students, have stood up to the thugs of the UCI-MSU-with no support from the administration. If Professor Blumberg thinks that no one on campus is aware of "administration inaction ", I would like to introduce myself. He apparently has never come out of his office to hear the words of Amir Abdel Malik Ali, Mohammed Al-Asi and others. He apparently didn't bother to come out a couple of weeks back and view the MSU display showing Ariel Sharon drawn in the style of Julius Steicher's Der Stuermer.

Department of Education to Re-open Case Against UC-Irvine

Below is a news release from Zionist Organization of America (ZOA)

Also thanks to Jonathan Constantine and Reut Cohen at Red County blog.

Department of Education Reopens Case Against UC Irvine
Posted by: Jonathan Constantine | 06/06/2008 3:27 PM

ZOA has the details:

June 6, 2008

Contact Morton A. Klein at: 917-974-8795 or 212-481-1500




By letter to the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) dated April 25, 2008, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has indicated that it will be investigating several incidents of alleged anti-Semitic harassment, intimidation and discrimination that occurred in May 2007, at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). The ZOA had brought these incidents to OCR's attention almost one year ago, asserting that the incidents show that UCI has continued to respond ineffectively to campus anti-Semitism, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI). Title VI requires that recipients of federal funding (like UCI) ensure that their programs and activities are free discrimination based on "race, color, or national origin." If the recipient is found to have violated Title VI, it can lose its federal funding.

The ZOA first brought UCI's alleged violation of Title VI to OCR's attention in October 2004, when the ZOA filed a Title VI complaint on behalf of Jewish students with OCR, the federal agency responsible for enforcing the law. The ZOA's complaint alleged that Jewish students had been facing a longstanding pattern of anti-Semitic harassment and hostility on the campus, and that UCI had failed to respond effectively to the problem, in violation of its obligations under Title VI. After reviewing the ZOA's allegations, OCR decided that an investigation into UCI's conduct was warranted.

In the course of that investigation, the ZOA furnished OCR with evidence about several incidents of harassment that had occurred at UCI as late as May 2007. The ZOA repeatedly urged OCR to interview witnesses with pertinent information about these incidents. Even though these incidents were relevant to the allegations of the ZOA's October 2004 complaint asserting a pattern or practice of anti-Semitic discrimination at UCI, OCR refused to investigate the incidents or to interview crucial witnesses.

OCR typically resolves Title VI complaints within 180 days after they are filed. It took OCR more than three years to issue a decision on the ZOA's October 2004 complaint. In November 2007, when OCR finally issued its decision, it absolved UCI of wrongdoing. It was plain from the decision that OCR had applied a narrower interpretation of Title VI than the one that OCR had said it would enforce when it issued two policy statements in the fall of 2004. At that time, OCR had made it clear that consistent with federal precedent recognizing that Jews were a racial or national origin group for purposes of affording civil rights protections, OCR would likewise protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic harassment under Title VI. Later, under new leadership at OCR, that policy was whittled down, so that Jewish students would no longer be afforded the protections of Title VI as a racial or national origin group.

OCR's decision in November 2007 engendered deep concern from Members of both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, which was expressed in powerful letters to U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings. In the letter from U.S. Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Sam Brownback (R-KS) - all three of whom are Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary - they questioned the decision that OCR reached in the ZOA's case against UCI, and the interpretation of Title VI that OCR had applied in the case. According to the Senators, OCR's conclusion in the ZOA's case "is inconsistent with its prior policy statements." The Senators asked probing questions of Secretary Spellings, including why there were witnesses "that the ZOA proffered . . . whom OCR did not interview."

The letter from Members of the House also raised troubling concerns about OCR's decision in the ZOA's case, and demanded answers from Secretary Spellings about whether OCR's policy for enforcing Title VI was affording Jewish students the protections they need. U.S. Representatives Brad Sherman (D-CA), Linda Sanchez (D-CA), Steven Rothman (D-NJ), Allyson Schwartz (D-PA), Robert Wexler (D-FL) and Shelley Berkley (D-NV) emphasized that OCR's conclusion in the ZOA's case "reversed OCR policy, as clarified in 2004, of protecting Jews against anti-Semitism."

The leadership of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the umbrella group for more than 50 national Jewish organizations across the religious and political spectrums, also criticized OCR's decision in the ZOA's case against UCI. In a letter to Stephanie Monroe, the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education, the Presidents' Conference urged OCR to reconsider its decision in the ZOA's case. The decision "will affect Jewish students not only at UCI, but also at other colleges and universities across the United States. At a time when reports of anti-Semitic harassment and intimidation on college campuses is [sic] increasing, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), whose mission is to redress racial and ethnic discrimination, should be seeking to expand the protections of the law."

When, in the April 25, 2008 letter, OCR notified the ZOA about the new investigation of incidents that occurred at UCI in May 2007, OCR indicated that it had determined that several of the ZOA's allegations "are appropriate for investigation under the laws enforced by OCR. . . . We will contact you soon to discuss the allegations and complaint resolution process."

Morton A. Klein, the ZOA's National President, and Susan B. Tuchman, Esq., the Director of the ZOA's Center for Law and Justice, said, "We are pleased to know that the Office for Civil Rights is finally looking into incidents that the ZOA brought to OCR's attention almost one year ago. The witnesses who were ready and willing to come forward at that time are just as eager to furnish information to OCR now. As we did during OCR's first investigation, we stand ready to assist the agency in every way possible.

"Since the time that OCR issued its decision in November 2007, OCR has gotten the clear message from Members of the House and the Senate, and from the Presidents' Conference, that OCR's narrower interpretation of Title VI is of deep concern. We hope that OCR will rethink that more restrictive policy. When it conducts this new investigation, we urge OCR to keep an open mind and apply the policy it clarified in 2004 - that OCR would protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic harassment under Title VI. As the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recognized in April 2006, Jewish students are entitled to the protections of Title VI, and the Office for Civil Rights should be vigorously enforcing the law to ensure that they are protected."

Fousesquawk comment: This is certainly good news. Hopefully, they will also go into 2008.

Thursday, June 5, 2008

Don't Forget-Buy Danish

Just a friendly reminder in the wake of the bombing attack at the Danish Embassy in Pakistan: Don't forget to buy Danish and support our friends in Denmark who are standing up to Islamic intimidation.

Have a Tuborg and.."Skol"

"He's Not the Man I thought He Was"

Hermann Goering (testifying at his trial in Nuremberg in 1946) on Adolf Hitler:

"He's not the man I thought he was."

Barack Obama on Jeremiah Wright (whom he has known for 20 years):

"He's not the man I thought he was."

Barack Obama on Father Michael Pfleger (whom he has known for 20 years):

"He's not the man I thought he was."

Barack Obama on Tony Rezko (whom he has known for 20 years):

"He's not the man I thought he was."

Why One Freshman Decided Against UC-Irvine

The below article comes to Fousesquawk courtesy of Jonathan Constantine and Reut Cohen of Red County blog.

Jewish Student Decides Against UC Irvine
Posted by: Jonathan Constantine | 06/05/2008 9:00 AM

H/T: Reut R. Cohen

Spencer Morgan, an incoming freshman to Vassar College has decided not to attend UC Irvine based on the pervasive antisemitism and hostile environment of the campus. It's certainly unfortunate as UC Irvine is situated beautifully and his home to some of the best minds in academia.

I do expect more students like Spencer to come to this realization as school administrators have either remained apathetic or dismissive to student concerns:

I Chose Against University of California Irvine Because of Hate Speech
Spencer Morgan June 2nd 2008
Poughkeepsie, NY

"I am a student in college and have been hearing many stories about Israel and America on the campus that make my skin crawl.

I was accepted to University California Irvine, but decided against it. I heard Allyson Rowen Taylor speak at a Chabad event and she discussed the issues on the campus to a room filled with parents who had no idea what was going on in the public arena. After reading about UCI online, and speaking with others who have seen the campus antics, I decided to go elsewhere, not only for reasons of the intense hatred of Jews at UCI, but because I wanted to be free of the "apartheid walls" and the vitriol of speakers who create hate with my fellow students. I searched for a campus with high academics where study was a priority, and the influence of the MSU was minimal if not absent. While there are issues at my campus, they are tiny compared to the issues of the UCI campus.

Thank you for opening the eyes of others who have no idea what is happening to our universities."

Red County comment: Spencer Morgan is a member of the Vassar Class of 2011.

Comment from Fousesquawk: Are you listening UC-Irvine?

What Does Hillary Want?

"Beware the Ides of March"

The announcement that Hillary Clinton will "suspend" her presidential campaign Saturday and endorse Barack Obama has still left questions unanswered.

For example, will she hold onto her delegates until the convention? If so, for what purpose? So that the 18 million people who voted for her will be treated with respect (as she stated in New York)? I don't think so. So that she will have leverage for her favorite issues, such as universal health care? I don't think so. Is it because she really wants to be on the ticket as VP? Again, I don't think so even though it appears that her camp is making a strong-arm push to have Obama offer her the spot. (Obama would be crazy to offer her the spot. Not only would he have to deal with both Clintons during the campaign-and in the White House, he would appear weak if he allowed himself to be pressured into giving her the nod.)

I suspect there is something else going on in the dark recesses of Hillary's mind. There is still a lot of angst going on in Democratic circles about Obama's candidacy in the wake of Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, William Ayres and Tony Rezko, the latter just being convicted in federal court of racketeering charges. The Clintons have to be thinking that another bombshell could doom Obama's chances of victory in November once and for all. What if Rezko decides to make a deal with the government (a prospect that already has Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich sweating). If Obama has any bodies buried in his backyard, Rezko would know where they are. The fact is that with Obama, God only knows what could happen between now and the convention-or now and November.

Could it be that Hillary's strategy is to simply wait in the wings? After all, the primaries are over. There is no need to make any more trips or any more speeches. There isn't really anything for her or her campaign workers to do.

Except wait.

Remember in 2002, when Senator Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) quit his Senate race in the late stages because of corruption allegations and was replaced by Frank Lautenberg-who went on to win? I'll bet the Clintons remember. Who says that new bombshells couldn't explode between now and November? Perhaps, that is why Hillary is "open" to a spot on the ticket.

Whatever the considerations being tossed about in Clintonland, we can be sure of one thing: It's all about Bill and Hillary. Because, in the final analysis, Hillary Clinton wants one thing that has not changed.

She wants to be president.

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

So I Went to

And all I got was this message:

"Your search did not match any documents."

"Where Do We Go From Here?"-The Answer

"So, the question is, where do we go from here?"

Hillary Clinton to supporters last night in New York.

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Hillary: "No Decision Tonight- Email Me With Your Advice"

"I won't be making any decisions tonight."

Hillary Clinton, refusing to take the word of the media that it's over, told a crowd of cheering supporters in New York that she will make no decisions tonight. Instead, she asked her followers to email her at HILLARYCLINTON.COM and tell her what to do. Now that's what I call presidential. Actually, there was one Obama mole in the crowd behind her. Over her right shoulder, there was a guy in a blue shirt who, when Hillary starting talking about the kind of candidate the people want, started silently mouthing the word "Obama" (three times). Of course, Hillary was oblivious to his presence, just as she is oblivious to reality.

So why, asked the pundits, is she not throwing in the towel? Is it because she is maneuvering for VP? I doubt it. I can't believe she really would accept the number 2 slot-and I can't believe that the Obamas (Barack and Michelle) want her-and Bill hovering over their shoulders.

I figure that Hillary is looking at it this way. No matter who among the superdelegates has come out for Obama, they still have to do it officially in a formal tally-at the convention, right? A lot of things can happen between now and then.

First of all, a load of bricks could fall on Obama's head while walking down the street (the Bobby Kennedy scenario that Hillary alluded to last week).

Second, Tony Rezko could be convicted of federal corruption charges this week in Chicago-and decide to cut a deal to lay out all he knows about you-know-who.

Jeremiah Wright could make another sermon.

Michael Pfleger could make another sermon.

More details could come out about other controversial preachers linked to Obama-like some guy named James Meeks in Chicago.

Bill Ayres and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, could hold a press conference espousing their contempt for America and pride in their past in the Weather Underground.

In addition, there are Internet rumors (I emphasize rumors)of tapes out there of Michelle Obama chit-chatting with Louis Farrakhan (about the Cubs, I'm sure).

If superdelegates can switch their votes from Hillary to Obama, they can switch them right back again between now and the convention in the event of another Obama bombshell.

Who knows, maybe even Maxine Waters could switch back to Hillary.

Pleeease Don't Stop Now

The Great Sausage Race
"And the winner is....."
"Hey! How 'bout one more lap?"

This past week has been another doozie on the Democratic campaign trail. As I write, reports are coming out that (with South Dakota and Montana ending the primary season) it may be over after tonight-or maybe not. Hillary is going to bow out-or maybe not. According to what network you are watching, Obama needs 12 delegates...11 delegates...6 delegates.....enough delegates. The news media is in a countdown mode not seen since Saddam Hussein was being led to the gallows. Hillary is due to speak tonight in New York. What will she say? Is she dropping out? Will she try to get delegates to change their minds-even at the convention? Is she open to VP? Would Obama accept her (and Bill?)

This just in.... Maxine Waters has switched her endorsement from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama. Who is Maxine Waters, you ask?.....You don't want to know.

Of course, no news about Hillary is complete without news about Bill. Todd Purdom, a writer for Vanity Fair-and husband of former Clinton spokeswoman, Dee Dee Myers- has come out with an article that describes Bill's post White House years as filled with private jets and road trips with women other than his erstwhile wife. Now, some actress named Gina Gershon has been named as one of Bill's "co-respondents". (She denies the relationship.) Bill, who knows one when he sees one, entertained curious South Dakota on-lookers with a profanity-laced description of Purdom (slimy, lying scumbag among other things.)

Meanwhile, back in Obamaland, the Illinois senator reacted to the most recent outburst by Michael Pfleger in the Trinity United Church of Christ by resigning from the Church. I guess twenty years of listening to raving lunatics is enough for anybody. Even then, Obama tried to gain sympathy talking about his having to have his faith held up to scrutiny every time someone opens their mouth in that church. He praised the new pastor, Otis Moss, as a "great young pastor" even though Moss apparently believes the same things Pfleger and Jeremiah Wright believe. Yet, he still tries to talk around the question of how he could stay in that church for twenty years listening to those tirades. (He has also been associated with Pfleger for 20 years, had him listed on his website as a "spiritual endorser", and, now it is being reported that he steered about $100,000 in federal earmarks to Pfleger's projects after having previously funded Pfleger's work as a state senator to the tune of over $200,000.)

Speaking of money.....

If it wasn't bad enough that America has now been introduced to Father Pfleger, it is now breaking that the Chicago jury in the federal corruption trial of Obama financial pal Tony Rezko has reached a verdict on some of the charges. If Rezko is convicted, that will unleash fresh questions of why the senator had financial dealings with yet another disreputable character. Secondly, if convicted, Rezko just might decide to sit down with prosecutors and spill the beans on his relationship with Obama (and Governor Blagojevich). See why Hillary doesn't want to throw in the towel?

I'll sign off here and await the night's "developments" hoping that it isn't over yet.

Monday, June 2, 2008

My Letter to UCI EEO Office

Friday afternoon, I received correspondence from the UC-Irvine EEO Office Director, Kirsten Quanbeck. She advised me that her office had been informed that I had a concern about discrimination at UCI. (I since learned from Ms Quanbeck that the source was Rusty Kennedy, Director of the Orange County Human Relations Commission.) Enclosed was a packet of forms that I could use to file a formal discrimination complaint.

This morning, I spoke telephonically with Ms Quanbeck. I advised her of my concerns about the on-going issues involving the Muslim Student Union and their hate-monger speakers. I also told her that since I am not Jewish, I didn't feel I had standing to make a formal discrimination complaint. We did agree, however, that I would set forth my views in a letter.

That letter was sent to Ms Quanbeck today. Here it is:

Kirsten Quanbeck
Asst Executive Vice Chancellor and Director
Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity
University of California at Irvine

Gary C Fouse
Adjunct teacher

Anti-Semitism at UCI/Muslim Student Union

Dear Ms Quanbeck,

In response to your letter dated May 27, 2008, I am sending you the below letter. I have been teaching part-time at UCI (Ext) since 1998. For the past few years, I have observed the on-going activities of the Muslim Student Union (MSU) and their sponsored events. I have listened to many of their speakers who they have brought to campus. Aside from the fact that many of these speakers are anti-Israel and anti-US, in my opinion, they are also anti-Semitic. I would like to give you a few examples:

Amir Abdel Malik Ali is an Oakland-based imam who comes to talk at UCI virtually every quarter on behalf of the MSU. Aside from the fact that he is a supporter of two known terrorist organizations (Hezbollah and Hamas), Ali also has spoken out at UCI in favor of suicide bombings that have killed so many innocent Israeli men, women and children on buses and in pizza parlors. He has referred to bombers as martyrs and heroes. I have personally watched videotapes of these statements made by Ali at UCI. Ali generally masks his references to Jews by referring to them as "Zionist Jews", but his tone is almost always contemptuous.

Mohammed Al-Asi is a former imam from Washington DC who has made more than one appearance at UCI, most recently, this past month. Al-Asi is also an open supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah, and, in past appearances at UCI, has referred to Jews as "low-life ghetto-dwellers". He has also stated (at UCI) that "you can take a Jew out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of a Jew". (I have not personally heard him make those comments. Others have.)

During his last appearance in May, while he was spouting his usual venom, I observed a group of about 20 school kids (middle school or high school-I am not sure) standing yards away from the speaker near their bus. They were obviously on some sort of UCI tour. While UCI officials were moving Jewish protesters from one spot to another and keeping walkways clear for students, no one seemed to care that these kids were being exposed to the hate speech of Mr Al-Asi. I still wonder if there were any Jewish kids having to listen to this man's words.

During the past MSU event, a mock wall was erected portraying the wall Israel has erected to keep out suicide bombers. Among other displays on that wall was a caricature of Ariel Sharon drawn in the old Nazi style of Julius Streicher's Der Stuermer, a notorious anti-Semitic publication of the Third Reich. Like Der Stuermer, Sharon's caricature was done with all the stereotyped images of Jews, oversized nose, lips and leering expression. This picture remained on that wall all week long. I am attaching a copy of this picture along with a sample of a drawing from Der Stuermer.

In addition, the Red County Blog has reported that on the Thursday evening of the MSU week, following a speech by Ali, a Jewish female who was filming the event was followed to a parking lot by about a half dozen MSU males who accosted her at her car. This incident was reportedly witnessed by a woman from off-campus who was attending the event. According to the witnesses' account, which I have read, she was also harassed by the males, and when she complained to the Campus Police who responded, she was met with complete indifference. (I add that I have no personal knowledge of this incident, but I would encourage your office to make the appropriate inquiries with Campus Police.)

My position is very clear. I believe that the MSU is an organization that engages in anti-Jewish words and deeds though they will deny that. If they oppose the state of Israel, that is their business. If they bring in speakers who also condemn the US, that is their right of free speech (though I will draw the obvious conclusions). When they bring in speakers who denigrate Jews and advocate violence (albeit it in Israel), I think the university has to rethink its position on free speech vs hate speech that incites. As you know, UCI has acquired a national reputation as a bastion of radical MSU activity and anti-Semitic speech. While I would be the first to state that 99% of our students have nothing to do with this ugliness, I can only be critical of an administration that, in my view, has abrogated its responsibility to provide a safe atmosphere on campus for its Jewish students by not standing up to the MSU. Issues of hate speech should not be limited to politically correct ideas of which group deserves protection. All groups deserve protection.

It is my request that your office check into the issues and incidents I have raised. As I stated earlier to you, I am not Jewish, and therefore, I don't feel I have standing to make a complaint of discrimination involving myself. However, I do feel the need to speak out on this issue.

Thank you for your attention.

Gary Fouse

Sunday, June 1, 2008

The Great Compromise (Sort of)

"Hello! I'm a Democratic delegate from Michigan. Or am I from Florida?"

I managed to catch some of Democratic brain-storming exercise out of DC this weekend over what to do about Michigan and Florida. In the end, the Dems decided to admit the Florida and Michigan delegations to the convention in Denver after all. Well, sort of. Each delegate will count as only one-half vote.

This was a mess that no one could clean up. If you remember, the Democrat leaders of Michigan and Florida decided on their own to move their primaries up in order to make them more meaningful like Iowa and New Hampshire. The DNC told them not to under pain of having their delegates thrown out. The two states went ahead and did it anyway, and, as a result, the national party told them their primaries were null and void. The candidates, at the time, supported the decision and agreed not to campaign in those states. Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot while Mrs (One-Way) Clinton left hers on. Subsequently, Clinton won both states.

Originally, it was thought that it would all be a moot point since Clinton was expected to cakewalk to the nomination. Oh, that seems so long ago. Eventually, Hillary realized that she needed those votes since she was so far behind Obama in delegate counts-and popular votes.

So then, led by the Clinton campaign, we found ourselves-or the Democrats found themselves- in another "Let every vote count" imbroglio. Hillary argued (rightly) that the Democrats could not expect to win those states in November if they disregarded the voters who went to the polls and voted anyway-even if they were under the impression that it would not count. Obama, for his part, understood that he couldn't simply take a position of "follow the rules" since he will need those states himself in November. So he was forced to go along with a "fair and equitable" way of bringing Florida and Michigan to the convention. By now, Obama could afford to be generous and let Hillary garner a few more delegates since he is comfortably ahead in that regard.

So the "intelligentsia" of the Democratic Party met in Washington DC this weekend to listen to the arguments of the two campaigns as well as the leaders of the party in Florida and Michigan. Outside, Hillary supporters demonstrated and argued with Obama supporters while inside the party honchos tried to figure out the "perfect solution". Actually, the fairest solution would have been to stick by the rules that had originally been laid down and refuse to change those rules in the middle of the game (as they tried to do in Florida in 2000). Problem was, they had to placate Democratic voters in those two states, who probably would have refused to turn out for the party in November. Can't have that-not in two important battleground states like Florida and Michigan.

So what did they do? They cut the old proverbial baby in half-with a chain saw, no less! All you delegates from Florida and Michigan, welcome to Denver! That was the good news. Now for the bad news. Your votes will only count one-half! (Remember the old 19th century decision that counted blacks as 3/5 a person?) A standing ovation didn't exactly ensue as several folks left the room shouting their disgust. And you want to have these folks run the country, do you?

All in all, it was another rusty nail in the by now moldy coffin of Hillary Clinton's nomination hopes. Obama has taken another limp toward the finish line (with Jeremiah Wright and His Em n Eminence Michael Pfleger holding onto his ankle) while Hillary is wandering around Puerto Rico doing her best Norma Desmond imitation and scrounging for delegates in the local cantinas. Next stop-Guam.

Oh, stop the presses! Hillary has won Puerto Rico.