The LA Times Memos Regarding the John Edwards Story

LA Times Building- Hard at work on the third floor


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


Subject: john edwards
Hey bloggers,

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

Keep rockin,
Tony



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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions, thoughts, etc? Ask me or Tony.

Meredith Artley
Executive Editor, LATimes.com


Fousesquawk comment:

I have a couple of thoughts, Meredith.

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

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

Keep rockin, LA Times.

Is Obama Playing the Race Card? It Appears So

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mainstream News Media Press Conference on "The Missing Story"

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

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

"No comment."

In Defense of Lionheart

Which is more dangerous to the UK?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two Americas? Or two standards of journalism?


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

Vincent Bugliosi and His Book on Bush

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ted Stevens Indicted

Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He should resign. Now.

Earthquake in LA- Villaraigosa on the Job

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A German's View on Islam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Emanuel Tanay, M.D.

Fousesquawk comment:

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

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

Does the Bush Administration Support its Border Patrol?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and Jennifer Siebel


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Letter to The Nation

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gary C Fouse
Adjunct teacher
University of California Ext"

Obamamania and the Germans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

San Francisco's Shame

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Edwards and the National Enquirer Story

L-R John Edwards-Rielle Hunter








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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Missing Story- The Final Clue

Every dog has his day


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

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

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

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

Double click.

And behold the hidden treasure.

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

The Pied Piper Comes to Berlin

"Obama! Obama!"


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still Searching for the Missing Story

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

Middle picture: CBS investigative reporter looking for the Missing Story

Bottom picture: NBC investigative reporters looking for the Missing Story

Another Clue for the MSM

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

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

48 Hours- Time is Running Out, Mainstream Media

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

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

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

Who is the woman in the above picture?

The Mess in Sanctuary San Francisco

Gavin Newsom


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be patient.

More Clues

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

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

Rooms 246 and 252.

Talk to a man named Bob McGovern.

See above picture.

Another Clue for the Mainstream News Media

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

Follow the treasure map.

A Helpful Tip to the Mainstream Media

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

Now here is clue number one:

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

Here is clue number two:

Yesterday morning (wee small hours)

For clue number three, see the picture above.

Will This Man Be Back in the News?

Stand by.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Innocent Victims to Sanctuary Cities-San Francisco

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama's Grande Tour is Coming to Europe

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

The National Lawyers Guild and the MSU

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New Nazis

L-R Adolf Hitler, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rotten Fruit in Orange County VII

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

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

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

Obama and the Brandenburg Gate

"Mr Putin, put back that wall!"


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dhimmitude in The Netherlands

Dutch submission


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

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

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

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

The Energy Solution

ANWR, Alaska


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ehud Goldwasser-Eldad Regev-In Memorium